Holy shit, Americans where able to take out 30 years old design T-34 tanks. Amazing, also everytime a Sherman encountered a T-34 the Sherman was destroyed, and the IS-2 was the only tanks the Allies had trouble destroying in the war.
@SaintsSpecOps And so did the T-34/85. The allies lost many tanks the North Koreans ended up abandoning most of their armors in early times of the war. Also T-44 was stationed in Vladivostok, I would love to see them against M46 Pattons. But both Sherman and T-34 could take each other out at same range but T-34/85 is better tank
@SMGJohn The T-44 was a FAILURE! The RETARDED soviets took much time to work out a "marginal better available decent" primitive cheap crap for the over-excessed expendables.to meet the numerical less but more sophisticated US tanks. even the up-gunned super Shermans BUTCHERED them in the Six-Days War. The T-34 was ONLY A BETTER COFFIN or U can SHIT INTO INSIDE DIRECTLY FROM THE CUPOLA......EXCELLENT temporary open dry toilet with stool & septic tank!..... Anyhow all FROM USSR WERE SHIT!
The tank that is shown at the very beginning of the film is actually a Super Pershing. You can tell it by its very long gun Yeah. these tanks should've been adopted much sooner in the war. These and the T-20 series of tanks. In fact, the T-20 tanks should've actually been introduced even from the year 1942 when it became obvious that the M4s are becoming obsolete. It's just that the US army then, just like today, was run by complete morons without any insight capacity whatsoever.
Ah, how I like these old tanks. I mean, look at modern day tanks: They´re all looking pretty much the same, don´t they? It´s the same with modern cars. Back in WW2 and the following years, tanks were much more distinguishable.
I cant think of one modern tank that looks similar to another from any country. USA, Russia, China, UK, Israel, NONE of them look anything alike at all.
I like the old tanks too, but your comment is completely untrue.
@o0nils0o that has nothing to do with what i said. The challenger looks different but the leopard and abrams look more similar, and it's not all about the tank either, it's also about the crew, and the air support. Tanks are nothing if the enemy has air superiority and good attack planes. Thankfully germany, britain and the U.S. are all allies
@StiviGun1 Rubbish. Where on earth do you get this tripe from. Mobility is not just about sticking a huge jet engine in a vehicle pressing the start button, mate. A vehicle has to be able to put it's power onto the ground and the C2's suspension does this superbly. Watch the vids of the c2 in action across terrain moving very fast. There is also crew's physical limitations of the - moving fast knocks the shit out of them unless well supported and the suspension works very well X country.
@dpsherry Challenger 2's suspension may work superbly, I didn't say it didn't. What I said is that the Abrams has better suspension systems and t has a more powerful engine. These are facts.
You said there are physical because of the crew. Well that's the point in building a mobile tank. To make the tank very comfortable for the crew at high speeds on rough terrain. And Challenger 2 simply doesn't fulfill this job better than the Abrams.
@StiviGun1 What I said was: The C2 has better suspension, across country it is just as mobile if not more mobile than the M1. The M1 is sooooo old now, even the C1 was better, the C2 is light years ahead in firepower. mobility AND armour. A great lump of jet engine does not a more mobile tank make. In fact just because of fuel stops the C2 could go further than the M1 meanwhile the C2 can move across the roughest terrain pretty darn fast. stop reading press releases and read some facts.
@StiviGun1 Look up C2 on You tube - there are some excellent references. There are also a couple of excellent "why the C2 really is the best tank bar none" that will I am sure blow your press releases outta the water.....Let me know if you need anymore help and I'll dig the material up for you - I'm sure you can do it though.
@dpsherry Well, I've seen a lot of videos with the Challenger 2. I was wondering me if could provide some sources that present some solid figures about its performances. And I never said the Challenger is not a good tank. But I don't agree with people that say Abrams is rubbish either. Abrams is actually a very good tank. Its design is very good. The only drawback it has is that its engine consumes a lot of fuel. But it does provide other advantages, like superior speed and acceleration.
@StiviGun1 I'll see what i can do. Speed and acceleration by themselves are not worth squat. The T34, 54/55, 62, 72, 80 etc all beat Us and brit tanks in terms of speed and acceleration; However this counted not a whit in the '67, Yom Kippur wars, etc. Give you an idea, Aussie use of Cents in 'nam should be seen as mad, yet they were highly successful because they were well armoured, excellently gun'd, reliable and pretty scary. Speed and mobility mattered not a whit there either.
@dpsherry Well, it's not exactly true. Speed and acceleration do count, in specially when you execute combat maneuvers with the tank. This is very important. This is how you get in advantageous positions and this is exactly what the Arabs didn't know how to do. That's why they were defeated. They had better tanks, but they were poorly trained and that's why they were defeated. Having a good tank is not everything. People who operate it are equally important.
@StiviGun1 Interesting generalisations. Probably the best tank from 1945 through to the 1970's was the centurion; 21MPH, 54 Tons, Heavily Armoured. No speed or acceleration there. Superb armour, excellent cross country mobility, excellent stabilised rifled gun, excellent range finding and fire on the move capability though. It's not really very fair to say the Arabs wern't trained. Some of the Arab forces were excellent and certainly in Yonm Kippur nearly saw off the israelis.
@dpsherry Well,the truth is the Brits were always fantastic engineers and designers. They use their own gun on the Challenger 2 for instance, they don't need somebody else to build it for them. And who knows, you're probably right about the Centurion, although many experts would disagree with you. One thing is certain about the British tanks though. They're not too great at mobility chapter. And believe it or not, this is very important.
@StiviGun1 Firstly, the C2's gun is designed, developed and built by Rheinmetal - Germans! A German firm builds the world's best tank gun but they put a second rate gun on their own Leopards (and M1).
@dpsherry And what makes you think that is the best tank gun? It's not that long and it's rifled which actually decreases the speed of the projectile.
@StiviGun1 Well, lets put it this way, it's not just the gun per se, the FCS and crew has a lot to do with it too! BUT any tank gun that kill with a first round out to 5K has got to be a good gun, yes?. What other gun has done that? Bugger all difference between a dart fired out of a rifled gun and a dart fired out of a smooth bore. the reason to buy Smooth over rifled is based on PRICE! The rifled gun has more choice of ammo too....
@dpsherry I don't think the only reason why smooth bore guns are used is just cost. The smooth bore guns offer some advantages over the rifled guns. They launch the projectile at higher speeds, thus increasing penetration, range and accuracy. The rifled guns actually decrease the speed of a projectile, thus reducing the range, penetration capability and accuracy. It also makes the round spin around its longitudinal axes. which furthermore, decreases accuracy as a projectile that spins around its
@dpsherry longitudinal axes doesn't follow a straight line path, like the projectiles fired by smooth bore guns do. So I don't how that Challenger achieved that 5000m kill, but since the performance was never repeated, I'm guessing that luck also had something to do with it. Nevertheless, the Challenger's gun is a very fine gun and the targeting systems of the tanks are excellent. But saying that it's the best gun based on just one incident is not very accurate.
@StiviGun1 or it was a heat or hesh round. Their effectiveness against armor at long range is the same as short, so a 5000m kill is only an issue of accuracy. And with maybe ~60mm of side armor, the T-72 is vulnerable when it shows up in profile.
@redreaper2020 If I think about it, you're actually right. Because the British army's main anti-tank round during WW2 was the HESH round. So you may be right.
@StiviGun1 true. They're mostly fighting shit tanks like T72M1s, and need an effective HE round more than AP most of the time, makes sense to combine the two.
