@@nathanielcoker3778That's the norm for all those "sponsorships". Same as the "limited time offer for the first 100 customers" lasting years and being available for everyone. It's a sham, it's illegal under EU customer protection laws.
There is a mega project that is over 100 years old, still having money spent on it. I'm talking about the BB-35, USS Texas, Battleship Texas. Serving in both great wars, earning five battle stars, serving in all theaters of war, suffering two purple hearts and in dry dock, getting repaired, repainted and refitted.
That's a good one! Reminds me of HMS Victory of the royal navy that's 250 years old but still commissioned for service (albeit museum service like the BB-35)
@@dohboi75 that's like saying Beijing or Hong Kong isn't a mega city just because Tokyo exists. I'm pretty sure Megaprojects are defined by their over all scope either physically, financially, culturally or otherwise
I will always love that it was actually the British who named the Sherman Tank and the Stuart Tank; the official US production names were just the M4 and M3. The Brits were the ones who gave them actual names after American Civil War generals.
It was done in part to avoid confusion since the basic M# designation was so ubiquitous to be nearly useless. Case in point it would be technically accurate to describe how a unit of M3's was moving to the objective but got ambushed and had to call some M3's to provide fire support, followed by some M3's joining them for the follow-up. Now, am I talking about tanks, APC's or artillery? Yes.😅
@@stevenboykin116yep, the Brits have always named their vehicles. Most British tanks have all had a name starting with C. There are many versions of why, but infantry tanks were names after great historical figures (one of which confusingly was the Churchill tank) and all Cruiser tanks (tanks designed to take on other tanks etc. rather than simply support infantry), were all given names starting with “C” (indicating a cruiser tank design). Modern British main battle tanks just continued the tradition… we love tradition (and tanks). It’s only a shame that Britain doesn’t build new tank designs, and that the new Challenger 3, whilst likely to be possibly the best main battle tank in NATO, is just a refit of existing hulls, and there will be so few of them!
I crewed M60A1s/A3s in the early 80s and finished out riding an M1A1 into Iraq with 1st Infantry. Just my opinion on Simon's take on Desert Storm... the T72s we engaged were at night from ranges that were far beyond their capabilities. Our daylight capabilities were far better too. A lot of the design philosophy is still a holdover from the operational concepts of the cold war, we expected to fight a mobile defense and succeed in European terrain (not without loses of course, probably bad ones) against anywhere from 5 to 8 times our numbers in T62s/T64s/72s, the M1/M1A1 of that time frame was just designed to be better at it than the M60 series (NO. I'm not even going to touch the A2 fiasco.) was. In desert conditions longer range engagements were the norm and seriously gave us the advantage. The Iraqi T72s were just no match for the majority of the coalition tanks. And this is before you even get into crew skill. A tank can have the best paper figures on earth, but with a scrub crew, it's practically worthless. Good job of presenting a good bullet points video.
If I remember correctly, a large Iraq tank formation incorrectly measured their distance when setting up an ambush over the top of a hill. Iraq rounds fell short of the hill allied tanks crested over. It turned what would have been a potential disaster into literally giving coalition forces the high ground out of range of Iraq tanks and artillery. It's pretty hard to take major casualties when your enemy decides to gift you the perfect position just outside the range of their guns. It's not just the skill and training of individual tank crews, but also the efficiency and skill of the commanders. If your commanding officer says to do something genuinely stupid and you'll be shot for treason if you express any disagreement, that's not an effective army. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Nailed that one although I would add that outside of the tank and environment, training and combined arms is what makes the US tanks top notch. Abrams is good alone but a god damn nightmare when with its Bradley's and airsupport/recon
@@balinthehater8205 Bombers drop those baby bombs. You need to scrape your drawers when Momma (GBU-43) comes for you, but you'll regret all your life's choices when Big Daddy (BLU-82) shows up.
@@balinthehater8205 To todays fighters and multi-role aircraft carying way more bombs than the air giants of the 1940's, there as been incredible changes to bombers along history it would be fascinating.
One comment / correction: HEAT shells do not function in the way described. They use a shaped HE charge to turn a piece of metal into a plastic state jet which then literally punches through the armor. The higher temperature of the jet, is incidental effect of it's being pressurized in such a way, had little effect on it's armor penetrative qualities. It functions in a similar matter as a high pressure waterjet used to cut steel today, but using metal and a high explosive to get that metal moving ("pressurized"). It's just a different form of kinetics and fluid dynamics at play. Spaced armor works bc the shaped charge effect is only useful at a very set distance. Too far and it just splatters on the armor ineffectively, too close and it won't have compressed enough to penetrate. The outer plate sets off the shaped charge, causing the plastic metal jet to essentially splatter on the main armor.
Hi! I was looking for this comment, one note though, HEAT does not get effected too greatly by distance, there even a few AT mines in service using HEAT over long distances to penetrate modern armour. ( the PTKM-1R - top attack anti tank mine ) Slatted armour on modern designed vehicles are actually intended to cause HEAT threats of their time (mainly RPG-7, as pioneered by the Americans during their war on terror) to go dud on impact, not detonating their HE charge. Slatted armour is considered compromised if the round detonates on impact with it, though they also weren't horrific at diverting the RPGs trajectory before detonation, aiding in the non-penetration and therefore survival of the tank.
Also as a note to my prior comment, I think I was a little ignorant, Shaped charges (may?) have a focus distance they are designed for, though I am sure shaped charge penetration dropping off drastically after 2 metres is a misconception echoed by wikipedia. Though still, with spaced armour sitting within even the one metre distance from the tank. the loss of penetration even for heat rounds of the day wouldn't be enough to help the armour.
Chieftain had a stabilized gun, we also switched to TLS (Tank Laser Sight, used for range finding). Also once we figured out windage we could achieve a first round kill. The 105mm range was about 1500-2000m, our 120mm was in excess of 3000m in direct fire mode.
Maybe a tv series where he's an extraterrestrial lizard person hellbent on taking over the Earth with a small group of cohorts in a slow non violent manner, like through the internet with informational videos.
1:05 - Chapter 1 - Origins 3:45 - Mid roll ads 5:10 - Back to the video 19:50 - Chapter 2 - Interwar period 35:55 - Chapter 3 - WWII 53:55 - Chapter 4 - Cold war 1:13:05 - Chapter 5 - The modern era 1:20:50 - Chapter 6 - The future
Simon and his writers seemed to ignore the contributions of American inventor and businessman Benjamin Holt. Beginning in the 1890s, Holt designed and sold farm equipment in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley. Normal four-wheeled tractors would commonly bog down in Stockton’s rich peat soil. Holt visited England and witnessed several failed demonstrations of tractors with treads. Back home, he designed the first commercially viable tractors with continuous tread, ideal for the peat soil. During WWII, Holt tractors were used by British forces to haul supplies along dirt roads. It is said that British tanks were inspired by Holt vehicles, although Holt never actually built tanks. Holt’s company merged with a competitor and eventually became Caterpillar Inc. How did I know this? I used to live off of Benjamin Holt Drive in Stockton. Visitors invariably asked me who the heck Benjamin Holt was. Being the young smartass I was, had this info ready to go.
