» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
From what I interpreted from this, is that the gun depression adds to not only versatility in fire and positioning, but can also aid concealment and camouflage.
Gun depression is very important, but the cost of maintaining a corps of licensed combat vehicle therapists to deal with this issue after battles is substantial.
I'm just glad we are finally able to talk openly of these issues without fear of stigma or shame. Makes me hopeful one day we can finally acknowledge that other elephant in the room. Ejectile dysfunction.
I've always though that 10 degrees is big ingame but irl 10 degrees doesn't seem that big only about 1/9th of a 90 angle, is this really a massive difference irl?
As far as I know the Israelis profited greatly from the better gun depression of their Centurion tanks when holding the high ground against the Syrian attacks in the Golan heights.
@@brokeandtired being on the defense mattered more I think. The Israelis captured T-54s and T-62s and pressed them into service as the Tiran, to good effect. So clearly the tank wasn't the issue, but how it was used
true. as a tank commander whether in defense or offense u always use terrain for fire management and only after most target has been destroyed from a ridge line sniping, only then u go on the offense. BTW the Tiran 6 where not that good. they where mainly used as second line tanks. the spear of the IDF where the Shot Ka'al centurions and M60s and 48 (the use of the Pattons where only due to an embargo by the UK).
I remember back in the early 80s, we got some introductory training on the M48A5 and M60A3, and even then they discussed with us the fact that the Soviet tanks *seem* to be smaller targets, but that they were not nearly as effective at taking hull-down positions because of the gun depression. WOT has just made what was an esoteric bit of professional knowledge very commonplace.
They ARE smaller targets when firing from prepared positions. They have a harder time finding natural terrain to go proper hull down like Western MBTs though
@@TheNicestPig Fair enough. And while WoT is a fun, silly game, it does a pretty good job of conveying the reality that even terrain that looks flat and featureless on a map has a lot of exploitable quirks if you know what you're looking for. I've always thought that it would be fun to have one map that is truly a flat tabletop, with no features at all.
@@jxmbusabFrom what I read online, WoT multiplies terrain elevation by a factor of 7. It is true that tanks with poor gun depression struggle in areas with high differences in terrain height. The crucial thing everyone is missing is that Soviet and Russian vehicles were designed to fight in the steppe, which is extremely flat. Have you heard of a single instance of Ukrainian or Russian tank commanders complaining about the gun depression of their tanks in the war in Ukraine? I haven’t. It only really becomes an issue when tanks are thrown into places they were never designed to operate in, those being urban areas with high rises or hilly /mountainous terrain. This happens either because of incompetence (ie, Grozny) or when the tanks are exported to nations which have to fight in unfavorable terrain (ie, Syria vs Israel). You could call poor gun depression a flaw, but by the same token you’d have to call the massive turrets (and associated weight increase) of Western MBTs a flaw as well. Both are opposite ends of an engineering design choice. The Soviet engineers who created the T-55 to T-90 tanks could have chosen to make them larger and with better gun depression, but they chose a low profile turret instead. This was not the wrong choice, like some people make it out to be, but the optimal choice to fit their tanks to the terrain they would primarily be fighting in and to work well with Soviet logistics (bridges and trains). When a Soviet-era tank goes hull down in the steppe, the exposed turret height is only about 1.5m, roughly half that of Western MBTs. That has come to matter less today with the existence of modern optics and computer targeting, but when these tanks were made between the 40’s and early 80’s, they were hard to hit and very well armored targets. Saying that that a design choice made 40 years ago was wrong based on the existence of modern fire control systems and ammo is backwards. The T-72 wasn’t meant to still be the USSR’s (now Russia’s) main tank in 2023. As time went on and technology evolved, Russian engineers have also made alternative design decisions which produced the T-14, a vehicle radically different and more suitable to the modern warfare environment and Soviet designed tanks. Its gun depression is comparable to that of Western tanks.
Anyone who says that you don't need gun depression outside video games, probably think that every single tank engament takes place on wide absolutely flat plains. And not for example in hilly, wooded terrain.
I'm guessing the train of thought is something like "well, arcade tank games generally feature tank on tank combat at unrealistically short ranges. At longer - more realistic - ranges you'd have to elevate your gun more to get the shells on target, so gun depression will at least be not quite as important". Me personaly, I simply don't know how much of a diference the longer engagement ranges make.
I'd assume it's because they never heard about gun depression before playing tank games, and assumed it was an unrealistic part of the game rather than a detail too low level for most historians to know or care about.
@@Bird_Dog00 Well the APFSDS rounds have a pretty flat ballistic arc. Effectively out to about 1,500m and more the rounds travel flat. Anyway "Waste of Time" and "War Chunder" have absolutely minimal linkages to reality. 500m is nothing for a tank engagement. Its driven by the game's map design limitations, not reality.
I don't think putting the entire earth between you and the opponent will ever not be tactically sound. To quote a beautiful bastard: "I love digging and displacing just enough raw earth to fit an adult male in standard kit. It is my favorite task. If someone paid me to do nothing except dig fighting holes I would do it. I do not even want to kill the enemy. The joy come from doing it from my fighting hole. While he gurgles to death from his blood in confusion with several hundred small splinters of NATO standard ammunition dispersed throughout him it is not my enemy perishing and the safety thereafter that gives me satisfaction. First of all, I was safe in the first place, since I should be killing my enemy from a properly dug Marine fighting hole. Second of all, I do not get joy from the death of my fellow man. I only receive joy from the proper use of my properly dug fighting hole. My enemy will perish without me ever being in danger only because of my fighting hole. I love it and only it, and it is the only thing I ever will."
@@MarvinWestmaas he meant that thing that is used from times of ancient Egypt to nowadays. Though he's wrong, propaganda is government tool, not military tool.
My experience from my conscription at a cadet training company (with CV9040, Pbv 302, BMP-1 & MT-LB) was that the BMP-1 was hugely impaired by the lack of gun depression. The one man turret & the placement of the vehicle commander made the 73mm gun useless on the advance, but adding the lack of gun depression, also made the gun near useless, even from a ambush in the terrain that we were training in.
@@benlewis4241 The Pbv-302 was superior at supporting the advance because of the gun (20mm autocannon vs. very inaccurate 73mm), because the commander wasn't blind when the gunner was going his job (on the BMP-1, the commander sits behind the driver with the vision from his three minimal vision blocks are partially blocked by the hull, the drivers visions blocks and the turret, & if the commander opens his hatch to actually see anything, the gunner can't turn the turret.) and because the combination of very limited elevation & depression, combined with the vehicle having a strong tendency to swing forward & backwards on the move, made it hard to bring the gun on target. To provide fire support it was (in the terrain we were training) almost as bad as the MT-LB, but the MT-LB offered more space for the infantry and their equipment, had higher mobility & was incredibly reliable & easy to maintain. So while (in our peacetime training in the terrain we trained in) the BMP-1 was a horrible ICV and a decent APC, the MT-LB was a great APC, the Pbv-302 was a good APC & a acceptable ICV, & the CV9040 was a great ICV & a acceptable APC. My conclusion was that the best way to use the BMP-1 (in the terrain we operated in) would be to put the commander in the gunners seat (that way the commander would be able to observe, while the gunner would only be marginally more useless) & have the gunner take the gunners seat if the commander dismounted. For a upgrade, I would suggest eighter a OWS and gain a bit of internal volume or replacing the existing turret, with a one man turret with a autocannon, with the commander in the turret, & the gunner operating the turret from the existing commanders seat behind the driver.
@@oloflarsson7629 I guess if you fitted a lighter weapon you could raise the headroom in the fighting compartment too- did they try to restrict the size of men in the BMP units? Could you use the ATGM (Actually not sure if the Swedish ones had them) and the gun at the same time? Did you ever use the swimming capability? I think the Grom 73mm never really worked out although with the after-mentioned terrible sights it might not have had a far shake, maybe a gun mortar would have worked better? Do you think that Sweden made the right decision to buy them?
@@benlewis4241 The Swedish army barelly started to use the BMP-1, before those units were dispanded, but in my unit (a mixed training company for a officers school) the shortest soldiers tended to be sent to the BMP-1 platoon and the tallest to the CV9040's. Despite that, they were only able to get 6 soldiers into the rifle sections in the BMP-1. As for the missiles we never used them in Sweden. The missiles and 73mm autoloader was removed before the line units got them. The missiles (AT-3) most likely because they were deemed ineffective and the autoloaded because it posed a danger to the gunner.
@@oloflarsson7629 Ouch, that is some downgrade, at that point it would be tempting just to pull the turret off and fit a ring mount HMG for better situational awareness. How err... comfortable was it for the 6 men in the back? Could you actually use the firing ports on the move? The slow rate of fire of Iraqi BMP's (which I think a lot were ex-swedish?) in Mosul makes a lot more sense now. I guess the idea of having a bunch of conscripts having to get their fingers reattached put the Swedes off the autoloader.
Speaking of "ranger graves," back when I was a Ranger [back when only Rangers wore black berets] we had a new Platoon Leader who'd just come up from leg-land [straight leg infantry]; one of the very first things he had us do was a full-up 24 hour defense. As Rangers fresh back from Grenada we'd never done anything like that, arrive at a piece of terrain you were expected to defend 24 hours later from enemy attack so you: scout your positions, layout and clear fields of fire, dig hasty fighting positions, and for the next 24 hours you are continuously: digging, sending out recon patrols, maintaining some level of security, and continuously improving your primary fighting positions and as time allows secondary or even tertiary positions. It was an exercise well worth undertaking, nobody really liked doing it, but I guess there were a lot of important things we did we didn't particularly like doing.
@@markfryer9880 Not much sleeping is done during a 24hr defense, you rest when you are pulling security, out on LP/OP, it's a bit like Ranger School in that regard.
I think the discussion on whether the Russians care for their soldiers has been answered in the Ukraine, and the answer is a positive no they don't. They are still using human wave attacks and criminals to boot.
