Fun fact, after one of the engagements between the Soviets and the Chinese over the Ussuri river's islets, the Chinese claimed that the Soviets were using combat lasers to burn down masses of their infantry attacking the Russian positions. What the Soviets actually used were the BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, firing incendiary warheads; this was the combat debute of this iconic Cold War weapon system, and since lasers were also a recent thing, the Chinese assumed that the wonder weapon which incinerated their troops must have been an energy-based one.
or is it? the soviets have the tendency to hide their cool stuffs and only reveal it as propaganda when western spies already found out what if the soviets actually use the laser tank to incinerate chinese soldiers as a test?
it is a fact that Chinese military at the time (during 60s-70s) treat laser weapon rather seriously, they assume energy based weapon will be in the field within the upcoming decades, in one of the PLA info book from 1978 titled ，they spend a whole episode of how to treat the eye damage and second degree skin burn. The weapon they referenced is the Gaylen Lyell Laser Rifle from 1964 featuring a possibly fictional ammunition for the laser round. Which is very bizzare.
@@imgvillasrc1608 i mean ZKZM-500 is pretty much the closest laser rifle we have to a lasgun. Most of the laser rifle around the world include other Chinese product are pretty much just blinding laser, while ZKZM-500 actually capable of burning human skin
@@itsuk1_1this is actually the actual real China that the actual American and British BBC propaganda mainstream media actually don't show you is actually really like and actually capable of actually doing and damm
40+ years ago when I graduated college as an engineering student, I attended a presentation by a USAF colonel who explained many of the issues with lasers as weapons. Dust and moisture in the air absorbs much of the energy. Fog and rain will likewise make such weapons useless. Even so, he said an airborne laser was twenty years from being deployed (at high altitude to shoot down missiles). Twenty years later, still no airborne laser weapon. At the time, the US Army was working on a laser system with the acronym CLAW, which would blind enemy gunners. It was discontinued because of war crime concerns and about what an enemy would do to the crews of these lasers if captured.
You seem to have forgotten about the Airborne laser Platform on a modified Boeing 747. Built to shoot down missiles. ua-cam.com/video/R2eehBk_DNQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
The problem is bad weather, smoke and other obstructions render it far less effective so in the end the more basic systems with munitions are generally more effective. However, when used sparingly and by ships with capacity for more effective larger versions. As a defensive system on aircraft for example it could be quite effective at blinding enemy missiles and causing them detonate early. So there is certainly a future for lasers in military service.
I can't see how that would be a problem: These laser systems were developed to disable (more or less permanently) enemy optics. Any fog, dust, smoke or tree coverage that would block the laser would also block the enemy optic systems making the laser not useless, but just unnecessary in that situation. Being line-of-sight only isn't really a drawback for your weapon if its intended target is also line-of-sight only.
@@qdaniele97 yes i agree however a lot of it's targets are not line of site dependent, such as anti radar missiles that lock on to a radar emission and follow it to the source.
Fun fact, they had to run the film for that Bond film through the cameras some 64 times to get all the layers of the scene; any one screw-up would have meant starting from scratch.
@@michaelhowell2326 For that James Bond movie - Moonraker I'm pretty sure - they had to expose the film to light many times to get all of the different special effects onto it. Each time through the camera the cost of an error went up.
@@jimsvideos7201 so it's like if someone is developing photos in dark room with a red light, they just had to do incremental light adjustments? Sorry again for him being so dense, but I think he's getting it.
@@michaelhowell2326 You're getting there but this was before the developing stage. Consider this: If you were in a dark studio and took a picture of a person in the left side of the scene then took a picture of a different person on the right side (on the same piece of film, mind) tbh you'd have one picture of both people, but if person number 2 blinked you'd have to start again.
So the idea was for it to work more like an anti-sensor like system instead of burning everything like an martian in a HG Wells book, like an modern laser weapon would do?
I was an M1 Abrahms mechanic in the 80's and during training in the classroom the instructors had a whole training block on lasers as weapons on tanks. Id be curios today to hear the differences between thens why we cant to todays why we cant. I remember alot of the problems being around powering the weapon, saying youd need a power supply bigger than the tank itself.
