Check out what happened to Turkey's Leopard 2 tanks in Syria - at least five were completely destroyed, getting turret launches worthy of the T-72s in Ukraine. ua-cam.com/video/jpPpCWEZjSo/v-deo.html
I wonder if the delays in the F-35 program were primarily due to several nations with different requirements caused the project to enter FUBAR territory?
@@joeclaridy From what I understand the jsf program was well defined before the project started as initially it was only really the US and the UK on board early on. The delays and the cost I would imagine would have to do with getting the design perfected, the delay hasn't really affected the project either as the cost of F35 is comparable or even cheaper in some circumstances as 4/4.5 gen competitors unlike other overrunning projects like the b2.
@@joeclaridy close my friend instead of competing annoying countries with all their different interests it was the different branches of the US military which is why there are F-35 B, and F-35c variants
well i think the jsf was startred in the late 80s early 90s and was a mess from the get go, there were massive cost overuns changes in direction and reqiurments of the project also the fact they orignally wanted three selerate versions that for the air force, navy and the marine corps each with different requirements such a verticak take off for the marine version. plus also the issues with pilots hemet not working properly increase the cost. so bascially it was a big fat money pit from the very begining.
When I was stationed in West Germany in 1986 our unit was still equipped with the M-60 tank, and the M-113, I didn't see many M-1 Abrams, a few but we were still equipped with the older vehicles.
that ain't nothing. one time i was going so fast i accidentally hit a rock on my front of the hell cat that i exploded plus i saw a T114 on full speed hit the side of a T34 it also exploded 😅
i mean, there's that one Hellcat in the AAF Tank museum in VA, that was taken out by Literally a single .50cal round that penetrated the side of the turret, and then *Bounced* a few times inside....
the sheridan is a magnificent example of wild over ambition in a design that tries to add in a pile of new features and ends up a mess. a hell of a neat mess, though
Fast, agile for the most part. Seemed every bolt on the thing unscrewed itself 1/4 turn every time it fired. Every circuit board was questionable. Hell, even the searchlight sometimes wouldn't work for IR. Cramped for the crew, especially if you were over 5'6. Slow on the reloads, waiting for the ready light to come up. "No ready light... No ready light.. Ready light, UP!"
Simon: i don't have much time Also Simon but 10 seconds later: HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT WAR THUNDER, A GAME SO REALISTIC THAT PLAYERS EVOLVE THEIR TANKS AT A HISTORIC AND REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Yeah. McNamera was excellent at fucking things up. A sad chapter to look up is project 100,000, where McNamera sought to bolster the number of eligible draftees during the height of Vietnam by accepting people who had been previously excused on the basis of being intellectually challenged. McNamera sold it as allowing the army to "improve" them, with the magic of VHS training. Many ended up dying in Vietnam. Here's a good talk on it. ua-cam.com/video/_J2VwFDV4-g/v-deo.html
@@barrag3463 Jocko reviewed a first hand account on his podcast by an author who was made responsible for one in boot camp. Evidently some were of such low intelligence they didn't even know how to sign their name, and of course you couldn't give a gun to many of them as they were likely to shoot at their own troops.
@@barrag3463 Had a draftee in my Basic in 71 who we all suspected of being a late version of McNamara's 100,000. The guy couldn't close one eye at a time. You can imagine the fun out on the rifle range with that - especially when he closed both eyes to take aim at the target. Eventually the drill sergeants just put tape over one lens of his eyeglasses to solve that problem, kind of. There were a lot of other problems with the guy. He was nice enough, he tried hard, but he was a disaster to be around.
now we need a video about the Stridsvagn 103 most likely the most original by design tank ever built. Also The Swedish Stirling SUbmarines and for the love of God give the SAAB Cold war jets some love most of em were world leading when they started their service.
@@jkhan337 No because the StuGs were assault guns / tank destroyers built on pre-existing tank hulls, while STRV-103s were MBTs by design and doctrine built with their own unique hull design.
The original concept was that of a multi-role do everything fighter to include a carrier version (McNamara's penny pinching idea, one plane to do everything). It was heavy (realistically too heavy for a carrier) and had poor maneuverability and would never perform well in the air-to-air role. Air Force generals and pilots were encouraged (for the sake of their career) to praise the aircraft (much like the F-35). Finally one general had to balls to label it as a lead brick. When asked if more thrust would help, he replied that all the thrust in the world would not turn this into a fighter. The fighter version was abandoned and the aircraft was turned into a fighter bomber version, a nuclear bomber version and an electronic warfare version, tasks which it performed well in.
5:40 General Dynamics F-111 and Grumman helped out with the F-111B. While the B (navy) version was a failure the USAF version are generally considered very capable machines.
While NATO equipment is not standardized across all countries, NATO has done a relatively good job on standardizing ammunition. Everything from 9mm pistol and submachine gun ammo to artillery has a NATO standard. Remember that equipment policies are done on a national level and are driven as much by local politics as military need. For example, in the 70s, some NATO countries used M60 series MBTs, some used Leopard 1 MBTs, a few (ie, italy) used both! M60s and Leopard 1s both used locally made version of the British 105mm rifled tank gun and could fire NATO standard 105mm tank gun ammo.
Awesome video!!! Brought back some memories for when I was in US Army, I was stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky. There were at least 2 of these vehicles on static display on the installation and at least 1 that I remember on static display in the nearby town of Radcliffe, Kentucky. Do remember taking photos of them and climbing on top of them a few times.
An interesting point is that despite the US and Germany going their separate ways the M1 and Leopard 2 still had a lot of commonality. Same gun, eventually, and you can stick a Leopards power pack into and M1's back end and they will fit.
Are you sure the power packs are interchangeable? I find that hard to believe, considering one is a diesel and one is a turbine. How are all the linkages, sensors, controls, etc interchangeable?
@@imperialmodelworks8473 they're not it's a complete misconception. The General motors XM1 had a diesel but wasn't selected. The Chrysler was favored by a large margin and that turbine has stuck ever since. So no the OP is incorrect
@@YamahaR12015 The Americans did consider the German MTU 873, tested it in an XM1 and Teledyne Continental bought the rights for its production in America in the case it was chosen. It is technically compatible but you'd have to use different final drives and a slightly modified engine bay, which isn't that big of a deal.
