If you have any myths you would like to see covered, leave them in a comment. I really enjoy making this video type but I'm not great at finding them myself.
@@Christian-bz2cn Thats not a myth lol. Also these 5 or so minute long videos I think are great. It isn't filled with boring stuff, it just has what is necessary, plus the perfect amount to make in very informative.
*Facepalm* Germans: "We are forgetting where we put our own mines." Soviets: "We forget you is dead or injured or missing and ignore it." Italiens: "We forget how morale and combat works." US Army: "..... We forgot a big ass Tank in a open field behind a single small bush...."
I don't think they reverted as much as they streamlined it, I mean, it was only a text message, and we already have two, one for non pen ( AKA everything that isn't bouncing off ) and one for bouncing, why would they make one specifically for shell shattering?
@@dimitarkondev5522 Wait that's a thing? also while im here anyone know what "ammunition load detonated" means the explosion that accurse is never near the ammo racket.
True, normally in combat you wouldn't even see light tank rush ahead of they enemy and kill them, games make people learn where to shoot, where to go tactically and Etc. in real life, it's more like "Shoot center mass until they Die".
Well that's because in real life if u penetrate a tank crew would just escape while in games they will act more like robots who don't care about their life, also real life engagements were usually at larger range than in games. When it comes to shooters it's a similiar problem most games don't consider that if u get hit in the center mass by a shot fired from assault rifle and the bullet is stopped by a vest it's still a huge impact that will make u defensless. The only game i remember that made it a factor for AI controlled enemies atleast was Max Payne 3.
@@Mason1968PL idk engagement in-game seems pretty accurate for some scenarios. Some actions happen alot around the 2k range which makes sense. Most 3k+ engagements are hard to come by because of terrain and you most likely won't see the enmy that far due to slopes and hills.
General: Where is the T28 soldier? Soldier: I don`t know sir, we lost it in open field! General: How, the fuck, do you lose a big and fat tank in open field?! Meanwhile the T28, just chillin behind a bush for decades: Nah, I`m good, I definitly don`t need to be rescued.
I'm not even playing war thunder anymore, it's not enjoyable, but I swear that I could watch any of your videos anytime. Idk it's rly calmly and informative. Keep going man you're doing great!
The M4 was equipped with the 75mm as the gun was effective at anti tank work but also had an effective HE shell which is an important fact people forget, they picked the gun that was good a both over one which gave a trade of like the British 6 pounder The US made tanks where meant to fight everything you'd find on the battlefield. I had to explain the whole shot trap thing to someone in one of your comments sections.
Do people not realize that the M3 75mm cannon on the sherman was specifically chosen for its anti tank capabilities and that they have no problem against panzer 3s and panzer 4s, I think it gets this reputation of being a low velocity when it when against tigers and panthers
Seeing how the US Army only encountered the Tiger a handful of times and thought the Panther was a heavy tank it makes sense. Why make a gun that is overkill when you have something that works just fine against what you think you are going to fight? After they figured out that Panther wasn't a heavy tank that was going to be rarely encountered they deployed the 76mm gun and began work on Pershing.
It's because when it comes to WW2, for whatever reason it is always the top german piece of equipment that is compared against. Comparing the KGV class battleships of the Royal Navy V the Bismarck - yeah sure, but there were only two Bismarks built to 5 KGVs. You can gush over the STG-44 as much as you like, but they only made over 400,000 of them for an army of millions. These comparisons that get made without the context are just silly, children arguing over superheroes.
Yes the thing was its was an all rounder workhorse tank the Sherman but by being that way the standard sherman's didn't excel in anything specifically. But it didn't need to be because the Big German cats were too few in number to make a difference. so the majority of german panzers it fought were either on par or weaker than the Sherman. even the late war panzer 4hs weren't that much better protected than the sherman. there armour was better but not enough to make huge difference as 80mm of flat steel from add on plates is not the same as 80mm of sloped frontal armour the panther had. so even at decent ranges the sherman could pen a Panzer 4 h frontally without having to get too close. The Panzer 3 Ls and M models just barely had enough fire power to even damage the sherman with there long 50mms but the sherman had sloped frontal armour to but to lesser extent but still a 50mm gun is going to struggle against 50mm of angled steel because its like going through 100mm of flat steel in effectiveness roughly or bit less. But if the armour thickness or effectivness is greater than the round hitting it the round won't pen. Not to say that the l60 50mm couldn't defeat the sherman but it was kind of crap shoot at that point if were to penetrate at all. So it wasn't so much that sherman was shit it was just the panzers that came later were on whole other level of destructive capability. Like the average tank of any nation would be woefully inferior to a panther or tiger in a 1 on1 engagement. But the shermans speed and numbers allowed them to swarm and flank these new panzers from the sides and rear. also the standard sherman could hold its own against german assault guns like the Stug. and when the stugs were used as puesdo tanks in offensives especially in urban fights the sherman had major advantage of having a turret and better agility. The stug had turn its entire self to engage enemies do it being a fixed gun also fixed gun assault guns have less visibility than a tank and even visibility wasn't the greatest for a tank either so assume its even worse for an assault gun lol.
@@DeosPraetorian yes i totally agree. Even though people kinda mark me for being a wehraboo when i say the Tiger was actually tactically mobile....i respect the build quality of the T 34. A more better term than 'poor build' would be 'brutally build'. In fact....from 1942 onwards the soviets used submerged ark welding which actually made the weld joints stronger than the armour on the tank. I've also read that in the Korean war the americans investigated captured NKPA T34 85s and found that the breach sealing quality and aluminium apparatus inside was actually better that their own shermans. But yeah by the end of WW2 the T34 started to show it's age and the rest is just history...
@@DeosPraetorian exactly. I mean it was meant as a breakthrough tank and was used as such when it was first introduced in 1942. But signs of tactical misuse started appearing immediately. For example...in it's combat debut in June 1942 at leningrad in cramped urban conditions rendered armour and range advantages ineffective. Later on after kursk...the tiger still excelled it's roke as a defwnsive weapon...but by the start of that time you see them used as 'turreted tank destroyers' if you may. Then at 1944 start they were commited to urban fighting in hungary and then also used at close ranges at prokhorovka on 12 July 1943. Close up combat acted to tge tank's detriment...negating it's armour and accentuating the disadvantage of slow turret traverse. But yeah i'm pretty tired of hearing transmission jokes about the tank and that it broke down 'every sixty kilometeres' that's a myth i say. Even in august 1944 when the Germans were hard pressed for supplies and spares..the tiger still showed a reliability rate of 70 percent....far higher that the panther at 62 percent. If you really know the tank...it becomes very apparent that it was a well thought out design. It was based on the enlarged chassis of a prototype the Germans had perfected in the late 1930s. It was the first tank to introduce power steering. I think the same goes with the T34 85. It was based on the tried and tested chassis of the T34 and all in all was a very potent weapon.