@@williamreymond2669 This is from my conscript days in the Finnish Defence Forces a few years ago, but pulling this sort of defense was also the norm. I was an NCO, so I was making the duty lists for each night and day for my squad, and in week-long exercises, I'd say each individual got 4 hours of sleep each night if everything went according to plan in the platoon. Although if lacking in manpower due to various reasons, it could be bad. There WAS a 5-day exercise where I equally divided the watch duties as usual. I only got 11 hours of sleep during the whole exercise, and 6 of those were during the last night, and only because I was supposed to drive the next day. Well, I almost fell asleep in the wheel and in hindsight that was reckless.
@@Jumpulaaa In my Ranger School class I did two back to back 72 hour patrols with no sleep at all and five hours of statutory sleep time in between because we were conducting an airborne insertion into the next patrol - five hours on the concrete floor of an aircraft hanger.
speaking about "digging in". When I went into the Army in 86, the E-tool was considered as important as your weapon or mask. After DS/DS, it became something we rarely even took to the field. It was not even on our packing list for IZ in 2004...I'm betting the folks at Fort Benning are renewing those "actions at the halt" involving digging in right now...LOL
I was in IBOLC last year, we didn't dig fighting positions at the halt or dig fighting positions at patrol bases, but there was a whole week dedicated to defensive operations where soldiers got dug in in their patrol base. We DID spend quite a bit of time attacking bunkers and trenches.
Outside of boot camp and MCT I only had to use my E-tool once during my time in the Corps. Granted I was a Reservist and in the Air Wing at that, but I only used it once. It was during a night hump and our CO (good guy really) wanted us to set up our shelter halves while practicing noise and light discipline. But, since most of hadn't touched a shelter half in years, all attempts at noise and light discipline when out the window. We turned on flashlights to be able to actually see what we were doing, and we used our E-tools as improvised hammers to hammer the tent stake into the ground, making a nice racket in the process.
I will say that World of Tanks makes some design decisions that make gun depression MORE important than it is in the real world: the maps are compressed horizontally but not vertically, so relative vertical position is more extreme than it would be in the real world. (This is true for a LOT of games: it turns out that trudging or driving from A to B isn't that exciting, so you shrink things that way, but verticality looks exciting, so you don't flatten your hills. Leaving the vertical relief also helps make the maps look bigger, in a couple ways.)
Gun depression: when you realise MBTs have never achieved or surpassed the 128mm caliber of jagdtiger, sturer emil, maus....😢 i hope they make the new panther tank
@@tigerbesteverything +Doesn't Rheinmetall already have a functional 130mm prototype in the works that is intended to be the replacement in the future for the 120mm guns most NATO tanks have?
@@johnmcpudding857 normally it's the ascalon gun that will be chosen. the rh one is for the leopard 3, not the mgcs. And the ascalon offers better performance from what i know.
My best buddy was an M60 driver. He and I are the exact same height: 5"10 1/2. He's never complained about the room. When I stuck my head inside an M60A1 turret at a national guard show (ancillary to an Air Show) I was amazed at the internal space. A soldier could practically do jumping jacks inside the turret.
I feel like the Chieftain has previously talked about how a taller tank with greater gun depression is better able to exploit hull down positions, particularly when popping over a low rise like a berm and being able to depress your gun and shoot while the majority of your tank is sheltered. By contrast, a tank that can't depress its gun has to come farther over a rise to shoot, exposing its own hull to return fire.
And for the tank with worse depression, that means exposing the lower glacis and parts of the bottom as they need to actually go past the top of the ridge.
It's a tradeoff between offensive and defensive. On the offensive it pays to have a smaller tank that is smaller to hit, that will mean sacrificing depression but if you're on the offensive that's not a major sacrifice since you'd rarely get any use out of it. On the defensive being able to better exploit hull down positions and reverse slope positions is paramount because those are the best defensive fighting positions, at the same time having a larger tank makes it more comfortable and thus gives the crew more endurance which is also important on the defensive since you might be sitting there for a while. Making your tank larger is of course still a sacrifice since it is easier to hit theoretically but it's one that is off-set by mostly fighting from positions where most of the tank isn't visible anyways.
@@hedgehog3180 You can argue that defensively, gun depression may also matter less. You have the time and means to better pick a suitable position as a defender or even engineer one if need be. There are always pros and cons to both so it's not going to be as simple as offence versus defence.
I really appreciate that you add chapters, especially for videos like this. It’s always a bit frustrating to have to skip around a video to find the part you’re interested in most.
At 1.87m ive never had issues with the 2a6 space. During winter exercises ive literally got my sleeping bag and slept on the gunners position rather than leaving the tank. An abrams might be more roomy but i dont really see much need for it.
The like to like ratio of this reaction and those praising the M1 show this channel's audience consist mainly of 'Murican's /I think, not actually having any experience in either except in wot
@@MarvinWestmaas I have had the experience of briefly sitting in both in quick succession... And I mostly preffered the leopard, if my commander was short... Otherwise you get very intimate with his knees as a gunner
You discussed derivation of standards. I was SO2 Trg Ops at Bordon. The School taught, amongst others, Recovery Mechanics. Part of the syllabus was towing on A frames. I got a call asking what the grade of slope should be as they were drilling a School and wanted to know how they could derive it, for their recovery vehicle and casualties. Took me about of digging to find the right Recovery Mechanic to come up with an unbelievable, but credible answer: 26'. Turned out Recovery Hill, the place we taught Recy Mechs to downhill tow a casualty, had been set up so long ago, that the grade of the hill at Bordon had become the standard!
Indeed, would be an interesting exercise to compare turret roof to turret roof M60 and M-1 and see where inches were shaved without change in philosophy on gun depression and ergonomic.
I used to be a forward observer not long ago and if the guys at the gun line had a GPS guided shell ready to go, you could easily give them a grid accurate to 1 meter in less than 30 seconds with the right equipment. It might take a minute or two longer than that to actually launch the shell, of course. My point being that it's not unreasonable at all for a tank to sit still long enough to be hit by a GPS artillery shell. 10 minutes is being pretty generous even.
Just for reference, the Leopard 2 has less space allocated for the commander and gunner when compared to a T-72. I'm not talking about ergonomics, I'm talking about cubic centimetres in overall space.
When it comes to weight-protection ratio, that's a good thing. You want to keep the protected volume as small as possible. More volume means more external surface area that needs to be armored, either increasing weight at the same protection level or decreasing protection level at the same weight.
@@jonny2954 depends on the model. T80U were far better armored than anything at the Time but were stil 10+ tons lighter and used less metal, same goes for most soviet vehicles
For the last point, I think that the US Army also had some sort of " air-guard" position in WW2, at least in convoys. When tanks would travel, at least one tank had its roof-mounted MG scanning the skies. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think I remember this from a video about convoys.
I mean ofcourse, in all out war as a mechanized brigade, your biggest weakness is a bomb dropped on you - your frontal armor is not going to stop penetration from above, which quite often would become the down fall of allied tanks - I think this is the only era where allied armor was in a disadvantage against tanks Germany produced such a the Tigers.
During the 1950's the US Army horsed around with very heavy tank designs. They had one that used an adjustable hydraulic or pneumatic suspension operated by pumps and valves. It could squat down real low to lower it's profile, lower the front and raise the rear high to increase gun depression or raise the front and lower the rear to increase gun elevation. It worked swell except when on the march or in simulated combat situations due to wear to the seals and damage from shell splinters and heavy MG fire.
From a match of i had Squad a long time ago Gunner:"Driver, I dont have enough depression!" Driver(me):"hah, i sure wish i could say that" Gunner:" what? Driver reverse! Theres an Abrams on--" *The sound of a M829 Depleted uranium penetrator detonating the auto loader rack on my T-72" Driver(Me, dead):"....Oh...umm... whoops?.."
Gunner probably should've communicated that a little better, honestly Call out tank, then say if there's a depression issue. Communication is an importance in vehicles.
Anyone who has played a real tank simulator like Steelbeasts will know that gun depression becomes quite important when dealing with infantry at close ranges (under 100-200m) on the flanks. Some designs can't engage them with the machinegun if they're prone, it will fly far above them. Seems not so important, but the world has a lot of forests and urban areas.
In Steel Beasts gun depression is also crucial for hull down position, which is basically the most common and preferred tactics to gain an advantage over more numerous enemy tanks.
I wonder what the rationale was for the cupola on the M60 (and M48 Patton as well if I understood Chieftain correctly). The extra turret on the M3 Lee was widely criticized at the time (especially by the British). And yet it seems like something similar happened in mid Cold War tanks.
My guess would be the benefit of being able to reload without having to expose the commander/crew to chemical threats. Sure you can have a remote controlled weapon, but what about reloading it?
But Leopard 2 had overpressure NBC were as early Abrams didn’t. Which could explain why Leopards were less roomy. They didn’t need the crew to wear all that gear.
so, because you didn't need the room, you were far less comfortable the 99.99% of the time where you were just being in a tank, not changing into gear. German engineering.
@@Evirthewarrior What kind of comment is that even? No, it just ment that there was less requirement for a larger turret. Im sure the german engineers knew what they were doing, they were probably a lot smarter than you.
Does overpressure help against radiation? It would keep particles out, so in a way yes. I suppose the tank armor should protect against radiation. Anyone with expertise on radiation?
@@philippe2715 It all depends upon the source and where it is. The tank's armour (particularly frontal) should help keep the worst of it outside the tank.
Great stuff!! Fighting in MOPP gear would suck. Back in the mid '80's in the TX Natl Guard, an M-60 crew in MOPP gear shot the tank beside on the range it w the sub-caliber training round. Basically 90 degrees off target. Killed the TC. It wasn't my squadron (same regiment) & I was 19-D, not E, so it might be a myth ... But that's what they were telling us. I saw it as possible.
Rommel talks about the importance of digging-in in his book "Infantry Attacks" in Chapter 2- talking about the Dupuy Woods battle. Thanks again Bernhard. The Chieftain is one of my favorite guests.
The early production of the Italian M13/40 had gun depression issues. This was fixed on the third production series with a box added into the turret roof.
As for height: M48A2 (coupola) is 320cm M48A2A2 (using a Leopard 1 commanders hatch) is 290cm 30cm just by removing the cupola (the A2GA2 startet live as plain A2)
something that sucks on very low tank is that youre forced into a sitting position permanently. if you step into a tank in a museum and you spend a minute inside and leave you dont truly appreciate how uncomfortable it gets after hours and hours and hours and hours in there. like the swedish S tank you are basically entirely stuck in the same position. it also has crazy oil leaks inside so you have oil covering the bottom of your boots, it gets hot in there and sweaty, soon everything smells like absolute shit. sweden going to the leopard was still a huge upgrade in comfort, while the leopard is considered ass in comfort for others for those who had spent time in the S tank it was a big upgrade anyway.
