as a professional gamer I have played literally thousands of games but never have I played a game as incredible as War Thunder click the link to play today
My words cannot express the wonder I feel to be alive during the time where weapons grade lasers are utilized, nor the pride I feel that it is my beloved United States that has made this a reality, along with an appreciation that my Marine Corps' favorite water taxi, the USN that helped develop the system.
They should tailor the Phalanx with an optical gunsight if they're serious about close encounters. That makes this thing look like a semi-auto pellet gun.
Do you mean the PHALANX TRACKING PEDESTAL offered by L3 Harris? "The Phalanx Tracking Pedestal combines rugged, high-precision electro-optical instrumentation with the flexibility to serve on a variety of vessels and weapon platforms. It offers superior close-in fire control performance in a small, reliable, lightweight, easy-to-maintain system"
@@makegaminggreatagain3907it's all about the external motor used to drive the action (usually connected to it by a chain or belt) instead of using propellant gas or other internal mechanism
@@gazbags9136 How about you tell everyone how to turn a simple pair of basic definitions: "The cycling of a machine gun is powered by the propellant gasses. The cycling of a chain gun is powered by an external motor.", into a video. Ya know, instead of critiquing.
And what he forgot to tell you that the damn thing was a maintenance intensive nightmare and the damn things were ALWAYS breaking, Couldn't get though a single pac fire with one of em breaking some internal component. Now the M2...Never had issues with em, ammo yes, guns, no. Super reliable.
Add programable fused ammunition to this, and they’d up the hit probability a bunch, for air burst capability on soft targets, plus reduce the probability of cross fire incidents, like in confined areas like ports.
Why? That gun isn't particularly accurate & the targets aren't armoured so a bigger round doesn't really add anything. Its lower muzzle velocity so its going to be trickier to get an accurate shot at long distances. If they want to send more rounds down range there are plenty of 20mm Phalanx guns that can be used. Plus, that gun is gigantic making it difficult to mount & even harder to track on a moving target. So no, they probably shouldn't use the GAU-8.
As we continue developing AI defensive programs like the one the Phalynx CIWS uses it’s only going to get better letting AI use its 26.5 BILLION tasks PER SECOND ability to calculate offsets , ship roll and movement etc it’s going to continue to make our ships and everything safer and safer
So the early version had a range of 7400 yards and the mod3 had a range of 8400 feet? I think the US should adopt the metric system if they think this is an improvement…
Hmmm...... Makes me wonder exactly how much brass that the navy dumps overboard per year, not just in combat situations, but also in training as well ?
I’m not sure if the video depicted is the actual shots fired during testing but it sure seems to me the gun is missing the target. I see splashes all over the place for such an ‘accurate’ gun. There even was a video edit switching from the boat to the scene of the boat on fire.
I understand why you think that. They walk the rounds up onto target. Also some rounds pierce through while some deflect and strike the water near boat. I've watched a lot of footage that looks like Misses but actually ended up being dead on. I'm not sure if it's just camera angle or what
you are misunderstanding the terms being used. using weapons on Board is inherently complicated due to the changing movement speed and direction of both the attacking vessel and the target, the rocking of the ship on the waves and the rising and falling of the ship with the swell of the waves. as a result of the motion mentioned, in many cases an operator may use a "strafing" technique that runs through the target guaranteeing the hits. a good way to tel the difference between an accurate vs inaccurate gun is if the rounds land in a clean grouping or a straight "stitching" pattern or if the rounds are spreading out randomly. this can be verified if you took an oerlikon gun to a standard shooting range, the rounds will spread out over a radius from the target. a remotely controlled bushmaster mk.38, on the same range, could easily hit all its rounds within a 4' by 4' target at 3000 yards. additionally, when remote controlled, the rounds may land not on the digital crosshairs of the electronic scope - so the user can input milliradian corrections that would correct the alignment with the following rounds landing on target.
