Do you guys think the TTB should be added eventually? I think it would be pretty fun. Anyway, due to popular demand I've added a post design to my merch store. crowdmade.com/collections/spookston
I think so, I'd prefer if it was in the tech tree, but it would also be a better event vehicle than the 2av and the ccvl. It would be something unique again
Since perpetual motion machines are impossible in the real world an adiabatic engine is an engine that converts as much of the thermal energy from combustion to mechanical energy as is possible under the current environmental conditions. Impressive that a tank test bed mounted an engine approaching that level of performance.
@@rykehuss3435 yeah the source is every perpetual motion machine that people make that doesn't work because of physics and if you had any understanding of physics you would understand why perpetual machines don't work
I volunteer at the training support facility that houses the National Armor and Cavalry Collection from time to time. The Abrams TTB is there. It's a really cool concept for a tank.
How about a video on why autocannons aren't used on MBTs when all the future tanks so far seem to like them? Also Leopard 2K had 20mm edit: French used 20mm, but was actually in service and the German/American mbt project had autocannon too
I would guess it's mainly that they fit a niche that is not really important for a tank. The primary weapon of choice in a tank to engage all targets, be it infantry, vehicles or buildings, is the cannon. Which means that the tank crews prefer to remain at range and engage targets with the cannon. This also means that the autocannon is much less effective. And for suppression there are machineguns.
It's been pointed out a lot that having less crew members isn't the best thing considering it means less people doing maintenance if anything goes wrong. Also means less replacement crewmembers in case one dies. So if you de-track your tank, you're fixing that with only 3 people instead of 4. Or if your driver dies you're suddenly down to 2 crewmembers instead of 3.
Technically, the first Soviet unmanned turret prototype was the Object 490 in the early 80s, predating the object 195. Although the 490 was done by the Morozov Design Bureau - as it's now known - in Ukraine.
@@Spookston I've found mentions that one or two were built, but other than three pictures of it (Prototype, test rig, or mockup IDK) there's not much to on for it. Those IRL pictures are only of the A version, so I can't speak about the first and third versions.
The Comres 75 was a functional external gun tank made in 1968 as a test bed tank. it had a 20pdr and was built apon the comet chassis. thats the earliest one i can find myself
The TTB is the answer to a popular question about autoloaders. "Can a carousel style autoloader have blowout panels? If it can, why doesn't russian tanks have them?" The only possible way to have blowout panels for a carousel autoloader is to make the turret unmanned so the explosion pressure can vent out the top.
@@jintsuubest9331 I already know there's some tank maintenance guy swearing in French somewhere in the world at any given moment. Unless they're all on break.
I'm not sure if it predates the TTB but Object 477 Molot was an earlier Soviet project than the Object 195 which also had a crewless turret. Fun fact, it's autoloader could handle penetrators one full meter long, and it was mostly completed before the fall of the Union. It is believed to still exist in Ukraine somewhere.
@@vikydrone6366 Difference between Russia and Ukraine’s long-term economic prospects is that the latter has a hope for recovery. Nothing like a Marshall Plan 2.0 to bring war-ravaged nations to economic prosperity within a decade. Russia doesn’t have that option, and they don’t have an empire like they used to.
To sum up what I've learned about American test vehicles from Spookston: When american tanks got really OP either the Cold war ended or Congress threw a hissy fit and said "nO"
Hi Spook interesting video as always i asked video for KF51 Panther few videos ago it would be nice to watch and see your opinions about it . Take Care
Gaijin won’t add the upgraded armor to the SEP cause it’s still classified. When has that ever stopped them before lmao. And isn’t Relikt’s capabilities also still classified?
The idea of an unmanned turret and crew in a defensive hull compartment remains interesting to me, for sure the idea remains true that a machine can be replaced but a well trained tank crew cannot. (Or not as easily at the least) Maybe we will see this more in the future, for now I think the next upgrade package the Abrams is getting is a kind of dedicated drone package.
I think It was the soviets who were actualy the first to experiment with the unmanned turret tank design with their obj.450 aka the t-74 which started in 1971
@@Silver_Prussian If the criteria for being first in the category is merely drawing up the idea first, then you could look back to the initial concepts made for the MBT-70 in 1964. One of those designs also had an externally mounted gun with crew in the hull.