Talked with an Ukranian tanker that is currently in bakhmut frontlines. He said both the turret rotation and elevation speeds and angles matters more than people would think. Not in a game sense though. But he did note his tank had better turret rotation speed and elevation speed than few captured Russian tanks he tried like T-80BVM and T-72B3 obr 1989
Concerning the height of tanks. When they were designing the MBT70 didn't they make it as flat as possible, even with an active suspension that could be lowered. Since that project lead into the development of the M1 I believe you could say that there was a bit of a change in philosophy. Not as radical as the soviet approach of course.
"Flat" is not the same as "short". And the MBT70 was not as short "as possible" if it was intended for up-to-95th-percentile-in-height crewmen. But, yes, a suspension to allow "ducking" was intended, iirc.
@@gandydancer9710 flat is the same as short since we are talking about how tall it is overall. And they made it as flat as possible considering the other factors like crew and gun depression. I specifically mentioned the different approach compared to soviet tanks. Please read the whole note before you comment.
The MBT-70 also lead into the development of the Leopard 2; it was a joint project before it was canceled because the two armies disagreed on some compromises that had to be made to make the tank work.
@@calandryll3284 I read your entire comment the first time and, no, "flat" is NOT the same as "short", full stop. And my observation about it NOT being as short "as possible" remains unaddressed despite your pretense of having done so.
Hydropneumatic Suspension also frees up a considerable amount of space within the hull, enabling the the shull to be lower. The Abrams' has torsion bar suspension which takes up a small amount of volume along the bottom of the hull, needing a taller hull.
there's no way tankers could be expected to keep an eye out for tiny spotter drones 24/7 there needs to be some radar or image recognition system to do it for them and probably a laser or very small 20mm gun automated to take them out at the press of a button.
NBC in German vehicles was defined as close the hatches and don't come out. There is zero need to put on any special gears in then. You just turn on the NBC filter system. Of course, if you apply a different set of operational rules and philosophy then it mit not turn out practical. Key thing is no one ever fought an all out NBC war yet. So any approach may be valid. Leopard 2 guys were supposed to drive out of the NBC area through a truck carwash decon station and go for a safe meal, shit and rotational sleep in some NBC secured barracks. They would put up their gas masks and raincoat for getting out only.
Im enlisted as a Gunner/Loader in the Leopard 2 WE in the swiss army, and I can confirm, that the Leopard 2 WE is really cramped. As Gunner and Commander, you barely have space to turn around or sit comfy. The Loader and Driver are the ones, that have the most room or can sit quite comfy with the loader being the only one, that is able to decide if he wants to look out the coupola, Sit or stand. I cant say bout the Leopard 2A6/7 but I think they fixed a bit the space in those.
Рік тому+3
I am glad that gun depression really is a factor and that part of the Video definetly is the one guranteeing the most clicks. Learning more about the rational for the cupola of the M48/M60 would be interesting. Maybe it has to do with the NBC battlefield they were expecting, like the firingports on a BMP-1/Marder/Bradley.
Originally it was due to Korean War expectations of massed human wave attacks. The idea was that if you had a horde of infantry charging you with satchel charges while getting cover fire from light machine guns, the only position able to fight back would be the commander's, but if he had to pop open the hatch and expose himself to do so, he'd most likely die. Putting him behind armor was just common sense Later it was decided this was also a good solution for the NBC battlefield. Firing ports were meant to allow the infantry to fight back while the vehicle extracted itself from sticky situations. They're actually detrimental in any NBC situation as there is no way to properly seal them unless you go to crazy solutions like the Bradley port-firing weapon.
I was always amazed at how much room the M60 loader had to move about and do his job, but I hated having to lean back against the turret ring so I could kick the ejected shell casings to the floor. I didn't envy the gunner, however, as the seats were uncomfortable.
In WWII my grandfather was an MP in charge of bringing in rapists and murderers. He only talked about the ones that didn't give him trouble. His favorite story was when he asked a guy, "Are you gonna give me any trouble?" And the guy said, "I WAS. But then I saw you and changed my mind."
As to the importance of gun depression in the real world, and not just WoT, I recall a description of an Israeli victory on the Golan Heights (Valley of Tears 1973?) where the inability of the Syrian tanks on higher ground to depress their guns sufficiently to fire on the Israeli tanks was critical, at least in the description of the battle I saw on UA-cam. I'm not sure how reliable that was, but I mention it FWIW.
I think that Germany put 12 million men in uniform in World war 2. While Russia mobilized 40 million men. And USA put 12 million in uniform, but it could probably easily add many more million if it had wanted to, but it did see that as necessary as the war was considered almost as won by the autumn in 1943.
Regarding concern for losses, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that (generally) "the west" was more concerned for losses for political/moral (even) reasons and the east more so purely as a resource. That is to say, USSR (and Germany in the context of WW2) were authoritarian and as long as the objectives were achieved, any non crippling losses were acceptable. On the other hand, for the democratic west, that could have wider consequences for the parties involved, even if objectives were achieved, the price might be deemed unacceptable.
Interesting fact is Soviets always thought of tanks as offensive weapons and hence defensive gun depression and livability were disregarded….yet Russia complains of the “aggression” of NATO armies with weapons that were designed to defend against Russian weapons that were designed almost 100% with offensive action in mind.
That's just bad logic. Tactical aggression is entirely separate from geopolitical aggression. You're sounding like that German spokesman who said that Leopard tanks are "offensive panzers" and that Ukraine needs "defensive panzers instead like Marder." You can absolutely have a defensive geopolitical strategy but have an army specializing in the offense. Plus, lower livability matters less when you are in a defensive war, since you can sleep in friendly civilians' homes, which you cannot do so easily in an offensive war.
@@AsbestosMuffins Idk about ships but their submarines had saunas and pools, there is some american submariner guy on yt that i watched. He reviewed soviet submarines and had always high regard for them.
@@robertkalinic335 if I were to guess I'd say that the relative lack of crew comforts on soviet surface ships in exchange for extra offensive power was due to the fact that the soviet navy was always playing 2nd fiddle in comparison to its western counterparts, so each ship had to be more offensively minded to compensate.
@@revanofkorriban1505 Weapons that are optimized for offense and are not well suited to defense are, optically at least, not consistent with an external policy that espouses defensive intentions. Russia’s/Soviet military history post WW2 has been overwhelmingly offensive veiled in defensive language. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine….should I go on? Gaslight as much as you wish, but you simply cannot argue with the facts.
Gun depression also counts as "additional armor" as far as WW2 is concerned. At maximum depression, a Jagdpanther pointing it's gun at a target has that much more slope added to it's front armor.
Every time I wanted to hull down or wanted to shoot a target, I needed to expose myself more (cough soviet cough reverse speeds). Gun depression is a very big problem when playing games with tanks.
1. Gun depression: "Kämpfen aus der Hinterhanglage/ Fighting up the slope" is an essential tactic. Israelis used it often in their conflicts for their advantage. 2. NBC Battlefield in the northern plane and the Leo2 being cramped. 24h survivability in combat was never considered. The bundeswehr would have been smoked in the first days of an offensive. And for my knowledge Leo2 has an active nbc airfilter system. 3. German (Officer/NCO) will always complain of people not digging in enough. We still do today... 4. Airguards and camo against air recon, is something americans arend that used to because the never had to fight an airforce. 5. Artillery fire can be really quick if you have designated canons and the coordinates. A 155mm shell is pretty fast and has a flighttime of 3min for its 40km max range ( not that sure on the actual number but its pretty quick). So you can get well under 5 min. The SMart 155mm is designed to hit even moving targets. Yes GPS shells are great for SF-Stuff, but for the great patriotic one a waste of ressources. Cluster and semi-smart-cluster munition are the way to go, for the soldier and tax payer atleast.
6:53 I suspect -10 was chosen because it strikes a balance between gun depression and turret height. The Soviets didn’t care about depression so they designed low profile turrets which reduce target size and weight. On the other hand, you had indigenous Swedish designs like the Strv 74 which had excellent gun depression but at the expense of being super tall at 3.3 meters. Which makes sense for their given doctrines, the Soviets expected to attack in the flatlands of Europe while Sweden planned to fight defensively against a potential Soviet Invasion. The US would be on the defensive in Europe if the Cold War went hot, but being a worldwide superpower, would also need to be ready to attack other nations such as in Korea, Panama, and Iraq, so it wanted something that could do hull down reasonably well but also not be a huge easy to hit target when moving in the open so it compromised at -10 as opposed to the -3-6 or the -12-15 of Soviet and Swedish designs respectively. Of course, it took advantage of any spare gun depression when it could such as with the M901 that could depress -30 degrees or the CROWS system that can depress -15.
About "Digging In" (Preparing "Fighting Positions" and other defensive earthworks). I joined the US Army in 1983 and retired in 2014. Starting in the early 90's (c.1993?) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS began to restrict, and eventually totally prohibit Digging, nor cutting vegetation for camouflage! Doctrine emphasizing mobility was sometimes cited. Often, we did move too often to have effectively prepared dug in defenses. However, many, and eventually most Training Areas digging in was prohibited (or at least required a Battalion Commander or higher to authorize digging individual fighting positions, or using bulldozers (etc.) to prepare Vehicle Fighting Positions. You will FIGHT AS YOU TRAINED! So, it is prudent to Train as you intend to Fight! "Enviromental concerns" or more accurately Political posturing is affecting our War Fighting Preparedness NEGATIVELY! Yes, doctrine and battlefield tactics have changed. We used HESCO bastions, and other defensive works in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. However, our Political (and other) leaders (and "influencers") are of the opinion that the Lives of Soldiers are WORTH LESS than Political Correctness! Only after we have not achieved Their Political Goals will they care. Hopefully some Military Leaders will Learn from the Blood Being spilt in the Ukraine and in other conflicts!