Accurate it is not! Or the gunner needs more training. So what is it? I understand they are at sea with both moving in three dimensions yet that hit pattern is ten times larger than the target. Some of those rounds are way off. I can't tell how far they are shooting though or if the footage is showing the enhanced version. Just wow... Can't believe people are saying they are walking the target when they clearly are on target since rounds are going way above, below, and almost hitting before going off again.
@@dianapennepacker6854 It’s mixed footage so it’s hard to tell the difference between the manually operated guns and the electronically stabilized remote controlled guns. My experience is with firing the typhoon RCWS system (which is built around the bushmaster m242 gun)
"Equipped with an eye safe rangefinder". Of course. We would not want to hurt our target before we deep fry it with a 60kW laser then fill it full of 25mm high explosive rounds!
It's policed up and recycled, at least when I worked on the range at Stone Bay that's what happened. Shooters policed it up, it was then brought on carts to a place where it was sorted, and recycled.
I have only minor notes. It's a video about a weapon system and not a weapon per se. And as for the weapon, it is not a machine gun, but a small caliber automatic cannon. According to the international definition, machine guns are fully automatic weapons up to 20 mm, realistically today the maximum calibers are 12.7 mm / .50" and 14.5 mm / .57". A machine gun is definitely not a 25 mm / .984" caliber weapon.
@@retiredbore378 It's not our fault, but rather an American simplification. Because even in the past, European armories still distinguished rapid-fire cannons and machine guns.
Unfortunately I am under the belief that the Naval Assets of the USA are woefully inadequate of attacks from Chinese and others whose plans of massive MISSLE launches at our ships that cannot be properly defended against at this time, maybe to a smaller degree but not after the 2nd, 3rd or more attacks especially if the ship sustained any damage
@@SB-qm5wgThe flaw in your thinking is that the weapons the US acknowledges are usually about 20 years behind what they actually have. Combine that with an unwarranted belief in CCP propaganda, and it's pretty clear that China ends a few hours after any attack on Taiwan.
18yrs of an IT career and four years of military, 19D Cav Scout, but current no direct experience with AI. That being said if we have CIWS shooting down supersonic missiles autonomously then I fail to see how the same kind of target acquisition systems could not handle far slower targets with the same accuracy. It also begs the question, what is your practical experience with AI and target acquisition systems?
impressively hits water that's kinda close to targets. Not ONE ROUND impacted a target during this video (except on land). If it can't hit targets over 95% in PRACTICE, it SUCKS! 99% should be the minimum for computer controlled chain gun. wtf.
I really like your channel and watch all your videos, but could you please also add the metric measurements in your videos? For all the people living outside of the United States, Liberia or Myanmar...
Anyone know how well these newer C-wiz style turrets hold up to actual enemy fire? While I know they work great, but I wonder how resilient to something that actually shoots back for once lol. It's not like guns in the past that had large armor shields. They kinda look pretty exposed. Maybe it's been so long since any shot back in a substantial manner that they just quit doing shields? But yeah seems like one round to the optic head would render it null and void? But I guess they have other weapons that are armored on board for it that happens. I hope lol
@Whateverpoopiepants As in what exactly? I'm asking because in actual battles vs other ships like it, or land based ports etc... they shoot back. Accuracy? Well, bombs and missiles have a radius that's pretty darn big. Accuracy isn't as hard as many think. Volume of fire alone can make any weapon system "accurate" enough. Lastly, many larger systems have proximity fuses. So any time it senses it's close to a target it will air burst. Thus making it very, very accurate. It's how we won vs Japan in the pacific basically when we invented the proximity fuse. So with all that being said, that's why I simply asked. I'm not saying the ship is defenseless at all. As I said they have armor plated conventional guns that will surely take a beating. I'm just wondering how long one like this actually can tho. I know it's not considered a primary system. But yeah just seems a little frail yet still. That's all. Then simply asking if anyone has seen how much damage they actually can withstand if needed. So I know it's fine for 99% of what we need done these days. But some areas seem to use this style system on land based turrets as a primary defense system. It just seems to me it would be rendered useless pretty easy if someone actually attacked it. If all that makes any sense lol
@@hughgrection3052->> … I think the whole thing was partially driven by taking the actual gunner and removing them from exposure; operating the weapon from within the ship itself. It’s hard to imagine how sensors such as those could possibly be armored to any great extent without rendering them blind. It may be that they routinely carry spares of any part of the weapon that kind of sticks out; or is in a vulnerable position in general, so it might be a simple matter of disconnecting a couple of cable connectors, and removing some bolts to have the gun back in operation. When it comes down to it, anything that endangers a piece of hardware, even an expensive one, instead of endangering a sailor’s life is something we should do. Americans are kind of funny that way, right?