@@henrylicious M1 with MTU 883, but while it was tested between 2000 and 2013 it got no customers. Turkey was the reason behind the development of that variant between 1998 and 2000 but they withdrew the demand as they had no funding for a new tank at this point.
As for your sponsor, War Thunder, I was a beta tester for that game. I loved the concept of planes and ground vehicles, and the graphics were breathtaking in the beginning, and only got beter as it went on! I'm glad that it's still going strong!
Caseless ammo in tank guns is different than caseless ammo for small arms. It's more of a 'combustible case' ammo in tanks. Not sure of the exact details for the 152mm used in the MBT-70, M551, and M60A2. The 120mm gun used in M1A1/A2 & Leopard 2 has a short rimmed steel base (needed to seal the breach when fired), a nitro-cellulose cardboard case holding the propellant charge, then the projectile on top. (I was a US Army civilian employee in the late 1980s and involved with these.) The 125mm ammo for T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 is similar but the base, case and propellant are one part and the projectile is a separate part. The British Chieftain, Challenger I, and Challenger II tanks use a bagged propellant charge (which is combustible) and a separate projectile. Bagged charges have been used in artillery for over 150 years. Oh, the various 'needle guns' of the 1800s (Dreyse, Chassepot, others) used paper combustible cases. So it's an old idea made new again!
@@pmgn8444 Caseless ammo is nothing more than fully combustible ammunition. Tank ammo fits this definition to the point, so tank ammo is caseless ammo. It is absolutely irrelevant how this is achieved, the definition is the exact same. Cellulose bags just happen to be cheaper and easier to produce and less heavy , so naturally, almost every high caliber artillery uses it in conjunction with an electric igniter. The solid blocks, or nitro cellulose filled combustible cases, are fired similarly when used in artillery guns, however, as you pointed out, in the case of one part ammo, as prominently used on western tanks, the propellant case is backed by a steel endcap, wich hold the primer and the igniter. The primer gets struck by the Hammer of the gun and detonating the igniter, wich is a long stick, filled with a primary explosive, reaching deep into the propellant charge. This reduces burn time of the propellant and essentially gives yoz a more even, more predictible propellant ignition, wich increases penetration, range and accuracy of the weapon. Both the igniter and Primer do not burned of, yet i would make the case, that it still is caseless ammunition, as the G11 ammunition famously had to counter the problem of solid used primers in the chamber.
Occasionally he had a point but as was said he was a micromanager of another level and his lack of expertise in the field certainly showed. The f-111 debacle being a prime example
McNamara: "I want it to be fast, light, cheap and work effectively in a multitude of combat roles. And i *absolutely* want it to have parts interchangeability with common trains, school buses.. and.. and.. FIRE HYDRANTS!" Engineer: "Sounds cool... I want a unicorn too..."
Given youve done now what is largely considered the abrams predecessor, i would love to see you do a video on the m1 abrams and its variants, the tank that won desert storm and still largely considered to be the best tank in the world of all battle tested tanks
Its time. No apostrophe showing possession for this specific word. You use the apostrophe for the contraction "it is" = "It's going to be a fine day." This is a one time case. It is literally the exception that proves a rule. Otherwise, possession is shewn with the apostrophe: "Charley's home in Charley's home. The dog's bone and the cat's spats are linked in chat."
I find it interesting to have such collaboration. But having one Machine open to a shared flaw. Same for the F35, great machine but a flaw will break everyone. Having multiple machine but with shared ammunition standard is the best solution. Using the same fuel an compatible ammo is primordial.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle weak in bad weather, poor visibility at night. Weak high tech helmet. There is a lot of weakness at the moment. Those can be resolved but at what cost ? And why more testing haven’t being done before production. Poor software quality.
@@Echristoffe ...You... You do realize that those were tests, right? They need to run many diagnostics in order to fine tune a modern day fightercraft. Thousands of tests against many different parameters. The helmet? Is just fine. It actually performs great in bad weather and at night. They're just testing it in these conditions because... Well, you might as well know that variable. I have no idea where you're getting all these claims, but if its from some self-proclaimed "Military Expert", please begin to disregard their information. Because a lot of it will be horseshit. Tons of people thought the F-14 would be a worthless plane because of the same things you're on about. Its one of the most successful planes of all time, now.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle 4 day ago the whole us navy had to ground the fleet of f-35 because of ejection seat flaw … And there is still a lot of problem not solved … I know this plane has a huge potential but the manufacturer should do more to fix the plane and make sure it is the best…
It's its NOT it's. It is not referring to a state of being, but to possession/ownership... So belonging to it is its, never it's as it is not it is [contracted to it's] ! Some non-English speakers find our apostrophe contractions confusing - Simon C- !
The Grenade launchers were particularly nasty each tube lofted One M34 WP and One M8 HC smoke grenade. Burn and choke time if caught in the burning mess. I visited many of the Leftovers from the program at Ft. Knox while there on various trips with my reserve unit. The same Smoke Grenade system was used on the M551 and M60A2.
It's being reported that Russia's T series tanks (T70, T80, T90) all have a design flaw called the "Jack in the Box" effect: They all store up to 40 shells inside the turret, so even indirect hit can cause the shells to explode, usually resulting in the turret flying 50 feet in the air. As of now, May 2022, it's being reported that Ukraine is starting to look like a military depot full of anywhere from 500 to 970 "decapitated" Russian tanks.
This is not new news. Ammunition cook-offs are common among tanks with auto-loaders. This is why the US M1a2 has a guy loading the gun, ammo is stored in a separate compartment to avoid total crew loss if it is struck. They both have trade offs, the russian series of tanks have a lower profile while the m1 is larger.
@@King_Karnage As far as I can tell a UA-camr self-proclaimed military analyst named Ryan McBeth described this about a month ago and now it's all the rage on the U.S. news outlets. As far as legitimate sources I'm not so sure. Military history visualized and Mark Felton have both touched on it, but not enough to seem legit.
