@@urmothwr Funny. All West mass tank production - two and half tanks. USA only one tank factory - not build new tanks from 2017, only upgrade old corps
both the Chieftain and the T-64 also used opposed-piston engines, although theirs were diesel, and both of them had problems with their engines. the reliability of those engines improved with time, but it still makes using opposed-piston engines in the T95 now with hindsight seem a somewhat risky choice, although it does make sense for a tank that's testing out new technologies.
The Continental engine for the T95s is not a true opposed piston engine. The opposed piston engines in the Chieftain and the T64 are, as they have 2 pistons per cylinder pushing against each other, where as the "opposed" part of the Continental engine means the pistons are moving in opposite directions. The Continental engine would be better called a flat or boxer engine, like automotive engines such as those in Subarus, Porsches, Corvairs, etc.
The British Leyland L60 was fixed but it took 10 years! This was due largely to financial constraints of the broke Harold Wilson Labour Government. The main issue was cured by Belzona sealing compound that allowed the engine output to rise from Mk6A 650 bhp to Mk13A 950 bhp.
On the other hand, engines like the Commer Knocker and the Napier Deltic had quite good service histories, so I wouldn't say opposed piston engines are inherently a bad idea, just poorly implemented by the respective armed forces.
Opted out of using T26E1 and T-26E5 tech on M46 due to budget constraints. Opted out of building fully new tank with M47 due to budget constraints. Opted out of building T95 due to budget constraints. Opted out of composite armor and 120mm gun on M60 due to budget constraints. Opted out of MBT-70 due to budget constraints. And at the same time somehow build M103, M60A2 and Sheridan. Budget priorities...
I knew this tank cause of war thunder And dug into the history. The fact it got so much cool food but dropped is saddening What is more saddening is that it never got credit. Russian ended up getting more credit than they deserve
@@croskerk They did end up putting most of the things promised into action and produce it en masse, while America was suffering from development hell, which is reasonable, given how new technology is often found out. It's not like Russia isn't deserving of it, considering they have hundreds or thousands of T-62s and T-64/T-72s, while America had to be content with a stopgap of the M60 MBT.
@SilverStarHeggisist i know hahaa Its also that tankni got excited to because of that and how uniqur it was compared to the pattons. Next tank i got was the M60A2 and i gotta say, M60A2 and T95E1 is a great duo for 8.3. You got the deadly rod and deadly boom with laser rangefinder. Regardless, im glad that the T95E1 is my first MBT. US 8.3 solely is super strong. Though now I have one 8.7 vehicle cause patton, but i always find myself back at the T95E1. I also somehow survived many shots with the tonk
I had a chance to see on of the surviving T95 prototypes when I was stationed at Fort McCoy, WI in 1975-76. It was being turned into a radio-controlled target for the anti-tank M72 LAW training range, where it would be repeatedly struck by the 35 mm M73 training rocket fired from discarded LAW launchers. The M73 not having a hollow charge warhead, the only damage to the T95 woukd be to its paint! This would give trainees a better experience - having to deal with a maneuvering target rather than the typical stationary target on antitank ranges, and would be much safer to fire as the M73 did not have as fearsome as backblast as the M72. I rotated away into retirement before the T95 target project was finished, so I cannot say if it was a success. The T-95 we were working with may be one of the four still in existence.
@@steveyoutub76 Read the attached article about the T95 medium tank (not the T95 gun motor carriage) There were some surviving examples after the original project was ended, one of which I saw in 1976 and one of which is still in the tank museum.
The most influential prototype in the Tank industry. The knowledge gained was invaluable compared to the loss of not accepting it into service. I'm really glad you went over this unsung hero's development cycle.
The US really should thank the Soviet Union. The US is so far ahead technologically in part because every time the Soviets claimed they had a fake super weapon, the US would assume it was real and build a real counter to it.
US Vehicle development in a nutshell: > USSR makes new thing > It's good in some aspects, mostly shit or just mediocre in other aspects > They brag and make shit up to make it and them look scary > US sees it > Shit themselves > Go go gadget money > Creates a monster that was designed to specifically counter the vehicle's fake stats the Soviets made >Russia unable to even counter it for another 20 years, and at that point US already has replaced it
Another idiot who was huffing the hype propoganda the US was churning out, please tell us all who said the mig 25 was a fighter plane, not the soviets that for sure. 😅 Never get high of your own supply and never beleive your own propoganda and you wont be a idiot believing in US propoganda about soviet super weapons
And then the US inspired the Chinese by heavy sanctioning and relentless power projecting. The Chinese have their own aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and space station now.
the only other tank I've heard of with an electro-optical rangefinder is the Leopard 2 prototype with the T14 turret that had the EMES 13 electro-optical rangefinder and that was made in the 70s.
