Guys! Please don't go for easy RAID money. It is published and paid for by a fraudulent company. The "game" mechanics teach youngsters how to play hazard games.
It isn't that bad. The French would NEVER use Picatinny Rails on a weapon like that. They'd come up with their own system for twice the cost. And they'd add a red- dot. Yes, my main argument against the analogy is that you are underestimating the French on being... French.
The only advantage is that regular army troopers don't get that much gear, most of them just their BDU uniform, an ammo harness, their AKM and a steel helmet. And unfortunately most north koreans are quite small, around 5' 5" or 5'6", because of malnutrition, so they may be able to navigate those hatches with some skill.
@@cesargonzalez4146 Doesn't really matter how skinny and under equipped a nork soldier is. The fact that an escape hatch is the main method of *dismounting* troops from a pseudo IFV is terribly difficult and extremely uncomfortable.
I'm thinking that its crew configuration could just as easily be BMP-1 style, with a dedicated gunner in the turret and the commander joining the driver in the hull, rather than a driver, overworked commander/gunner, and unidentified third crew member. I'm not sure which configuration is more obsolete, the latter is highly inefficient, but frees a seat for another dismount, the former is still far from ideal, but seems to be supported by the relative number of medals pinned to the man standing in the right hull hatch as compared to the soldier in the turret in the parade footage and photos (insofar as DPRK military parades can be trusted, of course).
You are almost certainly right the guy in the front right is the Vehicle if not the whole element commander as that is already the case in the 323 which not only has a right seat for the vehicle commander but retains the BMP style commander seat behind the drive from the original Chinese type 89 from which its derived, its self a super simplified chinese apc derivative of their licensed production of the BMP1.
@@imgvillasrc1608 In North Korea, they've got a lot of terrain not conducive to tanks. Odds are not very high of ever running across one. Might be nice if it ran across an IFV though. If North Korea is going to fight a western opponent, they're going to be on the receiving end of a lot of airpower.
Tbh, if you're in a tin can APC and hear chopper overhead, having a heat seeker on hand and not having it is a difference between life and death. I'll take that metal rod mount over nothing any day. So no, not "style over substance," if anything, it's "substance over style" because it doesn't look like much but can make a huge difference.
@@georgedang449 I'm betting that the silly rod mount is just for show, but the intent is to have them stowed inside the vehicle (or in the box on top), out of the weather, and employed by a dismount, probably standing next to the vehicle.
i actually feel like having a manpad on every afv sounds like a pretty good anti-aircraft solution especially when you lack more sophisticated anti-air systems. It doesn't really need to be mounted though, as long as it's on the vehicle and easily accessible
When we get our hands on someone to write on SK stuff, sure. Currently, a bit hard to find such persons that are willing to work for the little money we provide :(
I imagine the thinking of NK vehicle designer is that their would be a lot of urban and mountain combat in a NK SK war which explains the choice of armaments. Their a lot of deck room on the back so maybe that where most of the people being carried will ride on. The vehicle will probably only be used to cross rover and maybe attack Seoul in a amphibious landing in the south. both cases being short trips which may explain it low internal carry capacity as it may be expect to never operate to far away from a infantry division
MANPADS Igla mounted in such a way on a tank does not make any sense. The tank does not have an integrated FCS for this type of weapon, and the needle system itself is designed to be used from the shoulder and not from the rack. The more I look at the North Korean army, the more I am convinced it would collapse under the onslaught of any modern army attacking from the outside.
It’s weird, Russia gave them the 30mm armed btr-82a in the early 2000s. You would think they would have started reproducing that turret instead of droning on with the KPV.
@@VojislavMoranic I love how these vehicles reputation got farted on in one war, ignoring the fact that they’ve served faithfully to dozens of countries for decades.
@@dannyzero692 It should be noted that Ukraine, too, uses much of the same hardware as the Russians did/do. People fail to realize the failure of the Russian military in Ukraine can be attributed more to poor leadership and poor coordination than the actual hardware itself. Ukrainian successes are multifaceted, but the deficiencies of Russian equipment, I believe, are not as big as people would like to think.
The little side hatches for the carried infantry is beyond ridiculous...it is one thing to have an obsolete vehicle and another that even in is most basic mission it is really bad and even dangerous...