@@arjunmadan318 one reason I think for the reliability issues was not getting enough proper maintenance due to getting moved around to plug holes in German lines
I remember a friend of mine using the fact that early T-34s had to carry an extra transmission on the back was a bad thing. This ignores the fact the crew could replace it in the field, compared to German transmission changes usually meaning no tank for a week since it needs to go back to factory.
@@XOFInfantryman And if a German tanks transmission broke it was out of action for up to two weeks as that repair job was near impossible in the field. It would have to go either back to the factory or to a repair depot behind the lines. If a Russian farmer or three can get the tank back up and running in two days then they win the tank engagement since the German crew would still be on the waiting list.
@@XOFInfantryman Okay so they fix it again in another two days. The Panzer crew probably just got word their tank is on a Train to the Rhine. Soviets still have a tank there, the Germans are stuck at the station.
The older ones originally built in the 70s, 80s, and partly the 90s are all built around the same idea of a larger but well sloped and thick upper front plate, a very thin but also small lower front plate, and a shortish round turret with thick turret cheeks and an auto loader below the turret in the turret basket, although there are different autoloaders between the designs.
Let's be real, there is a lot of copypasta going on with the Soviets. It's kind of like the "let me copy your homework" meme. T-34 turns into T-43 turns into T-44 turns into T-54 turns into T-55 turns into T-62 turns into T-64 turns into T-72 turns into T-80 turns into T-90... you can see how it blurs.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 but,hey,they got the job done. Like spookston says,Soviet build quality varied from factory to factory due to constant relocations. Some factories making T-34s had sloped upper corners on the front plate like some versions of the Shermans,and some even made turrets that looked like they belonged not on an ordinary T-34,but a T-43. Build quality skyrocketed after the war though,and the hundreds of thousands of 1950s era Soviet tanks that are still in use today bear witness to the sheer durability and resilience of Soviet machinery.
@@_lordtachanka_2314 he isn't even implying anything bad he's just pointing out how tactically lazy the Soviets were (and still are under a different name and debatably not that different of a government)
To be fair I wouldn't be surprised for the Army not keeping tabs on it, the design really just proved that super heavy tanks were impractical and would've been logistic nightmares to get where the military needed them.
im geussing project was abandoned during testing and after the crew left got assigned elsewhere before telling anyone where the tank was and was eventually forgotten about
I'd love to see/hear a tank conversation/discussion between Spook and the Davids of the bovington tank museum... That would be just a whole bucket of yes.
Excuse me 😂. I'm just imagining someone in vietnam like "hey bill did you bring the T-28 with us for those vietcong Siegfried line level fortifications."
Project gets cancelled and the tank is towed out to be used as a target on a range. It is a worthless hulk in the eyes of the Army at that point so there is no need to keep track of it.
@@Zorro9129 that's what surplus equipment is for: targets and being used for parts. That's why things like the boneyard and ghost fleet exist. You're wasting the taxpayer's money and taking up space with useless hulks if they aren't being used.
@@erwin669 If it's the only one of its kind then it's a far bigger waste to destroy it, especially if it's the largest of its kind. Same thing with the HMS Vanguard, it would have been much more imposing on the Thames (at least the Yanks kept an Iowa!) I'm not sure why people continue making excuses for this when we positively know we're better off today having cool museum pieces than however much you get out of scrap or target practice.
@@Seth9809 No. It started as a warthunder discord made of a few people, and it fluctuated, but there are mostly only the original founders left, plus me, and a few others. We still mostly play warthunder, but also R6. Plus some of the people there know a lot about tanks.
One myth that is definitely the product of video games is the idea that tankers are trained to aim for specific weak spots on tanks. In real combat, you don't have the time to line up the perfect shot. You get the crosshairs on the center of mass as fast as you can and pull the trigger (or stomp the pedal). 9/10 the winner of a tank engagement is whoever lands the first hit.
@@Koyomix86 depends on the organization. In WW2 the US had platoons of 5, but now are 4. The Germans usually did platoons of 4. The British would do 3-4 vehicles.
Thank you for bringing up that Sherman myth at the end. It's just so blatantly wrong I don't know how people can believe it yet I'm pretty sure I saw folks spouting it in the comments of the last tank myths video.
I genuinely want to know HOW they managed to lose the t28,like did some guy just drive it off without anyone knowing and just abandoned it? I can only imagine what happened lol
Whenever I ask myself "how come it took the us 10 years to find osama bin laden?" I remember 1:04 when the US army lost a tank behind a bush in an open field for 20 years.
1:54 that "V" on the turret is designed to cause the rod to start "tumbling"..... it only takes 2 or 3 degrees and the rod will shatter or fail to pen . these rods must hit the armor "square".... because the rod is so skinny, if it "tilts".... the ass end of the rod isnt adding its weight to the impact i watched a good video explaining the turret armor, and how it works..... but i forget where . also.... to pen that turret.... you have to hit it with a rod that is longer than the "gap" between the V and the turret face which is near impossible to do.... as you can only make a tank shell so big before it cant be loaded by hand.... or even an auto loader would have LIMITED ammo, and still take a while to reload
@@Ko.Wi. the big problem was changing the transmission when it hit that lifespan of 1350km. It took a specialized team with a workshop a couple of days to change it out while a Sherman crew could do it in the field in a day.
@@erwin669 well the Germans could send them back to factories/workshops for repair. Shermans were easily repairable in the field since US factories were an entire Atlantic Ocean away.
@@UgandanAirForce and that’s why the US took so long to develop new tanks. They needed to work so they didn’t have to send them back for the factory. A tank with a great gun isn’t worth anything if it is sitting in a depot for 2 months waiting on parts.
The angled armour on the leopard 2's is designed to try to defect the apfsds rounds into a thicker bit of armour. This is horrible simplified but it portrays the point I'm making
Speaking of shell shattering, I've also only had it happen once, I hit an OF-40 with my Conqueror's APDS shell at high range and angle and it actually shattered. I had no idea what that even meant.
Also iirc the M1A1 and M1A2 turret rings should be slightly more armored and protected than older Abrams but I don’t think that is represented in game.
