I mean yes the tank was bad Irl, Phly even says it in his video on it, but it is pretty funny that this is how WoT is trying to take advantage over WT. A tank’s irl stats is obviously completely different to how it will play in the game.
I heard with new covid guidelines if you don’t wash your hand for a minimum of 30 seconds you will find one of these waiting outside the bathroom waiting
I have literally driven this tank! In fact, as an ex-paratrooper, it’s the ONLY tank I’ve ever driven. In the mid-1990’s, we found one of these full of fuel on a demolition range on Fort AP Hill, VA. Needless to say, we paused training, and played tanker all day (until we ran it out of fuel).
I fooled with the switches until I heard the pumps come on (master power switch), then hit the button labeled “start!” Driving it was just like the zero-turn lawn mower I grew up with. It was shockingly easy, but we weren’t driving it buttoned up using perescopes.
@@Mick762 they need to be dead simple seeing as if you lock a grunt in a room with a ball bearing and come back 30 minutes later, there WILL be a broken bearing. In this case, apply the concept of the ball bearing to multi million dollar machine designed to kill
LMAO.... Was going to post the same exact RoboCop reference (early CGI was pretty gritty looking, which added to that creepy Robot Guard)... Saw this post. Well Done, Good Sir.
It didn't "target the audience". It identified a rotator (radar doppler return of a rotating object at the RPM common to helicopter blades), queued the contact as a contact of interest, slewed to contact, and prompted the operators to identify the contact and make a decision whether to engage or not. Exactly as it is designed to do. It was designed to automatically identify radar returns that looked like they could be aircraft or helicopter- even if mixed in with ground clutter radar returns- then automatically slew to the contact, to reduce the time it took the operators to identify the contact and begin the engagement if it was hostile. This is much, MUCH more sophisticated than the Russian analog, the ZSU-23/4, which forces the operators to do all of that manually. The vehicle doesn't make the decision to shoot on it's own. It just automates the first couple steps in target acquisition and slewing, to speed up the process. For 1970s computer technology, this was VERY smart automation.
@@sibire8284 And specifically, the M2 Bradley has proven itself one of the most effective combat vehicles of the last century, and the Sergeant York was a way, WAY better vehicle than this (hilariously misinformed) video makes it out to be. There are plenty of interviews with actual test crews (military, not company representatives) and pilots who served as "targets" for tracking and tactics tests that are quite clear about how good the Sergeant York actually was. It was cancelled because A) the Stinger missile was fielded, and could fill the same requirements better, for cheaper, B) it wasn't fast enough to maintain the pace of advance the Army wanted, and C) Politics. Not because it didn't work. "Today I Found Out" is quite bad about propagating hearsay, folk tales, and "conventional wisdom".
@@bronco5334 so you're saying that a hand held device could out do it and the platform couldn't even keep up with and thus slowed down the things it was meant to protect, but was still "effective" lmfao.
@@Cenentury0941 I'm saying that it worked as a radar-and-optically guided gun-based AAA platform. It could track targets that entered it's range, and could hit what it tracked. However, radar-and-optically guided gun-based AAA platforms were in fact obsolete as a concept. It's kind of like saying "a yew longbow is effective at shooting arrows, but arrows are not effective weapons in 1950" The Gepard was similarly obsolete. As was the ZSU-23/4. And the Sidam. And every other gun-based AAA. None of them are effective at deterring air attack on the modern battlefield. Now, if you haven't the wit to understand that concept, I cannot help you any further.
Ironically if you took off that ridiculous radar and put the 40mm auto cannons on an M1 Abrams chassis you would’ve had a great medium range anti-infantry and anti-light armor vehicle. The same way the M-44 duster was used in Vietnam.
It's still pretty useless when fighting soviet tho. Sure it can kill infantry and light armor but warfare changed a lot during that time where war was fought much further away.
@@GigawingsVideo Funny enough, the Soviets used the Shilka more in Afghanistan, going so far to make a model without radar attached to it. The reason for this was that the tanks couldn't raise their guns high enough.
