The Elbonia follow up question is thus: You are now the guy Elbonia hired to fix their armored force. You look upon your force of... questionable vehicles and are tasked with making them actually reasonable. Rule is as follows, same for Ian: You cannot actually replace the existing vehicles. We spent good money on them, so unless it is literally impossible to do so, you must try to make the vehicles work. What modernization or standardization do you attempt to bring about to rectify Elbonia's armored force as best you can?
If World of Tanks is anything to go by, at least before the view range nerf, the best way to improve any tank is to saw the roof off. Every tank that has a roofless version was always considerably superior: M3 to T40, SAu 40 to S 35 CA, you name it.
@@Phos9 I did ponder that as one of the ways to rectify the King Tiger: Swap the 128 for a 122 (since it's already in the system from IS-3) and use it as artillery after cutting off the top and back of the fighting compartment.
@@RedShocktrooperRST I assume we uncovered and eliminated the conspiracy against free nation of Elbonia (and executed all traitors) in late 40's/early 50's. For Jagdtiger: a) We could fit our Jagdtigers with the 122mm cannon. There is now more space in the vehicle because of a smaller gun (also, it now boasts a coaxial machine gun). b) Our Jagdtigers remain armed with 128mm cannon, but we will experiment with different types of domestically produced 128mm ammunition to maximise its potential. The age of atomic weapons is upon us, thus open-topped vehicle might be troublesome. The bow gunner and his position would be removed, though, to give space for more ammunition. Also, have French experts look at the engine of that beast. Their military is going on with Maybach engines for their AMX-50 program, so they could probably fix some of our problems. Trying to reduce armour thickness to reasonable levels might lessen some of those mechanical troubles, too...
And also the modernisation should be substantially cheaper, than replacing the vehicles with something that is actually good (because if it is cheaper/equaly expencive to buy actually good vehicles, then why are we trying to fix the ones that we've bought? And also it's not like Elbonia has enough +-spare money to arm itself again (buying enough equipment to arm an army big enough to be not useless is expencive, no matter how rich the country is, so it'd be much better, if a cheaper solution was found))
InRangeTV and Forgotten Weapons discuss the topic of obsolecence on occasion. I find I have to agree that it matters not when you're on the recieving end. 'lol you shot me with a muzle loader? That 3inch hole in my chest doesn't count because I have an M4A1.'
@@L5GUK when you're on the receiving end and already got hit, sure, it doesn't matter. But when the guy with a muzzle loader has to get to within 100yds to have a chance in hell of hitting you, and you can comfortably drop him from 300yds with your cool ACOG, the argument becomes largely academic. Then again, modern body armour would probably stop that musket ball dead in its tracks, so if you want to talk obsolescence, bolt actions are a better argument (which is what InRange talked about anyway). Still, it's not a good match up.
Well, if you have unit of 6 vechiles(122 RakH 89, RM-70/85) that can say 234 times hello to you under one minute and remove entire map grid and leave fast as they came, tubes are not obsolete!
@@bwcmakro just because your latest and greatest has high figure capability, it is still tactics that trump all. Would I pick a bolt gun over a modern carbine? Fuck no. Does that mean that a bolt gun couldn't do work if that's all you had, also no. Look at insurgencies and ISIS fucking up armies equipped with MRAPs, M1A1s, M113s etc. Training and tactics. All about the training and tactics.
"We're at war with Elbonia. But fear not, our mole ensured they only bought bad tanks." "Alright what am I going to face on the field?" "IS-3 and Jagdtigers" "Bloody he..."
@@yanuchiuchihaanimegamesand3907 Their biggest weakness is mobility and reliability. If you're actually fighting them heads-up they're an absolute beast to kill. But if you can run them around they're constantly going to be out of position due to speed and breakdowns.
Stupid M60A3 Trick # 188 You can use the image intensifier in the Commander's copula to see the "splash" of the LRF and give the gunner last second fire adjustments. Stupid M60A3 Trick #497. When you couldn't start the M60 because the low voltage protector was protecting the starter from said low voltage, you could uncouple the power cable from either side of the low voltage protector and bridge the gap using the key for the padlock of the loader's hatch. Just remember to hold the key using insulated pliers. Stupid M60A3 Trick #553 A very small amount of C4 (very-very small) was useful in removing a broken torsion bar when it had become rusted in place. Every good Plt Sgt had a golf ball sized ball of C4 in his personal tool bag. Stupid M60A3 Trick # 602 Wrapping the turret's over-pressure air filter (the round cover on the rear right of the turret), in wet rags turned it into a swamp cooler. Stupid M60A3 Trick # 697 Always keep a car jack in your BII. Its great for getting the driver's escape hatch back in when the driver accidentally kicks the release leaver. Stupid M60A3 Trick #737 Make the important annotations on your map in the same color as the light filters on your internal lighting. That way they will be clearly visible when you are using internal illumination at night.
Sounds like you and my dad could have a a field day exchanging fun stories about Stupid Tricks, although his are related to the A4 Skyhawk and the A6 Intruder. For example, on the A4, the throttle cable links up to a linkage in the Avionics compartment, that then acts on a a bit of steel cable hooked to the input linkage on the electromechanical bits of the TCM. You can totally replace that bit of cable with a plain old regular wire coat-hanger if you don't have time to wait for a replacement because the pilot really wants to fly to Okinawa and party with his buddies, and offers you a case of beer if you can fix it by morning.
Carl Kasarda from InrangeTV. He was being asked about that in a Q&A video from May https: // www . youtube.com/ watch?v=HenB9DNFGWA&t=4s - please remove the spaces
Its the same train of thought saying the Marine Corps doesnt need tank battalions because drones could easily take them out,its basically an opinion not considering all the factors involved.
@@balazsneuperger2063 Timestamp: HenB9DNFGWA?t=1631 I semi-agree wrt precision strikes (keeping in mind the assumption about airspace) but as said here artillery can do fast reaction & rate of fire that smart tech just can't match.
Hey Chieftain! Saw the bit about Tube Artillery. I'm a 13F aka a "Forward Observer" and Would like to point out that Tube Artillery can give you a "duration" on a Target example being "Duration 5 Minutes" on said Target. it can also Screen Friendly movement, Obscure the enemies vision with Smoke or WP among many many more things you can do with tube Artillery. Having a barrage of shells fly into an area from tube Artillery is also on the cheaper side of things, Plus we can also Illuminate the area with IR or Flares from a 105mm and 155m guns. along with changing round types are much faster. One last thing to remind people who speak about the MLRS or High Mars is that those Systems are a "Corps" Asset. I'm sure The Chieftain can explain it a little better on what that means. But Systems like a MLRS will and if ever never be called by a Forward Observe like me. It's a Corps Asset because you also need to clear the 30,000ft of Air Space those things need to travel through depending on target location. That is a way higher level of approval to fire those things that what people think. Hey Chieftain when you get a chance can you explain the role of the 19D aka the Cav Scout since it's part of the Armor Branch? and their role in the Army. Thank You!!!
MLRS can do all the things mentioned. There are armies that deploy MLRS systems on a much lower level, regimental or maybe even battalion. Granted, these are less powerful systems, but nonetheless, the command structure argument isn't universally valid either.
@@F1ghteR41 To fire those Rockets you need to Clear Air Space. Plus their reload times are much slower. And it's much more expensive to use them in the way of Field Artillery. You can do many missions like a gun battery but a gun battery can pump out larger Volumes over time
@@MrWattu A 13F is a Forward Observer who is an can be attached to Infantry, Cav and SF units. FO's are the Eyes of the Artillery and Close Air Support. FOs often work with USAF JTAC as well to help further mission needs in support of ground forces. Basically the FO is your expert off the bat on everything Artillery and a secondary skill in Close Air Support.
@@Dogmeat1950 You don't need no clear airspace for 60-70 kg missiles of BM-21 or similar systems. And in terms of volume of fire launching 40 rockets per vehicle in a matter of several seconds is far beyond the capabilities of any classic artillery piece. And most modern MLRS's use some sort of packet reloading. In terms of price you need to take into account two things. First, a single missile carries five to six times more payload than a shell of the same calibre and don't need thick walls to overcome the wear induced by the barrel rifling. Thus, while it's significantly heavier than your typicall shell of the same calibre, it's also much more effective. Second, liners for guntubes are made of expensive high quality steel, and you will burn through them quickly in a prolonged conflict, see Donbass and the shortage of howitzers on the Ukrainian part. MLRS tubes aren't rifled and as such are much better in terms of longevity.
i love that Cheiftain found my comment on the last QnA that Elbonia is from Dilbert and basically a 4 foot deep mudhole whose sole export is mud. Now of course, the obvious response is that Elbonia hires Nicholas to fix his sabotage
Bossy bloke called TC is a somewhat flawed form of a reverse camera, a sort of alpha v0.1. They do need bugfixing for "Left! No, your other left!" but in time they get better.
You do know that now you've sabotaged Elbonia, you have to do the follow-up question which is: "How do you fix all the mistakes made by your incompetent predessor'?
Not entirely armor-related but then again......the disposable tube for the M/72 SPR (Danish designiation - you know the thing: Remove end-caps and strap, pull to extend tube and sights flip up, fire, then discard). Those (empty) tubes were perfect to store soda, beer or ration tins. I have even seen such a tube used as an improvised mortar, sending a ration tin of danish meatballs in gravy (with a lit thunderflash inserted) directly into a bivouac, resulting in an almighty bang and covering everyone and everything in said bivouac in something closely resembling an outhouse after an earthquake. Please do not ask how the tin was launched. Suffice to say that another thunderflash may or may not have been involved in turning the tin of meatballs from handgrenade to mortar bomb. Nor ask how long it took the recipients to clean all their kit (and the rest of the unit to stop laughing at them for being justly, though unconventionally, punished for not leaving the comfort of their bivouac when under attack). On a side note: The carrying case for two 84mm rockets for the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle is a perfect fit for two 1.25 liter bottles of Coke. Heavy enough that the sergeant didn't notice (which he did if the case was empty) but a damn sight more pleasant to carry around than the two dummy rockets we had to lug when training. "But what if you had to set up for shooting?" No-one ever cared to look if we inserted a rocket, as long as we took aim and, to indicate firing, threw a thunderflash which were provided to us in handfuls (see above).
We always put a can with Bockwursts in one the Leopard 2s engine compartments and when we were driving outside for a while we had nice hot Bockwursts :D
IIRC it's because of the fact that it's one of the few guns that use a percussion firing system and also a two piece ammunition, meaning you can actually hear the impact of the hammer before the powder detonation. Or something like that. I'm fuzzy on the details.
It only bothers you the first time it happens. Afterwards, it's no trouble at all. Also, your fellow crewmen will be happy to lift you in and out of the driver hole, or at least to hand in food and drink at reasonable intervals.
@@Finwolven Well I suffer from sisu (both good and bad) so no worries for me ;) And if my fellow crewmen are Finns I know from experience that I will get nothing to drink because of the GD 5 stages of finnish drunkeness :( (only GD screems of vittu and perkele before they pass out)
I had been playing WOT for like 3 years nonstop when i switched to WT (as a nolife addiction game) in 2016 and after being a unicum in wot and "epic" in wt according to thunderskill, both having played for at least a thousand hours..... both game is quite shit. Bugs and balance issues everywhere coupled with pay to win (well at least wot has an endgame content - clan battles which is even ground for everybody) And also there is the pay to win to the get anywhere aspect of WT, the grind is abysmal - mainly because there is no endgame whatsoever so all there is the grind nothing more. A 3rd option would be so awesome to have..... can't get myself to start wot again.. I recently gave up on WT as well since Arcade is not fun with carpet bombing no skill heavy bombers everywhere and in RB high tier is dominated with brainless helicopters (which i'm guilty with as well, though it's so boring to play and in the same time ridiculously gamebreaking) - mid tiers would be fun if not for the cold war gokarts ruining every immersion at early ww2 era BRs.
And that boys and girls is exactly how SOI radio security used to work. Before SINCGARS and its later versions PRC-119, we ran wire from howitzers to FDC, and they ran wire out to their antenna relay: upwards of 500 meters (550 yards) worth of wire. Closest guns ran 100'ish meters while furthest closer to 250. And we had were first to start using SINCGARS; first one radio, then both radios. But we still ran wires, just safer. Once we got our Paladins, then the PRC-119s were the main source of fire control. But that was when shoot and scoot became even more a thing: so much so we basically stopped netting up.
Tube arty being obsolete? Someone needs a demonstration. Amazed that fire extinguishing handles were on the outside as far back as 1940. Excellent addition to my trivia store.
I was in the British infantry during the 80's and never once exercised with tanks, we received no training on tank/infantry co-operation. I actually done 13 full months of recruit training as a 'Junior Leader' from 16yo-17.5yo and nothing was mentioned on the subject during that entire time. During the first gulf war tanks were simply another callsign on the net and anybody could talk to them. It actually seemed to work, at least I in my tiny little battlefield bubble was never aware of any problems. We simply considered them to be another callsign and gave no more thought to talking to them than we did to our own blokes. In practice and given the expansive terrain we were in the tanks would generally spot baddies before we did given their TI sights and there wasn't much need to give them any TI's. That would be reversed in urban or wooded or any enclosed terrain.