But don't you know GeRmAn StEeL wAs BeTtEr ThEn AlLiEd StEeL (I still have no idea why people constantly bring up that myth of German steel being better it sounds like some type of bullshit the Nazi government would pedal in late 1944 lmao)
@@fulcrum2951 The British we’re probably the most advanced seeing as their battleship armor was superior pound for pound than any other nation. KGV had similar protection to the Yamato, a heavier ship with a thicker belt.
@@LilDucker Germans used a type of steel that was harder than the steel that sovjets used. This did make the armour more effective, technically, however due to its hardness it also shattered faster and caused significantly worse spalling, meaning that the steel did rather poorly against multiple non penetrating hit. That was untill the Germans ran out of resources and their steel ended up being absolute garbage, crumbling to something relatively weak as a 75mm HE shell from a sherman. So basically its a half truth
All I can imagine is some E-5 or E-6 who is about to get his DD-214, drive that monstrosity of a tank in the middle of nowhere, dumped it and went on his merry way. "No my problem anymore suckers" he says
The upper hull of the Abrams and Leo-2 is interesting. Yes newer apfsds can "dig" in to sharply angled armor, as seen on some images of battle damaged tanks. Keep in mind that these rounds were impacting cast steel turrets and not a hardened RHA or composit plate. A M1A1HA was hit by a FF 120mm DU round on the hull front after passing through a dozer blade for the mine clearing equptment. The round did not pen and appeared to have shattered. The driver was wounded by flash burns to his face.
The myth about the Sherman’s guns comes from two contributing factors - 1st, the 75mm L/40 was pretty ineffective against the Tigers when they (extremely rarely) ran into them, and 2nd that mechanised brigades rarely actually ran into any German armoured vehicles, so many units preferred the 105 howitzer as it was more effective against infantry, and plenty effective against light/in armoured vehicles.
Most of my British APDS shatters on Leo 1’s mantlet. I was shooting at a Leo in a Conqueror the other week, and every 5 shots hit the mantlet where the gunner is. 4 shattered, 1 penned and didn’t really do anything.
I've seen alot of shattering, especially when APCR hits tracks on hull or sharp Angles but darts, less so but I've seen my fair share of shattering shot I've made
Shermans outgunned panzers initially, they were also mainly infantry support, the long barrels on higher velocity guns also made if hard to use in cities/towns. The Sherman is a great tank for the time just outclassed in the actual tank department
I've always heard that the soviets just didn't want to spend the extra time grinding down the welds on T-34s when they could be spending that time making more T-34s. Especially when they figured out that typically, their tanks didn't last long enough for it to matter.
LMAO! I almost can’t believe that people think that the T28 saw combat in Korea!! *XD* An interesting one to look into was that did Bradley FVs actually kill more Iraqi armor in the Gulf War than the Abrams? I have seen this on many websites but without any sources or indepth information to go along with the claim.
The pre-1942 T34 did actually have an issue with the consistency of their hull quality their turret quality until 1945. This was less an issue of development methods and more an issue of metal quality, where casting the hull with that grade in metal resulted in random, unseen brittle spots which could spall even when hit with 40mm AA HE fire. Though rarer, some of the rolled armor of the hull also sometimes had these issues. The same issue also made itself clear on a lot of the load-bearing component such as the turret ring and suspension pins, which also had a habit of shattering due to poor metal quality until adequate relief from the US Lend-Lease program came through
it was proven though, the M16 was being fielded by ARVN and US advisory troops from 1955-1964 and the combat reports did show a trend of it outperforming the M14 in about every way it was only because of the Ordinance Corps and their sabotaging of cleaning kits and ammo that the M16 would see issues up until the M16A1
I've had a good handful of shells shatter during my time playing War Thunder, but that's only been on APDS shells, and basically randomly at that. As in, one shot penetrates, but the very next round lands in the same place and shatters.
Hah, I knew exactly what you were gonna cite when you mentioned the first myth about the T28. I came across that particular article by Nicolas when I was researching the T28 for a paper :p
I’m not that surprised people,especially Americans, believe the t28 story because the article uses d/m/y not m/d/y so it looks like it was written on January 4th
2:50 about t34 , effectively most of myth in English speaking community come out from us testing article in which they test t34 in variant of 1942 year in us and pointed out a lot of issues, though little do know that soviet answered on it , and they consisted most of problems as following : 1. Usage it in climate in which some of its engine parts might misfunction. 2. Incompetence of driver dew to which was gained damage which are practically impossible by any logical means. 3. Refusal of usage assistance of soviet engineer , which was send in us to those facility exclusively to assist in maintain of soviet tanks, dew to which various mechanical issues 4. Seeming refusal to use an SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR AMERICANS INSTRUCTION in which pointed out many details about tank in details 5. Seeming incompetence of armor checker which are unable to check armor quality in any sort of adequate manner 6. Refusal of do asking any sort of assistance from soviet side in order to make tank capable to work in required climat
Basically, at high impact speeds, the momentum of the dart itself is able to overcome its material strength. It acts more like a collection of tungsten/uranium atoms flying in formation rather than a rigid body with mechanical properties
Good video, very good. You could make an entire episode about JUST the Sherman. Ronson lighter? Nope. Low quality mass production vehicle (like T/34)? Nope. Took five Union generals to kill a cat, to paraphrase Nick Moran? Nope.
I think shattering in WT is that thing when you shoot a round it hits and the hit camera shows your shell making contact but disappearing without penetrating.
Myth: tanks are the superior warfare machine. Reality: submarines are the superior war machine. Their ability to go undetected to the general eye (unless outfitted with radar, sonar, or any submarine finding devices) makes them excellent spies and stealth ambushers, able to sneak up to unsuspecting infrantrymen, who are mostly not issued built-in radars.
The welds on the T-34 were left unpolished on purpose because it slowed down manufacturing and added no benefit in combat. Details like that actually show how much thought the soviets put into manufacturing because they considered very well what was important and what could be left out of the process to save time
@@marcoalesi8163 Frozen pass, Ash river, Eastern province with Arcade spawns, Fire arc, etc, the only map in which I'm willing to play on is Sands of Tunisia, it wouldve been better if it had pillboxes and infantry to destroy
2:16 That, I've read and heard, actually comes down to how the Russians define "reliability." When someone from North America thinks of the word "reliable", they think of something that you can depend on to do the job you want it to do without breaking. In Russia, they view "reliability" as something doing the job it's supposed to, but when it breaks, any idiot can fix it. The T-34 is a perfect example of just that: It broke down a lot, but it was so simply designed and built that literally anyone could MacGyver the thing back together and have it fully operational again in no time. It's also why you sometimes see videos out there of people getting in T-34-85s that have been sitting in a park in Belarus for 65 years and starting them up without a problem.
