Відео

Thanks for your comment. I will pay more attention to the next videos.

Thanks for your comment. I will pay more attention to the next videos.

Thank you for your feedback. Hope you enjoy the video!

Thank you for your comments. In the following videos, I have replaced all A.I images with real images.

Thank you for your comments. In the following videos, I have replaced all A.I images with real images.

Thanks for your feedback. I have completely removed the A.i image from my recent videos.

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX I will check them out. I was a bit harsh but I thought it was just an AI posting it on behalf of someone, having made no effort. So for that I am sorry, I will check it out.

@@TP-ie3hj No problem, your comments help me improve the content.

RCH-155

Archer is truly a very impressive self-propelled artillery system with modern technology! But each artillery system, whether it's the AS90, 2S1 Gvozdika, or Archer, has its own strengths, suited to different battlefields and missions. Would you like me to make a more detailed video analysis about Archer? 😊

Thank you, if there is anything wrong, you can give feedback to help me improve the content.

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX on sum things I watched you repeat info. A bit more editing. Overall your selection of topics is superb...

@@mikeclendenin6407 tks u so much s2

That’s indeed a very interesting perspective that I hadn’t mentioned before! The factor of transportation via Liberty ships was certainly a major challenge that American vehicle designers had to consider, something German designers didn’t have to worry about. It’s truly fascinating to think that vehicles like the M8 Greyhound had to be designed not only to fight effectively but also to be durable enough to withstand the long journey across the Atlantic Ocean.

Thank you very much. Enjoy the video.

You're absolutely right! Firepower and accuracy are critical in naval combat, and factors like gunpowder consistency and fire control systems can make all the difference. Baltimore's advanced fire control system gave it an edge, while Admiral Hipper had its own strengths in armor and versatility. What do you think about how these factors play into real battle scenarios?

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX we all remember how the Japanese put fins on battlship shells and dropped them on the Arizona at pearl harbor. A direct magazine hit from above will blow up such a ship as the armor could not stop such a shell.

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX ALSO, the Germans overengineered everything makinging them unrelyable ... the Tiger and Panther tanks compared to the American tanks are a prime example.!

@ Thank you very much for sharing your perspective! What you mentioned about the Japanese adding fins to bombs to attack battleships at Pearl Harbor is absolutely correct - those were glide bombs modified from armor-piercing bombs to improve accuracy when dropped from high altitudes. However, this method was particularly effective in the context of battleships being anchored, unable to move or defend themselves as they could while at sea. Regarding your point about German designs, it’s true that German equipment, such as the Tiger and Panther tanks, were famous for their complex designs. However, this also led to maintenance challenges and higher production costs compared to American tanks like the Sherman. Nevertheless, each design reflects the strategy and circumstances of the producing nation during that time.

Thank you for sharing your opinion! The Hipper class is certainly a controversial topic in naval history. Some people appreciate its combat capability and design, while others believe it fell short of expectations compared to its cost.

I apologize if I sounded rude, but the Hipper class is lost on me. 4000 tons of cheating, and it's only marginally better than a County class. Any event, in my opinion, the Kreigsmarine, gets a failing grade. Across the board, strategy, doctrine, and material.

@@AndrewGraziani-k7d I understand your perspective on the Hipper class and the German Navy (Kreigsmarine). In the context of World War II, the Hipper design indeed had limitations due to the naval treaty constraints on Germany after the Versailles Treaty. Although not perfect, they still demonstrated the creativity and effort of German engineers under harsh conditions.

Thanks for your comment. I have removed the A.I images in the new videos. Thanks a lot.

That's right, the MG42 is still in use today, but in the form of upgraded versions like Germany's MG3 or other models developed based on the original design. Thank you for sharing! If you have more interesting information, don't hesitate to share it!

Thank you for your insight! It's true that the BF 109 holds an impressive record, with many ace pilots achieving incredible kill counts during World War II. However, it's also important to consider the different contexts in which these aircraft were used. The BF 109 was produced in large numbers and served on multiple fronts throughout the war, giving it more opportunities for such records. Meanwhile, the Yak-3 was introduced later in the war but earned a reputation for its superior maneuverability and effectiveness in dogfights, particularly against German aircraft, including the BF 109. Each plane had its strengths and played a significant role in its own context.

The Bf109 had great range? Is this AI? One vague statement after another. Why do I let myself get sucked into this dreck?

@@jimzeller3747 Thank you for your feedback! The range of the Bf 109 was indeed a significant aspect of its design, particularly in its early variants, although it varied greatly depending on the version and mission load. If you feel the video lacked depth or specificity, I appreciate you pointing it out. I'll make sure to include more detailed data and comparisons in future videos to meet viewers' expectations. Your insights help improve the content-thank you for sharing!

