The technology behind the BOB Semple Tank were so advanced for their time and also today so it is impossible to create this tank ever again it was a one time creation
While the PLZ-05 does use components copied from the MSTA-S, it was actually designed to be in line with *western* SPGs. It has a rear mounted turret, very thin armor, and even fires NATO 155mm shells because they're so much easier to get than Soviet 152mm shells.
The Chinese PLZ 05 and the The export version, The PLZ-45 , both in 155mm were actually based on an unpgraded platform of the previous 152mm Type 83 Howitzer , which has been deeply influenced all-together by another soviet design ,The 2S3 Akatsiya . Msta-S was there in China for evaluation purpose ,given by Russia to China in order to successfully incorporate Gerald Bull's designed GC-45 155mm howitzer in 1980s. and mind you , The PLZ 45 came first in 1989 , followed by PLZ-05 in mid 1990s. Unlike the 2S19 Msta-S , which is semi-automated in a way similar to the 152mm SPGH DANA of the Czechoslovaks , The PLZ-45 is a fully manually loaded artillery, similar to the 2S3 Akatsiya , M109 Paladin and G-6 Howitzer . In fact it looks more like an upgunned and better version of M109 than the Americans ever had.
PLZ-05 is basically a mish-mash of design features from Russian 2S3, 2S19 and American M109, with the gun copied from Gerald Bull's GC-45. Interestingly, they kept the 155mm instead of using the Russian 152mm partly to expand their potential export customers and partly because their engineers couldn't adapt Bull's design from 155mm to 152mm without making a lot of changes they were too lazy to bother developing. One consequence of this is that China is stuck using a mixture of east-bloc and NATO artillery calibers, rather than standardizing on one design, an issue they had with their tanks but have finally overcome by standardizing around Russian 125mm guns for everything rather than the mix of Soviet 85mm, 100mm, and 125mm guns and NATO 105mm and 120mm guns that they had in the 80's and 90's. Presumably we'll see China standardize their artillery in the near future, rather than use a mix of Russian 122m, 130mm, and 152mm guns and NATO 105mm and 155mm guns. Both countries use a 203mm gun, but I doubt ammunition for either is compatible with the other, and except for North Korea and Iran I don't know of anyone still using 175mm or 185mm guns.
@@Swindle1984China actually obtained the license legally , in this case , from Gerald Bull industries , to make a local copy called the Type-89 155mm Towed Howitzer. Gerald Bull has sold his Howitzer and Designs to other rogue states of those time like South Africa, Libya Iran and Iraq. And GC-45 and it's modernised Versions and variants like GHN-45 , DENEL-G5,Type 89 and Kalyani Bharat-52 are some of my favorite Howitzers. It is cheap , but sturdy and accurate . and It is my suggestion that this gun , if available in the arsenal of any NATO country , should be send to Ukraine .
The US didn't shamelessly steal the FT-17 from the French; they were allowed to produce it as a license-built near copy of Renault's design (in other words, they had permission). And even then, they were still using FT-17s at the same time (which complemented however many M1917s the US produced). One thing the US did steal shamelessly was Mauser's rifle design during the Hispanic-Cuban-American War. The rifle the US were using at the time was inferior to the Mauser the Spanish were using, so the US reverse engineered it and came with the 1903 Springfield rifle, which was a copy of Mauser. IIrc, there was a lawsuit from Mauser, and while the US got to keep the 1903 design they were forced to pay a considerable sum (both for the rights to produce it and as reparation).
Funny thing about the M1917, all the ones the US used in the war were French Renault FT-17's, not one single US made M1917 made it to France to fight, 2 arrived 9 days after the war ended and a further 8 showed up in December.
@@onyxdragon1179 That did work out rather well for them in terms of tank experience gained from piloting/maintaining the 144 they were given to use. They took that experience and applied it to the tanks after WW1.
i can't unsee them shrinking on themselves every time they are about to move; for every goddamn action they perform they always do this shrugging motion and then do whatever they are supposed to do. all of them do this
The Germans developed the first practical interrupter system for the Fokker Eindecker , August Euler was the initial inventor, and Franz Schneider had developed a prototype a year before Saulnier unveiled his own design. It still wasn't reliable however, requiring the metal deflectors. Fokker might, or might not have, taken it and improved it for his own plane. Germany already had its own machinegun synchronization system in development at that time.
Thank you. Another issue he failed to mention was the unpredictable trajectories of the bullets deflected by Garros's system. Here's a related item you may not have run across - the Spad S.A-2, possibly the worst solution to the forward facing machine gun problem by installing (in order) gun, gunner, prop, engine, and pilot.
The funny thing about the M1917 is that it was a license built make, and anything built from a license will always be extremely similar to what it was licensed from, so it's not exactly a shameless copy. The Huskie too isn't exactly a shameless copy either, as it just uses a similar rotor system. Besides, the maker of the system worked on the darned thing so it's even less so. The PLZ-05 and Type 726 have too little information on them since they're Chinese, but as far as I could tell the only remote similarity to their respective copies is that the PLZ potentially uses the same loading mechanism as the Msta, and the 726 uses gas turbine engines like the LCAC-55. I will say that the four of them do look strikingly similar, but that'd be like comparing the GM J Bodies from the 80's to each other. The Eindecker's original unarmed scout plane model was based on the Morane-Saulnier, and so was the synchronization gear, so I would call it the same way I called the Chinese models.
Yep, it's almost like Simple History doesn't do in depth research, just tosses words out into the ether, and spreads misinformation just to get that sweet, sweet Click Through Rate higher to get more sponsorship money, even if it means they have to shamelessly copycat Yarnhub and others, lol. This channel is a farce...
