Weird Tank Prototypes III

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 454

  • @tonyl7286
    @tonyl7286 4 роки тому +850

    "We couldn't decide what to make so let's make an anti-everything vehicle." - Some American design team in the 90s

  • @flippedstug9517
    @flippedstug9517 4 роки тому +852

    Object 775 just seems like someone dropped a T-54 on another T-54 in the factory and flattened it, so they just shrugged and went "no use wasting a good tank".

    • @ANDREALEONE95
      @ANDREALEONE95 4 роки тому +114

      Comarade, it's 4 pm. Time for tank flattening!

    • @DOSFS
      @DOSFS 4 роки тому +49

      BONK!

    • @LEEGOOVER9901
      @LEEGOOVER9901 4 роки тому +7

      Man that just weird and distrupt my brain

    • @V___X
      @V___X 4 роки тому +20

      Looks like the T-100 LT from WoT

    • @balconycomefast2876
      @balconycomefast2876 4 роки тому +16

      Its like wide putin but the tank equivelent

  • @RicharDD1127
    @RicharDD1127 4 роки тому +704

    I really wish that M1 Abrams anti-air vehicle was made, there would be so many “Gaijin Please!” for it.

    • @General_Dave_1
      @General_Dave_1 4 роки тому +44

      And it would ruin everything, implying that the game already wasn’t borked enough.

    • @mr.abrams9885
      @mr.abrams9885 4 роки тому +30

      Yes

    • @leviheichou1406
      @leviheichou1406 4 роки тому +53

      @@General_Dave_1 maybe it would fix the Ka-50, G.91 R3 and supersonic mig cas spam... Can't have that though

    • @sotilaskarkuri
      @sotilaskarkuri 4 роки тому +16

      @@leviheichou1406 you should know usa already has adats. as the M1 AA would have used adats missiles it would have the same range and been just borderline op

    • @apertureemployee215
      @apertureemployee215 4 роки тому +31

      No one:
      10.3 America: SUPER ADATS TIME!

  • @dlistmemer591
    @dlistmemer591 4 роки тому +339

    Enemies fear the bucketlift ATGM

    • @SuspiciouslyGroomedPegasus
      @SuspiciouslyGroomedPegasus 4 роки тому +25

      I mean I would.

    • @emelgiefro
      @emelgiefro 4 роки тому +31

      You could legit smack down helis with just the arm

    • @BoisegangGaming
      @BoisegangGaming 4 роки тому +32

      @@emelgiefro "Bonk"
      *vehicle kill: 100*

    • @PimpCatTV
      @PimpCatTV 4 роки тому +4

      Like, that’s such a good idea, too. Like, holy shit.

    • @tutel19
      @tutel19 4 роки тому +7

      Do not question the elevated one

  • @Dovorans
    @Dovorans 4 роки тому +85

    "Using an anti-tank missile on something like a BMP is a bit of a waste."
    FSA: uses ATGM against infantry soldiers.

  • @sorcererberoll4641
    @sorcererberoll4641 4 роки тому +308

    Who the hell proposed putting a missile spire on a tank

    • @omgwtfhaxfan1221003
      @omgwtfhaxfan1221003 4 роки тому +43

      they guy who thinks the rule of cool dictates reallife success.

    • @Schnittertm1
      @Schnittertm1 4 роки тому +45

      The UK, Germany and France. Look for the Trilateraler Versuchsträger "Panther" if you want to see the version built for the Bundeswehr on top of a Leopard 1 hull. It certainly might have had limited use in some cases, as you could indirectly fire missiles over buildings or trees, without having to expose yourself to return fire.

    • @MediumRareOpinions
      @MediumRareOpinions 4 роки тому +31

      For context remember NATO was gearing up for defensive warfare against the Soviet Bloc. It wasnt for projecting force in an aggressive manner.
      You can see how that kind of contraption would be intended for use, as it would allow your pre prepared positions to fire and disappear by simply raising and lowering the arm and with nearly no risk of losing crews.
      Context matters when you evaluate a design, it explains many oddities.

    • @josephburchanowski4636
      @josephburchanowski4636 4 роки тому +8

      @@omgwtfhaxfan1221003 I don't see how that is a case of the rule of cool. Seems more like the case of "I don't want to get shot by other tanks, but I want to be as armored as a tank so I survive getting shot at by other things."

    • @SecuR0M
      @SecuR0M Рік тому

      Attack helicopters used to be expensive. "Giraffe" tanks were popular in the '80's when people knew they couldn't afford enough missile-carrying helicopters to stop the Red Army.