Thanks for your feedback. I have completely removed the A.i image from my recent videos.

Thanks, enjoy the video

enjoy the video

Do you mean duplicate content?

enjoy the video

enjoy the video

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX Nope. It's utter shit, but then again you're a bot who can't read.

Thanks, enjoy the video

enjoy the video

You can't even tell which one is AI and which one is a real photo but you're still commenting :)))

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX it's very obvious if you know what either vehicle looks like, and what actual images you do use are so low res they look like you right clicked someone's pfp

@@sonofadeadmeme And you want photos of cars produced in 194x in 4k quality?

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX those were all modern day photos and original photo scans aren't nearly as bad, it just shows this is AI slop with no effort

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX It is very obviuos my dude, no matter what filter you layover the video. The low quality images, mostly stolen UA-cam thumbnials (badly cropped to include the runtime) are genuine WWII vehicles. The high resoution images are blantently AI generated, with the modern looking grills and weaponary having no business being on vehicles of that calibre Not to mention that the entire script of the video screams AI.. then the very obvious AI voice over.. E-, must do better :)))

I have used many applications to describe it most accurately, but no one really recognizes it. And in all the photos, I only use about 50% of them. I know there are many shortcomings but thank you very much for your comments

@@TheWeaponChroniclesX You'll get better. I do admire your efforts. I'm 73 and I grew up with this stuff. I also spent 20 years in the Navy, as an aircraft mechanic. In the late 50s at the National Guard Armory in Maryland they had 2 Stag Hounds parked out behind the armory.

like me, wish you enjoy watching the video

こちらこそありがとうございます

The MiG-23 was not a great aircraft. A lot were made but quality was poor, its reliability was poor, and when faced with contemporary US fighters to include the F-16 & F-14 it would fail. One of the issues with soviet & Russian aircraft is that so many compromises must be made. Thus they tend to have poor build quality, reliability, life spans, and their technology and operating parameters are generally poor when compared to contemporary western designs. For example, the RCS of the SU-57 is comparable to a baseline F/A-18 from the 1970s. Its engines are of poor quality and performance as well.

Thank you for the insightful comment! You’ve pointed out a very important aspect of using artillery systems like the BM-21 Grad or the M270 MLRS. It’s true that heavy firepower, while effective in causing damage, can create tactical challenges such as devastated terrain or obstacles in urban areas, which can complicate military operations. The BM-21 Grad, with its rapid salvo fire, can indeed have a similar effect to traditional massive artillery barrages, while the M270 MLRS offers greater precision, potentially mitigating some of the issues you mentioned. You’re absolutely right about the logistical strain. Maintaining a steady supply of ammunition, particularly for the Grad, is a significant challenge, as we’ve seen in modern conflicts like the one in Ukraine. Thank you for sharing such an interesting perspective! This is something I’ll definitely take into account when analyzing these weapon systems in future videos. If you have more information or opinions to share, I’d love to hear them

I only compare on a few aspects

​@@TheWeaponChroniclesX Thanks a lot

Thanks for your feedback. I have completely removed the A.i image from my recent videos.

そうですね！ロシアの戦闘機、例えばフランカー（Su-27/30/35）やフルクラム（MiG-29）は、卓越した機動性と高い戦闘能力で有名です。ただし、各戦闘機にはそれぞれの強みがあります。F-16も、先進的な電子機器システムとマルチロール能力を備えた強力なライバルです。もし興味があれば、フランカーとフルクラムについてさらに詳しく分析した動画を作成することもできます。ご意見を共有していただき、ありがとうございます！

フランカーとファルクラムとイ―グル大好きです

thank you, hope you enjoy the video

You're right that in the early years, the Panzer II, III, and IV shared some similarities with the Cromwell, especially in terms of speed and their role in supporting infantry. However, each tank had unique design features that reflected the military strategies and technological advancements of their respective nations. Do you think the Cromwell outperformed the Panzer series in terms of mobility or firepower? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts!

@TheWeaponChroniclesX ​@TheWeaponChroniclesX Both Cromwell and Panzer 3&4 together are what we call "good enough" in offensive campaigns. Germany never lost a battle with Panzer 3&4 till Moscow before Tiger and Panther became available, and Germany never really won any significant battle since Kursk after Tiger and Panther became available. Germany lost the war because Hitler and his party hyper corrected every aspect of how they fell in WWI. For instance, Germany lost WWI due to the dropping life quality domestically, and thus Hitler refused to start a war economy until 1943 when it was all too late. For instance, Germany suffered in WWI largely due to the early entry of Britain and Russia, and thus in WWII Hitler tried everything he could to avoid fighting Britain head-on, and when he had to he was unprepared, whereas his Russia campaign objectives were basically a copy of WWI - not for eliminating Stalin and the regime but rather for Lebensraum and economic supplies.