Some Korean official Saw the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 and thought "hey....I like that" amazes me when I see something made in modern times just be that inept.
It should be noted that an APC doesn't necessarily need to carry a lot of personnel to perform its role. It only has to carry the personnel the Table of Organization and Equipment requires. The US Army basically chose to reduce the size of its mechanized infantry squads to better fit the Bradley, rather than requiring the Bradley to carry more people. Nothing says the North Koreans can't be thinking the same way.
The Bradley ain't an APC, it's an IFV. It chose to have fewer dismounts in order to carry a bigger gun with more optics and the TOW. What's the M2009 choosing?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT As I said, the number of dismounts a personnel carrier, be it an IFV, an APC, or just a truck, only needs to meet the requirements. What inspires those requirements is entirely up to the ordering agency. The fact North Korea can make and has deployed these things suggests they meet the requirements well enough for the North Koreans. The obvious thing about these vehicles is that they are tracked, which means they must include some expectation of operation off-road. Korea is one of those places where there are lot of terrain features, be it rice paddies, hills, or forests to name a few, that make travel between the paved roads more problematic than in many places. Having even small numbers of mechanized infantry able to move off the paved roads is a big tactical benefit that fits with the North Korean experience of the 1950-53 conflict where roads were a strategic nightmare for both sides. Bevin Alexander's book on the Korean War notes that one of the defining features of the war for both sides was the nature of the roads and terrain's impact on them. UN Forces could be brought to a halt by a few infiltrators successfully threatening lines of communication. Thanks to UN airpower, Communists basically had no capacity to use roads during daylight, reducing logistics to manpacking in many cases, ensuring Communist forces could never concentrate enough supplies nor move fast enough to take major ground before UN forces could gel a new defensive line. Either way, roads were a strategic and tactical problem for both sides that emphasized the need to minimize dependence. It appears, from what little the North Koreans have said and shown, that they are keen to avoid the problem of roads, hence their moving critical supply lines underground and maintaining a massive motorized vehicle park that emphasizes apparent considerable cross-country capability.
Doesn't justify the escape hatches as the dismount option or the dual KPV as the main armament. If the Norks wanted an IFV, they just made an awful one.
@@imgvillasrc1608 I am not arguing it is a great vehicle, just that its requirements are specific to the ordering agency and their standards are their own. If the North Koreans are happy with the thing enough to buy it, then it probably is adequate for their purposes. Or maybe it is the consequence of corrupt government officials playing loose with the military budget. No real way to know without access to documentation that I doubt will be available for us to review any time soon.
@@genericpersonx333 I understand it's intended role and I agree that the Norks are merely copying modern warfare, however they made the worst possible choice for an IFV. They could've at least used a Chonma-ho chassis for an IFV. Using tank chassises like what most sensible countries did. Instead they chose a light tank chassis and didn't even at least have a rear door ramp. I'm leaning into the corruption side here, with added laziness, and Kim Jung-un is too oblivious to understand whatever bs his generals are feeding him.
Can ou make on on the different armored viehicles of BOPE in brasil or the different south african Casspir variants or the 60mm mortar version of their badger??
Hello, While such videos are within our sights and within our scope, they are not currently in the works. You can add them to our Public Suggestion List and you can help by adding more sources (or other suggested articles) docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p0Ll9TITGDiF9_fdS-tv1797JBs0_-pB70ReE_kIRkE/edit#gid=1911430820 You can join our Patreon support team and vote on which new topics we will cover in the future. Also, in order to help us with illustrating and publishing, please do consider donating through Patreon or Paypal. www.patreon.com/tankartfund www.paypal.com/paypalme/tankencyclopedia
Well............I guess you could use it to carry manpads or ATGW teams, but unassing the vehicle with the launchers would be awfully challenging., especially under fire. A standard AC would serve better. A better use could have been to mount 2x2 ATGW on either side of the turret and design the launchers so they could point up for reloading from within the vehicle. Or, maybe some sort of similar manpads vehicle. The KPV is a good heavy MG, but it's not what I would want to use against anything resembling a modern MICV. or AIFV. The side hatches repeat every mustake the Soviets made with the BTR series. If that is a more-or-less standard Igle, it's a kinda punk manpad these days. Firing the darn thing is problematic, to put it mildly. I suspect that the staff at People's Factory whatever wanted to keep the production line going and jeep getting state funds, and came up with thin contraption. Maybe a stopgap pending design of a real MUCV? Surely the NK can design a vehicle with at least a 23mm gun and side-mounted ATGW, and a front-mounted engine with amphib capacity. Oh well, I have been wrong before.