@StiviGun1 ...Persian gulf war, invasion of Iraq. Brits were there too. Why, out of all the european countries, they're still pretty much universally respected amongst Americans. Brits got balls...and Top Gear. Love me Top Gear.
@redreaper2020 Well, it's funny that you talk about balls, because that's basically the reason why America lost its respect in Europe. It all started in 1961, with the Bay of Pigs operation, when an entire world laughed at America. After that, it came the missile crisis, which made the US lose its entire respect. People dare to show their envy against you when they don't respect you. That's why Germany & France have the attitude they have against US. The truth is, if you had done what you were
@redreaper2020 supposed to during the missile crisis, the world would've respected America. They would've seen that America has balls. That was the chance for you to show you have balls, and you blew it.
@StiviGun1 which was what, start WW3? Christ, you're one hell of a hypocrite. You're Romanian, right? Think about this: if we had "done what we were supposed to", Romania would be a nuclear wasteland even today. So either you're really not thinking things through, you're brainwashed by the "hate America masses", or you're a troll.
@redreaper2020 It wouldn't have happened anything because the Russians would've never attacked America. They knew they would've been destroyed. What you were supposed to do was to bomb their missile installations in Cuba. They were far behind u in ICBMs deployment They had much fewer ICBMs than u. But all u could saw were those 40 missile in Cuba... Believe it or not, that was when America lost all its respect. Of course that, after Vietnam, people actually started hating you.
@dpsherry The M1A3 will probably have an L/55. The M1A2 doesn't have one because our ammunition is better, so the performance is about the same, even with the shorter barrel. This is why the T-62, even with a bigger gun, was no better than the T-55.
Also, the M256 gun is not 100% German. It's heavily modified by the Americans, most notably its recoil mechanism, which is totally different.
@redreaper2020 The M256 gun is of German design. The US army wanted to use a 152 mm gun initially, developed for the MBT-70. They couldn't make it work, so they opted for the German 120 mm instead for the M1 Abrams. I don't understand how the US wasn't able to build a gun. How hard can that be? The US had some of the worst failures when it came to building weapons. This was, in part, due to the fact that the US military industry was never allowed to develop as it should've been.
@StiviGun1 actually it was an issue of cost. It's expensive to design a new gun; at the time we were cranking out tons of tanks and in a recession. They could get the L/44 designs for pretty much free, so they did--at that time, we had an arrangement where the Germans and Americans shared armor design even outside of the MBT-70 program; we had similar arrangements with the Brits except even more inclusive (anti-espionage pact & information sharing pact).
@redreaper2020 "Expensive". How expensive designing a new gun be? A lousy gun... You're talking like it's space rocket science. No, the reason why that gun couldn't be build was because in some certain areas, America was not using its best skilled workers & engineers. Like I said, America's military industry was never allowed to develop like it should've been. And this started even from WW2. If the T20 tanks had been allowed to develop, America would've had much better tanks than the M60 during
@StiviGun1 you dumb fuck, you have no idea about anything at all! A high-performance tank gun takes a lot of work to design. Deal with it. If I can get something for free, why design it myself?
Also, we didn't bomb Cuba, because we didn't want to piss off the Sovs. Again, unlike you, we're not exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare. You sound more and more to me like an idiotic troll spouting propaganda than an intelligent human being. Go troll someone else's forum, twat
@redreaper2020 Only an idiot ca say designing a gun is such a big deal. No, the reason why you weren't capable to develop that 152 mm gun is because you had very low quality engineers or skilled workers. That's the truth.
As 4 Cuba, u're finally right. U didn't wanna piss off the soviets. They dominated u, when u had a massive strategic advantage. After that, u were even scared 2 develop new ICBMs. & that's what the Russian wanted. When it comes 2 bullying small countries, u're brave. But the
@redreaper2020 "we didn't bomb Cuba, because we didn't want to piss off the Sovs. Again, unlike you, we're not exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare". Really, u're not "exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare". No, u were pussies, but u did kill millions of people in Vietnam & Afghanistan. U're also the only country who used the atomic weapon. So who's the hypocrite now, asshole? Don't tell me that u didn't do what u were supposed 2 during the Missile Crisis because
@redreaper2020 u're "not fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare" because that's exactly what you have been doing since the WW2 ended. The only reason you didn't bomb Cuba was because you were pathetic pussies. The bullshit with "not being fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare" doesn't work because you killed millions of civilians after WW2 & u were the only country 2 use the atomic weapon against civilians. U hypocritical shit.
@StiviGun1 Don't bitch at me Romania got turned into a shithole by the sovs. Go blame them. You're telling me it's my fault for history from 50 years ago, because my country didn't nuke half of Eurasia. We used the bomb against the Japanese, yes (and it was less costly than an invasion). We also didn't kill "millions of civilians". Russia, China, Germany, Japan, etc, have a far higher body count.
This conversation is done. You're nuts. You know nothing except false propaganda. Go to hell.
@redreaper2020 I didn't "bitch to you" abt Romania... I'm just saying what should've done 2 keep ur integrity. Although, in 1968, we did show more balls in front of the soviets than u ever had. When they asked us 2 contribute 2 their invasion Of Czechoslovakia we told them 2 go fuck themselves. They sent their tanks 2 our border & when they tried 2 cross it, we destroyed them. & they backed down. The pussies were afraid of a revolution inside their circle of influence. In that occasion, we
@redreaper2020 had more balls than u ever shown in the entire Cold War. & we didn't even have 10% of the arsenal u had. If we had had nuclear weapons, the Russians would've never even dared to give us a funny look. You, on the other hand, were pussies, plain and simple.
And you did kill millions of people. Vietnam=between 2-4 mil. Iraq, over a million. U also bombed a lot of countries. Tell me 1 thing: what the hell did u have against Guatemala that u bombed it 3 times, ha?
@StiviGun1 I'm not gonna bother even explaining to you the stupidity of your arguments. People like you don't understand reality. War and nations, it's not a game. You loose off a few nukes, you quickly can end the entire world.
Vietnam was 2-4 million casualties total. Not KILLED, not even casualties from the US. US inflicted casualties were around a half-mil. War is death, deal with it. On one hand we should nuke half of the world, on the other hand we're monsters for conventional war?
@redreaper2020 I didn't say you should "nuke half of the world" u idiot... I'm saying that you should've hold your grounds. What you don't understand is that there wouldn't have been any nuclear war, in specially at that time, when you had the strategic advantage. The Russians wouldn't have started anything because they would've been destroyed too. But you were too afraid to think about such things. The Russians saw how afraid u were of a nuclear war and they exploited this weakness for the rest
@StiviGun1 You are batshit crazy. Also I said the Bradley was thirty years old, not oldER. The BMP3's armament, by the way, is essentially a mortar able to fire a missile. Against tanks, its non-missile round is useless. It's like the 73mm low-pressure gun on the old BMP1--it has very low muzzle velocity and range. The 25, on the other hand, has about the same firepower as the 30mm, and greater ROF, accuracy, and penetration.
You're really off in left field, man. Fucking batshit.
@redreaper2020 When it uses projectiles, it may be useless against tanks (duhhh...), but I don't think it was designed 2 do that when it's using normal shells. That's why they gave it the capability 2 launch missiles. Being an IFV, the 100 mm gun is probably used with HE shells 4 infantry support.