I worked at Ford Aerospace on the DIVAD program! I worked with the instructors who were training the young men to operate the tank. They used to jokingly target my car as I pulled into the parking lot when I arrived at work. I remember during a session with the driving instructor, I puzzled about something and I asked the instructor, " Doesn't the turret block the driver from being able to get out in an emergency? How would he get out if something happened? " The instructor and about twenty, 18 to 20 year old enlisted men looked at me, and the instructor said softly, " They don't get out. " I was astonishingly ignorant of war considering where I worked and I looked at those young "boys" from Huntsville, Alabama, who talked to me so politely and respectfully with that soft accent, calling me "Ma'am" even though I was only 25 years old, and I said, "You're training them to DIE?" What I remember the most was the look of pity and sympathy in every eye at my naivete. I loved my time working with the instructors and their students. I loved meeting new people from all over and hearing their stories of their home place. I didn't really care about the politics part of the program.
Well, the US Army was at the time preparing for WWIII to break out when the shells started falling on the Fulda Gap, and fully expected the troops in W Germany to mainly be used as spotters for the tactical nukes that would be used in retaliation for the Soviet first use of WMDs when the Guards Armoured and Motor Rifle divisions failed to properly penetrate the lines. Funnily enough, I worked with a Russian guy several years ago who did his national service as a 152mm SPG platoon commander based just the other side of the Fulda Gap. Red Army doctrine was almost identical, following a NATO first use of WMDs...
Cold War veterans all knew if a shot was fired we were all screwed. Nobody had any illusions to the contrary. Crew survival was a huge concern on both sides since training accidents are just as deadly as combat.
I think it’s mostly just that one tank with that issue, given that it was a hodgepodge turret being mounted to a hull meant for another role. Meanwhile, if you look at the M4 Sherman’s survivability track record, at least back then, US tanks were some of the safest in the world, allowing easy and quick escape from every position.
us army: we want a new top of the line, cutting edge anti air tank to take down helicopters at a distance. ford engineers: sure we'll get right to work on all the new technology required for such a machine us army: BUT you can't make any new technology and only use parts out of our leftover bin ford engineers: ...ok?
During this time period I was employed as a Weapons and Explosives Safety Officer by an aerospace defense contractor who built drones or converted retired USAF fighter aircraft into drones. In fairness to the US Army, Simon is accurate in describing the notorious test flight in which a drone was intentionally destroyed. I personally know the controllers who were controlling the aircraft and I heard the truth from them. It was a routine test flight. The weapons platform actually did hit the QF-100 causing it to become progressively unstable and uncontrollable. As the QF approached the boundary of the shot box (test area) the Range Safety Officer used the command destruct system to prevent any collateral damage. But the press took off running in the wrong direction and accused the US Army of trying to fake a positive test result. As explained, this was untrue. In fairness to the taxpayer (myself included!), the DIVAD never did function even remotely close to design specifications. The infuriating part was that everyone knew that not only did the system did not work, basically nothing could be done to make it work. But instead of stopping it when that was realized, the Army kept throwing money at it. The DIVAD was obsolete as it was being designed. A Soviet Mi-24 could execute a pop-up maneuver from 6000 meters away and shoot holes in the Sargent York with impunity as it was constrained by its ~3000 meter effective range. So even if the DIVAD performed at 100% and kept up with the main battle force, it was essentially ineffective.
When the project was finally cancelled it was summed up as "We tried to copy an inexpensive, ineffective soviet design and instead created a incredibly expensive, ineffective American design".
@@AEB1066 To be fair, the ZSU-23 seems to only have been used in a limited number of conflicts, primarily in major wars in the middle-east and a number of smaller wars with Soviet/Russia being the aggressor or in African conflicts where airpower wouldn't be as strong, where it seems to have performed relatively well, albeit not always in the role it was meant to.
"When the gun pointed up it got in the way of the RADAR" Lmfao like who's idea was that? Bad enough it can't even hit something sitting still, but you also blind it with it's own damn gun
The gun gets in the way of the SEARCH radar, not the TRACKING radar. The actual aiming and shooting is done with the TRACKING radar. The search radar is only used to spot targets. And the only time that the guns would be elevated would be when they had already acquired and were shooting at a target. IE, after the search radar had done it's job. As soon as the engagement was complete, the guns would depress to their ready elevation, and the search radar would return to normal operation. Also, it didn't completely blind the search radar, it just interefered with the view to the front. Which is, of course, also being viewed by the tracking radar and the optical sights. So, not as big a problem as you would think. And also not unique to SGT York: the Gepard and PRTL actually have WORSE obscuration of the search radar at high elevations, because it has two widely separated guns, with even longer barrels, off to the front-right and front-left of the search radar. The ZSU-23/4 Shilka doesn't even HAVE a separate search radar, only a tracking radar (at least, until later upgrades).