Biggest question I have is. If it can be controlled remotely from the safe interior of the ship, why were the operators wearing all the gear as if being outside? Is it because they might have to go outside to service the weapon?
Until you get a milliwatt laser you're never going to have a chance to shoot down any UFOs or you a piece or whatever you call them now you have to surround the laser beam with a dual magnetic fields spinning in opposite directions you need a very good computer to run it cuz the fields have to spend very very fast almost the speed of light you know there's no moving parts that this switches on and off at the speed of light I can show you how to build one if you don't know how but I will not contact you you could find me if you're serious
I gota say. It NOT ACCURATE. The vid shows a speed boat at 750 yrds. The rounds are all over the ocean. Not one hits the red Speed boat. . Give me a 50cal any day.
Coping russian, haha ukraine dont want nato and American military equipment because it fragile compared to soviet or russian, everything from sams to howitzer to tanks, nato tanks on varm day and colder night electronics dosent work. Zelenski said in Norway to all nato countries please digg for soviet era military equipment because that I wrote above
👌 NATO weapon systems are too fragile yet they’re still decimating Russian equipment. 🤦♂️ The only thing Russian equipment is good for is scrap metal. 🤣 You’re funny.
there's a beautiful show of ruZZo-Zoviet equipment in Kyiv... you should go and watch it before the Ukis turn that scrap metal into the new tank the Rheinmetall factory in Ukraine is making to replace the updated Leopard 2....
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder now for free with my link, and get a massive bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more: playwt.link/darktech_
How long does the laser need to focus on the target?
@@duanepigden1337 it takes 3-4 seconds to take down a missile... I guess a plastic boat will a fuel tank must be less...
as a professional gamer I have played literally thousands of games but never have I played a game as incredible as War Thunder click the link to play today
@@user-McGiver -- thanks. Just thought, would a reflective surface defeat a laser?
Don't play the game you'll get viruses
i worked on one in '94, no remote or automated controls back then. passive laser scope, sure was fun as hell to shoot.
You sir have my full jealousy
My words cannot express the wonder I feel to be alive during the time where weapons grade lasers are utilized, nor the pride I feel that it is my beloved United States that has made this a reality, along with an appreciation that my Marine Corps' favorite water taxi, the USN that helped develop the system.
They should tailor the Phalanx with an optical gunsight if they're serious about close encounters. That makes this thing look like a semi-auto pellet gun.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRAT..... !
So you're thinking an optical sight would help them shoot down UFOs?
@@abikeanditsboy3449 so you're on drugs too!... that makes sense!...
Do you mean the PHALANX TRACKING PEDESTAL offered by L3 Harris? "The Phalanx Tracking Pedestal combines rugged, high-precision electro-optical instrumentation with the flexibility to serve on a variety of vessels and weapon platforms. It offers superior close-in fire control performance in a small, reliable, lightweight, easy-to-maintain system"
@@videoviewer2008 No, the 20mm CWIS gatling gun.
Funny that you tie the Cole incident with the need for an upgraded chain gun. The damn CO of the Cole wouldn’t have used it if he had it.
Note: This is not a machine gun, it is a chain gun. There are significant differences between the two.
Correct!
Note: It would have been nice if you taken the time to explain the difference rather just critiquing.