As 4 the 25 mm gun that Bradley is equipped with, how the hell can u say it's more powerful than the 30 mm gun the BMP-3 is carrying? That's just dumb... But I see you quit the topic about the Missile
@redreaper2020 Crisis and the nuclear weapons. Are you afraid...? I really don't understand how the Russians could strike such fear into you. If a president like Reagan or Nixon had been in the office at that time, I don't think the soviets would've managed 2 intimidate you like that. But really now, the way they managed to do it, was just laughable. Even though you had a massive advantage in nuclear weapons at that time, they still managed to get the psychological advantage. That's laughable.
@redreaper2020 Hehe... everything I said is perfectly reasonable and, most importantly, true, it's just that you don't like to hear the truth. But you keep invading smaller countries under shitty arguments, like Iraq, and continue to call yourself warriors or lying to yourselves that you have "the most powerful military in the world". See where that will get you. Your flaw is that u care too much abt ur country, but the biggest mistake you've made was that u've let ur enemies know this.
@redreaper2020 of the Cold War. You didn't even have the balls to develop a more powerful ICBM 2 replace the Minuteman (which is not suited as a silo based ICBM) just because you didn't want to look provocative to the soviets... On the other hand, they didn't give a shit abt being provocative 4 u, they went on ahead & surpassed u in the arms race.
@redreaper2020 the Cold War. And there are many other examples where rejection of certain weapons systems program really affected the industry's capability to produce high quality weapons. You like to brag that you have "the most powerful military in the world" but you don't like 2 do what's needed 2 actually have such a military. This is 1 reason why people can't stand u when u brag abt ur military. U either do it right, like the soviets did it, or shut your mouths.
@StiviGun1 I'd love to do it right, but then you'd bawww about how evil we were for nuking your home. Every time we do it right you faggots whine about how we're evil imperialists. Either we stop going to war, or we exterminate those who complain. You have the options of peace or genocide; we've so far chosen peace.
You confuse American benevolence with weakness.
As for industry, well, everything we have is always a step ahead. Even our Bradley has better armor than the BMP3.
@redreaper2020 I was referring to military industry when I said "do it right"... And no, u have not chosen peace, u just chickened out. The Missile Crisis was the only chance u were face with an equal sized opponent. U failed that test. U couldn't even hold your ground. But when it comes 2 attacking smaller, weaker countries, u're champions. That's why people hate you.
As for Bradley, it's not better than the BMP-3. Go look how many developmental problems it had.
Full combat loaded Bradley (combat Bradleys in high-intensity zones carry ERA): frontal armor, 300mm ERA + 90mm LOS of steel spaced & aluminum; sides 60mm LOS steel and aluminum + 300mm ERA
BMP-3 (cannot mount ERA over most parts of its hull): frontal armor, no ERA, ~35mm frontal armor, side armor, no ERA and ~15mm.
Bradley's 25mm is on par with the 30mm of the BMP3, its TOWs are as good as the BMP3's shell/missile combo. It has more armor, and costs almost the exact same amount.
@redreaper2020 It may have better protection. But the BMP-3 has a lower profile, its more mobile. And the Khrizantema missile is far superior to the TOW. And I really don't believe is as cheap as the BMP-3. Its development took much longer than the BMP-3 development. It encountered far more issues than the BMP..
@StiviGun1 just shut up. The more you talk, the stupider you look. If you don't understand "line of sight", if you can't even google the cost of a BMP-3 and a Bradley, if you forget the issue of Bradley being 30 years older and still more mobile & protected, if you don't realize that the Chrysanthemum missile is not superior to the upgraded TOW, you probably shouldn't open your mouth. In fact, your arguments not only fail to make sense, they fail to even maintain coherence!
@redreaper2020 Hmm, you're telling me that a vehicle that's almost 10x heavier is more mobile... U're the stupid one. And the Bradley is not 30 years older. The BMP-3's design started in 1975. The Bradley is better protected, yes, but it doesn't have better mobility and it has a taller design. It also has inferior firepower. Its 25 mm gun is not match for the BMP-3's 100 mm gun.
Also, Khrizantema is much better than any TOW version. That missile can penetrate 1200 mm of RHS while the TOW has
@redreaper2020 demonstrated a capability to penetrate no more than 45 mm of RHS. The Khrizantema is much better than the TOW and the Russians ATGM are generally better than yours.
@StiviGun1 see? Exactly what i mean by "failed information!" RHS (we call it RHAe, rolled homogenous armor equivalency), the modern TOW penetrates around 900mm of steel after ERA, or around 1400mm of solid steel, and some of those now attack from the top as well (where tanks have about 50mm of armor). In addition, you said taht the Bradley is 10x heavier? That'd make it 180 tons! LOL (it's 24 tons, the BMP3 is 19). The 100mm gun is essentially a missile tube able to fire mortar-type HE.
@redreaper2020 I meant 10 tonnes heavier... The Bradley is 27 tonnes and the BMP-3 is 18.7 tonnes. And no, the TOW can't penetrate 900 mm of steel. The real estimates are 430 mm penetration for the basic TOW and 630 mm for improved TOW. And even if it did have 900 mm penetration capability behind ERA, the Khrizantema has over 1200 mm penetration capability. So it has a much better penetrating capability. Plus, the TOW is slower, thus giving the target more time to evade the hit and it has a
@SaintsSpecOps Tow is better than the javelin, from what i know. but both are inferior to theur Russian analogues, in specially the khiztantema. The RPG-30 and are also superior to everything you have. for intance, the javelin is too heavy for a missile with a 127 mm diameter. And how the hell can the missile have 127 mm diameter and the launching tube, 142 mm? Javelin is indeed a good weapon, but it's not as good as its Russian analogues.
@redreaper2020 shorter range. The TOW doesn't compare with the Khrizantema. Even the RPG 28, which is much smaller than the TOW and can be carried by one person, has a higher penetration capability than the TOW. The RPG-28 can penetrate over 1000 mm of RHA. The Russians always made better anti-tanks missiles than you did.
Respond to this video... Second, the Cent has accounted for more tanks than any tank between 1945 and 1970 (and possibly beyond). It' was used everywhere from Europe, through mid-east through to the Hindu Kush, through to Vietnam through to Korea. Find a dissenting expert - if you can. Even the US considered buying Cents in the 1950s - my dad was part of the demo team in Libya.
Respond to this video... Lee/Grant was good at mobility. Sherman was good at mobility (it took up to 6 Sherman to nail 1 Panther with up to five shermans lost doing so. M48, M60, etc all good at mobility. I don't think anyone i their right mind is going to claim them as world beating tanks. T34, T54/55, T62, all excellent at mobility and much better than any US tank yet they litter the Sinai and Golan, and Cents made short work of T34 in korea and elsewhere. Even Comets nailed T34s.
@dpsherry I don't know how exactly the Israelis, using inferior tanks to the Russian tanks managed to win those wars. It's a mystery. Theoretically,.the soviet tanks should've given the Arabs the victory. But something tells me that what the Israelis achieved US and NATO could've never achieved against the USSR had a war been started, in specially during the '70s. The soviet tanks were better at any chapter and they also had very well trained crews.
@dpsherry Well, the Lee/Grant and the Sherman were light/medium tanks. They had far inferior armor and firepower. That's why they lost to the Panther. And it wasn't the Panther that IT'S SAID to have needed 6 Shermans to destroy it, it was the Tiger II. Of course that in front of a MUCH better protected and armed tank, mobility is not that useful. But what do you do if the enemy has very well protected tanks with great firepower and excellent mobility, like the Russians had?
Respond to this video... Secondly, your generalisation that the Arabs were not trained is only party true. The Egyptians were superb and really gave the Israelis a bloody nose. Had the Syrians and Iraqis been of higher quality generally, I don't think Israel would have made such a spectacular comeback. Finally, Egyptian politics did what the Israelis earlier could not do.