Another thing to add to what the Chieftain was saying about Soviet values of manpower that I think he forgot to mention. The Soviets were also very quick to adopt the autoloader for tanks to reduce manpower usage risk and to keep tanks low profile. They also built their plane cockpits deeper into the fuselages to protect their pilots.
5:10 People that say you only want gun depression in World of Tanks or Warthunder do not know the implications not having gun depression can have in real life conflicts, aside from the obvious, imagine losing a battle just because the enemy had gun depression and could take certain positions your armored vehicles couldn't fire from - in Russia right now we can see the effect of limitations in armor leading to casualties, such as reverse speed and gun depression not being sufficient for the engagement and leading to a loss of armor.
People look at WoT and WT and think "Oh these are minor optimizations done by gamers to win their silly tank game. There's no way real tankers would do that." But they forget that the armor calculations are based on real armor calculations (if not totally realistic physics) and that the tactics people employ, while frequently done at much closer ranges than realistic do actually increase the survival of the tank and would still work the same way in the real world. But most of all, they forget that the people making these minor optimizations are at home and safe and suffer no risk of death while the people in the tank would be doing anything in their power not to die, and if they survive because of angling, they would tell their friends because they want their friends not to die, and if they survive because their tank could aim down, they would tell their friends because they want their friends to not die, so these "minor optimizations" would be spread throughout the entire armored corps until they reach the ears of someone at the rear echelon who might get some scientists to look into exactly how to maximize the benefits of these little differences that people are doing. What angle is the optimum for deflecting shots from the front, but still present the least of the profile of the tank while allowing the tank to fire? What kind of terrain can a tank engage in optimally with what kind of gun depression? A tank can drive up a 5 degree slope, but without 5 degrees of depression, it can't shoot at targets on the ground. Are 5 degree slopes likely in the area of operations? Well sure, but not as common as 2 or 3 degree slopes. Give the gun 5 degrees then and it can take a position at the top of a 3 degree slope and shoot at tanks approaching from the front while being mostly protected. With no depression, any kind of hill means your tank is a shooting at planes and nothing else. People think gamers are optimizing? Well, if you die when your tank explodes, you'd damn well optimize the hell out of your survival chances.
I mean if people start thinking that giving a tank the ability to aim up and down is optional, no wonder we had such huge drama about 'the age of the tank' being over lmao
I agree that being too deep into the Cult of Attack will only lead an army down the road the French Army went before WWI. Like, we train to Clear Buildings, but do we train how to Defend Buildings?
The only thing going for the Russians there were BTRs, BMDs, BMPs and anything that had an anti-air capacity, most of their regular tanks like you mentioned were not designed for anything but a zero degree flat plain.
Always an issue with habits, how and when to train in older methods vs new concepts and getting rid of bad habits that are situational. Great vid series. Please more.
If I where a soldier I would dig in non stop, more precicely I would dig in every time we stop. If were not on the move im in a trench even if its just big enough for me to lie in during bombardament.
Some drones can use a laser in combination with their GPS position to find coordinates. Other drones can do it passively but moving between positions while looking at the target to triangulate the position. Other drones are used in pairs, so they passively triangulate with the image from 2 drones.
I too have gray hair and remember these things. Whenever you stopped always get off the road, under trees if possible, for an hour or so you were supposed to do battle with the camo net, put out a guard or OP, if most of the day or overnight, dig, dig, dig, and of course, fill in your engineering masterpiece when you leave. The dig philosophy did seem to be waning with the increasing presence of the Unimogs. It seemed as if don't strain, the Unimog will come by and make holes for everyone. Of course they seldom came by "you".
Would that be the Unimog with the Swiss Army knife of a front end loader and back hoe? I have seen the photos but the Australian Army never went for them. Mark from Melbourne Australia
@@chriskortan1530 It sounds like you're talking about a SEE truck (Small Emplacement Excavator)? 2 per mech engineer company back when i was in. Not particularly easy to keep operational either.
Want to make a guess before the video. Gun depression good, but generally does cost more to obtain, and after a point, weakens the tank in general situations for specialised hill roles. Which could otherwise be created by engineers allowing one chassis to combat more tasks. Alongside that guess being, more depression allows cheaper/faster hull down positions from engineers, while less depression allows cheaper tanks, at the cost of more construction time needed for adaquate hull down positions/necessitates more tank shovels.
So if America decided that they needed more space inside the vehicle for an NBC environment, what was the soviet view and philosophy regarding this issue? Seeing as their tanks seem a bit more cramped than western counterparts. Also wondering what the thinking was with the spent casing ejector on the roof of the t72 in regard to this, seeing as how the t80 doesn't have it but the t90 does. Or is this more of a quirk of the auto loader being different?
The Soviets…didn’t really give a shit about quality of the vehicle and never did, equipment quality or usability never existed in soviet/Russian engineering, I suppose because ‘assume everyone is a mobilized conscript who can’t read, who knows Russians are bad at quality, it’s only internet nerds who be like ‘large amounts of good enough!’, as shown in Ukraine it’s not
T72A is positive ptessure NBC sealed amd has a lead lined radiation proof crew compartment. The USSR fully expected to charge into the fallout of their own Tac Nukes, and all their mechanized equipment is CBRN compatible.
about how long it takes to get accurate GPS coordinates from drone footage, the technology to build an FPV drone that can calculate target coordinates based on range and azimuth from its own coordinates has existed for years, it's probably not available for consumer grade equipment, but Western countries' military industries definitely have the know-how to make them, so depending on whether the artillery is using 21st century computers or a guy with a pen, a slide rule and pieces of paper to calculate range and deflection, it could be two minutes from the drone ranging the target to firing or it could be 5 minutes, maybe 10 if the drone operator needs to, for all intents and purposes, type in and send an email with the target coordinates.
There is a skirmish in the Desert Storm that I wonder why you didn't mention. It was M1's against old soviet T60, or some sort, and one platoon of M1's took out lots of soviet tanks with no casualties. I can't remember how many tanks they took out but about 20-30. The Iraqi's were up on high ground lying in wait for the Americans but the tanks couldn't depress their gun barrels enough so they drove up on the hills. Which in turn made the ambush nullified. The Americans opened up a shooting spree. We were told later that the battle was a textbook manoeuvre and is taught at Fort Benning(?). At least is was taught at the US army.
Regarding gun elevation I remember it playing a significant role in the Israeli attack on Egyptian positions at the Suez channel during the Yom Kippur War, with the Soviet-made tanks of the Egyptians sitting in cover struggling to lower their guns enough to fire at the American- and British-made Israeli tanks.
I think I heard it was also an issue on the Golan front, with the Syrian T-55s and T-62s that managed to advance towards the western part of the heights having trouble fiering at the counterattacking Israeli Centurions.
General problem with any Soviet-Chinese supplied military dealing with hills or anything deviating from a 0 degree flat plain, Stefan's aforementioned Syrian hill problem comes to mind. Imagine designing a tank that is so good and so advanced it cannot even aim downwards more than 4 degrees
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
Imagine "In world of tanks"
This post is made by the war thunder gang
From what I interpreted from this, is that the gun depression adds to not only versatility in fire and positioning, but can also aid concealment and camouflage.
The constant back and forth commute from Texas to Austria must be horrible for the Chieftain.
Sacrifices have been made. 🫡
I'm pretty sure he must have stunt doubles and/or clones at this point xD
I wonder how many of those shirts he has for this.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedWhat is the sacrificial cost of teleportation?
@@llllib hopefully he isn't being beamed by Snotty. He might end up with his head on backwards.
Gun depression is very important, but the cost of maintaining a corps of licensed combat vehicle therapists to deal with this issue after battles is substantial.
A thermal sleeve might cure early symptoms.
lol
I'm just glad we are finally able to talk openly of these issues without fear of stigma or shame. Makes me hopeful one day we can finally acknowledge that other elephant in the room. Ejectile dysfunction.
@@gregbradshaw8679 👌👌
I've always though that 10 degrees is big ingame but irl 10 degrees doesn't seem that big only about 1/9th of a 90 angle, is this really a massive difference irl?
As far as I know the Israelis profited greatly from the better gun depression of their Centurion tanks when holding the high ground against the Syrian attacks in the Golan heights.
They also benefitted from its better elevation and the soviet tanks lack of depression....On anything but flat terrain, Russian tanks were in trouble.
@@brokeandtired being on the defense mattered more I think. The Israelis captured T-54s and T-62s and pressed them into service as the Tiran, to good effect. So clearly the tank wasn't the issue, but how it was used
reverse slope hull down positions benefited IDF
@@jameshodgson3656 A well trained crew will use the advantages of their equipment. Disadvantages will be avoided as much as possible.
true. as a tank commander whether in defense or offense u always use terrain for fire management and only after most target has been destroyed from a ridge line sniping, only then u go on the offense. BTW the Tiran 6 where not that good. they where mainly used as second line tanks. the spear of the IDF where the Shot Ka'al centurions and M60s and 48 (the use of the Pattons where only due to an embargo by the UK).
I remember back in the early 80s, we got some introductory training on the M48A5 and M60A3, and even then they discussed with us the fact that the Soviet tanks *seem* to be smaller targets, but that they were not nearly as effective at taking hull-down positions because of the gun depression. WOT has just made what was an esoteric bit of professional knowledge very commonplace.
They ARE smaller targets when firing from prepared positions. They have a harder time finding natural terrain to go proper hull down like Western MBTs though
@@TheNicestPig Fair enough. And while WoT is a fun, silly game, it does a pretty good job of conveying the reality that even terrain that looks flat and featureless on a map has a lot of exploitable quirks if you know what you're looking for. I've always thought that it would be fun to have one map that is truly a flat tabletop, with no features at all.
@@jxmbusab Go away, Karl.
@@mark37f Karl? Do you mean von Clausewitz? Marx? The Murderous Llama?
@@jxmbusabFrom what I read online, WoT multiplies terrain elevation by a factor of 7.
It is true that tanks with poor gun depression struggle in areas with high differences in terrain height. The crucial thing everyone is missing is that Soviet and Russian vehicles were designed to fight in the steppe, which is extremely flat.
Have you heard of a single instance of Ukrainian or Russian tank commanders complaining about the gun depression of their tanks in the war in Ukraine? I haven’t.