Well our systems have gotten a lot "smarter" and have auto cut offs if the sensors are overwhelmed. But laser systems have advanced a lot and you can make one at home that can be pushed into the megawatt range.
Another fun fact, I just saw a video of an American system called DE M-SHORAD, basically a LAV with a laser emitter. Whether using any laser on enemy soldiers is a war crime I can't say, but it about the only way to use the power levels currently available effectively.
@@regalplays7135 Guess which task it'll actually be capable of, given the power available. Once it can catastrophically kill a drone in well under one second, I'll consider it capable of that task.
there is another problem. beam widening. depending on the frequency, but expecially towards the higher frequencies / shorter wavelength, the beam widens and light scatters and loses effectiveness. furthermore, the laser is a high precision optical instrument. it's really hard to outfit it with enough shock absorbers that the optics don't get whacked out of alignment and be good enough to work with hundreds of kilowatts of light. and never forget the waste heat such a system produces.
I love how the fringe experimental side of the Russian and American military is awfully close to their _'Command & Conquer: Red Alert'_ equivalents. Edit: I really want to play those games again now but I remember how awfully that franchise met its end.
It's not even quite a coincidence, if you think about it-The artists making games about whimsical Cold War weapons and the engineers actually building whimsical Cold War weapons all grew up drinking from the same sci-fi punchbowl. Then as adults the former see an IRL device and think "ooh let's do our own one of those" while the latter see a fictional one and think "ooh could we really do one of those?" (Never mind that a lot of Red Alert was originally based around accounts of the Philadelphia Experiment, which while it _very likely_ didn't happen and is based on misunderstanding and misremembering of ship degaussing procedures with maybe a little senile confabulation thrown in, is at least _alleged_ to have been IRL technology. I'm skeptical but who knows what kind of crazy shit might be possible if you tickle the fabric of the universe just right?)
Another old game called State of War also had vehicles mounted with similar laser weapons. Don't know if it still runs on any modern PC's but it was also a good one.
i think it wouldn't be a warcrime it is designed to blind pilots/vehicle operators only, and they are viewing through an optic on a screen, which excludes it from what i understand (In international humanitarian law, the use of laser weapons is prohibited when they are specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.) it isn't designed to blind those using unenhanced vision and though it likely could, it isn't setup to target these threats, and if you say that isn't enough to exclude it, then the us is using warcrime lasers as well. i don't have any professional basis on this nor have i done an extensive amount of research on it, so feel free to correct me if you know more on the subject.
russia?nah, they probably have a super high tech shovel in development or something.what the US or china for the matter is something i want to know, too
Once lasers become powerful enough, anyone caught in their crosshairs will never stand a chance. You can't evade a laser. If it misses, you outperformed it's targeting system, not the actual weapon.
FWIW specialized ablative armor (e.g. aerogels) and chaff clouds might be able to buy you time to get to get back into cover or terrain-mask. But yeah if they have line of sight to you it would be an absolutely terrifying weapon to face, even if it _is_ far enough in the future they'd be able to regrow your retinas.
@@frogisis it's a terrible way to go. A bright light and then you don't exist anymore. Lots of people say they would love to go out like that. So quick it's painless. Not me. I'd even take some pain over just instantly not existing.
IR lasers are pretty much worthless for blinding pilots because the glass used in the cockpit is not transmissive in that wavelength. The biggest limitation with laser weaponry is the targeting system, and the Russians absolutely weren't capable of developing an adequate system for a field grade laser weapon. It's easy to lock on and illuminate a satellite that's moving at a constant steady velocity, not so much for a vehicle or aircraft that frequently changes direction and speed.
I recall my dad saying that back in the 60s-70s in Poland there was a rumor of a skirmish on the border of the USSR/China and that hordes of ChiCom soldiers were cut down by Soviet lasers.