How about a video on the really hokey and screwy US Army small arms development circa 1945 to circa 1968. This includes development of the 7.62mm x 51 NATO rifle round, failure of the T-25 rifle design, development of the M14 rifle (adopted 1957, production started in 1961), sabotage of the trials between the M14 and FN FAL rifles, opposition to the M16 rifles, alleged sabotage of the M16 rifle trials and introduction, ending with Sec. Defense Robert McNamara getting so fed up with them that he closed the US Army small arms management and development organizations.
Id love to know what number you'd get if you tallied up the cost of all of Americas failed military contracts since the end of ww2, would be a real big one for sure 🤣
Zero. The number you where looking for is zero. There is this law you see. Those contractors actually have to share their rnd, and almost every lesson learn throughout every project ended up eather cutting the cost of the next project, or had it's developments directly implemented into the next thing. Plenty of these innovative ideas end up on the civilian marked without seeing much military use. Or sometimes even any. You are discribing absorbed costs. This process produces/frees far more wealth then it ties up/spends
Work on a local navy base and it’s insane all the failed concepts of vehicles and machines they come up with. Obviously I’m a civ so I don’t know anything, but there’s been a few I’d die to see be in use.
@@knutkarstensen3114 "Americas failed military contracts" I happen to work in Govt contracting. There is literally wasted money in many DoD programs, for example I am aware of a contract to build a building, the contractor completed the foundation only for the government to decide it didn't need the building so the government canceled the contract resulting in additional costs of removing the foundation and taking the site back to its pre-project condition. In short the government paid a contractor to dig a hole and fill it back for more than $1 million.
@@link10909 Hard to find the wast here when army rnd produced the fucking internet, witch is now accountable for one third of the global economy. Perspective.. Just because idiots exist don't make military rnd a waste. Idiots exists all over. Not just public works.
War Thunder is super fun, and I can never go back to World Of Tanks after trying it ... perhaps my favorite aspect which is different from most competitors is that instead of just "tank has 1000 hp, cannon has 500 damage, tank dies in 2 shots", your shells (based on penetration, explosive filler, and several other factors) will (if successful) harm parts, crew, or both, which causes the kind of problems which losing or wounding/damaging those parts would likely cause.
As of June, 2024… One of the last remaining MBT-70 prototypes is currently sitting inside a freakin’ tent on Fort Gregg-Adams awaiting restoration and transfer to the Armor & Cavalry Collection Training Support Center at Fort Moore.
The MBT 70 project was later taken over by HASBRO and completed as the MOBAT , entering Service in 1982 . The tank was also produced under licence in Britain and saw service with Britains now unfortunately named ''Z"" force.
Please re-write your comment and post it below because the current version does not make any sense to me, and I just don't understand what you are trying to say. 1) What is HASBRO? Please tell us what it is. 2) What is MBOAT? Sorry but not familiar with that, I am not military trained. 3) Z Force? What is that, I am British and am not aware of a 'Z Force,' only 'Z Cars'. You need to explain.
The MBT-70 have many similarities with the Korean K2 tank. But you need to do a video on the Swedish S-tank (Strv 103) or the Strv 2000 concept. Or why not do one with the JAS aircrafts, Visby class corvette ships or why not our submarines? Yes, I'm Swedish. But we have weird and interesting military projects.
@@popaj116 to make it even more confusing we have long tons and short tons short tons are equal to 2000 lbs, long tons are equal to 2240 lbs, neither of which equal 1000 kgs (2204.6 lbs) short tons are what we use most commonly though which is 907 kgs
While.standardization is great, having the two major tank forces in NATO have independent designs made it less likely that a fundamental flaw that cannot be readily rectified and might not be discovered until they started exploding in combat, wouldn't effectively disarm the tank divisions in the Fulda Gap - if WWIII broke out and the Leopard II had failed, the Abrams woild.have been available and on hand to pick up some.of the slack while German forces hastily tried to reactivate their old M48s, or work.on a fix. If, instead, the Abrams had failed, the Germans would still have the Leopards while America rushed over the M60s in reserve and started a crash program to fix whatever was wrong with the Abrams. Equipment interoperability (being able to use each other's fuel and ammunition depots, having compatible radio equipment, etc.) and *tactical* commonality (so a German battalion commander can accurately and effortlessly interpret an American tactical graphic, or the British and Italians have common communications protocols for their data links, or a French commander knowing his battle plans would sync well with the American brigade on his flank, etc. - THOSE were important. Which is why STANAGs (NATO Standardization Agreements) on everything from how we label maps to the minimum specifications for our ammunition, to standardized specifications (and labelling) of fuels - not xeroxing equipment blueprints so everyone is using the same gun, the same tank, etc. - that's how an alliance works best.
Don't think the M1 or Leopard have much to worry about. Evidently Russian tanks can be taken out with a pointy stick by a Ukrainian with a can do attitude.
lol.. aren't you a smart one. The t-72 has a very thick frontal armor. They are getting destroyed from the top where armor is the weakest. Any tank will get recked from above with an Nlaw, Javelin, or RPG7.. like the Abrams and Leo 2s in Syria and Iraq.
@@v.d6809 lighten up Francis. In making fun of the Russians I was being very obvious in my hyperbole. Considering the piss poor performance of Russian equipment, logistics, personnel, military and civilian leadership. They deserve it.
@@johnsoutherland3403 my comment was hyperbole not to be taken literally. That was obvious to even a complete simpleton. But here I am explaining that to you. Pointy sticks aside. That the Russian's performance has been a sub standard debacle is beyond question.
apparently one of the main obstacles was the measuring unit.Germany preferred and used metric and the US used obviously imperial. Huge problem for constructing such a complex unit.
joke being that ever since WW1 the US army in service use both systems in their armies for obvious imperialistic needs and noone in the forces would have real issues with metric being used especially with NATO nations coming further together. The typical American way of shooting your own foot by sticking to outdated ways in their national economy/engineering while trying to deal with the modern global world.
McNamara & 'Whiz Kids' team did well at first, but he soon rightly protested the wild excesses of super-luxe Continental Mark II plus idiotic start-to-end Edsel debacle. His resisting did foster the iconic '61 Lincoln.
09:32 - I think you got that combination of angulation mixed up Unless the tank is facing off to the side on the incline or its barrel has an equal amount of space to move at is rear, same As the front - maybe(?) That footage also showed the front moving
“McDonnell Douglas F-111” ???? In 1967, my career Navy Officer Dad retired from the Navy to work in St. Louis for McDonnell Douglas building the F-4 Phantom II and later the F-15 Eagle. I don’t ever remember Dad talking about F-111. Maybe he forgot?