I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but I had once read that while Americans did take the blueprints from the French to make a licensed copy or the renault FT, but they weren't able to make it on time and in the end had a few differences. The reason was that the French blueprints were in metric system which confused the Americans.
We call it shameless for sure, but when we think about it... Dignity might be the last thing in mind when we are in preparation to wars & national defense.
The Americans in Wartime Museum outside of Washington DC has a 1917 tank. I remember when they got the tank 22 years ago, from a junk yard in Georgia. I'm not making that up. She was only missing her duck tail. About 5 years ago they took her completely apart and rebuilt her. She's fully restored and operational, the oldest piece in their vehicle collection. If anyone has a chance to see it I recommend visiting the place.
Okay, this primarily due to your last entry, but which copycatting was done with permission & which without? Because I honestly believe that, due to extenuating circumstances, friends & allies are allowed to copycat UNDER the condition that it’ll aid ‘em & such…
Yeah it was a license built copy. I don't think the US ever directly copied something without it being license built. China on the other hand cannot innovate and they will copy everything they can get their grubby little hands on.
Well when it comes to the FT-17 almost every industrialized nation during and after WW1 made their own variant of that tank. It was state of the art technology back then, and it would be a mistake not to learn from its design.
i think the first one of the list is just reaching because the PLZ-05 has pretty much no parts interchangeability with the MSTA-S and the semi automatic loader is used on a lot of different SPG's of similar performance. It has a different hull, turret, gun, engine layout and the engine and transmission itself is so radically changed its pretty much its own design. Even him saying they look similar is pretty dubious.
"Look how the Chinese copied this Russian artillery" It uses a different chassis, a different transmission and engine. Has a similar yet altered loading mechnasim, longer gun in different calibre ... As he proceeds to try and boost his statement by showing 2 vastly different vehicles side by side Bruh?!
In all fairness, I think the FT-17 is the most copied and improved on tank in history. As to the Huskey you went from "copied" to "stealing technology" so it really shouldn't have been included in this compilation.
I just don't know why simple history chose them when the 1903 Springfield was such a copy of the Mauser the US had to pay royalties on it after losing a court battle.
Kind of a shame that the TU-4 didn’t get a mention since it was just a copy of the B-29 superfortress and the fact that the Soviets went to the effort of building their copy to the same imperial measurements as the B-29, even making the tools for it
A: US has never used Imperial. Imperial measurements are different from US standards. B: They didn't use Inch standards. The skin on the Tu-4 was thicker due to Standard vs Metric, which gave the Tu-4 less range and lower speed than the B-29.
Unlike the Chinese vehicles listed here, the M1917 tank was produced under license, meaning they had permission to build them. "Stolen" implies the base design and construction were undertaken without permission of the company who originally built it.
The Hanomag SDKFZ - 251 was copied by the Czechs called OT-810. The BMW was under the Russians EMW and the Opel Kadett became postwar a Moskovitch. Nice to use in WW2 war movies.
No mention of the Tupolev Tu-4? That was a Soviet reverse-enegineer and copy of the US B-29 bomber, copied from B-29s that forced landed in USSR territory. Had a few differences, using Metric instead of Imperial units for hardware and sheet metal thickness, some slightly different electrical equipment, and different engines, but looked identical.
As a historian, I believe that claiming that copying something that was captured in WARTIME is not shameless at all. It was captured fair and square, so the captors technically have every right to make their own designs off of these lucky finds.
A better ww1 copy story would be the Fokker dr1. That was a direct copy of the Sopwith Triplane. Plus, I’m pretty sure Anthony Fokker designed the first successful interruption gear. I don’t think he stole it.
Soviets: Producing Msta-s* Chinese : Can I have one of them? Soviets : Invented Tank Autoloader Chinese: Can I have one ? Soviets : Coppied US Aim-9b and renamed R-3S Chinese : Can I still have another one pls. Chinese : Stronks!
I don't if he personally would though, he wrote the prince as analysis of politics not cause he liked it. He was very pro Republican apparently wearing a toga, and also was later tortured for his Republic beliefs.
The plz-05 isn’t much of a copy and it’s like calling the American paladin artillery a copy of mista because they both serve the same purpose and are not copies of each other
I volunteer at the olimpic flight museum and we have the only HH43 husky and it's the only one in the world left that still flying with its original airforce markings and wood rotors
Hi Simple History !! Love your videos. Can you make a video about the unusual modern firearm designs such as FMG9, Keltec P50 smg, AR-57, XM8, etc ? It would be great if you can make one. Thanks if you noticed this comment 👍
The coca cola recipe is so hard to get right because the whole "coca" part is impossible to obtain without being heavily treated to decocanize it first. The Coca-Cola company is one of the few (of not the only) US company/ies allowed to import and use untreated coca leaves.
Ironically, America accidentally landing and giving the Soviets B-29s ended up giving Russia their own strategic bombers force. So bombers like the TU-95, TU-160 and TU-22M may not have existed if America chose not send any B-29s to Russia
@@josevictorionunez9312 It wasn't accidental. The bomber crews made emergency landings in a supposedly allied nation, only to be arrested and have their aircraft seized as soon as they landed. We should have built more bombs and nuked the Soviets right after Japan.
Along the same lines, the US didn't steal the design for the Miles M2 supersonic aircraft, the British government gave it to them. We sold the Rolls Royce Nene engine to the Soviet Union. Capt Eric Brown missed out on being the first man to break the sound barrier in controlled flight whilst far worse were the number of allied pilots shot down by North Korean/Soviet aircraft powered by copies of the Nene turbojet during the Korean War.