@@nyctasiaselesq they also operate a decent amount of T-80s for the same reason. Altough im not sure how useful a tank with such limited gun depression angles is in South Korea's terrain
I mean I guess if you have limited resources and manufacturing it's better than walking/swimming i guess? Wouldn't count on the armor or gun very much, at least it makes a good target while you attempt to get out of the damn thing lol
Whats the point of making the video and pretending that the DPRK is some how on a similar level to other nations like The US and ROK? It lacks this it lacks that compared too? Why? Oh small note "poor mans apc" Yes try visiting that info... DPRK spends about 2 billion a year on its weapons and defense .. Rok $42 billion US $600 billion.... so ya really think M2009 comes up short? The DPRK builds an APC with what they have, all the sanctions could not stop them from building an APC they do not need to import. In that context its frickin amazing.
Thumb down man, I can't avoid UA-cam commercials anymore by pushing to the end and then repeat the video! In my view, forcing a person to watch commercials is a mental torture!
Uhm, you do realize we need to make money, right? That we're doing all this fabulous work and giving it to you for free, but we still need to make some money to pay the people involved? If you're not okay with that, kudos and goodbye.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I understand your desire for money and that's good. The thing is - if you went through what I did (God forbid) you would've understood. All the best to you! Edit: And goodbye!
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/TankEncyclopediaRaid and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
Guys! Please don't go for easy RAID money. It is published and paid for by a fraudulent company. The "game" mechanics teach youngsters how to play hazard games.
@@HanSolo__ hehe ezy money
nice memes
North Korea creating a new obsolete NPC is like France creating a M1777 Charleville musket with Picatinny Rails for laser mounts and grips
Or the US Army making a straight grip select fire rifle as a standard issue for the 1960s. *looks at M14*
It isn't that bad. The French would NEVER use Picatinny Rails on a weapon like that. They'd come up with their own system for twice the cost. And they'd add a red- dot. Yes, my main argument against the analogy is that you are underestimating the French on being... French.
@@skoshman1 hon hone Monsieur
Boring comment
Imagine trying to exit that little side hatch in full kit...
The only advantage is that regular army troopers don't get that much gear, most of them just their BDU uniform, an ammo harness, their AKM and a steel helmet. And unfortunately most north koreans are quite small, around 5' 5" or 5'6", because of malnutrition, so they may be able to navigate those hatches with some skill.
@@cesargonzalez4146 Doesn't really matter how skinny and under equipped a nork soldier is. The fact that an escape hatch is the main method of *dismounting* troops from a pseudo IFV is terribly difficult and extremely uncomfortable.
north koreans dont get full kit
I imagine in practical use they probably just ride on top of it so they can easily jump off. That’s usually how APCs end up being used anyways.
@@cesargonzalez4146, rumors of "malnutrition" in Korea are greatly exaggerated
I'm thinking that its crew configuration could just as easily be BMP-1 style, with a dedicated gunner in the turret and the commander joining the driver in the hull, rather than a driver, overworked commander/gunner, and unidentified third crew member. I'm not sure which configuration is more obsolete, the latter is highly inefficient, but frees a seat for another dismount, the former is still far from ideal, but seems to be supported by the relative number of medals pinned to the man standing in the right hull hatch as compared to the soldier in the turret in the parade footage and photos (insofar as DPRK military parades can be trusted, of course).
I was just about to say this as well. This is what we did with AVGPs equipped with a 1 metre turret.
You are almost certainly right the guy in the front right is the Vehicle if not the whole element commander as that is already the case in the 323 which not only has a right seat for the vehicle commander but retains the BMP style commander seat behind the drive from the original Chinese type 89 from which its derived, its self a super simplified chinese apc derivative of their licensed production of the BMP1.
6:45 love how war thunder forums are now a credible source for tank encyclopedia I swear those guys are nuts when it comes to modern vehicles.
Why would it not be a good image source?