At first and very quick glance at 1:11 that curve at the front of the turret made me think they had slapped a pre-production Tiger II turret on. Was looking at the real thing at Tankfest on Friday so it's fresh in memory.
when i went through basic training ive been on busses passing one of the T95s in the photos at the beginning, was honestly suprised seeing it and a couple panzer 3s in the same fenced off yard
That explanation for composite was great. I've always assumed that it was just higher hardness values doing the work, I had never realised that glasses deformation properties payed such a large part. Kudos
Please do more videos like this, it's rather difficult to find information on these types of vehicles. Videos like this are what I love because it's easy to learn about these vehicles, thank you.
Thank you for the amazing and hella in-dept video - as always you've put 120% of yourself in it! As for the next one, I would love to see a video about the T110 project. In the game WoT it has 3 versions present - T110E5, which looks like the TS-31, you showed us on the picture at 4:03 ; T110E4 with a semi-traversalble turret and T110E3 with no turret as the latter 2 fit a 155 mm gun. I would love to know whether or not these are real, how did the project evolve from a turretless tank destroyer to a conventional heavy tank, what were these 155 mm monsters, what were the E1 and E2 variants like (and probably a clue why WG skipped to E3 in their game), and finally why did the T110E4 had such an awkwardly working turret. Would antisipate such a video - thank you in advance, Mr. RedWrench ❤
It appeared to be a weird mockup to demonstrate the hydro-pneumatic suspension at an engineering conference in Detroit! All we have is the caption on that photo.
15:42 I saw that tank in person with my BF!!! I was absolutely astounded to see it. I coulden't believe it was just sitting out in a quiet memorial park. I knew it was rare, but not "Best of 4 surviving examples" rare! Super cool video!
@@RedWrenchFilms I think the M60 deserves alot more attention. Its so overlooked and considered "inferior" but i feel there's alot more to it. The soft factors of this tank seem to be pretty good compared to just looking at the gun & armor and compare it to a T-64 & chieftain.
One of the two with the M48 turret was found on the range at Ft. McCoy WI recovered and last time I looked at it was one of two tanks acting as gate guards.
finally some coverages on the T95, back when I used to play WOTB/WOT, there were these T95s tanks ie T95/Chef, Cheft/T95, E2 and E6.. always wondered whether they existed lol
15:42 omg the tank in my home town, lately I’ve been wondering if it was some rare relic. Supposedly it ended up there because some of the local industry was involved in its production. I’m glad to say that despite the town declining, this was one thing they’ve taken pretty good care of over the years, it’s in a nice park with a cobra helicopter and Corsair fighter you can’t see in this shot. We were always proud of our steel mill and other industries, as well the town’s high military service rate, so this tank is sort of an extension of that. I wonder if anyone still knows how it ended up there.
@@RedWrenchFilms Thanks for answering. Maybe, IS 3 related video gonna do better :) By the way, may I suggest you an idea for future vid? Soviet program Совершенствование-88 (Development-88) and two tanks related to it. Object 640 and Object 195. Theme is pretty interesting and happened just a few decades ago. Would be great to learn about it, especially from such researcher as you.
@@FrikciyaI recently read about the "Development-88" and the Object 195 and the 640 projects. I also read some stuff on the Obj. 187 that was a "predecessor" to the 195 and a competing design to the Obj. 188 that would go on to become the T-90. Very interesting topic and I would love a video about those!
Judging by how well M60 proved itself to be in the Desert Storm and the fact it's still serving with some forces and getting upgrades, it was not as "mundane" as it was believed to be.
I am not sure why I love this tank, I just do. Nice to see it covered here and well explained. Mr. Moe is clearly the best of all of them. Psychological warfare kids, 90% of it is all mental, and that thing if you saw it coming for you would have you filling your trousers! I actually can't think of a more terrifying tank design ever. I have and enjoy the T95E2 in WOT and hope to get the rest of them some day. Including the LP-1 which looks like it fits right in. The e6 is tough though to get. A lot of commitment.
There’s one of these in Weirton West Virginia in a military park with a cobra helicopter and a few other things. It is labeled falsely as a British American tank prototype.