Great addition but you are also viewing this from American perspective. He is viewing it from the British perspective. I view it from the Russian perspective. As he didn't represent Russian tankestry and it's contributions also. For example Rybansk tank, Czar tank, or Mendeleev tank etc. There were also a few different designs of Porokhovs tank etc. etc. I always wondered how you could just skip a great part of world's history like that... Also the first usable tracked vehicle with an engine was invented in Russia by the Russian Inventor Fydor Blinov. He had started working on it in 1880 and finished his project in 1888 and patented it. That was the first working tracked vehicle which could be considered as a start for both tanks and caterpillar tractors. But for obvious political reasons it is absolutely skimmed off and not represented in the west. Because every country views world's history egocentrically. 😥
@@korana6308 No, those tanks weren't included because they are irrelevant to the development of tanks. They are FAR FROM a need to know. They got cut because well, they were all technological dead ends. The Czar tank would never have worked to start with...They are cool thought experiments, but outside the scope of the video.
I am glad RUclips reminded me about this video. I watched it when it was new but my oldest has suddenly become fascinated with tanks and "army things" recently. We had a 45 minute conversation about tank vs IFV and into modern, combined arms tactics after he called a Bradley a tank. 😂
I think that one of these long deep dive videos on the history of certain Megaprojects could be done on the Battleship. Not only because they're super popular, but because, well.... They're story actually has an end, given they aren't a thing anymore. So it could be pretty cool.
When I was little I used to play on an actual real and original German A7V. The only one left in the world - "Mephisto" - she’s in Brisbane, Australia as she was taken back as a war trophy by Australian troops. She was damaged by floodwater during the Brisbane flood in 2011 but they restored her and after a stint in Canberra she seems to be back on display at the Queensland Museum at South Bank in Brisbane (right near the centre of the city). Anyone visiting Australia should swing by and have a look, the whole complex and the museum along with the Gallery of Modern Art is really worth the visit. It really surprises me how intrigued European visitors are when I tell them about the tank and they are very keen to see her, many are quite stunned to hear the only surviving German WW1 tank is in such a far flung place.
That's pretty awesome to have a one of one (remaining) and to be able to spend time with it. I don't think I've ever put my hands on any tank older than an M48.
@@jeffduncan9140 You can still see Mephisto - if you ever visit Brisbane in Australia, they moved it out to some train museum for a while as it was flooded in the 2010-2011 floods and needed restoration work. Not sure they'll let you play on it, perhaps if you ask really nicely (!). I wasn't allowed inside it but try stopping 90 school kids from climbing over it, I guess they gave up early on. Actually now I think it's held behind glass but it seems to be back at the Qld Museum (that's right next to the city centre, it's actually a particularly good day out as the complex is particularly good, the art gallery and restaurants there are quite good too). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephisto_(tank)
During combat operations, tank crews sometimes spend days at a time inside their vehicles, unable to stretch their legs or enjoy refreshments. Shortly after World War II, the British Army designed special tea kettles to be installed inside its tanks to help alleviate some of the hardship (copy and paste) now most modern tanks have this, mostly for heating thare food.
And, they’re able to reheat their food! Because rations come in pouches that you insert into a sleeve that you pour water into and it heats it up. So they don’t have to leave the tank at all really…
@@option4lnamename101Its such a dumb trivia thing thats only intresting to people that havent served or dont know, as kettles, RAKs, MRE Heaters or boilling vessels are a quite common feature in a bunch of combat vehicles such as (newer)Bradleys, CV90s, Piranhas and even fucking Humvees. The only thing thats "trivia" about it is that they did it on a tank but not really relevant to a video about tank development. But all these heaters are quite simply outdated with the intoduction of chemical heat packs and heating sleeves.
@nobutto3352 yee, we all know that. Al I was trying to point out, was the British wer the first to recycle heat from thare engines, and put it to a use. I also added, every thing you mentioned in a reply/eddit. That most other country's followed and made improvements. Its a coment secshon, no need to feel superior adding shit like this 😔.
Yes! Artillery and the evolution of the ammunition. The advantages/disadvantages of artillery vs missiles/rockets. Maybe split it up into a couple of videos instead of going 2-3 hours. You can do it Simon!
@@SendingFreedomTM damn maybe it got deleted or the title changed :( we are in the struggle together lmao if I find it I'll try and remember to comment!
Awe, I kinda wanted to hear about how the American M4 Shermans in Korea went head to head against Korean T-34-76s after the pershings had trouble being so heavy & just kicked ass. Also kinda surprised that the author didn't leverage Chieftan's (Nicholas Moran) dug up WW2 report that who see the enemy first often wins. Hence why the West/Nato/US is so focused focus on optics, information and communication. Though I totally get why no mentions were made about Bradley's maybe having more kills on tanks than Abrams in Desert Storm for the same reason why only Lazer Pig seems to bring up the Aardvark vs Warthog kill ratio comparison.
to be fair it's not like tanks often destroyed other tanks during WW-II, most tanks on all sides were lost to enemy infantry, followed by anti tank guns, artillery, aircraft, land mines, technical difficulties, or to running out of fuel or ammo.
APFSDS can and is used in rifled barrels such as the Challenger 2, the smooth bore allows for a higher muzzle velocity without increasing the charge size.
Great video, an interesting note about the centurion is the mk1 hit France just a little too late to engage in combat and these mk1s were also present during the gulf War as arve's and interesting is they had fewer issues with their tracks and wheels and bearings plus their air intake and filters than their modern counterparts, also up till very recently the longest confirmed tank on tank kill moving was from a British Challenger 1, also the challenger 2 has a great history of taking a massive beating with something like a 146 hits as it couldn't move with a track knocked out and after recovery was back in the field in something like 8 hours, challengers also have a higher survivability rate than the Abrahams and most other tanks, there is still some speculation around the one in Ukraine and if it was a mk2 or an upgrade mk1 and there was also word going around if one of the hatches was open, interesting is a hatch open is the only way a mk2 in British service got taken out and that I think was from a hesh round in one of very few brit on brit friendly fire cases. Some really good tanks around though and the innovation is incredible. Thank you
49:00 Another advantage of sloped armor is that it tends to deflect the incoming rounds, meaning that it needs to absorb less energy. If a round impacts armor at a 90 degree angle at 1000 m/s, the armor needs to absorb enough energy to bring the round to a complete stop. If a round impacts armor at a 45 degree angle at 1000 m/s and bounces off at 500 m/s, then the armor only has to do half the work. And as mentioned in the video, it has twice the muscle to do it with.
Very big if. Shells do not bounce off half the speed when they hit at 45° 45° gives multiplier of 1,4141 and the angle is nowhere near close to ricoched anything.
Tanks are cool because they combine three things which don't normally go together: they are durable, they can hit hard, and they're fast. Downsides include being easy to spot, expensive to build and maintain, and tank crews were historically mostly blinded under all that armor when they came under fire.
Just one point of detail. HEAT shells (High Explosive Anti Tank) do not melt through the armor, the molten penetrator still punches through using kinetic force.
Personally my favorite is the “chain rail vehicle which could be easily steered and carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches” I especially love the idea of using the chain rail , and in junction with its ability to be easily steered, to be able to carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches
Those last two sound more like 3.75 gen I would expect 4th gen tanks to have the advanced computer interoperability as described at the end with addition of more active defenses to shoot down or ecm to interfere incoming missiles and drones
The Renault FT was also a very attractive tank, so the French got that right too. The Russians, on the other hand came up with Tsar Tank, which has to be seen and read about to be believed.
The earliest versions of both T-34 and KV-1 were armed with the same 76mm cannon, the L-11. However, in 1941 they were both re-armed with more powerful cannons. Only T-34 received the new F-34 cannon, not both T-34 and KV-1 as you mentioned in the video. KV-1, on other hand, would receive the F-32 cannon, which had a shorter barrel than the F-34, later being replaced with more powerful ZIS-5.