@dpsherry Well, I don't know to much about the 1967 war and the Yom Kippur War so I really don't understand how the Israelis won them. I know that their M60s, for instance, destroyed T-72, which were far superior to everything they had. Some people say that there was a miracle going on there.
Respond to this video...The Brit philosphy is Firepower. Armour. Mobility. Communications. if you can use your gun in the A/T role on a mving target out to over 5,000 M yr en can only shoot back to 2,500M you have the advantage - mobility or not mobility. If at extreme ranges an enemy proj hits you, there is a higher chance it won't penetrate a well armoured hull; in the meantime, the C2's superior firepower gives a wider range of counter options, from HESH right through to Cannister.
@dpsherry You forget one thing. That that 5000m kill performance was only achieved ONCE by the Challenger. So don't make it look like it can happen on an ordinary basis. Of course, being able to engage at long ranges is very important. But you forget that the Russians had more powerful guns that could hit at longer ranges and they also had a much better mobility. No matter how you look at it, mobility is very important. It's on equal grounds with firepower and protection. That's why every tank
@dpsherry designer tries to balance these factors as best as he can. Saying that one is more important that other is wrong. A tank must have all these three features very well combined.
@dpsherry And BTW, communications would the most important asset. Info about your enemy, where he is, what is he doing, it's the most important thing. You can have a very well protected tank with great firepower if you can't see what you're doing. Information is the most important element in winning a war.
@Vykuk123 that's not thrue the Pershing wasn't able to knock out a Koenigstiger at a sensible distance the only tank that could knock out a koenigstiger was the Josef Stalin 3
@marcelkroeze Actually, it could knock out the King Tiger and it did it in several occasions. It would've done in much more occasions if the US army's commanders hadn't been such morons and slowed down its procurement.
@StiviGun1 Ten inches of frontal armor, so they were indestructible from the front at any range. Most were destroyed by their own crews when they ran out of gas or broke down. There weren't enough built to make a difference. I would imagine their combat performance was similar to the Elefant.
@jackzero99 Yeah, well, they may have been powerful, but they were mechanically very complex so there was always something breaking down on them. They were also hard to produce. They were not cost effective weapons systems.
@jackzero99 I'm not sure about this. The M26's gun could pierce them from a shorter distance, I'm sure about this. Also, the Super Pershing's gun could've definitely pierced it. It's just that these, because of the morons that lead the US army back then, didn't let these tanks be adopted until very late in the war.
@Vykuk123 That;s true. It was a badass tank. One that should've been adopted much sooner. But the US army was led by complete morons. The Shermans should've actually been replaced even from the year 1942 when the T-20 series of tanks became available. But the Army Ground Forces commanders (some of them) didn't even want to hear. They were even claiming that the M4's 75 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's armor...
I really like the Pershing. It was a big chance in US tank doctrine from quantity (Sherman) to quality. It could take out Panther and Tiger but arrived to late, only a few prototypes were deployed (one of them took out a Tiger).
The IS-2 was a breaktrough tank, the gun mainly used for HE ammo and not very good in the anti-armor role. Its role was to take out bunker, AT guns, infantry etc..
Not a tank you want to use in tank to tank combat.
@NationalSniper load ap rounds in any is tank they were a head their time. though what should have been fight the Pershing should have been t-44, 54s or t-10(Is-10).
Yes by a huge margin. The T-34/85 was outperformed by the M4A3E8 in Korea so the M26 and M46 totally outclassed it. Not surpricingly as the M26 was a heavy tank reclassified as a medium tank.
M46 Patton saw combat in Korea, the M48 actually started production in 1952. Seems the IS-2 was in Korea but never engaged in tank to tank combat - maybe the Chinese & Russians didn't want to lose any. T-44 was a flo[, & even the Soviets didn't like it & it wa relegated to mainly a training role, although some were given to Warsaw pact nations & maybe Vietnam. I think it was the Czechs that put a 100mm in it, not the Soviets who used the 85mm in it.
@roknikov, T-44 wasn't liked by USSR tank crews (I have read reports etc. by the tank crews), but once some of the bugs were gotten out of it during post WWII time, it was sufficient & the gun was incresed in calibe form 85mm to the excellent 100mm. M-26 Pershing was OK, especially when firing HVAP ammo, but it only had 110mm front glacis plate, so they were upgraded to M-46 tank & M-26's in Korea were replaced with M-46's & a very, very few M-47's.
@christof139 do you mean the 1945 or '47 model?; the '45 was the old t-34 turret; yet the t-44 became the t-54 later on with the new eliptical turret and 100mm cannon. (do you know if it's that d-10t cannon from the t-55?
most likely the gearbox'd sucked ass in the pre-t-54 types
@roknikov, Hi, the 1947 model with the bigger turret & 100mm D-10TK gun, but it was never mass produced. I think Czech. or Yugo. might have converted some to 100mm guns well after WWII. However, in 1944-45 there were protoypes of the T-44-100 (1945) – Prototype fitted with a new modified turret which would allow fitting the 100 mm D-10T gun or prototypes 100 mm LB-1 gun & prototype ZiS-100.
i actually saw that yugo version you mentioned (it's on open-air display in Belgrade (Kalemegdan fortress), and only a few of that were built (100mm proto's), i think it was designated t-6, and it also featured a slightly modified hull with rounded front corners.
what gets invented in 1953 is the m-48 patton tank...had the war dragged on we would have seen it and the soviet t-44! korean war was nearly ww-3 nuclear war..the neutron bomb was invented because of korea!
red north korea dprk had about 400 t-34/85...across the yalu guarding red manchuria were 200 chinese js-2 stalin tanks...ussr joined them with 200 js-4 stalin tanks/milwaukee m-60a3tts
Holy shit, Americans where able to take out 30 years old design T-34 tanks. Amazing, also everytime a Sherman encountered a T-34 the Sherman was destroyed, and the IS-2 was the only tanks the Allies had trouble destroying in the war.
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn
the 76mm M1A1C(you may know it as "Easy Eight" took out many T-34s
SaintsSpecOps 1 month ago
@SaintsSpecOps And so did the T-34/85. The allies lost many tanks the North Koreans ended up abandoning most of their armors in early times of the war. Also T-44 was stationed in Vladivostok, I would love to see them against M46 Pattons. But both Sherman and T-34 could take each other out at same range but T-34/85 is better tank
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn The T-44 was a FAILURE! The RETARDED soviets took much time to work out a "marginal better available decent" primitive cheap crap for the over-excessed expendables.to meet the numerical less but more sophisticated US tanks. even the up-gunned super Shermans BUTCHERED them in the Six-Days War. The T-34 was ONLY A BETTER COFFIN or U can SHIT INTO INSIDE DIRECTLY FROM THE CUPOLA......EXCELLENT temporary open dry toilet with stool & septic tank!..... Anyhow all FROM USSR WERE SHIT!
9394JP731 2 weeks ago
@9394JP731 Sorry but all I understood from your comment was that "I'm a retarded nuttshell from Washington D.C."
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
the music is so happy!
Dagreatdudeman 2 months ago 3
junk lets seen it against the t55 or t44
starknight97 2 months ago
yeah so what documentary is this from?
