The Tank: Everything You Need to Know
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 янв 2024
- Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/SIMON to get a special offer.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored Keeps.
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
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.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
This is the kind of MP video I love. And over an hour long? Hell yeah.
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.
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 🫡
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.
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. 😥
One reason I love the UK.
In 1915 they developed their very first tank. 👍
And named it Little Willie.
That's classic. 👍👍
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.
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.
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.
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
Simon's level of entertainment at "Little Willy" and "Big Willy" is glorious
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)
Loving these deep dive Mega Projects! Keep them coming!!!
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.
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 😅
@ 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).
Thank you Simon and basement dwellers for the hard work you put in. 🎉🎉🎉
Great job on this video. It is good to see you expanding your horizons and creating these long length documentary style videos.
1.5 hours of Simon and friggin' tanks? Fu*k yes. Please and thank you.
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.
0:10 Very brave to show that image
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
The brilliance of "Hobart's Funnies" deserve their own mega project video...
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job.
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.
The battle of 72 Eastings shows just how superior American armor was to soviet tanks during the Gulf war
Love this video, military history is always fascinating
Really enjoyed this one Simon and the basement crew 🎉
I really enjoyed this longer format video. Great stuff.
I’m an old M1A1 Abram’s tank commander. Best job I ever had.
Great video covering the tank’s evolution enjoyed this one
Tanks for the informative and hilarious mega history documentary. Had me captivated from start to finish.
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
Its a common misconception that Rifling makes everything "better" or more accurate. Imparting a spin is A way to gain stability but not the ONLY way.
Great long format. More please!
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.
Good videos, but the tilted armor math is incorrect. 45 degree slopes is the square root of 2 of the 2 sides in a 90, 45, 45 triangle. Which means 45mm tilted 45 degrees has an effect thickness of 63.6mm, not 90mm.
Your math is not right, For the Sherman 63.5/COS (47) = 93.1mm of LOS thickness, For the T-34, 45/COS (60) = 90mm of LOS thickness for its frontal glacis armor. So, in did a 45mm plate angle to 60 degrees has an effective thickness of 90mm if you do use the right math. The formula: W/cos(θ)=x
@@viceralman8450 Are you saying my math is incorrect or the video's math is incorrect?
@@mcduvall2000 Yours the LOS thickness formula shows a 45mm plate at a 60-degrees offers 90mm of efective protection.
@viceralman8450 I never said anything about a 60 degree angle... my math is correct for a 45 45 90, the hypotenus is equal to the square root of 2 of either side as the sides are equal. While you can use trig and sohcahtoa to solve these, these are simple triangles, like the 30 60 90...
pleaseeeee make more videos like this, first firearms and now this‽ can’t get enough!
Another great episode. Fan of all your channels!
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.
Don't forget that even with HE shells, life isn't like video games. A HE round can still do a lot of damage, if not ring the bells of tank crew and repeated hits means (probable) distraction, deafening, ear bleeding, damged optics/components/tracks/wheels and if youre really unlucky - armor shattering and a measure of spalling internally.
I know Simon mentioned some of this but dont be fooled into thinking HE is "useless" or outdated. Sure, with modern designs-they're not that -effective- against (hardened) targets but it's still useful.
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.
HEAT rounds are kinetic, the explosion is used to speed up the copper into a super precise rod
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.
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.
Excellant watch, loved it. Thanks for this :~)
I love the image of the Challenger III with the rearview mirrors :)
great writing! awesome episode!
I love this format. Do another on aircraft!
Very ,very interesting! Thank you
Loving these super long deep dives. Can we revisit some of the short videos that deserve this amount of attention?
Having worked on M-60 and M-1 turrets, I'm a tad biased. Over all, this is a great doc.
My algorithm loves this particular Megaproject, yet I still smile at the Little Willie jokes every time.
BTW love that you used the US designation of Grant, not the name given by the UK of Lee.
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
thank you for putting this out. now aside from planes, i'll get more interested in tanks also... maybe you could also do ships
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 !:-)
Awesome video Simon and crew
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
Great video. Usual high quality production from Mega Projects. Surprised to see no mention of the experimental AbramsX though ....