I'm a sailor, not soldier, but my mate was a tank gunner in Gulf War 1. The result was not a fluke, the Western tanks were so outclassed that he felt a bit guilty shooting them. Of course, we're seeing the same discrepancy between Western and Soviet - sorry, Russian - armour in Ukraine. And to think we were so worried about this lot throughout the 80s and 90s.....
Something worth pointing out about turbine engines in the Abrams (and a lot of other US combat vehicles) is that it simplifies logistics because the tanks, trucks, and APCs run on the same fuel as the helicopters and jets.
Other suggestions: Line of progression with the fastest trains. The development of the first airplane, and all the efforts and dreams that came before. History of distant communication, starting with ancient times.
With in all good reason...you have a platform, able to develop trust to speak to this....for those that love these things, i encourage you to not shy away from the controversial, the important. In our day of digital mistrust....you hold trust. Use it for the best. You're success comes with opportunity. Hope you keep doing exposes about those that don't have the utility, inherent right and opportunity to speak facts without fear. There's a provision of power there. Enjoy what you're doing. Don't stop foreign brother
Wow man, over an hour into this episode and Simon continues to have more energy than ten cans of whoop-a$$. He’s the undisputed GOAT of the YT universe.!
Also he said 45° sloped armor doubles the armor effectiveness which is simply wrong, you need 30° for it, as shown in the picture. 100mm @ 45° is only 141mm effective
An immobilised challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPG's and an anti tank missile in Iraq and not only did all the crew survive the tank was back in opperation and fighting the enemy 6 hours later. So the Merkava isn't the only tank that can take hits from RPG's as you claim, the trophy system is a fantastic piece of kit though that will improve survivability, especially against weapons which could pierce the armour. Also the Challenger in Ukraine was immobilised, once it was abandoned it was hit by a drone, which still didn't destroy it. I'm not sure if there's any info on whether it was recovered, but judging by the footage I saw it would have almost certainly been fixable, possibly in a similar time frame to the one in Iraq if it was desperately needed and the spares and facilities to repair it were available.
1. It was hit by a kornet, aand the turret is in the wrong place. 2. Ukraine barely has any presence in the place it was destroyed as the russians are pushing them back on that frontline, though every few weeks a new video will come out proving that it is is indeed still there The whole thing went up in smoke and is now just a husk lying in the dirt, not fixable
Yea there are also plenty of stories of M1s surviving multiple RPGs plus Merkava isnt the only tank with APS and plenty of them have been confirmed destoyed
There are many flavours of RPG7, and mot of them can not peetrate an intact glacis armour complex on any modern tank. And even when a penetration is achieved, HEAT warheads carry no secondary explosives, and must rely on component damage, or internal cookoff to disable a target. There is video account of base model T72-A-s taking up to 7 RPG7 hits in the first chechen war, and retreting intact, and they are not exactly the poster boy for robust armouring.
Challenger 3 is merely a Challenger with new internal armor modules, a turret capable of mounting a Rh120 with 3rd gen thermals and an engine modified to provide 1500 hp instead of 1200 hp. Compared to a Leopard 2A6A3 that sports the same cannon, 3rd gen thermals, higher armor thickness at the same technological level and a (50 years old) engine thats technically capable of 1800 hp but limited for longevity in peacetime to 1500 hp, the Challenger doesn’t quite make the cut to be considered a generational leap. If we consider a hardkill APS to be the distinguishing feature of fourth Gen, Trophy can be found on the Merkava 4M and it’s successors, the Leopard 2A7A1 and 2A8 and the M1A2 SEPv3, all of which are too just upgrades of old Gen 3 designs.
Pretty sure the Challenger 3 is also getting a new composite for its armor, moving up to Epsom + Farnham from the previous Dorchester. If everything they claim ends up being added it is definitely the next generation of Challenger.
@@yermom014 It either doesn’t make the cut to be considered a 4th gen MBT or current Leopards and Abrams models have to be considered 4th gen as well. Although it’s definitely an improvement over Challenger 2.
I have looked for more info on the FT1 but come up lacking. Where did it fight? Was it successful? Was there any movie footage? The British Mother tank is everywhere but the FT1, the great grandfather of the modern tank is amazingly scarce. Would love to see a video on this.
As a former tanker I enjoyed this video very much, however....You don't need an explosive charge in an armor piercing round. More than likely the crew will be killed or incapacitated by dislodged equipment and chunks that were once part of the turret interior.
Thats what i was thinking, and he talks of the integrated battlefield as a new thing... its been that way with the us for years, which he didnt even address.
1:13:08 I have to interject at this point to suggest that the wild success of the US Bradly IFV against all Russian armor in Ukraine is evidence that the T72 and beyond tanks aren’t exactly as great as Russia would have had the world believe.
Spalling is usually more of an issue of armor vs round composition. Even Krupp steel in WWII had issues with the depth of hardness versus deformation at the base layer. Considering the shipbuilding steel quality issues we experienced in WWII I wouldn't be surprised if high sulfur steel got in to our tanks too unfortunately.
There are two types of people in this world: people that like tanks and people that got run over by them. The second group no longer exists so now there's only one type....
Could you please look at the history of the howitzer? I happen to live near one of the US Army armory that builds them and think their history would be interesting.
4th gen tanks will be defined by drone and colaborative defence, where 2 tanks can work together to auto defend each other from fast moving non balistic threats for not just themselves but each other. I imaging it being hooked into Aegis and having a baby seawiz or similar system to shread drones with a cloud of material as geting an exact lock on a drone is lilely to be more dificult than basically hiting the fragile props woth something silimar to chaff.
7:23 And this is where Imperium tank designs begins. The Rhino, the Chimera, the Leman Russ, the Land Raider, they all trace their lineage to this humble beginning.
The reason you can't (reasonably) fire APFSDS from a rifled cannon is actually that a) the extremely large length to width ratio means the projectiles would tumble if given significant spin and b) the energy you put into the spin is lost to the forward motion. And then of course shaped charges also don't really want to have spin in order to work properly.
Spinning the round also imparts a certain amount of inaccuracy. Especially at longer ranges, the spinning round has a tendency to drift off target in the direction of the spin. No spin means more accurate ling range shots.
I think the future of the tank will be a remote controlled turret with an autoloader, where the crew sits in a protective cocoon inside the chassis. That's at least the direction the Americans seem to be headed. Sounds like a nightmare to maintain tho.
The Russians have also done this with their T-14 Armata. It makes sense that tanks go this way. Extremely strong chemical and smaller caliber resistant armor on the outside with a composite, rounded "pill" in the center with all your tech. How easy they'll be to abandon if things go South has yet to be seen.