How could you miss the Tupolev TU4 copy of the B-29 that Stalin insisted be exact so the first one had patch panels for battle damage repairs in the same place and a copy of the camera one of the crew had hanging in the cockpit.
@@Nikola95inYT Something else Tupolev took away from the B-29, B-29's had the Boeing name in a totem pole and B-29 next to it on the control yoke center cap. Military as well as civilian Tupolev aircraft from the TU-4 on had a stylized Ty in the cap till the yoke design no longer had a cap.
im sad to see the tank barrel holder being used as a elevation mechanism in the animation :c at 1:50 its used to hold the gun at a fixed point while transporting the tank, its not a stabilizer/bipod for the gun...
@@internetlurker1850 Yeah if ever there was a poster-nation for adapting everything in sight it's the Borgan Empire. We are the Romans. Lower your shields(literal wood/bronze) and surrender your lands. We will add your civil and military ideas to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
A self-propelled gun is not a tank. It is an artillery piece with caterpillar tracks. It is not intended to be used as a direct fire weapon, although that occasionally happens.
The M1917 was build under license, not stolen. That means that the French were paid for each tank the US built. This is exactly the opposite of stealing.
What's interesting about copying is that it has something to do with whether it is allowed to trade. If a technology is not allowed to be sold and you can't benefit from it, then you can't and have no reason to prevent others from realizing it by copying or borrowing it.
Life is too short to wake up in the morning with regrets. So love the people who treat you right, forget about the ones who don’t. And believe that everything happens for a reason. If you get a chance, take it. If it changes your life, let it. Nobody said it would be easy, just that it would be worth it
The PLZ-05 is NOT a copy of the 2S19. It only incorporates a few copied technologies but is otherwise very different to the 2S19. While the single wing design of the Fokker Eindecker was inspired by the french Saulnier H., the interruptor/Synchronisation Gear was NOT copied from the french. The french used deflector plates on the propeller. Fokker used the Schneider Syncrhonisation Gear (Patented 1913 in Germany). The french choice with deflector plates was not feasable for the german 7.9mm Mauser Cartridge, as they had too much penetration capability for the use of deflector plates (the french lebel 8x50mm R Cartridge was very low powered and had soft tipped roundet bullets) The 726A LCAC is INSPIRED not Copied from the US LCAC. It is substantially bigger. In the same way you could say the US copied the LCAC from the sovjets with their Aist Class LCAC or Gus Class LCAC or Tsaplya Class LCAC (all significantly earlier developed and in service than the US LCAC) Yes the sovjets were for most of the time of the cold war on the edge of technological advancement, often ahead of NATO. FT-17 was a legal license production.
The US landing craft is a hovercraft, something originally perfected by the British engineer Christopher Cockerel and his team who developed the first properly working version.
History proved that cheap, reliable and easily manufactured ones will always be the long-lasting standard issue for a long-term war. The blitz war can only happen so rarely that equipment used during those wars are often non-heard-of
The Soviet Buran Spacecraft look externally similar to the US Challenger, but it shares almost none of the similarity internally, it was a self drive computer spacecraft, its first flight and landing did without a single human on board. it can be said for its time, it is more advanced than even the Challenger spacecraft. Please don't misinformed, check your facts please.
I absolutely love this content. Been looking forward to this video since your copycat weapons video. Can you guys please do a segment on the Irish Republican Army and/or the provisional IRA?
@Just Some Crappy Animations of course not but on paper they are better. The avionics are more modern, the armaments are better, and they are of course newer( less stress on the airframe)
@Just Some Crappy Animations a dated plane at the time, and a lucky shot as qouted by the person who shot it down. Vs the su35, tons lost and very much a modern aircraft. Lol
The machine gun synchronizing gear of WW1: Saulnier was not the first to invent it. The very first one was patented by Franz Schneider, a Swiss who was working for a German aircraft company. He never actually built one. It's unknown whether his patent had anything to do with the other's designs, but they would probably have been aware of it. Because of the patent, they'd most likely have taken the concept and tried to design their own mechanisms. Saulnier designed one and tested it, but it was a failure. He wasn't able to solve the problems with his design before he had to return the machine gun, which he had borrowed from the French army. That was when he decided to just deflect bullets that struck the propeller instead, and that was the system installed on Garros' airplane. Fokker got the propeller, and that inspired him to take a crack at the synchronization problem. He was the first to design a gear that was successful and reliable. He didn't copy Saulnier's system; Saulnier had given up on his design and never installed it on Garros' airplane. Garros just used the deflection plates on his propeller. The M1917 Light Tank: was not copying, shameless or otherwise. It was fully authorized by the Allies because French industry was overburdened by production of tanks for France's own use. It was decided that the USA would produce FT tanks for the US army, and France sent the plans to the USA, where they were modified to American requirements. Flettner: You can't say the USA copied Flettner's helicopter when they hired him to design and build for them. But if you want a shameless copy, then look no further than the Russian TU-4. When an American B-29 made an emergency landing in Russia during WW2, they gleefully tore it down and copied it rivet for rivet.
This video shouldn't be called "Shameless Copycat" since many of these aren't shameless. The artillery units, in the beginning, don't even look the same at all, Hulls are both different, turrets are different and placed in different locations and the guns are also different. When countries make new technology and others make similar but definitely not the same things that isn't copying it's incorporating new tech into a new design. Also the M1917 Light Tank is literally a licensed built tank which is not shameless in any way.
To be fair the US actually made licensed copies meaning they got permission to make the copies, probably got design specs and manufacturering equipment from renault, and modified the original design to better suit american weapons and tactics.