178thbattlegroup 2 months ago
The tank that is shown at the very beginning of the film is actually a Super Pershing. You can tell it by its very long gun Yeah. these tanks should've been adopted much sooner in the war. These and the T-20 series of tanks. In fact, the T-20 tanks should've actually been introduced even from the year 1942 when it became obvious that the M4s are becoming obsolete. It's just that the US army then, just like today, was run by complete morons without any insight capacity whatsoever.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
ha ha, nice kill german tank, ha ha is T-34 no german ha ha!!!
PRUDUST 7 months ago
@PRUDUST ha ha ha. North Korean T-34 Soviet supplied. You need to listen more.
Normacly 7 months ago
knock those communist bastards!!
kaynie143 10 months ago
Ah, how I like these old tanks. I mean, look at modern day tanks: They´re all looking pretty much the same, don´t they? It´s the same with modern cars. Back in WW2 and the following years, tanks were much more distinguishable.
BigPuschlerX 11 months ago 3
@BigPuschlerX
I cant think of one modern tank that looks similar to another from any country. USA, Russia, China, UK, Israel, NONE of them look anything alike at all.
I like the old tanks too, but your comment is completely untrue.
kamahmah 9 months ago
@kamahmah i don't know... the abrams and leopard II a6 look pretty similar to me
psychoclown420 8 months ago
@psychoclown420 leopard 2 is the best tank in the world, even the challenger 2 of the brits is better than the m1a2 abrams
o0nils0o 7 months ago
@o0nils0o that has nothing to do with what i said. The challenger looks different but the leopard and abrams look more similar, and it's not all about the tank either, it's also about the crew, and the air support. Tanks are nothing if the enemy has air superiority and good attack planes. Thankfully germany, britain and the U.S. are all allies
psychoclown420 7 months ago
@o0nils0o The Challenger is better than the Abrams as far as protection is concerned. But it has poorer mobility.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Rubbish. Where on earth do you get this tripe from. Mobility is not just about sticking a huge jet engine in a vehicle pressing the start button, mate. A vehicle has to be able to put it's power onto the ground and the C2's suspension does this superbly. Watch the vids of the c2 in action across terrain moving very fast. There is also crew's physical limitations of the - moving fast knocks the shit out of them unless well supported and the suspension works very well X country.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry Challenger 2's suspension may work superbly, I didn't say it didn't. What I said is that the Abrams has better suspension systems and t has a more powerful engine. These are facts.
You said there are physical because of the crew. Well that's the point in building a mobile tank. To make the tank very comfortable for the crew at high speeds on rough terrain. And Challenger 2 simply doesn't fulfill this job better than the Abrams.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 What I said was: The C2 has better suspension, across country it is just as mobile if not more mobile than the M1. The M1 is sooooo old now, even the C1 was better, the C2 is light years ahead in firepower. mobility AND armour. A great lump of jet engine does not a more mobile tank make. In fact just because of fuel stops the C2 could go further than the M1 meanwhile the C2 can move across the roughest terrain pretty darn fast. stop reading press releases and read some facts.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry OK, where can I read those facts from? Give me a source.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Look up C2 on You tube - there are some excellent references. There are also a couple of excellent "why the C2 really is the best tank bar none" that will I am sure blow your press releases outta the water.....Let me know if you need anymore help and I'll dig the material up for you - I'm sure you can do it though.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry Well, I've seen a lot of videos with the Challenger 2. I was wondering me if could provide some sources that present some solid figures about its performances. And I never said the Challenger is not a good tank. But I don't agree with people that say Abrams is rubbish either. Abrams is actually a very good tank. Its design is very good. The only drawback it has is that its engine consumes a lot of fuel. But it does provide other advantages, like superior speed and acceleration.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'll see what i can do. Speed and acceleration by themselves are not worth squat. The T34, 54/55, 62, 72, 80 etc all beat Us and brit tanks in terms of speed and acceleration; However this counted not a whit in the '67, Yom Kippur wars, etc. Give you an idea, Aussie use of Cents in 'nam should be seen as mad, yet they were highly successful because they were well armoured, excellently gun'd, reliable and pretty scary. Speed and mobility mattered not a whit there either.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry Well, it's not exactly true. Speed and acceleration do count, in specially when you execute combat maneuvers with the tank. This is very important. This is how you get in advantageous positions and this is exactly what the Arabs didn't know how to do. That's why they were defeated. They had better tanks, but they were poorly trained and that's why they were defeated. Having a good tank is not everything. People who operate it are equally important.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Interesting generalisations. Probably the best tank from 1945 through to the 1970's was the centurion; 21MPH, 54 Tons, Heavily Armoured. No speed or acceleration there. Superb armour, excellent cross country mobility, excellent stabilised rifled gun, excellent range finding and fire on the move capability though. It's not really very fair to say the Arabs wern't trained. Some of the Arab forces were excellent and certainly in Yonm Kippur nearly saw off the israelis.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry Well,the truth is the Brits were always fantastic engineers and designers. They use their own gun on the Challenger 2 for instance, they don't need somebody else to build it for them. And who knows, you're probably right about the Centurion, although many experts would disagree with you. One thing is certain about the British tanks though. They're not too great at mobility chapter. And believe it or not, this is very important.
And BTW, what exactly did I generalize?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Firstly, the C2's gun is designed, developed and built by Rheinmetal - Germans! A German firm builds the world's best tank gun but they put a second rate gun on their own Leopards (and M1).
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry And what makes you think that is the best tank gun? It's not that long and it's rifled which actually decreases the speed of the projectile.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well, lets put it this way, it's not just the gun per se, the FCS and crew has a lot to do with it too! BUT any tank gun that kill with a first round out to 5K has got to be a good gun, yes?. What other gun has done that? Bugger all difference between a dart fired out of a rifled gun and a dart fired out of a smooth bore. the reason to buy Smooth over rifled is based on PRICE! The rifled gun has more choice of ammo too....
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry I don't think the only reason why smooth bore guns are used is just cost. The smooth bore guns offer some advantages over the rifled guns. They launch the projectile at higher speeds, thus increasing penetration, range and accuracy. The rifled guns actually decrease the speed of a projectile, thus reducing the range, penetration capability and accuracy. It also makes the round spin around its longitudinal axes. which furthermore, decreases accuracy as a projectile that spins around its
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@dpsherry longitudinal axes doesn't follow a straight line path, like the projectiles fired by smooth bore guns do. So I don't how that Challenger achieved that 5000m kill, but since the performance was never repeated, I'm guessing that luck also had something to do with it. Nevertheless, the Challenger's gun is a very fine gun and the targeting systems of the tanks are excellent. But saying that it's the best gun based on just one incident is not very accurate.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 or it was a heat or hesh round. Their effectiveness against armor at long range is the same as short, so a 5000m kill is only an issue of accuracy. And with maybe ~60mm of side armor, the T-72 is vulnerable when it shows up in profile.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 If I think about it, you're actually right. Because the British army's main anti-tank round during WW2 was the HESH round. So you may be right.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yup, HESH and rifled guns even today. Brits just gotta be weird like that.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Well, if they're still using ti, it must be working for them.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 true. They're mostly fighting shit tanks like T72M1s, and need an effective HE round more than AP most of the time, makes sense to combine the two.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Is there a war that I don't know about? Where are the Brits fighting the T-72s?