Information source, no way, but image-wise, as good as any other.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I'm not sure he was being sarcastic
best place to find classified vehicle blueprints thats for sure
Yeah, the Norks are notorious for adding 'parade bling' to their vehicles.
The tacked on MANPAD is their best example of 'style over substance'.
You'd think though that an ATM would be more convenient for an IFV than a MANPAD
@@imgvillasrc1608 In North Korea, they've got a lot of terrain not conducive to tanks. Odds are not very high of ever running across one. Might be nice if it ran across an IFV though.
If North Korea is going to fight a western opponent, they're going to be on the receiving end of a lot of airpower.
Tbh, if you're in a tin can APC and hear chopper overhead, having a heat seeker on hand and not having it is a difference between life and death. I'll take that metal rod mount over nothing any day. So no, not "style over substance," if anything, it's "substance over style" because it doesn't look like much but can make a huge difference.
@@georgedang449 I'm betting that the silly rod mount is just for show, but the intent is to have them stowed inside the vehicle (or in the box on top), out of the weather, and employed by a dismount, probably standing next to the vehicle.
i actually feel like having a manpad on every afv sounds like a pretty good anti-aircraft solution especially when you lack more sophisticated anti-air systems.
It doesn't really need to be mounted though, as long as it's on the vehicle and easily accessible
Chunma-Deeznuts
So true
A man of culture
Real
Word cuh
Shouldn't it just be chunma-nuts?
Congrats in a sponsor :)) such an under appreciated channel
Hopefully Tank Encyclopedia gets more coverage like Chieftain cause I often love using them as as source to learn about AFVs.
The song in the background is called Gamjajalang or Potato Pride
8:10 for a moment i though that was the charrua APC, because of the design, Very similar
Funny part is… they’re using an infrared sight the same size we used in the 60s lmao
Will you ever make a south korean armor series, since you already made one for North Korea?
When we get our hands on someone to write on SK stuff, sure. Currently, a bit hard to find such persons that are willing to work for the little money we provide :(
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT oh that's interesting - i thought script is written by few dedicated people. How much do you pay then?
There's actually a good deal of dedicated people.
Article writer gets $20. Script writer (the guy who adapts the article) also gets $20.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT well that's not bad at all actually
If you want to try your hand, we're always looking for new people
I imagine the thinking of NK vehicle designer is that their would be a lot of urban and mountain combat in a NK SK war which explains the choice of armaments. Their a lot of deck room on the back so maybe that where most of the people being carried will ride on.
The vehicle will probably only be used to cross rover and maybe attack Seoul in a amphibious landing in the south. both cases being short trips which may explain it low internal carry capacity as it may be expect to never operate to far away from a infantry division
MANPADS Igla mounted in such a way on a tank does not make any sense. The tank does not have an integrated FCS for this type of weapon, and the needle system itself is designed to be used from the shoulder and not from the rack.
The more I look at the North Korean army, the more I am convinced it would collapse under the onslaught of any modern army attacking from the outside.
it's probably only for parade
Won't be surprised if South Korea curbstomps the Norks like how the US curbstomped Baathist Iraq in 2003.
It’s just for parade😂😂😂
Active infra red, ok, that speaks volumes.
5:41 Complete anxiety 😭
4:07 - Interesting looking amphibs.
5:53 i lost my sh*t
Thank you
At 4:43 the vehicle is a Nexter Jaguar and not a Panhard Jaguar. Also it is not an APC as it is a recon vehicle that does not carry troops.
It’s weird, Russia gave them the 30mm armed btr-82a in the early 2000s. You would think they would have started reproducing that turret instead of droning on with the KPV.
Either way. It would be terrible. Russia’s armored vehicles are terrible, never performed well in any war throughout history
@@tylerclayton6081 You are watching to much cnn.
@@VojislavMoranic I love how these vehicles reputation got farted on in one war, ignoring the fact that they’ve served faithfully to dozens of countries for decades.
@@dannyzero692 It should be noted that Ukraine, too, uses much of the same hardware as the Russians did/do.
People fail to realize the failure of the Russian military in Ukraine can be attributed more to poor leadership and poor coordination than the actual hardware itself.
Ukrainian successes are multifaceted, but the deficiencies of Russian equipment, I believe, are not as big as people would like to think.