This is one of the reasons President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Many times they would buy the people in charge of military procurement and get contracts for garbage systems. Another reason for reforming procurement of products needed by our government as a whole, not just military purchases.
@@eval_is_evil - Naa-ah, people were all excited by the new president - the youngest US president ever, a WW2 war hero, and his pretty wife. Once they killed him, they could go back to making war their priority.
I can't nail down who said it or even _if_ somebody actually said it, but I keep remembering one of the original astronauts being asked in an interview if anything really worried him while he was sitting in the vehicle on the launch pad. He said something like: "I keep remembering that every single part of this thing was manufactured by the lowest bidder." I know it would've worried me! Stay safe.
@@eval_is_evil no. He watched his whole world upended by 2 world wars. Things had changed and not at all for the better. He saw the beginnings of the nuclear arms race and sincerely wondered what we would concoct to top that. He also worried what giving over so much power to the military would do to us as a people, if it would make us seek war when and where we shouldnt. He was right to be afraid. And anything that scares a man that was one of hitlers banes should be paid attention to. Eisenhower only ever mentioned 2 things in the tone he used for that address. One was the military industrial complex and the other was hitler, who happened to rise to power on the back of a revitalized military industrial complex. Not a coincidence. It was a warning and it reads like a warning. Im unsure how you could have read it and thought anything else. It wasnt written in middle english, its recent history. Totally clear intent and completely explicable. If someone told you that was a message of hope then dont listen to them anymore. They do not have your best interests in mind.
Here's something from one of the testers: Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS) said: In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video. The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar). A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically. On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us. I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems. So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack. Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.) Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?) To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation. (The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.) Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above. If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was: Helicopter flies over. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself). Guns started to elevate to re-engage. Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language. The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change. Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ” I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad. On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check. I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time. Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time. [yes, I'll keep posting this little bit until people stop quoting the reformers who killed this system unjustly]
@@lordgarion514 this flawed system didn't even lead to an innovation derived from it. They fell flat from the beginning with this one. You could say hindsight is 20/20 but when you deliberately choose an inferior option from the start, then the whole situation is _dubious_ at best.
"Why are we in the forest?" Concealment. If you hide behind bushes or downed trees you are less likely to get spotted even when you fire. Also, angle your tank to make your armor more effective. Don't give the enemy a flat surface to shoot at. Unless your armor is so bad that angling won't matter.
@stiimuli so i see i wasn't the only one screaming at the monitor when he played:))) I get, i really do, but that was hard to watch... completely familiar, cause that was exactly what i was doing in my first few thousand games, but that hurt :))
As someone who works for a company that makes parts for Ford products, I will never buy a Ford product, even with a pretty hefty discount. The M247 never had a chance.
@@ccggenius Fix Or Repair Daily. My wonderful first car the beautiful black, sleek '93 Ford Probe had the transmission die twice, lucky to make it to 120K miles. Honda now for life!
the 40mm rounds were already used in the M42A1 Duster, which had a fair punch to it, but wasnt up to downing jet craft. it did wonders on helicopters where deployed. it also liked medium and lightly armored ground targets.
Never before have I heard of such a military clusterfuck. Such an impressive failure. Honestly it kind of reminds me of the scene in RoboCop 2 where they're showing off the Robocop knockoffs and they all fail spectacularly.
Aaaand speaking of the Bradley, there's a movie from '98 called The Pentagon Wars (starring Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes, Viola Davis, John C. McGinley, and others) all about it. Loved it, would recommend.
The problem with WoT and Warthunder is that you can’t really get far into it if: 1. You have a job 2. You like to do other things Basically to get the max vehicles you either need to spend thousands of hours playing it or shell out hundreds of dollars to get double XP.
@ganymedeIV4 yeah I gave it a go a year ago and thought it was really interesting, also the weapon mechanics are both fun and rewarding. I might have to go download it again.