Can't wait for the next video like this and the one on the gun
Wow I'm not even halfway through the video and already commenting fantastic deep dive please give us more
Wouldn't the M3 90mm have been a better choice to represent the ever growing caliber for the US segment? By the end of the war the M3 75mm was being largely phased out. Most new M4s were being made to the M4A3 (76) standard and those which were built with the 75mm gun were being rapidly up-gunned to the M1 76mm. The M26 Pershing and M36 Jackson with their powerful M3 90mm Gun had performed excellently against German armor in the closing year of the war.
By War's end the only tank in the US arsenal that made use of the 75mm as it's primary armament was the Chaffee. The premier anti-tank gun for the US by the end of the war was without a doubt the 90mm M3 and it's variants which was capable of frontally threatening most any tank in the world at the time at long range with it's T33 APC projectile. The only real exceptions to this were the frankly ridiculously heavily armored German vehicles of the late war period. Vehicles like the Tiger 2 or Germany's Self Propelled Guns like the Jagdtiger. However, anything short of these vehicles were very vulnerable to the weapon. Panther's could be gutted at out to a kilometer through their thickest armor and both the Tiger 1 and all variants of Panzer 4 would be torn asunder at any range the weapon could land a hit.
To put it bluntly and directly even before the end of the war the M3 75mm was already well known to be on the way out as US Armored Board knew that the 90mm gun was the way forward and the 90mm caliber remained standard for US Tanks from the M26 through the M46, M47, and M48 platforms. The 90mm only being fully replaced with the introduction of the 105mm gun on the M60 well into the Cold War.
Love the longer, more in depth videos. The same treatment for Bombers and Submarines would be good.
CC was short so is Simon “compensating” with an extra long MegaProject(s)?🤔😂This’ll be a fun watch!
My Boy Willie is ringing in my ears and the video hasn't even started yet 😅 🇨🇦
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.!
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.
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
Loved this!
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.
this vid is awesomeeee ty
Tune in next century to see a bearded head in a jar tell us about the history of the 'Mech...
5th gen will likely be remote-piloted tanks. Meaning drones. It's already a proven technology in the air and sea, and it's just a matter of time before someone does it for land warfare. Just need advanced real-time integrated coms and sensors like they're already building for the Challenger 3.
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.
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
I'm surprised ERA didn't get a mention.
Sure it is now pretty much all getting phased out, but explosive reactive armor was all the rage for a bit.
The lack of comment on why the APFSDS round became favored over HEAT and HESH (namely the ability of ERA and composite armor to defeat explosive penetration) did strike me as a bit disappointing. The Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were stranded with HEAT to be used against tanks designed *specifically* to defeat it.
It also baffles me that mention of autoloaders was saved until Chapter 5, when Soviet tanks were using the technology in the 1970s! And as a knock-on effect of their carousel ammo rack design, they can't use top-of-the-line APFSDS because the dimensions of the shells are too long for the T-72, T-80, and T-90's loaders!
ERA is not being phased out. Nice try though. It's still cutting edge.
ERA is not being phased out AT ALL and it won't be for a long long while, if anything it's becoming MORE popular
Phased out? Not a single modern AFV I know of doesnt feature some version of it.
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.
we think of big things as naturally slower moving but the main gun on a tank can fire rounds the size of a can of soda at speeds over twice as fast as a bullet from a sniper/hunting rifle. that destructive power is hard to picture if you haven't shot a rifle recently.but it's crazy.
Tanks alot bro!!! Aloha's stay safe out there 🤘👽😎👍⭐️🇺🇲
Omg nice research, you actually mentioned austria!
This one and a half hour monster of a video is a megaproject on its own
The music at the start of the the Cold war doesn't have to hit that hard!
But I appreciate it all the more!
Where:
Te = effective thickness of armour
Ta = actual thickness of armour
a = angle of armour (degrees from horizontal)
Te = Ta / cos(90 - a)
Accordingly, 100mm thick armour sloped at 45° has an effective thickness of 141mm. The same armour would need to be sloped at 30° to achieve an effective thickness of 200mm.
Fine video, but more in the end about the new Abrams and Rimital projects but good non the less.
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
48:15 effective thickness wasn't nearly as important as how the shell had to deal with lateral forces when penetrating and thus deflecting and shattering the penetrator.
Effective thickness mattered late in the war in the situation where there were high velocity projectiles (APCR/APDS) involved, but early on with relative modest angling the deflection had more of an impact than the suggested "effective thickness" would suggest.
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.
Love a good Doc
One of your better, good job!
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.
Preach, brother!
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
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.