The role of the tank will have changed, so you could argue 4th generation tanks will just be a different type of armored vehicle with some tank like capabilities. It's pretty clear that as drones continue to improve, they will become a hard asymmetric counter to traditional tanks. You could see the tank becoming more of a mobile drone dispenser with improved command and control capabilities, as well as having anti drone, anti armor, and defensive capabilities. Potentially even functioning as a networking node for a secure military communications/information network. The Lynx is already sort of an example of tank design heading this direction. Also, depends a lot on the type of conflict that nations expect to encounter and the domain of operation. As if the US military really expects an Island hopping campaign in the South China Sea, investing in large main tanks with lots of capabilities would be unlikely. I think drones and new technology will fundamentally shift the tactics and doctrine of warfare. Seems like at least the US realizes how big this shift could be and instead of focusing heavily on new hardware that could become immediately outdated, are instead focusing their investments on Naval assetts, equipping/enabling allied nations in the area (like Australia), and investing heavily in the areas it knows will be valuable almost regardless of the specific conflict. Like capabilities that significantly improve command and control infrastructure and information gathering/surveillance. And the development/improvement of a secure mobile military communications network. As well as a focus on securing the production and supply chains for military hardware so that they are more likely to retain these capabilities in the majority of conflicts. When you look at the nature of a lot of modern conflicts, they end up being proxy wars by nations that are unwilling to engage in direct conflict due to the catastrophic results. So I'd think the US would also want to invest more in the kind of capabilities that would allow them to augment/improve the abilities of their chosen side of a proxy conflict. As one of the issues the US has run into is that it's own capabilities, while substantial, are built around the style of war it fights. and as such many of those capabilities aren't suited to another nation which can't or isn't fighting the type of war that the US itself expects/expected to fight. This has been a big issue with the US assistance to Ukraine. The majority of US capabilities are built around conducting an offensive war based heavily on the use of air power and establishing/enabling air superiority. Or are capabilities designed for counterinsurgency operations. Due to it's position in the world, it's own needs, and the realities of it's geographic location. The absolute last types of war the US military invested into capabilities for, was fighting a defensive land war or a prolonged, almost entirely land based capture and subsequent defense of entrenched positions with zero air support. Against ground artillery guns it can't remove with air power. This is basically the polar opposite of how the US military fights. In the situation where it has to capture stationary entrenched land positions, it would take out the anti air assetts, gain air superiority, and then just delete the position from the air with long range bunker busting missiles and/or precision guided munitions dropped from high altitude at a standoff range by stealth bombers or fighter/bombers. Worst case it could even use something like the MOAB to completely destroy even large entrenched positions without having to use nuclear weapons. Even when it has to do infantry based assaults, those are done in conjunction with overheard air power and recon assetts. As well as drone overwatch. The way the US is prepared to fight almost completely removes the need to have large amounts ground based conventional artillery, or the use of huge fleets of MBTs, other armor, and infantry to capture and hold positions without the use of any air power. Fighting without airpower is anathema to modern US doctrine and tactics. In modern US warfare. Infantry and armor are there in offensive operations for wiping up whatever's left/capturing and holding the positions only after the area has been crippled by the air power. Or for the use in situations where the close proximity of civilian populations made large airstrikes less appealing and for situations like Iraq where it was needed for long term occupation/counter insurgency operations. I think it's in developing equipment for proxy conflicts that the US would want to invest in more of those traditional land based assets like future tanks and other hardware designed for a conflict where one cannot rely on having air superiority or air power at all.
@ 1:11:23 You're completely wrong about "Sadam scraping together Yugoslavian M-84's". Kuwait fielded the M-84 in Desert Storm, part of the ALLIES, and the tank fought AGAINST Sadam's forces.
4 Kuwaiti M-84s were captured by Iraq during the initial occupation, so it seems entirely possible those captured tanks were fielded on Iraq's side during the liberation/counter-invasion, so it seems believeable to me that there were m-84s on both sides (the exact same m-84s in this case).
Shame omitted the bren carrier, although its not really a tank but more a tracked jeep, it did get manufactured throughout the 2nd and saw service everywhere and was much loved by those who used it properly. With tons of variations from machinegun , mortar and recoiless rifle platforms
i love your channel, i really do, im italian so eny grammar errors are possible, the tanks purpos is to engage and control a tarritory, the killing is a sad reality of it
If I were to hazard a guess, 4th generation tanks won't be defined by their armament, armour or communications systems, but by the integration of AI for targeting, reacting to threats, relaying with friendly units etc.
The role of the tank will have changed, so you could argue 4th generation tanks will just be a different type of armored vehicle with some tank like capabilities. It's pretty clear that as drones continue to improve, they will become a hard asymmetric counter to traditional tanks. You could see the tank becoming more of a mobile drone dispenser with improved command and control capabilities, as well as having anti drone, anti armor, and defensive capabilities. Potentially even functioning as a networking node for a secure military communications/information network.
George, bravo! i was puzzled by the very minimal details about US tanks until i saw Your name. Well done! i admire Your truly uncanny writing talent !:-)
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/SIMON to get a special offer.
The Keeps website isn't providing any special offer with your link. It's exactly the same as a new customer.
Bald guy promoting hair growth solution😅
I recommend u change the thumbnail, its kinda underwhelming
But the vid is very good
@@nathanielcoker3778That's the norm for all those "sponsorships". Same as the "limited time offer for the first 100 customers" lasting years and being available for everyone.
It's a sham, it's illegal under EU customer protection laws.
There is a mega project that is over 100 years old, still having money spent on it. I'm talking about the BB-35, USS Texas, Battleship Texas. Serving in both great wars, earning five battle stars, serving in all theaters of war, suffering two purple hearts and in dry dock, getting repaired, repainted and refitted.
not sure uss texas would be fit for combat in 2024 lol
That's a good one! Reminds me of HMS Victory of the royal navy that's 250 years old but still commissioned for service (albeit museum service like the BB-35)
Ah, yes, the infamous ship for flooding its deck to lift its guns higher, during d day
How is it a Mega-project, though? It's not even the mega-est of battleships. Wasn't the Yamato mega..ier?
@@dohboi75 that's like saying Beijing or Hong Kong isn't a mega city just because Tokyo exists. I'm pretty sure Megaprojects are defined by their over all scope either physically, financially, culturally or otherwise
I will always love that it was actually the British who named the Sherman Tank and the Stuart Tank; the official US production names were just the M4 and M3. The Brits were the ones who gave them actual names after American Civil War generals.
If I remember correctly, it was the British who named the P51 the Mustang.
It was done in part to avoid confusion since the basic M# designation was so ubiquitous to be nearly useless.
Case in point it would be technically accurate to describe how a unit of M3's was moving to the objective but got ambushed and had to call some M3's to provide fire support, followed by some M3's joining them for the follow-up. Now, am I talking about tanks, APC's or artillery? Yes.😅
@@stevenboykin116yep, the Brits have always named their vehicles. Most British tanks have all had a name starting with C. There are many versions of why, but infantry tanks were names after great historical figures (one of which confusingly was the Churchill tank) and all Cruiser tanks (tanks designed to take on other tanks etc. rather than simply support infantry), were all given names starting with “C” (indicating a cruiser tank design). Modern British main battle tanks just continued the tradition… we love tradition (and tanks). It’s only a shame that Britain doesn’t build new tank designs, and that the new Challenger 3, whilst likely to be possibly the best main battle tank in NATO, is just a refit of existing hulls, and there will be so few of them!
It's even worse than that, as GI's often referred to M4's as simply, "Mediums".
The British were Allies of the confederates
I crewed M60A1s/A3s in the early 80s and finished out riding an M1A1 into Iraq with 1st Infantry. Just my opinion on Simon's take on Desert Storm... the T72s we engaged were at night from ranges that were far beyond their capabilities. Our daylight capabilities were far better too. A lot of the design philosophy is still a holdover from the operational concepts of the cold war, we expected to fight a mobile defense and succeed in European terrain (not without loses of course, probably bad ones) against anywhere from 5 to 8 times our numbers in T62s/T64s/72s, the M1/M1A1 of that time frame was just designed to be better at it than the M60 series (NO. I'm not even going to touch the A2 fiasco.) was. In desert conditions longer range engagements were the norm and seriously gave us the advantage. The Iraqi T72s were just no match for the majority of the coalition tanks. And this is before you even get into crew skill. A tank can have the best paper figures on earth, but with a scrub crew, it's practically worthless. Good job of presenting a good bullet points video.