@@makegaminggreatagain3907it's all about the external motor used to drive the action (usually connected to it by a chain or belt) instead of using propellant gas or other internal mechanism
@@makegaminggreatagain3907you make a video explaining it, if you know so much instead of critiquing
@@gazbags9136 How about you tell everyone how to turn a simple pair of basic definitions: "The cycling of a machine gun is powered by the propellant gasses. The cycling of a chain gun is powered by an external motor.", into a video. Ya know, instead of critiquing.
And what he forgot to tell you that the damn thing was a maintenance intensive nightmare and the damn things were ALWAYS breaking, Couldn't get though a single pac fire with one of em breaking some internal component. Now the M2...Never had issues with em, ammo yes, guns, no. Super reliable.
If you sink a boat full of pirates, why rescue them. Let the sharks have them.
Add programable fused ammunition to this, and they’d up the hit probability a bunch, for air burst capability on soft targets, plus reduce the probability of cross fire incidents, like in confined areas like ports.
This former..20mm Vulcan gunner says " I LIKE IT" !!...Dam things got a f@#$% lazer ! ...hell ya !!!!
The video is about a “machine gun” but you show a picture of a Rail Gun on the add.
love how it poops the empty shell casings out the front
ALL your channels never cease to amaze the viewers. Well done 👍👍
With their inaccuracies
@@kevinblackburn3198 Here's the trick.... he's doing it on purpose so we jump in and correct him... Algo Rules All...! lol
That's pretty cool. "5 megawatts by mid-May."
I wonder if it passes the "common use" clause of the 2A.
Regardless the government restricts the intensity of all civilian lasers
Of course the Navy would call a chain driven auto cannon a "machine gun."
Well, technically, it IS a machine.
@@mikesiver1950 ;) i lolled. such a dad joke
@@mikesiver1950 well damn, can't really argue with that logic 😂
@@mikesiver1950 Technically, my penis is a machine.
Probably because the gun can be manned compared to the weapon being on an automatic turret for other systems like the Apache.
Frickin love this channel
Dark
Great video as always. Thanks for giving me something to listen to when I am working.
They should just put the GAU-8 Avenger out in its place, seeing as the USAF is purported to be shutting down the A-10
Why? That gun isn't particularly accurate & the targets aren't armoured so a bigger round doesn't really add anything. Its lower muzzle velocity so its going to be trickier to get an accurate shot at long distances. If they want to send more rounds down range there are plenty of 20mm Phalanx guns that can be used. Plus, that gun is gigantic making it difficult to mount & even harder to track on a moving target.
So no, they probably shouldn't use the GAU-8.
As we continue developing AI defensive programs like the one the Phalynx CIWS uses it’s only going to get better letting AI use its 26.5 BILLION tasks PER SECOND ability to calculate offsets , ship roll and movement etc it’s going to continue to make our ships and everything safer and safer
Enemy swimmers ? It is used in executions too ? Or are they really fast swimmers that can catch a ship ?
Great video thanks 😊
Any chance they make a mount for the bed of an F250? I wants me one of them 😂
👍👏
Only made for Chevy
Wonder if those lasers can cause wild fires?
When it comes to war thunder I marvel at the amount of classified information that is leaked because of that game
"Pirates tried in Norfolk "
How many millions did we give them before sending them home ?
I never saw even one swinging from a yardarm !
☆
So the early version had a range of 7400 yards and the mod3 had a range of 8400 feet? I think the US should adopt the metric system if they think this is an improvement…
"... maintaining peace, aboard the vessels of the... "
LOL!!!
Maintaining KICK YOUR FRIKKIN' ASS-ETS.
Did anyone else notice that we never actually heard the weapon in question fired once? We know everything about except what it sounds like 🤷🏻♂️
Bang bang and pew pew.
@@therealboofighter ah, so it sounds like Star Wars. 🤣.
Hmmm......
Makes me wonder exactly how
much brass that the navy dumps
overboard per year, not just in
combat situations, but also in
training as well ?
I’m not sure if the video depicted is the actual shots fired during testing but it sure seems to me the gun is missing the target. I see splashes all over the place for such an ‘accurate’ gun. There even was a video edit switching from the boat to the scene of the boat on fire.
I understand why you think that. They walk the rounds up onto target. Also some rounds pierce through while some deflect and strike the water near boat. I've watched a lot of footage that looks like Misses but actually ended up being dead on. I'm not sure if it's just camera angle or what
you are misunderstanding the terms being used.
using weapons on Board is inherently complicated due to the changing movement speed and direction of both the attacking vessel and the target, the rocking of the ship on the waves and the rising and falling of the ship with the swell of the waves.
as a result of the motion mentioned, in many cases an operator may use a "strafing" technique that runs through the target guaranteeing the hits.
a good way to tel the difference between an accurate vs inaccurate gun is if the rounds land in a clean grouping or a straight "stitching" pattern or if the rounds are spreading out randomly.
this can be verified if you took an oerlikon gun to a standard shooting range, the rounds will spread out over a radius from the target.
a remotely controlled bushmaster mk.38, on the same range, could easily hit all its rounds within a 4' by 4' target at 3000 yards.
additionally, when remote controlled, the rounds may land not on the digital crosshairs of the electronic scope - so the user can input milliradian corrections that would correct the alignment with the following rounds landing on target.
Accurate it is not! Or the gunner needs more training. So what is it?
I understand they are at sea with both moving in three dimensions yet that hit pattern is ten times larger than the target. Some of those rounds are way off.
I can't tell how far they are shooting though or if the footage is showing the enhanced version.
Just wow... Can't believe people are saying they are walking the target when they clearly are on target since rounds are going way above, below, and almost hitting before going off again.
@@dianapennepacker6854
It’s mixed footage so it’s hard to tell the difference between the manually operated guns and the electronically stabilized remote controlled guns.
My experience is with firing the typhoon RCWS system (which is built around the bushmaster m242 gun)
If you look at all test firings from all those types of guns from different navies, you'll see the same pattern. It's not just that weapon.
I thought they were changing to the DS30M MKIV The newer mark to the one the Royal navy uses.
"Equipped with an eye safe rangefinder". Of course. We would not want to hurt our target before we deep fry it with a 60kW laser then fill it full of 25mm high explosive rounds!
0:14 the guy is casually chewing gum while shooting down zeros. 2 bad.
Is it possible to estimate the wastage of brass in millions of tons, by the US military?
well, some other ''ding-dongs'' prefer to wear their brass on their chests...
It's policed up and recycled, at least when I worked on the range at Stone Bay that's what happened. Shooters policed it up, it was then brought on carts to a place where it was sorted, and recycled.
Man imagine if they captured those bullet shells they could recycle them into new bullet shells. But no they gotta drop to the ocean.
does the sailor get a "I smoked a pirate" patch?
how much does each of those mark 3 shells/bullets cost?
I have only minor notes. It's a video about a weapon system and not a weapon per se.
And as for the weapon, it is not a machine gun, but a small caliber automatic cannon.
According to the international definition, machine guns are fully automatic weapons up to 20 mm, realistically today the maximum calibers are 12.7 mm / .50" and 14.5 mm / .57". A machine gun is definitely not a 25 mm / .984" caliber weapon.
@@retiredbore378 Maybe marking practices differ from country to country, I thought it was standardized.
@@retiredbore378 It's not our fault, but rather an American simplification. Because even in the past, European armories still distinguished rapid-fire cannons and machine guns.
Matt Damon?! 😮 9:54
How is this and it's predecessors a "primary" naval weapon?
Wonder if AI would improve accuracy and response?
Put the A-10 gun in there 30mm
All I see, is all these guys missing everything.
Storm Trooper Academy
40 rounds!
0:58 the gun is ejecting unfired cartrigies 🤔
pulverised.
Where’s the rail gun shown on your page?
Unfortunately I am under the belief that the Naval Assets of the USA are woefully inadequate of attacks from Chinese and others whose plans of massive MISSLE launches at our ships that cannot be properly defended against at this time, maybe to a smaller degree but not after the 2nd, 3rd or more attacks especially if the ship sustained any damage
I agree
@@SB-qm5wgThe flaw in your thinking is that the weapons the US acknowledges are usually about 20 years behind what they actually have. Combine that with an unwarranted belief in CCP propaganda, and it's pretty clear that China ends a few hours after any attack on Taiwan.
That thing is terrifying! Now the Mk V will feature full ai. Then, they strike. Hahaha!
I can't understand that most of the time the spent casings are falling overboard, not very cost effective as these can be reused.
I love this channel
It would be more appropriately referred to as an "Auto Cannon" than a machinegun.
According to US whistleblowers, aliens and America teamed up to build weapons.
Why isn't those brasses collected..... Brass is pretty expensive metal....
All it needs is an AI interface to fire it. Humans identify the target and authorize force, every round will be through bullseye instantly.
18yrs of an IT career and four years of military, 19D Cav Scout, but current no direct experience with AI. That being said if we have CIWS shooting down supersonic missiles autonomously then I fail to see how the same kind of target acquisition systems could not handle far slower targets with the same accuracy. It also begs the question, what is your practical experience with AI and target acquisition systems?
Wouldn't this be classified as an autocannon?
Why does this sound like the dod, trying to make the rest of the world more confident?
Can I by one for the back of my ford F150?
Give me a bushmaster that can shoot 75mm projectiles and I’ll change the world…
There are plenty of 76mm naval guns, with excellent capabilities.
Clickbait, the rail gun shown in the thumbnail was not included. Disliked.
now you have that phalanx and you have this manual gun?
CIWS is mainly for an anti air role.
Not going to worry an Iranian swarm attack!
Yep 10 million on a Honda Civic we are going to run out of money
Snuff said
Talking about fishing with dynamite…
impressively hits water that's kinda close to targets. Not ONE ROUND impacted a target during this video (except on land).
If it can't hit targets over 95% in PRACTICE, it SUCKS! 99% should be the minimum for computer controlled chain gun. wtf.
Gets about 1 hit in 500 rounds - something is wrong with this design !
The ship has to stay afloat to fire and the Russians will sink it before they can put their lipstick on and get ready for company!
Yet drug boats make their destination in high effect???😮
I love seeing this kind of stuff but lose the clickbait.
Well, it's not a machine gun. It is a freaking cannon. 20mm and above is a cannon. Get it right.
It's not a machine gun but it's not because of the caliber.
@@marcwilliams9824 well military terms are clear, but in a sense you right is a chain gun. But also a cannon
Great gun but can’t believe they just dispel the spent cartridges into the sea. Recycle
👍 Here's to maintaining peace... our d@mn way! 🙂
😂 mechwarrior would be proud... still waiting on those to happen😮 wheres the giant robots at damit 😂 Elon is probably on it
So where was the gun in the thumbnail.
What happened to the guys tried for piracy?
I really like your channel and watch all your videos, but could you please also add the metric measurements in your videos?
For all the people living outside of the United States, Liberia or Myanmar...
No
Looks like turds pushing out ..spent shells…. Come on ..we were all thinking it..
Bambum bambum bambum bambum . Why not rrrttttt rrrrtttttt rtttttttttttt tanng tang tang tang tang
Anyone know how well these newer C-wiz style turrets hold up to actual enemy fire?
While I know they work great, but I wonder how resilient to something that actually shoots back for once lol.
It's not like guns in the past that had large armor shields. They kinda look pretty exposed. Maybe it's been so long since any shot back in a substantial manner that they just quit doing shields?
But yeah seems like one round to the optic head would render it null and void?
But I guess they have other weapons that are armored on board for it that happens. I hope lol
You make it sound like shooting this accurately would be easy.