@@Spookston no, i am just mentioning it cause it seems like an interesting tank as whole as well that it made nato worry and revisit the concept, also a lot bias people think both sides got the idea from the other and say that one is just a copy of the other but i dont think thats true at alll both the m1ttb and the obj195 developed independently without the creators knowing somebody else is working on a simular project.
The Comres 75 was a functional external gun tank made in 1968 as a test bed tank. it had a 20pdr and was built apon the comet chassis. thats the earliest one i can find myself
I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 The 140mm ETC only got mentioned 2 times in the docs, it was planned but the idea got scrapped in the early 90's. The congress also tried to cut the "120mm LW gun" (It's the official name for the 140mm XM291 ATACS) budge. At least "TACOM" managed to install the 140mm in the 1st and 2nd CATTB's in 1993 and 1994, both CATTB's used the same turret, but the 2nd one used a new hull made just for it.
I know you mostly talk about american tanks, but it would be cool if you could talk about the Semovente da 149/40. Its an artillery piece, but it still might be interesting to talk about.
I think the next American Tank will probably still have a manned turret, but with a 5th crew member in the hull to manage the Electronic Warfare Suite and Drones.
Copy and paste from my previous comment: I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
Crews will only get smaller, not larger. The Army has expressed interest in an autoloading mechanism for the next generation MBT. The loader could be retained as a systems operator, but I highly doubt they would move to a five man crew, especially since the military is having greater difficult recruiting people.
@@Spookston That's why I think having a fourth crew member would be ideal. Not only as another set of eyes 👀 but also another set of hands 👐🏻 for maintenance 🔧 🔩. I think the fourth member would be ideal for operating secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as additional ATGMs and surveillance/attack drones, etc.
Yoo spooks idk if you'll even see this comment but damn i havent tuned into your channel in a while now but i gotta say i still love these explanator videos and some of the gameplay vids personally i played lots of armored warfare because im into modern designs and stuff but the game has been on life support for probably 6-7 years now? and its basically only being held up by the 5 whales that keep buying everything the devs release i really want a new arcade style tank game to come out to get my tank fix because i get this urge sometimes to just play a type of game like that but theres nothing that i like on the market right now ah well one can dream i guess
@@Spookston Oh no, the point isn't that it's remote or not. It's just that i find it equally cool to the remote ones, but little to no one talk about these just because they aren't that special.
I would keep the design as is, but 'merkava-fy' it and move the crew capsule to the back, that way even if they do take a Hull hit from the front, they have a little extra survivability. A side or rear shot is going to kill any tank no matter what anyway, so may as well slap a door on the back.
Was object 195 the first Russian "crew in hull" type tank? As far as I know, object 195 was fully built around 2000. On the other hand, there was the object 477 family of prototypes in the late 80s. Some may also suggest object 490a, which predated object 477, but it is not sure if a fully functional prototype was built (but there are pictures of a running mockup). I do not want to sound rude or question your knowledge, but I wanted to ask if you are aware of the existence of these machines.
Yeah, theres a mess there, but most 477 and 490 models had the entire crew in the hull, but not in a single compartment. The turret crews were seated exceptionally low, such that they were in line with the driver. However, Russia's first work with an armoured crew capsule dates to the 1960's. Forget if it was 287 or 278. One of those two.
if you count soviet union as 'Russia' then no. Soviets running crew in hull design all the way since 70s. KMDB got 450\477\490, LKZ has 299, UVZ later got 195 (despite the vehicle are after the USSR collapse the design are track all the way back to late 80s). And a lot of other projects too.
Hey spookston I has a question, why can some tanks like the IT-1 fire on the move while stuff like the ratel 20 and warrior IFVs? Anyway great video man!
@@Spookston Ah right tank you, I just looked it up and sure as heck the MILAN atgm is wire guided also I have a request, when you find time to suffer could you play the british striker? It would be funny to see!
Is there a reason why the crew is still in the front of the tank at this point? If all of the viewports are electronic displays, wouldn't it make more sense to have them at the rear of the vehicle?
I'd love to be able to view the sources you used so I can learn even more about this and future topics, is there any chance you could link them in the description? I completely understand if that's not something you wish to do!
Wouldn't Sweden have been even earlier with the concept of the crew in the hull with our UDES 19 (basically an strv 103 with a gun mounted on the hull, similar to the AGS)? which was one of the many prototypes presented in the Swedish UDES project that started in 1974.