One other thing about those shot traps. Average engagement ranges for today's MBT's are one to two kilometers out. Even with the assistance of magnifying optics, gunners will aim for the little enemy tank over the horizon rather than any weak point they might see at that distance. Another myth is that the heat from the Abrams turbine engine makes it appear brighter on thermals than a diesel engine. While it's technically true, it doesn't appear that much brighter on thermals than a diesel-powered tank in reality. Both would look like white dots on the thermal screen when seen kilometers away.
the clarification on the soviet bad build stereotype is a nice touch.. people just have a normal tendency to down play everything that is done or made by the soviets in ww2
The Sherman in a sense wasn't supposed to FIGHT tanks. It was supposed to be the vehicle that gave that little push forward. It was made to fight tanks but not made for the purpose solely if you get what I mean.
I want to see a hyper real tank video game where 5 players operate one tank, with all the bells and whistles from war thunder and then some. No third person. It would be interesting to see how much game combat changes when you see tank battles from a cramped interior perspective
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If you have any myths you would like to see covered, leave them in a comment. I really enjoy making this video type but I'm not great at finding them myself.
Make longer videos
@@Christian-bz2cn Thats not a myth lol. Also these 5 or so minute long videos I think are great. It isn't filled with boring stuff, it just has what is necessary, plus the perfect amount to make in very informative.
ABRAMS IS THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
The myth that the Leopard 2 isnt the worlds best MBT
ShErMaNs WeRe CaLlEd RoNsOnS-
The worst tank myth of all time
"War Thunder camo is so dumb. Who would be fooled by a random bush in the middle of nowhere?"
US Army: ...
*Facepalm*
Germans: "We are forgetting where we put our own mines."
Soviets: "We forget you is dead or injured or missing and ignore it."
Italiens: "We forget how morale and combat works."
US Army: "..... We forgot a big ass Tank in a open field behind a single small bush...."
French: we forgot to modernized our army whether or not it was necessary.
@@smokyblackeyes3615 the french had tanks who actually did cause some serious damage on german Tanks 1 and 2.
So....partially true.
+@@fabianmichaelgockner5988+ But they had crappy 1-2 man turrets and either no radios or poorly working ones.
@@cnlbenmc Aside from that they had decent armour, guns, and mechanics
We had proper shattering for about one week last year, and Gaijin reverted the change.
Yup. I've only had the message "Shell shattered" 2-3 times in total and I dont see it happen anymore.
i actually got this a day or so ago about 3 times or so on the turret of the class 3p with the t55a's apds
For some reason the Swedish APDS on the STRV103 series has like a 80% chance of getting the shattering message instead of a bounce.
I don't think they reverted as much as they streamlined it, I mean, it was only a text message, and we already have two, one for non pen ( AKA everything that isn't bouncing off ) and one for bouncing, why would they make one specifically for shell shattering?
@@dimitarkondev5522 Wait that's a thing? also while im here anyone know what "ammunition load detonated" means the explosion that accurse is never near the ammo racket.
True, normally in combat you wouldn't even see light tank rush ahead of they enemy and kill them,
games make people learn where to shoot, where to go tactically and Etc. in real life, it's more like "Shoot center mass until they Die".
Well that's because in real life if u penetrate a tank crew would just escape while in games they will act more like robots who don't care about their life, also real life engagements were usually at larger range than in games. When it comes to shooters it's a similiar problem most games don't consider that if u get hit in the center mass by a shot fired from assault rifle and the bullet is stopped by a vest it's still a huge impact that will make u defensless. The only game i remember that made it a factor for AI controlled enemies atleast was Max Payne 3.
@@Mason1968PL who would want to see their crew J out without their permission?
@@Mason1968PL idk engagement in-game seems pretty accurate for some scenarios. Some actions happen alot around the 2k range which makes sense. Most 3k+ engagements are hard to come by because of terrain and you most likely won't see the enmy that far due to slopes and hills.
Or "Sling shells at the enemy until something happens."
@@Mason1968PL most games are awful with that. You can straightface a whole 7.62×54R round in both cod and BF
General: Where is the T28 soldier?
Soldier: I don`t know sir, we lost it in open field!
General: How, the fuck, do you lose a big and fat tank in open field?!
Meanwhile the T28, just chillin behind a bush for decades:
Nah, I`m good, I definitly don`t need to be rescued.
Its vacation time!
joke was too long to be good
@@m1a1abrams3 ; Actually not a joke, it really sat behind a bush for decades.
When the research team made 100% camouflage.......
Sometimes I really think those Soldiers did this as an joke but forgotten it the next day as they were questioned.
*Task Failed Successfully*
I never heard anyone said that the T28 ever saw combat. Everyone knows this was a 1 off tank in WW2
I have seen the occasional comment talking about it
I mean I just saw a comment on this video saying it got deployed to Korea
2 off, 2 prototypes
If you have a Facebook account, I'm sure you've seen people repeat dumb stuff they take as fact.
@@sand0decker see the same thing on TH-cam as well
Honestly I thought that the shot traps for modern tanks seem fishy as a actual viable place to hit
I never heard anyone ever saying that the T28 was used in any kind of war, where did you find people talking about this “myth”?
Same
in the last episode of "cursed by design" I believe
Spooks literally said it in the video. The Chieftain wrote an April fools article saying it was and people don't look at the date
@@leArnau Huh?
@@captainxanet4043 Yeah but I haven’t seen anyone talking about it anywhere so I highly doubt you can call that a “myth”.
I've had a Sabot shatter against a t-34 drivers hatch while it was leaning forward on slope.
Gajin please
I've had 120mm Conqueror apds shatter from shooting the un angled side of soviet tanks. Seems very "realistic"
It wasn't the hatch,it was driver's stalinium glasses
I'm not even playing war thunder anymore, it's not enjoyable, but I swear that I could watch any of your videos anytime. Idk it's rly calmly and informative. Keep going man you're doing great!
The M4 was equipped with the 75mm as the gun was effective at anti tank work but also had an effective HE shell which is an important fact people forget, they picked the gun that was good a both over one which gave a trade of like the British 6 pounder The US made tanks where meant to fight everything you'd find on the battlefield.
I had to explain the whole shot trap thing to someone in one of your comments sections.