I was an Australian Army Reserve sapper, junior and senior NCO for 28 years. The only time I worked anywhere near tanks was as an umpire during a multi-national exercise in the Shoalwater Bay training area during May 2000.
To answer the signal triangulation question (from a SIGO perspective), this is what I was taught: Freq Hop can help prevent signal triangulation since the enemy needs to be monitoring a particular frequency to begin the triangulation process and since the radio will just switch frequencies every 1 hundredth of a second the process can barely get started by the time it jumps next. However that said your S6 needs to do their job and ensure that enough frequencies are in the hop set to prevent the radio from constantly jumping to the same frequency (think about only 2 freqs they would effectively be sending out a constant signal). To further mitigate possible triangulation we were suggested to keep transmission short and nonstandard in both duration and timing. But to effectively triangulate a signal you would need to know what frequency to monitor and then do the calculations pertaining to received signal strength from multiple receivers (which can conceivably be done despite freq hop but we considered it unlikely). The antenna placement closer to the unit is more often about laziness and security (smaller perimeter) than being sure they can't triangulate us. Now for satellite comms that is a different can of worms that could be covered if anyone wants to know.
Cant speak to ground triangulation much except for the cluggy 1970s device i used once while learning basic search and rescue. You could build a very basic array by just holding up a couple antennas tunned into a couple hundred MHz of where you expect the signal. You will see a power increase across that entire bandwidth, frequncy hop or no. Obviously you now have the problem of picking up a bunch of none target signals meaning you will just locate the strongest one unless you are using a spectrum analyzer, DSP, or somthing els to key in on the signal you want. Which you would do by just aiming the thing around until you found which direction yielded the strongest signal strength. You would basicly need to know the frequncy range and have an idea the signal characteristics of what your looking for. (Bandwidth, Power,etc) I know space techniques much better having run a couple of those systems.
So basically once again an issue of getting too comfy in proxy wars where opposition has no resources. Just like how .50 became popular "sniper rifle" in certain place simply because people don't expect to get a 75-150mm in return in case of "real" war.
im a signals guy in the british army. the short answer to the question posed at 53 minutes about how easy it is to direction find a frequency hopping radio with modern kit, is that for a 1st rank army with modern EW kit, its not really any harder than a non frequency hopping radio. for older kit it is somewhat harder but still do-able. your right that its a bit of a hazard putting the antenna next to the HQ, but sometimes its not possible to run them out very far, and like with the "always available drones" you mentioned, people are starting to get used to the sort of fights we have been in for the last 20 years and taking lazy shortcuts.
Finding a frequency hopping radio means detecting a source that's emitting randomly on changing frequency? Or is it possible to track what is being transmitted without knowing the electronic profile of the source. I've no experience with millitary kit but I'm an comms engineer & I've heard that's it's quite difficult to actually trace a modern software defined LPI radio transmitter unless you've got a decent idea of the emission profile. Kinda like how it's hard to jam an AESA radar without knowing it's profile. P.S. I know frequency hopping radios have been around for a while, I'm referring to modern ones, not 90s era units - the ones that work as encrypted data-links. As far as I know, provided you can actually distinguish it from the crowd of cellphone towers & wifi routers that form a cluttered background in most modern scenarios, it's quite difficult to trace without some dedicated platform like an ELINT jet or satellite available.
As far as i know (they haven't briefed me otherwise), if we transmit in range of russain EW, we basically have to assume they heard and know where we are roughly (well enough to cue a drone). the main way we can protect the HQ is to make it hard to tell apart form any of the other small de.
[this is from an article in an IEEE magazine, "Spectrum", from around thirty years ago, that I am unable to reference. My memory may be wrong, but my recollection passes my initial sniff test for plausibility] An improvement on frequency hopping is "spread spectrum". Spread spectrum radios use a broader range of the spectrum than frequency hopping radios and each frequency channel is narrower. The energy of the signal is spread over a larger range of frequencies, so any given frequency has less wattage transmitted, and each burst of signal at a given frequency is very short in duration. Having a broad band receiver has a better chance of picking up more of the signal, but it will also pick up a lot more noise. The intended receiver has the timing of which frequency to expect the next component of the signal, so a rapidly tuned, narrow band receiver is always listening to the correct frequency, at the correct time. Spread frequency transmissions allow the signal strength to be that much closer to the noise floor, so an eavesdropper that does not know the frequency hopping pattern will have a hard time getting more than static. As the signal appears to be background static, and is not much stronger than background static, it is very hard to triangulate on the signal, without knowing how the transmitter spreads out the signal over the entire spectrum, or listening to the noise for long enough to spot a statistically significant amount of signal to recognize it as not random noise. If the entire comm net is broken up into several sub nets that spread their signals over the same spectrum range, but with different hopping sequences, it is that much harder to isolate a single transmitter.
As a Retired US Army signal guy. Even with advanced EW capabilities. Triangulation of a radios using frequency hopping is near impossible. The reason why is. Different radio nets use the same hopset data and freq ranges but each net will hop to those freqs at different times. So that a single frequency or even a freq range will look like its jumping all over the battlefield. Keep in mind, a standard US Army radio is capable of handling 1000 different nets using the same hopset data and freq ranges.
Two years later your take on the obsolescence of tube artillery is pretty bang-on. It still seems to be one of the primary weapons of the war in Ukraine, by BOTH sides with the M777 for example seeing it's first real peer-to-peer fight. By all accounts they seem to be giving a good account of themselves, even if the HIMARS have stolen the limelight from them.
I've been scouring university after university for a professor who can give me a little bit of information about Elbonia. I've literally driven thousands of miles to meetings with these professors only for them to end inconclusive. I have a trip planned next month for the army museum in Paris just so I can figure something out about this place. I'm astounded at how well versed Ian is in firearms history. He's so well read/educated in the subject that he has a pretty good knowledge of a country's small arms history and I (and several professors) can't even find where it used to exist on the map. Hopefully my coming trip to Paris will finally bear fruit as this has been the most expensive and time consuming research projects in my life so far
I'm pretty sure your comment is entirely a joke, but for the unitiated, Elbonia is a fictional military dictatorship & fictional country from the farside comics.
@@petlahk4119 Elbonia is in "Dilbert", isn't it? They appear on one of my Dilbert book collections. It's been a long time since I saw any of the "Far Side" comics, but I don't remember seeing them at all in there.
Man, I love the gusto and enthusiasm thrown into the Elbonia part. Probably one of the funniest running gags in recent memory and The Chieftain did not disappoint!
1:10:33 Churchills a surprise to the Germans - From the various sources I've read the Germans were mainly surprised at the small gun in a heavy tank, as well as several other things about it that underwhelmed them. I do know they were shocked and horrified at how well the Churchills could climb a slope in Tunisia. If you can find a copy of Heimdal's Raid de Dieppe p.290-311 has all kinds of pics of the Germans recovering Churchills lost on the Dieppe Raid and conducting some evaluations of them. It also has some of their tech evaluation notes.
Post WWII 90mm as used on the M48, and maybe the M47 before it, was a higher power round than WWII guns. The charge could fit in the original WWII 90mm case but to avoid loading the higher pressure round in the older TD 90mm guns and M26 guns, the new case had a slightly different shoulder dimension to purposely make it not fit the older chambers.
Chieftain bazooka plates when lowered horizontal to the ground can be used as a place to use your double burner petrol cookers and prepare food, the eyelets on the outsides used to attach live cam can also be used a bottle openers, on the rear of the tank often steel mesh was welded or bolted to the bins so you could carry oil containers freeing up space in the turret basket for other things
He will probably go mad about the fact that all the late war german tanks have rotating periscopes although they realy shouldnt have and the fact that the german tanks have gunners periscopes at all (none had gunners periscopes) Add to that the fact that the M4 Sherman has the same ammount of gun depression as the Sherman firefly, the U.S. tanks dont get gyroscopic stabilisors, the U.S. are forced to use the sherman fireflys on a lot of maps and the armor mechanics are v e r y b a s i c and you will probably end up with a 1/2 hour rant.
@@jakobc.2558 All fair points, but I'm not sure there are really any comparable games. (Hell let loose to an extent but I don't think the devs have the same image for their games) He would certainly have to get over the inaccuracies. On the note of squad, I think we are far more likely to get a 1 hour rant on the fact that none of the map would ever have tanks deployed to them in the first place xD
@@freppie_ Have it, would love it, but my gaming rig can't handle it... Check it's steam discussion to see how many people are having massive trouble with it's optimization. Seems to effect nvidia cards most.
@@chrysler5thavenue822 That's weird, must be VRAM hungry cause my old RX580 runs it on maxed out settings no problem, but it has 8gb of VRAM despite being a cheap and lower power card.
In regards to using things in ways they were not intended: In the Battlefield tv series, theres a scene in the North Africa one of a German crewman pouring cooking oil on the super hot side armor and using it to cook eggs for breakfast.
53:09 Yes you can triangulate on a broad spectrum antenna. How ever, it's not easily done. It requires a broad spectrum receiver that specifically looking for a single source with constant power output. Encryption of the signal is not an issue as what your looking for is an RF emitter. How ever broad spectrum transmission can be very directional, and due to it's nature tends to actually use less actual broadcast power for the signal as the date is digital and sent in multiple packets (the ask me 3 times packet.. once the minimum number of data packets that have passed their CRC check are received the data is decrypted and is now usable.) Signal security in the modern era is a trivial exercise but masking the actual signal origin is more problematic. Even today if facing a first world military I would not mount a command posts or control centers antenna next to my CP! I think we've gotten a tad lazy.
With things like FFT and time difference between 3 antennae, you can pinpoint any emitter. Technically you would only need two, if you know roughly, where the enemy is. Especially if a Headquarters unit is regularly using their radio, it would be easy to pinpoint that emitter.
Rather than lazy, i would bet ont complacent, why would rig your systems covering more distance and use more cable if it's no use, just like the lack of mobile AA vehicles and MANPADS on the US army
Really sounds like complacency to me after reading this. The US Army hasn't fought or thought about fighting an enemy with this capability in some time so the practice has dwindled
As I mentioned above, FH broad-band DF has been reality since the 1950s. Computers are wonderful things. The “wild weasels” plan to counter FH Radar sets... a tactical FM radio is even easier. The main reason we don’t push the use of remotes is the aging out of GRA-39s and slow (or lack of) replacement. Can’t use what you don’t have.
Nonsense, this is better: TRUBIA NAVAL PROGRAM. 1-Pick a tracktor. 2-Stick an armored casemate on top. 3-Add one man turret. 4-Driver also mans hull machinegun. 5-Heavy oil cooling(Engine will suffer) 6-in case of need it can be used as conventional tracktor. Just barely above the bob semple.
@@esejony65 But you have to pick a convincing piece. Preferably an amazing one yet with 3-4 (or more) less know unacceptable design flaws. Bob Semple won't do. But I have to admit since your comment I want a Trubia Naval Program beast more than to own a BMP1 (the one with the turret and 73 mm of course).
@@kcole-xi9km even better, those 5 turrets would be like in the Trubia A4 plit in 2 rings in the middle with one MG for each ring. 1 Turret 1 Gunner 2 Rings 2 MG Puts those french 1Man turrets to shame.
On restoration with upgraded materials, there are several paragraphs in a book I have on the SdKfz 2 kleines Kettenkraftrad talking about the transmission gears, which were made out of aluminum, and as a result had an ongoing problem with chewing up gear teeth and spitting them out, noting that replacement gears made out of proper steel displayed none of these problems and made the transmission immensely more reliable. Since a replacement of this type will not be noticed barring a metallurgical analysis of components, I agree with your opinion that having a _functional_ restored vehicle that is not so slavishly restored as to replicate the period maintenance problems is better than one where the restoration facility gets to demonstrate the severely labor-intensive maintenance requirements, too.