+1 From me on this one - in the game there a 3 versions of it - T110E3 - a turret less design, somewhat of an upgrade to the T95 (yes, that T95); T110E4 - a semi-travetsable turret design (these 2 fit a 155 mm cannon in WoT); and the T110E5 (which seems to be the TS-31, you showed early in the video). There's no doubt - there are E1 and E2 variants of this tank, but as per usual the game provides no plausible explanation
@@veselindimov307 yeah it would be so nice to cover this soon knowing that there are scale mock ups of this Vehicle and that was the base information what the game used
Could you make a video about some Easter European vechicles? For example SKOT/OT-64, PT-91 or the convoluted history through many propositions of Polish BMP-1 modernisations, BWP-2000, Anders platform and how they all lead to IFV Borsuk.
You didn’t mention that a torpedo tube armed version was also tested. It fired a modified Mark 48 torpedo but was rejected as it did not perform well in conditions of rain and moisture.
Ideally they should have put the 90mm in the t96 turret with the wider tracks, better suspension and more powerful engine. Then it would have been fine
The actual first tanks using composite armor, stretching the definition of composite armor to its very limits, are the Shermans and T-34s equipped with addon concrete armor. If the killdozer's steel and concrete sandwich was considered composite armor, then so does this.
Britain: Develops a strong upgradable tank with 120mm rifled barrel that fires hesh USSR: develops mass-produced composite-containing state-of-the-art tank with 125mm gun USA: develops smoothbore-gun 120mm tank that used new tech with some containing hydropneumatic suspension Welcome Back
I think a major concern that might have gotten overlooked is how much the tank looks like a Soviet model at times. 10:26, if that was in a confused combat situation, a stressed or frightened gunner or commander might call that out as a T-62. Especially from the back.
Feels like the T25/T26 project determined 20 years of US tank design, and those 20 years were used "discovering" the M1 Abrams through a whole lot of failed programs. It seems like a trend with US tanks; they get stuck on some design for extended periods of time before jumping forward dramatically (Sherman, Pershing/Patton, Abrams). I'm not sure it's a good thing 😅.
The T62 was fist tank with smooth bore but fist tank in service not first tank prototype as T95 thats difference also T64 was also fist serial production tank with composite armor cuz while other nations testing new desing CCCP just pushed it to service to show how strong they was as super power at the time, and this lead to basicly to radical new desings in western tank designers as well. BTW cool video mate.
0:46 They have. The T-62 and T-64 have been both mass produced...the T95 wasn't. Not to mention the T95 technologies were unreliable and the smoothbore gun was horribly inaccurate.
Except that neither tank should have entered mass production. The T-62 pushed the existing Soviet tank technology of the time past the breaking point (there's a reason why it was never given to any other Warsaw Pact nation), and the T-64 proved to be an ever bigger bust. It wasn't until the T-72 appeared in the early 1970s that the Soviets had a workable MBT to replace the T-55. The USA saved itself a lot of money and effort by not concentrating on immature technology.
@@petergray2712 T-62 was an excellent design, although troublesome in the beggining. T-64 was basically a ''supertank'', but with many flaws that were sorted out too...after the flaws of the T-64 were fixed it became the best tank on the battlefield until NATO caught up with the thermal sight equipped Abrams and later models of Leopard 2. T-72s surpassed T-64 only in sheer numbers and later in technology (about 1985)...
Mitsubishi incorporate the hydropneumatic feature into the Type 74. Don't know if it was an independent development or not. For some reason I see a resemblance of sorts (I could be wrong though) of the T95 in the Type 74.
i always thought the T95 and the Type 74 was some weird both country development program do to the similarity in shape and both having hydropneumatic suspension
Could you make a video of M60 vs the Soviet tanks of it's time. The M60 looks unimpressive on paper, but for some reason, seemed to have performed and still performs well. I'm going to guess it's advantages are mainly in it's ergonomics and optics since I heard it said they are good, though it's hard to visualize what that actually means.
Non-recoiling guns take up far less space as they don't need room in the turret to move, nor have any recoil mechanism to take up even more space in the turret. To still be able to absorb the energy of firing, the armour in direct contact with the breech, as well as the elevation trunnion, need to be reinforced, often resulting in really absurd sounding armour values for those areas. Rigidly mounted guns absolutely have their adivantages in terms of space-saving and armour protection in relation to their weight compared to recoiling guns. But as tank cannons were able to exhert more and more energy, the level of armour required to absorb the recoil became excessive, hence why rigidly mpunted guns never really took off. There are many examples of working rigidly mounted tank guns, such as the experimental 32-pdr (94mm) Centurion tank, but these are singular cases that stand on their own.