Scrub crew I'm stealing that insult 😂
Thanks for serving the nation 🙏
If I remember correctly, a large Iraq tank formation incorrectly measured their distance when setting up an ambush over the top of a hill. Iraq rounds fell short of the hill allied tanks crested over. It turned what would have been a potential disaster into literally giving coalition forces the high ground out of range of Iraq tanks and artillery. It's pretty hard to take major casualties when your enemy decides to gift you the perfect position just outside the range of their guns. It's not just the skill and training of individual tank crews, but also the efficiency and skill of the commanders. If your commanding officer says to do something genuinely stupid and you'll be shot for treason if you express any disagreement, that's not an effective army. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
This is exactly why I went 19k.
Most of Iraq's tanks were T-62s and T-54s. T-72s were a rare exception, about 5 percent of all.
Nailed that one although I would add that outside of the tank and environment, training and combined arms is what makes the US tanks top notch. Abrams is good alone but a god damn nightmare when with its Bradley's and airsupport/recon
Would love a full history of bomber aircraft in this format, both the enormous change in technology and doctrine
From tossing hand grenades and dropping artillery shells to the being able to drop the MOAB
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a mega episode (surprised these episode haven't been named this yet) on air warfare in a few months.
@@balinthehater8205 Bombers drop those baby bombs. You need to scrape your drawers when Momma (GBU-43) comes for you, but you'll regret all your life's choices when Big Daddy (BLU-82) shows up.
And how morally bunked it was and still seems to be.
@@balinthehater8205 To todays fighters and multi-role aircraft carying way more bombs than the air giants of the 1940's, there as been incredible changes to bombers along history it would be fascinating.
I love it when Simon cracks up because of the script 😂 Little Willy was an unexpected one for a tank
And Little Willie Willie wouldn't go home! He was such a stick-in-the-mud.
Got a timestamp?
What is 'little willy' asked the nun. hahahaha.
One comment / correction: HEAT shells do not function in the way described. They use a shaped HE charge to turn a piece of metal into a plastic state jet which then literally punches through the armor. The higher temperature of the jet, is incidental effect of it's being pressurized in such a way, had little effect on it's armor penetrative qualities.
It functions in a similar matter as a high pressure waterjet used to cut steel today, but using metal and a high explosive to get that metal moving ("pressurized").
It's just a different form of kinetics and fluid dynamics at play. Spaced armor works bc the shaped charge effect is only useful at a very set distance. Too far and it just splatters on the armor ineffectively, too close and it won't have compressed enough to penetrate. The outer plate sets off the shaped charge, causing the plastic metal jet to essentially splatter on the main armor.
Thank you sir 🫡
He is generally extremely inaccurate with his rantings, one should see this as no more than entertaining tall tales, entertaining as it may be.
Hi! I was looking for this comment, one note though, HEAT does not get effected too greatly by distance, there even a few AT mines in service using HEAT over long distances to penetrate modern armour. ( the PTKM-1R - top attack anti tank mine )
Slatted armour on modern designed vehicles are actually intended to cause HEAT threats of their time (mainly RPG-7, as pioneered by the Americans during their war on terror) to go dud on impact, not detonating their HE charge. Slatted armour is considered compromised if the round detonates on impact with it, though they also weren't horrific at diverting the RPGs trajectory before detonation, aiding in the non-penetration and therefore survival of the tank.
Also as a note to my prior comment, I think I was a little ignorant, Shaped charges (may?) have a focus distance they are designed for, though I am sure shaped charge penetration dropping off drastically after 2 metres is a misconception echoed by wikipedia. Though still, with spaced armour sitting within even the one metre distance from the tank. the loss of penetration even for heat rounds of the day wouldn't be enough to help the armour.
@@nisumi_6575 Likely why spaced armor isn't really a thing anymore?
Chieftain had a stabilized gun, we also switched to TLS (Tank Laser Sight, used for range finding). Also once we figured out windage we could achieve a first round kill.
The 105mm range was about 1500-2000m, our 120mm was in excess of 3000m in direct fire mode.
Simon needs to show up in a Sci-Fi movie as a ship's computer or other semi omnipotent information machine
Please no, the tangents will be straight up reciting Wikipedia…
😂 I love this idea
Maybe a tv series where he's an extraterrestrial lizard person hellbent on taking over the Earth with a small group of cohorts in a slow non violent manner, like through the internet with informational videos.
The Terminater tries to fight Simon, but because of his army of clones..........
IIRC Simon did do voice work before RUclips and that's how he got his RUclips hosting gig.
1:05 - Chapter 1 - Origins
3:45 - Mid roll ads
5:10 - Back to the video
19:50 - Chapter 2 - Interwar period
35:55 - Chapter 3 - WWII
53:55 - Chapter 4 - Cold war
1:13:05 - Chapter 5 - The modern era
1:20:50 - Chapter 6 - The future
Thanks for that.
A saint amongst men.
I would like your comment but it is at 69 likes
One reason I love the UK.
In 1915 they developed their very first tank. 👍
And named it Little Willie.
That's classic. 👍👍
Simon and his writers seemed to ignore the contributions of American inventor and businessman Benjamin Holt. Beginning in the 1890s, Holt designed and sold farm equipment in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley. Normal four-wheeled tractors would commonly bog down in Stockton’s rich peat soil.
Holt visited England and witnessed several failed demonstrations of tractors with treads. Back home, he designed the first commercially viable tractors with continuous tread, ideal for the peat soil.
During WWII, Holt tractors were used by British forces to haul supplies along dirt roads. It is said that British tanks were inspired by Holt vehicles, although Holt never actually built tanks.
Holt’s company merged with a competitor and eventually became Caterpillar Inc.
How did I know this? I used to live off of Benjamin Holt Drive in Stockton. Visitors invariably asked me who the heck Benjamin Holt was. Being the young smartass I was, had this info ready to go.
I used to live off of Benjamin holt too.
Thank you!
I didn't know that.
Great addition but you are also viewing this from American perspective. He is viewing it from the British perspective. I view it from the Russian perspective. As he didn't represent Russian tankestry and it's contributions also. For example Rybansk tank, Czar tank, or Mendeleev tank etc. There were also a few different designs of Porokhovs tank etc. etc. I always wondered how you could just skip a great part of world's history like that... Also the first usable tracked vehicle with an engine was invented in Russia by the Russian Inventor Fydor Blinov. He had started working on it in 1880 and finished his project in 1888 and patented it. That was the first working tracked vehicle which could be considered as a start for both tanks and caterpillar tractors.
But for obvious political reasons it is absolutely skimmed off and not represented in the west. Because every country views world's history egocentrically. 😥
@@korana6308 No, those tanks weren't included because they are irrelevant to the development of tanks. They are FAR FROM a need to know. They got cut because well, they were all technological dead ends. The Czar tank would never have worked to start with...They are cool thought experiments, but outside the scope of the video.
I am glad RUclips reminded me about this video. I watched it when it was new but my oldest has suddenly become fascinated with tanks and "army things" recently. We had a 45 minute conversation about tank vs IFV and into modern, combined arms tactics after he called a Bradley a tank. 😂
I think that one of these long deep dive videos on the history of certain Megaprojects could be done on the Battleship. Not only because they're super popular, but because, well.... They're story actually has an end, given they aren't a thing anymore. So it could be pretty cool.
The carrier episode touched on that some
Loving these deep dive Mega Projects! Keep them coming!!!
When I was little I used to play on an actual real and original German A7V.
The only one left in the world - "Mephisto" - she’s in Brisbane, Australia as she was taken back as a war trophy by Australian troops. She was damaged by floodwater during the Brisbane flood in 2011 but they restored her and after a stint in Canberra she seems to be back on display at the Queensland Museum at South Bank in Brisbane (right near the centre of the city).