The Chinese thought that. They even provided info to medical troops on how to treat laser burns. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Most "public rumors" do have certain basis aside from absolutely ridiculous urban legends. Yes, it was the Damansky incident, when the Chinese forces invaded Soviet territory unprovoked and attacked a border guards outpost. When it became clear that the outpost is practically destroyed, the Soviet commanders used the recently developed BM-21s to absolutely devastate the Damansky island. When the salvos were fired, the Chinese already had massive reinforcements arrive, so the troop saturation was very dense for such a small piece of land. The ensuing carnage taught them to stay on their side of the river, since most of their troops and armor were annihilated.
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Glad to help. I guess, a mass salvo of rockets with their afterburner tails might look kinda like lasers, maybe that's where the legend originates.
This never took off because it depended on chemical lasers. Refueling those takes for-EVER, and the chemical byproduct was just too much for what they got from the laser.
The way that it sounds like, it may end up being the reason they will be bankrupted if trying to build it in big numbers and for maintenance keep up with. Also, would like to see that planes video in the future.
comerades behold my genius. conscript 1. what is that? inventor yuri clarksonov. its a prism tank. conscript 2. isn't that overkill? inventor yuri clarksonov. yessss
I was a little bit surprised, why the author of the video called Ilushin-76 "Beriev - 60" then I googled and yes, this flying laser platform was really indexed as "Beriev". Interesting, never heard about it before!
*We will never have high energy Weapons until they can make Clear-Metallic-Hydrogen stable (1,500,600 PSI) and then run a 5000 Amp Short through it. This should have a Phonon Density of 10,370,500 Joules per Sq.mm of beam area.*
My dad remembers hearing a legend in Poland, about Soviet tanks using Lasers against the Chinese in the 60s. My father was not a conspiracy theorist at the time, the internet didn't exist either, but the theory was word of mouth / common knowledge.
The Chinese thought that. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
You keep saying that it is a war crime and against the Geneva convention. But that protocol did not come into effect until the mid 90s and specifically has the clause that "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."
Am no scientist but am guessing that the reason we don't have that many laser based weapons like laser guns is cuz of the energy and also how much affective would that be to a more simpler bullet or missile
as for energy, nuclear should do the job.lasers are much more cheaper than missiles.think the reason they aren't mainstream is cus its a pain to develop.
They have a laser on an IFV type of vehicle but its only used for pd against drones. They wouldnt make sense as an artillery type of weapon since the earth is curved.
It;s not that lasers can't be effective, just no more effective than a conventional kinetic weapon like a bullet. Bullets are cheaper, more reliable and have less issues on the battlefield. If lasers were better we'd already see them deployed everywhere.
А с какого это перепугу т-90, не эффективный. Это Леопарды и Абрамсы - НЕ эффективны. =D Пересвет! Одно слово - "пересвет". Новая, не очень секретная техника, для ослепления спутников.
I feel like lazer tanks would not be a good idea as they'd probably give away their positions very quickly, you ussually won't see a bullet or I guess in the case of armor say an apfsds shell from the front however a gigantic lazer could probably be seen from quite a ways away on a lot of sensors such as thermals and they wouldn't cause instant damage whereas a bullet would do way more damage a whole lot faster, especially against armord targets, also bullets can't be dispursed by smoke whereas lazers tend to scatter when hitting smoke as seen on the optar system on some of the t95 prototypes (a US made mbt test bed in the Cold War not the doom turtle). All the optar is, is just a very early laser range finder.
How is blinding the enemy a war crime? WTH? Its not a war crime FYI. Im trying to figure out why you've said this multiple times in the video. Id argue Thermobaric weapons would and should be a war crime. Targeting a hospital is a war crime as another example. Using lasers is not a war crime. Nor is blinding your enemy
Oh im sorry. The use of lasers to intentionally blind or cause permanent vision impairment is considered a violation of international law. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, an annex to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. This protocol aims to prevent the use of such weapons, recognizing the severe humanitarian consequences and the prohibition of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or harm. Therefore, intentionally blinding enemies with lasers is generally considered a war crime under international law.
Russia might of claimed they developed and had an actual functioning model but they never really existed or worked as advertised. I would love to see how much Russia could help global development and how much they would benefit from and how far along they would be if they were a Nato member and shared technology with the US, UK, Germany, France and etc.