Oh and before you call Me out for being 1. A Brit too 2. An Englishman too I will tell you I am English BUT I am of Irish descent and have family routes in Donnegal! 🍀😁
19:52 "...video about the biggest tank ever made. I'm linking to it now on the screen." Has an end screen card for the 15 ton Sheridan 🙄 Wow, such a big tank.
I always appreciate your technology advice and it will definitely be useful in the future as long as its purposes sustainable. Tell everybody, nobody is going to be turned away from the big tent but they have to come with an open hand.. And not a raised one.
"the 20mm autocannon was largely ignored by crews for being too tedious"... *is literally one of the best features about the mbt-70/ kpz-70 in warthunder*
yes, but WT is not RL and everything just works miraculously as advertised. The folding autocannon seems needlessly complicated IMHO. They should have limited it to being an external power turret. Cheaper, lighter, simpler and saves space.
The F-111 Aardvark is indeed a General Dynamics product launched in 1967 and retired in 1998. It was classified as a supersonic multirole combat aircraft.
1:50 end of sponsorship
4:42 background
8:03 design
11:13 armament
13:58 protection
15:06 testing and evaluation
Thank you!
@Arielle ♪ reported
The hero we need...
1:50 start of video
MVP!
'Sha-lay-lee' missiles. Named after an Irish club that is a branch with a bit of the trunk attached (looks like a twisted hammer).
Yeah that was driving me mad too
And "saa-bott".
Say-bo.....
Does he read these?
MBT research gave us the Abrams.
40yrs and counting was well worth it.
Germany got the Leopard from it's research and is a solid Main tank
Plus we get 2 designs, so if one unexpectedly flops on the battlefield we have a backup.
XM-803 fell on it's ass so that Abrams could avoid the ways in which 803 fell on it's ass
Check out what happened to Turkey's Leopard 2 tanks in Syria - at least five were completely destroyed, getting turret launches worthy of the T-72s in Ukraine.
ua-cam.com/video/jpPpCWEZjSo/v-deo.html
@@barrag3463 You too, eh? ITS, not IT’S!!!
@Johnny Cage NO apostrophe in ITS!!!
US and FRG work together- "clusterfuck
US and FRG work separately- *build two of the best tanks ever fielded
I wonder if the delays in the F-35 program were primarily due to several nations with different requirements caused the project to enter FUBAR territory?
@@joeclaridy From what I understand the jsf program was well defined before the project started as initially it was only really the US and the UK on board early on. The delays and the cost I would imagine would have to do with getting the design perfected, the delay hasn't really affected the project either as the cost of F35 is comparable or even cheaper in some circumstances as 4/4.5 gen competitors unlike other overrunning projects like the b2.
@@joeclaridy close my friend instead of competing annoying countries with all their different interests it was the different branches of the US military which is why there are F-35 B, and F-35c variants
Leo 1 absolutely smoked the M60. Leo 2/Abrams is closer but I still give it to the Germans.
well i think the jsf was startred in the late 80s early 90s and was a mess from the get go, there were massive cost overuns changes in direction and reqiurments of the project also the fact they orignally wanted three selerate versions that for the air force, navy and the marine corps each with different requirements such a verticak take off for the marine version. plus also the issues with pilots hemet not working properly increase the cost.
so bascially it was a big fat money pit from the very begining.
When I was stationed in West Germany in 1986 our unit was still equipped with the M-60 tank, and the M-113, I didn't see many M-1 Abrams, a few but we were still equipped with the older vehicles.
"Realistic physics engine"
*flashbacks to hellcat dying because a AP shell grazed the headlight*
that ain't nothing. one time i was going so fast i accidentally hit a rock on my front of the hell cat that i exploded plus i saw a T114 on full speed hit the side of a T34 it also exploded 😅
Fucking hullbreak...
when he said realistic I just figured he was reading from a script because it was pretty obvious at that point he had never played the game
i mean, there's that one Hellcat in the AAF Tank museum in VA, that was taken out by Literally a single .50cal round that penetrated the side of the turret, and then *Bounced* a few times inside....
@@pablofiasco2 wow, that is pretty sad
At least the 50+ ton MBT-70 had the weight for the 152mm gun. We Sheridan crews got the rock & roll every time it fired.
The German M48 Patton was horribly outclassed with a ridiculously high silhouette and an obsolete 90mm. main cannon.
the sheridan is a magnificent example of wild over ambition in a design that tries to add in a pile of new features and ends up a mess. a hell of a neat mess, though
Was it a decent vehicle to crew at least, from a tankers point of view?
Fast, agile for the most part. Seemed every bolt on the thing unscrewed itself 1/4 turn every time it fired. Every circuit board was questionable. Hell, even the searchlight sometimes wouldn't work for IR. Cramped for the crew, especially if you were over 5'6. Slow on the reloads, waiting for the ready light to come up. "No ready light... No ready light.. Ready light, UP!"
Simon: i don't have much time
Also Simon but 10 seconds later: HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT WAR THUNDER, A GAME SO REALISTIC THAT PLAYERS EVOLVE THEIR TANKS AT A HISTORIC AND REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Lol Yes! Someone else thinks the same thing... currently on German aviation.... man it's a grind lol
The real funny thing is he has a awesome pc for editing videos but the last game we seen him play had regular Nintendo graphics lol
If you play War Thunder all you have is time... time to sink into trying to progress without giving in and going broke.
@@aja9469 legit listening to this while i fly sim battles in my BF 109 g6
I have never had a like, nor a pinned comment on UA-cam. Just missing a comment from a youtuber and I can already die happly
Say what you will about McNamara, he had one undisputed talent. He was really good at pointless death.
If you haven't seen it,then you should watch,The Fog of War,one of the best documentaries that I have seen.
Yeah. McNamera was excellent at fucking things up.
A sad chapter to look up is project 100,000, where McNamera sought to bolster the number of eligible draftees during the height of Vietnam by accepting people who had been previously excused on the basis of being intellectually challenged. McNamera sold it as allowing the army to "improve" them, with the magic of VHS training.