Anyone visiting Australia should swing by and have a look, the whole complex and the museum along with the Gallery of Modern Art is really worth the visit. It really surprises me how intrigued European visitors are when I tell them about the tank and they are very keen to see her, many are quite stunned to hear the only surviving German WW1 tank is in such a far flung place.
That's pretty awesome to have a one of one (remaining) and to be able to spend time with it. I don't think I've ever put my hands on any tank older than an M48.
@@jeffduncan9140 You can still see Mephisto - if you ever visit Brisbane in Australia, they moved it out to some train museum for a while as it was flooded in the 2010-2011 floods and needed restoration work. Not sure they'll let you play on it, perhaps if you ask really nicely (!). I wasn't allowed inside it but try stopping 90 school kids from climbing over it, I guess they gave up early on.
Actually now I think it's held behind glass but it seems to be back at the Qld Museum (that's right next to the city centre, it's actually a particularly good day out as the complex is particularly good, the art gallery and restaurants there are quite good too). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephisto_(tank)
You forgot to mention that most if not, all British tanks have an onboard kettle. For those time's you just need a cuppa tea. 😅
During combat operations, tank crews sometimes spend days at a time inside their vehicles, unable to stretch their legs or enjoy refreshments. Shortly after World War II, the British Army designed special tea kettles to be installed inside its tanks to help alleviate some of the hardship (copy and paste) now most modern tanks have this, mostly for heating thare food.
And, they’re able to reheat their food! Because rations come in pouches that you insert into a sleeve that you pour water into and it heats it up. So they don’t have to leave the tank at all really…
@@option4lnamename101Its such a dumb trivia thing thats only intresting to people that havent served or dont know, as kettles, RAKs, MRE Heaters or boilling vessels are a quite common feature in a bunch of combat vehicles such as (newer)Bradleys, CV90s, Piranhas and even fucking Humvees. The only thing thats "trivia" about it is that they did it on a tank but not really relevant to a video about tank development. But all these heaters are quite simply outdated with the intoduction of chemical heat packs and heating sleeves.
@nobutto3352 yee, we all know that. Al I was trying to point out, was the British wer the first to recycle heat from thare engines, and put it to a use.
I also added, every thing you mentioned in a reply/eddit. That most other country's followed and made improvements. Its a coment secshon, no need to feel superior adding shit like this 😔.
Was ment as a bit of jest/joke sumthing to find a bit funny. Small bit of trivia.
If you folks are able, I'd love to watch a video about the evolution of artilery and the technology and tactics of their use.
Yes! Artillery and the evolution of the ammunition. The advantages/disadvantages of artillery vs missiles/rockets. Maybe split it up into a couple of videos instead of going 2-3 hours. You can do it Simon!
I would love that
Been done before! It was 1 or 2 hours long , starting with archery etc if I recall
@@johndc2998I thought so too can’t find it tho
@@SendingFreedomTM damn maybe it got deleted or the title changed :( we are in the struggle together lmao if I find it I'll try and remember to comment!
Awe, I kinda wanted to hear about how the American M4 Shermans in Korea went head to head against Korean T-34-76s after the pershings had trouble being so heavy & just kicked ass. Also kinda surprised that the author didn't leverage Chieftan's (Nicholas Moran) dug up WW2 report that who see the enemy first often wins. Hence why the West/Nato/US is so focused focus on optics, information and communication. Though I totally get why no mentions were made about Bradley's maybe having more kills on tanks than Abrams in Desert Storm for the same reason why only Lazer Pig seems to bring up the Aardvark vs Warthog kill ratio comparison.
to be fair it's not like tanks often destroyed other tanks during WW-II, most tanks on all sides were lost to enemy infantry, followed by anti tank guns, artillery, aircraft, land mines, technical difficulties, or to running out of fuel or ammo.
Great job on this video. It is good to see you expanding your horizons and creating these long length documentary style videos.
Simon's level of entertainment at "Little Willy" and "Big Willy" is glorious
Thanks!
Thanks and HEAT rounds are kinetic, high speed copper rod.
Thanks
APFSDS can and is used in rifled barrels such as the Challenger 2, the smooth bore allows for a higher muzzle velocity without increasing the charge size.
APFSDS in rifled barrels requires a free rotating bearing.
Thank you Simon and basement dwellers for the hard work you put in. 🎉🎉🎉
Great video, an interesting note about the centurion is the mk1 hit France just a little too late to engage in combat and these mk1s were also present during the gulf War as arve's and interesting is they had fewer issues with their tracks and wheels and bearings plus their air intake and filters than their modern counterparts, also up till very recently the longest confirmed tank on tank kill moving was from a British Challenger 1, also the challenger 2 has a great history of taking a massive beating with something like a 146 hits as it couldn't move with a track knocked out and after recovery was back in the field in something like 8 hours, challengers also have a higher survivability rate than the Abrahams and most other tanks, there is still some speculation around the one in Ukraine and if it was a mk2 or an upgrade mk1 and there was also word going around if one of the hatches was open, interesting is a hatch open is the only way a mk2 in British service got taken out and that I think was from a hesh round in one of very few brit on brit friendly fire cases.
Some really good tanks around though and the innovation is incredible.
Thank you
49:00 Another advantage of sloped armor is that it tends to deflect the incoming rounds, meaning that it needs to absorb less energy.
If a round impacts armor at a 90 degree angle at 1000 m/s, the armor needs to absorb enough energy to bring the round to a complete stop. If a round impacts armor at a 45 degree angle at 1000 m/s and bounces off at 500 m/s, then the armor only has to do half the work. And as mentioned in the video, it has twice the muscle to do it with.
Thanks Um Actually guy
Very big if.
Shells do not bounce off half the speed when they hit at 45°
45° gives multiplier of 1,4141 and the angle is nowhere near close to ricoched anything.
@@XtreeM_FaiL yeah the video got it wrong it would only be 200 mil at 30 digrees
The brilliance of "Hobart's Funnies" deserve their own mega project video...
Really enjoyed this one Simon and the basement crew 🎉
The battle of 72 Eastings shows just how superior American armor was to soviet tanks during the Gulf war
Tanks are cool because they combine three things which don't normally go together: they are durable, they can hit hard, and they're fast. Downsides include being easy to spot, expensive to build and maintain, and tank crews were historically mostly blinded under all that armor when they came under fire.
'Wallace & Gromitting our way out of Doom since 1914'.
Oh Britain. Never change
I smell Laserpig in your vicinity.
Just one point of detail. HEAT shells (High Explosive Anti Tank) do not melt through the armor, the molten penetrator still punches through using kinetic force.
I honestly don't know how that wasn't caught and rectified during the review of script or editing of the video
Wonderful presentation & very to the point sharp analysis. Well done sir
Personally my favorite is the “chain rail vehicle which could be easily steered and carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches” I especially love the idea of using the chain rail , and in junction with its ability to be easily steered, to be able to carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches
pleaseeeee make more videos like this, first firearms and now this‽ can’t get enough!
Those last two sound more like 3.75 gen
I would expect 4th gen tanks to have the advanced computer interoperability as described at the end with addition of more active defenses to shoot down or ecm to interfere incoming missiles and drones
Love this video, military history is always fascinating
Wow you and the team nailed that one. That’s great thank you!
Great video covering the tank’s evolution enjoyed this one
Is there a video on the Fiat 2000? If not, that's something that I think would be neat to learn more about
ruclips.net/video/j1wE0bBrl3I/видео.html
Tanks for the informative and hilarious mega history documentary. Had me captivated from start to finish.