Concerning why you no longer needed the older steel AP-variant (AP, APC, APHE, etc.) your description nailed it (very good for such a short discussion!!). You stated the the British were one of the first to decide that solid shot was better than an HE-filled shell due to weakness in the shell and somewhat lower total weight (less kinetic energy needed to get enough punch at a given striking velocity). This was NOT true with the post-WWI British Navy, though. They seem to have been so stung by the Battle of Jutland statement "There is something wrong with our ships today!" that they decided after WWI that their new post-WWI anti-armor ammo -- APC (12" and larger guns) and SAP/SAPC (6" and 8" guns, respectively) -- would be made to remain intact and "fit to burst" against the widest range of armors and impact angles EVEN IF THE SHELLS HAD INFERIOR PENETRATION ABILITY DUE TO THIS!! Against other ships with armor up to about as thick as the diameter of the British shell (such as Krupp KC n/A of 320-350 mm (12.6-13.8") -- waterline belt and main turret face of BISMARCK -- the British new 1590-pound 14" Mark IB N.T. APC shell would work properly and stay intact (for the most part) if it penetrated with some excess velocity (barely penetrating hits were a problem for all ammunition of all nations), allowing proper post-penetration HE filler explosion deep inside the target. Such a filler effect was needed, since otherwise it would be like firing a BB gun at a tank -- even if it penetrated the armor, damage chance would be iffy. However, the British went too far in this by making their shell middle and lower body only about HALF AS HARD as most other nations did, so the shell bent into a banana against armor much thicker than that, especially at any significant angle from square-on. In post-WWII test against the US Navy equivalent, the 1500-pound 14" Mark 16 MOD 8 AP (it had a cap; the US Navy did not use the term "APC"), on hitting 13.5" US Navy Class "A" (face-hardened) and Class "B" (homogeneous, ductile) armor at 30 degrees from right-angles, the British shells were about as good as the US shells (a great compliment!), but when the armor was raised to 17.5" Class "A" (SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA barbettes) or 18" Class :B: (same ships' turret faces), the British shells bent as noted, had their tips broken off, and only made dimples in the armor under 12" deep -- it was decided not even to try to find out what it would take to get them to penetrate. The US shells went through with some damage at extrapolated velocities with no degradation due to the higher thickness hit. Against the YAMATO Class, these British shell designs would have been very poor, even with their larger, but similar, British 15" and 16" WWII APC ammo.
@@LovableCoolGuy Yes, I am. I have finished (I HOPE!) my major study on face-hardened armor (there are still areas that I am not completely clear on or have had to "guestimate" from indirect evidence, of course, but my estimates are mostly not too far off the mark I believe) -- the BASIC program FACEHARD Version 8.0 (80th revision) -- and am trying to get some idea of the effects of blunting or elongating the Tangent Ogive nose of an intact uncapped AP from a hemisphere (Radius of Ogive 0.5 caliber) to a long US Army M2 0.5" AP bullet core (roughly a 4.0-caliber-radius Tangent Ogive nose shape) against homogeneous, ductile armor, compared to my standard projectile, the WWII US Army 15-lb 76.2 mm M79 AP Shot projectile (1.67-caliber-radius Tangent Ogive nose). Elongating the nose from the M79 medium-blunt point shaope has only a rather small effect, but blunting the nose has a major effect, especially against oblique targets at 45 degrees angle or more. Interestingly, though, the major effect of blunting is to make it MORE DIFFICULT to penetrate if the plate is very thin and LESS DIFFICULT against thick plates above 45 degrees, but a much reduced effect at under 45 degrees, pivoting with minimal effect against half-caliber-thick plates in either case. For even blunter noses, the M79 penetration computations in HCWCLC with no nose covering input begin to rapidly fail completely as bluntness increases, as my two flat-nose and tapered-flat-nose programs show. This study is very incomplete at the moment, however. If you flow-chart the various computer programs that I have at NAVWEAPS.COM (BASIC is very much like English in its commands and is easy to learn) and carefully study the tables and formula used, you will know on a mathematical level as much as I do now about this subject.
Multiple calibers of the same name (time mark 1:09:35) this was the same reason the M-40 (*a 105mm recoilless rifle*) was listed as having 106mm ammunition to prevent the accidental loading of this new round in the older M-27, also a 105mm recoilless rifle which would result in "Bad things happening"... +_+
I know I heard that artillery question before and I think that was reference was to the InrangeTV May 2020 Q&A at 26:58. I posted a comment there stating that many of the accuracy advantages that missiles give you are being added to tube artillery even to the point that man-portable mortars are now able to fire guided rounds so you have a cheaper thing that does 90% of what the more expensive thing does and that nothing says you can't fire a rocket out of an artillery gun tube.
A counter example is the 8" (?) gun on the Zumwalt destroyers. Uses a non-standard 8" round, so they can't just buy army ammo. The precision guided rounds cost $800,000 each, almost as much as a Tomahawk, so they never produced any; that gun on those destroyers is literally useless. And why you'd want such a short range weapon when Tomahawks are just as precises with a, what, 100 x warhead, and cost only a little more, is beyond me.
Apparently when I was in the 3/35 Armored Battalion in Bamberg I was so screwed. Not only did we have the M114A1E1 ( who knew that a 283 in a 7 ton tracked vehicle would be under powered, and that have the pointy nose sticking out in front of the tracks would dig into ditch sides ) but the platoon sgt's M113 was usually pulling around a wheeled trailer. But then again, after putting down a half dozen liter mugs full of the best beer in the world, who cared?
Strange you mention about guns and the time lapse in getting use to the idea, it took me about 3 years stop waking up in squaddie mode when I left the British army in 97
As for artillery being obsolete, Nammo just demonstrated ramjet assisted artillery shells (June 2022). They are developing guided shells that can be fired from any 155mm artillery and hit targets 80-150 kms away.
I clicked this video and didn't realize at first it was two years old. Still a fascinating discussion, and now with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine the question about the Tank vs Infantry anti-tank and artillery being obsolete has shown that Chieftain's answers were pretty much spot on.
@@eastcorkcheeses6448 I don't think we need get into that. I ave bad memories of getting pigeon holed in NUIG student accommodation while viciously drunk on bucky.
More like Ford vs. General Motors Holden. Most Aussies could not place Detroit, Michigan on a map. Or, pick out Secretary Robert McNamara from a photo. Which says a damn lot. 🇺🇸
Odd trick I heard from someone serving in the german Bundeswehr in the 90s: The ABC filter housing of Leopard 1 based tanks is exactly the right size to fit 2 5x5 boxes of half liter cans of your prefered drink. And the ventilation system will cool them down quite nicely.
The US submariners discovered that you could stuff a 12pack of soda cans into the ventilation system and they'd be nicely cooled by the time you were wanting one.
For Albonia: your reasoning on the heavy tank choice, you may have chosen a somewhat good tank despite the flaws, but you could relegate it to being your personal bodyguard/vanguard detachments. If you're going to be corrupt, you may as well get the top of the line protection solely for your personal uses, right?
Did WWII tankers use any sort of hearing protection, either standard issue or homemade? What is the risk of hearing loss/damage vs other troops for modern tankers?
To a degree most tankers had some kind of ear protectors US and Soviet tankers had helmets with flaps that covered the ears, German and British tankers wore just headphones.
Even with my Warrior headset my hearing took a beating after almost daily patrols for just under seven months solid. My radio was volume three at start of tour and at Max by end. Hearing comes back though once away from loud noise for a few months.
I was a school trained Field Radio Operator back in the mid to late 1970's when I was in the Marines. We were able to use remote units to place the radio and antenna up to 2 miles from the CP. We were also told that the commo wire (we called it "slash wire") had to be burried as it too put out enough EM energy to be located by the enemy. Just FYI. Mike S.
always a joy to watch, thanks a lot! Q: The post-war JGSDF evaluated US tank designs and decided to create their own Tank as the typical Japanese soldiers at the time simply was too short. How did other Asian militaries like the Vietnamese or the Koreans deal with this? Stilts? regards Sebastian
The Japanese soldiers are to small to use X America weapon or vehicle was mostly used as a argument by the JSDF and the conservative part of the Japanese government to justify the more expensive domestic production of weapons and vehicles. Vietnamese tankers just make due and south koreans made due until they could afford to set up there own production of tanks.
@@jasonirwin4631 honestly, no nation should be without the capability to produce their own armaments. Particularly small arms, but also armored vehicles.
1:03:21 Oh! Oh! I can actually sort of answer this one, because I can fill in from the automotive side of things regarding automatic transmissions. Chieftain is pretty much right on the money here. During the rise of the tank to eminence, the automatic transmission was pretty new, and was considered even by most automotive manufacturers to be overly complex, and therefore less reliable (more parts means more points of failure). Combine this with the power output and general abuse that tanks are prone to, and any automatic of the era would likely have been viewed as too fragile because of all the added complexities. And really, this would ring true even for automotive transmissions until the 1970s; automatics were generally only on entry-level base models or luxury cars that didnt concern themselves with high-performance. The widespread adoption of automatics wouldn't happen until in the 80s, when carmakers had finally decided that autos were worth putting enough money into for engineering them; by then they were desirable in applications of near-constant use and high-abuse, like motorhomes/RVs, and light commercial vans (Ironically this meant that while the infamous nonsense car that is the 1989 Vector W8 had a 1,200bhp engine, it was mated to a 3-speed auto out of a motorhome; there wasnt a mass-produced manual manufactured in the US that could be adapted into that application and be able to take that much power without permanently welding the clutch to the flywheel every time you put your foot into it). The truth is we just havent picked a new tank since before the military thought of automatics as being resilient and reliable enough to be used in a tank. Its pretty much just that, as far as I can tell. (at least in the US, I wouldnt claim to be an expert on Europe; my only speculation would be that manuals themselves are still very popular in Europe as a whole)
I Europe manulas are still more popular than automatics. Reasons: cost, fuel consumption (we are very sensitive) - and manual shifting is not considered to be a problem or discomfort in small cars. On the other hand, big cars, buses and vehicles like this are usually equipped with automatic gearboxes. Because they is no significant difference in money or fuel. And they are more fool proof (operator fault tolerant) which can be andvantage in big vehicles.
I've scrolled down the comments a ways and haven't seen anyone else mentioning it, so here goes: I really appreciated the "Elbonia vs. Kneebonia" joke.
@@TheChieftainsHatch It's been so long since I immersed myself in the actual lore (i.e. read Dilbert) that I'd forgotten. It's still a great joke, though.
Thought regarding Tube Artillery vs Missiles: as active missile defence systems become both more common and better, surely tube artillery is going to become more effective rather than less. With military technology there tends to be a see-sawing motion between offensive and defensive capabilities. One side creates a new weapon system, which rules the battlefield until a defence is created, then you're forced to create a new weapon system to overcome the new defence and so on. For example: WWI was in part a defensive stalemate till the invention of the tank. The tank then took over the reins till the effective use of aircraft and missile system. Aircraft and missiles for a time threaten the very existence of both tanks and warships (those not part of an Carrier Group), but now missiles are being countered by anti-missile technology, be that some form of interceptor or ECW. Going back to the original subject, shells have the advantage of basically being too simple to be stopped by active defences, though it would be interesting to see what effect they would have on a shell.... In my opinion, as missile defence tech continues to get better, I can see tube artillery once again coming to the fore, both on land and on sea (perhaps even some form of modern battleship with both guns and missiles). What will be interesting to see is what will happen with aircraft as missiles become easier to kill.
Hacking is another thing. THe switch back to dumb weapons that do not have a computing system that is hackable will be nessessary at some point (probably already now, but, it is not realized yet).
Good afternoon Chieftain, ref your signals question. I can confirm you are correct that Feq Hopping and encryption will not not protect you from being DFed by an enemy EW asset. The only real option are to: 1, remote your antenna with coax (potentially of limited value as with coax you can only remote so far due to loss over distances). 2, remote a platform/vehicle with fiber (this assumes that your platforms have that capability) 3, use counter EW techniques such as screening and electronic attack. Hope that sheds some light on your comms question.
LOL. From a former 'crunchie' thanks for putting some rounds down range at what we were shooting at. I never knew (and still don't) quite how limited you FoV was, but a 120 even in the general direction was much appreciated.
For off label use of military equipment I'm going with using a M-1917 machine gun to heat water for coffee. I had teacher in jr high school that claimed that they did so during the Korean War.
@@mojopin2520 If it's -30°C and you are freezing, didn't have anything warm to drink for 3 days and been living on hard tack and corned beef - aka shit on a shingle - for 2 weeks, would you even notice?
If the M-1917 works the same way as most water-jacketed recoil-operated machine guns, there would have been water-proof gaskets at both ends where the barrel pierced the jacket since the barrel had to be able to move back and forth. Due to the high temperature of the barrel, these couldn't be rubber; at least in Maxims they were usually greased asbestos tape. I would expect at least some less-than-delicious taste from the grease. I'd also question whether they would have had time to take a coffee break if the action was so intense that they had to shoot off enough ammo to get the water boiling in the first place.
As an RF Trans troop from the Air Force I can give you some insights on your radio question. Frequency hopping has less to do with eavesdropping and more to do with anti-jamming. Basically you jump over such a wide range of frequencies that it is almost impossible to jam unless they use a TON of power to just block out a ton of frequencies. As to detecting radio signals you are correct. You can use a simple Yagi antenna to see where a signal is coming from and then call in any amount of firepower to turn it off. When it comes to not wanting the other guy listening you have encryption. In WW2 the most famous case of this were the Windtalkers who used coded phrases spoken in Navajo, a language that we figured the Japanese didn't know how to speak, and that code remained unbroken for quite a while. Modern techniques basically garble up your message in flight and you need a ungarbler on the other end to decode and give you the message plain text, i.e. unencoded.
We used to do the block of wood under ramp trick on the M113 as well. Also, as the driver of the M113 our Platoon Sergeant would ride in during field training, I would often not be able to sleep in the vehicle as he and my squad lead would claim it. This was not an issue in the nicer months of the year, as I preferred to sleep outside on the roof, or unfold a litter and sleep on that. But during the winter, I found on top of the radiator to be an excellent place to sleep. You just had to be careful of the exhaust for the heater if the guys inside turned it on. It was very near where your feet would be, and could burn a hole in your sleeping bag if you weren't careful (ask me how I know this). Before driving the M113, I spent some time as the Platoon Sergeant's HMMWV driver and found the flat spot on the hood, just in front of the windshield to be an excellent winter sleeping spot. It would be warm from the days use, and when the SFC inside would start the truck to run the heater at night, you would get some additional warmth at night.
More like Ford vs. General Motors Holden. Most Aussies could not place Detroit, Michigan on a map. Or, pick out Secretary Robert McNamara from a photo. Which says a damn lot. 🇺🇸
44:16 The early Bradley's trim vane when fully extended (as if you're opening the engine cover for PMCS) made a great sleeping platform for one, or if everyone reclined against the front slope with legs on the platform a la LaZBoy could fit three comfortably.
When playing WOT your videos help sooo much the 30 second load in the camping waiting ... the pre-aimming and waiting ... some time I for get the game (BAD ..-) as your content is more interesting ... perfect compliment (+ some whisky) .... crap credits bonus activated most get back to WOT .. bane of my life . . I hate it love it spend too much on it .. Seriously Wargaming Chieftain .. compliments you game so well ... (All his videos) ...
I genuinely enjoyed hearing your opinion of War Thunder, which is my favorite of the games. To each their own, but it feels the most intense and realistic (in a sense) to me!
This response is puzzling to me, tbh, war thunder ground is very interesting for history buffs. Maybe he didn't want to have to grind all of that tree to get to fun stuff? If one might guess it being a competitor that has been cutting to WOT in general made that worse? I have played more wot than anything, and never really stuck with GF until recently, as it seems to be well polished at this point, whereas it had been generally terrible in the earlier days, so I would bet his sampling came during the older days too.
Hey Chieftain another awesome vid, can I ask a question about a topic not often talked about? In 1986 when the Abrams was introduced it was found that the then current fleet of Oshkosh M911's couldn't handle the weight of the new tank, this seems like a major design oversight that shouldn't have been made, can you give us some insight as to how Armies, especially the US army, acquire associated logistics vehicles?
Well when you need a new badass tank to take on the Ruskies but you don't feel like taking a risk with congress you maybe "overlook" some things that might add associated costs to the program. Once it's approved then you go back and cry about how you totally just realized you need new trucks to carry them. Better to look incompetent and get what you need than be honest and risk the politicians getting squirrely about the price and force you to procure a less capable vehicle. (at least in the case of the Abrams... with other programs that justification might not be rational, but that's why you can get away with pretending to be incompetent because so many of your peers in procurement actually are).
@@MrMattumbo Story I heard, years ago, on how the Chair Force and the Navy build airbases. The Navy builds hangers, all the take off/landing strips and the required admin spaces. Then come the BOQ's, Officer's Mess, and the finer things for the higher ups. When it comes to the BEQ's, and recreation activities for the enlisted, they run out of money. And, they go back to Congress to ask for more. They are asked "Is the base functional," and answer "Yes." And so no more funds are given. The Air Force starts the other way around. And, when they are asked "Is the base functional," and it isn't, they are given further funds to make up the difference.
@@dropdead234 The Chair Force knows their higher standard of living is what keeps the recruits flowing in (and the jokes) so they make sure to con congress into providing it. The other branches could learn a thing or two from them in that regard lol.
This is actually an interesting question probably deserving of a specific answer. I'm not going to get to it on the next Q&A, but remind me on the next video comments, will you?
Sir this is why you are the go to expert. 2 plus years latter and the fighting in the Ukraine has generally proven your predictions on Drones over conventional arty to be correct.
After being disappointed by WoT (a tank themed 3rd person shooter) I was pleasantly surprised by WT. I'd say arcade game is the wrong description. It's not an arcade game nor is it a simulator. "Health Points" on tanks just rubs me the wrong way Putting a round through a machine gun port and into ammo storage is just fun.
When the Germans met the Churchill at dieppe they thought it was some old design we were using up.. they just didn't get the design concept... of mobility and heavy frontal armour
@Aaron Davies Yes, the Churchill came before the Tiger I, however, it was a response to mainly French heavy tanks like the Char 1B, which the Germans had trouble fighting during the Invasion of France. They wanted something better armored and better armed and the Tiger I was the result of that effort. However, by the time of the Dieppe Raid in 1942 the first Tiger 1 started series production, so it was less of a response to the Churchill. By that time the Germans also had encountered tanks like the KV-1 and KV-2 in the Soviet Union and were aware of the need of guns and ammuition that could deal with such tanks, hence the L43 and L48 versions of the 75 mm gun on the Panzer IV and the 88 mm guns on the Tigers for example.
"they just didn't get the design concept... of mobility and heavy frontal armour" Mobility? Mobility was mediocre at best and the armour wasn't even particularly good because it still utilised a chassis to which the plates were bolted/welded, sometimes leading to entire plates being pushed inwards.
@@Schnittertm1 incorrect tbh German Heavy Tank Program was already underway before that did accelerate it yes but it wasnt the cause of the Heavy Tank Program
Amateur radio operator here (just a technician, so not an expert) but you should be able to locate the source of a radio signal even if it's signal hopping, though i would expect it to be much harder. AFAIK no receiver can listen to multiple frequencies at the same time so a change in frequencies will make it slower and harder to triangulate (you could probably make an array to listen to a wide range of signals, but you'd end up with something like the VHF moon bounce antenna's i expect). While a singular source could be locked down with directional antennas scanning multiple frequencies and with extra time and difficulty, when you add a battlefield of signals the problem ends up being "How do you know this is the signal you're looking for vs some other signal?" I think there is also a possible technical issue here in that another comment mentioned changing frequencies every 1/100th of a second, so to scan this down without a lot of time and dumb luck you would have to have a receiver that can scan through the range of possible frequencies within that time. Give the HAM community a target and a reason to "fox hunt" this signal, and they'd do it eventually, and probably faster than you'd expect.
Would it be possible for you to do a video on the U.S. M114. When I was stationed in Germany during the early 1970’s we had a few with an armored unit in our battalion. I never hear any thing about. Yea, they were small and cute and all but useless but it would be nice to know more about them.
Thanks for your response I should have recalled the differences, down here Sqns are commanded by Maj (if qualified). On leaving my Sqn Comd I was presented an unused (and empty) 76mm shell by my Sqn.
The Germans first met the Churchill at Dieppe and were less than impressed. They thought it old fashioned. Who could blame them for that. The 2 pounder and 6 pounders were excellent anti-tank guns, what on earth posessed the British to use them as tank guns? That idea should not have passed the paper napkin stage. They could have used the M1897. Perhaps with a slightly longer barrel. After all they did use it as an anti-tank gun. When reading the first part of the Wikipedia article it is with mounting disbelief.
They were desperate to get the tank out and likely other guns were in limited supply then they focus so much on AT performance that they lost sight of the bigger threats and targets, AT guns and infantry. All the British tank guns in WW2 had very small HE package compare to comtemporaries( if they even made the damn thing that is, one of those had no HE shell in produxtion) significantly reduce their effectiveness. So Churchill, an infantry tank, need to use its anemic HE Shells and MG to fend off infantry. No wonder Germans weren't impressed.
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Lower Bracket Final - LEV vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fyYkI80GG4o/mqdefault.jpg)
The Elbonia follow up question is thus:
You are now the guy Elbonia hired to fix their armored force. You look upon your force of... questionable vehicles and are tasked with making them actually reasonable.
Rule is as follows, same for Ian: You cannot actually replace the existing vehicles. We spent good money on them, so unless it is literally impossible to do so, you must try to make the vehicles work. What modernization or standardization do you attempt to bring about to rectify Elbonia's armored force as best you can?
If World of Tanks is anything to go by, at least before the view range nerf, the best way to improve any tank is to saw the roof off. Every tank that has a roofless version was always considerably superior: M3 to T40, SAu 40 to S 35 CA, you name it.
@@Phos9 I did ponder that as one of the ways to rectify the King Tiger: Swap the 128 for a 122 (since it's already in the system from IS-3) and use it as artillery after cutting off the top and back of the fighting compartment.
@@RedShocktrooperRST I assume we uncovered and eliminated the conspiracy against free nation of Elbonia (and executed all traitors) in late 40's/early 50's.
For Jagdtiger:
a) We could fit our Jagdtigers with the 122mm cannon. There is now more space in the vehicle because of a smaller gun (also, it now boasts a coaxial machine gun).
b) Our Jagdtigers remain armed with 128mm cannon, but we will experiment with different types of domestically produced 128mm ammunition to maximise its potential.
The age of atomic weapons is upon us, thus open-topped vehicle might be troublesome. The bow gunner and his position would be removed, though, to give space for more ammunition. Also, have French experts look at the engine of that beast. Their military is going on with Maybach engines for their AMX-50 program, so they could probably fix some of our problems. Trying to reduce armour thickness to reasonable levels might lessen some of those mechanical troubles, too...
And also the modernisation should be substantially cheaper, than replacing the vehicles with something that is actually good (because if it is cheaper/equaly expencive to buy actually good vehicles, then why are we trying to fix the ones that we've bought? And also it's not like Elbonia has enough +-spare money to arm itself again (buying enough equipment to arm an army big enough to be not useless is expencive, no matter how rich the country is, so it'd be much better, if a cheaper solution was found))
So, have a couple guys with angle grinders grind off the front plates. It's Serb and his file all over again.
"The infantry was shooting at so I figured it was worth a couple 120 mm rounds" LOL
I bet the infantry loved to see their target get hammered.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!! Lol lol lol 101 lol 1o1! Lol llol LOLOLOL!
"Tube artillery is obsolete."
I showed that little bit to my brother, former Army artillery. His only response was evil laughter.
AFP still uses M110 howitzers.
InRangeTV and Forgotten Weapons discuss the topic of obsolecence on occasion. I find I have to agree that it matters not when you're on the recieving end.
'lol you shot me with a muzle loader? That 3inch hole in my chest doesn't count because I have an M4A1.'
@@L5GUK when you're on the receiving end and already got hit, sure, it doesn't matter. But when the guy with a muzzle loader has to get to within 100yds to have a chance in hell of hitting you, and you can comfortably drop him from 300yds with your cool ACOG, the argument becomes largely academic.
Then again, modern body armour would probably stop that musket ball dead in its tracks, so if you want to talk obsolescence, bolt actions are a better argument (which is what InRange talked about anyway). Still, it's not a good match up.
Well, if you have unit of 6 vechiles(122 RakH 89, RM-70/85) that can say 234 times hello to you under one minute and remove entire map grid and leave fast as they came, tubes are not obsolete!
@@bwcmakro just because your latest and greatest has high figure capability, it is still tactics that trump all.
Would I pick a bolt gun over a modern carbine? Fuck no. Does that mean that a bolt gun couldn't do work if that's all you had, also no.
Look at insurgencies and ISIS fucking up armies equipped with MRAPs, M1A1s, M113s etc.
Training and tactics. All about the training and tactics.
"We're at war with Elbonia. But fear not, our mole ensured they only bought bad tanks."
"Alright what am I going to face on the field?"
"IS-3 and Jagdtigers"
"Bloody he..."
I mean, their biggest weakness is mud...
@@yanuchiuchihaanimegamesand3907 Their biggest weakness is mobility and reliability. If you're actually fighting them heads-up they're an absolute beast to kill. But if you can run them around they're constantly going to be out of position due to speed and breakdowns.
A problem easily solved with aircraft or just going around
Nah, roxkets had about 0.5% of hitting a tank
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t during the war, sure. But after? This is the era of modern saclos and maclos rockets
"In the old days, things were annoying"
- The Chieftain, 2020
Would buy a T-shirt with that on it
That British military stoicism lol
Stupid M60A3 Trick # 188
You can use the image intensifier in the Commander's copula to see the "splash" of the LRF and give the gunner last second fire adjustments.
Stupid M60A3 Trick #497.
When you couldn't start the M60 because the low voltage protector was protecting the starter from said low voltage, you could uncouple the power cable from either side of the low voltage protector and bridge the gap using the key for the padlock of the loader's hatch. Just remember to hold the key using insulated pliers.
Stupid M60A3 Trick #553
A very small amount of C4 (very-very small) was useful in removing a broken torsion bar when it had become rusted in place. Every good Plt Sgt had a golf ball sized ball of C4 in his personal tool bag.
Stupid M60A3 Trick # 602
Wrapping the turret's over-pressure air filter (the round cover on the rear right of the turret), in wet rags turned it into a swamp cooler.
Stupid M60A3 Trick # 697
Always keep a car jack in your BII. Its great for getting the driver's escape hatch back in when the driver accidentally kicks the release leaver.
Stupid M60A3 Trick #737
Make the important annotations on your map in the same color as the light filters on your internal lighting. That way they will be clearly visible when you are using internal illumination at night.
My organisation's motto:
"There is no problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of high explosives."
@@CTXSLPR would have made my divorce faster and cheaper.
Now i want to know if German repair crews during WW2 came up with some "creative" ways to rectify a broken transmission.
Sounds like you and my dad could have a a field day exchanging fun stories about Stupid Tricks, although his are related to the A4 Skyhawk and the A6 Intruder.
For example, on the A4, the throttle cable links up to a linkage in the Avionics compartment, that then acts on a a bit of steel cable hooked to the input linkage on the electromechanical bits of the TCM.
You can totally replace that bit of cable with a plain old regular wire coat-hanger if you don't have time to wait for a replacement because the pilot really wants to fly to Okinawa and party with his buddies, and offers you a case of beer if you can fix it by morning.
Doom Boy Gammer Abandon it because you are out of fuel anyways 😆
39:16 "Someone said Tube artillery is obsolescent"
Brave words from someone within M777 range.
🤣🤣
Carl Kasarda from InrangeTV. He was being asked about that in a Q&A video from May
https: // www . youtube.com/ watch?v=HenB9DNFGWA&t=4s - please remove the spaces
Its the same train of thought saying the Marine Corps doesnt need tank battalions because drones could easily take them out,its basically an opinion not considering all the factors involved.
"Brave words for grid coordinates"
@@balazsneuperger2063 Timestamp: HenB9DNFGWA?t=1631
I semi-agree wrt precision strikes (keeping in mind the assumption about airspace) but as said here artillery can do fast reaction & rate of fire that smart tech just can't match.
Hey Chieftain! Saw the bit about Tube Artillery. I'm a 13F aka a "Forward Observer" and Would like to point out that Tube Artillery can give you a "duration" on a Target example being "Duration 5 Minutes" on said Target. it can also Screen Friendly movement, Obscure the enemies vision with Smoke or WP among many many more things you can do with tube Artillery. Having a barrage of shells fly into an area from tube Artillery is also on the cheaper side of things, Plus we can also Illuminate the area with IR or Flares from a 105mm and 155m guns. along with changing round types are much faster.
One last thing to remind people who speak about the MLRS or High Mars is that those Systems are a "Corps" Asset. I'm sure The Chieftain can explain it a little better on what that means. But Systems like a MLRS will and if ever never be called by a Forward Observe like me. It's a Corps Asset because you also need to clear the 30,000ft of Air Space those things need to travel through depending on target location. That is a way higher level of approval to fire those things that what people think.
Hey Chieftain when you get a chance can you explain the role of the 19D aka the Cav Scout since it's part of the Armor Branch? and their role in the Army.
Thank You!!!
Enlisted? Can you tell more about your job?
MLRS can do all the things mentioned. There are armies that deploy MLRS systems on a much lower level, regimental or maybe even battalion. Granted, these are less powerful systems, but nonetheless, the command structure argument isn't universally valid either.
@@F1ghteR41 To fire those Rockets you need to Clear Air Space. Plus their reload times are much slower. And it's much more expensive to use them in the way of Field Artillery.
You can do many missions like a gun battery but a gun battery can pump out larger Volumes over time
@@MrWattu A 13F is a Forward Observer who is an can be attached to Infantry, Cav and SF units.
FO's are the Eyes of the Artillery and Close Air Support. FOs often work with USAF JTAC as well to help further mission needs in support of ground forces.
Basically the FO is your expert off the bat on everything Artillery and a secondary skill in Close Air Support.
@@Dogmeat1950 You don't need no clear airspace for 60-70 kg missiles of BM-21 or similar systems. And in terms of volume of fire launching 40 rockets per vehicle in a matter of several seconds is far beyond the capabilities of any classic artillery piece. And most modern MLRS's use some sort of packet reloading.
In terms of price you need to take into account two things.
First, a single missile carries five to six times more payload than a shell of the same calibre and don't need thick walls to overcome the wear induced by the barrel rifling. Thus, while it's significantly heavier than your typicall shell of the same calibre, it's also much more effective.
Second, liners for guntubes are made of expensive high quality steel, and you will burn through them quickly in a prolonged conflict, see Donbass and the shortage of howitzers on the Ukrainian part. MLRS tubes aren't rifled and as such are much better in terms of longevity.
I really think Drach would have a field day with the Elbonia question
I’ve asked a couple times, but I guess he’s never picked it
@@mrb692 Keep asking, he's bound to do it! One set for every era when there were true abominations.
How to make a mud-Bourne monitor
@@onewhosaysgoose4831 Ask the Russians.
Everyone's favorite torpedo boat spotting repair ship must be part of the Elbonian Navy.
Elbonia best answer: Buy one of everything
Ian from Forgotten Weapons was asked which small arms he would employ to sabotage the Elbonian military. Loving the crossover.
@@mphelps1013 which qna was Ian asked?
I heard the french stopped shelling Elbonia when they realized theirs nothing worth destroying....
@@mateusz73 Q&A #40. th-cam.com/video/_19y3ZWCbNc/w-d-xo.html (He then is further brought on as a consultant to fix the problem in Q&A #41).
i love that Cheiftain found my comment on the last QnA that Elbonia is from Dilbert and basically a 4 foot deep mudhole whose sole export is mud.
Now of course, the obvious response is that Elbonia hires Nicholas to fix his sabotage
Aerogavin will never stop being the greatest injoke in the incredibly niche and nerdy rivet counting community.
Bossy bloke called TC is a somewhat flawed form of a reverse camera, a sort of alpha v0.1. They do need bugfixing for "Left! No, your other left!" but in time they get better.
Aren't they supplyed by Microsoft? Because everytime you finaly got them debuged and running well, they are retired and you get a new one...
I use the “No, your other left” a lot on people at work. Surprised how many times people recognise it, rather than “right”.
Especially when they remember they stand backwards. And their left is your right.
We need to follow his suggestion and get Drachnifel and Bismarck on this. For generations we must pass down the Tradgedy of Darth Elbonia the gullible
When are we getting that Chieftain cooking show?
I desire this as well
You should get Babish, of Binging With Babish and Steve and do a day tank driving and tabbing and then set to with some military rations plus Babish
Give your meat a good old rubbin
When you can cook in a tank.
You do know that now you've sabotaged Elbonia, you have to do the follow-up question which is:
"How do you fix all the mistakes made by your incompetent predessor'?
Replace everything with Shermans, people were using them as a farm implement for a time because they were so common
Pray
Start license production of the Centurion MK3, and later the T-54.
Melt the crap your predecessor has bought down into plows.
for 45:20 The compartment for the NBC filter in the Leopard 2, has the perfect size for a box of beer cans.
I was told the same about smoke launchers.
He forgot to mention His Wine bottle storage in the ammo storage tubes.
Not entirely armor-related but then again......the disposable tube for the M/72 SPR (Danish designiation - you know the thing: Remove end-caps and strap, pull to extend tube and sights flip up, fire, then discard). Those (empty) tubes were perfect to store soda, beer or ration tins.
I have even seen such a tube used as an improvised mortar, sending a ration tin of danish meatballs in gravy (with a lit thunderflash inserted) directly into a bivouac, resulting in an almighty bang and covering everyone and everything in said bivouac in something closely resembling an outhouse after an earthquake.
Please do not ask how the tin was launched. Suffice to say that another thunderflash may or may not have been involved in turning the tin of meatballs from handgrenade to mortar bomb. Nor ask how long it took the recipients to clean all their kit (and the rest of the unit to stop laughing at them for being justly, though unconventionally, punished for not leaving the comfort of their bivouac when under attack).
On a side note: The carrying case for two 84mm rockets for the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle is a perfect fit for two 1.25 liter bottles of Coke. Heavy enough that the sergeant didn't notice (which he did if the case was empty) but a damn sight more pleasant to carry around than the two dummy rockets we had to lug when training.
"But what if you had to set up for shooting?" No-one ever cared to look if we inserted a rocket, as long as we took aim and, to indicate firing, threw a thunderflash which were provided to us in handfuls (see above).
The .50 Cal ammo bins in the M60A1 & M60A3 (AKA banana boxes) would fit 2 six-packs in each segment, plus room for ice.
We always put a can with Bockwursts in one the Leopard 2s engine compartments and when we were driving outside for a while we had nice hot Bockwursts :D
The 122mm Ping sound comes from Gaijings using a D-30 122mm howitzer as a sound model.
Ask anyone who operates a D30 and they'll tell you
IIRC it's because of the fact that it's one of the few guns that use a percussion firing system and also a two piece ammunition, meaning you can actually hear the impact of the hammer before the powder detonation.
Or something like that. I'm fuzzy on the details.
The worst crew position in a tank? I would say the "foot amputation" feature in the Valiant tanks drivers position would be a tad uncomfy ;)
That's only because you are still too attached to your feet...
It only bothers you the first time it happens. Afterwards, it's no trouble at all. Also, your fellow crewmen will be happy to lift you in and out of the driver hole, or at least to hand in food and drink at reasonable intervals.
@@Finwolven Well I suffer from sisu (both good and bad) so no worries for me ;) And if my fellow crewmen are Finns I know from experience that I will get nothing to drink because of the GD 5 stages of finnish drunkeness :( (only GD screems of vittu and perkele before they pass out)
The only thing that the Valiant was good for is asking British tankers to name every issue with it.
You just got to _toe_ the line...😉
I think that It’s good that both wot and wt exist because there are people who prefer each
Yup a little something for everybody
And thank god the crappy game exists, because it keeps all the idiots out of the good one.
Yes ...
I had been playing WOT for like 3 years nonstop when i switched to WT (as a nolife addiction game) in 2016 and after being a unicum in wot and "epic" in wt according to thunderskill, both having played for at least a thousand hours..... both game is quite shit. Bugs and balance issues everywhere coupled with pay to win (well at least wot has an endgame content - clan battles which is even ground for everybody)
And also there is the pay to win to the get anywhere aspect of WT, the grind is abysmal - mainly because there is no endgame whatsoever so all there is the grind nothing more.
A 3rd option would be so awesome to have..... can't get myself to start wot again..
I recently gave up on WT as well since Arcade is not fun with carpet bombing no skill heavy bombers everywhere and in RB high tier is dominated with brainless helicopters (which i'm guilty with as well, though it's so boring to play and in the same time ridiculously gamebreaking) - mid tiers would be fun if not for the cold war gokarts ruining every immersion at early ww2 era BRs.
@@catfish552 Not sure which is which
And that boys and girls is exactly how SOI radio security used to work. Before SINCGARS and its later versions PRC-119, we ran wire from howitzers to FDC, and they ran wire out to their antenna relay: upwards of 500 meters (550 yards) worth of wire. Closest guns ran 100'ish meters while furthest closer to 250. And we had were first to start using SINCGARS; first one radio, then both radios. But we still ran wires, just safer. Once we got our Paladins, then the PRC-119s were the main source of fire control. But that was when shoot and scoot became even more a thing: so much so we basically stopped netting up.
Tube arty being obsolete? Someone needs a demonstration.
Amazed that fire extinguishing handles were on the outside as far back as 1940. Excellent addition to my trivia store.
For tanks being used incorrectly, during the gulf war british REME turned their fv434 (a pick up version of the 432 with a crane), into hot tubs.
Minesco2 how is that using it incorrectly...?
@@chrisw6715 yeah, sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of the vehicle to me!
Talking about FV432 series, any use that doesn't mean combat/manuever seems a good idea to me.
I was in the British infantry during the 80's and never once exercised with tanks, we received no training on tank/infantry co-operation.
I actually done 13 full months of recruit training as a 'Junior Leader' from 16yo-17.5yo and nothing was mentioned on the subject during that entire time.
During the first gulf war tanks were simply another callsign on the net and anybody could talk to them.
It actually seemed to work, at least I in my tiny little battlefield bubble was never aware of any problems.
We simply considered them to be another callsign and gave no more thought to talking to them than we did to our own blokes.
In practice and given the expansive terrain we were in the tanks would generally spot baddies before we did given their TI sights and there wasn't much need to give them any TI's.
That would be reversed in urban or wooded or any enclosed terrain.
I left in 2013, as an infantry man in the Yorkshire regiment and I never worked tanks
I was an Australian Army Reserve sapper, junior and senior NCO for 28 years. The only time I worked anywhere near tanks was as an umpire during a multi-national exercise in the Shoalwater Bay training area during May 2000.
I have an extremely important question for you on a topic you brought up.
What is your favorite dinosaur?
I second the motion
Thirded
It's often stated that one of the worst parts about being an adult is that no one cares what your favorite dinosaur is anymore, and damn it, I care.
Judging from the Chieftain's predilection for armor, I'm going to guess Ankylosaurus: the squatty one with the spiky shell, and the club-shaped tail.
when you said dinosaur i start to think of the pilot playing with dinosaurs from that Firefly movie, Serenity.
To answer the signal triangulation question (from a SIGO perspective), this is what I was taught:
Freq Hop can help prevent signal triangulation since the enemy needs to be monitoring a particular frequency to begin the triangulation process and since the radio will just switch frequencies every 1 hundredth of a second the process can barely get started by the time it jumps next. However that said your S6 needs to do their job and ensure that enough frequencies are in the hop set to prevent the radio from constantly jumping to the same frequency (think about only 2 freqs they would effectively be sending out a constant signal). To further mitigate possible triangulation we were suggested to keep transmission short and nonstandard in both duration and timing. But to effectively triangulate a signal you would need to know what frequency to monitor and then do the calculations pertaining to received signal strength from multiple receivers (which can conceivably be done despite freq hop but we considered it unlikely). The antenna placement closer to the unit is more often about laziness and security (smaller perimeter) than being sure they can't triangulate us.
Now for satellite comms that is a different can of worms that could be covered if anyone wants to know.
Oh and this can obviously be expanded upon depending on how technical one wants to get.
Frequency hopping is An invention by Hedy Lamar! In WW2....
Cant speak to ground triangulation much except for the cluggy 1970s device i used once while learning basic search and rescue. You could build a very basic array by just holding up a couple antennas tunned into a couple hundred MHz of where you expect the signal. You will see a power increase across that entire bandwidth, frequncy hop or no. Obviously you now have the problem of picking up a bunch of none target signals meaning you will just locate the strongest one unless you are using a spectrum analyzer, DSP, or somthing els to key in on the signal you want. Which you would do by just aiming the thing around until you found which direction yielded the strongest signal strength. You would basicly need to know the frequncy range and have an idea the signal characteristics of what your looking for. (Bandwidth, Power,etc)
I know space techniques much better having run a couple of those systems.
thanks for the information
So basically once again an issue of getting too comfy in proxy wars where opposition has no resources. Just like how .50 became popular "sniper rifle" in certain place simply because people don't expect to get a 75-150mm in return in case of "real" war.
im a signals guy in the british army. the short answer to the question posed at 53 minutes about how easy it is to direction find a frequency hopping radio with modern kit, is that for a 1st rank army with modern EW kit, its not really any harder than a non frequency hopping radio. for older kit it is somewhat harder but still do-able. your right that its a bit of a hazard putting the antenna next to the HQ, but sometimes its not possible to run them out very far, and like with the "always available drones" you mentioned, people are starting to get used to the sort of fights we have been in for the last 20 years and taking lazy shortcuts.
Finding a frequency hopping radio means detecting a source that's emitting randomly on changing frequency? Or is it possible to track what is being transmitted without knowing the electronic profile of the source.
I've no experience with millitary kit but I'm an comms engineer & I've heard that's it's quite difficult to actually trace a modern software defined LPI radio transmitter unless you've got a decent idea of the emission profile. Kinda like how it's hard to jam an AESA radar without knowing it's profile.
P.S. I know frequency hopping radios have been around for a while, I'm referring to modern ones, not 90s era units - the ones that work as encrypted data-links.
As far as I know, provided you can actually distinguish it from the crowd of cellphone towers & wifi routers that form a cluttered background in most modern scenarios, it's quite difficult to trace without some dedicated platform like an ELINT jet or satellite available.
As far as i know (they haven't briefed me otherwise), if we transmit in range of russain EW, we basically have to assume they heard and know where we are roughly (well enough to cue a drone). the main way we can protect the HQ is to make it hard to tell apart form any of the other small de.
[this is from an article in an IEEE magazine, "Spectrum", from around thirty years ago, that I am unable to reference. My memory may be wrong, but my recollection passes my initial sniff test for plausibility]
An improvement on frequency hopping is "spread spectrum". Spread spectrum radios use a broader range of the spectrum than frequency hopping radios and each frequency channel is narrower. The energy of the signal is spread over a larger range of frequencies, so any given frequency has less wattage transmitted, and each burst of signal at a given frequency is very short in duration. Having a broad band receiver has a better chance of picking up more of the signal, but it will also pick up a lot more noise. The intended receiver has the timing of which frequency to expect the next component of the signal, so a rapidly tuned, narrow band receiver is always listening to the correct frequency, at the correct time. Spread frequency transmissions allow the signal strength to be that much closer to the noise floor, so an eavesdropper that does not know the frequency hopping pattern will have a hard time getting more than static. As the signal appears to be background static, and is not much stronger than background static, it is very hard to triangulate on the signal, without knowing how the transmitter spreads out the signal over the entire spectrum, or listening to the noise for long enough to spot a statistically significant amount of signal to recognize it as not random noise. If the entire comm net is broken up into several sub nets that spread their signals over the same spectrum range, but with different hopping sequences, it is that much harder to isolate a single transmitter.
As a Retired US Army signal guy. Even with advanced EW capabilities. Triangulation of a radios using frequency hopping is near impossible. The reason why is.
Different radio nets use the same hopset data and freq ranges but each net will hop to those freqs at different times. So that a single frequency or even a freq range will look like its jumping all over the battlefield. Keep in mind, a standard US Army radio is capable of handling 1000 different nets using the same hopset data and freq ranges.
Two years later your take on the obsolescence of tube artillery is pretty bang-on. It still seems to be one of the primary weapons of the war in Ukraine, by BOTH sides with the M777 for example seeing it's first real peer-to-peer fight. By all accounts they seem to be giving a good account of themselves, even if the HIMARS have stolen the limelight from them.
I've been scouring university after university for a professor who can give me a little bit of information about Elbonia. I've literally driven thousands of miles to meetings with these professors only for them to end inconclusive. I have a trip planned next month for the army museum in Paris just so I can figure something out about this place. I'm astounded at how well versed Ian is in firearms history. He's so well read/educated in the subject that he has a pretty good knowledge of a country's small arms history and I (and several professors) can't even find where it used to exist on the map. Hopefully my coming trip to Paris will finally bear fruit as this has been the most expensive and time consuming research projects in my life so far
I'm pretty sure your comment is entirely a joke, but for the unitiated, Elbonia is a fictional military dictatorship & fictional country from the farside comics.
@@petlahk4119 Elbonia is in "Dilbert", isn't it? They appear on one of my Dilbert book collections. It's been a long time since I saw any of the "Far Side" comics, but I don't remember seeing them at all in there.
@@PaperclipClips You're right, it's Dilbert, my bad.
@@petlahk4119 All good! 🙂👍
@@petlahk4119wow, thank God you pointed that out. It was way too hard to just look that up on Google.
You don't do "humor", do you?
Man, I love the gusto and enthusiasm thrown into the Elbonia part. Probably one of the funniest running gags in recent memory and The Chieftain did not disappoint!
1:10:33 Churchills a surprise to the Germans - From the various sources I've read the Germans were mainly surprised at the small gun in a heavy tank, as well as several other things about it that underwhelmed them. I do know they were shocked and horrified at how well the Churchills could climb a slope in Tunisia.
If you can find a copy of Heimdal's Raid de Dieppe p.290-311 has all kinds of pics of the Germans recovering Churchills lost on the Dieppe Raid and conducting some evaluations of them. It also has some of their tech evaluation notes.
Post WWII 90mm as used on the M48, and maybe the M47 before it, was a higher power round than WWII guns. The charge could fit in the original WWII 90mm case but to avoid loading the higher pressure round in the older TD 90mm guns and M26 guns, the new case had a slightly different shoulder dimension to purposely make it not fit the older chambers.
Chieftain bazooka plates when lowered horizontal to the ground can be used as a place to use your double burner petrol cookers and prepare food, the eyelets on the outsides used to attach live cam can also be used a bottle openers, on the rear of the tank often steel mesh was welded or bolted to the bins so you could carry oil containers freeing up space in the turret basket for other things
It's so nice to see the Elbonia-stuff between you and Ian. Loving it!
Good to see Elbonia is expanding into tanks now.
Anyone else notice that Chieftain almost looks like a unicorn with the 20mm round behind his head here?
I've already asked Drak to do the Elbonia navy (along with someone else on the same video). Let's hope he picks my question!
So did I. The more the better, I say. :D
How can a Elbow have a Naval?
Who is going to do the airforce?
@@viking1236 Bismark from Military Aviation History Channel would be the obvious candidate.
@@viking1236 HushKit did something along these lines a bit ago for the airforce. Picked an upgunned B-17 as their escort fighter 😂.
Have you played Squad or Post Scriptum? Your comment on the lack of infantry in war thunder suggests you may enjoy it.
try hell let loose
He will probably go mad about the fact that all the late war german tanks have rotating periscopes although they realy shouldnt have and the fact that the german tanks have gunners periscopes at all (none had gunners periscopes)
Add to that the fact that the M4 Sherman has the same ammount of gun depression as the Sherman firefly, the U.S. tanks dont get gyroscopic stabilisors, the U.S. are forced to use the sherman fireflys on a lot of maps and the armor mechanics are v e r y b a s i c and you will probably end up with a 1/2 hour rant.
@@jakobc.2558 All fair points, but I'm not sure there are really any comparable games. (Hell let loose to an extent but I don't think the devs have the same image for their games) He would certainly have to get over the inaccuracies.
On the note of squad, I think we are far more likely to get a 1 hour rant on the fact that none of the map would ever have tanks deployed to them in the first place xD
@@freppie_ Have it, would love it, but my gaming rig can't handle it... Check it's steam discussion to see how many people are having massive trouble with it's optimization. Seems to effect nvidia cards most.
@@chrysler5thavenue822 That's weird, must be VRAM hungry cause my old RX580 runs it on maxed out settings no problem, but it has 8gb of VRAM despite being a cheap and lower power card.
In regards to using things in ways they were not intended:
In the Battlefield tv series, theres a scene in the North Africa one of a German crewman pouring cooking oil on the super hot side armor and using it to cook eggs for breakfast.
I would love to see the whole elbonia question put into a single video with everyone's response
53:09 Yes you can triangulate on a broad spectrum antenna. How ever, it's not easily done. It requires a broad spectrum receiver that specifically looking for a single source with constant power output. Encryption of the signal is not an issue as what your looking for is an RF emitter. How ever broad spectrum transmission can be very directional, and due to it's nature tends to actually use less actual broadcast power for the signal as the date is digital and sent in multiple packets (the ask me 3 times packet.. once the minimum number of data packets that have passed their CRC check are received the data is decrypted and is now usable.) Signal security in the modern era is a trivial exercise but masking the actual signal origin is more problematic. Even today if facing a first world military I would not mount a command posts or control centers antenna next to my CP! I think we've gotten a tad lazy.
With things like FFT and time difference between 3 antennae, you can pinpoint any emitter. Technically you would only need two, if you know roughly, where the enemy is. Especially if a Headquarters unit is regularly using their radio, it would be easy to pinpoint that emitter.
Rather than lazy, i would bet ont complacent, why would rig your systems covering more distance and use more cable if it's no use, just like the lack of mobile AA vehicles and MANPADS on the US army
Really sounds like complacency to me after reading this. The US Army hasn't fought or thought about fighting an enemy with this capability in some time so the practice has dwindled
As I mentioned above, FH broad-band DF has been reality since the 1950s. Computers are wonderful things. The “wild weasels” plan to counter FH Radar sets... a tactical FM radio is even easier. The main reason we don’t push the use of remotes is the aging out of GRA-39s and slow (or lack of) replacement. Can’t use what you don’t have.
I was an employee of AmTrak..was conductor for a couple of years. The last thing I will ever do is play a train sim lol 😀
"FOLLOW MY TRACERS!"
That's what I was thinking.
Watch my tracers?
"he's shooting at scraps of metal"
“Heavy tank for Elbonia. . . . Black Prince”! HOW DID I KNOW HE WAS GONNA SAY THAT!!!! LOL 😆
Great Q&A as always! Get some rest and we'll see you in-game!
Sabotage Elbonia: French tanks for everyone! Use R35 for each role.
Char 2C
Nonsense, this is better:
TRUBIA NAVAL PROGRAM.
1-Pick a tracktor.
2-Stick an armored casemate on top.
3-Add one man turret.
4-Driver also mans hull machinegun.
5-Heavy oil cooling(Engine will suffer)
6-in case of need it can be used as conventional tracktor.
Just barely above the bob semple.
@@esejony65 But you have to pick a convincing piece. Preferably an amazing one yet with 3-4 (or more) less know unacceptable design flaws. Bob Semple won't do.
But I have to admit since your comment I want a Trubia Naval Program beast more than to own a BMP1 (the one with the turret and 73 mm of course).