It's only natural that people would compare the Abrams X to the T-14 Armata. The Armata is quite recent and made quite a buzz and suddenly here comes a next gen Abrams proposal with similar designs. Only super tanks nerds, some with TH-cam channels, would bring up fact sheets about some obscure experimental tanks from a century of tank development into the discussion.
While the M1 TTB may have been the first RC turreted tank ever built, it was not the first one to be designed, as that honor goes to the Soviet Object 450 (aka T-74) prototype from 1971. Object 450 was intended to be a successor to the T-64 that would do away with the dangerous and extremely complicated carousel autoloader and instead use a novel external autoloader that would have an ammo compartment behind the rear armored bulkhead of the crew compartment feed shells into the back of an oscillating turret that would be placed above the rear half of the crew compartment. The crew compartment would have the driver, commander, and gunner sit three abreast behind the main fuel tank and an absolutely massive composite armor array that together would provide 700mm RHAe (though none of the few sources on this thing that exists specify if this is against KE or CE threats, though I'd assume the latter). Like all future Soviet/Russian RC turreted tank concepts, the turret had very little armor, as it relied on not getting hit due to being so small. One of the alleged benefits of its design were that it would be easier and cheaper to produce than the T-64 due to having fewer moving parts, but in light of the unit cost of Object 450's distant successor the T-14 Armata, I'm inclined to believe that this was either just marketing or an outright lie. Unfortunately, Object 450 would never go beyond the mock-up phase due to resistance frist from the Soviet Army who was skeptical of such an unusual design, and then by shakeups in the Soviet Ministry of Defense leadership where the new leadership far preferred the gas turbine powered T-80 over this extremely strange concept. However, Object 450 will get the last laugh over the T-80, as its conceptual development was continued with Object 195, and then with Object 148 which eventually became the T-14 Armata we all know today, with the T-14 Armata being slated to eventually replace the gas-guzzling and maintenance intensive T-80.
Look up the T-74 designed by Morozov in the 70s. A Ukrainian. He helped design the T-34 and he designed the T-54 and T-64. The T-74 was beyond the state of art and Morozov was about to retire and did. His T-64 had a lot of problems with its opposed piston engine and its light running gear. The T-72 was created as a cheap "mobilization tank" that could be made quickly and exported coz it wasn't cutting edge. The Soviets were thinking about this in the 80s. Many designs had a crew in hull design.
Do you guys think the TTB should be added eventually? I think it would be pretty fun. Anyway, due to popular demand I've added a post design to my merch store. crowdmade.com/collections/spookston
I think so, I'd prefer if it was in the tech tree, but it would also be a better event vehicle than the 2av and the ccvl. It would be something unique again
As a event vehicle definitely
No I don’t think so. also do you think they would be able to have it unload and restow the round in war thunder.
@@bubby9175 Probably not since conventional tanks are capable of it IRL but not in War Thunder
@@Spookston btw really like the merchandise thinking about getting the tank gunner sight hoody.😄
I don't know why but three tankers sitting shoulder to shoulder is funny to me
The true tri tankistas
Gunner; "You're stepping on my foot."
Driver; "Yeah? Well I can smell the MRE you had for breakfast."
Three dudes, couped up in a crew capsule, less than 5 feet apart because they’re very very gay😊
Sitting in the back seat with your siblings and constantly bothering each other
Think about the last time you had to sit next to two people in a small vehicle
Since perpetual motion machines are impossible in the real world an adiabatic engine is an engine that converts as much of the thermal energy from combustion to mechanical energy as is possible under the current environmental conditions. Impressive that a tank test bed mounted an engine approaching that level of performance.
"Since perpetual motion machines are impossible in the real world" source?
@@rykehuss3435 It is basically a dogma, meaning theree is no proof, just accept it as it is.
@@rykehuss3435 lmao just spotted a perpetual motion nutt
@@rykehuss3435 yeah the source is every perpetual motion machine that people make that doesn't work because of physics and if you had any understanding of physics you would understand why perpetual machines don't work
@@rykehuss3435 my source is that i made it the fu@# up
I love how we add m1 to the start of literally everything
I volunteer at the training support facility that houses the National Armor and Cavalry Collection from time to time. The Abrams TTB is there. It's a really cool concept for a tank.
Good ole Fort Benning. Ever make trips over to Auburn?
@Работаем, брат! Does it drives further than 10 meters :) ?
@Работаем, брат! 10km ? That’s a record right there !
@Работаем, брат!
What’s better peanuts or cashews?