I’m an old M1A1 Abram’s tank commander. Best job I ever had.
Great video. Usual high quality production from Mega Projects. Surprised to see no mention of the experimental AbramsX though ....
Having worked on M-60 and M-1 turrets, I'm a tad biased. Over all, this is a great doc.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job.
"A big shooty bang bang box that makes war go gooder"
- Simon Whistler
The Renault FT was also a very attractive tank, so the French got that right too.
The Russians, on the other hand came up with Tsar Tank, which has to be seen and read about to be believed.
Another great episode. Fan of all your channels!
God i hate it when my little willie gets stuck in the mud!
Be careful you'll get put on a list, if you do that too much.
The earliest versions of both T-34 and KV-1 were armed with the same 76mm cannon, the L-11. However, in 1941 they were both re-armed with more powerful cannons. Only T-34 received the new F-34 cannon, not both T-34 and KV-1 as you mentioned in the video. KV-1, on other hand, would receive the F-32 cannon, which had a shorter barrel than the F-34, later being replaced with more powerful ZIS-5.
I really enjoyed this longer format video. Great stuff.
I love LOVE whenever Simon bluntly talks about us Brits, he has an amazing way of explaining brutal facts while pumping a bit of humour into it.
I'm a sailor, not soldier, but my mate was a tank gunner in Gulf War 1. The result was not a fluke, the Western tanks were so outclassed that he felt a bit guilty shooting them. Of course, we're seeing the same discrepancy between Western and Soviet - sorry, Russian - armour in Ukraine. And to think we were so worried about this lot throughout the 80s and 90s.....
It was nuclear war that we were afraid of. Not some drunk conscripts in Lada tanks.
Do they ABS system or Airbags :)
HEAT rounds are kinetic, the explosion is used to speed up the copper into a super precise rod
Loving these super long deep dives. Can we revisit some of the short videos that deserve this amount of attention?
If you tilt a 100 mm Armor to 45° it measures 142,4 mm.
Tilting it to 30° results in a 200 mm Armor.
Great video!
Something worth pointing out about turbine engines in the Abrams (and a lot of other US combat vehicles) is that it simplifies logistics because the tanks, trucks, and APCs run on the same fuel as the helicopters and jets.
Other suggestions: Line of progression with the fastest trains. The development of the first airplane, and all the efforts and dreams that came before. History of distant communication, starting with ancient times.
With in all good reason...you have a platform, able to develop trust to speak to this....for those that love these things, i encourage you to not shy away from the controversial, the important.
In our day of digital mistrust....you hold trust. Use it for the best.
You're success comes with opportunity. Hope you keep doing exposes about those that don't have the utility, inherent right and opportunity to speak facts without fear.
There's a provision of power there. Enjoy what you're doing. Don't stop foreign brother
Wow man, over an hour into this episode and Simon continues to have more energy than ten cans of whoop-a$$. He’s the undisputed GOAT of the YT universe.!
Wow I'm not even halfway through the video and already commenting fantastic deep dive please give us more
1.5 hours of Simon and friggin' tanks? Fu*k yes. Please and thank you.
48:45 , you're missing the key point of sloped armor. Sloped armor is more likely to deflect shots than vertical armor
He also miscalculated the thickness by a lot
And to bring up sloped armor so many times and not finding a way to shoe horn in a mention about the S-tank, is unforgivable 😅
Also he said 45° sloped armor doubles the armor effectiveness which is simply wrong, you need 30° for it, as shown in the picture.
100mm @ 45° is only 141mm effective
An immobilised challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPG's and an anti tank missile in Iraq and not only did all the crew survive the tank was back in opperation and fighting the enemy 6 hours later. So the Merkava isn't the only tank that can take hits from RPG's as you claim, the trophy system is a fantastic piece of kit though that will improve survivability, especially against weapons which could pierce the armour.
Also the Challenger in Ukraine was immobilised, once it was abandoned it was hit by a drone, which still didn't destroy it. I'm not sure if there's any info on whether it was recovered, but judging by the footage I saw it would have almost certainly been fixable, possibly in a similar time frame to the one in Iraq if it was desperately needed and the spares and facilities to repair it were available.
1. It was hit by a kornet, aand the turret is in the wrong place.
2. Ukraine barely has any presence in the place it was destroyed as the russians are pushing them back on that frontline, though every few weeks a new video will come out proving that it is is indeed still there
The whole thing went up in smoke and is now just a husk lying in the dirt, not fixable
Yea there are also plenty of stories of M1s surviving multiple RPGs plus Merkava isnt the only tank with APS and plenty of them have been confirmed destoyed
There are many flavours of RPG7, and mot of them can not peetrate an intact glacis armour complex on any modern tank. And even when a penetration is achieved, HEAT warheads carry no secondary explosives, and must rely on component damage, or internal cookoff to disable a target. There is video account of base model T72-A-s taking up to 7 RPG7 hits in the first chechen war, and retreting intact, and they are not exactly the poster boy for robust armouring.
Challenger 3 is merely a Challenger with new internal armor modules, a turret capable of mounting a Rh120 with 3rd gen thermals and an engine modified to provide 1500 hp instead of 1200 hp. Compared to a Leopard 2A6A3 that sports the same cannon, 3rd gen thermals, higher armor thickness at the same technological level and a (50 years old) engine thats technically capable of 1800 hp but limited for longevity in peacetime to 1500 hp, the Challenger doesn’t quite make the cut to be considered a generational leap. If we consider a hardkill APS to be the distinguishing feature of fourth Gen, Trophy can be found on the Merkava 4M and it’s successors, the Leopard 2A7A1 and 2A8 and the M1A2 SEPv3, all of which are too just upgrades of old Gen 3 designs.
Pretty sure the Challenger 3 is also getting a new composite for its armor, moving up to Epsom + Farnham from the previous Dorchester. If everything they claim ends up being added it is definitely the next generation of Challenger.
@@yermom014 It either doesn’t make the cut to be considered a 4th gen MBT or current Leopards and Abrams models have to be considered 4th gen as well. Although it’s definitely an improvement over Challenger 2.
I have looked for more info on the FT1 but come up lacking. Where did it fight? Was it successful? Was there any movie footage? The British Mother tank is everywhere but the FT1, the great grandfather of the modern tank is amazingly scarce. Would love to see a video on this.
thank you for putting this out. now aside from planes, i'll get more interested in tanks also... maybe you could also do ships
What a thoroughly *OUTSTANDING* video/history!
Thank you, Good Sir!
great writing! awesome episode!
Fine video, but more in the end about the new Abrams and Rimital projects but good non the less.
Love the longer, more in depth videos. The same treatment for Bombers and Submarines would be good.
As a former tanker I enjoyed this video very much, however....You don't need an explosive charge in an armor piercing round. More than likely the crew will be killed or incapacitated by dislodged equipment and chunks that were once part of the turret interior.
@@jefft786 you used the same account lmao
meh
Was waiting for the Abrams X 😭
Excellent video as always though, thank you whistle man
Thats what i was thinking, and he talks of the integrated battlefield as a new thing... its been that way with the us for years, which he didnt even address.
Great long format. More please!
I love this format. Do another on aircraft!
1:13:08
I have to interject at this point to suggest that the wild success of the US Bradly IFV against all Russian armor in Ukraine is evidence that the T72 and beyond tanks aren’t exactly as great as Russia would have had the world believe.
CC was short so is Simon “compensating” with an extra long MegaProject(s)?🤔😂This’ll be a fun watch!
DAMMIT! This video has come up for like the 7th time and I still laugh along with Simon over Little Willy.