@@esejony65 Or better yet, add 5 one man MG turrets
@@kcole-xi9km even better, those 5 turrets would be like in the Trubia A4 plit in 2 rings in the middle with one MG for each ring.
1 Turret
1 Gunner
2 Rings
2 MG
Puts those french 1Man turrets to shame.
battleships for the aircore....gonna be a hard sell. and a night mare if they accully make it fly
I'm pretty sure it's called Air Corps, but i agree with you regardless
@@kerotomas1 And a nightmare to actually spell
It's air corp, marine corp.
It's French, p is silent.
@@MrGreghome so is the S
On restoration with upgraded materials, there are several paragraphs in a book I have on the SdKfz 2 kleines Kettenkraftrad talking about the transmission gears, which were made out of aluminum, and as a result had an ongoing problem with chewing up gear teeth and spitting them out, noting that replacement gears made out of proper steel displayed none of these problems and made the transmission immensely more reliable. Since a replacement of this type will not be noticed barring a metallurgical analysis of components, I agree with your opinion that having a _functional_ restored vehicle that is not so slavishly restored as to replicate the period maintenance problems is better than one where the restoration facility gets to demonstrate the severely labor-intensive maintenance requirements, too.
Concerning why you no longer needed the older steel AP-variant (AP, APC, APHE, etc.) your description nailed it (very good for such a short discussion!!). You stated the the British were one of the first to decide that solid shot was better than an HE-filled shell due to weakness in the shell and somewhat lower total weight (less kinetic energy needed to get enough punch at a given striking velocity).
This was NOT true with the post-WWI British Navy, though. They seem to have been so stung by the Battle of Jutland statement "There is something wrong with our ships today!" that they decided after WWI that their new post-WWI anti-armor ammo -- APC (12" and larger guns) and SAP/SAPC (6" and 8" guns, respectively) -- would be made to remain intact and "fit to burst" against the widest range of armors and impact angles EVEN IF THE SHELLS HAD INFERIOR PENETRATION ABILITY DUE TO THIS!!
Against other ships with armor up to about as thick as the diameter of the British shell (such as Krupp KC n/A of 320-350 mm (12.6-13.8") -- waterline belt and main turret face of BISMARCK -- the British new 1590-pound 14" Mark IB N.T. APC shell would work properly and stay intact (for the most part) if it penetrated with some excess velocity (barely penetrating hits were a problem for all ammunition of all nations), allowing proper post-penetration HE filler explosion deep inside the target. Such a filler effect was needed, since otherwise it would be like firing a BB gun at a tank -- even if it penetrated the armor, damage chance would be iffy. However, the British went too far in this by making their shell middle and lower body only about HALF AS HARD as most other nations did, so the shell bent into a banana against armor much thicker than that, especially at any significant angle from square-on. In post-WWII test against the US Navy equivalent, the 1500-pound 14" Mark 16 MOD 8 AP (it had a cap; the US Navy did not use the term "APC"), on hitting 13.5" US Navy Class "A" (face-hardened) and Class "B" (homogeneous, ductile) armor at 30 degrees from right-angles, the British shells were about as good as the US shells (a great compliment!), but when the armor was raised to 17.5" Class "A" (SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA barbettes) or 18" Class :B: (same ships' turret faces), the British shells bent as noted, had their tips broken off, and only made dimples in the armor under 12" deep -- it was decided not even to try to find out what it would take to get them to penetrate. The US shells went through with some damage at extrapolated velocities with no degradation due to the higher thickness hit.
Against the YAMATO Class, these British shell designs would have been very poor, even with their larger, but similar, British 15" and 16" WWII APC ammo.
Are you the same Nathan Okun I read all the time on navweaps?
@@LovableCoolGuy Yes, I am. I have finished (I HOPE!) my major study on face-hardened armor (there are still areas that I am not completely clear on or have had to "guestimate" from indirect evidence, of course, but my estimates are mostly not too far off the mark I believe) -- the BASIC program FACEHARD Version 8.0 (80th revision) -- and am trying to get some idea of the effects of blunting or elongating the Tangent Ogive nose of an intact uncapped AP from a hemisphere (Radius of Ogive 0.5 caliber) to a long US Army M2 0.5" AP bullet core (roughly a 4.0-caliber-radius Tangent Ogive nose shape) against homogeneous, ductile armor, compared to my standard projectile, the WWII US Army 15-lb 76.2 mm M79 AP Shot projectile (1.67-caliber-radius Tangent Ogive nose). Elongating the nose from the M79 medium-blunt point shaope has only a rather small effect, but blunting the nose has a major effect, especially against oblique targets at 45 degrees angle or more. Interestingly, though, the major effect of blunting is to make it MORE DIFFICULT to penetrate if the plate is very thin and LESS DIFFICULT against thick plates above 45 degrees, but a much reduced effect at under 45 degrees, pivoting with minimal effect against half-caliber-thick plates in either case. For even blunter noses, the M79 penetration computations in HCWCLC with no nose covering input begin to rapidly fail completely as bluntness increases, as my two flat-nose and tapered-flat-nose programs show. This study is very incomplete at the moment, however. If you flow-chart the various computer programs that I have at NAVWEAPS.COM (BASIC is very much like English in its commands and is easy to learn) and carefully study the tables and formula used, you will know on a mathematical level as much as I do now about this subject.
easy answer for the Elbonia question: Bob Semple Tank
Chieftan ...do you think you have enough plugged into that wall socket :D
The Aero-Gavin xD you said it so casually, I had to scroll back and hear it again. I love your dry humor :'D
Multiple calibers of the same name (time mark 1:09:35) this was the same reason the M-40 (*a 105mm recoilless rifle*) was listed as having 106mm ammunition to prevent the accidental loading of this new round in the older M-27, also a 105mm recoilless rifle which would result in "Bad things happening"... +_+
I know I heard that artillery question before and I think that was reference was to the InrangeTV May 2020 Q&A at 26:58. I posted a comment there stating that many of the accuracy advantages that missiles give you are being added to tube artillery even to the point that man-portable mortars are now able to fire guided rounds so you have a cheaper thing that does 90% of what the more expensive thing does and that nothing says you can't fire a rocket out of an artillery gun tube.
A counter example is the 8" (?) gun on the Zumwalt destroyers. Uses a non-standard 8" round, so they can't just buy army ammo. The precision guided rounds cost $800,000 each, almost as much as a Tomahawk, so they never produced any; that gun on those destroyers is literally useless. And why you'd want such a short range weapon when Tomahawks are just as precises with a, what, 100 x warhead, and cost only a little more, is beyond me.
Apparently when I was in the 3/35 Armored Battalion in Bamberg I was so screwed. Not only did we have the M114A1E1 ( who knew that a 283 in a 7 ton tracked vehicle would be under powered, and that have the pointy nose sticking out in front of the tracks would dig into ditch sides ) but the platoon sgt's M113 was usually pulling around a wheeled trailer.
But then again, after putting down a half dozen liter mugs full of the best beer in the world, who cared?
Rauchbier! Loved that stuff when I visited Bamberg. Beautiful town too!
As I understand the current favored engine swap is for an LS 🙄
You seem chipper. Vacation hit the spot, it seems. :)
Sidenote, best tank game is of course Abrams Battle Tank, 1988, MS-DOS/Megadrive.
I had that, actually.
Strange you mention about guns and the time lapse in getting use to the idea, it took me about 3 years stop waking up in squaddie mode when I left the British army in 97
I can hear water trickling, have you got a fish tank in that room ?
I do. I usually turn it off for recording, forgot on this run
@@TheChieftainsHatch what kinds of fish have you got :)
incontinence is an issue as we age ;)
@@rodroper211 Especially when you spend an hour and a quarter listening to a video with running water in the background. :)
Ah, I was trying to figure it out during most of the video and now I have my answer.
The Elbownian monetary unit is the “funnybone.” It’s three funnybones to the ruble.
Didn't Dogbert say it was 'eye crud' in on of the comics?
As for artillery being obsolete, Nammo just demonstrated ramjet assisted artillery shells (June 2022). They are developing guided shells that can be fired from any 155mm artillery and hit targets 80-150 kms away.
I clicked this video and didn't realize at first it was two years old. Still a fascinating discussion, and now with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine the question about the Tank vs Infantry anti-tank and artillery being obsolete has shown that Chieftain's answers were pretty much spot on.
"Ford vs. Holden" - your commonwealth is showing ;)
Everyone knows the answer is Holden. Barra engined things excepted.
What Commonwealth ? Don't think Nicolas is anywhere near old enough to have been even born in the British Commonwealth ...🙂🙂
@@eastcorkcheeses6448 I don't think we need get into that. I ave bad memories of getting pigeon holed in NUIG student accommodation while viciously drunk on bucky.
Falcon all the way👍
Why compromise....i want them both RIP Holden and Ford Falcon
Ford versus Holden? Gotta love some left field Aussieness, there Mr Chieftain!
More like Ford vs. General Motors Holden. Most Aussies could not place Detroit, Michigan on a map. Or, pick out Secretary Robert McNamara from a photo. Which says a damn lot. 🇺🇸
Odd trick I heard from someone serving in the german Bundeswehr in the 90s: The ABC filter housing of Leopard 1 based tanks is exactly the right size to fit 2 5x5 boxes of half liter cans of your prefered drink. And the ventilation system will cool them down quite nicely.
The US submariners discovered that you could stuff a 12pack of soda cans into the ventilation system and they'd be nicely cooled by the time you were wanting one.
Very much enjoyed the war game discussion! Remember folks it's a game, it's art, the idea is to have fun!
For Albonia: your reasoning on the heavy tank choice, you may have chosen a somewhat good tank despite the flaws, but you could relegate it to being your personal bodyguard/vanguard detachments. If you're going to be corrupt, you may as well get the top of the line protection solely for your personal uses, right?
Did WWII tankers use any sort of hearing protection, either standard issue or homemade? What is the risk of hearing loss/damage vs other troops for modern tankers?
To a degree most tankers had some kind of ear protectors US and Soviet tankers had helmets with flaps that covered the ears, German and British tankers wore just headphones.
Even with my Warrior headset my hearing took a beating after almost daily patrols for just under seven months solid. My radio was volume three at start of tour and at Max by end. Hearing comes back though once away from loud noise for a few months.
Hey Chieftain! Sgt. Loera from 185 AR. Good to see ya brother!
I was a school trained Field Radio Operator back in the mid to late 1970's when I was in the Marines. We were able to use remote units to place the radio and antenna up to 2 miles from the CP. We were also told that the commo wire (we called it "slash wire") had to be burried as it too put out enough EM energy to be located by the enemy. Just FYI. Mike S.
always a joy to watch, thanks a lot!
Q: The post-war JGSDF evaluated US tank designs and decided to create their own Tank as the typical Japanese soldiers at the time simply was too short. How did other Asian militaries like the Vietnamese or the Koreans deal with this? Stilts?
regards Sebastian
The Japanese soldiers are to small to use X America weapon or vehicle was mostly used as a argument by the JSDF and the conservative part of the Japanese government to justify the more expensive domestic production of weapons and vehicles. Vietnamese tankers just make due and south koreans made due until they could afford to set up there own production of tanks.
@@jasonirwin4631 thanks for the thought. That sounds plausible, however also not as fun ;)
@@jasonirwin4631 honestly, no nation should be without the capability to produce their own armaments. Particularly small arms, but also armored vehicles.
1:03:21 Oh! Oh! I can actually sort of answer this one, because I can fill in from the automotive side of things regarding automatic transmissions.
Chieftain is pretty much right on the money here. During the rise of the tank to eminence, the automatic transmission was pretty new, and was considered even by most automotive manufacturers to be overly complex, and therefore less reliable (more parts means more points of failure). Combine this with the power output and general abuse that tanks are prone to, and any automatic of the era would likely have been viewed as too fragile because of all the added complexities.
And really, this would ring true even for automotive transmissions until the 1970s; automatics were generally only on entry-level base models or luxury cars that didnt concern themselves with high-performance. The widespread adoption of automatics wouldn't happen until in the 80s, when carmakers had finally decided that autos were worth putting enough money into for engineering them; by then they were desirable in applications of near-constant use and high-abuse, like motorhomes/RVs, and light commercial vans (Ironically this meant that while the infamous nonsense car that is the 1989 Vector W8 had a 1,200bhp engine, it was mated to a 3-speed auto out of a motorhome; there wasnt a mass-produced manual manufactured in the US that could be adapted into that application and be able to take that much power without permanently welding the clutch to the flywheel every time you put your foot into it).
The truth is we just havent picked a new tank since before the military thought of automatics as being resilient and reliable enough to be used in a tank. Its pretty much just that, as far as I can tell. (at least in the US, I wouldnt claim to be an expert on Europe; my only speculation would be that manuals themselves are still very popular in Europe as a whole)
I Europe manulas are still more popular than automatics. Reasons: cost, fuel consumption (we are very sensitive) - and manual shifting is not considered to be a problem or discomfort in small cars. On the other hand, big cars, buses and vehicles like this are usually equipped with automatic gearboxes. Because they is no significant difference in money or fuel. And they are more fool proof (operator fault tolerant) which can be andvantage in big vehicles.