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 ...Persian gulf war, invasion of Iraq. Brits were there too. Why, out of all the european countries, they're still pretty much universally respected amongst Americans. Brits got balls...and Top Gear. Love me Top Gear.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Well, it's funny that you talk about balls, because that's basically the reason why America lost its respect in Europe. It all started in 1961, with the Bay of Pigs operation, when an entire world laughed at America. After that, it came the missile crisis, which made the US lose its entire respect. People dare to show their envy against you when they don't respect you. That's why Germany & France have the attitude they have against US. The truth is, if you had done what you were
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 supposed to during the missile crisis, the world would've respected America. They would've seen that America has balls. That was the chance for you to show you have balls, and you blew it.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 which was what, start WW3? Christ, you're one hell of a hypocrite. You're Romanian, right? Think about this: if we had "done what we were supposed to", Romania would be a nuclear wasteland even today. So either you're really not thinking things through, you're brainwashed by the "hate America masses", or you're a troll.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 It wouldn't have happened anything because the Russians would've never attacked America. They knew they would've been destroyed. What you were supposed to do was to bomb their missile installations in Cuba. They were far behind u in ICBMs deployment They had much fewer ICBMs than u. But all u could saw were those 40 missile in Cuba... Believe it or not, that was when America lost all its respect. Of course that, after Vietnam, people actually started hating you.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@dpsherry The M1A3 will probably have an L/55. The M1A2 doesn't have one because our ammunition is better, so the performance is about the same, even with the shorter barrel. This is why the T-62, even with a bigger gun, was no better than the T-55.
Also, the M256 gun is not 100% German. It's heavily modified by the Americans, most notably its recoil mechanism, which is totally different.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 The M256 gun is of German design. The US army wanted to use a 152 mm gun initially, developed for the MBT-70. They couldn't make it work, so they opted for the German 120 mm instead for the M1 Abrams. I don't understand how the US wasn't able to build a gun. How hard can that be? The US had some of the worst failures when it came to building weapons. This was, in part, due to the fact that the US military industry was never allowed to develop as it should've been.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 actually it was an issue of cost. It's expensive to design a new gun; at the time we were cranking out tons of tanks and in a recession. They could get the L/44 designs for pretty much free, so they did--at that time, we had an arrangement where the Germans and Americans shared armor design even outside of the MBT-70 program; we had similar arrangements with the Brits except even more inclusive (anti-espionage pact & information sharing pact).
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 "Expensive". How expensive designing a new gun be? A lousy gun... You're talking like it's space rocket science. No, the reason why that gun couldn't be build was because in some certain areas, America was not using its best skilled workers & engineers. Like I said, America's military industry was never allowed to develop like it should've been. And this started even from WW2. If the T20 tanks had been allowed to develop, America would've had much better tanks than the M60 during
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 you dumb fuck, you have no idea about anything at all! A high-performance tank gun takes a lot of work to design. Deal with it. If I can get something for free, why design it myself?
Also, we didn't bomb Cuba, because we didn't want to piss off the Sovs. Again, unlike you, we're not exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare. You sound more and more to me like an idiotic troll spouting propaganda than an intelligent human being. Go troll someone else's forum, twat
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Only an idiot ca say designing a gun is such a big deal. No, the reason why you weren't capable to develop that 152 mm gun is because you had very low quality engineers or skilled workers. That's the truth.
As 4 Cuba, u're finally right. U didn't wanna piss off the soviets. They dominated u, when u had a massive strategic advantage. After that, u were even scared 2 develop new ICBMs. & that's what the Russian wanted. When it comes 2 bullying small countries, u're brave. But the
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Missile Crisis really showed what you were made of. Basically, it showed that you were some twats.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 "we didn't bomb Cuba, because we didn't want to piss off the Sovs. Again, unlike you, we're not exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare". Really, u're not "exactly fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare". No, u were pussies, but u did kill millions of people in Vietnam & Afghanistan. U're also the only country who used the atomic weapon. So who's the hypocrite now, asshole? Don't tell me that u didn't do what u were supposed 2 during the Missile Crisis because
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 u're "not fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare" because that's exactly what you have been doing since the WW2 ended. The only reason you didn't bomb Cuba was because you were pathetic pussies. The bullshit with "not being fond of killing civilians and nuclear warfare" doesn't work because you killed millions of civilians after WW2 & u were the only country 2 use the atomic weapon against civilians. U hypocritical shit.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Don't bitch at me Romania got turned into a shithole by the sovs. Go blame them. You're telling me it's my fault for history from 50 years ago, because my country didn't nuke half of Eurasia. We used the bomb against the Japanese, yes (and it was less costly than an invasion). We also didn't kill "millions of civilians". Russia, China, Germany, Japan, etc, have a far higher body count.
This conversation is done. You're nuts. You know nothing except false propaganda. Go to hell.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I didn't "bitch to you" abt Romania... I'm just saying what should've done 2 keep ur integrity. Although, in 1968, we did show more balls in front of the soviets than u ever had. When they asked us 2 contribute 2 their invasion Of Czechoslovakia we told them 2 go fuck themselves. They sent their tanks 2 our border & when they tried 2 cross it, we destroyed them. & they backed down. The pussies were afraid of a revolution inside their circle of influence. In that occasion, we
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 had more balls than u ever shown in the entire Cold War. & we didn't even have 10% of the arsenal u had. If we had had nuclear weapons, the Russians would've never even dared to give us a funny look. You, on the other hand, were pussies, plain and simple.
And you did kill millions of people. Vietnam=between 2-4 mil. Iraq, over a million. U also bombed a lot of countries. Tell me 1 thing: what the hell did u have against Guatemala that u bombed it 3 times, ha?
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'm not gonna bother even explaining to you the stupidity of your arguments. People like you don't understand reality. War and nations, it's not a game. You loose off a few nukes, you quickly can end the entire world.
Vietnam was 2-4 million casualties total. Not KILLED, not even casualties from the US. US inflicted casualties were around a half-mil. War is death, deal with it. On one hand we should nuke half of the world, on the other hand we're monsters for conventional war?
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I didn't say you should "nuke half of the world" u idiot... I'm saying that you should've hold your grounds. What you don't understand is that there wouldn't have been any nuclear war, in specially at that time, when you had the strategic advantage. The Russians wouldn't have started anything because they would've been destroyed too. But you were too afraid to think about such things. The Russians saw how afraid u were of a nuclear war and they exploited this weakness for the rest
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are batshit crazy. Also I said the Bradley was thirty years old, not oldER. The BMP3's armament, by the way, is essentially a mortar able to fire a missile. Against tanks, its non-missile round is useless. It's like the 73mm low-pressure gun on the old BMP1--it has very low muzzle velocity and range. The 25, on the other hand, has about the same firepower as the 30mm, and greater ROF, accuracy, and penetration.
You're really off in left field, man. Fucking batshit.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 When it uses projectiles, it may be useless against tanks (duhhh...), but I don't think it was designed 2 do that when it's using normal shells. That's why they gave it the capability 2 launch missiles. Being an IFV, the 100 mm gun is probably used with HE shells 4 infantry support.