Uploaded one minute ago huh? I’ve been blessed by the furry tonkman
memetard:make cringey
furry:get an bloody militar engineering degree
You have been blessed. I will not upvote for it is the funny number
_Hey can we have shattering APFSDS please?_
Gaijin: _Did you say bugs and broken mechanics?_
More German handouts? OKAY
Did you say comet turret, T34 driver hatch, Tiger drivers viewm
Yeah no thanks if going by how often Apds already randomly shatters on un angled armor. Don't want that for darts as well.
I’m really surprised he said this, I played my conqueror the other week and had my APDS shell shatter about 4 times in one game aha
Sometimes apds shatters once in a blue moon
Do people not realize that the M3 75mm cannon on the sherman was specifically chosen for its anti tank capabilities and that they have no problem against panzer 3s and panzer 4s, I think it gets this reputation of being a low velocity when it when against tigers and panthers
Seeing how the US Army only encountered the Tiger a handful of times and thought the Panther was a heavy tank it makes sense. Why make a gun that is overkill when you have something that works just fine against what you think you are going to fight? After they figured out that Panther wasn't a heavy tank that was going to be rarely encountered they deployed the 76mm gun and began work on Pershing.
It's because when it comes to WW2, for whatever reason it is always the top german piece of equipment that is compared against. Comparing the KGV class battleships of the Royal Navy V the Bismarck - yeah sure, but there were only two Bismarks built to 5 KGVs. You can gush over the STG-44 as much as you like, but they only made over 400,000 of them for an army of millions. These comparisons that get made without the context are just silly, children arguing over superheroes.
@@konnigkratz ill have you know that Iron man is the best.
@Lukáš Znojemský it was a medium tank because the Germans said so. German weight standards for heavy tanks are 50 tonnes
Yes the thing was its was an all rounder workhorse tank the Sherman but by being that way the standard sherman's didn't excel in anything specifically. But it didn't need to be because the Big German cats were too few in number to make a difference.
so the majority of german panzers it fought were either on par or weaker than the Sherman. even the late war panzer 4hs weren't that much better protected than the sherman. there armour was better but not enough to make huge difference as 80mm of flat steel from add on plates is not the same as 80mm of sloped frontal armour the panther had. so even at decent ranges the sherman could pen a Panzer 4 h frontally without having to get too close. The Panzer 3 Ls and M models just barely had enough fire power to even damage the sherman with there long 50mms but the sherman had sloped frontal armour to but to lesser extent but still a 50mm gun is going to struggle against 50mm of angled steel because its like going through 100mm of flat steel in effectiveness roughly or bit less. But if the armour thickness or effectivness is greater than the round hitting it the round won't pen. Not to say that the l60 50mm couldn't defeat the sherman but it was kind of crap shoot at that point if were to penetrate at all.
So it wasn't so much that sherman was shit it was just the panzers that came later were on whole other level of destructive capability. Like the average tank of any nation would be woefully inferior to a panther or tiger in a 1 on1 engagement. But the shermans speed and numbers allowed them to swarm and flank these new panzers from the sides and rear.
also the standard sherman could hold its own against german assault guns like the Stug. and when the stugs were used as puesdo tanks in offensives especially in urban fights the sherman had major advantage of having a turret and better agility. The stug had turn its entire self to engage enemies do it being a fixed gun also fixed gun assault guns have less visibility than a tank and even visibility wasn't the greatest for a tank either so assume its even worse for an assault gun lol.
Sooner or later I feel like I’m going to hear a myth that the M4 Sherman isn’t even real at this point.
After having spent 4 years in the US Army, it does not surprise me that they lost a T28 in an open field.
I think a lot of people mistake 'terrible' for 'simple' with the Soviets
Yeah they put most of their effort into the parts of the vehicle that mattered
@@DeosPraetorian yes i totally agree. Even though people kinda mark me for being a wehraboo when i say the Tiger was actually tactically mobile....i respect the build quality of the T 34. A more better term than 'poor build' would be 'brutally build'. In fact....from 1942 onwards the soviets used submerged ark welding which actually made the weld joints stronger than the armour on the tank. I've also read that in the Korean war the americans investigated captured NKPA T34 85s and found that the breach sealing quality and aluminium apparatus inside was actually better that their own shermans. But yeah by the end of WW2 the T34 started to show it's age and the rest is just history...
@@arjunmadan318 I mean the tiger was fine until the Germans started using it in a way it wasn't really designed for
@@DeosPraetorian exactly. I mean it was meant as a breakthrough tank and was used as such when it was first introduced in 1942. But signs of tactical misuse started appearing immediately. For example...in it's combat debut in June 1942 at leningrad in cramped urban conditions rendered armour and range advantages ineffective. Later on after kursk...the tiger still excelled it's roke as a defwnsive weapon...but by the start of that time you see them used as 'turreted tank destroyers' if you may. Then at 1944 start they were commited to urban fighting in hungary and then also used at close ranges at prokhorovka on 12 July 1943. Close up combat acted to tge tank's detriment...negating it's armour and accentuating the disadvantage of slow turret traverse. But yeah i'm pretty tired of hearing transmission jokes about the tank and that it broke down 'every sixty kilometeres' that's a myth i say. Even in august 1944 when the Germans were hard pressed for supplies and spares..the tiger still showed a reliability rate of 70 percent....far higher that the panther at 62 percent. If you really know the tank...it becomes very apparent that it was a well thought out design. It was based on the enlarged chassis of a prototype the Germans had perfected in the late 1930s. It was the first tank to introduce power steering.
I think the same goes with the T34 85. It was based on the tried and tested chassis of the T34 and all in all was a very potent weapon.
@@arjunmadan318 one reason I think for the reliability issues was not getting enough proper maintenance due to getting moved around to plug holes in German lines
Myth: tanks are real
Have you ever seen a tank irl to begin with? NO! They're all just sci-fi
How about this one:
“An M48 Patton is about as effective as a Tiger 2 (H)”
@Manuel -
I was referencing the fact that the German M48 will now have the same BR as the Tiger 2 (H)...
@@thatsidewaysdud7623 while the american ones have to stay up. I'm starting to wonder if gaijin is a German company instead
@@jbeverley67 it’s cos of the german mains begging in forums
@@thatsidewaysdud7623 yeah i saw that, so bs. American and chinese patton was still at 7.7 when the german one got downtiered to 7.3
Nothing like German players ruining a game because their tank isn't good enough despite it being broken as fuck at lower BRs
I remember a friend of mine using the fact that early T-34s had to carry an extra transmission on the back was a bad thing. This ignores the fact the crew could replace it in the field, compared to German transmission changes usually meaning no tank for a week since it needs to go back to factory.