The drone conversation was very interested in hindsight after the events since this video.
I've scrolled down the comments a ways and haven't seen anyone else mentioning it, so here goes: I really appreciated the "Elbonia vs. Kneebonia" joke.
I didn't invent it. It's all part of the Dilbert environment.
@@TheChieftainsHatch It's been so long since I immersed myself in the actual lore (i.e. read Dilbert) that I'd forgotten. It's still a great joke, though.
Thought regarding Tube Artillery vs Missiles: as active missile defence systems become both more common and better, surely tube artillery is going to become more effective rather than less.
With military technology there tends to be a see-sawing motion between offensive and defensive capabilities. One side creates a new weapon system, which rules the battlefield until a defence is created, then you're forced to create a new weapon system to overcome the new defence and so on.
For example: WWI was in part a defensive stalemate till the invention of the tank. The tank then took over the reins till the effective use of aircraft and missile system. Aircraft and missiles for a time threaten the very existence of both tanks and warships (those not part of an Carrier Group), but now missiles are being countered by anti-missile technology, be that some form of interceptor or ECW.
Going back to the original subject, shells have the advantage of basically being too simple to be stopped by active defences, though it would be interesting to see what effect they would have on a shell....
In my opinion, as missile defence tech continues to get better, I can see tube artillery once again coming to the fore, both on land and on sea (perhaps even some form of modern battleship with both guns and missiles). What will be interesting to see is what will happen with aircraft as missiles become easier to kill.
Hacking is another thing. THe switch back to dumb weapons that do not have a computing system that is hackable will be nessessary at some point (probably already now, but, it is not realized yet).
The tube artillery is a hell of alot cheaper.
Good afternoon Chieftain, ref your signals question. I can confirm you are correct that Feq Hopping and encryption will not not protect you from being DFed by an enemy EW asset. The only real option are to: 1, remote your antenna with coax (potentially of limited value as with coax you can only remote so far due to loss over distances). 2, remote a platform/vehicle with fiber (this assumes that your platforms have that capability) 3, use counter EW techniques such as screening and electronic attack. Hope that sheds some light on your comms question.
LOL. From a former 'crunchie' thanks for putting some rounds down range at what we were shooting at. I never knew (and still don't) quite how limited you FoV was, but a 120 even in the general direction was much appreciated.
For off label use of military equipment I'm going with using a M-1917 machine gun to heat water for coffee. I had teacher in jr high school that claimed that they did so during the Korean War.
@@mojopin2520 If it's -30°C and you are freezing, didn't have anything warm to drink for 3 days and been living on hard tack and corned beef - aka shit on a shingle - for 2 weeks, would you even notice?
@@Bird_Dog00 you would just be grateful its warm 🤮
Heard in Italy troops would drain the anti freeze from a Jeep but in water run the Jeep until the water was hot. Used for bathing
If the M-1917 works the same way as most water-jacketed recoil-operated machine guns, there would have been water-proof gaskets at both ends where the barrel pierced the jacket since the barrel had to be able to move back and forth. Due to the high temperature of the barrel, these couldn't be rubber; at least in Maxims they were usually greased asbestos tape. I would expect at least some less-than-delicious taste from the grease. I'd also question whether they would have had time to take a coffee break if the action was so intense that they had to shoot off enough ammo to get the water boiling in the first place.
I can't wait to see Elbonia's air force.
I love the fact that the Chieftain answered a question about Elbonia! 😁😂
As an RF Trans troop from the Air Force I can give you some insights on your radio question. Frequency hopping has less to do with eavesdropping and more to do with anti-jamming. Basically you jump over such a wide range of frequencies that it is almost impossible to jam unless they use a TON of power to just block out a ton of frequencies. As to detecting radio signals you are correct. You can use a simple Yagi antenna to see where a signal is coming from and then call in any amount of firepower to turn it off. When it comes to not wanting the other guy listening you have encryption. In WW2 the most famous case of this were the Windtalkers who used coded phrases spoken in Navajo, a language that we figured the Japanese didn't know how to speak, and that code remained unbroken for quite a while. Modern techniques basically garble up your message in flight and you need a ungarbler on the other end to decode and give you the message plain text, i.e. unencoded.
Poor Elbonia, dodgy guns and dodgy vehicles. Turns out their biggest export is treachery! D:
47:30 That issue is as old - if not older - as the ancient Greek civilization, look up: Ship of Theseus thought experiment
We used to do the block of wood under ramp trick on the M113 as well.
Also, as the driver of the M113 our Platoon Sergeant would ride in during field training, I would often not be able to sleep in the vehicle as he and my squad lead would claim it. This was not an issue in the nicer months of the year, as I preferred to sleep outside on the roof, or unfold a litter and sleep on that. But during the winter, I found on top of the radiator to be an excellent place to sleep. You just had to be careful of the exhaust for the heater if the guys inside turned it on. It was very near where your feet would be, and could burn a hole in your sleeping bag if you weren't careful (ask me how I know this).
Before driving the M113, I spent some time as the Platoon Sergeant's HMMWV driver and found the flat spot on the hood, just in front of the windshield to be an excellent winter sleeping spot. It would be warm from the days use, and when the SFC inside would start the truck to run the heater at night, you would get some additional warmth at night.
36 people didn't like this. Perhaps it was a significant emotional event for them.
"Ford vs Holden" . Where the hell did that come from ?!
Are you a closet Vegemite eater ?
Australian bogans are an important youtube audience demographic.
@chris younts The Commodores with Chevy badges get to live-on. The rest will be send to the crushers.
Commodores: mobile staffy kennels
More like Ford vs. General Motors Holden. Most Aussies could not place Detroit, Michigan on a map. Or, pick out Secretary Robert McNamara from a photo. Which says a damn lot. 🇺🇸
44:16 The early Bradley's trim vane when fully extended (as if you're opening the engine cover for PMCS) made a great sleeping platform for one, or if everyone reclined against the front slope with legs on the platform a la LaZBoy could fit three comfortably.
When playing WOT your videos help sooo much the 30 second load in the camping waiting ... the pre-aimming and waiting ... some time I for get the game (BAD ..-) as your content is more interesting ... perfect compliment (+ some whisky) .... crap credits bonus activated most get back to WOT .. bane of my life . . I hate it love it spend too much on it .. Seriously Wargaming Chieftain .. compliments you game so well ... (All his videos) ...
I genuinely enjoyed hearing your opinion of War Thunder, which is my favorite of the games. To each their own, but it feels the most intense and realistic (in a sense) to me!
This response is puzzling to me, tbh, war thunder ground is very interesting for history buffs. Maybe he didn't want to have to grind all of that tree to get to fun stuff? If one might guess it being a competitor that has been cutting to WOT in general made that worse? I have played more wot than anything, and never really stuck with GF until recently, as it seems to be well polished at this point, whereas it had been generally terrible in the earlier days, so I would bet his sampling came during the older days too.
Hey Chieftain another awesome vid, can I ask a question about a topic not often talked about? In 1986 when the Abrams was introduced it was found that the then current fleet of Oshkosh M911's couldn't handle the weight of the new tank, this seems like a major design oversight that shouldn't have been made, can you give us some insight as to how Armies, especially the US army, acquire associated logistics vehicles?
Well when you need a new badass tank to take on the Ruskies but you don't feel like taking a risk with congress you maybe "overlook" some things that might add associated costs to the program. Once it's approved then you go back and cry about how you totally just realized you need new trucks to carry them.
Better to look incompetent and get what you need than be honest and risk the politicians getting squirrely about the price and force you to procure a less capable vehicle. (at least in the case of the Abrams... with other programs that justification might not be rational, but that's why you can get away with pretending to be incompetent because so many of your peers in procurement actually are).
@@MrMattumbo Story I heard, years ago, on how the Chair Force and the Navy build airbases.
The Navy builds hangers, all the take off/landing strips and the required admin spaces. Then come the BOQ's, Officer's Mess, and the finer things for the higher ups. When it comes to the BEQ's, and recreation activities for the enlisted, they run out of money. And, they go back to Congress to ask for more. They are asked "Is the base functional," and answer "Yes." And so no more funds are given.
The Air Force starts the other way around. And, when they are asked "Is the base functional," and it isn't, they are given further funds to make up the difference.
@@dropdead234 The Chair Force knows their higher standard of living is what keeps the recruits flowing in (and the jokes) so they make sure to con congress into providing it. The other branches could learn a thing or two from them in that regard lol.
This is actually an interesting question probably deserving of a specific answer. I'm not going to get to it on the next Q&A, but remind me on the next video comments, will you?
Incredible Discussion
Beautiful Trivia
Amazing Nerdiness
Great Talks
Thank You Good Man
Sir this is why you are the go to expert. 2 plus years latter and the fighting in the Ukraine has generally proven your predictions on Drones over conventional arty to be correct.
After being disappointed by WoT (a tank themed 3rd person shooter) I was pleasantly surprised by WT.
I'd say arcade game is the wrong description.
It's not an arcade game nor is it a simulator.
"Health Points" on tanks just rubs me the wrong way
Putting a round through a machine gun port and into ammo storage is just fun.
When the Germans met the Churchill at dieppe they thought it was some old design we were using up.. they just didn't get the design concept... of mobility and heavy frontal armour
I heard the same thing.
you mean "lack of mobility"
@Aaron Davies Yes, the Churchill came before the Tiger I, however, it was a response to mainly French heavy tanks like the Char 1B, which the Germans had trouble fighting during the Invasion of France. They wanted something better armored and better armed and the Tiger I was the result of that effort. However, by the time of the Dieppe Raid in 1942 the first Tiger 1 started series production, so it was less of a response to the Churchill. By that time the Germans also had encountered tanks like the KV-1 and KV-2 in the Soviet Union and were aware of the need of guns and ammuition that could deal with such tanks, hence the L43 and L48 versions of the 75 mm gun on the Panzer IV and the 88 mm guns on the Tigers for example.
"they just didn't get the design concept... of mobility and heavy frontal armour"
Mobility? Mobility was mediocre at best and the armour wasn't even particularly good because it still utilised a chassis to which the plates were bolted/welded, sometimes leading to entire plates being pushed inwards.
@@Schnittertm1 incorrect tbh German Heavy Tank Program was already underway before that did accelerate it yes but it wasnt the cause of the Heavy Tank Program
Amateur radio operator here (just a technician, so not an expert) but you should be able to locate the source of a radio signal even if it's signal hopping, though i would expect it to be much harder. AFAIK no receiver can listen to multiple frequencies at the same time so a change in frequencies will make it slower and harder to triangulate (you could probably make an array to listen to a wide range of signals, but you'd end up with something like the VHF moon bounce antenna's i expect). While a singular source could be locked down with directional antennas scanning multiple frequencies and with extra time and difficulty, when you add a battlefield of signals the problem ends up being "How do you know this is the signal you're looking for vs some other signal?" I think there is also a possible technical issue here in that another comment mentioned changing frequencies every 1/100th of a second, so to scan this down without a lot of time and dumb luck you would have to have a receiver that can scan through the range of possible frequencies within that time.
Give the HAM community a target and a reason to "fox hunt" this signal, and they'd do it eventually, and probably faster than you'd expect.
The casual aerogavin reference was fantastic
Would it be possible for you to do a video on the U.S. M114. When I was stationed in Germany during the early 1970’s we had a few with an armored unit in our battalion. I never hear any thing about. Yea, they were small and cute and all but useless but it would be nice to know more about them.
SPG? Sturmtiger! Massively powerful weapon - but 14 rounds and needs a crane plus all 5 crew to resupply
That ambush story made my day! I want to hear the full story, if there's anything else of course
Thanks for your response I should have recalled the differences, down here Sqns are commanded by Maj (if qualified). On leaving my Sqn Comd I was presented an unused (and empty) 76mm shell by my Sqn.
The Germans first met the Churchill at Dieppe and were less than impressed. They thought it old fashioned. Who could blame them for that.
The 2 pounder and 6 pounders were excellent anti-tank guns, what on earth posessed the British to use them as tank guns? That idea should not have passed the paper napkin stage. They could have used the M1897. Perhaps with a slightly longer barrel. After all they did use it as an anti-tank gun.
When reading the first part of the Wikipedia article it is with mounting disbelief.
They were desperate to get the tank out and likely other guns were in limited supply then they focus so much on AT performance that they lost sight of the bigger threats and targets, AT guns and infantry.
All the British tank guns in WW2 had very small HE package compare to comtemporaries( if they even made the damn thing that is, one of those had no HE shell in produxtion) significantly reduce their effectiveness.
So Churchill, an infantry tank, need to use its anemic HE Shells and MG to fend off infantry. No wonder Germans weren't impressed.
@@huntermad5668 the Mark I Churchill came with a howitzer in the hull.