As 4 the 25 mm gun that Bradley is equipped with, how the hell can u say it's more powerful than the 30 mm gun the BMP-3 is carrying? That's just dumb... But I see you quit the topic about the Missile
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Crisis and the nuclear weapons. Are you afraid...? I really don't understand how the Russians could strike such fear into you. If a president like Reagan or Nixon had been in the office at that time, I don't think the soviets would've managed 2 intimidate you like that. But really now, the way they managed to do it, was just laughable. Even though you had a massive advantage in nuclear weapons at that time, they still managed to get the psychological advantage. That's laughable.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 wut
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Hehe... everything I said is perfectly reasonable and, most importantly, true, it's just that you don't like to hear the truth. But you keep invading smaller countries under shitty arguments, like Iraq, and continue to call yourself warriors or lying to yourselves that you have "the most powerful military in the world". See where that will get you. Your flaw is that u care too much abt ur country, but the biggest mistake you've made was that u've let ur enemies know this.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 of the Cold War. You didn't even have the balls to develop a more powerful ICBM 2 replace the Minuteman (which is not suited as a silo based ICBM) just because you didn't want to look provocative to the soviets... On the other hand, they didn't give a shit abt being provocative 4 u, they went on ahead & surpassed u in the arms race.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 the Cold War. And there are many other examples where rejection of certain weapons systems program really affected the industry's capability to produce high quality weapons. You like to brag that you have "the most powerful military in the world" but you don't like 2 do what's needed 2 actually have such a military. This is 1 reason why people can't stand u when u brag abt ur military. U either do it right, like the soviets did it, or shut your mouths.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'd love to do it right, but then you'd bawww about how evil we were for nuking your home. Every time we do it right you faggots whine about how we're evil imperialists. Either we stop going to war, or we exterminate those who complain. You have the options of peace or genocide; we've so far chosen peace.
You confuse American benevolence with weakness.
As for industry, well, everything we have is always a step ahead. Even our Bradley has better armor than the BMP3.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I was referring to military industry when I said "do it right"... And no, u have not chosen peace, u just chickened out. The Missile Crisis was the only chance u were face with an equal sized opponent. U failed that test. U couldn't even hold your ground. But when it comes 2 attacking smaller, weaker countries, u're champions. That's why people hate you.
As for Bradley, it's not better than the BMP-3. Go look how many developmental problems it had.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1
Full combat loaded Bradley (combat Bradleys in high-intensity zones carry ERA): frontal armor, 300mm ERA + 90mm LOS of steel spaced & aluminum; sides 60mm LOS steel and aluminum + 300mm ERA
BMP-3 (cannot mount ERA over most parts of its hull): frontal armor, no ERA, ~35mm frontal armor, side armor, no ERA and ~15mm.
Bradley's 25mm is on par with the 30mm of the BMP3, its TOWs are as good as the BMP3's shell/missile combo. It has more armor, and costs almost the exact same amount.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 It may have better protection. But the BMP-3 has a lower profile, its more mobile. And the Khrizantema missile is far superior to the TOW. And I really don't believe is as cheap as the BMP-3. Its development took much longer than the BMP-3 development. It encountered far more issues than the BMP..
BTW, what is "LOS"?
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 just shut up. The more you talk, the stupider you look. If you don't understand "line of sight", if you can't even google the cost of a BMP-3 and a Bradley, if you forget the issue of Bradley being 30 years older and still more mobile & protected, if you don't realize that the Chrysanthemum missile is not superior to the upgraded TOW, you probably shouldn't open your mouth. In fact, your arguments not only fail to make sense, they fail to even maintain coherence!
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Hmm, you're telling me that a vehicle that's almost 10x heavier is more mobile... U're the stupid one. And the Bradley is not 30 years older. The BMP-3's design started in 1975. The Bradley is better protected, yes, but it doesn't have better mobility and it has a taller design. It also has inferior firepower. Its 25 mm gun is not match for the BMP-3's 100 mm gun.
Also, Khrizantema is much better than any TOW version. That missile can penetrate 1200 mm of RHS while the TOW has
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 demonstrated a capability to penetrate no more than 45 mm of RHS. The Khrizantema is much better than the TOW and the Russians ATGM are generally better than yours.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 see? Exactly what i mean by "failed information!" RHS (we call it RHAe, rolled homogenous armor equivalency), the modern TOW penetrates around 900mm of steel after ERA, or around 1400mm of solid steel, and some of those now attack from the top as well (where tanks have about 50mm of armor). In addition, you said taht the Bradley is 10x heavier? That'd make it 180 tons! LOL (it's 24 tons, the BMP3 is 19). The 100mm gun is essentially a missile tube able to fire mortar-type HE.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I meant 10 tonnes heavier... The Bradley is 27 tonnes and the BMP-3 is 18.7 tonnes. And no, the TOW can't penetrate 900 mm of steel. The real estimates are 430 mm penetration for the basic TOW and 630 mm for improved TOW. And even if it did have 900 mm penetration capability behind ERA, the Khrizantema has over 1200 mm penetration capability. So it has a much better penetrating capability. Plus, the TOW is slower, thus giving the target more time to evade the hit and it has a
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1
you know the TOW 2 explodes over the top of the tank where the weakest armor is right? and the FGM-148 is by far the most capable anti-tank missile.
SaintsSpecOps 3 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps Tow is better than the javelin, from what i know. but both are inferior to theur Russian analogues, in specially the khiztantema. The RPG-30 and are also superior to everything you have. for intance, the javelin is too heavy for a missile with a 127 mm diameter. And how the hell can the missile have 127 mm diameter and the launching tube, 142 mm? Javelin is indeed a good weapon, but it's not as good as its Russian analogues.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 shorter range. The TOW doesn't compare with the Khrizantema. Even the RPG 28, which is much smaller than the TOW and can be carried by one person, has a higher penetration capability than the TOW. The RPG-28 can penetrate over 1000 mm of RHA. The Russians always made better anti-tanks missiles than you did.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Second, the Cent has accounted for more tanks than any tank between 1945 and 1970 (and possibly beyond). It' was used everywhere from Europe, through mid-east through to the Hindu Kush, through to Vietnam through to Korea. Find a dissenting expert - if you can. Even the US considered buying Cents in the 1950s - my dad was part of the demo team in Libya.
dpsherry 7 months ago
Respond to this video... Lee/Grant was good at mobility. Sherman was good at mobility (it took up to 6 Sherman to nail 1 Panther with up to five shermans lost doing so. M48, M60, etc all good at mobility. I don't think anyone i their right mind is going to claim them as world beating tanks. T34, T54/55, T62, all excellent at mobility and much better than any US tank yet they litter the Sinai and Golan, and Cents made short work of T34 in korea and elsewhere. Even Comets nailed T34s.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry I don't know how exactly the Israelis, using inferior tanks to the Russian tanks managed to win those wars. It's a mystery. Theoretically,.the soviet tanks should've given the Arabs the victory. But something tells me that what the Israelis achieved US and NATO could've never achieved against the USSR had a war been started, in specially during the '70s. The soviet tanks were better at any chapter and they also had very well trained crews.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@dpsherry Well, the Lee/Grant and the Sherman were light/medium tanks. They had far inferior armor and firepower. That's why they lost to the Panther. And it wasn't the Panther that IT'S SAID to have needed 6 Shermans to destroy it, it was the Tiger II. Of course that in front of a MUCH better protected and armed tank, mobility is not that useful. But what do you do if the enemy has very well protected tanks with great firepower and excellent mobility, like the Russians had?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
Comment removed
StiviGun1 7 months ago
Respond to this video... Secondly, your generalisation that the Arabs were not trained is only party true. The Egyptians were superb and really gave the Israelis a bloody nose. Had the Syrians and Iraqis been of higher quality generally, I don't think Israel would have made such a spectacular comeback. Finally, Egyptian politics did what the Israelis earlier could not do.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry Well, I don't know to much about the 1967 war and the Yom Kippur War so I really don't understand how the Israelis won them. I know that their M60s, for instance, destroyed T-72, which were far superior to everything they had. Some people say that there was a miracle going on there.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
Respond to this video...The Brit philosphy is Firepower. Armour. Mobility. Communications. if you can use your gun in the A/T role on a mving target out to over 5,000 M yr en can only shoot back to 2,500M you have the advantage - mobility or not mobility. If at extreme ranges an enemy proj hits you, there is a higher chance it won't penetrate a well armoured hull; in the meantime, the C2's superior firepower gives a wider range of counter options, from HESH right through to Cannister.
dpsherry 7 months ago
@dpsherry You forget one thing. That that 5000m kill performance was only achieved ONCE by the Challenger. So don't make it look like it can happen on an ordinary basis. Of course, being able to engage at long ranges is very important. But you forget that the Russians had more powerful guns that could hit at longer ranges and they also had a much better mobility. No matter how you look at it, mobility is very important. It's on equal grounds with firepower and protection. That's why every tank
StiviGun1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dpsherry designer tries to balance these factors as best as he can. Saying that one is more important that other is wrong. A tank must have all these three features very well combined.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@dpsherry And BTW, communications would the most important asset. Info about your enemy, where he is, what is he doing, it's the most important thing. You can have a very well protected tank with great firepower if you can't see what you're doing. Information is the most important element in winning a war.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@BigPuschlerX I agree
PANZERMEISTER100 9 months ago
My favourite US tank from WWII ...badass machine superior to any German Tank , Pershing could knock out anything !!!!