I don't know how but the tank somehow looks like a low graphic video game 'futuristic' tank from 2008
I bet at least a few of those games' art departments took inspiration from these prototype designs.
How about taking a look at the other unique M48 prototypes like the one with the GAU-8? Or the M60-2000.
Armored Warfare Players: "Hey, I've seen this one!"
I was thinking about that at the beginning of the video. This is a pretty cool tank in Armored Warfare.
Babe wake up... Spookston uploaded
It's 12am 💀
@@biggestoof524 what do you mean ? It's praticly 7 pm 🤡
@@Snaox 7pm CET
How about a video on why autocannons aren't used on MBTs when all the future tanks so far seem to like them? Also Leopard 2K had 20mm
edit: French used 20mm, but was actually in service and the German/American mbt project had autocannon too
Sad amx 30 noises
Turm iii with 30mm and t-72 m2 modena
I would guess it's mainly that they fit a niche that is not really important for a tank. The primary weapon of choice in a tank to engage all targets, be it infantry, vehicles or buildings, is the cannon. Which means that the tank crews prefer to remain at range and engage targets with the cannon. This also means that the autocannon is much less effective. And for suppression there are machineguns.
@@werrkowalski2985 is it possible to have an autoloader with a protective blast door that the abrahms has?
It's been pointed out a lot that having less crew members isn't the best thing considering it means less people doing maintenance if anything goes wrong. Also means less replacement crewmembers in case one dies. So if you de-track your tank, you're fixing that with only 3 people instead of 4. Or if your driver dies you're suddenly down to 2 crewmembers instead of 3.
Technically, the first Soviet unmanned turret prototype was the Object 490 in the early 80s, predating the object 195. Although the 490 was done by the Morozov Design Bureau - as it's now known - in Ukraine.
I don't think Object 490 was ever built, just scale mockups were made
It was actialy the obj.450 all the way in 1971
@@Spookston I've found mentions that one or two were built, but other than three pictures of it (Prototype, test rig, or mockup IDK) there's not much to on for it. Those IRL pictures are only of the A version, so I can't speak about the first and third versions.
@@Spookston Could have sworn a model was built, but just one.
I think the Comress 75 came earlier no?
I remember it being from the late 60s.
Speaking of T-14, I wouldn't mind an video talking about the Sherman-esque T14 and any other Sherman prototypes.
You should do a "master the tank" videos where you explain how to play you're favourite vehicles and why I think it's a really neat idea!
The Comres 75 was a functional external gun tank made in 1968 as a test bed tank. it had a 20pdr and was built apon the comet chassis. thats the earliest one i can find myself
The TTB is the answer to a popular question about autoloaders. "Can a carousel style autoloader have blowout panels? If it can, why doesn't russian tanks have them?"
The only possible way to have blowout panels for a carousel autoloader is to make the turret unmanned so the explosion pressure can vent out the top.
Leclerc moment
So what's the disadvantage then? Surely there has to be a con otherwise everyone would have done this?
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Unmanned = One less crew member to help out, and one more thing that needs maintenance.
@@MK_ULTRA420
Tell that to the French.
@@jintsuubest9331 I already know there's some tank maintenance guy swearing in French somewhere in the world at any given moment. Unless they're all on break.
I'm not sure if it predates the TTB but Object 477 Molot was an earlier Soviet project than the Object 195 which also had a crewless turret. Fun fact, it's autoloader could handle penetrators one full meter long, and it was mostly completed before the fall of the Union. It is believed to still exist in Ukraine somewhere.
Russia says it's theirs
@@QwerYT4819 they can try claim it then.
Heard it isn’t going too well at all.
@@Pilotmario these days ukraine arent doing to great either with destroyed economy and other...
@@vikydrone6366 Difference between Russia and Ukraine’s long-term economic prospects is that the latter has a hope for recovery. Nothing like a Marshall Plan 2.0 to bring war-ravaged nations to economic prosperity within a decade.
Russia doesn’t have that option, and they don’t have an empire like they used to.
@@Pilotmario BAHAHAHA marshall plan 2? With USA having HUGE debt and the EU with its energy problem? Dont think so pal.
Love your content man, keep up the good work! :)
good video Spookston
Great Vid!