The airplane's machine gun shooting past the propeller baffles me all the time. A failure could result in shooting off the propeller and send it plummeting to the ground.
The Bob Semple tank is, Semply, impossible to copy. Who can withstand its wrath???
Too late.
Nice pun?
The technology behind the BOB Semple Tank were so advanced for their time and also today so it is impossible to create this tank ever again it was a one time creation
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
Its a tractor with a shed on it
While the PLZ-05 does use components copied from the MSTA-S, it was actually designed to be in line with *western* SPGs. It has a rear mounted turret, very thin armor, and even fires NATO 155mm shells because they're so much easier to get than Soviet 152mm shells.
The chassis is also a multi-functional artillery chassis，instead of a tank chassis.
The Chinese PLZ 05 and the The export version, The PLZ-45 , both in 155mm were actually based on an unpgraded platform of the previous 152mm Type 83 Howitzer , which has been deeply influenced all-together by another soviet design ,The 2S3 Akatsiya . Msta-S was there in China for evaluation purpose ,given by Russia to China in order to successfully incorporate Gerald Bull's designed GC-45 155mm howitzer in 1980s. and mind you , The PLZ 45 came first in 1989 , followed by PLZ-05 in mid 1990s. Unlike the 2S19 Msta-S , which is semi-automated in a way similar to the 152mm SPGH DANA of the Czechoslovaks , The PLZ-45 is a fully manually loaded artillery, similar to the 2S3 Akatsiya , M109 Paladin and G-6 Howitzer . In fact it looks more like an upgunned and better version of M109 than the Americans ever had.
PLZ-05 is basically a mish-mash of design features from Russian 2S3, 2S19 and American M109, with the gun copied from Gerald Bull's GC-45. Interestingly, they kept the 155mm instead of using the Russian 152mm partly to expand their potential export customers and partly because their engineers couldn't adapt Bull's design from 155mm to 152mm without making a lot of changes they were too lazy to bother developing. One consequence of this is that China is stuck using a mixture of east-bloc and NATO artillery calibers, rather than standardizing on one design, an issue they had with their tanks but have finally overcome by standardizing around Russian 125mm guns for everything rather than the mix of Soviet 85mm, 100mm, and 125mm guns and NATO 105mm and 120mm guns that they had in the 80's and 90's. Presumably we'll see China standardize their artillery in the near future, rather than use a mix of Russian 122m, 130mm, and 152mm guns and NATO 105mm and 155mm guns. Both countries use a 203mm gun, but I doubt ammunition for either is compatible with the other, and except for North Korea and Iran I don't know of anyone still using 175mm or 185mm guns.
@@Swindle1984China actually obtained the license legally , in this case , from Gerald Bull industries , to make a local copy called the Type-89 155mm Towed Howitzer. Gerald Bull has sold his Howitzer and Designs to other rogue states of those time like South Africa, Libya Iran and Iraq. And GC-45 and it's modernised Versions and variants like GHN-45 , DENEL-G5,Type 89 and Kalyani Bharat-52 are some of my favorite Howitzers. It is cheap , but sturdy and accurate .
and It is my suggestion that this gun , if available in the arsenal of any NATO country , should be send to Ukraine .
*THIS IS THE CLIP THAT YOU WERE ALL BORN TO SEE:*
*th-cam.com/video/eo_LqM3CfUs/w-d-xo.html**:*
The US didn't shamelessly steal the FT-17 from the French; they were allowed to produce it as a license-built near copy of Renault's design (in other words, they had permission).
And even then, they were still using FT-17s at the same time (which complemented however many M1917s the US produced).
One thing the US did steal shamelessly was Mauser's rifle design during the Hispanic-Cuban-American War. The rifle the US were using at the time was inferior to the Mauser the Spanish were using, so the US reverse engineered it and came with the 1903 Springfield rifle, which was a copy of Mauser. IIrc, there was a lawsuit from Mauser, and while the US got to keep the 1903 design they were forced to pay a considerable sum (both for the rights to produce it and as reparation).
Funny thing about the M1917, all the ones the US used in the war were French Renault FT-17's, not one single US made M1917 made it to France to fight, 2 arrived 9 days after the war ended and a further 8 showed up in December.
@@MegaRazorback Yeah, designing occured mostly after the war as the US tried to figure out how to build a proper tank of their own
@@onyxdragon1179 That did work out rather well for them in terms of tank experience gained from piloting/maintaining the 144 they were given to use. They took that experience and applied it to the tanks after WW1.
What stands out to me is the Russian Tupolev TU-4, just a copy of the B29 but with different engines
They even kept damage done to original b29
Soviet, not Russian.
Don't forget they replace 12.7mm defensive gun with 23mm
@@jakekaywell5972 so, just like 80% Russian
@@jakekaywell5972 same difference
This animation is getting so much better from when you started, it's really nice to see :)
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
Accept for the gun crutches... Watching them stretch and flop around is amusing though xD
i can't unsee them shrinking on themselves every time they are about to move; for every goddamn action they perform they always do this shrugging motion and then do whatever they are supposed to do. all of them do this
@@joereginmyre you have 86 followers
@@dompdompdomp The video with arguably the most professional animation was the one about the South Koreans in the Vietnam War..
The coolest thing is that the "American" tank in the thumb is a "2S19" a Rússian artillery lol
It's not even a tank
@@stevinharper3551 o
I know
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
@@joereginmyre good fo you
@@joereginmyre 🤨📸
The Germans developed the first practical interrupter system for the Fokker Eindecker , August Euler was the initial inventor, and Franz Schneider had developed a prototype a year before Saulnier unveiled his own design. It still wasn't reliable however, requiring the metal deflectors. Fokker might, or might not have, taken it and improved it for his own plane. Germany already had its own machinegun synchronization system in development at that time.