Uhh
No
Entire point why it carried that extra transmission is because it broke down so quickly/was that unreliable
@@XOFInfantryman And if a German tanks transmission broke it was out of action for up to two weeks as that repair job was near impossible in the field. It would have to go either back to the factory or to a repair depot behind the lines. If a Russian farmer or three can get the tank back up and running in two days then they win the tank engagement since the German crew would still be on the waiting list.
@@Hart501 not if the extra transmission was in the same shoddy quality as the first one... (It absolutely was)
@@XOFInfantryman Okay so they fix it again in another two days. The Panzer crew probably just got word their tank is on a Train to the Rhine. Soviets still have a tank there, the Germans are stuck at the station.
If you really want to fact check me you can look up who won the war, and who produced more tanks :P
Myth: all modern russian MBTs are all the same except details (I don't believe in it, it's just a quite popular myth)
The older ones originally built in the 70s, 80s, and partly the 90s are all built around the same idea of a larger but well sloped and thick upper front plate, a very thin but also small lower front plate, and a shortish round turret with thick turret cheeks and an auto loader below the turret in the turret basket, although there are different autoloaders between the designs.
RedEffect made a few videos explaining the differences between all soviet mbts
Let's be real, there is a lot of copypasta going on with the Soviets. It's kind of like the "let me copy your homework" meme. T-34 turns into T-43 turns into T-44 turns into T-54 turns into T-55 turns into T-62 turns into T-64 turns into T-72 turns into T-80 turns into T-90... you can see how it blurs.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 but,hey,they got the job done. Like spookston says,Soviet build quality varied from factory to factory due to constant relocations. Some factories making T-34s had sloped upper corners on the front plate like some versions of the Shermans,and some even made turrets that looked like they belonged not on an ordinary T-34,but a T-43. Build quality skyrocketed after the war though,and the hundreds of thousands of 1950s era Soviet tanks that are still in use today bear witness to the sheer durability and resilience of Soviet machinery.
@@_lordtachanka_2314 he isn't even implying anything bad he's just pointing out how tactically lazy the Soviets were (and still are under a different name and debatably not that different of a government)
0:58
Excuse me, *what?*
They _misplaced_ a 85 tonne steel Doom Turtle behind a _bush_ ?
Google for the picture, its hilarious xD
To be fair I wouldn't be surprised for the Army not keeping tabs on it, the design really just proved that super heavy tanks were impractical and would've been logistic nightmares to get where the military needed them.
im geussing project was abandoned during testing and after the crew left got assigned elsewhere before telling anyone where the tank was and was eventually forgotten about
I'd love to see/hear a tank conversation/discussion between Spook and the Davids of the bovington tank museum... That would be just a whole bucket of yes.
Thank you Spookston for your hard work on all of these videos!
That's hilarious that the Chieftain accidentally started a myth! His big thing is doing the opposite.
Moran has already answered 1488 times that the "T95 in Korea" was a 1 of April joke
Excuse me 😂. I'm just imagining someone in vietnam like "hey bill did you bring the T-28 with us for those vietcong Siegfried line level fortifications."
Wait, how do you lose a super heavy tank behind a Bush in a field, and for multiple years?
Project gets cancelled and the tank is towed out to be used as a target on a range. It is a worthless hulk in the eyes of the Army at that point so there is no need to keep track of it.
Heh, track
@@erwin669 I wish every prototype ended up hidden like that rather than shot up by trainers too lazy to make their own targets.
@@Zorro9129 that's what surplus equipment is for: targets and being used for parts. That's why things like the boneyard and ghost fleet exist. You're wasting the taxpayer's money and taking up space with useless hulks if they aren't being used.
@@erwin669 If it's the only one of its kind then it's a far bigger waste to destroy it, especially if it's the largest of its kind. Same thing with the HMS Vanguard, it would have been much more imposing on the Thames (at least the Yanks kept an Iowa!) I'm not sure why people continue making excuses for this when we positively know we're better off today having cool museum pieces than however much you get out of scrap or target practice.
A discord server I'm in loves your videos, and whenever one comes out, it's posted in a channel within 10 minutes.
Is it a tank discord?
@@Seth9809 No. It started as a warthunder discord made of a few people, and it fluctuated, but there are mostly only the original founders left, plus me, and a few others. We still mostly play warthunder, but also R6.
Plus some of the people there know a lot about tanks.
@@thefightingswallow7613 How much do you know about tanks.
@@Seth9809 a decent bit. I'm more into aircraft, but i can identify a lot of ww2 tanks and tanks of that era, and i have general knowledge on most
@@Seth9809 Also honestly that depends on what you count as knowing a lot.
Day 1 of asking Spookston to make a video about a historically accurate plane.
Oh no we got our own PaganiGaming
he made a video already, on the F-89
@@PineCone227_ He also did one on the Me 163 I think
Whoops, I forgot he made a video about them lol, I'm hoping he makes a video on something like the Ho 229 or the B-17
The T-34 was rushed to no end in WW2. So, the issues weren't resolved. They were only resolved after the war.
We need more videos like this, you seem to be in less physical pain talking about history than War Thunder meta
One myth that is definitely the product of video games is the idea that tankers are trained to aim for specific weak spots on tanks. In real combat, you don't have the time to line up the perfect shot. You get the crosshairs on the center of mass as fast as you can and pull the trigger (or stomp the pedal). 9/10 the winner of a tank engagement is whoever lands the first hit.
2:36 - LazerPig rrreeeeeeee noises
0:58
"Carl...."
"Yes?"
"Where's the T-28?"
They LOST a TANK? Behind a bush in a FIELD?! For almost 30 YEARS?!
Last time I was this early, it took 4 Shermans to kill a cat
Because the smallest maneuver element used by the Americans and British (ie the platoon) is made up of *gasp* 4 tanks
Wait, why would they be shooting at their own navies planes? ;)
@@erwin669 correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it 5 tanks in a platoon
@@Koyomix86 depends on the organization. In WW2 the US had platoons of 5, but now are 4. The Germans usually did platoons of 4. The British would do 3-4 vehicles.
Thank you for bringing up that Sherman myth at the end. It's just so blatantly wrong I don't know how people can believe it yet I'm pretty sure I saw folks spouting it in the comments of the last tank myths video.
0 tank destroyers used to destroy tank myths. -3 stars.
I genuinely want to know HOW they managed to lose the t28,like did some guy just drive it off without anyone knowing and just abandoned it? I can only imagine what happened lol
I would assume thr army just stopped caring about it. I doubt they actually ever bothered to look for it.