Bro every prototype vehicle they have ever made, they have tested and the reports from those tests is what the soviet and subsequently russian military got, its the same information we are getting. Test reports are always the best most credible sources, you can find out there. A politicians can and might exaggerate about a weapons capabilites but not its designers
Fun fact, after one of the engagements between the Soviets and the Chinese over the Ussuri river's islets, the Chinese claimed that the Soviets were using combat lasers to burn down masses of their infantry attacking the Russian positions. What the Soviets actually used were the BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, firing incendiary warheads; this was the combat debute of this iconic Cold War weapon system, and since lasers were also a recent thing, the Chinese assumed that the wonder weapon which incinerated their troops must have been an energy-based one.
or is it? the soviets have the tendency to hide their cool stuffs and only reveal it as propaganda when western spies already found out what if the soviets actually use the laser tank to incinerate chinese soldiers as a test?
it is a fact that Chinese military at the time (during 60s-70s) treat laser weapon rather seriously, they assume energy based weapon will be in the field within the upcoming decades, in one of the PLA info book from 1978 titled ，they spend a whole episode of how to treat the eye damage and second degree skin burn. The weapon they referenced is the Gaylen Lyell Laser Rifle from 1964 featuring a possibly fictional ammunition for the laser round. Which is very bizzare.
@@itsuk1_1If the Chinese were so serious in direct energy weapons then why hasn't the PLA created Lasguns yet?
@@imgvillasrc1608 i mean ZKZM-500 is pretty much the closest laser rifle we have to a lasgun. Most of the laser rifle around the world include other Chinese product are pretty much just blinding laser, while ZKZM-500 actually capable of burning human skin
@@itsuk1_1this is actually the actual real China that the actual American and British BBC propaganda mainstream media actually don't show you is actually really like and actually capable of actually doing and damm
Truth be told, Star Wars doesn't use lasers, they use plasma that had the gas to make the plasma energized by a laser.
Yes you are right, they called them blasters
Fortunately, yes.
You get the same effect in the real world with tracer rounds so why worry?
Or a solid fuel
That was a huge Light Saber!
40+ years ago when I graduated college as an engineering student, I attended a presentation by a USAF colonel who explained many of the issues with lasers as weapons. Dust and moisture in the air absorbs much of the energy. Fog and rain will likewise make such weapons useless. Even so, he said an airborne laser was twenty years from being deployed (at high altitude to shoot down missiles). Twenty years later, still no airborne laser weapon. At the time, the US Army was working on a laser system with the acronym CLAW, which would blind enemy gunners. It was discontinued because of war crime concerns and about what an enemy would do to the crews of these lasers if captured.
Очевидно экипажа изнасилуют
lol, they dont show the us such things thats it. the deep state uses such things for assassinations.
@@Otto_M а может он будет и не против с учётом нынешних тенденций
@@TheFruitcake1983 )))
You seem to have forgotten about the Airborne laser Platform on a modified Boeing 747. Built to shoot down missiles.
ua-cam.com/video/R2eehBk_DNQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
The reason the CIA didn't know about the 1K17 is because the Soviet Union didnt have a SquareSpace website.
The problem is bad weather, smoke and other obstructions render it far less effective so in the end the more basic systems with munitions are generally more effective. However, when used sparingly and by ships with capacity for more effective larger versions. As a defensive system on aircraft for example it could be quite effective at blinding enemy missiles and causing them detonate early. So there is certainly a future for lasers in military service.
Light a cigarette, blow smoke, stop laser, save eyeballs lolol
I can't see how that would be a problem:
These laser systems were developed to disable (more or less permanently) enemy optics. Any fog, dust, smoke or tree coverage that would block the laser would also block the enemy optic systems making the laser not useless, but just unnecessary in that situation.
Being line-of-sight only isn't really a drawback for your weapon if its intended target is also line-of-sight only.
@@qdaniele97 yes i agree however a lot of it's targets are not line of site dependent, such as anti radar missiles that lock on to a radar emission and follow it to the source.
Fun fact, they had to run the film for that Bond film through the cameras some 64 times to get all the layers of the scene; any one screw-up would have meant starting from scratch.