@ganymedeIV4 I just checked it out, looks like a dead game, according to steam in the last 30 days it seemed to average 11 players, all that space in the huge map yet no one to play with
So...Thanks for this Upload ( thanks to WG for sponsoring it): I was an Sgt in a Swiss Air Defense Unit. I operated on Rapier SAM system as its Commander, so my job was to look on the radar screen. The Search Radar(it scans horizontal and gives you a vector) would also lock on things like fans and tractors, because the radar signal gets deflected back and would indicate a target. To counter this problem, after my gunner reported it was not a real target. I could do an input command that would mask the area, so the radar wouldn't lock that object again. drawback, in that sector( a few arc minutes) the search radar will also not detect any other valid target. Sometimes it gets some noise, and we where trained to recognize this. And yes, the Rapier, designated mobile, doesn't actually like being moved around a lot. Thats why Aircraft Radars, not work well on the ground, or rather its software(or hardware rather in the 80tis)
Simon, you and your crew should be applauded for your excellent showmanship, genuine curiosity, and incredibly well put together research. This was so far one of the only topics I knew in depth about that Ive watched you present and you nailed it spot on, so if you maintain this level of research throughout your portfolio its safe to say you are trustworthy and reputable. Keep up the good work.
Just before the M247 project was canceled, I was working at Ford Aerospace in the hills of San Juan Capistrano where these units were tested. We knew the contract was coming up for renewal and there was a pool going ... maybe they'll order 50 more units; no, maybe 100, people were even placing bets. We heard on the freaking radio (a broadcast of Caspar Weinberger, then-secretary of defense) that he was canceling the project. Word was that there was a riot at the main plant in Irvine when they heard the news. For two additional weeks we just kept showing up at work as normal because nobody was sure what else to do. The idea was to build the M247 using off-the-shelf, stock parts. I never heard of anything even remotely like targeting system problems; the chronic problem that killed the project was that everything broke incessantly. My job as a lowly clerk was to log parts in and out as they were sent out for repair. Initiation for new guys at the test center was to ride the 25 mile "road course" through the fire breaks in the hills; the challenge was to complete the course without vomiting. When you're in the turret that high off the ground, every little dip is greatly amplified, and you WILL get seasick. At one point I was slammed against a wall of toggle switches, even with my x-shaped seat belt tightly fastened. In my case the tank quit the course early; the turbine engine that powered the generator started a fire in the hills and we all had to jump out and put it out. But during the part of the course that we did ride, the head engineer acquired a target - a lone automobile driving down Ortega Highway at the bottom of the hills we were on to crest of. It was quite impressive; that turret moved like lightning and in no time, we were locked onto and tracking that poor unsuspecting car as it continued driving. This is one of those cases where yes, the thing had enough problems with longevity of parts to where it became impractical to continue the project, but most of the criticisms of the tank are made up and never happened. It's also quite plausible that it became outdated during its production; that wasn't the kind of thing we necessarily would have heard about. Still ... I was a peon among the tiny group of people who ran the test center where these units were run through the gauntlet. If stuff didn't break so often, it could have been quite a formidable machine. The chassis was an Anniston unit, diesel powered; NOT a Patton chassis. The M247 used 25mm shells, not 40mm; the plant to make them was at the base of the hill where the entrance to the test center was. Very, very little of what's presented in this video is correct or accurate. I was never aware of any vibration problems or issues with low-lying targets. There was never any discussion of targeting system issues in any way. It was a very small group I worked with and we tested all the units; I heard EVERYTHING. Journalists by law are hardline communists and are inherently anti-military. No journalist was ever accused of not reporting fake news.
@@AMDeZani it just can't be, since WoT has no aircraft. Maybe this is some kind of attempt to slag off War Thunder? But then why bring attention to the fact you have worse vehicle diversity and time frame?
Little tip for driving that M6 mutant you've got at the end of the video. US heavy tanks in WoT have NO SIDE ARMOUR. Driving out sideways in front of a German Lowe heavy tank was never going to end well for you. A tier 5 M4 sherman can pen the side of an M6. Think of a US heavy tank like a claymore mine. "Front towards enemy".
@@jameson1239 the main character in the Pentagon Wars was the knobhead responsible for botching the M2 Bradley. The events which happened in reality was far different than the one shown in the movie. The movie is basically an exageration and should not even be taken seriously, except for the bureacracy I guess.
@@salakiadam24 WoT does have some mechanics that are better than WT's (for example, WT's spotting mechanics are quite bad if you dig into them), but I still prefer WT because HP systems bore the fuck out of me. I can't hate any devs for making such a common mistake as implimenting them, but I really wish the mechanic would just go away as there is nearly always a better choice.
Naah man, it's because this is hella shady... Wargaming sponsors a video shittalking (rightfully so, but still) a vehicle that's just about to be launched in their main competitors game? Hella shady.
