I'm not sure why people are surprised when APCs fare poorly against anti-tank weapons. They are made to defeat much heavier armor systems. It seems silly to even mention it. Yet here we are.
@@krellio9006 Not many new IFV/APCs can take a tank main gun sabot round or ATGM or AT mine on the chin either. The Nammer maybe? But it is in sort of a class of it's own and is way less mobile than lighter systems. Sort of a tailor-made heavy APC special doctrine dealie for the IDF.
You know, that's what happens when an anti-TANK weapon is used against a lighter vehicle. It sounds silly to point out how an APC from the 60's is vulnerable to them.
To be honest ,we never had a problem with it. I served for 3 years in it and it never broke down with trained driver. It is good and reliable machine ,somewhat outdated at that time ,but we can say that for all machines entering combat nowadays.
From what I've heard, this vehicle did have reliability issues, but it wasn't that bad if you had well trained drivers. Trouble was, there weren't many of these, as the training system for the drivers in JNA was quite strange...Up to the '70s there was general "tracked vehicle driver" course (my late grandfather completed it) and one was often transfered between vehicles, so not much experience could be achieved on a single vehicle type.
Since it was put into production before most of its problems were solved it’s understandable that it had problems. I wonder why the power train of a previously successful tank wasn’t used while lengthening the body to carry more troops? Didn’t Yugoslavia have too much surplus equipment by war’s end?
In serviceman jargon it had the loving nickname of "trashcan" and "peglica". The latter comparing it to the anemic fiat 126 of questionable build quality. Or maybe it's because it looked like a "peglica" which is a steam iron. Probably a little bit of both 😅
16:04 the Croatian flag on the turret is incorrect. The NDH flag 1941-1945 had a white square on the top left. edit: the current flag has a red square on the top left
@@Humbulla93also the shape of the grb has nothing to do with the issue of it being fascist or non fascist. It is ALWAYS the colour of the TOP LEFT SQUARE ua-cam.com/video/0IRqxWRvchs/v-deo.html
If APC's had the armour protection of MBT's, then the enemy is just gonna use bigger weapons to tackle them, nothing is invincible in the field, I think Yugoslavian military overestimated, sort of like the US army did with the Bradley.
look at a Pz 4 and a Pz 3 also considering the Pz 4 was never (to my knowledge) equipped with the 50cm cannon i can guarantee its meant to be a mock Pz III
@@guameldestruir6239 The big giveaway is the bulge under the commander's cupola, which was never a feature in the Pz 3. Given the small turret it's possible that the gun is a half-arsed attempt at an early Pz 4's 75mm. Given the chassis they chose, it's a pretty decent frankenpanzer.
Well this M60 seems to beat the Italian tanks of the WWII. The Yugoslav constructors should have tried to make a single engine prop fighter to function as the B29 bomber.
I mean, for the average JNA infantryman possibly thrown into WW3, or for anyone from any side of the Yugoslav Wars, I guess it was better to be inside this thing than being shot at in an open field 😅
to je dobar oklop, bolji od odlaska na pijesak i kamenovanja i ubijanja, nije napravljen za artiljeriju velikog kalibra jer se u to vrijeme nije ni koristio kao u modernim ratovima, imao sam priliku voziti se u njemu tijekom sukoba u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, koji je uništio i podijelio fašistički NATO pakt, kao što je isto učinio Ukrajini i Rusiji
@@lisandro2485 No they were not, they were sent under the MAP after the war tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-yugoslavia-90mm-gmc-m36-jackson-in-yugoslavian-service/
@@lisandro2485 Just google Tito said NO to Stalin or google the map of Warsaw Pact... Also go down the rabbit hole of Unaligned movement. Yugoslavia was never a puppet state of USSR.
Imagine if all the moron armies and the 50s and 60s and 70s would have realized hey if we don't spend any money at all it's going to be just fine.... 😂😂😂😂
Well for the smaller countries maybe that could have worked, but for literally anybody else, not spending that money meant they would have missed out on decades of development and research and would be hopelessly out of date today. And in the case of America specifically, spending as much money as we did was a major contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Remember that even Switzerland sees the need for a standing army.
How can you say that! I had a Yugo car it worked, most of the time. On the highway, it could reach a speed of up to 90 km/h before starting shaking as crazy. And lastly, you can (in theory) put it in reverse :D
It was it's first APC, of course it wasn't to be good. Compared to the first APC's of other countries - it was not half bad. it got it right the second time around with the M-80. idk how that is a bad industry.