Many ended up dying in Vietnam.
Here's a good talk on it.
ua-cam.com/video/_J2VwFDV4-g/v-deo.html
@@barrag3463 Jocko reviewed a first hand account on his podcast by an author who was made responsible for one in boot camp. Evidently some were of such low intelligence they didn't even know how to sign their name, and of course you couldn't give a gun to many of them as they were likely to shoot at their own troops.
@@barrag3463 Had a draftee in my Basic in 71 who we all suspected of being a late version of McNamara's 100,000. The guy couldn't close one eye at a time. You can imagine the fun out on the rifle range with that - especially when he closed both eyes to take aim at the target. Eventually the drill sergeants just put tape over one lens of his eyeglasses to solve that problem, kind of. There were a lot of other problems with the guy. He was nice enough, he tried hard, but he was a disaster to be around.
@@barrag3463 He did help prevent the destruction of the world by standing up to Curtis LeMay.
now we need a video about the Stridsvagn 103 most likely the most original by design tank ever built. Also The Swedish Stirling SUbmarines and for the love of God give the SAAB Cold war jets some love most of em were world leading when they started their service.
Yes. We get it. You are Swedish.
The first "original" tank design was the FT-17
you mean a mbt version of a german stug?
@@jkhan337 No because the StuGs were assault guns / tank destroyers built on pre-existing tank hulls, while STRV-103s were MBTs by design and doctrine built with their own unique hull design.
The F-111 was a great aircraft, despite the problems in its development
And not a McDonnell Douglas aircraft.
The original concept was that of a multi-role do everything fighter to include a carrier version (McNamara's penny pinching idea, one plane to do everything). It was heavy (realistically too heavy for a carrier) and had poor maneuverability and would never perform well in the air-to-air role. Air Force generals and pilots were encouraged (for the sake of their career) to praise the aircraft (much like the F-35). Finally one general had to balls to label it as a lead brick. When asked if more thrust would help, he replied that all the thrust in the world would not turn this into a fighter. The fighter version was abandoned and the aircraft was turned into a fighter bomber version, a nuclear bomber version and an electronic warfare version, tasks which it performed well in.
@17:14 "$303 USD, or about $2.4 billion today."
Damn, inflation hit us hard.
Thanks Joe Brandon
This is my first time here and I'm really into War Thunder. Nice channel Bro.
A video on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle is right up this channel's alley.
5:40 General Dynamics F-111 and Grumman helped out with the F-111B.
While the B (navy) version was a failure the USAF version are generally considered very capable machines.
While NATO equipment is not standardized across all countries, NATO has done a relatively good job on standardizing ammunition. Everything from 9mm pistol and submachine gun ammo to artillery has a NATO standard.
Remember that equipment policies are done on a national level and are driven as much by local politics as military need. For example, in the 70s, some NATO countries used M60 series MBTs, some used Leopard 1 MBTs, a few (ie, italy) used both! M60s and Leopard 1s both used locally made version of the British 105mm rifled tank gun and could fire NATO standard 105mm tank gun ammo.
When the US says standardise, they mean "import it from the US".
Too ambitious, untested technology, too many cooks in the kitchen - yeah, just your typical megaproject. So it's perfect for this channel... 🤪😁😇
It's like the F-35 project but in this case it didn't work out.
Awesome video!!! Brought back some memories for when I was in US Army, I was stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky. There were at least 2 of these vehicles on static display on the installation and at least 1 that I remember on static display in the nearby town of Radcliffe, Kentucky. Do remember taking photos of them and climbing on top of them a few times.
An interesting point is that despite the US and Germany going their separate ways the M1 and Leopard 2 still had a lot of commonality. Same gun, eventually, and you can stick a Leopards power pack into and M1's back end and they will fit.
Are you sure the power packs are interchangeable? I find that hard to believe, considering one is a diesel and one is a turbine. How are all the linkages, sensors, controls, etc interchangeable?
@@imperialmodelworks8473 they're not it's a complete misconception. The General motors XM1 had a diesel but wasn't selected. The Chrysler was favored by a large margin and that turbine has stuck ever since. So no the OP is incorrect
@@YamahaR12015 The Americans did consider the German MTU 873, tested it in an XM1 and Teledyne Continental bought the rights for its production in America in the case it was chosen. It is technically compatible but you'd have to use different final drives and a slightly modified engine bay, which isn't that big of a deal.
I believe there is also a diesel variant of the m1 used in export versions.
@@henrylicious M1 with MTU 883, but while it was tested between 2000 and 2013 it got no customers. Turkey was the reason behind the development of that variant between 1998 and 2000 but they withdrew the demand as they had no funding for a new tank at this point.
Its time. It's is a contraction.
I was so excited as a child on the news of the MBT. I even seen it in person at Fort Knox, years later. I guess I was destined to be a Tanker.
As for your sponsor, War Thunder, I was a beta tester for that game. I loved the concept of planes and ground vehicles, and the graphics were breathtaking in the beginning, and only got beter as it went on! I'm glad that it's still going strong!
This is the second time that I heard of caseless ammo being tried. I know the G11 and previous prototypes tried it but for tank shells.
Most high caliber artillerie a gun use "caseless" ammo, it's a literal sack or block out of an ester treated cloth or polymer, like nitro cellulos.
Caseless ammo in tank guns is different than caseless ammo for small arms. It's more of a 'combustible case' ammo in tanks. Not sure of the exact details for the 152mm used in the MBT-70, M551, and M60A2.
The 120mm gun used in M1A1/A2 & Leopard 2 has a short rimmed steel base (needed to seal the breach when fired), a nitro-cellulose cardboard case holding the propellant charge, then the projectile on top. (I was a US Army civilian employee in the late 1980s and involved with these.)
The 125mm ammo for T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 is similar but the base, case and propellant are one part and the projectile is a separate part.
The British Chieftain, Challenger I, and Challenger II tanks use a bagged propellant charge (which is combustible) and a separate projectile. Bagged charges have been used in artillery for over 150 years.
Oh, the various 'needle guns' of the 1800s (Dreyse, Chassepot, others) used paper combustible cases. So it's an old idea made new again!