"SHELL SHATERING does not happen" British💀
Whenever I ask myself "how come it took the us 10 years to find osama bin laden?" I remember 1:04 when the US army lost a tank behind a bush in an open field for 20 years.
ah yes, the tank with a beefy sloped front armor, something developed for resisting anti-tank shells, is not built to fight other tanks..
I am so surprised that you killed so many tanks with out your tank being killed is so impressive good job man.
1:54 that "V" on the turret is designed to cause the rod to start "tumbling"..... it only takes 2 or 3 degrees and the rod will shatter or fail to pen
.
these rods must hit the armor "square".... because the rod is so skinny, if it "tilts".... the ass end of the rod isnt adding its weight to the impact
i watched a good video explaining the turret armor, and how it works..... but i forget where
.
also.... to pen that turret.... you have to hit it with a rod that is longer than the "gap" between the V and the turret face
which is near impossible to do.... as you can only make a tank shell so big before it cant be loaded by hand.... or even an auto loader would have LIMITED ammo, and still take a while to reload
1:45 The are Pic of t72a turrets roof getting Penetrated by Monoblock apfsds with way over 80 Degrees 82 to 81
How about busting the Myth that the Transmission of all Panther versions instantly broke?
A lot of them did
@@DeosPraetorian would be correct for ausf D and in parts for ausf A. The Transmission of the ausf G had an average living range of 1350km
@@Ko.Wi. the big problem was changing the transmission when it hit that lifespan of 1350km. It took a specialized team with a workshop a couple of days to change it out while a Sherman crew could do it in the field in a day.
@@erwin669 well the Germans could send them back to factories/workshops for repair. Shermans were easily repairable in the field since US factories were an entire Atlantic Ocean away.
@@UgandanAirForce and that’s why the US took so long to develop new tanks. They needed to work so they didn’t have to send them back for the factory. A tank with a great gun isn’t worth anything if it is sitting in a depot for 2 months waiting on parts.
The angled armour on the leopard 2's is designed to try to defect the apfsds rounds into a thicker bit of armour. This is horrible simplified but it portrays the point I'm making
It is thick enough to bounce certain shells down tho... that is no beuno or from the enemy's perspective: "buenos dias fuckboy" when it happens.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 But most rounds it will face will never bounce
myth: Spooks isn't the best WT youtuber
"The US doesnt make a habit of putting unproven vehicles in the field"
Laughs in bin-laden raid
Speaking of shell shattering, I've also only had it happen once, I hit an OF-40 with my Conqueror's APDS shell at high range and angle and it actually shattered. I had no idea what that even meant.
Abrams shot trap, I thought it is real weak spot due to WT shell mechanics, now I know it is not.
Also iirc the M1A1 and M1A2 turret rings should be slightly more armored and protected than older Abrams but I don’t think that is represented in game.
@@frankbradley4487 only the M1A2’s turret is a bit stronger but definitely not as strong as irl
yeah apfsds bounces when it really shouldn't
@@frankbradley4487 I think they are a bit thicker, but in "realistic" WT it makes no difference.
@@frankbradley4487 all the Abrams turret rings should be stronger but gaijin has them nerf for balance reasons that they are telling people
When talking about the quality of Russian tanks, especially their welds, remember that Russian mechanical welding was superior German hand welding.
But don't you know GeRmAn StEeL wAs BeTtEr ThEn AlLiEd StEeL (I still have no idea why people constantly bring up that myth of German steel being better it sounds like some type of bullshit the Nazi government would pedal in late 1944 lmao)
To think people ignore the increase in quality of soviet and western allies armor as time goes on
Detroit steel still beats crappy Siberian armor plate lmaoo
@@fulcrum2951 The British we’re probably the most advanced seeing as their battleship armor was superior pound for pound than any other nation. KGV had similar protection to the Yamato, a heavier ship with a thicker belt.
@@LilDucker Germans used a type of steel that was harder than the steel that sovjets used. This did make the armour more effective, technically, however due to its hardness it also shattered faster and caused significantly worse spalling, meaning that the steel did rather poorly against multiple non penetrating hit. That was untill the Germans ran out of resources and their steel ended up being absolute garbage, crumbling to something relatively weak as a 75mm HE shell from a sherman. So basically its a half truth
All I can imagine is some E-5 or E-6 who is about to get his DD-214, drive that monstrosity of a tank in the middle of nowhere, dumped it and went on his merry way. "No my problem anymore suckers" he says
The upper hull of the Abrams and Leo-2 is interesting. Yes newer apfsds can "dig" in to sharply angled armor, as seen on some images of battle damaged tanks. Keep in mind that these rounds were impacting cast steel turrets and not a hardened RHA or composit plate. A M1A1HA was hit by a FF 120mm DU round on the hull front after passing through a dozer blade for the mine clearing equptment. The round did not pen and appeared to have shattered. The driver was wounded by flash burns to his face.
The myth about the Sherman’s guns comes from two contributing factors - 1st, the 75mm L/40 was pretty ineffective against the Tigers when they (extremely rarely) ran into them, and 2nd that mechanised brigades rarely actually ran into any German armoured vehicles, so many units preferred the 105 howitzer as it was more effective against infantry, and plenty effective against light/in armoured vehicles.
Most of my British APDS shatters on Leo 1’s mantlet. I was shooting at a Leo in a Conqueror the other week, and every 5 shots hit the mantlet where the gunner is. 4 shattered, 1 penned and didn’t really do anything.
I've seen alot of shattering, especially when APCR hits tracks on hull or sharp Angles but darts, less so but I've seen my fair share of shattering shot I've made
Shermans outgunned panzers initially, they were also mainly infantry support, the long barrels on higher velocity guns also made if hard to use in cities/towns. The Sherman is a great tank for the time just outclassed in the actual tank department
THANK YOU!!! It was driving me crazy with the shot traps until this video.
the warhammer mechanicus music usage is kickass
I've always heard that the soviets just didn't want to spend the extra time grinding down the welds on T-34s when they could be spending that time making more T-34s. Especially when they figured out that typically, their tanks didn't last long enough for it to matter.
LMAO!
I almost can’t believe that people think that the T28 saw combat in Korea!! *XD*
An interesting one to look into was that did Bradley FVs actually kill more Iraqi armor in the Gulf War than the Abrams? I have seen this on many websites but without any sources or indepth information to go along with the claim.
Why did people have to complain about shell shattering? Look what you've done.