@@ZETH_27 That sounds like it would be wery expensive to produce or mentain. I gues in long run it was deamed unacceptable from logistic and industrial reasons
More armor, to absorb recoil. Massive space saving potential. Depending on how the mount is made, less weight for the vertical traverse to balance. Cheaper, less complex.
@@ledzik1893 as long as the gun's recoil-forces aren't that intense, rigidly mounted guns can handle it just fine, woth no particular maintenance quirks over recoil-mounted guns. If anything they require less maintenance and checkups since there is no fluid nor springs involved.
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer.
bit.ly/RedWrenchFilms
Thanks for watching :)
STILL, Prototypes !!!
Deez
War thunder after watching this video:📝
An American tank with a 120mm smoothbore main gun and composite armor?
"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."
Lol
Russian tank with 125mm main gun
- Hold my beer...
@@romankovalev7894 you forgot the part where it got outclassed the very second the west started full scale production on theirs
@@urmothwr
Funny. All West mass tank production - two and half tanks. USA only one tank factory - not build new tanks from 2017, only upgrade old corps
@@urmothwr wdym? When the T-64 and T-72 were introduced, they were very competitive for their time and even top end.
both the Chieftain and the T-64 also used opposed-piston engines, although theirs were diesel, and both of them had problems with their engines. the reliability of those engines improved with time, but it still makes using opposed-piston engines in the T95 now with hindsight seem a somewhat risky choice, although it does make sense for a tank that's testing out new technologies.
The Continental engine for the T95s is not a true opposed piston engine. The opposed piston engines in the Chieftain and the T64 are, as they have 2 pistons per cylinder pushing against each other, where as the "opposed" part of the Continental engine means the pistons are moving in opposite directions. The Continental engine would be better called a flat or boxer engine, like automotive engines such as those in Subarus, Porsches, Corvairs, etc.
The British Leyland L60 was fixed but it took 10 years! This was due largely to financial constraints of the broke Harold Wilson Labour Government. The main issue was cured by Belzona sealing compound that allowed the engine output to rise from Mk6A 650 bhp to Mk13A 950 bhp.
@@billballbuster7186wtf belzona? This looks like an advertisement lol
@@JazzBerri Maybe, but Belzona Sealants is what they used and it worked
On the other hand, engines like the Commer Knocker and the Napier Deltic had quite good service histories, so I wouldn't say opposed piston engines are inherently a bad idea, just poorly implemented by the respective armed forces.
Opted out of using T26E1 and T-26E5 tech on M46 due to budget constraints.
Opted out of building fully new tank with M47 due to budget constraints.
Opted out of building T95 due to budget constraints.
Opted out of composite armor and 120mm gun on M60 due to budget constraints.
Opted out of MBT-70 due to budget constraints.
And at the same time somehow build M103, M60A2 and Sheridan.
Budget priorities...
Good points...
All POS's by the way.
"Budgetary concerns" in the 1950's means "The Air Force took the money meant for every other branch."
@@evanulven8249 tbf after decades of Air Force priority the USAF is the best in the world.
For those of use in defense manufacturing, it makes a ton of sense. The retooling costs alone would easily make up 10%-20% of the programs cost
So forgotten i litterally never heard about it, actually.
Nice !
I knew this tank cause of war thunder
And dug into the history. The fact it got so much cool food but dropped is saddening
What is more saddening is that it never got credit. Russian ended up getting more credit than they deserve
@@croskerk They did end up putting most of the things promised into action and produce it en masse, while America was suffering from development hell, which is reasonable, given how new technology is often found out. It's not like Russia isn't deserving of it, considering they have hundreds or thousands of T-62s and T-64/T-72s, while America had to be content with a stopgap of the M60 MBT.
@groadmiralinerika2540 yeah, russia still deserve credit though things from other nations still deserve their own credit and attention.
@@croskerk I remember being excited in war thunder playing a American main cause this is the first American tank you unlock with APFSDS
@SilverStarHeggisist i know hahaa
Its also that tankni got excited to because of that and how uniqur it was compared to the pattons. Next tank i got was the M60A2 and i gotta say, M60A2 and T95E1 is a great duo for 8.3. You got the deadly rod and deadly boom with laser rangefinder.
Regardless, im glad that the T95E1 is my first MBT.
US 8.3 solely is super strong. Though now I have one 8.7 vehicle cause patton, but i always find myself back at the T95E1.