I find it funny that people think that something that has a good design should never ne replicated by anyone else ever again
To sum up what I've learned about American test vehicles from Spookston: When american tanks got really OP either the Cold war ended or Congress threw a hissy fit and said "nO"
So basically the only reason the M1 didn't go for autoloader is money
Also efficiency
Even with the front fuel tanks gone the range can't be that bad since its 15% lighter
Should be called "American Obj.195"
love u spookston keep uploading my man
Drinking game: take a shot each time a TURMS dies
How are you doing Spookston? Asking after your QnA video.
I'm doing alright, thanks for asking
the M1 TTB looks straight out of an RTS game
*tripple reads title to not have a fucking aneurism*
Hi Spook interesting video as always i asked video for KF51 Panther few videos ago it would be nice to watch and see your opinions about it .
Take Care
You should review the LAV series of vehicles, i honestly think they could be added to war thunder along side the BTR series of wheeled vehicles
The LAV-AD is already in War Thunder, although the regular LAV's would be interesting.
Im happy that im able to play this tank in Armored Warfare
Video idea: do arcade, any tank
I believe that the first tank with an in-hull crew would be little willy
3:34 the wilbwind 😢
Americans 11:59: we will never make a tank with full mechanized remoted controled turret.
Americans 00:01: make american T14 Armata
How is it an American T14 Armata if it came out before the T14 was ever thought of?
Thanks for the video! Did anyone else notice the goofy palm tree at 4:20?
Holy crap great gameplay.
Gaijin won’t add the upgraded armor to the SEP cause it’s still classified. When has that ever stopped them before lmao. And isn’t Relikt’s capabilities also still classified?
Getting data an classified russian tank still easier than getting data from any NATO tank
@@csorbalaszlo1920 True lmao. Didn’t Gaijin make a statement that they won’t use classified info tho? Really can’t trust the Russians
When I saw the I thought you were playing sprocket
Good morning spookston
3:01 Stumtiger at 11.7
Nice
The idea of an unmanned turret and crew in a defensive hull compartment remains interesting to me, for sure the idea remains true that a machine can be replaced but a well trained tank crew cannot. (Or not as easily at the least)
Maybe we will see this more in the future, for now I think the next upgrade package the Abrams is getting is a kind of dedicated drone package.
Nice Video
I think It was the soviets who were actualy the first to experiment with the unmanned turret tank design with their obj.450 aka the t-74 which started in 1971
It was never built
@@Spookston yeah but experimented and researched the idea quite a lot
AFAIK the T-74 never got past the blueprint.
@@Silver_Prussian If the criteria for being first in the category is merely drawing up the idea first, then you could look back to the initial concepts made for the MBT-70 in 1964. One of those designs also had an externally mounted gun with crew in the hull.
@@Spookston no, i am just mentioning it cause it seems like an interesting tank as whole as well that it made nato worry and revisit the concept, also a lot bias people think both sides got the idea from the other and say that one is just a copy of the other but i dont think thats true at alll both the m1ttb and the obj195 developed independently without the creators knowing somebody else is working on a simular project.
This is wonderful
Once I talk to random person
They just flat out upset me and scream something like Space race
Also happy almost Thanksgiving Spooks!! And everyone else
I feel like this would be a cool premium
the west german VTS1 came before the TTB, and had the whole unmanned turret/crew in hull layout
I really don't think that counts considering someone had to exit the vehicle to reload the gun.
@@Spookston the prototype was just a proof of concept for the hull, a production vehicle would have an autoloader
@@jasonli2474 then that means TTB still the first tank to manages to be operational with unmanned turret and crew in the hull layout.
The Comres 75 was a functional external gun tank made in 1968 as a test bed tank. it had a 20pdr and was built apon the comet chassis. thats the earliest one i can find myself
LTVEX-3 video plz
Tanki Online looking ahh tanks
Honestly thought this was gonna be about the t14 from ww2 they all look alike
Italy recently released the Centauro 2 i think it would be a great thing to look at!
I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
I belive the 140 is ETC compatable
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 The 140mm ETC only got mentioned 2 times in the docs, it was planned but the idea got scrapped in the early 90's.
The congress also tried to cut the "120mm LW gun" (It's the official name for the 140mm XM291 ATACS) budge. At least "TACOM" managed to install the 140mm in the 1st and 2nd CATTB's in 1993 and 1994, both CATTB's used the same turret, but the 2nd one used a new hull made just for it.