120mm out of the Abraham's is caseless, just the head of the casing is ejected
@@pmgn8444
Caseless ammo is nothing more than fully combustible ammunition. Tank ammo fits this definition to the point, so tank ammo is caseless ammo.
It is absolutely irrelevant how this is achieved, the definition is the exact same. Cellulose bags just happen to be cheaper and easier to produce and less heavy , so naturally, almost every high caliber artillery uses it in conjunction with an electric igniter. The solid blocks, or nitro cellulose filled combustible cases, are fired similarly when used in artillery guns, however, as you pointed out, in the case of one part ammo, as prominently used on western tanks, the propellant case is backed by a steel endcap, wich hold the primer and the igniter. The primer gets struck by the Hammer of the gun and detonating the igniter, wich is a long stick, filled with a primary explosive, reaching deep into the propellant charge. This reduces burn time of the propellant and essentially gives yoz a more even, more predictible propellant ignition, wich increases penetration, range and accuracy of the weapon.
Both the igniter and Primer do not burned of, yet i would make the case, that it still is caseless ammunition, as the G11 ammunition famously had to counter the problem of solid used primers in the chamber.
16" battleship guns use caseless ammo.
Things always get wonky when McNamara gets involved.
Understatement.
If by "wonky" you mean FUBAR'd, yes. Yes they did.
Occasionally he had a point but as was said he was a micromanager of another level and his lack of expertise in the field certainly showed.
The f-111 debacle being a prime example
@@M167A1 or the M-16
McNamara: "I want it to be fast, light, cheap and work effectively in a multitude of combat roles. And i *absolutely* want it to have parts interchangeability with common trains, school buses.. and.. and.. FIRE HYDRANTS!"
Engineer: "Sounds cool... I want a unicorn too..."
Oh…
Ahead of _its_ time!
"It's" = "it is". Sheesh!
Given youve done now what is largely considered the abrams predecessor, i would love to see you do a video on the m1 abrams and its variants, the tank that won desert storm and still largely considered to be the best tank in the world of all battle tested tanks
KPZ70/MBT70 is one of my favorite modern tanks. I love the design and its fun to play.
Its time. No apostrophe showing possession for this specific word. You use the apostrophe for the contraction "it is" = "It's going to be a fine day."
This is a one time case. It is literally the exception that proves a rule. Otherwise, possession is shewn with the apostrophe: "Charley's home in Charley's home. The dog's bone and the cat's spats are linked in chat."
Shih-lay-lee. Here's a random American (Bing Crosby) trying it.
ua-cam.com/video/Rw7DvgamrOM/v-deo.html
typo thumbnail, cocaine beard man.
I find it interesting to have such collaboration.
But having one Machine open to a shared flaw.
Same for the F35, great machine but a flaw will break everyone.
Having multiple machine but with shared ammunition standard is the best solution.
Using the same fuel an compatible ammo is primordial.
U
And this flaw in the F-35 is...?
@@MrJinglejanglejingle weak in bad weather, poor visibility at night. Weak high tech helmet.
There is a lot of weakness at the moment.
Those can be resolved but at what cost ? And why more testing haven’t being done before production. Poor software quality.
@@Echristoffe ...You... You do realize that those were tests, right? They need to run many diagnostics in order to fine tune a modern day fightercraft.
Thousands of tests against many different parameters. The helmet? Is just fine. It actually performs great in bad weather and at night. They're just testing it in these conditions because... Well, you might as well know that variable.
I have no idea where you're getting all these claims, but if its from some self-proclaimed "Military Expert", please begin to disregard their information. Because a lot of it will be horseshit.
Tons of people thought the F-14 would be a worthless plane because of the same things you're on about. Its one of the most successful planes of all time, now.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle 4 day ago the whole us navy had to ground the fleet of f-35 because of ejection seat flaw …
And there is still a lot of problem not solved …
I know this plane has a huge potential but the manufacturer should do more to fix the plane and make sure it is the best…
German products being inferior to American products? Heresy!
German engineering be 99 percent propaganda and 1 percent quality. look at tigers from ww2 for example
@Larry Phischman not since they've hired American accountants and lawyers.
even an idiot knows that AMERICA has litraly had the most powerful most advanced and best tanks since the sherman OMG
Yes because you can actually fix American products with out having to send it to the factory
Sure thing, I take Ford pinto over a Mercedes any day, NOT.
"Its", possessive. "It's", contraction of "it is".
I love all of your videos! I learn so much information in a truly entertaining way!
Should do the M1A1 Abrams tank
It's its NOT it's. It is not referring to a state of being, but to possession/ownership... So belonging to it is its, never it's as it is not it is [contracted to it's] ! Some non-English speakers find our apostrophe contractions confusing - Simon C- !
The Grenade launchers were particularly nasty each tube lofted One M34 WP and One M8 HC smoke grenade. Burn and choke time if caught in the burning mess. I visited many of the Leftovers from the program at Ft. Knox while there on various trips with my reserve unit. The same Smoke Grenade system was used on the M551 and M60A2.
54 tons = 49000 kg
Wait, what???
Yes! I had to scroll down way to much to find this.
54 US Tons (aka “short tons”) = 48,988 Kg.
shillelagh "she-lay-lee"
sabot "say-bo" Silent 't'
The F-111 was made by General Dynamics, not McDonnell-Douglas.
*its
Otherwise it would read "Ahead of it is time", which I think is not what you wanted to express.
Yup - it’s "its".
Ahead of its time. No apostrophe.
This dude is lazerpig on an industrial scale
Pneumatic suspension was first introduced on the S-tank in the 60s.
It's being reported that Russia's T series tanks (T70, T80, T90) all have a design flaw called the "Jack in the Box" effect: They all store up to 40 shells inside the turret, so even indirect hit can cause the shells to explode, usually resulting in the turret flying 50 feet in the air. As of now, May 2022, it's being reported that Ukraine is starting to look like a military depot full of anywhere from 500 to 970 "decapitated" Russian tanks.
Sources?
@@King_Karnage there's literally a video with the turret flying 100m into the air like they're trying to make their own space program.
This is not new news. Ammunition cook-offs are common among tanks with auto-loaders. This is why the US M1a2 has a guy loading the gun, ammo is stored in a separate compartment to avoid total crew loss if it is struck. They both have trade offs, the russian series of tanks have a lower profile while the m1 is larger.