Makes you appreciate Chroma Key
Please forgive his ignorance, but my friend hasno clue what you're saying. Could you elaborate to make it more clear for him?
@@michaelhowell2326 For that James Bond movie - Moonraker I'm pretty sure - they had to expose the film to light many times to get all of the different special effects onto it. Each time through the camera the cost of an error went up.
@@jimsvideos7201 so it's like if someone is developing photos in dark room with a red light, they just had to do incremental light adjustments? Sorry again for him being so dense, but I think he's getting it.
@@michaelhowell2326 You're getting there but this was before the developing stage. Consider this: If you were in a dark studio and took a picture of a person in the left side of the scene then took a picture of a different person on the right side (on the same piece of film, mind) tbh you'd have one picture of both people, but if person number 2 blinked you'd have to start again.
I have been studying eastern european history for 5 years now and somehow they still manage to surprise and amaze me. I doubt that will ever go away.
imagine how surprised you would be if you didnt study official history and instead found out what truly was happening
A weapon that doesn't work reliably during Mud Season and Winter is of limited value when fighting in Eastern Europe.
And yet you can buy hand held lasers to cut tree branches down. The government buys them to burn out missiles and mostly hypersonics.
If the Soviets designed the Prism Tank.
Yes! My thoughts exactly.
1k11 literally looks like prism tank in ra2
So the idea was for it to work more like an anti-sensor like system instead of burning everything like an martian in a HG Wells book, like an modern laser weapon would do?
Yep
Yep, it will burn any kind of sensors. Including our Eyeballs.
I was an M1 Abrahms mechanic in the 80's and during training in the classroom the instructors had a whole training block on lasers as weapons on tanks. Id be curios today to hear the differences between thens why we cant to todays why we cant. I remember alot of the problems being around powering the weapon, saying youd need a power supply bigger than the tank itself.
Kinda related, but remember Boeing's Airborne Laser? IIRC they ended up using most of the original cargo space for the power supply.
Well our systems have gotten a lot "smarter" and have auto cut offs if the sensors are overwhelmed. But laser systems have advanced a lot and you can make one at home that can be pushed into the megawatt range.
@StriderGIF Yeah that was a thing too, multi gigawatt laser that was built to be anti ICBM by burning a hole in its fuel tank.
Another fun fact, I just saw a video of an American system called DE M-SHORAD, basically a LAV with a laser emitter. Whether using any laser on enemy soldiers is a war crime I can't say, but it about the only way to use the power levels currently available effectively.
It’s for destroying drones, not people
@@regalplays7135 Guess which task it'll actually be capable of, given the power available. Once it can catastrophically kill a drone in well under one second, I'll consider it capable of that task.
its not a warcrime if you win
there is another problem. beam widening. depending on the frequency, but expecially towards the higher frequencies / shorter wavelength, the beam widens and light scatters and loses effectiveness.
furthermore, the laser is a high precision optical instrument. it's really hard to outfit it with enough shock absorbers that the optics don't get whacked out of alignment and be good enough to work with hundreds of kilowatts of light. and never forget the waste heat such a system produces.
Prism Tank from Red Alert and the laser tank from Generals.
So Soviet is the real owner of Prism Tank, not Allies
Any day that F&E uploads is a good day.
Agreed
agreed x2
I love how the fringe experimental side of the Russian and American military is awfully close to their _'Command & Conquer: Red Alert'_ equivalents.
Edit: I really want to play those games again now but I remember how awfully that franchise met its end.
It's not even quite a coincidence, if you think about it-The artists making games about whimsical Cold War weapons and the engineers actually building whimsical Cold War weapons all grew up drinking from the same sci-fi punchbowl. Then as adults the former see an IRL device and think "ooh let's do our own one of those" while the latter see a fictional one and think "ooh could we really do one of those?"
(Never mind that a lot of Red Alert was originally based around accounts of the Philadelphia Experiment, which while it _very likely_ didn't happen and is based on misunderstanding and misremembering of ship degaussing procedures with maybe a little senile confabulation thrown in, is at least _alleged_ to have been IRL technology. I'm skeptical but who knows what kind of crazy shit might be possible if you tickle the fabric of the universe just right?)