It only really becomes an issue when tanks are thrown into places they were never designed to operate in, those being urban areas with high rises or hilly /mountainous terrain. This happens either because of incompetence (ie, Grozny) or when the tanks are exported to nations which have to fight in unfavorable terrain (ie, Syria vs Israel).
You could call poor gun depression a flaw, but by the same token you’d have to call the massive turrets (and associated weight increase) of Western MBTs a flaw as well. Both are opposite ends of an engineering design choice. The Soviet engineers who created the T-55 to T-90 tanks could have chosen to make them larger and with better gun depression, but they chose a low profile turret instead. This was not the wrong choice, like some people make it out to be, but the optimal choice to fit their tanks to the terrain they would primarily be fighting in and to work well with Soviet logistics (bridges and trains).
When a Soviet-era tank goes hull down in the steppe, the exposed turret height is only about 1.5m, roughly half that of Western MBTs.
That has come to matter less today with the existence of modern optics and computer targeting, but when these tanks were made between the 40’s and early 80’s, they were hard to hit and very well armored targets.
Saying that that a design choice made 40 years ago was wrong based on the existence of modern fire control systems and ammo is backwards. The T-72 wasn’t meant to still be the USSR’s (now Russia’s) main tank in 2023.
As time went on and technology evolved, Russian engineers have also made alternative design decisions which produced the T-14, a vehicle radically different and more suitable to the modern warfare environment and Soviet designed tanks. Its gun depression is comparable to that of Western tanks.
Anyone who says that you don't need gun depression outside video games, probably think that every single tank engament takes place on wide absolutely flat plains. And not for example in hilly, wooded terrain.
I'm guessing the train of thought is something like "well, arcade tank games generally feature tank on tank combat at unrealistically short ranges. At longer - more realistic - ranges you'd have to elevate your gun more to get the shells on target, so gun depression will at least be not quite as important".
Me personaly, I simply don't know how much of a diference the longer engagement ranges make.
They’re stupid period and don’t know what they’re talking about so they need to use a logical fallacy
I'd assume it's because they never heard about gun depression before playing tank games, and assumed it was an unrealistic part of the game rather than a detail too low level for most historians to know or care about.
@@Bird_Dog00 Well the APFSDS rounds have a pretty flat ballistic arc. Effectively out to about 1,500m and more the rounds travel flat.
Anyway "Waste of Time" and "War Chunder" have absolutely minimal linkages to reality. 500m is nothing for a tank engagement. Its driven by the game's map design limitations, not reality.
@@whya2ndaccount
And one of those games is a national security risk
I don't want my gun to be depressed. :(
But you do!
If you don't have gun depression, you will have gunner depression. Is that what you want?
cheer it up
There seems to be one military skill that never goes out of style. From the Roman Legions to the Donbass, digging in is always useful.
That and not being seen.
I'll go with propaganda
I don't think putting the entire earth between you and the opponent will ever not be tactically sound. To quote a beautiful bastard:
"I love digging and displacing just enough raw earth to fit an adult male in standard kit. It is my favorite task. If someone paid me to do nothing except dig fighting holes I would do it. I do not even want to kill the enemy. The joy come from doing it from my fighting hole. While he gurgles to death from his blood in confusion with several hundred small splinters of NATO standard ammunition dispersed throughout him it is not my enemy perishing and the safety thereafter that gives me satisfaction. First of all, I was safe in the first place, since I should be killing my enemy from a properly dug Marine fighting hole. Second of all, I do not get joy from the death of my fellow man. I only receive joy from the proper use of my properly dug fighting hole. My enemy will perish without me ever being in danger only because of my fighting hole. I love it and only it, and it is the only thing I ever will."
@@jeebusk vatnik?
@@MarvinWestmaas he meant that thing that is used from times of ancient Egypt to nowadays. Though he's wrong, propaganda is government tool, not military tool.
My experience from my conscription at a cadet training company (with CV9040, Pbv 302, BMP-1 & MT-LB) was that the BMP-1 was hugely impaired by the lack of gun depression. The one man turret & the placement of the vehicle commander made the 73mm gun useless on the advance, but adding the lack of gun depression, also made the gun near useless, even from a ambush in the terrain that we were training in.
I guess it was still better than the M113/MT-LB at supporting the advance?
@@benlewis4241 The Pbv-302 was superior at supporting the advance because of the gun (20mm autocannon vs. very inaccurate 73mm), because the commander wasn't blind when the gunner was going his job (on the BMP-1, the commander sits behind the driver with the vision from his three minimal vision blocks are partially blocked by the hull, the drivers visions blocks and the turret, & if the commander opens his hatch to actually see anything, the gunner can't turn the turret.) and because the combination of very limited elevation & depression, combined with the vehicle having a strong tendency to swing forward & backwards on the move, made it hard to bring the gun on target. To provide fire support it was (in the terrain we were training) almost as bad as the MT-LB, but the MT-LB offered more space for the infantry and their equipment, had higher mobility & was incredibly reliable & easy to maintain. So while (in our peacetime training in the terrain we trained in) the BMP-1 was a horrible ICV and a decent APC, the MT-LB was a great APC, the Pbv-302 was a good APC & a acceptable ICV, & the CV9040 was a great ICV & a acceptable APC. My conclusion was that the best way to use the BMP-1 (in the terrain we operated in) would be to put the commander in the gunners seat (that way the commander would be able to observe, while the gunner would only be marginally more useless) & have the gunner take the gunners seat if the commander dismounted. For a upgrade, I would suggest eighter a OWS and gain a bit of internal volume or replacing the existing turret, with a one man turret with a autocannon, with the commander in the turret, & the gunner operating the turret from the existing commanders seat behind the driver.
@@oloflarsson7629 I guess if you fitted a lighter weapon you could raise the headroom in the fighting compartment too- did they try to restrict the size of men in the BMP units? Could you use the ATGM (Actually not sure if the Swedish ones had them) and the gun at the same time? Did you ever use the swimming capability? I think the Grom 73mm never really worked out although with the after-mentioned terrible sights it might not have had a far shake, maybe a gun mortar would have worked better? Do you think that Sweden made the right decision to buy them?
@@benlewis4241 The Swedish army barelly started to use the BMP-1, before those units were dispanded, but in my unit (a mixed training company for a officers school) the shortest soldiers tended to be sent to the BMP-1 platoon and the tallest to the CV9040's. Despite that, they were only able to get 6 soldiers into the rifle sections in the BMP-1. As for the missiles we never used them in Sweden. The missiles and 73mm autoloader was removed before the line units got them. The missiles (AT-3) most likely because they were deemed ineffective and the autoloaded because it posed a danger to the gunner.
@@oloflarsson7629 Ouch, that is some downgrade, at that point it would be tempting just to pull the turret off and fit a ring mount HMG for better situational awareness. How err... comfortable was it for the 6 men in the back? Could you actually use the firing ports on the move? The slow rate of fire of Iraqi BMP's (which I think a lot were ex-swedish?) in Mosul makes a lot more sense now. I guess the idea of having a bunch of conscripts having to get their fingers reattached put the Swedes off the autoloader.
Love the interplay between you both: informed interviewer and subject expert. Definitely want to see more from you both because its so enlightening.
Speaking of "ranger graves," back when I was a Ranger [back when only Rangers wore black berets] we had a new Platoon Leader who'd just come up from leg-land [straight leg infantry]; one of the very first things he had us do was a full-up 24 hour defense. As Rangers fresh back from Grenada we'd never done anything like that, arrive at a piece of terrain you were expected to defend 24 hours later from enemy attack so you: scout your positions, layout and clear fields of fire, dig hasty fighting positions, and for the next 24 hours you are continuously: digging, sending out recon patrols, maintaining some level of security, and continuously improving your primary fighting positions and as time allows secondary or even tertiary positions. It was an exercise well worth undertaking, nobody really liked doing it, but I guess there were a lot of important things we did we didn't particularly like doing.
When does the poor sod get some well earned sleep to recharge his batteries and prevent fatigue?
@@markfryer9880 Not much sleeping is done during a 24hr defense, you rest when you are pulling security, out on LP/OP, it's a bit like Ranger School in that regard.
I think the discussion on whether the Russians care for their soldiers has been answered in the Ukraine, and the answer is a positive no they don't. They are still using human wave attacks and criminals to boot.
@@williamreymond2669 This is from my conscript days in the Finnish Defence Forces a few years ago, but pulling this sort of defense was also the norm. I was an NCO, so I was making the duty lists for each night and day for my squad, and in week-long exercises, I'd say each individual got 4 hours of sleep each night if everything went according to plan in the platoon. Although if lacking in manpower due to various reasons, it could be bad. There WAS a 5-day exercise where I equally divided the watch duties as usual. I only got 11 hours of sleep during the whole exercise, and 6 of those were during the last night, and only because I was supposed to drive the next day.
Well, I almost fell asleep in the wheel and in hindsight that was reckless.
@@Jumpulaaa In my Ranger School class I did two back to back 72 hour patrols with no sleep at all and five hours of statutory sleep time in between because we were conducting an airborne insertion into the next patrol - five hours on the concrete floor of an aircraft hanger.
speaking about "digging in". When I went into the Army in 86, the E-tool was considered as important as your weapon or mask. After DS/DS, it became something we rarely even took to the field. It was not even on our packing list for IZ in 2004...I'm betting the folks at Fort Benning are renewing those "actions at the halt" involving digging in right now...LOL
I was in IBOLC last year, we didn't dig fighting positions at the halt or dig fighting positions at patrol bases, but there was a whole week dedicated to defensive operations where soldiers got dug in in their patrol base. We DID spend quite a bit of time attacking bunkers and trenches.
Outside of boot camp and MCT I only had to use my E-tool once during my time in the Corps. Granted I was a Reservist and in the Air Wing at that, but I only used it once. It was during a night hump and our CO (good guy really) wanted us to set up our shelter halves while practicing noise and light discipline. But, since most of hadn't touched a shelter half in years, all attempts at noise and light discipline when out the window. We turned on flashlights to be able to actually see what we were doing, and we used our E-tools as improvised hammers to hammer the tent stake into the ground, making a nice racket in the process.
@@Riceball01 Had basic training 2021, If you have nothing else to do dig deeper, pretty much is still in order.
10:00 in the German army we got taught "Wirkung vor Deckung" - 'effect before cover'
I usually prefer videos that are ~15 minutes long, but I would love to see a conversation like this that goes on for an hour!
I will say that World of Tanks makes some design decisions that make gun depression MORE important than it is in the real world: the maps are compressed horizontally but not vertically, so relative vertical position is more extreme than it would be in the real world. (This is true for a LOT of games: it turns out that trudging or driving from A to B isn't that exciting, so you shrink things that way, but verticality looks exciting, so you don't flatten your hills. Leaving the vertical relief also helps make the maps look bigger, in a couple ways.)
Gun depression: when Pz II rounds keep bouncing off the KV.
Gun depression: When your KwK 37 L/24 equipped tank meets T34/85 for the first time.
Gun depression: when you realise MBTs have never achieved or surpassed the 128mm caliber of jagdtiger, sturer emil, maus....😢 i hope they make the new panther tank
@@slopedarmor 140mm leclerc t4 "terminateur", 152mm mbt-70, 142mm amx30 acra (ok this one doesn't count). Yeah no mbt ever...
@@tigerbesteverything +Doesn't Rheinmetall already have a functional 130mm prototype in the works that is intended to be the replacement in the future for the 120mm guns most NATO tanks have?
@@johnmcpudding857 normally it's the ascalon gun that will be chosen. the rh one is for the leopard 3, not the mgcs. And the ascalon offers better performance from what i know.
My best buddy was an M60 driver. He and I are the exact same height: 5"10 1/2. He's never complained about the room. When I stuck my head inside an M60A1 turret at a national guard show (ancillary to an Air Show) I was amazed at the internal space. A soldier could practically do jumping jacks inside the turret.
I feel like the Chieftain has previously talked about how a taller tank with greater gun depression is better able to exploit hull down positions, particularly when popping over a low rise like a berm and being able to depress your gun and shoot while the majority of your tank is sheltered. By contrast, a tank that can't depress its gun has to come farther over a rise to shoot, exposing its own hull to return fire.
And for the tank with worse depression, that means exposing the lower glacis and parts of the bottom as they need to actually go past the top of the ridge.
It's a tradeoff between offensive and defensive. On the offensive it pays to have a smaller tank that is smaller to hit, that will mean sacrificing depression but if you're on the offensive that's not a major sacrifice since you'd rarely get any use out of it. On the defensive being able to better exploit hull down positions and reverse slope positions is paramount because those are the best defensive fighting positions, at the same time having a larger tank makes it more comfortable and thus gives the crew more endurance which is also important on the defensive since you might be sitting there for a while. Making your tank larger is of course still a sacrifice since it is easier to hit theoretically but it's one that is off-set by mostly fighting from positions where most of the tank isn't visible anyways.
@@hedgehog3180 You can argue that defensively, gun depression may also matter less. You have the time and means to better pick a suitable position as a defender or even engineer one if need be. There are always pros and cons to both so it's not going to be as simple as offence versus defence.
I really appreciate that you add chapters, especially for videos like this. It’s always a bit frustrating to have to skip around a video to find the part you’re interested in most.
Happy to help!
As I said at another vid: With my 1,80m I never felt cramped insinde the 2A4. (Well, it is the only tank I know besides some rides in an 1A5.)
At 1.87m ive never had issues with the 2a6 space. During winter exercises ive literally got my sleeping bag and slept on the gunners position rather than leaving the tank. An abrams might be more roomy but i dont really see much need for it.
The like to like ratio of this reaction and those praising the M1 show this channel's audience consist mainly of 'Murican's
/I think, not actually having any experience in either except in wot
@@MarvinWestmaas I have had the experience of briefly sitting in both in quick succession... And I mostly preffered the leopard, if my commander was short... Otherwise you get very intimate with his knees as a gunner
Served in the US Army back in the '80s. Always saw it spelled "entrenching" tool, not "intrenching".
I go through gun depression every time I leave the range. It also happens on days when Ian doesn’t post a video.
You discussed derivation of standards. I was SO2 Trg Ops at Bordon. The School taught, amongst others, Recovery Mechanics. Part of the syllabus was towing on A frames. I got a call asking what the grade of slope should be as they were drilling a School and wanted to know how they could derive it, for their recovery vehicle and casualties.
Took me about of digging to find the right Recovery Mechanic to come up with an unbelievable, but credible answer: 26'. Turned out Recovery Hill, the place we taught Recy Mechs to downhill tow a casualty, had been set up so long ago, that the grade of the hill at Bordon had become the standard!
Indeed, would be an interesting exercise to compare turret roof to turret roof M60 and M-1 and see where inches were shaved without change in philosophy on gun depression and ergonomic.
I used to be a forward observer not long ago and if the guys at the gun line had a GPS guided shell ready to go, you could easily give them a grid accurate to 1 meter in less than 30 seconds with the right equipment. It might take a minute or two longer than that to actually launch the shell, of course.
My point being that it's not unreasonable at all for a tank to sit still long enough to be hit by a GPS artillery shell. 10 minutes is being pretty generous even.
Just for reference, the Leopard 2 has less space allocated for the commander and gunner when compared to a T-72.
I'm not talking about ergonomics, I'm talking about cubic centimetres in overall space.
When it comes to weight-protection ratio, that's a good thing. You want to keep the protected volume as small as possible. More volume means more external surface area that needs to be armored, either increasing weight at the same protection level or decreasing protection level at the same weight.
@@jonny2954 thats why soviet vehicles are better armored than NATO tanks
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 No, they have comparable level of protection but at a lower weight.
@@jonny2954 depends on the model. T80U were far better armored than anything at the Time but were stil 10+ tons lighter and used less metal, same goes for most soviet vehicles
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 T-80U was not far better armored than anything at the time.
For the last point, I think that the US Army also had some sort of " air-guard" position in WW2, at least in convoys. When tanks would travel, at least one tank had its roof-mounted MG scanning the skies. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think I remember this from a video about convoys.
Yes, one of the Periscope Film WWII training films makes this very point.
I mean ofcourse, in all out war as a mechanized brigade, your biggest weakness is a bomb dropped on you - your frontal armor is not going to stop penetration from above, which quite often would become the down fall of allied tanks - I think this is the only era where allied armor was in a disadvantage against tanks Germany produced such a the Tigers.
During the 1950's the US Army horsed around with very heavy tank designs. They had one that used an adjustable hydraulic or pneumatic suspension operated by pumps and valves. It could squat down real low to lower it's profile, lower the front and raise the rear high to increase gun depression or raise the front and lower the rear to increase gun elevation. It worked swell except when on the march or in simulated combat situations due to wear to the seals and damage from shell splinters and heavy MG fire.
From a match of i had Squad a long time ago
Gunner:"Driver, I dont have enough depression!"
Driver(me):"hah, i sure wish i could say that"
Gunner:" what? Driver reverse! Theres an Abrams on--"
*The sound of a M829 Depleted uranium penetrator detonating the auto loader rack on my T-72"
Driver(Me, dead):"....Oh...umm... whoops?.."
Gunner probably should've communicated that a little better, honestly
Call out tank, then say if there's a depression issue. Communication is an importance in vehicles.
Anyone who has played a real tank simulator like Steelbeasts will know that gun depression becomes quite important when dealing with infantry at close ranges (under 100-200m) on the flanks. Some designs can't engage them with the machinegun if they're prone, it will fly far above them.
Seems not so important, but the world has a lot of forests and urban areas.
In Steel Beasts gun depression is also crucial for hull down position, which is basically the most common and preferred tactics to gain an advantage over more numerous enemy tanks.
I wonder what the rationale was for the cupola on the M60 (and M48 Patton as well if I understood Chieftain correctly). The extra turret on the M3 Lee was widely criticized at the time (especially by the British). And yet it seems like something similar happened in mid Cold War tanks.
My guess would be the benefit of being able to reload without having to expose the commander/crew to chemical threats. Sure you can have a remote controlled weapon, but what about reloading it?
But Leopard 2 had overpressure NBC were as early Abrams didn’t. Which could explain why Leopards were less roomy. They didn’t need the crew to wear all that gear.
so, because you didn't need the room, you were far less comfortable the 99.99% of the time where you were just being in a tank, not changing into gear. German engineering.
@@Evirthewarrior What kind of comment is that even? No, it just ment that there was less requirement for a larger turret.
Im sure the german engineers knew what they were doing, they were probably a lot smarter than you.
Does overpressure help against radiation? It would keep particles out, so in a way yes.
I suppose the tank armor should protect against radiation.
Anyone with expertise on radiation?
@@philippe2715 It all depends upon the source and where it is. The tank's armour (particularly frontal) should help keep the worst of it outside the tank.
And if you're hit, you're slimed.
Props for literally responding the question in the first seconds and then explain why
Great stuff!! Fighting in MOPP gear would suck. Back in the mid '80's in the TX Natl Guard, an M-60 crew in MOPP gear shot the tank beside on the range it w the sub-caliber training round. Basically 90 degrees off target. Killed the TC. It wasn't my squadron (same regiment) & I was 19-D, not E, so it might be a myth ... But that's what they were telling us. I saw it as possible.
Rommel talks about the importance of digging-in in his book "Infantry Attacks" in Chapter 2- talking about the Dupuy Woods battle. Thanks again Bernhard. The Chieftain is one of my favorite guests.
As for Leopard 2A4 - Leo2 was designed for the west german conscript army. We just recruited smaller tankers
Idk why they did that, 190cm tall guy can easily perform in any position in leopard
The early production of the Italian M13/40 had gun depression issues. This was fixed on the third production series with a box added into the turret roof.
Thank you Military History Visualized, it's always great when you and Chieftain are beaking down topics.
The Chieftain being on these things spoils my enjoyment of being able to post interesting snippets about AFVs that aren't included in videos 🙂
I like it when the conversation takes off. It's just as and often more interesting than whatever the planned topic was.
It can be a wild ride at times but the topics unearthed can be real gold!
Mark from Melbourne Australia
I love me some gun depression. I just hate how games often put the good depression spots in really bad locations.
3:05 New Chieftan Challenge, put on NBC gear in every tank he comes across.
As for height:
M48A2 (coupola) is 320cm
M48A2A2 (using a Leopard 1 commanders hatch) is 290cm
30cm just by removing the cupola (the A2GA2 startet live as plain A2)
something that sucks on very low tank is that youre forced into a sitting position permanently. if you step into a tank in a museum and you spend a minute inside and leave you dont truly appreciate how uncomfortable it gets after hours and hours and hours and hours in there. like the swedish S tank you are basically entirely stuck in the same position. it also has crazy oil leaks inside so you have oil covering the bottom of your boots, it gets hot in there and sweaty, soon everything smells like absolute shit.
sweden going to the leopard was still a huge upgrade in comfort, while the leopard is considered ass in comfort for others for those who had spent time in the S tank it was a big upgrade anyway.
Talked with an Ukranian tanker that is currently in bakhmut frontlines. He said both the turret rotation and elevation speeds and angles matters more than people would think. Not in a game sense though. But he did note his tank had better turret rotation speed and elevation speed than few captured Russian tanks he tried like T-80BVM and T-72B3 obr 1989
You have to be fairly old.
No, I remember digging “Ranger graves” when I was in basic, back in ‘08………..Wait am I old?
It's OK, come have a seat at the bar with those of us who still had to polish our boots.
These discussions with Chieftain are really interesing!
Concerning the height of tanks. When they were designing the MBT70 didn't they make it as flat as possible, even with an active suspension that could be lowered. Since that project lead into the development of the M1 I believe you could say that there was a bit of a change in philosophy. Not as radical as the soviet approach of course.
"Flat" is not the same as "short". And the MBT70 was not as short "as possible" if it was intended for up-to-95th-percentile-in-height crewmen. But, yes, a suspension to allow "ducking" was intended, iirc.
@@gandydancer9710 flat is the same as short since we are talking about how tall it is overall. And they made it as flat as possible considering the other factors like crew and gun depression. I specifically mentioned the different approach compared to soviet tanks. Please read the whole note before you comment.
The MBT-70 also lead into the development of the Leopard 2; it was a joint project before it was canceled because the two armies disagreed on some compromises that had to be made to make the tank work.
@@calandryll3284 I read your entire comment the first time and, no, "flat" is NOT the same as "short", full stop. And my observation about it NOT being as short "as possible" remains unaddressed despite your pretense of having done so.
Hydropneumatic Suspension also frees up a considerable amount of space within the hull, enabling the the shull to be lower. The Abrams' has torsion bar suspension which takes up a small amount of volume along the bottom of the hull, needing a taller hull.
Finland is way more to east, but ppl less than 5 million (during WW2) we did not have a single soldier to sacrifice in vain.
Indeed.
there's no way tankers could be expected to keep an eye out for tiny spotter drones 24/7 there needs to be some radar or image recognition system to do it for them and probably a laser or very small 20mm gun automated to take them out at the press of a button.
Frankly, I love the tangents. They give you more information as most people may not ask such a question and we’d miss learning from the tangents
NBC in German vehicles was defined as close the hatches and don't come out. There is zero need to put on any special gears in then. You just turn on the NBC filter system. Of course, if you apply a different set of operational rules and philosophy then it mit not turn out practical. Key thing is no one ever fought an all out NBC war yet. So any approach may be valid. Leopard 2 guys were supposed to drive out of the NBC area through a truck carwash decon station and go for a safe meal, shit and rotational sleep in some NBC secured barracks. They would put up their gas masks and raincoat for getting out only.
It’s so fascinating hearing the chieftain talk. It does not matter to me a bit that you’ve gone off topic!
Im enlisted as a Gunner/Loader in the Leopard 2 WE in the swiss army, and I can confirm, that the Leopard 2 WE is really cramped.
As Gunner and Commander, you barely have space to turn around or sit comfy.
The Loader and Driver are the ones, that have the most room or can sit quite comfy with the loader being the only one, that is able to decide if he wants to look out the coupola, Sit or stand.
I cant say bout the Leopard 2A6/7 but I think they fixed a bit the space in those.
I am glad that gun depression really is a factor and that part of the Video definetly is the one guranteeing the most clicks.
Learning more about the rational for the cupola of the M48/M60 would be interesting. Maybe it has to do with the NBC battlefield they were expecting, like the firingports on a BMP-1/Marder/Bradley.
Originally it was due to Korean War expectations of massed human wave attacks. The idea was that if you had a horde of infantry charging you with satchel charges while getting cover fire from light machine guns, the only position able to fight back would be the commander's, but if he had to pop open the hatch and expose himself to do so, he'd most likely die. Putting him behind armor was just common sense Later it was decided this was also a good solution for the NBC battlefield.
Firing ports were meant to allow the infantry to fight back while the vehicle extracted itself from sticky situations. They're actually detrimental in any NBC situation as there is no way to properly seal them unless you go to crazy solutions like the Bradley port-firing weapon.
I was always amazed at how much room the M60 loader had to move about and do his job, but I hated having to lean back against the turret ring so I could kick the ejected shell casings to the floor. I didn't envy the gunner, however, as the seats were uncomfortable.
Ahhh, the great pastime of digging in, I laughed out loud "Ranger Grave" I haven't heard that in years! On point as always guys.
In WWII my grandfather was an MP in charge of bringing in rapists and murderers. He only talked about the ones that didn't give him trouble. His favorite story was when he asked a guy, "Are you gonna give me any trouble?" And the guy said, "I WAS. But then I saw you and changed my mind."
Okay?
As to the importance of gun depression in the real world, and not just WoT, I recall a description of an Israeli victory on the Golan Heights (Valley of Tears 1973?) where the inability of the Syrian tanks on higher ground to depress their guns sufficiently to fire on the Israeli tanks was critical, at least in the description of the battle I saw on UA-cam. I'm not sure how reliable that was, but I mention it FWIW.
Back in 72, I was told that Soviet tankers were selected to be 5 feet 6 inches or less.
"Human Factors is what they called it in the 60's"
_Dr. Strangelove flashbacks..._
I think that Germany put 12 million men in uniform in World war 2. While Russia mobilized 40 million men. And USA put 12 million in uniform, but it could probably easily add many more million if it had wanted to, but it did see that as necessary as the war was considered almost as won by the autumn in 1943.
Chieftain's idea that the Russians sentenced 10x as many men than the Germans because they had 10 times as many troops is way, way off.
Is your tank gun depressed? Don't hold back, start that awkward conversation. The life you save may be your own
The takeaway from this is that Russia makes happy tanks - they don't suffer from depression and often throw their turrets in excitement
Regarding concern for losses, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that (generally) "the west" was more concerned for losses for political/moral (even) reasons and the east more so purely as a resource.
That is to say, USSR (and Germany in the context of WW2) were authoritarian and as long as the objectives were achieved, any non crippling losses were acceptable.
On the other hand, for the democratic west, that could have wider consequences for the parties involved, even if objectives were achieved, the price might be deemed unacceptable.
So we could positively assume that the ones had most comfy inside Leopars II are the Singaporean and Indonesian
Interesting fact is Soviets always thought of tanks as offensive weapons and hence defensive gun depression and livability were disregarded….yet Russia complains of the “aggression” of NATO armies with weapons that were designed to defend against Russian weapons that were designed almost 100% with offensive action in mind.
same thing with their navy really, their large ships were just bristling with guns, missiles, and nearly no living quarters
That's just bad logic. Tactical aggression is entirely separate from geopolitical aggression. You're sounding like that German spokesman who said that Leopard tanks are "offensive panzers" and that Ukraine needs "defensive panzers instead like Marder." You can absolutely have a defensive geopolitical strategy but have an army specializing in the offense. Plus, lower livability matters less when you are in a defensive war, since you can sleep in friendly civilians' homes, which you cannot do so easily in an offensive war.
@@AsbestosMuffins Idk about ships but their submarines had saunas and pools, there is some american submariner guy on yt that i watched. He reviewed soviet submarines and had always high regard for them.
@@robertkalinic335 if I were to guess I'd say that the relative lack of crew comforts on soviet surface ships in exchange for extra offensive power was due to the fact that the soviet navy was always playing 2nd fiddle in comparison to its western counterparts, so each ship had to be more offensively minded to compensate.
@@revanofkorriban1505 Weapons that are optimized for offense and are not well suited to defense are, optically at least, not consistent with an external policy that espouses defensive intentions. Russia’s/Soviet military history post WW2 has been overwhelmingly offensive veiled in defensive language. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine….should I go on? Gaslight as much as you wish, but you simply cannot argue with the facts.
AFAIR the Leopard 2 was designed as fully NBC protected environment so the crew *did not have* to wear individual protective gear...?!?
Gun depression also counts as "additional armor" as far as WW2 is concerned. At maximum depression, a Jagdpanther pointing it's gun at a target has that much more slope added to it's front armor.
Every time I wanted to hull down or wanted to shoot a target, I needed to expose myself more (cough soviet cough reverse speeds). Gun depression is a very big problem when playing games with tanks.
1. Gun depression: "Kämpfen aus der Hinterhanglage/ Fighting up the slope" is an essential tactic. Israelis used it often in their conflicts for their advantage.
2. NBC Battlefield in the northern plane and the Leo2 being cramped. 24h survivability in combat was never considered. The bundeswehr would have been smoked in the first days of an offensive.
And for my knowledge Leo2 has an active nbc airfilter system.
3. German (Officer/NCO) will always complain of people not digging in enough. We still do today...
4. Airguards and camo against air recon, is something americans arend that used to because the never had to fight an airforce.
5. Artillery fire can be really quick if you have designated canons and the coordinates. A 155mm shell is pretty fast and has a flighttime of 3min for its 40km max range ( not that sure on the actual number but its pretty quick). So you can get well under 5 min.
The SMart 155mm is designed to hit even moving targets.
Yes GPS shells are great for SF-Stuff, but for the great patriotic one a waste of ressources. Cluster and semi-smart-cluster munition are the way to go, for the soldier and tax payer atleast.
13:00 We also still learned pretty much this exact rule in the german army during my "special training" in 2012
6:53 I suspect -10 was chosen because it strikes a balance between gun depression and turret height. The Soviets didn’t care about depression so they designed low profile turrets which reduce target size and weight. On the other hand, you had indigenous Swedish designs like the Strv 74 which had excellent gun depression but at the expense of being super tall at 3.3 meters. Which makes sense for their given doctrines, the Soviets expected to attack in the flatlands of Europe while Sweden planned to fight defensively against a potential Soviet Invasion. The US would be on the defensive in Europe if the Cold War went hot, but being a worldwide superpower, would also need to be ready to attack other nations such as in Korea, Panama, and Iraq, so it wanted something that could do hull down reasonably well but also not be a huge easy to hit target when moving in the open so it compromised at -10 as opposed to the -3-6 or the -12-15 of Soviet and Swedish designs respectively. Of course, it took advantage of any spare gun depression when it could such as with the M901 that could depress -30 degrees or the CROWS system that can depress -15.
About "Digging In" (Preparing "Fighting Positions" and other defensive earthworks). I joined the US Army in 1983 and retired in 2014. Starting in the early 90's (c.1993?) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS began to restrict, and eventually totally prohibit Digging, nor cutting vegetation for camouflage! Doctrine emphasizing mobility was sometimes cited. Often, we did move too often to have effectively prepared dug in defenses. However, many, and eventually most Training Areas digging in was prohibited (or at least required a Battalion Commander or higher to authorize digging individual fighting positions, or using bulldozers (etc.) to prepare Vehicle Fighting Positions.
You will FIGHT AS YOU TRAINED! So, it is prudent to Train as you intend to Fight! "Enviromental concerns" or more accurately Political posturing is affecting our War Fighting Preparedness NEGATIVELY! Yes, doctrine and battlefield tactics have changed. We used HESCO bastions, and other defensive works in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
However, our Political (and other) leaders (and "influencers") are of the opinion that the Lives of Soldiers are WORTH LESS than Political Correctness! Only after we have not achieved Their Political Goals will they care. Hopefully some Military Leaders will Learn from the Blood Being spilt in the Ukraine and in other conflicts!
Finally someone using the correct meaning of political correctness instead of using it to mean "woke" or some other buzzword like that
USSR: why depression. Depression is bad so no depression for tanks
Golan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Dagestan did show that sufficient elevation and depression of the gun may be imperative.
When was gun depression of significance in 'Nam?
@@gandydancer9710 Want the door gunners to aim 90 degrees down?
@@davidty2006 No need. Gunships don't have to fly horizontal directly over their targets. But I thought we were talking tanks.
So much respect for just putting the answer in the start of the video. Great video though, and I recommend watching all of it.
Another thing to add to what the Chieftain was saying about Soviet values of manpower that I think he forgot to mention. The Soviets were also very quick to adopt the autoloader for tanks to reduce manpower usage risk and to keep tanks low profile. They also built their plane cockpits deeper into the fuselages to protect their pilots.
5:10 People that say you only want gun depression in World of Tanks or Warthunder do not know the implications not having gun depression can have in real life conflicts, aside from the obvious, imagine losing a battle just because the enemy had gun depression and could take certain positions your armored vehicles couldn't fire from - in Russia right now we can see the effect of limitations in armor leading to casualties, such as reverse speed and gun depression not being sufficient for the engagement and leading to a loss of armor.
People look at WoT and WT and think "Oh these are minor optimizations done by gamers to win their silly tank game. There's no way real tankers would do that." But they forget that the armor calculations are based on real armor calculations (if not totally realistic physics) and that the tactics people employ, while frequently done at much closer ranges than realistic do actually increase the survival of the tank and would still work the same way in the real world. But most of all, they forget that the people making these minor optimizations are at home and safe and suffer no risk of death while the people in the tank would be doing anything in their power not to die, and if they survive because of angling, they would tell their friends because they want their friends not to die, and if they survive because their tank could aim down, they would tell their friends because they want their friends to not die, so these "minor optimizations" would be spread throughout the entire armored corps until they reach the ears of someone at the rear echelon who might get some scientists to look into exactly how to maximize the benefits of these little differences that people are doing. What angle is the optimum for deflecting shots from the front, but still present the least of the profile of the tank while allowing the tank to fire? What kind of terrain can a tank engage in optimally with what kind of gun depression? A tank can drive up a 5 degree slope, but without 5 degrees of depression, it can't shoot at targets on the ground. Are 5 degree slopes likely in the area of operations? Well sure, but not as common as 2 or 3 degree slopes. Give the gun 5 degrees then and it can take a position at the top of a 3 degree slope and shoot at tanks approaching from the front while being mostly protected. With no depression, any kind of hill means your tank is a shooting at planes and nothing else. People think gamers are optimizing? Well, if you die when your tank explodes, you'd damn well optimize the hell out of your survival chances.
I mean if people start thinking that giving a tank the ability to aim up and down is optional, no wonder we had such huge drama about 'the age of the tank' being over lmao
We learned the defence in SOI/MCT in 2018. That is a basic infantry skill that must be taught
I agree that being too deep into the Cult of Attack will only lead an army down the road the French Army went before WWI. Like, we train to Clear Buildings, but do we train how to Defend Buildings?
8:20 imagine how much smaller asian tanks can be even if they include 90% of population and i wonder how will that influence polish k2
t72 in grozny is a real life example of where gun elevation disabled the tanks from shooting into buildings with rpg men in
The only thing going for the Russians there were BTRs, BMDs, BMPs and anything that had an anti-air capacity, most of their regular tanks like you mentioned were not designed for anything but a zero degree flat plain.
"Soldier is always moving. If it's not forward then it's downward".
6:30 - Inside the Chieftains Hatch on the LeClerc when?
Always an issue with habits, how and when to train in older methods vs new concepts and getting rid of bad habits that are situational.
Great vid series. Please more.
If I where a soldier I would dig in non stop, more precicely I would dig in every time we stop. If were not on the move im in a trench even if its just big enough for me to lie in during bombardament.
Some drones can use a laser in combination with their GPS position to find coordinates.
Other drones can do it passively but moving between positions while looking at the target to triangulate the position.
Other drones are used in pairs, so they passively triangulate with the image from 2 drones.
Gamer tank gun depression is a separate thing; it's when you're using a weak gun and just get non-pen after non-pen.
😵💫
I love these chats with the chieftain. Just a couple of tank nerds talking shop.
I too have gray hair and remember these things. Whenever you stopped always get off the road, under trees if possible, for an hour or so you were supposed to do battle with the camo net, put out a guard or OP, if most of the day or overnight, dig, dig, dig, and of course, fill in your engineering masterpiece when you leave. The dig philosophy did seem to be waning with the increasing presence of the Unimogs. It seemed as if don't strain, the Unimog will come by and make holes for everyone. Of course they seldom came by "you".
Would that be the Unimog with the Swiss Army knife of a front end loader and back hoe? I have seen the photos but the Australian Army never went for them.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
@@markfryer9880 yes, the do all machine from the 80's.
@@chriskortan1530 It sounds like you're talking about a SEE truck (Small Emplacement Excavator)? 2 per mech engineer company back when i was in. Not particularly easy to keep operational either.
Want to make a guess before the video.
Gun depression good, but generally does cost more to obtain, and after a point, weakens the tank in general situations for specialised hill roles. Which could otherwise be created by engineers allowing one chassis to combat more tasks.
Alongside that guess being, more depression allows cheaper/faster hull down positions from engineers, while less depression allows cheaper tanks, at the cost of more construction time needed for adaquate hull down positions/necessitates more tank shovels.
So if America decided that they needed more space inside the vehicle for an NBC environment, what was the soviet view and philosophy regarding this issue? Seeing as their tanks seem a bit more cramped than western counterparts. Also wondering what the thinking was with the spent casing ejector on the roof of the t72 in regard to this, seeing as how the t80 doesn't have it but the t90 does. Or is this more of a quirk of the auto loader being different?
The Soviets…didn’t really give a shit about quality of the vehicle and never did, equipment quality or usability never existed in soviet/Russian engineering, I suppose because ‘assume everyone is a mobilized conscript who can’t read, who knows
Russians are bad at quality, it’s only internet nerds who be like ‘large amounts of good enough!’, as shown in Ukraine it’s not
T72A is positive ptessure NBC sealed amd has a lead lined radiation proof crew compartment.
The USSR fully expected to charge into the fallout of their own Tac Nukes, and all their mechanized equipment is CBRN compatible.
the AMX-13 has a crew height requirement of being under 1m70 and I believe the majority of Westerners are above that
about how long it takes to get accurate GPS coordinates from drone footage, the technology to build an FPV drone that can calculate target coordinates based on range and azimuth from its own coordinates has existed for years, it's probably not available for consumer grade equipment, but Western countries' military industries definitely have the know-how to make them, so depending on whether the artillery is using 21st century computers or a guy with a pen, a slide rule and pieces of paper to calculate range and deflection, it could be two minutes from the drone ranging the target to firing or it could be 5 minutes, maybe 10 if the drone operator needs to, for all intents and purposes, type in and send an email with the target coordinates.
There is a skirmish in the Desert Storm that I wonder why you didn't mention.
It was M1's against old soviet T60, or some sort, and one platoon of M1's took out lots of soviet tanks with no casualties. I can't remember how many tanks they took out but about 20-30. The Iraqi's were up on high ground lying in wait for the Americans but the tanks couldn't depress their gun barrels enough so they drove up on the hills. Which in turn made the ambush nullified. The Americans opened up a shooting spree.
We were told later that the battle was a textbook manoeuvre and is taught at Fort Benning(?). At least is was taught at the US army.
Regarding gun elevation I remember it playing a significant role in the Israeli attack on Egyptian positions at the Suez channel during the Yom Kippur War, with the Soviet-made tanks of the Egyptians sitting in cover struggling to lower their guns enough to fire at the American- and British-made Israeli tanks.
I think I heard it was also an issue on the Golan front, with the Syrian T-55s and T-62s that managed to advance towards the western part of the heights having trouble fiering at the counterattacking Israeli Centurions.
General problem with any Soviet-Chinese supplied military dealing with hills or anything deviating from a 0 degree flat plain, Stefan's aforementioned Syrian hill problem comes to mind.
Imagine designing a tank that is so good and so advanced it cannot even aim downwards more than 4 degrees
Protection Onion. 1) Don't Be There 2) Don't be seen