I also somehow survived many shots with the tonk
I had a chance to see on of the surviving T95 prototypes when I was stationed at Fort McCoy, WI in 1975-76. It was being turned into a radio-controlled target for the anti-tank M72 LAW training range, where it would be repeatedly struck by the 35 mm M73 training rocket fired from discarded LAW launchers. The M73 not having a hollow charge warhead, the only damage to the T95 woukd be to its paint! This would give trainees a better experience - having to deal with a maneuvering target rather than the typical stationary target on antitank ranges, and would be much safer to fire as the M73 did not have as fearsome as backblast as the M72. I rotated away into retirement before the T95 target project was finished, so I cannot say if it was a success. The T-95 we were working with may be one of the four still in existence.
t 95 in 1976?..no
@@steveyoutub76 Read the attached article about the T95 medium tank (not the T95 gun motor carriage) There were some surviving examples after the original project was ended, one of which I saw in 1976 and one of which is still in the tank museum.
Can confirm that the tank is still there at McCoy. It's now apart of McCoy's Museum or Commemorative Area as the TE95. It has the M48 turret on it.
It’s crazy how these tanks then evolved to look like the tank we all know and love today. Technology is so fast man
next, SPAA history
This’d be lovely to watch
would be good
Yes!
Yes
Yes!
The most influential prototype in the Tank industry. The knowledge gained was invaluable compared to the loss of not accepting it into service. I'm really glad you went over this unsung hero's development cycle.
The US really should thank the Soviet Union. The US is so far ahead technologically in part because every time the Soviets claimed they had a fake super weapon, the US would assume it was real and build a real counter to it.
lol
F-15 to counter the Mig-25 comes to mind 👀
US Vehicle development in a nutshell:
> USSR makes new thing
> It's good in some aspects, mostly shit or just mediocre in other aspects
> They brag and make shit up to make it and them look scary
> US sees it
> Shit themselves
> Go go gadget money
> Creates a monster that was designed to specifically counter the vehicle's fake stats the Soviets made
>Russia unable to even counter it for another 20 years, and at that point US already has replaced it
Another idiot who was huffing the hype propoganda the US was churning out, please tell us all who said the mig 25 was a fighter plane, not the soviets that for sure. 😅 Never get high of your own supply and never beleive your own propoganda and you wont be a idiot believing in US propoganda about soviet super weapons
And then the US inspired the Chinese by heavy sanctioning and relentless power projecting. The Chinese have their own aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and space station now.
the only other tank I've heard of with an electro-optical rangefinder is the Leopard 2 prototype with the T14 turret that had the EMES 13 electro-optical rangefinder and that was made in the 70s.
At first and very quick glance at 1:11 that curve at the front of the turret made me think they had slapped a pre-production Tiger II turret on. Was looking at the real thing at Tankfest on Friday so it's fresh in memory.
when i went through basic training ive been on busses passing one of the T95s in the photos at the beginning, was honestly suprised seeing it and a couple panzer 3s in the same fenced off yard
What year where? Panzer 3s are like rare.
If yall think thats cool
They have an Me262 at the USAF musuem in ohio
@@garyslayton8340 "Only in Ohi- GET OUT!!!"
@@garyslayton8340Dayton Air Force museum is the best, I’ve went there a lot.
That explanation for composite was great.
I've always assumed that it was just higher hardness values doing the work, I had never realised that glasses deformation properties payed such a large part. Kudos
What you described as your assumtion is face harden armor
It was kind revolutianery for ship armor
Please do more videos like this, it's rather difficult to find information on these types of vehicles.
Videos like this are what I love because it's easy to learn about these vehicles, thank you.
Babe wake up, RedWrenchFilms post a new video
finally someone talking about this tank, w interesting explanation
Thank you for the amazing and hella in-dept video - as always you've put 120% of yourself in it! As for the next one, I would love to see a video about the T110 project. In the game WoT it has 3 versions present - T110E5, which looks like the TS-31, you showed us on the picture at 4:03 ; T110E4 with a semi-traversalble turret and T110E3 with no turret as the latter 2 fit a 155 mm gun. I would love to know whether or not these are real, how did the project evolve from a turretless tank destroyer to a conventional heavy tank, what were these 155 mm monsters, what were the E1 and E2 variants like (and probably a clue why WG skipped to E3 in their game), and finally why did the T110E4 had such an awkwardly working turret. Would antisipate such a video - thank you in advance, Mr. RedWrench ❤
Finally, a video on one of my favorite tanks, the T95E6!