Just looking for this comment, you didn't let me down
Thank you. Another issue he failed to mention was the unpredictable trajectories of the bullets deflected by Garros's system.
Here's a related item you may not have run across - the Spad S.A-2, possibly the worst solution to the forward facing machine gun problem by installing (in order) gun, gunner, prop, engine, and pilot.
The funny thing about the M1917 is that it was a license built make, and anything built from a license will always be extremely similar to what it was licensed from, so it's not exactly a shameless copy. The Huskie too isn't exactly a shameless copy either, as it just uses a similar rotor system. Besides, the maker of the system worked on the darned thing so it's even less so. The PLZ-05 and Type 726 have too little information on them since they're Chinese, but as far as I could tell the only remote similarity to their respective copies is that the PLZ potentially uses the same loading mechanism as the Msta, and the 726 uses gas turbine engines like the LCAC-55. I will say that the four of them do look strikingly similar, but that'd be like comparing the GM J Bodies from the 80's to each other. The Eindecker's original unarmed scout plane model was based on the Morane-Saulnier, and so was the synchronization gear, so I would call it the same way I called the Chinese models.
Another copy strange
A better example would be the Soviet T-55 and the Chinese Type 59 tank
@@DarkPsychoMessiah except Type 59 was license copy of T-54A
Yep, it's almost like Simple History doesn't do in depth research, just tosses words out into the ether, and spreads misinformation just to get that sweet, sweet Click Through Rate higher to get more sponsorship money, even if it means they have to shamelessly copycat Yarnhub and others, lol. This channel is a farce...
I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but I had once read that while Americans did take the blueprints from the French to make a licensed copy or the renault FT, but they weren't able to make it on time and in the end had a few differences. The reason was that the French blueprints were in metric system which confused the Americans.
Simple history is now using their animation skills on the small things they say now, I like it.
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
@@joereginmyre you're videos are worse then all of the "respect " videos combined💀
@@joereginmyre. What a Narcissistic
*HERE IS THE CLIP THAT YOU WERE ALL BORN TO SEE:*
*th-cam.com/video/eo_LqM3CfUs/w-d-xo.html**:*
This is an interesting comment section
We call it shameless for sure, but when we think about it... Dignity might be the last thing in mind when we are in preparation to wars & national defense.
The Americans in Wartime Museum outside of Washington DC has a 1917 tank. I remember when they got the tank 22 years ago, from a junk yard in Georgia. I'm not making that up. She was only missing her duck tail. About 5 years ago they took her completely apart and rebuilt her. She's fully restored and operational, the oldest piece in their vehicle collection. If anyone has a chance to see it I recommend visiting the place.
Where exactly is it?
I would, if it wasn't located in the Capital of United Socialist Republic of Amerika.
@@828enigma6 Ha-ha: your military is getting demolished by Ukrainians.
@@828enigma6 imagine being such a triggered snowflake that you can’t even visit a place because you don’t like it’s local politics.
@@828enigma6 I died of cringe
Damn your animation looks cool and smooth. Been watching for many years and everytime it improves
This is so true
In China, reverse engineering US technology has a colloquial academic term called “hold onto the eagle when you trying to cross the river”.
Okay, this primarily due to your last entry, but which copycatting was done with permission & which without? Because I honestly believe that, due to extenuating circumstances, friends & allies are allowed to copycat UNDER the condition that it’ll aid ‘em & such…
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
@@joereginmyre dint ask
@@joereginmyre Yooo your youtube is fire! Extinguish it!
Yeah it was a license built copy. I don't think the US ever directly copied something without it being license built. China on the other hand cannot innovate and they will copy everything they can get their grubby little hands on.
*THIS IS THE CLIP THAT YOU WERE ALL BORN TO SEE:*
*th-cam.com/video/eo_LqM3CfUs/w-d-xo.html**:*
We also took inspiration of our ballistic missiles from Russia, but ours is very pointy not round
who revived you?
@@Ezekiyam382 clutched the Gulag with Lizzie
You skipped one of the most infamous copies of all time: the Soviet's Tupolev Tu-4 "Bull" was copied from the American's Boeing B-29 Superfortress.
Well when it comes to the FT-17 almost every industrialized nation during and after WW1 made their own variant of that tank. It was state of the art technology back then, and it would be a mistake not to learn from its design.
Many of them liscened officially from Renault might I add
@@WynnofThule well said, plus in 1917 France needed as many tanks on the front as possible which is why they gave the US a liscence so early
i think the first one of the list is just reaching because the PLZ-05 has pretty much no parts interchangeability with the MSTA-S and the semi automatic loader is used on a lot of different SPG's of similar performance. It has a different hull, turret, gun, engine layout and the engine and transmission itself is so radically changed its pretty much its own design. Even him saying they look similar is pretty dubious.
He should have gone with the Tu-4/B-29 instead.
totally, it's more like a clickbait, there is so many sino-hater now so this gives them more upvotes lol
@@Raymond-ck6ms yes
"Look how the Chinese copied this Russian artillery"
It uses a different chassis, a different transmission and engine. Has a similar yet altered loading mechnasim, longer gun in different calibre ... As he proceeds to try and boost his statement by showing 2 vastly different vehicles side by side
Bruh?!
Don’t forget that Japan’s “I-KO-GO” tank is also based on the FT tank as well~
In all fairness, I think the FT-17 is the most copied and improved on tank in history. As to the Huskey you went from "copied" to "stealing technology" so it really shouldn't have been included in this compilation.
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
Same with the M1917. It was literally a slightly changed FT-17 built under license, not stolen.
I just don't know why simple history chose them when the 1903 Springfield was such a copy of the Mauser the US had to pay royalties on it after losing a court battle.
*THIS IS THE CLIP THAT YOU WERE ALL BORN TO SEE:*
*th-cam.com/video/eo_LqM3CfUs/w-d-xo.html**:*
. After that it's the T-55.
Kind of a shame that the TU-4 didn’t get a mention since it was just a copy of the B-29 superfortress and the fact that the Soviets went to the effort of building their copy to the same imperial measurements as the B-29, even making the tools for it
A: US has never used Imperial. Imperial measurements are different from US standards.
B: They didn't use Inch standards. The skin on the Tu-4 was thicker due to Standard vs Metric, which gave the Tu-4 less range and lower speed than the B-29.
The Established Titles ad hasn't aged well. Now that it's being revealed as a misleading company.
I feel a trend going on here with China being dissed on copying
Israelis are known to steal technology from America and sell it to China:
th-cam.com/video/_3lK_axquqU/w-d-xo.html
China arsenal, at least until a few decade ago, is a soviet copycat.
There's a reason why the phrase "Made in China" is the common catchphrase whenever the quality of the product being inferior than it's competition.
when it's American's doing it during WW1&2, it's call "research".
when it's the other way round, it's call "copycat".
ironic
I AM THE BEEST YOUUTUBER YOU'RE ALL TRAASH COMPARED TO ME IM THE BEEST 😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯😯
The Russian Vympel K-13 (AA-2 "Atoll") was a exact copy of a captured american AIM-9 Sidewinder air to air missile.
And basically everything in the Chinese arsenal is a copy of someone else’s machine.
@@yourearidiculouslunatic8435 yeah like I can’t name a single design they didn’t steal from another country and make cheaper
I'm probably laughing far too much watching the SPG animations with the gun crutches locked on the barrels, stretching and flopping around xD
Ah, yes, the American 2S19 self propelled howitzer.
(look at the thumbnail lmao)
Yeah lmao, they had to promote US anti-china propaganda some how.
Don’t blame them, they found their way of developing technology wile studying others and making their own stuff, it worked out well
Funny how the thumbnail shows a mad American Soldier on top of a Soviet Built SPG even though America uses the M109 not the Msta-S.
China: hey guys can i copy your homework?
Literally every other country ever: ok but don’t make it obvious
China: we will see about that.
Unlike the Chinese vehicles listed here, the M1917 tank was produced under license, meaning they had permission to build them. "Stolen" implies the base design and construction were undertaken without permission of the company who originally built it.
Um, the plz 05 was designed with licensed technology. The designer of the cannon, Gerald Bull, agreed for China to develop his design
@@martineong5810 I only looked up the M1917 wiki lol
Idec what the Chinese get up to
@@lasagnakob9908 what does idec mean or did you mean to say idc?
@@danelassiter6809
"I don't even care"
@@lasagnakob9908 thank you for the clarification
The Tu-4 better be on here, since it's an involuntary copy unlike most.
They do say "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." An idea not shared by copyrights or manufactures, but it does stand the test of time.
The Hanomag SDKFZ - 251 was copied by the Czechs called OT-810. The BMW was under the Russians EMW and the Opel Kadett became postwar a Moskovitch. Nice to use in WW2 war movies.
No mention of the Tupolev Tu-4? That was a Soviet reverse-enegineer and copy of the US B-29 bomber, copied from B-29s that forced landed in USSR territory. Had a few differences, using Metric instead of Imperial units for hardware and sheet metal thickness, some slightly different electrical equipment, and different engines, but looked identical.
The video would be too to have all the missing vehicles
As a historian, I believe that claiming that copying something that was captured in WARTIME is not shameless at all. It was captured fair and square, so the captors technically have every right to make their own designs off of these lucky finds.
Easter egg bonuses
yeah romans did do but i would like to mention the romans did not just copy them but also improve them and master them
A better ww1 copy story would be the Fokker dr1. That was a direct copy of the Sopwith Triplane. Plus, I’m pretty sure Anthony Fokker designed the first successful interruption gear. I don’t think he stole it.
Soviets: Producing Msta-s*
Chinese : Can I have one of them?
Soviets : Invented Tank Autoloader
Chinese: Can I have one ?
Soviets : Coppied US Aim-9b and renamed R-3S
Chinese : Can I still have another one pls.
Chinese : Stronks!
Nitpick here: the SPGs are firing with their barrels locked up in the bracket things
I believe that's called the "Travel Lock", used to lock the barrel in position while traveling.
We just not gonna talk about the tu-4, pe-8, type-59, and type 60?
I know Tu-4 was copied from B-29, but tell me which design did the Pe-8 copy?
@@Yourlocalhuman8 Captured b17s that the soviets basically stole from the american crews when they had to emergency land in soviet territory
The type 59 was a licensed produced T-54A tank
Machieveli would advise to use the winning move, even if that means copying something that you don't like.
I don't if he personally would though, he wrote the prince as analysis of politics not cause he liked it.
He was very pro Republican apparently wearing a toga, and also was later tortured for his Republic beliefs.
The plz-05 isn’t much of a copy and it’s like calling the American paladin artillery a copy of mista because they both serve the same purpose and are not copies of each other
this could be a nice series, a bit surprised we didnt see the soviet copy of the B29, the TU4
I volunteer at the olimpic flight museum and we have the only HH43 husky and it's the only one in the world left that still flying with its original airforce markings and wood rotors
I miss the Czechoslovak OT-810. It was a copy of the german Sd.Kfz. 251.
Don't forget they also reverse engineered a German 30mm AA Gun Flak Mk 303 nd manufactured their own under the designation "PldVk Vz 53/59".
Thanks!
Welcome!
I can't believe the the B-29 that was copied and produced in the USSR wasn't mentioned. (Love your videos. Thanks.)
the second video from the shamless capycat weapones in history
Hi Simple History !! Love your videos. Can you make a video about the unusual modern firearm designs such as FMG9, Keltec P50 smg, AR-57, XM8, etc ? It would be great if you can make one. Thanks if you noticed this comment 👍
The coca cola recipe is so hard to get right because the whole "coca" part is impossible to obtain without being heavily treated to decocanize it first.
The Coca-Cola company is one of the few (of not the only) US company/ies allowed to import and use untreated coca leaves.
ah yes, the sequel we did not expected
Please do a video on the battle of Delville wood. As a South African it would be truly amazing to see our troops remembered on this channel.
Thanks..
Oof, that sponsorship didn't age well.
Surprised you didn't include B-29/Tu-4 since that's one of the most famous examples.
Ironically, America accidentally landing and giving the Soviets B-29s ended up giving Russia their own strategic bombers force. So bombers like the TU-95, TU-160 and TU-22M may not have existed if America chose not send any B-29s to Russia
@@josevictorionunez9312 It wasn't accidental. The bomber crews made emergency landings in a supposedly allied nation, only to be arrested and have their aircraft seized as soon as they landed.
We should have built more bombs and nuked the Soviets right after Japan.
@@josevictorionunez9312 Amazing all of these jet bombers are a same design of an prop bomber which has an obivious diffrent designs
I feel like the helicopter “stolen” from Germany wasn’t stolen, they got the inventor to make it.
They stole the inventor lol
@@Angelthewolf fr fr
Along the same lines, the US didn't steal the design for the Miles M2 supersonic aircraft, the British government gave it to them. We sold the Rolls Royce Nene engine to the Soviet Union. Capt Eric Brown missed out on being the first man to break the sound barrier in controlled flight whilst far worse were the number of allied pilots shot down by North Korean/Soviet aircraft powered by copies of the Nene turbojet during the Korean War.
What do you do if you have no original ideas of your own? Steal and rip off someone else's research, ideas and design and make a shameless copy! 🤮🔫
Hi
Bobby car
Hi
Something you most probably did too.
“Shameless” why waist years on making something new when there is something already out there that is proven to be effective
4:08
Lol, me and even the captions thought this word sound like another word. 😂
The m1917 was a licensed version though wasn't it?
The voice actor that does your sponsorships is hilarious. Is he directly involved with the rest of the guys, is he aware that it's a comedic thing?
How could you miss the Tupolev TU4 copy of the B-29 that Stalin insisted be exact so the first one had patch panels for battle damage repairs in the same place and a copy of the camera one of the crew had hanging in the cockpit.
B-29 also had ashtrays, and soviets copied them too. Despite the fact that they weren't allowed to smoke. Bruh.
@@Nikola95inYT Something else Tupolev took away from the B-29, B-29's had the Boeing name in a totem pole and B-29 next to it on the control yoke center cap. Military as well as civilian Tupolev aircraft from the TU-4 on had a stylized Ty in the cap till the yoke design no longer had a cap.
funny that in the thumbnail the americans are using a msta.
I mean…..is it really copying if it’s original creator oversees the copycat’s creation? 🤔
Truly. At that point all he's doing is making an improved version of his own design.
im sad to see the tank barrel holder being used as a elevation mechanism in the animation :c at 1:50 its used to hold the gun at a fixed point while transporting the tank, its not a stabilizer/bipod for the gun...
I swear if this doesn't mention the Romans literally stealing the design of and creating a copy of the ENTIRE CARTHAGE NAVY I am going to be mad.
Romans did that, not Greeks.
@@tremedar Oh yeah, sorry, I know it was the Romans but I ended up mixing them up, mostly because the Romans also stole so much from Greece...
@@internetlurker1850 Yeah if ever there was a poster-nation for adapting everything in sight it's the Borgan Empire.
We are the Romans. Lower your shields(literal wood/bronze) and surrender your lands. We will add your civil and military ideas to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
A self-propelled gun is not a tank. It is an artillery piece with caterpillar tracks. It is not intended to be used as a direct fire weapon, although that occasionally happens.
Ah yes the famous American MSTA-S
The M1917 was build under license, not stolen. That means that the French were paid for each tank the US built. This is exactly the opposite of stealing.
Can you make a video on the battle of Lechfeld 955 AD?
What's interesting about copying is that it has something to do with whether it is allowed to trade. If a technology is not allowed to be sold and you can't benefit from it, then you can't and have no reason to prevent others from realizing it by copying or borrowing it.
Life is too short to wake up in the morning with regrets. So love the people who treat you right, forget about the ones who don’t. And believe that everything happens for a reason. If you get a chance, take it. If it changes your life, let it. Nobody said it would be easy, just that it would be worth it
That's cool and all but who asked
@@bejaminmaston1347 It's random but it's useful for me
5:23 the captions lol
Love the vids
Counter video idea: great combat video copies
The PLZ-05 is NOT a copy of the 2S19. It only incorporates a few copied technologies but is otherwise very different to the 2S19.
While the single wing design of the Fokker Eindecker was inspired by the french Saulnier H., the interruptor/Synchronisation Gear was NOT copied from the french. The french used deflector plates on the propeller. Fokker used the Schneider Syncrhonisation Gear (Patented 1913 in Germany).
The french choice with deflector plates was not feasable for the german 7.9mm Mauser Cartridge, as they had too much penetration capability for the use of deflector plates (the french lebel 8x50mm R Cartridge was very low powered and had soft tipped roundet bullets)
The 726A LCAC is INSPIRED not Copied from the US LCAC. It is substantially bigger.
In the same way you could say the US copied the LCAC from the sovjets with their Aist Class LCAC or Gus Class LCAC or Tsaplya Class LCAC (all significantly earlier developed and in service than the US LCAC)
Yes the sovjets were for most of the time of the cold war on the edge of technological advancement, often ahead of NATO.
FT-17 was a legal license production.
I’d love to see a video that covers some of the most significant scientists involved in Operation Paperclip.
Shameless? It’s fucking war lol
You can add the Tupolev TU-4, a Soviet copy of the B29 and the Nesher and Kfir, Israeli copies of the Mirage 5.
More like this please Simple History.
Your animation has vastly improved compared to your original content.
Do an entire episode about operation paper clip please!!
The US landing craft is a hovercraft, something originally perfected by the British engineer Christopher Cockerel and his team who developed the first properly working version.
The ft-17 in the us was a license copy not a shameless copy. You also forget the iranian copy of a captured us predator drone
You should make a entire video on china copying literally every single weapon they have copied I think that would be cool
Dude that'd be like a 4 hour video
*THIS IS THE CLIP THAT YOU WERE ALL BORN TO SEE:*
*th-cam.com/video/eo_LqM3CfUs/w-d-xo.html**:*
@@shithappens6887 more like a 3 part trilogy
They copied genocide from the Germans XD
Chinese goverment sucks
History proved that cheap, reliable and easily manufactured ones will always be the long-lasting standard issue for a long-term war. The blitz war can only happen so rarely that equipment used during those wars are often non-heard-of
On the landing crafts the Russians have a very similar design to the American ones too so the Chinese are not the only ones “copying”
The Soviet Buran Spacecraft look externally similar to the US Challenger, but it shares almost none of the similarity internally, it was a self drive computer spacecraft, its first flight and landing did without a single human on board. it can be said for its time, it is more advanced than even the Challenger spacecraft.
Please don't misinformed, check your facts please.
Can't believe you didn't include the Tu-4/B-29, that was the definition of shameless copycat
I absolutely love this content. Been looking forward to this video since your copycat weapons video. Can you guys please do a segment on the Irish Republican Army and/or the provisional IRA?
You forgot the B-29 -> Tu-4 bomber. The UAV.
Thats why China is strong
China became strong because of Israel:
th-cam.com/video/rsDC6GMiqzA/w-d-xo.html
Next joke
The Focker definitely wasn’t a copycat vehicle, he just used enemy tech to make his plane better
Funny how China pretty much stole the flanker series but made it better than current russian models
@Just Some Crappy Animations yes? Better. You have counter proof?
@Just Some Crappy Animations of course not but on paper they are better. The avionics are more modern, the armaments are better, and they are of course newer( less stress on the airframe)
@Just Some Crappy Animations welp multiple su35s have been lost in ukraine so 😅
@Just Some Crappy Animations a dated plane at the time, and a lucky shot as qouted by the person who shot it down.
Vs the su35, tons lost and very much a modern aircraft. Lol
@Just Some Crappy Animations so many? You mean a few of the 100s made? OK and?
Nice, now we have a sequel to the copycat weapons video.
The machine gun synchronizing gear of WW1: Saulnier was not the first to invent it. The very first one was patented by Franz Schneider, a Swiss who was working for a German aircraft company. He never actually built one. It's unknown whether his patent had anything to do with the other's designs, but they would probably have been aware of it. Because of the patent, they'd most likely have taken the concept and tried to design their own mechanisms.
Saulnier designed one and tested it, but it was a failure. He wasn't able to solve the problems with his design before he had to return the machine gun, which he had borrowed from the French army. That was when he decided to just deflect bullets that struck the propeller instead, and that was the system installed on Garros' airplane.
Fokker got the propeller, and that inspired him to take a crack at the synchronization problem. He was the first to design a gear that was successful and reliable. He didn't copy Saulnier's system; Saulnier had given up on his design and never installed it on Garros' airplane. Garros just used the deflection plates on his propeller.
The M1917 Light Tank: was not copying, shameless or otherwise. It was fully authorized by the Allies because French industry was overburdened by production of tanks for France's own use. It was decided that the USA would produce FT tanks for the US army, and France sent the plans to the USA, where they were modified to American requirements.
Flettner: You can't say the USA copied Flettner's helicopter when they hired him to design and build for them.
But if you want a shameless copy, then look no further than the Russian TU-4. When an American B-29 made an emergency landing in Russia during WW2, they gleefully tore it down and copied it rivet for rivet.
Bh
This video shouldn't be called "Shameless Copycat" since many of these aren't shameless. The artillery units, in the beginning, don't even look the same at all, Hulls are both different, turrets are different and placed in different locations and the guns are also different. When countries make new technology and others make similar but definitely not the same things that isn't copying it's incorporating new tech into a new design. Also the M1917 Light Tank is literally a licensed built tank which is not shameless in any way.
To be fair the US actually made licensed copies meaning they got permission to make the copies, probably got design specs and manufacturering equipment from renault, and modified the original design to better suit american weapons and tactics.
Opposite words ....
Sun ....... Moon
Day.........Night
Orignal......China
USA: NOOOO! STOP COPYING ME!!😭😭😭
Also China: Oh No? Anyway!
The airplane's machine gun shooting past the propeller baffles me all the time. A failure could result in shooting off the propeller and send it plummeting to the ground.
This should have been "Shameless Copycat Weapons: Part 2"