Watch the new vid from the Chieftain explaining why more crewmembers arent a good thing and why drones/30mils/crows nest etc dont belong onto a tank
I know you mostly talk about american tanks, but it would be cool if you could talk about the Semovente da 149/40. Its an artillery piece, but it still might be interesting to talk about.
I mean the M1 ttb and obj 195 were in devlopment pretty much the same time
well, that's something new...
Still think the CATTB is the coolest tank ever made. Outclasses the TTB in every way
Hello spookston
Hey
I thought this was the T-114 at first, nvm. But hey you should still do a video on the T-114 (ik you said maybe already)
Also there was soviet T-74 project that was even before TTB
3:33 what was that whirbelwind doing?
I think the next American Tank will probably still have a manned turret, but with a 5th crew member in the hull to manage the Electronic Warfare Suite and Drones.
Copy and paste from my previous comment: I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
Crews will only get smaller, not larger. The Army has expressed interest in an autoloading mechanism for the next generation MBT. The loader could be retained as a systems operator, but I highly doubt they would move to a five man crew, especially since the military is having greater difficult recruiting people.
@@Spookston That's why I think having a fourth crew member would be ideal. Not only as another set of eyes 👀 but also another set of hands 👐🏻 for maintenance 🔧 🔩. I think the fourth member would be ideal for operating secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as additional ATGMs and surveillance/attack drones, etc.
@@Spookston There's also the possibility of a "Remote Crewmember" managing Drones for more than one tank remotely from a forward base.
>Slips in completely revamped M10 idea
Crew position 5 Random Task is back on the menu, boys.
Video on STRV 140 would be cool
I want the M1TTB in game so bad, Christmas event please????
Can you do a video on the marder and other German ifvs at that time please
Perhaps
Hey Could you please make a video on the KF-51 Panther that was recently unveiled by Rheinmetall? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Technically the first example of this concept was an experimental Comet tank using a 20 pounder
Edit: the vehicles name is the COMRES 75
I would like to see a video about the E-50 tank.
In regards,
a Panther II lover
I love the men in the hull design, but I think it is a dead end for tank design.
wasn't there a couple of soviet concept tank that also probed the idea of the "crew in hull" layout? so, even the mightly object-195 isn't the first.
I spy, with my little eye, ANOTHER HSTVL SPINOFF 😂
The HSTV-L has practically nothing to do with this though
Bro what
day 2 of asking spookston if he likes Sins of the prophets
(Is armata a copy of ttb RED EFFECT)
Yoo spooks idk if you'll even see this comment but damn i havent tuned into your channel in a while now but i gotta say i still love these explanator videos and some of the gameplay vids
personally i played lots of armored warfare because im into modern designs and stuff but the game has been on life support for probably 6-7 years now? and its basically only being held up by the 5 whales that keep buying everything the devs release
i really want a new arcade style tank game to come out to get my tank fix because i get this urge sometimes to just play a type of game like that but theres nothing that i like on the market right now
ah well one can dream i guess
Technically wasn't even the 195, since the Ob'yekt 278 was a thing. Or was it 287?
Regardless, one of those two did it back in the sixties.
Could you please make a video about the T50
Nobody talking about the Challenger with the Falcon turret from Jordan...
That's a low profile manned turret. Not the same thing.
@@Spookston Oh no, the point isn't that it's remote or not. It's just that i find it equally cool to the remote ones, but little to no one talk about these just because they aren't that special.
I would keep the design as is, but 'merkava-fy' it and move the crew capsule to the back, that way even if they do take a Hull hit from the front, they have a little extra survivability.
A side or rear shot is going to kill any tank no matter what anyway, so may as well slap a door on the back.
I saw that name change spookston...
You should play the M60A3 TTS
Was object 195 the first Russian "crew in hull" type tank? As far as I know, object 195 was fully built around 2000. On the other hand, there was the object 477 family of prototypes in the late 80s. Some may also suggest object 490a, which predated object 477, but it is not sure if a fully functional prototype was built (but there are pictures of a running mockup). I do not want to sound rude or question your knowledge, but I wanted to ask if you are aware of the existence of these machines.
Yeah, theres a mess there, but most 477 and 490 models had the entire crew in the hull, but not in a single compartment.
The turret crews were seated exceptionally low, such that they were in line with the driver.
However, Russia's first work with an armoured crew capsule dates to the 1960's. Forget if it was 287 or 278. One of those two.
if you count soviet union as 'Russia' then no. Soviets running crew in hull design all the way since 70s. KMDB got 450\477\490, LKZ has 299, UVZ later got 195 (despite the vehicle are after the USSR collapse the design are track all the way back to late 80s). And a lot of other projects too.