Excellent analysis. A well run prototype program results in endless innovation, whether it goes into this decades production or the next.
May we have some elaboration on the backstory of "Mr. Mo"?
It appeared to be a weird mockup to demonstrate the hydro-pneumatic suspension at an engineering conference in Detroit! All we have is the caption on that photo.
@@RedWrenchFilmsI want to track down who made it and just ask why or how they even thought of... that
@@Idontknow4 Ask the sweedish 🙂
15:42 I saw that tank in person with my BF!!! I was absolutely astounded to see it. I coulden't believe it was just sitting out in a quiet memorial park. I knew it was rare, but not "Best of 4 surviving examples" rare! Super cool video!
A video on the m60 would be cool
👀
@@RedWrenchFilms Due it!
@@RedWrenchFilms I think the M60 deserves alot more attention. Its so overlooked and considered "inferior" but i feel there's alot more to it. The soft factors of this tank seem to be pretty good compared to just looking at the gun & armor and compare it to a T-64 & chieftain.
One of the two with the M48 turret was found on the range at Ft. McCoy WI recovered and last time I looked at it was one of two tanks acting as gate guards.
Good, smart writing and great delivery... Thx!
Glad you liked it!
oh hey I just had an argument with someone about this yesterday, perfect timing.
finally some coverages on the T95, back when I used to play WOTB/WOT, there were these T95s tanks ie T95/Chef, Cheft/T95, E2 and E6.. always wondered whether they existed lol
Like countless things. It was too ahead of its time. That is absolutely wild. Awesome video!!!
Kane Pixels needs to take a look at Mr. Mo. 15:47
Imagine he used heritahe and discovered Patton was his gramp
15:42 omg the tank in my home town, lately I’ve been wondering if it was some rare relic. Supposedly it ended up there because some of the local industry was involved in its production. I’m glad to say that despite the town declining, this was one thing they’ve taken pretty good care of over the years, it’s in a nice park with a cobra helicopter and Corsair fighter you can’t see in this shot. We were always proud of our steel mill and other industries, as well the town’s high military service rate, so this tank is sort of an extension of that. I wonder if anyone still knows how it ended up there.
To be aware of a single shortcoming in oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else.
it reminds me of the conqueror from war thunder
also great video!
The t-95 I'd in war thunder
great engrish lul
Jokes aside yee is in WT
@@venuasaur560 a single variation is, there isnt the t95e2 tho, which would be much better
WOW, great vid!
Sir i think the 90mm and 105mm is enou-
American Tank designer: MORE!
Wrench, is your Soviet Heavy Series still ongoing?
Sort of! The IS-6 video didn't do quite as well as I hoped.
@@RedWrenchFilms Thanks for answering. Maybe, IS 3 related video gonna do better :) By the way, may I suggest you an idea for future vid? Soviet program Совершенствование-88 (Development-88) and two tanks related to it. Object 640 and Object 195.
Theme is pretty interesting and happened just a few decades ago. Would be great to learn about it, especially from such researcher as you.
@@FrikciyaI recently read about the "Development-88" and the Object 195 and the 640 projects. I also read some stuff on the Obj. 187 that was a "predecessor" to the 195 and a competing design to the Obj. 188 that would go on to become the T-90.
Very interesting topic and I would love a video about those!
I love Mr. Mo. Probably my second favourite tank next to the Bob Semple
This video is amazing, even though I didn't finish it.
Huh
They're all weird looking but I like how weird and for their time how futuristic it looks.
are you doing tank encyclopedia videos also ? awesome video man
Can you do american tank numbering next? Luv ur vids btw
Speaking of the t95, can you make a video about the t92?, also btw at 3:18; my mom and both my aunts work there
Really great video, could you do more about Japan's tanks
From my perspective, the T95 died because it looks ugly
D: no
All American tank are ugly begin frome m3 lee
XD no
They're not much uglier than the m60 though (not saying the m60 is ugly)
Tutel
Judging by how well M60 proved itself to be in the Desert Storm and the fact it's still serving with some forces and getting upgrades, it was not as "mundane" as it was believed to be.
Luckily for the M60 mundane does not mean incapable!
Mundane sometimes goes hand in hand with rugged and reliable.
What's the weird one with 6 road wheels at 1:43?
I am not sure why I love this tank, I just do. Nice to see it covered here and well explained. Mr. Moe is clearly the best of all of them. Psychological warfare kids, 90% of it is all mental, and that thing if you saw it coming for you would have you filling your trousers! I actually can't think of a more terrifying tank design ever.