  • @benlex5672
    @benlex5672 4 роки тому +191

    US military philosophy is basically: who needs AA tanks if we can just hold absolute air superiority?

    • @Tigershark_3082
      @Tigershark_3082 4 роки тому +11

      Yeah, pretty much. Especially with the effectiveness of modern missiles such as the AIM-120 and AIM-9X

    • @killian9314
      @killian9314 4 роки тому +1

      @@Tigershark_3082 British Aim 132 sips tea in the background

    • @Tigershark_3082
      @Tigershark_3082 4 роки тому +12

      @@killian9314 That one too. I've heard a lot of good things about the ASRAAM

    • @coaxill4059
      @coaxill4059 3 роки тому +11

      @@Tigershark_3082 Plus the name! Cmon, they had to know.
      "Approaching target, ready to ram ass with ASRAAM."

    • @g.williams2047
      @g.williams2047 3 роки тому +4

      Who needs AA vehicles when the enemy's airfields were turned to scrap by our missiles from across the planet?

  • @itaybron
    @itaybron 4 роки тому +157

    "Tanks! build more tanks!" - Command & Conquer generals,PLA tank general.

    • @Grabacr_KDH
      @Grabacr_KDH 4 роки тому +4

      ah yes, a fellow man of culture
      i still play it

    • @tylergust6839
      @tylergust6839 4 роки тому +3

      Still disappointed from EA cancelling Generals 2 a few years back 😞

    • @donnergrober179
      @donnergrober179 4 роки тому

      Thank god I'm not the only one playing it up to this year.

    • @02091992able
      @02091992able 4 роки тому +1

      EVERYTHING MUST MELT!!!!!!!!!! Chinese Nuclear General.

    • @arturturkevych3816
      @arturturkevych3816 3 роки тому

      Can I have some shoes?

  • @firipinsherman1778
    @firipinsherman1778 4 роки тому +164

    Object 775 looks like if a T-64 was sat on

    • @Fish-kz8xw
      @Fish-kz8xw 4 роки тому +11

      I guess Russian engineers got more depressed

    • @firipinsherman1778
      @firipinsherman1778 4 роки тому +6

      @@Fish-kz8xw XD. But that would be better if the 775 had a lot of gun depression xd

    • @alm5992
      @alm5992 4 роки тому +4

      Or the T-64 was given to one of those hydraulic press channels lol

    • @firipinsherman1778
      @firipinsherman1778 4 роки тому +2

      @@alm5992 XD YES

    • @maxim6088
      @maxim6088 4 роки тому +2

      By the Maus

  • @XxermandxX
    @XxermandxX 4 роки тому +116

    Some more info about the Object 775!
    - Awesome armour:
    Frontal turret armor: 40mm of steel + 320 renforced alluminium + 280mm of steel
    UFP: 90mm of steel + 70mm of glass fiber + 30mm of steel at 75°
    LFP: 100mm of steel + 105mm of glass fiber + 16mm of steel at 56°
    - Hydropneumatic suspension can reduce only the height and It couldnt incline the tank, at the minumin level it could reach 1,385 m of high!!
    - Very fast ATGM and rockets:
    ''Boer'' rotating rocket
    could reach 650-700 m/s with 3 kg of explosive (more or less)
    ''Rubin'' missile could reach 550 m/s with 500mm of pen!

    • @gamecubekingdevon3
      @gamecubekingdevon3 4 роки тому +1

      Do you have sources ?

    • @XxermandxX
      @XxermandxX 4 роки тому +28

      @@gamecubekingdevon3 ''Domestic Armored Vehicles. XX Century Volume 3 (1946-1965)'';
      "Техника и вооружение: Отечественные бронированные машины 1945-1965";

    • @gamecubekingdevon3
      @gamecubekingdevon3 4 роки тому +1

      @@XxermandxX thanks!

    • @scudb5509
      @scudb5509 4 роки тому +13

      Extra information: Project was discontinued, because Soviet tanks could now also fire ATGMs from their tank barrels.

    • @heatsyncope2859
      @heatsyncope2859 4 роки тому +1

      @@XxermandxX thx!

  • @Faded._
    @Faded._ Рік тому +25

    Spookston predicted the future of WT

  • @bandittux7596
    @bandittux7596 4 роки тому +59

    "Too much"? How about too little? I would love to watch and listen to a 10-15 minute version of this!

  • @Eonymia
    @Eonymia Рік тому +9

    And now we're actually getting the 775 in WT. Yay.

  • @cnlbenmc
    @cnlbenmc 4 роки тому +59

    I think the ADATS Abrams with AA guns would be fearsome!

    • @scudb5509
      @scudb5509 4 роки тому

      Expensive AF as well.

    • @cnlbenmc
      @cnlbenmc 4 роки тому +3

      +@@scudb5509+ Maybe not as much in this day and age; especially if they use the 2000 or so 1979 era M1 Abrams that are literally sitting in warehouses.

    • @scudb5509
      @scudb5509 4 роки тому

      cnlbenmc even then still too expensive. 1 ATGM and it’s fucked. You might as well make something like the Russian Terminator.

    • @cnlbenmc
      @cnlbenmc 4 роки тому +1

      +@@scudb5509+ Not to the front it isn't; Abrams are virtually invincible to ATGM hits to the frontal arc (unless it's a lucky hit to the driver's hatch or turret ring) and of course it would get TUSK upgrades for the sides to get ERA and apllique armor panels. Top attack munitions (very rare outside of the US) and KE Rounds would to the sides be the biggest threats it would probably face asides from mines.
      As for the Terminator; this thing would literally be a Tunguska meets Terminator on steroids.

    • @scudb5509
      @scudb5509 4 роки тому +1

      cnlbenmc Real life is not a game. In real life ATGMs nowadays go through more than a meter of composite armour. And that vehicle will suffer terribly in urban combat, simply due to its size.

  • @thenotoriouspig3994
    @thenotoriouspig3994 Рік тому +8

    The object 775 is here!

  • @twentylush
    @twentylush 4 роки тому +8

    "what? tanks cant fire air to ground missiles, they a ground vehicles to begin with"
    vickers defense systems: OBSERVE

  • @scudb5509
    @scudb5509 4 роки тому +14

    Object 775 was meant to be a replacement for IT-1. However, T-64s and T-72s were now able to fire missiles from their tank barrels as well, so the project was discontinued.

  • @corrodan2995
    @corrodan2995 4 роки тому +66

    "I wanted to talk about more tanks, but ended up writing too much"
    *looks at playback time and sees its only **5:49** long*
    Ok...... *cough* could have just made the video longer if you had more *cough*
    (Tbh I don't have any ideas on what his contraints are, I just found this reasoning funny)

    • @HaveANiceDayLol.
      @HaveANiceDayLol. 3 роки тому

      For another Wierd Tanks Prototypes video, for more content

  • @mr.abrams9885
    @mr.abrams9885 4 роки тому +20

    T54: *exist*
    *B O N K*
    now its object 775

  • @ValentineC137
    @ValentineC137 4 роки тому +11

    5:16 "Prototypes were manufactured and tested"
    Gaijin: *_OWO?_*

    • @rn-zu5ld
      @rn-zu5ld 4 роки тому

      Hanz! Grab ze flammenwerfer. We are gonna burn some furries.

    • @Pablo-xy3lo
      @Pablo-xy3lo 4 роки тому

      @@rn-zu5ld Jawhol

  • @ladyhavoc1281
    @ladyhavoc1281 4 роки тому +66

    7 seconds ago, Guess I caught this video fast, nice one.

    • @emilgirginov9848
      @emilgirginov9848 4 роки тому +3

      I mean, who cares buddy?

    • @killian9314
      @killian9314 4 роки тому +2

      @@emilgirginov9848 50 people other than you. Who cares that you don't?

  • @azisandwich
    @azisandwich 4 роки тому +15

    The T80um2 has been a special place in my heart

    • @sotilaskarkuri
      @sotilaskarkuri 4 роки тому +4

      any USSR/Russian tank/plane/heli has special place in my heart

    • @azisandwich
      @azisandwich 4 роки тому +2

      @@sotilaskarkuri indeed

  • @didrechus9904
    @didrechus9904 4 роки тому +12

    I have so many french tanks in mind ... but the low profile give me flash back XD
    try to searsh the "ELC lorraine" or the "chenillette vp 90" ... the vp is just to funny to passe out XD
    Nice vidéo ^^

    • @gasupplisson
      @gasupplisson 4 роки тому +3

      When the french choose to make an ASU 57

  • @wargaming727
    @wargaming727 4 роки тому +48

    I could imagine the challenger 1 trigat being in war thunder, if it was then its visibility would be 350%

    • @RIO-et4mm
      @RIO-et4mm 4 роки тому +6

      YES. Just sit behind cover and *bonk everyone...

    • @SunflSeeds
      @SunflSeeds 4 роки тому +3

      Straight up giraffe in its natural habitat of Tunisia

  • @alhesiad
    @alhesiad 4 роки тому +24

    Lol, space elevator: the tank.

  • @chrisbacon3071
    @chrisbacon3071 Рік тому +3

    Well out of the 4 vehicles spooksten listed 1 made it in.

  • @LtAce150
    @LtAce150 4 роки тому +1

    I just love the look of the obj 777/490A, it looks very practical from an engineering standpoint while still reaching the same benefits of other remote control style turreted vehicles.

  • @wencakokotus6324
    @wencakokotus6324 Рік тому +3

    And now... Object 775 is in warthunder... This is what i call foreshadowing

  • @violetsky2677
    @violetsky2677 Рік тому +3

    I wonder if spookston remembers this video where he mentioned the 775 lol. Just got introduced into the game.

  • @Tankliker
    @Tankliker 4 роки тому +16

    Amoured Warfare already added the M1 ADGS and you are right, that thing is hilarious.

    • @ferretzim8694
      @ferretzim8694 4 роки тому +1

      AW has a lot of these prototype tanks, and I actually like it as opposed to WT and WoT. It's just more fun

    • @Tankliker
      @Tankliker 4 роки тому +2

      @@ferretzim8694 it's WOT with modern tanks and without prem ammo.
      I personally like War Thunder the most but Armored Warfare is a close second in case of fun to play.

    • @killian9314
      @killian9314 4 роки тому +1

      @@Tankliker i like wot, but been falling off it recently. Is armored warfare f2p?

    • @Tankliker
      @Tankliker 4 роки тому +1

      @@killian9314 it is. But many claim it is massive p2w, which is just not true. The thing is, even prem tanks are just average, you also make pretty much only positive credits, no better vehicle = higher cost

    • @killian9314
      @killian9314 4 роки тому

      @@Tankliker you mean i don't have to form 4 million credits to get a tank like in WoT top tier? Thanks goodness

  • @Maybeacatty
    @Maybeacatty Рік тому +3

    It's funny how the 775 is now ingame

  • @babute21
    @babute21 4 роки тому +10

    I didn't know hydro pneumatic suspension can help you with depression, i'll ask my gp about it

    • @epion660
      @epion660 4 роки тому

      Only if it's a fully adjustable system. If it is, it can tilt the tank forwards or backwards, rather than just lifting up and down.

    • @seanwilkinson8696
      @seanwilkinson8696 3 роки тому

      If you ask your doctor about hydro pneumatic suspension, he's gonna figure you're inquiring about some zany erectile dysfunction treatment.
      "I'm not familiar with that. Is it anything like a Swedish enlargement pump? Your health insurance might even cover the entire cost..."

  • @rexaprawira2980
    @rexaprawira2980 Рік тому +5

    Now we get object 775 😊

  • @julopabene8736
    @julopabene8736 4 роки тому +2

    I have to admit, I really like the looks of the Obj. 477, but I think that is just because I find external gun mounts incredibly fascinating

  • @mage9564
    @mage9564 4 роки тому +1

    These videos are really interesting! I'd love to see maybe longer videos but it's just a suggestion. Love the videos. Keep up the amazing work!

  • @TheTrueAdept
    @TheTrueAdept 4 роки тому +1

    The thing with the Sgt. York is that 1) there was still retuning needed to be done (for example, the 3k PSI hydraulics were a poor choice when it comes to making the turret work, although DESPITE this, the turret was going fast enough that the turret crews were getting nauseous when the turret is 'taken off the leash' as it were), 2) the fire control needed more work (although the various pilots that worked in the program had only PRAISE when it comes to the FCS making only solid obstacles like hills and mountains be the only cover you can use), 3) the barrels that the program was using had a LOT of literally worn barrels because some penny pitcher back in '45 decided to get those back into storage than order replacements, 4) the US Army had to contend with the USAF for ANY AAA program, and 5) two (for all intents and purposes) ill-researched hit pieces by journalists made enough stink on the program that it forced its cancelation.
    To quote one of those test pilots:
    "In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video.
    The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar).
    A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically.
    On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us.
    I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems.
    So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack.
    Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.)
    Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?)
    To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation.
    (The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.)
    Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above.
    If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was:
    Helicopter flies over.
    Traverse/re-acquire movement starts.
    Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself).
    Guns started to elevate to re-engage.
    Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language.
    The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change.
    Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ”
    I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad.
    On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check.
    I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time.
    Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time."

  • @peterzavragin.d-17wenttowa48
    @peterzavragin.d-17wenttowa48 4 роки тому +2

    I've Heard Some Rumors From A Friend Of Mine Who Works On A Naval Port, That A High Ranking Navy Officer Of The Pacific Fleet Was Requesting And Suggesting A Project To Mount A Kashtan CIWS On A Tank Chassis. It Was Deemed To be Named The Vladivostok Project, Only Problem Was That He Never Knew What Tank Chassis Was Going to Be Used.
    Problem With My Friend Is That He's Almost Drunk 75% Of The Time Even When He's On The Job Repairing And Repainting Some Warships, So It's Somewhat Unbelievable
    But If It Is True, Then It Will Replace Some 2K22 SPAAG's
    Possible Hull Configurations:
    T-14 = Not Likely But Highly Possible
    T-70-90 = Tested But Outdated But Still Possible As It Is Our Workhorse
    BMP-2-3 Possible Due to Cost Efficiency And Reliability
    Existing ZPRK Hulls = Possible Due To A Hydropnuematic Suspension

  • @battlerog_fr
    @battlerog_fr 4 роки тому +38

    anover one that could feet in , the "leclerc T40" , basacly the equivalent of a BMP on overdose of steroid for armor , never managed to get into production because of production caust and maintence + more difficulte to build than standards versions .

    • @battlerog_fr
      @battlerog_fr 4 роки тому

      i'm ok if you need to massion me ( for some reason )

  • @SirKingWest
    @SirKingWest 4 роки тому +2

    The ADATS is the "anti-everything" vehicle in War Thunder. It would only be better on the Abrams platform-- let us hope that doesn't come to fruition.
    Thanks for the vid Spookston. We miss you on Teki's Discord

  • @General_Dave_1
    @General_Dave_1 4 роки тому

    Finally, you mentioned one of my favourites the M1 AGDS. If we knew more about the vehicle then I would prefer and entire video on it because its such an intricate design that only the BMPT or Terminators really compare to.

  • @anomalis17
    @anomalis17 Рік тому +5

    Actually object 775 is now in war thunder, go check it out!

  • @istvanbencze205
    @istvanbencze205 Рік тому +5

    the obj 775 its coming XDDD

  • @fefe8504
    @fefe8504 Рік тому +3

    3 years later. We got obj. 775 in war thunder

  • @BoisegangGaming
    @BoisegangGaming 4 роки тому +1

    This combined with Potential History's Meme Tanks format would be hilarious.

  • @Tsarbloonba
    @Tsarbloonba 6 місяців тому +1

    Object 775 design process
    1. Inventor sees pancake
    2. Tank

  • @VaduzLmao
    @VaduzLmao 4 роки тому +22

    Make if the war thunder M13/40-M14/41-M15/42 were historical accurated

    • @matthiuskoenig3378
      @matthiuskoenig3378 4 роки тому

      well for 1 they had more ammunition types than in game, and for seconds they apparently had armoured ammunition boxes which prevented ammo rack explosions from destroying the vehicle.
      from german and italian reports (that have been cited as sources) an average crew would get 20rpm with the main gun, so it should have a ~3second reload (rather than its ingame closer to ~6s)
      they were apparently more reliable than contemporary british vehicles in terms of mechanics but still not super reliable like American stuarts. and some of the factories that made them used subpar steel, resulting in armour cracking on some vehicles after hits.
      the M15/42 specifically was only ever deployed (by the Italian) in italy, so it might get limitations there. and all 3 had relatively low production numbers compared to American or soviet mass produced stuff. comparable to german heavies.

  • @davidryanlawrencd
    @davidryanlawrencd 4 роки тому +14

    3:01 is that a Russian tank with actual depression?!

    • @JohnnyShagbot
      @JohnnyShagbot 4 роки тому +4

      Hey it's trying, okay? Life is hard.

  • @Schnittertm1
    @Schnittertm1 4 роки тому

    Around the same time the Challenger 1 TRIGAT was made, Germany produced its own variant of that based on the Leopard 1 chassis. If I go by the Leopard 1 books by Michael Shackelton, then it was a joint venture between the UK, France and Germany to produce such a vehicle. The vehicle itself was called the Trilateraler Versuchsträger "Panther" (yes, like the WWII tank) and the prototype vehicle resides in the Panzermuseum Munster nowadays.
    Another one off vehicle based on the Leopard 1 was the RS 80 Medium Range Rocket System, an artillery rocket launcher for six 280 mm rockets. The prototype of this vehicle also still exists at the Artillerie Lehrsammlung in Idar Oberstein.

  • @Conrad-os1dk
    @Conrad-os1dk 2 місяці тому

    There were plans of the German military in the late 1980s and mid 1990s of building a new lightly armoured vehicle. They had plans like with the challenger 1, but on a chassis that we know today as the Radkampfwagen 90. There were also plans on making one with a autocannon, which resulted in the Piranha APC and/or the Luchs scouting vehicle. There were even more plans, but they never gone past the drawing board stage.

  • @barbatoslupusrex8712
    @barbatoslupusrex8712 4 роки тому

    Never heard any of these projects before. As always, great video!

  • @shotjon2957
    @shotjon2957 4 роки тому +1

    "That guy doesn't scare me." famous last words

  • @johnathanbodkin122
    @johnathanbodkin122 3 роки тому

    I never realized how much of a monster spookston is when it comes to War thunder

  • @RussianRainbow
    @RussianRainbow 4 роки тому

    I was hoping he would talk about the AGDS, glad I suggested it last video.

  • @jplabs456
    @jplabs456 4 роки тому +1

    Object 775:
    Not a pancake, but a tank-cake.

    • @seanwilkinson8696
      @seanwilkinson8696 3 роки тому +2

      This comment deserves more love.
      Being Russian, it might even be apropos to call it a potato tankcake; it only needs an applesauce or sour cream dispenser. You can be sure that it runs the best on vodka distilled from - you guessed it - potatoes! And its cannon fires SPUD rounds (Simple Preparation; Utterly Delicious).

  • @Dat-fox-in-a-box
    @Dat-fox-in-a-box Рік тому +3

    THE OBJECT 775 IS NOW CANON

  • @eliezercorderofeliciano8413
    @eliezercorderofeliciano8413 4 роки тому

    Nice. I like this series of tanks.

  • @blitzkrieg8776
    @blitzkrieg8776 4 роки тому +1

    That trigat system one reminds me of this tank design in world war two, a part of the hull would life two for what was either a light machine like the BESA or an HMG like the .50 cal to shoot over walls. It was a light tank and was design for D-day I believe.
    It's been years since I've seen it so I can't remember it's name or the chassis it was put on.

    • @epion660
      @epion660 4 роки тому

      Bren I think?

    • @blitzkrieg8776
      @blitzkrieg8776 4 роки тому

      @@epion660 I remember it being in a game the first time I saw it. It definitely had a higher capacity than 30.
      Might have been a mod for Battlefield 1942.

    • @epion660
      @epion660 4 роки тому

      @@blitzkrieg8776 Looked it up to be sure, It's the "Praying Mantis" tank. 2 prototypes, and one was built on a Bren carrier.

    • @blitzkrieg8776
      @blitzkrieg8776 4 роки тому +1

      ​@@epion660 Ah, you meant the Universal Carrier, aka Bren Carrier and yeah that's the tank. Found a page about it with another interesting design called the Humber Hornet Malkara. It uses ATGMs.

  • @dragonslayer-kd4lt
    @dragonslayer-kd4lt 10 місяців тому +1

    object 775 is now in war thunder yeesh how far we have come

  • @Nicmadis
    @Nicmadis 4 роки тому

    Armored Warfare actually has both object 490 and the AGDS ingame. First being made of almost pure stalinium as long as you point front towards enemy, second one being made of aluminum with some paper mache for added looks.
    Premium tanks, of course.

  • @LucyKaida
    @LucyKaida 4 роки тому

    Funny how Armored Warfare has at least one tank out of every Weird Prototype video you made

  • @smeghead765
    @smeghead765 4 роки тому

    That Trigat is the strangest thing I've ever seen on tracks.

  • @connordalton4553
    @connordalton4553 4 роки тому +1

    Small comment. You make reference to both 490A and 477A, which while very similar, had a lot of differences, particularly surrounding ammunition handling. From what I have read, most of what is said in video applies more to 477A the 490A, and the photo's appear to be of both tanks.
    Now, with that said, I could very well be mistaken, and as with a lot of Russian prototype tank designs created between 1980 and 1995, concrete technical data is almost non-existent, and most sources contradict each other regularly.

  • @armadillo3454
    @armadillo3454 4 роки тому +1

    Anyone who has played Armored warfare knows just how OP the M1 AGDS is lol

  • @the7observer
    @the7observer 4 роки тому

    1:16 - reminds me of the mantis tank, which was a concept in WW2. instead of rockets it had a machine gun

    • @Berbecu69
      @Berbecu69 4 роки тому

      Yea but the mantis tank was smaller and lighter and a little bit older

  • @junchengfang5692
    @junchengfang5692 Рік тому +4

    Well obj. 775 is in war thunder now.

  • @dafasamudra6398
    @dafasamudra6398 4 роки тому +1

    3:22 E-SPORTS READY

  • @ChipmunkofVengeance
    @ChipmunkofVengeance 4 роки тому

    If you want more newer designs then there is the Chimera Tank Destroyer built on the Chieftain chassis. Essentially it was like a JagdPanzer IV, with a casement mounted 120mm XL30 (so same gun as the Challenger 2).

  • @Jonathan-fz4yu
    @Jonathan-fz4yu 4 роки тому

    Great video i rella enjoy this series

  • @wulfleyn6498
    @wulfleyn6498 4 роки тому

    That last one looks like someone out a very large frying pan upside down on a tank hull.

  • @nekomakhea9440
    @nekomakhea9440 4 роки тому

    AGDS would be so fun in warthunder, it's like an IRL GDI Mammoth Tank.

  • @CollinTheSav
    @CollinTheSav 4 роки тому

    *sees image of the Trigat* "What the fuck kinda tea were you Britties on?"

  • @hanuman1851
    @hanuman1851 4 роки тому

    I like this vids, talk about the object 167 pls, keep it up King

  • @oddityurie3435
    @oddityurie3435 4 роки тому +1

    As soon as i clicked on this video i got slapped with a World of Tanks ad and i feel very offended by that

  • @thefish7603
    @thefish7603 4 роки тому +4

    OH BOY ROUND 3

  • @valthatiserie
    @valthatiserie 3 роки тому

    Trigat: reaches over wall) HELLO THERE
    Russian tank behind wall: BLYATTTTT

  • @polishkurt5354
    @polishkurt5354 4 роки тому

    That last prototipe is so cute!

  • @Epicredeemer
    @Epicredeemer 4 роки тому

    AGDS fuck yes. AW's got it and it's absolutely hilarious, though if I remember it was on the hull of an M1A2, not a base M1

  • @Geworfenheit
    @Geworfenheit 4 роки тому

    Hey Spookston, the Object 490 and Object 477 was two different projects. One with 125mm cannon, was in early 1980's while Object 477 with 152mm was in late 1980's. They're different research programs, and for example Object 477 planned to able shot kinetic energy ATGM (like LOSAT), and projectiles with 20km range.

    • @_Admin_01.
      @_Admin_01. 2 роки тому

      There were three 490s, the first, 490 had a 125 2A66, the second (490A) had a 152, these shared the same hull, and then 490B, the wedge version with the 152.

    • @Geworfenheit
      @Geworfenheit 2 роки тому

      @@_Admin_01. No nope. Both 490 (Poplar and Buntar) were armed with 125mm guns.
      And there's no such project called Object 490B. Tank you are speaking about was called "Belka". The research works ended with several blueprints and single small layout on 1990 and then was closed. It was just a concept that didn't survive too much to get assembled as "Object 4__".

    • @_Admin_01.
      @_Admin_01. 2 роки тому

      @@Geworfenheit 490A was armed/to be armed with a 125, but the decision was made to upgun to a 152. Every source I have seen that details the tank says this, 490 was armed with a 125 like you said, but the A version had a 152 in the end.

    • @Geworfenheit
      @Geworfenheit 2 роки тому

      @@_Admin_01. In the end, Kharkov Bureau decided that modern tank could use high caliber gun. By that time all works with 490 ended, and Object 477 was created.

  • @Jan_372
    @Jan_372 4 роки тому +3

    How do your enemies never know their tanks in these clips?

  • @oaples8790
    @oaples8790 4 роки тому +1

    0:17 did you just shoot down an ATGM with your coax 7.62? Or did it hit a teeny tiny pebble

    • @Spookston
      @Spookston  4 роки тому +4

      I shot it down with the 14.5mm

    • @oaples8790
      @oaples8790 4 роки тому +1

      @@Spookston awesome

  • @Cuteseals2
    @Cuteseals2 3 роки тому

    AGDS is my new favorite tank design

  • @joshuamueller3206
    @joshuamueller3206 3 роки тому

    That first one was REALLY weird. I hereby nickname it "the giraffe."

  • @sumtingwong8230
    @sumtingwong8230 4 роки тому

    holy shit I love that OBJ775 I'd kill to see a mod for that in WT

  • @killian9314
    @killian9314 4 роки тому

    That M1 ADATS Hybrid would be a Banger in WT, tho what botthers me is: A. the boresighting nightmare of those dual bushmasters, would have to be ranged as often as a tunguska.
    B. The angle restrictions on all sides for those bushmasters. Sure the atgms are the main weapon, but caught with your pants down is a lot of tank rotating, reason why i dislike the M3lee.

  • @oscarsanmiguelgomez
    @oscarsanmiguelgomez 4 роки тому

    M1 Thumper would be also interesting to see.

  • @1SaUI
    @1SaUI 4 роки тому

    I love the challenger Trigat, I would love that to be in game

  • @worn_hammer
    @worn_hammer 4 роки тому

    You should make video also about older weird tank designs like Holt 200 ton trench destroyer

  • @jeremybarrett3616
    @jeremybarrett3616 4 роки тому

    Hey @Spookston would you ever look at the vehicles from the Iron Grip series of games? There is plenty of concept art to go off of since only Iron Grip Warlord and the old Iron Grip mod really lets you get close to the vehicles. But it's a really cool setting and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

  • @somerandom5535
    @somerandom5535 4 роки тому

    The 775 just looks like a squashed 279 with a miniature turret and gun.

  • @polish_boi3108
    @polish_boi3108 Рік тому +7

    775 was foretold by the furry

    • @BlyskawicaThunderstrike
      @BlyskawicaThunderstrike Рік тому +3

      tank furry try to not foreshadow a weird tank's addition to the game challenge (LOSAT CCV/obj. 775)

  • @louiswilkins9624
    @louiswilkins9624 4 роки тому

    Pretty good series

  • @familyjobe853
    @familyjobe853 Рік тому +1

    i hope all these tanks get added into the game

    • @tyykthunder
      @tyykthunder Рік тому +7

      Object 775 is getting added next update

  • @PoggoThomas
    @PoggoThomas 4 роки тому

    Quite an interesting video, but seems like you're covering only post-war tanks. Wonder if you will ever cover WW1 and 2, and pre-war tanks as that's a rich field of the most bizzare machines, like Killen-Strait armored tractor. Edward Grotte and his designs could use some attention too though (He's the guy behing famous P-1000 Ratte). Nonetheless, interesting content !

  • @SpaceStickwithSpaceTick
    @SpaceStickwithSpaceTick 4 роки тому

    Spookton: I hope that some of these tanks are obscure enough that you have not heard of them before
    Me: pfff sure yea right
    Challenger 1 Trigat:
    Me: What in gods name is that abomination?

  • @alm5992
    @alm5992 4 роки тому

    That Trigat is just the British trying to reboot the Preying Mantis tank from WW2

  • @Sgt_Chevron
    @Sgt_Chevron 4 роки тому

    *looks at the thumbnail picture*
    Oh my god is that a Russian tank with gun depression? I'm hooked.

  • @Soultaker7
    @Soultaker7 6 місяців тому

    ...The AGDS wasn't even an official proposal.
    It was a what-if design written by two engineers, Asher H. Sharoni (ex-IDF officer who went into the private defense industry) and Lawrence D. Bacon (who handled the technical drawings, IIRC), for an _article_ (titled _Forward Area Air-Ground Defense: Do We Need a Dual-Role Hybrid Air-Ground Defense System for the Armored Forces?_ pages 15 to 20) in the July-August 1996 issue of the _Armor_ magazine (you know, where a certain Mike Sparks also posted his fever dreams).
    Neither Sharoni nor Bacon had anything to do with GDLS, TACOM, TARDEC, AMC or any of the US Army research outfits. Both men were defense subcontractors working for Western Design HOWDEN, and that's why the AGDS never went nowhere: it wasn't an _official_ proposal, program of record or study and wasn't an answer to any official requirement or request for proposals (RFPs). It was just a napkin doodle by two peripheral individuals written up for a defense magazine.
    Note that the AGDS wasn't Sharoni and Bacon's first written thought experiment: they also printed in the November-December 1995 _Armor_ magazine issue (in an article titled _The Common Chassis Revisited: Should the Next Howitzer Be Built on the M1 Tank Chassis?_ ) another what-if proposal -- a self-propelled howitzer variant of the Abrams, which vaguely resembled a M270 MLRS due to its cabin, but had the howitzer gun facing _backwards._ That concept also never went anywhere beyond the pages of that magazine.
    P.S. You can find scans of past _Armor_ magazine issues online, by the way. Just Google _"Armor magazine July August 1996"_ and it should be your first result.

  • @EmonWBKstudios
    @EmonWBKstudios 4 роки тому

    Doomslayer in the cutscene should have had the extra thicc skin on, for peak Americana.

  • @thisisit3737
    @thisisit3737 4 роки тому

    I'm glad you went over M1 CATTB and M1 AGDS. What do you think about a American Stryker MGS?

  • @barrybend7189
    @barrybend7189 4 роки тому +3

    Hey can you please look at the Hildolfr from Mobile Suit Gundam MS Igloo.