Hey spookston I has a question, why can some tanks like the IT-1 fire on the move while stuff like the ratel 20 and warrior IFVs?
Anyway great video man!
Depends on how the missile it guided. The IT-1 uses radio guidance while most other missiles use wires.
@@Spookston Ah right tank you, I just looked it up and sure as heck the MILAN atgm is wire guided also I have a request, when you find time to suffer could you play the british striker? It would be funny to see!
@@Spookston can I ask how did you become so knowledgeable with AFVs?
Was it by accident or did you read lots of books?
Is there a reason why the crew is still in the front of the tank at this point? If all of the viewports are electronic displays, wouldn't it make more sense to have them at the rear of the vehicle?
I’m still hoping that one day you’ll play with the German Wiesel 1a2
do a video about the conway
Could you please make a video on the M1 Thumper
I'd love to be able to view the sources you used so I can learn even more about this and future topics, is there any chance you could link them in the description? I completely understand if that's not something you wish to do!
Hey Spook, why don’t you design your own ideal tank? Would love to see what you can come up with.
Wouldn't Sweden have been even earlier with the concept of the crew in the hull with our UDES 19 (basically an strv 103 with a gun mounted on the hull, similar to the AGS)? which was one of the many prototypes presented in the Swedish UDES project that started in 1974.
That had a low profile turret, not the same thing as the remote turret used by the TTB.
@@Spookston oh. Okey. Thanks for clarifying :)
Hey spookston, can u rate our personal tank designs and rate them
Do ASU-57 video
It's only natural that people would compare the Abrams X to the T-14 Armata. The Armata is quite recent and made quite a buzz and suddenly here comes a next gen Abrams proposal with similar designs. Only super tanks nerds, some with TH-cam channels, would bring up fact sheets about some obscure experimental tanks from a century of tank development into the discussion.
Please do a vid on leo1a5 it's so overshadowed
While the M1 TTB may have been the first RC turreted tank ever built, it was not the first one to be designed, as that honor goes to the Soviet Object 450 (aka T-74) prototype from 1971.
Object 450 was intended to be a successor to the T-64 that would do away with the dangerous and extremely complicated carousel autoloader and instead use a novel external autoloader that would have an ammo compartment behind the rear armored bulkhead of the crew compartment feed shells into the back of an oscillating turret that would be placed above the rear half of the crew compartment. The crew compartment would have the driver, commander, and gunner sit three abreast behind the main fuel tank and an absolutely massive composite armor array that together would provide 700mm RHAe (though none of the few sources on this thing that exists specify if this is against KE or CE threats, though I'd assume the latter). Like all future Soviet/Russian RC turreted tank concepts, the turret had very little armor, as it relied on not getting hit due to being so small. One of the alleged benefits of its design were that it would be easier and cheaper to produce than the T-64 due to having fewer moving parts, but in light of the unit cost of Object 450's distant successor the T-14 Armata, I'm inclined to believe that this was either just marketing or an outright lie.
Unfortunately, Object 450 would never go beyond the mock-up phase due to resistance frist from the Soviet Army who was skeptical of such an unusual design, and then by shakeups in the Soviet Ministry of Defense leadership where the new leadership far preferred the gas turbine powered T-80 over this extremely strange concept. However, Object 450 will get the last laugh over the T-80, as its conceptual development was continued with Object 195, and then with Object 148 which eventually became the T-14 Armata we all know today, with the T-14 Armata being slated to eventually replace the gas-guzzling and maintenance intensive T-80.
lol TTB was never the first RC turreted tank ever built
@itsuk1_1 pretty sure the Comres 75 beat it
can you play the delat torn for your next gameplay video?
Can you do a video on which nation has the best ifv? Not necessarily in warthunder but that would be good too!
Look up the T-74 designed by Morozov in the 70s. A Ukrainian. He helped design the T-34 and he designed the T-54 and T-64. The T-74 was beyond the state of art and Morozov was about to retire and did. His T-64 had a lot of problems with its opposed piston engine and its light running gear. The T-72 was created as a cheap "mobilization tank" that could be made quickly and exported coz it wasn't cutting edge.
The Soviets were thinking about this in the 80s. Many designs had a crew in hull design.
It won't be long for the t14 will be in war thunder