The enemy would have to get through a fair few perimeters first.
@Whateverpoopiepants As in what exactly?
I'm asking because in actual battles vs other ships like it, or land based ports etc... they shoot back.
Accuracy? Well, bombs and missiles have a radius that's pretty darn big. Accuracy isn't as hard as many think. Volume of fire alone can make any weapon system "accurate" enough. Lastly, many larger systems have proximity fuses. So any time it senses it's close to a target it will air burst. Thus making it very, very accurate. It's how we won vs Japan in the pacific basically when we invented the proximity fuse.
So with all that being said, that's why I simply asked. I'm not saying the ship is defenseless at all. As I said they have armor plated conventional guns that will surely take a beating.
I'm just wondering how long one like this actually can tho. I know it's not considered a primary system. But yeah just seems a little frail yet still. That's all. Then simply asking if anyone has seen how much damage they actually can withstand if needed. So I know it's fine for 99% of what we need done these days. But some areas seem to use this style system on land based turrets as a primary defense system. It just seems to me it would be rendered useless pretty easy if someone actually attacked it. If all that makes any sense lol
@@hughgrection3052->> … I think the whole thing was partially driven by taking the actual gunner and removing them from exposure; operating the weapon from within the ship itself. It’s hard to imagine how sensors such as those could possibly be armored to any great extent without rendering them blind. It may be that they routinely carry spares of any part of the weapon that kind of sticks out; or is in a vulnerable position in general, so it might be a simple matter of disconnecting a couple of cable connectors, and removing some bolts to have the gun back in operation. When it comes down to it, anything that endangers a piece of hardware, even an expensive one, instead of endangering a sailor’s life is something we should do. Americans are kind of funny that way, right?
the ciws and the land version arent designed for combat where the enemy equipment fires back. its a defensive weapon. not an offensive one.
@@hughgrection3052
Never mind, you seam to know it all !
@11:37 "Ukraine" how much are they paying you?
Doesn’t seem to be very accurate.
Biggest question I have is. If it can be controlled remotely from the safe interior of the ship, why were the operators wearing all the gear as if being outside? Is it because they might have to go outside to service the weapon?
Looked to be a training session for the operators of the gun, so you would dress as if the ship was on a war footing.
I don't play games. Not condemning any gamers; just not for me.
Tax payers WHO????😊
absolute clickbait image, showing an experimental railgun. SMH
Like the content, not so much the narration.
Until you get a milliwatt laser you're never going to have a chance to shoot down any UFOs or you a piece or whatever you call them now you have to surround the laser beam with a dual magnetic fields spinning in opposite directions you need a very good computer to run it cuz the fields have to spend very very fast almost the speed of light you know there's no moving parts that this switches on and off at the speed of light I can show you how to build one if you don't know how but I will not contact you you could find me if you're serious
FAFO. 🤔🙀😈🦅
I gota say. It NOT ACCURATE. The vid shows a speed boat at 750 yrds. The rounds are all over the ocean. Not one hits the red Speed boat. . Give me a 50cal any day.
The problem with your videos that you talk very fast
More incorrect information.
Nice photoshopping on the video thumbnail
Alot of BS on this one...
Who's fighting the USA !
WHO?....Worlds Health Organizarion?...
Coping russian, haha ukraine dont want nato and American military equipment because it fragile compared to soviet or russian, everything from sams to howitzer to tanks, nato tanks on varm day and colder night electronics dosent work. Zelenski said in Norway to all nato countries please digg for soviet era military equipment because that I wrote above
👌 NATO weapon systems are too fragile yet they’re still decimating Russian equipment. 🤦♂️ The only thing Russian equipment is good for is scrap metal. 🤣 You’re funny.
Yeah. We'll just send cash. Wink, wink.
there's a beautiful show of ruZZo-Zoviet equipment in Kyiv... you should go and watch it before the Ukis turn that scrap metal into the new tank the Rheinmetall factory in Ukraine is making to replace the updated Leopard 2....
Nice try bot