I have and enjoy the T95E2 in WOT and hope to get the rest of them some day. Including the LP-1 which looks like it fits right in. The e6 is tough though to get. A lot of commitment.
There’s one of these in Weirton West Virginia in a military park with a cobra helicopter and a few other things. It is labeled falsely as a British American tank prototype.
Can you cover soon the T110 Tanks? I really like their T110E5, the only depiction it has is only in the Game
+1 From me on this one - in the game there a 3 versions of it - T110E3 - a turret less design, somewhat of an upgrade to the T95 (yes, that T95); T110E4 - a semi-travetsable turret design (these 2 fit a 155 mm cannon in WoT); and the T110E5 (which seems to be the TS-31, you showed early in the video). There's no doubt - there are E1 and E2 variants of this tank, but as per usual the game provides no plausible explanation
@@veselindimov307 yeah it would be so nice to cover this soon knowing that there are scale mock ups of this Vehicle and that was the base information what the game used
Would be interesting to see a video about Turm III aka Erprobungsträger mit 3-achs-stabilisiertem Turm
15:50
Can't sleep.
Clowns will eat me.
Could you make a video about some Easter European vechicles? For example SKOT/OT-64, PT-91 or the convoluted history through many propositions of Polish BMP-1 modernisations, BWP-2000, Anders platform and how they all lead to IFV Borsuk.
Finally this tonk get recognition
You didn’t mention that a torpedo tube armed version was also tested. It fired a modified Mark 48 torpedo but was rejected as it did not perform well in conditions of rain and moisture.
That would be inconvenient for something that needs to work in the water 😂
Ideally they should have put the 90mm in the t96 turret with the wider tracks, better suspension and more powerful engine. Then it would have been fine
Please give us metric units as well! I Have no idea how fast 1 mile/s is. Video is great tho, I like the way you present your videos.
The actual first tanks using composite armor, stretching the definition of composite armor to its very limits, are the Shermans and T-34s equipped with addon concrete armor. If the killdozer's steel and concrete sandwich was considered composite armor, then so does this.
I get the feeling composite armour has to be built as a composite to really “count” but I see what you mean haha
11:55 that one is from Finland, Parola tank museum
Very interesting. Thank you. I knew very little about these U.S. Projects.
Britain: Develops a strong upgradable tank with 120mm rifled barrel that fires hesh
USSR: develops mass-produced composite-containing state-of-the-art tank with 125mm gun
USA: develops smoothbore-gun 120mm tank that used new tech with some containing hydropneumatic suspension
Welcome Back
I know he said e2 but there's never videos on them so does anyone else really like the t54e1 and t69 American autoloading prototypes
Awesome video! Next one: Cobra helicopter variants, please :)
12:42 where's the link :c its not in the description
Added now! Thanks
I think a major concern that might have gotten overlooked is how much the tank looks like a Soviet model at times. 10:26, if that was in a confused combat situation, a stressed or frightened gunner or commander might call that out as a T-62. Especially from the back.
Feels like the T25/T26 project determined 20 years of US tank design, and those 20 years were used "discovering" the M1 Abrams through a whole lot of failed programs. It seems like a trend with US tanks; they get stuck on some design for extended periods of time before jumping forward dramatically (Sherman, Pershing/Patton, Abrams). I'm not sure it's a good thing 😅.
The T62 was fist tank with smooth bore but fist tank in service not first tank prototype as T95 thats difference also T64 was also fist serial production tank with composite armor cuz while other nations testing new desing CCCP just pushed it to service to show how strong they was as super power at the time, and this lead to basicly to radical new desings in western tank designers as well. BTW cool video mate.
There's one of the Frankenstein versions sitting at the amvets post in armada,Michigan
There is, or was a T-95E2 displayed at the front gate of Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin. Saw it back in late 1990 just before the first gulf war.
While it might have been forgotten and destined to fail, it truly is HOT
I was not prepared for Mr Mo
Finally I know the history of this tank. Been using it in war thunder all week.
Link to the DTIC report is missing for me.
Fixed! I forgot :(
Is the T95 with the 152mm rocket launcher the M60a2? Looks like it
1:27 bro in the tank hates his job
First good explanation of why composite armors work so much better against CE rounds.
@@Kias1dad Appreciate it!
YES!