Another old game called State of War also had vehicles mounted with similar laser weapons.
Don't know if it still runs on any modern PC's but it was also a good one.
Prism tanks??
i think it wouldn't be a warcrime
it is designed to blind pilots/vehicle operators only, and they are viewing through an optic on a screen, which excludes it from what i understand
(In international humanitarian law, the use of laser weapons is prohibited when they are specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.)
it isn't designed to blind those using unenhanced vision and though it likely could, it isn't setup to target these threats, and if you say that isn't enough to exclude it, then the us is using warcrime lasers as well.
i don't have any professional basis on this nor have i done an extensive amount of research on it, so feel free to correct me if you know more on the subject.
There was also a laser pistol developed for use by cosmonauts. Like the laser tank, it was for blinding optics, electronic and biological.
Makes me wonder what they have now in secret.
Probably semi active/ active camo.
It may not be a secret, but they have already developed a laser defense system called peresvet, I am not sure if it works tho, hahaha.
russia?nah, they probably have a super high tech shovel in development or something.what the US or china for the matter is something i want to know, too
It's not really a secret.
Peresvet, Kinzhal, Avangard, Poseidon, YaRS.
@@korana6308 You man that Kinzhal that got shot down recently?
Imagine if this made into War Thunder.
That tank was in GWT (Ground War Tanks)
upd: ua-cam.com/video/pxEOXKc2QMo/v-deo.htmlsi=c00VYYXXnjYVMF3l
lol or DCS World
Might be non lethal but still op
Optics aren't just an armor in WT?
30kg ruby? Why not, its cheap enough to make. Its always crazy that people think you can fire lasers from orbit and get through all that atmosphere.
But orbital lasers are powered by handwaivium. 🤷♂️
>defending yourself from missiles is a war crime
Once lasers become powerful enough, anyone caught in their crosshairs will never stand a chance. You can't evade a laser. If it misses, you outperformed it's targeting system, not the actual weapon.
unless you have a very good mirror aimed at the enemy
FWIW specialized ablative armor (e.g. aerogels) and chaff clouds might be able to buy you time to get to get back into cover or terrain-mask. But yeah if they have line of sight to you it would be an absolutely terrifying weapon to face, even if it _is_ far enough in the future they'd be able to regrow your retinas.
@@frogisis it's a terrible way to go. A bright light and then you don't exist anymore. Lots of people say they would love to go out like that. So quick it's painless. Not me. I'd even take some pain over just instantly not existing.
C&C Red alert wasn’t fiction. 😂
No mention of "Peresvet" system at all? I mean, it's an obvious modern inheritor of the idea.
I am just getting into space battleship yamato and now I see this... Wow!
Oh yes, please do a video about the A-60.
Would like to see the Prism tank in Red Alert 2 hahahaha, or the Mirage Tank
So you're telling me there are fricking tanks with fricking lasers attached to their fricking heads?!
IR lasers are pretty much worthless for blinding pilots because the glass used in the cockpit is not transmissive in that wavelength.
The biggest limitation with laser weaponry is the targeting system, and the Russians absolutely weren't capable of developing an adequate system for a field grade laser weapon. It's easy to lock on and illuminate a satellite that's moving at a constant steady velocity, not so much for a vehicle or aircraft that frequently changes direction and speed.
I recall my dad saying that back in the 60s-70s in Poland there was a rumor of a skirmish on the border of the USSR/China and that hordes of ChiCom soldiers were cut down by Soviet lasers.
The Chinese thought that. They even provided info to medical troops on how to treat laser burns. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
@@Henry_the_Eighth_ no kidding?? I never new there was a backstory to the rumors
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Most "public rumors" do have certain basis aside from absolutely ridiculous urban legends. Yes, it was the Damansky incident, when the Chinese forces invaded Soviet territory unprovoked and attacked a border guards outpost. When it became clear that the outpost is practically destroyed, the Soviet commanders used the recently developed BM-21s to absolutely devastate the Damansky island. When the salvos were fired, the Chinese already had massive reinforcements arrive, so the troop saturation was very dense for such a small piece of land. The ensuing carnage taught them to stay on their side of the river, since most of their troops and armor were annihilated.
@@Henry_the_Eighth_ cool! I'm gonna tell me dad as I'm sure he will get a kick out of this
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Glad to help. I guess, a mass salvo of rockets with their afterburner tails might look kinda like lasers, maybe that's where the legend originates.
This never took off because it depended on chemical lasers. Refueling those takes for-EVER, and the chemical byproduct was just too much for what they got from the laser.
NGL- this makes me think of playing Command & Conquer as a kid.
NGL, these look a LOT like those tanks from RA 2, surprisingly enough.
The way that it sounds like, it may end up being the reason they will be bankrupted if trying to build it in big numbers and for maintenance keep up with.
Also, would like to see that planes video in the future.
Command & Conquer vibes
comerades behold my genius.
conscript 1. what is that?
inventor yuri clarksonov. its a prism tank.
conscript 2. isn't that overkill?
inventor yuri clarksonov. yessss
I would love to see a video on the airborne laser systems.
Just add the laser tank to war thunder, im sure someone will leak it lol
I was a little bit surprised, why the author of the video called Ilushin-76 "Beriev - 60" then I googled and yes, this flying laser platform was really indexed as "Beriev". Interesting, never heard about it before!
KB Beriev is like a Skunk Works for Lockheed Martin, only much cooler.
Please do the Beriev A60 - And thanks for the cool content as always 🤘🏼
IMMA FIRIN’ MY LASER!!! *[BWAAAAMMM]*
shoop da whooooppp
Look the soviets might have had tanks. But the US had Ronald Raygun.
*We will never have high energy Weapons until they can make Clear-Metallic-Hydrogen stable (1,500,600 PSI) and then run a 5000 Amp Short through it. This should have a Phonon Density of 10,370,500 Joules per Sq.mm of beam area.*
Love your content keep up the good work
So the Prism tank is real!
That tank at the beginning made me think of the Ontos from battletech.
They had those in the PS2 game Heatseeker called the T-90HEL.
you should make a video about variable sweep wing aircraft like the f14 the f111 and the mig 23
"Prism tank in order, sir!"
-Red Alert
@5:26
goddamn, that's a fucking Prism Tank
Command and conquer vibes
Could you should were you get the models used in the videos. So we can look at them
Excellent Video! 💯
My dad remembers hearing a legend in Poland, about Soviet tanks using Lasers against the Chinese in the 60s. My father was not a conspiracy theorist at the time, the internet didn't exist either, but the theory was word of mouth / common knowledge.
The Chinese thought that. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
love the videos man
Laser Tanks??? Is this tank that inspired the creation of The Prism Tanks in the Red Alert strategy game??
look at 0:28, you will notice the tank called “1K11 Stilet” looks almost exactly like the prism tank
Us-ti-nov, you know like, Peter Ustinov.
your channel is brilliant
Oh enemy has optica its too complicated we dont do that
Let's develop a sci fi weapon instead
US: We have built the best night vision devices in the world!
USSR: I´m gonna put some dirt in your eye
You keep saying that it is a war crime and against the Geneva convention. But that protocol did not come into effect until the mid 90s and specifically has the clause that "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."
Like @WolfeSaber9933 said, Star Wars doesn't use lasers. More along the lines of plasma bolts.
Am no scientist but am guessing that the reason we don't have that many laser based weapons like laser guns is cuz of the energy and also how much affective would that be to a more simpler bullet or missile
as for energy, nuclear should do the job.lasers are much more cheaper than missiles.think the reason they aren't mainstream is cus its a pain to develop.
Codename of this tank - "Сжатие" ( Comression) . I dont know why, but it s my favorite codename of all soviet vinicles .
They have a laser on an IFV type of vehicle but its only used for pd against drones. They wouldnt make sense as an artillery type of weapon since the earth is curved.
Lasers are awesome. Please do go full Star Wars.