I'm not sure why people are surprised when APCs fare poorly against anti-tank weapons. They are made to defeat much heavier armor systems. It seems silly to even mention it. Yet here we are.
now its unacceptable, back then these things are supposed to protect against artillery Sharpnels and small Caliber firearms
@@krellio9006 Not many new IFV/APCs can take a tank main gun sabot round or ATGM or AT mine on the chin either. The Nammer maybe? But it is in sort of a class of it's own and is way less mobile than lighter systems. Sort of a tailor-made heavy APC special doctrine dealie for the IDF.
You know, that's what happens when an anti-TANK weapon is used against a lighter vehicle. It sounds silly to point out how an APC from the 60's is vulnerable to them.
@@rwaitt14153
Puma IFV and Namer are rated against 3BM22 from 125mm gun at 1000-2000m depending on angle of the vehicle
@@krellio9006because Namer have their own specification, it's a HAPC. H for heavy..
Was designed to be more survivable in urban areas..
Ok, the *PZ. III MOCK TURRET* is one of the coolest things ive seen on the internet! That green color is nothing like ive seen depicted!
To be honest ,we never had a problem with it.
I served for 3 years in it and it never broke down with trained driver.
It is good and reliable machine ,somewhat outdated at that time ,but we can say that for all machines entering combat nowadays.
De sfrj hiiiii
Where did you serve?
@DASSTADT what is now northern Dalmatia. Brutal terrain for tracks. But it did good job.
These internet "military analysts" always come with come arbitrary reliability issue to put down a vehicle they don't have enough information.
These APC’s were actually pretty good. They were used extensively in the wars in the 90’s. And did great for recovery vehicles or infantry support
This vehicle's written article was very helpful as I was doing research for a project of mine. Keep up the great work!
So it was good for movie props. Kelly's Heroes was filmed in Yugoslavia and T 34 tanks were modified by Yugoslavian's to look like Tiger tanks.
We know, we did a video on that :D
Will you cover its successor, the BVP M-80
One day, one day
From what I've heard, this vehicle did have reliability issues, but it wasn't that bad if you had well trained drivers. Trouble was, there weren't many of these, as the training system for the drivers in JNA was quite strange...Up to the '70s there was general "tracked vehicle driver" course (my late grandfather completed it) and one was often transfered between vehicles, so not much experience could be achieved on a single vehicle type.
Can't wait for a BOV M-80 video
One day, one day.
BVP M-80 (Borbeno Vozilo Pešadije)- Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
BOV M-86 (Borbeno Oklopno Vozilo)- Fighting Armored Vehicle
Since it was put into production before most of its problems were solved it’s understandable that it had problems. I wonder why the power train of a previously successful tank wasn’t used while lengthening the body to carry more troops? Didn’t Yugoslavia have too much surplus equipment by war’s end?
regardless of how much it tended to suck i still find it very pretty looking
In serviceman jargon it had the loving nickname of "trashcan" and "peglica". The latter comparing it to the anemic fiat 126 of questionable build quality. Or maybe it's because it looked like a "peglica" which is a steam iron. Probably a little bit of both 😅
Mi smo ih zvali ''kokoska'' 🤣🤣
The real problems are when officers try to employ APCs as tanks.
The early German panzer offensives wre largely supported by moterized infantry and the mechaized infantry were always the minority in
Panzer units.
Audio way too low
16:04 the Croatian flag on the turret is incorrect. The NDH flag 1941-1945 had a white square on the top left.
edit: the current flag has a red square on the top left
it is the correct banner, though the 5 regions are missing, the one of NDH sharpens toward the bottom
@@Humbulla93 the grb itself has nothing to do with the 5 regions. All Croatian fascist flags have a white square on the top left.
@@Humbulla93also the shape of the grb has nothing to do with the issue of it being fascist or non fascist. It is ALWAYS the colour of the TOP LEFT SQUARE ua-cam.com/video/0IRqxWRvchs/v-deo.html
Do second part for T-62 please.
Next week.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT thanks, looking forward.
Sounds like a Yugo HS-30🤔
If APC's had the armour protection of MBT's, then the enemy is just gonna use bigger weapons to tackle them, nothing is invincible in the field, I think Yugoslavian military overestimated, sort of like the US army did with the Bradley.