Spookston keep Up the good work👍
The pre-1942 T34 did actually have an issue with the consistency of their hull quality their turret quality until 1945. This was less an issue of development methods and more an issue of metal quality, where casting the hull with that grade in metal resulted in random, unseen brittle spots which could spall even when hit with 40mm AA HE fire. Though rarer, some of the rolled armor of the hull also sometimes had these issues. The same issue also made itself clear on a lot of the load-bearing component such as the turret ring and suspension pins, which also had a habit of shattering due to poor metal quality until adequate relief from the US Lend-Lease program came through
"For one thing the US military doesn't make a habit of putting unproven equipment into the field" M16 says hi.
it was proven though, the M16 was being fielded by ARVN and US advisory troops from 1955-1964 and the combat reports did show a trend of it outperforming the M14 in about every way
it was only because of the Ordinance Corps and their sabotaging of cleaning kits and ammo that the M16 would see issues up until the M16A1
I've had a good handful of shells shatter during my time playing War Thunder, but that's only been on APDS shells, and basically randomly at that. As in, one shot penetrates, but the very next round lands in the same place and shatters.
The lost T28 was the definition of just chillin.
2:06 my APCR (or APDS i dont remember well) in my T-54 used to shatter a lot when firing to heavy armor
Next If "War thunder Type-97 Chi-ha was historically accurate"
Which one? The original, or the ShinHoTo?
T28: *Sits behind a bush*
US Army: Where is it?
Hah, I knew exactly what you were gonna cite when you mentioned the first myth about the T28. I came across that particular article by Nicolas when I was researching the T28 for a paper :p
I’m not that surprised people,especially Americans, believe the t28 story because the article uses d/m/y not m/d/y so it looks like it was written on January 4th
Yah that sounds stupid but who knows? I haven’t seen anyone claim this and ask why they thought it was true. For all I know, they can be nonexistent.
2:50 about t34 , effectively most of myth in English speaking community come out from us testing article in which they test t34 in variant of 1942 year in us and pointed out a lot of issues, though little do know that soviet answered on it , and they consisted most of problems as following :
1. Usage it in climate in which some of its engine parts might misfunction.
2. Incompetence of driver dew to which was gained damage which are practically impossible by any logical means.
3. Refusal of usage assistance of soviet engineer , which was send in us to those facility exclusively to assist in maintain of soviet tanks, dew to which various mechanical issues
4. Seeming refusal to use an SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR AMERICANS INSTRUCTION in which pointed out many details about tank in details
5. Seeming incompetence of armor checker which are unable to check armor quality in any sort of adequate manner
6. Refusal of do asking any sort of assistance from soviet side in order to make tank capable to work in required climat
Would love to see the physics reasoning for why APFSDS shatters
Basically, at high impact speeds, the momentum of the dart itself is able to overcome its material strength. It acts more like a collection of tungsten/uranium atoms flying in formation rather than a rigid body with mechanical properties
I only saw shell shattering once in my entire time playing? did you skip all the 105 mm L7A3 apds grind against t55am1? I still have nightmares.
Good video, very good. You could make an entire episode about JUST the Sherman. Ronson lighter? Nope. Low quality mass production vehicle (like T/34)? Nope. Took five Union generals to kill a cat, to paraphrase Nick Moran? Nope.
I like your videos spookston including this one
I think shattering in WT is that thing when you shoot a round it hits and the hit camera shows your shell making contact but disappearing without penetrating.
Myth: tanks are the superior warfare machine.
Reality: submarines are the superior war machine. Their ability to go undetected to the general eye (unless outfitted with radar, sonar, or any submarine finding devices) makes them excellent spies and stealth ambushers, able to sneak up to unsuspecting infrantrymen, who are mostly not issued built-in radars.
I only times I’ve ever had a shell shatter was when using the crappy 105mm APDS on the 7.7br OF-40 shooting the LFP of a T-90A
Great Video as always
The welds on the T-34 were left unpolished on purpose because it slowed down manufacturing and added no benefit in combat. Details like that actually show how much thought the soviets put into manufacturing because they considered very well what was important and what could be left out of the process to save time
The true shot trap was in the Pz III on the sides of the turret where there was no glacis plate and at the time everyone was used AP.
great content as always
Hey Spook, what do you think about Gaijin removing maps?
wait what
@@kirtil5177 yeah I'm with Kirtil here God I hope they're not removing 38th parallel cause I might cry lol
@@LilDucker tbh some maps need to go, like motherfucking Vietnam
@@marcoalesi8163 Frozen pass, Ash river, Eastern province with Arcade spawns, Fire arc, etc, the only map in which I'm willing to play on is Sands of Tunisia, it wouldve been better if it had pillboxes and infantry to destroy
@@marcoalesi8163 I'm inclined to agree with you Vietnam is pretty cringe
2:16 That, I've read and heard, actually comes down to how the Russians define "reliability." When someone from North America thinks of the word "reliable", they think of something that you can depend on to do the job you want it to do without breaking. In Russia, they view "reliability" as something doing the job it's supposed to, but when it breaks, any idiot can fix it. The T-34 is a perfect example of just that: It broke down a lot, but it was so simply designed and built that literally anyone could MacGyver the thing back together and have it fully operational again in no time. It's also why you sometimes see videos out there of people getting in T-34-85s that have been sitting in a park in Belarus for 65 years and starting them up without a problem.
Another banger as always
One other thing about those shot traps. Average engagement ranges for today's MBT's are one to two kilometers out. Even with the assistance of magnifying optics, gunners will aim for the little enemy tank over the horizon rather than any weak point they might see at that distance.
Another myth is that the heat from the Abrams turbine engine makes it appear brighter on thermals than a diesel engine. While it's technically true, it doesn't appear that much brighter on thermals than a diesel-powered tank in reality. Both would look like white dots on the thermal screen when seen kilometers away.
The fact that the military just lost a superheavy tank in some field is hilarious.
the clarification on the soviet bad build stereotype is a nice touch..
people just have a normal tendency to down play everything that is done or made by the soviets in ww2
2:11 If you test drive the XM-1(GM) and shoot the T90's lower front plate with the M728 apds, you'll see it shatter (as of this writing).
Marauding.
AKA, when the Pyro gets past the Heavy
Me on my way to leak some classified military info for WT tank myths:
0:50
Churchill’s :allow us to introduce ourselves
The Sherman in a sense wasn't supposed to FIGHT tanks. It was supposed to be the vehicle that gave that little push forward. It was made to fight tanks but not made for the purpose solely if you get what I mean.
Your timing is perfect
I was bored and a video dropped.
Best warthunder youtuber, love your content :D
I want to see a hyper real tank video game where 5 players operate one tank, with all the bells and whistles from war thunder and then some. No third person. It would be interesting to see how much game combat changes when you see tank battles from a cramped interior perspective