This is something out of BattleTech
It;s not that lasers can't be effective, just no more effective than a conventional kinetic weapon like a bullet. Bullets are cheaper, more reliable and have less issues on the battlefield. If lasers were better we'd already see them deployed everywhere.
Nice video!
It's absolutely terrifying until you remember smoke artillery has existed since the first world war.
There is a problem. How much energy would this laser take to run?
This was one issue that prevented the star wars concept working.
4:35 Its called RADUGA, (Rainbow).
reminds me of the GDI's disruptor, from C&C
Or the prism tank from Red alert 2?
4:39 it could also be a Johnny quest episode
I have remembered Red alert 2 .
There is prism tank.
But what about Tesla tank?
А с какого это перепугу т-90, не эффективный. Это Леопарды и Абрамсы - НЕ эффективны. =D
Пересвет! Одно слово - "пересвет". Новая, не очень секретная техника, для ослепления спутников.
LASER TANK, GET DOWN!! (Gets Down from the Laser Tank). 😨
go as crazy as you only can
I feel like lazer tanks would not be a good idea as they'd probably give away their positions very quickly, you ussually won't see a bullet or I guess in the case of armor say an apfsds shell from the front however a gigantic lazer could probably be seen from quite a ways away on a lot of sensors such as thermals and they wouldn't cause instant damage whereas a bullet would do way more damage a whole lot faster, especially against armord targets, also bullets can't be dispursed by smoke whereas lazers tend to scatter when hitting smoke as seen on the optar system on some of the t95 prototypes (a US made mbt test bed in the Cold War not the doom turtle). All the optar is, is just a very early laser range finder.
"I am in a scientific Matrix Grid that is in the early phases of being inserted into an extermination system!'
7:52 except it's not? they really did use a 30kg huge artificial ruby cylinder for laser source
Would be a good idea against modern drones tbh. Even Americans are using some kind of laser weapons to intercept drones
"I'm in a scientific matrix grid in the early phases of being inserted into an extermination system"
How is blinding the enemy a war crime? WTH? Its not a war crime FYI. Im trying to figure out why you've said this multiple times in the video. Id argue Thermobaric weapons would and should be a war crime. Targeting a hospital is a war crime as another example. Using lasers is not a war crime. Nor is blinding your enemy
Oh im sorry.
The use of lasers to intentionally blind or cause permanent vision impairment is considered a violation of international law. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, an annex to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. This protocol aims to prevent the use of such weapons, recognizing the severe humanitarian consequences and the prohibition of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or harm. Therefore, intentionally blinding enemies with lasers is generally considered a war crime under international law.
Needs a lot of energy, also what's the radiation level Standing next to one that fired
do you think it really matters? Your country uses depleted uranium and tells its not a warcrime to do so ;)
Yep, the most confusing idea is the only one that actually got produced.
Gainji when!
While I've learned about the airborne ones Id like to see it animated XD
I wonder what It’d do against that chrome plated tank in that James Bond movie? Piers Brosnon, I think.
A Rammstein concert?
Its not a war crime if nobody seen it.
if the Tank mode added to Modern Warships hope they add this Tanks
Biggest problem... Enemy weapons track in on the lasers!
the girls: silence pistols
the boys: ak-47s
the moms: bombs
the dads: tank cannon
ME: hehe laser tank go BRRRRR
Tier XII in World of Tanks
Imagine a disco ball that emits lasers as an air defense 😂
This thing is screaming to be a support vehicle in Battletech
Russia might of claimed they developed and had an actual functioning model but they never really existed or worked as advertised. I would love to see how much Russia could help global development and how much they would benefit from and how far along they would be if they were a Nato member and shared technology with the US, UK, Germany, France and etc.
Russia applied to join NATO in the early 2000s but was rejected.
Bro every prototype vehicle they have ever made, they have tested and the reports from those tests is what the soviet and subsequently russian military got, its the same information we are getting.
Test reports are always the best most credible sources, you can find out there. A politicians can and might exaggerate about a weapons capabilites but not its designers
@@Paul_Sergeyev and that's the second time they did
@@Paul_Sergeyev False, what is true is that Russia has broken every peace treaty it has signed.