@@King_Karnage As far as I can tell a UA-camr self-proclaimed military analyst named Ryan McBeth described this about a month ago and now it's all the rage on the U.S. news outlets. As far as legitimate sources I'm not so sure. Military history visualized and Mark Felton have both touched on it, but not enough to seem legit.
@@ImpmanPDX What is there to know? It's literally a design trade off and a major flaw that every T-72 crew knows about and fears.
How about a video on the really hokey and screwy US Army small arms development circa 1945 to circa 1968. This includes development of the 7.62mm x 51 NATO rifle round, failure of the T-25 rifle design, development of the M14 rifle (adopted 1957, production started in 1961), sabotage of the trials between the M14 and FN FAL rifles, opposition to the M16 rifles, alleged sabotage of the M16 rifle trials and introduction, ending with Sec. Defense Robert McNamara getting so fed up with them that he closed the US Army small arms management and development organizations.
Id love to know what number you'd get if you tallied up the cost of all of Americas failed military contracts since the end of ww2, would be a real big one for sure 🤣
I'll bet the Russian number is bigger then ours.
Zero. The number you where looking for is zero.
There is this law you see. Those contractors actually have to share their rnd, and almost every lesson learn throughout every project ended up eather cutting the cost of the next project, or had it's developments directly implemented into the next thing.
Plenty of these innovative ideas end up on the civilian marked without seeing much military use. Or sometimes even any.
You are discribing absorbed costs. This process produces/frees far more wealth then it ties up/spends
Work on a local navy base and it’s insane all the failed concepts of vehicles and machines they come up with. Obviously I’m a civ so I don’t know anything, but there’s been a few I’d die to see be in use.
@@knutkarstensen3114 "Americas failed military contracts" I happen to work in Govt contracting. There is literally wasted money in many DoD programs, for example I am aware of a contract to build a building, the contractor completed the foundation only for the government to decide it didn't need the building so the government canceled the contract resulting in additional costs of removing the foundation and taking the site back to its pre-project condition. In short the government paid a contractor to dig a hole and fill it back for more than $1 million.
@@link10909 Hard to find the wast here when army rnd produced the fucking internet, witch is now accountable for one third of the global economy. Perspective.. Just because idiots exist don't make military rnd a waste. Idiots exists all over. Not just public works.
I love when youtuber sponsor their video with things related to it. It feels better than a collab with like, surf sharky vpn ?
War Thunder is super fun, and I can never go back to World Of Tanks after trying it ... perhaps my favorite aspect which is different from most competitors is that instead of just "tank has 1000 hp, cannon has 500 damage, tank dies in 2 shots", your shells (based on penetration, explosive filler, and several other factors) will (if successful) harm parts, crew, or both, which causes the kind of problems which losing or wounding/damaging those parts would likely cause.
Sha - lay - lee with the emphasis on the "lay", A type of Irish cudgel.
Shillelagh - "shill-lay-lee" - Irish for a stout stick or club.
Frankly I'm surprised there hasn't been a Megaprojects video on the Abrams yet.
Given that the Army didn't even want it initially? And they are still making them? Yeah, it would be a good subject for the channel.
17:10 if we could get a tank with the qualities talked about in the video for only $303, it would be a steal
You should do an episode on the m1 abrahms
As of June, 2024… One of the last remaining MBT-70 prototypes is currently sitting inside a freakin’ tent on Fort Gregg-Adams awaiting restoration and transfer to the Armor & Cavalry Collection Training Support Center at Fort Moore.
The MBT 70 project was later taken over by HASBRO and completed as the MOBAT , entering Service in 1982 . The tank was also produced under licence in Britain and saw service with Britains now unfortunately named ''Z"" force.
Please re-write your comment and post it below because the current version does not make any sense to me, and I just don't understand what you are trying to say. 1) What is HASBRO? Please tell us what it is. 2) What is MBOAT? Sorry but not familiar with that, I am not military trained. 3) Z Force? What is that, I am British and am not aware of a 'Z Force,' only 'Z Cars'. You need to explain.
😂
@@Gundoctor913A 🤪
Probably for the best it wasn’t produced. The ammunition storage in that diagram suggests to me one of those Jack-in-the-box turret design weaknesses.
The M60 tank did really great against russian built tanks during the Gulf War. The quality of the tank crews was definitely a factor.
The reason the US Government will always bailout Ford, GM and Chrysler.
They have the equipment to build tanks.
Meanwhile, Type 74 and STRV 103 vibing with their hydraulic suspensions.
The MBT-70 have many similarities with the Korean K2 tank.
But you need to do a video on the Swedish S-tank (Strv 103) or the Strv 2000 concept. Or why not do one with the JAS aircrafts, Visby class corvette ships or why not our submarines?
Yes, I'm Swedish. But we have weird and interesting military projects.
*It's "its"!*
at 3:49 , 54 tons is 54 000 kg and not 49 000 kg. 1 ton is 1000 kg
It should read 54 US tons or 48,988
@@renaissanceredneck73 oh maybe it was that what it meant, my bad. What are US tons based on, pounds or what.
depends on which tons.
@@popaj116 to make it even more confusing we have long tons and short tons
short tons are equal to 2000 lbs, long tons are equal to 2240 lbs, neither of which equal 1000 kgs (2204.6 lbs)
short tons are what we use most commonly though which is 907 kgs
@@popaj116 like all freedom units it's based on lsd fever dreams of a decomposing gopher
While.standardization is great, having the two major tank forces in NATO have independent designs made it less likely that a fundamental flaw that cannot be readily rectified and might not be discovered until they started exploding in combat, wouldn't effectively disarm the tank divisions in the Fulda Gap - if WWIII broke out and the Leopard II had failed, the Abrams woild.have been available and on hand to pick up some.of the slack while German forces hastily tried to reactivate their old M48s, or work.on a fix. If, instead, the Abrams had failed, the Germans would still have the Leopards while America rushed over the M60s in reserve and started a crash program to fix whatever was wrong with the Abrams.