The little side hatches for the carried infantry is beyond ridiculous...it is one thing to have an obsolete vehicle and another that even in is most basic mission it is really bad and even dangerous...
Some Korean official Saw the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 and thought "hey....I like that" amazes me when I see something made in modern times just be that inept.
It should be noted that an APC doesn't necessarily need to carry a lot of personnel to perform its role. It only has to carry the personnel the Table of Organization and Equipment requires. The US Army basically chose to reduce the size of its mechanized infantry squads to better fit the Bradley, rather than requiring the Bradley to carry more people. Nothing says the North Koreans can't be thinking the same way.
The Bradley ain't an APC, it's an IFV. It chose to have fewer dismounts in order to carry a bigger gun with more optics and the TOW.
What's the M2009 choosing?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT As I said, the number of dismounts a personnel carrier, be it an IFV, an APC, or just a truck, only needs to meet the requirements. What inspires those requirements is entirely up to the ordering agency. The fact North Korea can make and has deployed these things suggests they meet the requirements well enough for the North Koreans.
The obvious thing about these vehicles is that they are tracked, which means they must include some expectation of operation off-road. Korea is one of those places where there are lot of terrain features, be it rice paddies, hills, or forests to name a few, that make travel between the paved roads more problematic than in many places. Having even small numbers of mechanized infantry able to move off the paved roads is a big tactical benefit that fits with the North Korean experience of the 1950-53 conflict where roads were a strategic nightmare for both sides.
Bevin Alexander's book on the Korean War notes that one of the defining features of the war for both sides was the nature of the roads and terrain's impact on them. UN Forces could be brought to a halt by a few infiltrators successfully threatening lines of communication. Thanks to UN airpower, Communists basically had no capacity to use roads during daylight, reducing logistics to manpacking in many cases, ensuring Communist forces could never concentrate enough supplies nor move fast enough to take major ground before UN forces could gel a new defensive line. Either way, roads were a strategic and tactical problem for both sides that emphasized the need to minimize dependence.
It appears, from what little the North Koreans have said and shown, that they are keen to avoid the problem of roads, hence their moving critical supply lines underground and maintaining a massive motorized vehicle park that emphasizes apparent considerable cross-country capability.
Doesn't justify the escape hatches as the dismount option or the dual KPV as the main armament.
If the Norks wanted an IFV, they just made an awful one.
@@imgvillasrc1608 I am not arguing it is a great vehicle, just that its requirements are specific to the ordering agency and their standards are their own. If the North Koreans are happy with the thing enough to buy it, then it probably is adequate for their purposes. Or maybe it is the consequence of corrupt government officials playing loose with the military budget. No real way to know without access to documentation that I doubt will be available for us to review any time soon.
@@genericpersonx333 I understand it's intended role and I agree that the Norks are merely copying modern warfare, however they made the worst possible choice for an IFV.
They could've at least used a Chonma-ho chassis for an IFV. Using tank chassises like what most sensible countries did. Instead they chose a light tank chassis and didn't even at least have a rear door ramp. I'm leaning into the corruption side here, with added laziness, and Kim Jung-un is too oblivious to understand whatever bs his generals are feeding him.
It looks cool tho
Can u do a or a few videos on how tanks are designated
05:52 - cultured
Chun-mon-cannonfoder.
Chunma-D? Moer like, SUGMA MA' D, GOT EM!
Tracked BRDM-2 with 2 guns
Can ou make on on the different armored viehicles of BOPE in brasil or the different south african Casspir variants or the 60mm mortar version of their badger??
Hello,
While such videos are within our sights and within our scope, they are not currently in the works.
You can add them to our Public Suggestion List and you can help by adding more sources (or other suggested articles)
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p0Ll9TITGDiF9_fdS-tv1797JBs0_-pB70ReE_kIRkE/edit#gid=1911430820
You can join our Patreon support team and vote on which new topics we will cover in the future. Also, in order to help us with illustrating and publishing, please do consider donating through Patreon or Paypal.
www.patreon.com/tankartfund
www.paypal.com/paypalme/tankencyclopedia
Please make a video about the EBRC Jaguar
Oh look 7:29 , Indonesian BTR which probably belonged to the army or the marine.