Interesting and gorgeous tank
0:46 They have. The T-62 and T-64 have been both mass produced...the T95 wasn't. Not to mention the T95 technologies were unreliable and the smoothbore gun was horribly inaccurate.
If only the nice man said that in the video!
that last part... i feel it, in war thunder the gun shoots everywhere
Except that neither tank should have entered mass production. The T-62 pushed the existing Soviet tank technology of the time past the breaking point (there's a reason why it was never given to any other Warsaw Pact nation), and the T-64 proved to be an ever bigger bust. It wasn't until the T-72 appeared in the early 1970s that the Soviets had a workable MBT to replace the T-55. The USA saved itself a lot of money and effort by not concentrating on immature technology.
@@petergray2712 T-62 was an excellent design, although troublesome in the beggining. T-64 was basically a ''supertank'', but with many flaws that were sorted out too...after the flaws of the T-64 were fixed it became the best tank on the battlefield until NATO caught up with the thermal sight equipped Abrams and later models of Leopard 2. T-72s surpassed T-64 only in sheer numbers and later in technology (about 1985)...
war thunder should make an event where it's just a deathmatch between all the different T95 variants
I would love to see gaijin at the other team 95 variants is there a event tanks or battle pass tanks or even as update tanks
i often forget how many tanks are just named after years
Boy, the T95 sure looks a lot like the T62 and the T64. I wonder how that happened.
I just realised this was posted 20 min ago lol
what tank?, sorry i forgot.. but anyway great video
3:48
TS-31 looks like the Obj 120
Mitsubishi incorporate the hydropneumatic feature into the Type 74. Don't know if it was an independent development or not. For some reason I see a resemblance of sorts (I could be wrong though) of the T95 in the Type 74.
6:29 FAVORITE PROTOTYPE TANKK MENTIONED??!!!!! (T95e2)
Cool i never knew this
You appear to have fallen for the classic T28 heavy tank misnomer.
It was called both at different times.
@@doobs5342 This is the reason people get confused and call it T95, they missed the memo that it was named back to T28 like it was originally called.
I don't care what people say about it, the T95 is beautiful in my opinion.
Hey I like Mr. Moe. He looks really cool... In a creepy sorta way. 😂
The T95E1 is a interesting tank in warthunder. It makes more sense now.
Bruh after hearing this I just thought wait why was the mbt70 not use composite armour
i always thought the T95 and the Type 74 was some weird both country development program do to the similarity in shape and both having hydropneumatic suspension
Type 74 and amx30 look alike too
Archimedes probably had quite a good idea of how things are able to fly, built something that could glide, is he the inventor of the airplane ?
Could you make a video of M60 vs the Soviet tanks of it's time. The M60 looks unimpressive on paper, but for some reason, seemed to have performed and still performs well. I'm going to guess it's advantages are mainly in it's ergonomics and optics since I heard it said they are good, though it's hard to visualize what that actually means.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me Nice idea!
Ft. McCoy Wisconsin has one on display.
There’s also one in a park in Weirton West Virginia
@@liamdenny1414 just googled it and it looks to be in great shape.
Why anyone would want to mount a cannon on a nonrecoiling mount? What are the advantages? I can't comprehend it
Non-recoiling guns take up far less space as they don't need room in the turret to move, nor have any recoil mechanism to take up even more space in the turret. To still be able to absorb the energy of firing, the armour in direct contact with the breech, as well as the elevation trunnion, need to be reinforced, often resulting in really absurd sounding armour values for those areas.
Rigidly mounted guns absolutely have their adivantages in terms of space-saving and armour protection in relation to their weight compared to recoiling guns.
But as tank cannons were able to exhert more and more energy, the level of armour required to absorb the recoil became excessive, hence why rigidly mpunted guns never really took off. There are many examples of working rigidly mounted tank guns, such as the experimental 32-pdr (94mm) Centurion tank, but these are singular cases that stand on their own.
@@ZETH_27 That sounds like it would be wery expensive to produce or mentain. I gues in long run it was deamed unacceptable from logistic and industrial reasons
More armor, to absorb recoil. Massive space saving potential. Depending on how the mount is made, less weight for the vertical traverse to balance. Cheaper, less complex.
@@ledzik1893 as long as the gun's recoil-forces aren't that intense, rigidly mounted guns can handle it just fine, woth no particular maintenance quirks over recoil-mounted guns. If anything they require less maintenance and checkups since there is no fluid nor springs involved.
@@ZETH_27 i think that suspension would suffer quite significant forces
It's no panzer 1
Awesome video!!!!