Equipment interoperability (being able to use each other's fuel and ammunition depots, having compatible radio equipment, etc.) and *tactical* commonality (so a German battalion commander can accurately and effortlessly interpret an American tactical graphic, or the British and Italians have common communications protocols for their data links, or a French commander knowing his battle plans would sync well with the American brigade on his flank, etc. - THOSE were important.
Which is why STANAGs (NATO Standardization Agreements) on everything from how we label maps to the minimum specifications for our ammunition, to standardized specifications (and labelling) of fuels - not xeroxing equipment blueprints so everyone is using the same gun, the same tank, etc. - that's how an alliance works best.
m16 magwell goes brrr
Don't think the M1 or Leopard have much to worry about. Evidently Russian tanks can be taken out with a pointy stick by a Ukrainian with a can do attitude.
lol.. aren't you a smart one. The t-72 has a very thick frontal armor. They are getting destroyed from the top where armor is the weakest. Any tank will get recked from above with an Nlaw, Javelin, or RPG7.. like the Abrams and Leo 2s in Syria and Iraq.
@@v.d6809 lighten up Francis. In making fun of the Russians I was being very obvious in my hyperbole.
Considering the piss poor performance of Russian equipment, logistics, personnel, military and civilian leadership. They deserve it.
@@xdassinx is that what the ukrainians are telling you?
@@johnsoutherland3403 my comment was hyperbole not to be taken literally. That was obvious to even a complete simpleton.
But here I am explaining that to you.
Pointy sticks aside. That the Russian's performance has been a sub standard debacle is beyond question.
Who knew an apostrophe would cause such heartache.
The MBT/Kpz. 70: The tank ahead of its time and ahead of its budget.
ITS*
12:40,
How does someone who grew up so close to Ireland NOT know how to say shuh-lay-lee
4:45 - Chapter 1 - Background
8:05 - Chapter 2 - Design
11:15 - Chapter 3 - Armament
14:00 - Chapter 4 - Protection
15:10 - Chapter 5 - Testing and evaluation
epic typo in thumbnail and title
apparently one of the main obstacles was the measuring unit.Germany preferred and used metric and the US used obviously imperial. Huge problem for constructing such a complex unit.
joke being that ever since WW1 the US army in service use both systems in their armies for obvious imperialistic needs and noone in the forces would have real issues with metric being used especially with NATO nations coming further together. The typical American way of shooting your own foot by sticking to outdated ways in their national economy/engineering while trying to deal with the modern global world.
17:10 $303 dollars? that's the cheapest megaproject yet lol!
"War Thunder its Almost Fun"..... Phly Daily.
Anybody else notice Simon say $303 for the estimated unit cost. $303 is a bargain for me!
I'd buy that for $303!!!
McNamara & 'Whiz Kids' team did well at first, but he soon rightly protested the wild excesses of super-luxe Continental Mark II plus idiotic start-to-end Edsel debacle. His resisting did foster the iconic '61 Lincoln.
**its is the possessive
"it's" is a contraction for "it is"
I remember models of this at the model shop when I was a kid in the 70's.
not many get these docs correct on tanks but well done 2x in a row now
*snickers* "Which is about the biggest tank ever made", but the video lnk is for the Sheridan, one of the smaller tanks ever made
At time 15:37 we can see the turret turning and the driver of the tank still looking forward.
they had an MBT-70 at the Military Museum of Southern New England. the museum closed, and it was sold for scrap. what a shame...
09:32 - I think you got that combination of angulation mixed up
Unless the tank is facing off to the side on the incline or its barrel has an equal amount of space to move at is rear, same As the front - maybe(?)
That footage also showed the front moving
“McDonnell Douglas F-111” ???? In 1967, my career Navy Officer Dad retired from the Navy to work in St. Louis for McDonnell Douglas building the F-4 Phantom II and later the F-15 Eagle. I don’t ever remember Dad talking about F-111. Maybe he forgot?
Why is he pronouncing Shillelagh as "shuh-LAW"? It's shi-LAY-lee, you silly Brit. 🇮🇪
Not entirely his fault
A script was likely written for him to recite from 😂😂
Oh and before you call Me out for being
1. A Brit too
2. An Englishman too
I will tell you I am English BUT I am of Irish descent and have family routes in Donnegal! 🍀😁
Instead of metric or SAE nuts and bolts, they could of compromised and used British Standard Whitworth?
The F-111 was from General Dynamics, not McDonald Douglas.
19:52 "...video about the biggest tank ever made. I'm linking to it now on the screen."
Has an end screen card for the 15 ton Sheridan 🙄
Wow, such a big tank.
I got the "break the sound barrier in a car" video ... cool, but not even a tank
One of my favorite tanks
I have a friend who was a tank driver in West Germany they were told it was estimated they would last ten minutes if the USSR invaded.
The expected life of Soviet Tank was half that.
PEW
Thank God we developed the A10 the tank killer
Good video 👍
Simon is taking everybody’s UA-cam money in 2022. Sheesh man how many hours do you have in your day?😂💯
loving the new stuff when are you gonna do the Abrams, Leopard 2 or T-90?
I always appreciate your technology advice and it will definitely be useful in the future as long as its purposes sustainable.
Tell everybody, nobody is going to be turned away from the big tent but they have to come with an open hand.. And not a raised one.
Yeah i dont know about the whole “historically accurate” bit about the vehicles. Plenty of vehicles are incorrect, but they do look good
"the 20mm autocannon was largely ignored by crews for being too tedious"...
*is literally one of the best features about the mbt-70/ kpz-70 in warthunder*
literally mangles light vehicles like nothing
yes, but WT is not RL and everything just works miraculously as advertised.
The folding autocannon seems needlessly complicated IMHO.
They should have limited it to being an external power turret. Cheaper, lighter, simpler and saves space.
@@LuminousCatt Yeah, but...it;s supposed to be folding system.....just imagine how well that works in the field.
@@dwwolf4636 yeah thats a fair point, btw wdym by "folding system"?
For the love of god please PLEASE learn the difference between “it’s” and “its”!
It’s "its" - isn’t it? It is!
@@terryv You’re absolutely right
Hmmm, I was under the impression that the F-111 was General Dynamics....
The F-111 Aardvark is indeed a General Dynamics product launched in 1967 and retired in 1998. It was classified as a supersonic multirole combat aircraft.