Interesting
Already see pt chassis from the thumbnail
"a tank that isnt suited as either a tank or apc" wow didnt know north korea had bradleys
@@ArchOfficial he probably watched the shitshow that is The Pentagon War.
2;08 your welcome
Well............I guess you could use it to carry manpads or ATGW teams, but unassing the vehicle with the launchers would be awfully challenging., especially under fire. A standard AC would serve better. A better use could have been to mount 2x2 ATGW on either side of the turret and design the launchers so they could point up for reloading from within the vehicle. Or, maybe some sort of similar manpads vehicle. The KPV is a good heavy MG, but it's not what I would want to use against anything resembling a modern MICV. or AIFV. The side hatches repeat every mustake the Soviets made with the BTR series. If that is a more-or-less standard Igle, it's a kinda punk manpad these days. Firing the darn thing is problematic, to put it mildly.
I suspect that the staff at People's Factory whatever wanted to keep the production line going and jeep getting state funds, and came up with thin contraption. Maybe a stopgap pending design of a real MUCV? Surely the NK can design a vehicle with at least a 23mm gun and side-mounted ATGW, and a front-mounted engine with amphib capacity. Oh well, I have been wrong before.
So it's basically a scuffed MT LB being presented as a modern vehicle, sure North Korea, we believe you.
Fire support vehicle carrying specialists plus MANPAD teams ?
But, the PT-76 was built off the MT-LB...
The bob simple 🇳🇿
it is not a smart idea to carry such a valuable missille outside the vehicle.
It's incredibly advanced far more than inferior American pigdog designs! So sayeth the great leader!
Why would South Korea have BMP 3s?
Given by Russia in lieu of a payment for a debt.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT It seemd weird for the "backyard of USA" to get "commie" stuff.
Thanks for clarifying.
@@nyctasiaselesq they also operate a decent amount of T-80s for the same reason. Altough im not sure how useful a tank with such limited gun depression angles is in South Korea's terrain
@@AveragePootis They could put North Korean marks on them and drive behind enemy lines...
@@ArchOfficial that makes sense
I mean I guess if you have limited resources and manufacturing it's better than walking/swimming i guess? Wouldn't count on the armor or gun very much, at least it makes a good target while you attempt to get out of the damn thing lol
Just seems like it'd be easier to make a a dedicated APC instead of an ifv that's not good at anything in particular
>race horse
Is the thumbnail a Lenin reference?
:D
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Ayyyy
The hatch size shouldn't be much of a problem when the soldiers are half starved with an intestinal worm burden. They'll fit fine.
Not forthcoming with information? Perhaps comrade Kim needs to spend more time in online gaming circles🤔
Sort of advancing backwards...
Looking at the war in Ukraine, these seem quaint.
Chunma nuts southies- Kim probably 😂
Whats the point of making the video and pretending that the DPRK is some how on a similar level to other nations like The US and ROK? It lacks this it lacks that compared too? Why? Oh small note "poor mans apc" Yes try visiting that info... DPRK spends about 2 billion a year on its weapons and defense .. Rok $42 billion US $600 billion.... so ya really think M2009 comes up short? The DPRK builds an APC with what they have, all the sanctions could not stop them from building an APC they do not need to import. In that context its frickin amazing.
I dont think north korea even knows 90% of these answers, not like theyve ever had to use them
An incompetent design but when your a narcissistic dictator who doesn’t have to go in it why care.
Everyone doesn’t have trillions to waste on projects that never produce a working vehicle like the US does.
True, NC don't even have TOWSANDS to buy food for the people...
Thumb down man, I can't avoid UA-cam commercials anymore by pushing to the end and then repeat the video! In my view, forcing a person to watch commercials is a mental torture!
And this is the video 's fault? Grow up
If you don't want commercials, support the channel financially yourself!
Uhm, you do realize we need to make money, right? That we're doing all this fabulous work and giving it to you for free, but we still need to make some money to pay the people involved?
If you're not okay with that, kudos and goodbye.
@@죽은_시민의_사회
Who decided to torture us with commercials, the channel owner or my late grandfather?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT
I understand your desire for money and that's good. The thing is - if you went through what I did (God forbid) you would've understood. All the best to you!
Edit: And goodbye!
Useless death trap on tracks