Vykuk123 1 year ago
@Vykuk123 that's not thrue the Pershing wasn't able to knock out a Koenigstiger at a sensible distance the only tank that could knock out a koenigstiger was the Josef Stalin 3
marcelkroeze 1 year ago
@marcelkroeze That's amazing since the Josef Stalin 3 never saw action in WWII.
jackzero99 10 months ago
@marcelkroeze Actually, it could knock out the King Tiger and it did it in several occasions. It would've done in much more occasions if the US army's commanders hadn't been such morons and slowed down its procurement.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@Vykuk123 Nothing ever knocked out the JagdTiger from the front
jackzero99 10 months ago
@jackzero99 JagdTiger? How many units of JadgTiger have been produced? Fro what I know, that tank didn't even see combat.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Two battalions saw combat beginning in late 1944. One was led by tank ace Otto Carius.
jackzero99 7 months ago
@jackzero99 OK, so what was their combat record? How many tanks did they manage to take out? By the way, what was the JagdTiger's armor protection.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Ten inches of frontal armor, so they were indestructible from the front at any range. Most were destroyed by their own crews when they ran out of gas or broke down. There weren't enough built to make a difference. I would imagine their combat performance was similar to the Elefant.
jackzero99 7 months ago
@jackzero99 Yeah, well, they may have been powerful, but they were mechanically very complex so there was always something breaking down on them. They were also hard to produce. They were not cost effective weapons systems.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 I agree. Just saying that they were indestructible from the front.
jackzero99 7 months ago
@jackzero99 I'm not sure about this. The M26's gun could pierce them from a shorter distance, I'm sure about this. Also, the Super Pershing's gun could've definitely pierced it. It's just that these, because of the morons that lead the US army back then, didn't let these tanks be adopted until very late in the war.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@Vykuk123 Hardly...
PkayerZxz2 7 months ago
@Vykuk123 That;s true. It was a badass tank. One that should've been adopted much sooner. But the US army was led by complete morons. The Shermans should've actually been replaced even from the year 1942 when the T-20 series of tanks became available. But the Army Ground Forces commanders (some of them) didn't even want to hear. They were even claiming that the M4's 75 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's armor...
StiviGun1 7 months ago
3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
metalpounder 1 year ago
The first Pershing shown is one of the "Super Pershings" with the extra long gun. (70 calibres instead of 53 calibres)
Pershingtank 1 year ago
I really like the Pershing. It was a big chance in US tank doctrine from quantity (Sherman) to quality. It could take out Panther and Tiger but arrived to late, only a few prototypes were deployed (one of them took out a Tiger).
The IS-2 was a breaktrough tank, the gun mainly used for HE ammo and not very good in the anti-armor role. Its role was to take out bunker, AT guns, infantry etc..
Not a tank you want to use in tank to tank combat.
NationalSniper 1 year ago
@NationalSniper load ap rounds in any is tank they were a head their time. though what should have been fight the Pershing should have been t-44, 54s or t-10(Is-10).
starknight97 1 year ago
just one thing i think that the first m26 that went into combat in ww2 was destroyed by a nashorn
Danie9989 1 year ago
m26>t34/85 if any one was wondering.
178thbattlegroup 1 year ago
@178thbattlegroup
Yes by a huge margin. The T-34/85 was outperformed by the M4A3E8 in Korea so the M26 and M46 totally outclassed it. Not surpricingly as the M26 was a heavy tank reclassified as a medium tank.
NationalSniper 1 year ago
@NationalSniper the soviet took some transmissions from busted american tanks to study them, which says a lot
roknikov 1 year ago
M46 Patton saw combat in Korea, the M48 actually started production in 1952. Seems the IS-2 was in Korea but never engaged in tank to tank combat - maybe the Chinese & Russians didn't want to lose any. T-44 was a flo[, & even the Soviets didn't like it & it wa relegated to mainly a training role, although some were given to Warsaw pact nations & maybe Vietnam. I think it was the Czechs that put a 100mm in it, not the Soviets who used the 85mm in it.
christof139 1 year ago
@christof139 the t44 was a hybrid, because there was a delay with the projected turret/hull, i'm not sure which
roknikov 1 year ago
@roknikov, T-44 wasn't liked by USSR tank crews (I have read reports etc. by the tank crews), but once some of the bugs were gotten out of it during post WWII time, it was sufficient & the gun was incresed in calibe form 85mm to the excellent 100mm. M-26 Pershing was OK, especially when firing HVAP ammo, but it only had 110mm front glacis plate, so they were upgraded to M-46 tank & M-26's in Korea were replaced with M-46's & a very, very few M-47's.
christof139 1 year ago
@christof139 do you mean the 1945 or '47 model?; the '45 was the old t-34 turret; yet the t-44 became the t-54 later on with the new eliptical turret and 100mm cannon. (do you know if it's that d-10t cannon from the t-55?
most likely the gearbox'd sucked ass in the pre-t-54 types
roknikov 1 year ago
@roknikov, Hi, the 1947 model with the bigger turret & 100mm D-10TK gun, but it was never mass produced. I think Czech. or Yugo. might have converted some to 100mm guns well after WWII. However, in 1944-45 there were protoypes of the T-44-100 (1945) – Prototype fitted with a new modified turret which would allow fitting the 100 mm D-10T gun or prototypes 100 mm LB-1 gun & prototype ZiS-100.
christof139 1 year ago
@christof139 cool, tnx, that's very informative.
i actually saw that yugo version you mentioned (it's on open-air display in Belgrade (Kalemegdan fortress), and only a few of that were built (100mm proto's), i think it was designated t-6, and it also featured a slightly modified hull with rounded front corners.
as for the gearbox, i don't have a clue
roknikov 1 year ago
@christof139 btw i found, the yugo version was named "tip A" (@ google: "tip a stef124")
roknikov 1 year ago
@roknikov, Thanx, I will google it.
christof139 1 year ago
@christof139 yw, do visit stef124, that is the leading site on Yugo armour, and it looks not biased, yet broad
roknikov 1 year ago
what gets invented in 1953 is the m-48 patton tank...had the war dragged on we would have seen it and the soviet t-44! korean war was nearly ww-3 nuclear war..the neutron bomb was invented because of korea!
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
red north korea dprk had about 400 t-34/85...across the yalu guarding red manchuria were 200 chinese js-2 stalin tanks...ussr joined them with 200 js-4 stalin tanks/milwaukee m-60a3tts
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago