"Too much money"... This pathetic argument lead to A LOT of very good weapons systems being canceled while the soviets and now the Russians are investing more and more in weapons. This shitty attitude from the Congress let the soviets and the Russians take the lead in the arms race.
@MiGFoxhound31 Yeah, well it's the truth. I don't know how, but those anti-military liberals only have the last word in the US. US could've been 10 times more powerful than it is now. It's just that these anti-military liberals don't let it use its entire potential.
@Dogmeat1950 Yeah, only when it comes to military things. In other ways, they are right. They're right when they talk about civil rights. The problem is that they don't fight for this anymore in America.
@StiviGun1 Not really, a good number of dems who are pro-military, Jim Webb would be one, and other past people like John Glenn, JFK etc etc.
either way both sides have people who are always wanting to cut good stuff out of the Military, like the Retards a few weeks ago who gave a budget cut to the Railgun the U.S Navy has been working on and that thing is fucking Amazing.
@Dogmeat1950 JFK was not at all pro military man. He canceled many good weapon systems when he took office. Like the rail based Minuteman ICBMs.
As for that rail gun, I don't think that's such an important project. The USN needs long range missiles for ship engagement and land attack much more than it needs cannons. The ArcLight and LRASM missiles are much more important than that rail gun.
@StiviGun1 he also Started the Special Warfare school and units like the SEAL's and the Green Berets and many Nuclear techs such as the one for Nuclear Powered Carriers started under him.
but at least he wasn't a Carter, who scrapped anything military.
@Dogmeat1950 Well, he wasn't as bad as Carter, that's true. And he did accomplish some things for the military, but he could've done much more. Anyway, because of the way he fucked up the Bay of Pigs operation, America has become a subject of joke for the rest of the world.
@Dogmeat1950 Well, if you ask me, Bush was the most idiotic president America ever had. And the fact that he got Cheney and Rumsfeld around him, made matters even worse. You got to admit that the Bush adm was the most toxic adm for America in its entire history. If you ask me, Ronald Reagan was the best president America had after WW2. My opinion is that Nixon would've been pretty good too. And this is very strange, because I'm not a fan of the Republicans at all.
@StiviGun1 Very interesting. Not into US politics but even after Nixon fell the British Primeminister at the time said; "No US President understood the Russians as well as Nixon and no President ever got as much out of them". For that reason even some British liberals conceded getting rid of him out of spite was not a good idea.
@freebeerfordworkers You mean they wanted to get rid of him because he handled the Russians better than any other president? I don't understand. This should've been exactly the reason why he should've remained president. So I don't understand your reasoning.
@StiviGun1 I did not make it clear. The British leaders thought he was the best President up to then to deal with the Russians. But American liberals did not care about that, they hated him so much they just wanted to get rid of him at any price. British liberals did not like him either but at least they gave him credit for his diplomatic skill.
@freebeerfordworkers Yeah, this is just another example how those brainless liberals can really harm America. But what exactly did they have against Nixon? Why did they hate him so much? I mean, why would they have hated him more than they hated Lyndon Johnson? After all, he was the one that started the Vietnam War.
@StiviGun1 In the 1950s there was a lot of anti-communist hysteria in the US costing intellectuals etc their jobs. This was the un-American Activities Committee & men might have their lives ruined for something written years earlier. Nixon was heavily involved and was never forgiven for it but Bobby Kennedy also supported & nobody worried about him later.
Ironically in the 1990's it turned out the 1950's US administration was riddled with Soviet agents-Nixon may just have chased the wrong ones
@freebeerfordworkers Aha. Well, the fact that they didn't care about the fact that they only cared about Nixon being involved in that committee but not about Kenned shows how idiotic those liberals are.
As for the soviet agents that riddled the 1950s administration, I don't understand how that could happen. This is how they also got the technology for nuclear weapons. As for Nixon, he might have chased the wrong people, but nobody knew that for sure. So there was no reason to hate him, in
@freebeerfordworkers specially that he dealt with the Russians much better than Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. This just shows how moronic most of the liberals are. It's interesting how they're only driven by hate and envy, yet they think they're the smartest people on Earth. But when you start arguing with one, the first thing he does is insulting you. This is why I don't like liberals, because they're hypocrite, full of hate and envy and they're also stupid.
@Dogmeat1950 And you're right. Bush made a joke out of America. The fact is that his invasion of Iraq was the worst planned invasion in military history. He should've listened to the generals, not Rumsfeld and Cheney.
@Dogmeat1950 Actually, he didn't listen to them at all. The invasion was first planned with at least 500 000 soldiers (such an invasion would actually require even more soldiers), But then, that shithead Donald Rumsfeld came along and said that they don't need so many soldiers, because they have an overwhelming technological superiority... We all how that helped... Bush only listened to those incompetents Cheney and Rumsfeld.
@Cougar545x39 US has many more expenditures to make besides developing weapons. First of all, they have an army of volunteers which they pay. Russia doesn't pay its soldiers. And there are many other expenditures the US makes, like maintaining foreign bases and a lot of other stuff, besides developing and procuring weapons systems. So of course they have such a large budget.
@StiviGun1 You think russian soldiers don't get paid? :) Russia has a "few army bases" itself. And we are not talking about a difference of 100 billion, but 650 billion. And we were talking about "how much congress is willing to spend". Cause you said that it is not enough. Just that the budget of the US is higher than the budget of russia, china, UK, Germany and France, Japan and Italy together.
@Cougar545x39 Russia doesn't have even a quarter of the US expenditures, so spare me the bullshit drama. What soldiers does Russia pay? How big is the salary of a Russian engineer and designer? And many other expenditures. Russia spares itself from a lot of expenditures the US does not. But show me where I said the US military budget is not enough. I never said this.
@StiviGun1 You said: "Too much money"... This pathetic argument lead to A LOT of very good weapons systems being canceled while the soviets and now the Russians are investing more and more in weapons. This shitty attitude from the Congress let the soviets and the Russians take the lead in the arms race.
StiviGun1 " Yet now you say, that the US spend way more. :)
when I wargame coldwar micro-armor with this tank I call it the m70 apollo...(the project ran from 1965-nov 1971 the apollo era)...anyone object to nicknaming it the apollo?...let me know....
@rocketshipstud2 Well, it wouldn't a conventional name for a US tank type. Aside from a few TDs or SPAs they've traditionally been named for American generals, with the Walker Bulldog the only halfway exception I can think of. Still, in an alternate history no one can flatly call it wrong.
when I wargame coldwar micro-armor with this tank I call it the m70 apollo...(the project ran from 1965-nov 1971 the apollo era)...anyone object to nicknaming it the apollo?...let me know....
Actually two prototypes remain. The other one is on display at the tank museum Munster in Germany. ;-)
The main reasons for failure of the project were that u.s and german engineer teams had different opinions on what type of engine and gun to use.
The german side favored a 120 mm smoothbore gun and a multi-fuel diesel engine while the u.s side favored a classic 152 mm rifled gun and a gas turbine although they too agreed to a V12 diesel engine for their prototype in the end.
Most key features of the MBT 70 can be seen in the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 while they reflect the different opinions at the same time.
The Abrams sticks to the gas turbine because of lower maintenance requirements and noise profile of such a engine while the Leopard still uses the more fuel efficient diesel engine.
But the Abrams gave up its rifled gun and adopted the Leopard 2's smoothbore in its A2 upgrade.
5-stars...i saw one down at ft.knox ky...when I wargame modern micro-armor I drew up the specs for a hypothetical m-70 apollo tank...and I did kuwait 1991 war senarios with it!-milwaukee m-60a3tts
Its a beaut isn't it? German engineering never ceases to amaze me.
Trashcansam123 5 days ago
esto es forjar acero¡¡.
hernan267 5 months ago
"Too much money"... This pathetic argument lead to A LOT of very good weapons systems being canceled while the soviets and now the Russians are investing more and more in weapons. This shitty attitude from the Congress let the soviets and the Russians take the lead in the arms race.
StiviGun1 9 months ago 2
@StiviGun1 couldnt agree more :)
hotpocketpoison 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison I'm glad that there are still people out there who think.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 I thought i was the only one in this country who felt that way :P yeah blame liberals!!! 100%
MiGFoxhound31 7 months ago
@MiGFoxhound31 Yeah, well it's the truth. I don't know how, but those anti-military liberals only have the last word in the US. US could've been 10 times more powerful than it is now. It's just that these anti-military liberals don't let it use its entire potential.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 ya I do hate Liberals when it comes to military things.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Yeah, only when it comes to military things. In other ways, they are right. They're right when they talk about civil rights. The problem is that they don't fight for this anymore in America.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 true,but as for civil rights that was more Democratic then Liberal.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Yeah, but most Democrats are liberals, aren't they?
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Not really, a good number of dems who are pro-military, Jim Webb would be one, and other past people like John Glenn, JFK etc etc.
either way both sides have people who are always wanting to cut good stuff out of the Military, like the Retards a few weeks ago who gave a budget cut to the Railgun the U.S Navy has been working on and that thing is fucking Amazing.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 JFK was not at all pro military man. He canceled many good weapon systems when he took office. Like the rail based Minuteman ICBMs.
As for that rail gun, I don't think that's such an important project. The USN needs long range missiles for ship engagement and land attack much more than it needs cannons. The ArcLight and LRASM missiles are much more important than that rail gun.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 he also Started the Special Warfare school and units like the SEAL's and the Green Berets and many Nuclear techs such as the one for Nuclear Powered Carriers started under him.
but at least he wasn't a Carter, who scrapped anything military.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Well, he wasn't as bad as Carter, that's true. And he did accomplish some things for the military, but he could've done much more. Anyway, because of the way he fucked up the Bay of Pigs operation, America has become a subject of joke for the rest of the world.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 well Bush kind of made the USA a joke, cause lets face it he wasn't that bright most of the time.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Well, if you ask me, Bush was the most idiotic president America ever had. And the fact that he got Cheney and Rumsfeld around him, made matters even worse. You got to admit that the Bush adm was the most toxic adm for America in its entire history. If you ask me, Ronald Reagan was the best president America had after WW2. My opinion is that Nixon would've been pretty good too. And this is very strange, because I'm not a fan of the Republicans at all.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Very interesting. Not into US politics but even after Nixon fell the British Primeminister at the time said; "No US President understood the Russians as well as Nixon and no President ever got as much out of them". For that reason even some British liberals conceded getting rid of him out of spite was not a good idea.
freebeerfordworkers 6 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers You mean they wanted to get rid of him because he handled the Russians better than any other president? I don't understand. This should've been exactly the reason why he should've remained president. So I don't understand your reasoning.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 I did not make it clear. The British leaders thought he was the best President up to then to deal with the Russians. But American liberals did not care about that, they hated him so much they just wanted to get rid of him at any price. British liberals did not like him either but at least they gave him credit for his diplomatic skill.
freebeerfordworkers 6 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers Yeah, this is just another example how those brainless liberals can really harm America. But what exactly did they have against Nixon? Why did they hate him so much? I mean, why would they have hated him more than they hated Lyndon Johnson? After all, he was the one that started the Vietnam War.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 In the 1950s there was a lot of anti-communist hysteria in the US costing intellectuals etc their jobs. This was the un-American Activities Committee & men might have their lives ruined for something written years earlier. Nixon was heavily involved and was never forgiven for it but Bobby Kennedy also supported & nobody worried about him later.
Ironically in the 1990's it turned out the 1950's US administration was riddled with Soviet agents-Nixon may just have chased the wrong ones
freebeerfordworkers 6 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers Aha. Well, the fact that they didn't care about the fact that they only cared about Nixon being involved in that committee but not about Kenned shows how idiotic those liberals are.
As for the soviet agents that riddled the 1950s administration, I don't understand how that could happen. This is how they also got the technology for nuclear weapons. As for Nixon, he might have chased the wrong people, but nobody knew that for sure. So there was no reason to hate him, in
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers specially that he dealt with the Russians much better than Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. This just shows how moronic most of the liberals are. It's interesting how they're only driven by hate and envy, yet they think they're the smartest people on Earth. But when you start arguing with one, the first thing he does is insulting you. This is why I don't like liberals, because they're hypocrite, full of hate and envy and they're also stupid.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 This is cute.
You're already being a hypocrite. <:
SecuR0M 4 months ago
@SecuR0M And why am I being a hypocrite...? I simply say the truth about liberals, I don't hate...
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 And you're right. Bush made a joke out of America. The fact is that his invasion of Iraq was the worst planned invasion in military history. He should've listened to the generals, not Rumsfeld and Cheney.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 yep at least he listen to them in military planning Operation, only know wtf could have went wrong if he planned the Field Tactics lol.
Dogmeat1950 6 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Actually, he didn't listen to them at all. The invasion was first planned with at least 500 000 soldiers (such an invasion would actually require even more soldiers), But then, that shithead Donald Rumsfeld came along and said that they don't need so many soldiers, because they have an overwhelming technological superiority... We all how that helped... Bush only listened to those incompetents Cheney and Rumsfeld.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Military budget of US: US$ 700 billion. Russia : US$ 58,6 billion.
Cougar545x39 2 months ago
@Cougar545x39 US has many more expenditures to make besides developing weapons. First of all, they have an army of volunteers which they pay. Russia doesn't pay its soldiers. And there are many other expenditures the US makes, like maintaining foreign bases and a lot of other stuff, besides developing and procuring weapons systems. So of course they have such a large budget.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 You think russian soldiers don't get paid? :) Russia has a "few army bases" itself. And we are not talking about a difference of 100 billion, but 650 billion. And we were talking about "how much congress is willing to spend". Cause you said that it is not enough. Just that the budget of the US is higher than the budget of russia, china, UK, Germany and France, Japan and Italy together.
Cougar545x39 2 months ago
@Cougar545x39 Russia doesn't have even a quarter of the US expenditures, so spare me the bullshit drama. What soldiers does Russia pay? How big is the salary of a Russian engineer and designer? And many other expenditures. Russia spares itself from a lot of expenditures the US does not. But show me where I said the US military budget is not enough. I never said this.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 You said: "Too much money"... This pathetic argument lead to A LOT of very good weapons systems being canceled while the soviets and now the Russians are investing more and more in weapons. This shitty attitude from the Congress let the soviets and the Russians take the lead in the arms race.
StiviGun1 " Yet now you say, that the US spend way more. :)
Cougar545x39 2 months ago
'
i like a real germany MAUS tank
bestamerica 11 months ago
The MBT-70 suffered from having too many innovations at once. Everything about this tank was new. It even had the driver in the turret!
Craigers22763 1 year ago
@Craigers22763
Driver in turret is a dumb idea...
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 yea alot of test drivers had problems with motion sickness.
Craigers22763 1 year ago
when I wargame coldwar micro-armor with this tank I call it the m70 apollo...(the project ran from 1965-nov 1971 the apollo era)...anyone object to nicknaming it the apollo?...let me know....
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
@rocketshipstud2 Well, it wouldn't a conventional name for a US tank type. Aside from a few TDs or SPAs they've traditionally been named for American generals, with the Walker Bulldog the only halfway exception I can think of. Still, in an alternate history no one can flatly call it wrong.
Obfuscationist 1 year ago
when I wargame coldwar micro-armor with this tank I call it the m70 apollo...(the project ran from 1965-nov 1971 the apollo era)...anyone object to nicknaming it the apollo?...let me know....
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
Actually two prototypes remain. The other one is on display at the tank museum Munster in Germany. ;-)
The main reasons for failure of the project were that u.s and german engineer teams had different opinions on what type of engine and gun to use.
The german side favored a 120 mm smoothbore gun and a multi-fuel diesel engine while the u.s side favored a classic 152 mm rifled gun and a gas turbine although they too agreed to a V12 diesel engine for their prototype in the end.
Celeon999A 2 years ago
Most key features of the MBT 70 can be seen in the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 while they reflect the different opinions at the same time.
The Abrams sticks to the gas turbine because of lower maintenance requirements and noise profile of such a engine while the Leopard still uses the more fuel efficient diesel engine.
But the Abrams gave up its rifled gun and adopted the Leopard 2's smoothbore in its A2 upgrade.
Celeon999A 2 years ago
Great video
Sturmgewehr14 2 years ago
5-stars...i saw one down at ft.knox ky...when I wargame modern micro-armor I drew up the specs for a hypothetical m-70 apollo tank...and I did kuwait 1991 war senarios with it!-milwaukee m-60a3tts
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
Don't forget, there is also MBT-80, this Anglo-German Project also cancelled. The remain of this project is Leopard 2 hull with Challenger's turret.
adwasono 2 years ago
Thanks again Jag Soldier,
Another one of my favorites. When things were working right, this had to be one of the most remarkable armored vehicles ever built.
SWATdoc501 2 years ago