Spalling is usually more of an issue of armor vs round composition. Even Krupp steel in WWII had issues with the depth of hardness versus deformation at the base layer. Considering the shipbuilding steel quality issues we experienced in WWII I wouldn't be surprised if high sulfur steel got in to our tanks too unfortunately.
There are two types of people in this world: people that like tanks and people that got run over by them. The second group no longer exists so now there's only one type....
Could you please look at the history of the howitzer? I happen to live near one of the US Army armory that builds them and think their history would be interesting.
Has there been lots of design work done to mine resistance in tank design? Or is that work more placed on wheeled vehicles like the mrap or caspir.
6:52 “ Little Willy had a habit of getting stuck in the mud” … 😅😂 hahaha
4th gen tanks will be defined by drone and colaborative defence, where 2 tanks can work together to auto defend each other from fast moving non balistic threats for not just themselves but each other. I imaging it being hooked into Aegis and having a baby seawiz or similar system to shread drones with a cloud of material as geting an exact lock on a drone is lilely to be more dificult than basically hiting the fragile props woth something silimar to chaff.
7:23 And this is where Imperium tank designs begins. The Rhino, the Chimera, the Leman Russ, the Land Raider, they all trace their lineage to this humble beginning.
The reason you can't (reasonably) fire APFSDS from a rifled cannon is actually that a) the extremely large length to width ratio means the projectiles would tumble if given significant spin and b) the energy you put into the spin is lost to the forward motion. And then of course shaped charges also don't really want to have spin in order to work properly.
Spinning the round also imparts a certain amount of inaccuracy. Especially at longer ranges, the spinning round has a tendency to drift off target in the direction of the spin. No spin means more accurate ling range shots.
My Boy Willie is ringing in my ears and the video hasn't even started yet 😅 🇨🇦
I think the future of the tank will be a remote controlled turret with an autoloader, where the crew sits in a protective cocoon inside the chassis. That's at least the direction the Americans seem to be headed. Sounds like a nightmare to maintain tho.
The Russians have also done this with their T-14 Armata. It makes sense that tanks go this way. Extremely strong chemical and smaller caliber resistant armor on the outside with a composite, rounded "pill" in the center with all your tech. How easy they'll be to abandon if things go South has yet to be seen.
The role of the tank will have changed, so you could argue 4th generation tanks will just be a different type of armored vehicle with some tank like capabilities.
It's pretty clear that as drones continue to improve, they will become a hard asymmetric counter to traditional tanks.
You could see the tank becoming more of a mobile drone dispenser with improved command and control capabilities, as well as having anti drone, anti armor, and defensive capabilities.
Potentially even functioning as a networking node for a secure military communications/information network.
The Lynx is already sort of an example of tank design heading this direction.
Also, depends a lot on the type of conflict that nations expect to encounter and the domain of operation. As if the US military really expects an Island hopping campaign in the South China Sea, investing in large main tanks with lots of capabilities would be unlikely.
I think drones and new technology will fundamentally shift the tactics and doctrine of warfare. Seems like at least the US realizes how big this shift could be and instead of focusing heavily on new hardware that could become immediately outdated, are instead focusing their investments on Naval assetts, equipping/enabling allied nations in the area (like Australia), and investing heavily in the areas it knows will be valuable almost regardless of the specific conflict.
Like capabilities that significantly improve command and control infrastructure and information gathering/surveillance. And the development/improvement of a secure mobile military communications network. As well as a focus on securing the production and supply chains for military hardware so that they are more likely to retain these capabilities in the majority of conflicts.
When you look at the nature of a lot of modern conflicts, they end up being proxy wars by nations that are unwilling to engage in direct conflict due to the catastrophic results.
So I'd think the US would also want to invest more in the kind of capabilities that would allow them to augment/improve the abilities of their chosen side of a proxy conflict.
As one of the issues the US has run into is that it's own capabilities, while substantial, are built around the style of war it fights. and as such many of those capabilities aren't suited to another nation which can't or isn't fighting the type of war that the US itself expects/expected to fight.
This has been a big issue with the US assistance to Ukraine. The majority of US capabilities are built around conducting an offensive war based heavily on the use of air power and establishing/enabling air superiority. Or are capabilities designed for counterinsurgency operations.
Due to it's position in the world, it's own needs, and the realities of it's geographic location. The absolute last types of war the US military invested into capabilities for, was fighting a defensive land war or a prolonged, almost entirely land based capture and subsequent defense of entrenched positions with zero air support. Against ground artillery guns it can't remove with air power.
This is basically the polar opposite of how the US military fights. In the situation where it has to capture stationary entrenched land positions, it would take out the anti air assetts, gain air superiority, and then just delete the position from the air with long range bunker busting missiles and/or precision guided munitions dropped from high altitude at a standoff range by stealth bombers or fighter/bombers. Worst case it could even use something like the MOAB to completely destroy even large entrenched positions without having to use nuclear weapons.
Even when it has to do infantry based assaults, those are done in conjunction with overheard air power and recon assetts. As well as drone overwatch.
The way the US is prepared to fight almost completely removes the need to have large amounts ground based conventional artillery, or the use of huge fleets of MBTs, other armor, and infantry to capture and hold positions without the use of any air power. Fighting without airpower is anathema to modern US doctrine and tactics.
In modern US warfare. Infantry and armor are there in offensive operations for wiping up whatever's left/capturing and holding the positions only after the area has been crippled by the air power. Or for the use in situations where the close proximity of civilian populations made large airstrikes less appealing and for situations like Iraq where it was needed for long term occupation/counter insurgency operations. I think it's in developing equipment for proxy conflicts that the US would want to invest in more of those traditional land based assets like future tanks and other hardware designed for a conflict where one cannot rely on having air superiority or air power at all.
Awesome video Simon and crew
@ 1:11:23 You're completely wrong about "Sadam scraping together Yugoslavian M-84's". Kuwait fielded the M-84 in Desert Storm, part of the ALLIES, and the tank fought AGAINST Sadam's forces.
4 Kuwaiti M-84s were captured by Iraq during the initial occupation, so it seems entirely possible those captured tanks were fielded on Iraq's side during the liberation/counter-invasion, so it seems believeable to me that there were m-84s on both sides (the exact same m-84s in this case).
I do like the look of that South Korean K1-88. I don't know why I find it so much cooler than the others.
5th gen tanks will more than likely be UGV's being able to be remotely operated from a chair thousands of miles away.
Shame omitted the bren carrier, although its not really a tank but more a tracked jeep, it did get manufactured throughout the 2nd and saw service everywhere and was much loved by those who used it properly. With tons of variations from machinegun , mortar and recoiless rifle platforms
i love your channel, i really do, im italian so eny grammar errors are possible, the tanks purpos is to engage and control a tarritory, the killing is a sad reality of it
If I were to hazard a guess, 4th generation tanks won't be defined by their armament, armour or communications systems, but by the integration of AI for targeting, reacting to threats, relaying with friendly units etc.
The role of the tank will have changed, so you could argue 4th generation tanks will just be a different type of armored vehicle with some tank like capabilities.
It's pretty clear that as drones continue to improve, they will become a hard asymmetric counter to traditional tanks.
You could see the tank becoming more of a mobile drone dispenser with improved command and control capabilities, as well as having anti drone, anti armor, and defensive capabilities.
Potentially even functioning as a networking node for a secure military communications/information network.
HEAT rounds don't melt through armor, it's kinetic
George, bravo! i was puzzled by the very minimal details about US tanks until i saw Your name. Well done! i admire Your truly uncanny writing talent !:-)