The mock turret is NOT meant to be a Pz 3, it's clearly a Pz 4.
look at a Pz 4 and a Pz 3
also considering the Pz 4 was never (to my knowledge) equipped with the 50cm cannon i can guarantee its meant to be a mock Pz III
One was tested with a 5cm gun.
@@guameldestruir6239 The big giveaway is the bulge under the commander's cupola, which was never a feature in the Pz 3. Given the small turret it's possible that the gun is a half-arsed attempt at an early Pz 4's 75mm. Given the chassis they chose, it's a pretty decent frankenpanzer.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT The plan was to fit the Ausf F with a 50mm gun, but Rheinmetall's new 75mm gun was decided upon.
@andrewstrongman305 , we know, we're the Tank Encyclopedia :D
tanks-encyclopedia.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv-ausfuhrung-d-mit-5-cm-kwk-39-l-60/
Well this M60 seems to beat the Italian tanks of the WWII. The Yugoslav constructors should have tried to make a single engine prop fighter to function as the B29 bomber.
The music is a major distraction :(
I mean, for the average JNA infantryman possibly thrown into WW3, or for anyone from any side of the Yugoslav Wars, I guess it was better to be inside this thing than being shot at in an open field 😅
*when it worked
Baby panzer 3 is best panzer 3
A apc that the mexican military should have adopted
The only thing that can be done with that vehicle is to send it to Ukraine as a replacement for something much smarter.
Most of them are long scrapped.
to je dobar oklop, bolji od odlaska na pijesak i kamenovanja i ubijanja, nije napravljen za artiljeriju velikog kalibra jer se u to vrijeme nije ni koristio kao u modernim ratovima, imao sam priliku voziti se u njemu tijekom sukoba u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, koji je uništio i podijelio fašistički NATO pakt, kao što je isto učinio Ukrajini i Rusiji
H ausgezeichnet!
They Yugo APC "MEEP, MEEP"
remarkable the use of US M2 machine guns and german WW2 MG 42 machine guns by a eastern european country!
Man Philippine APC project put this shame to this project
First
Fourth
They would have been better off buying the FV432 from Britain
A NATO vehicle in Yugoslavia??
😂
Why not? They had Shermans, M36s, Hellcats, Pattons
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT but those were "lend and lease" vehicles... It was before the cold war.
@@lisandro2485
No they were not, they were sent under the MAP after the war
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-yugoslavia-90mm-gmc-m36-jackson-in-yugoslavian-service/
@@lisandro2485 Just google Tito said NO to Stalin or google the map of Warsaw Pact... Also go down the rabbit hole of Unaligned movement. Yugoslavia was never a puppet state of USSR.
Imagine if all the moron armies and the 50s and 60s and 70s would have realized hey if we don't spend any money at all it's going to be just fine....
😂😂😂😂
Well for the smaller countries maybe that could have worked, but for literally anybody else, not spending that money meant they would have missed out on decades of development and research and would be hopelessly out of date today. And in the case of America specifically, spending as much money as we did was a major contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Remember that even Switzerland sees the need for a standing army.
@@noscopesallowed8128
Yeah I know you were right.
Because we are still stupid humans there has to be a balance of power
BVP M-80 wasn't (and isn't) much better, either. That thing is also awful!
Like most of original "yugoslavian" products it was a ridiculosly expensive piece of crap.
OH YEAHHH I LOVE THIS PIECE OF TRASH
Ti ja dam paramilitar.......
holy shit communist m113
No wonder their car is that bad
How can you say that! I had a Yugo car it worked, most of the time. On the highway, it could reach a speed of up to 90 km/h before starting shaking as crazy. And lastly, you can (in theory) put it in reverse :D
@@markopantelic3088 nah, I've just talking about the stereotipe, but grest to hear that
@@overcats5539 I supposed that, but we can joke a little :D
Just BS...
Yugoslavia really had a bad military industry.
it was good enough for keeping peace for 45 years...
It was it's first APC, of course it wasn't to be good. Compared to the first APC's of other countries - it was not half bad. it got it right the second time around with the M-80. idk how that is a bad industry.
All of it's contemporary designs are POS as well.
@@vorda400 What genocide.
@@sjoormen1 You think this piece of trash kept the peace lol.
15:58 so it has some use after all
Can you make a video about m80?