This channel making money is great, but what if as a result of that, a few more teens will get hooked, and compulsively buy premium ammo with their parents' money? Will it still be worth it?
"Mostly because there wasn't a backup option" Actually because there was powerful federal representation in the states they were made in. It wasn't military need that influenced the funding, it was the need to bring home the federal bacon.
Here's one you missed, Simon, but you'll appreciate. When the DIVADs barrels were at high elevation, the radar would sometimes track the muzzle brakes of the gun barrels. If PPFE rounds were loaded (and these were standard rounds, (the programmable pre-fragmented rounds you spoke of), you might then get round detonations either in the muzzle brakes (which are at the ends of the barrels) or just beyond them, guaranteed to destroy the muzzle brakes and possibly kill any infantrymen or soft-skinned vehicles nearby. Chilling to infantrymen like myself -- and they were still trying to perfect this beast when I first enlisted in 1987.
What would you expect them to sponsor a video about? Something which has absolutely nothing to do with their business??? LOL Nothing suspicious about it. This is the way the world works bud.
if you look you might also find that the total cost spent also included all the motor pools, garages and maintenance facilities for all the units that were to get the M247, before the first units were delivered
It was probably a design feature!! Think about it; You're a soldier and you come up against this... It fires and all of a sudden all your shitters explode.... The tanks rolls off. Now you have no shitters. Think about the psychological effect this tank had on the battlefield!!!!!
"Were FUCKED man, there not even scared of us! Twenty minutes ago they rolled up in a tank and blew up Ernie while he was on the shitter! Then they just rolled off like it was NO BIG DEAL! We couldnt even DO anything! WERE LOSING THIS WAR AND NOW EVERYTHING IS COVERED IN SHIT AND ERNIE!!!
Defense spending ISN'T done for quality, cost effective weapons systems. It's done for corporate profit, political favors and lastly, employment in congessional districts.
It also creates a false sense of security for many people, and when any candidate suggests rolling back defense spending those people get angry and vote against it.
@@justcallmejeff4310 That's hilarious comung from a guy who has a history of watching dark age weapons, gym workout routines and video games. Try doing something useful with your life, junior.
Because those who control the money want it for themselves. The Legislature and the Administration get free Health care, everyone else must pay in their minds. So the Millionaires and Billionaires get the perks and there is nothing for the privates and sargents etc. Capitalism under these petty oligarchs makes us all expendable. They shout responsibility at the Middle and Lower classes and take no responsibility for themselves while driving us into bankruptcy as they exploit us.
John Smith No I'm pretty sure the implication is that the Defense Department just throws so much money on useless weapons that could be better used. Like fully staffing the VA which has been under staffed for way too long
I do not argue the facts, but it is a bit obvious, that World of Tanks is sponsoring video about the vehicle, that will be very soon added to the War Thunder - their main competitor.
I remember the DIVAD from my days in the army infantry. It was a program that was doomed from the beginning largely because of the requirement to use off the shelf parts in a way they were never intended. The entire idea of using an outdated chassis to save money is typical of the bad decision making that doomed the program. Of course it wound up costing four times as much in an attempt to save money. The old adage that “nothing will cost you time like a shortcut” seems apropos.
You know a system is bad when they are trying to fake it to see if it can kill something, and its still fails with unrealistically ideal conditions. Its like Mythbusters after the bust a myth, and then go to extremes to see if they can actually accomplish the myth.
So you likely fired a low caliber HE shell and hit the tracks of a Chaffee for very little damage and then deleted the game? Ok. A French tier 4 B1 is a "heavy" tank, but use it to shoot a Chaffee and especially if you fired HE, yeah you're not going to do much.
My unit visited the White Sands visiting center after a month of training in the heat of Ft. Bliss in August of '85 . I watched a video lauding the SGT York as a first class weapon of the future. A couple of days later I saw on the news the weapon was cancelled as being a big failure.
Original_Mr_Pineapple it really is World of Tanks, on tablets or phones they att the word ‘Blitz.’ It’s actually a very fun game, entertaining and the graphics rock.
You specifically call Sergeant York a World War 1 veteran in the first half of this video, yet you call him a World War II veteran in the second half. I've come to the conclusion that Simon is not a historian, he just reads whatever someone who is not paying attention puts in front of him.
Alvin Cullum York (December 13, 1887 - September 2, 1964), also known as Sergeant York, was one of the most decorated United States Army soldiers of World War I. He received the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 35 machine guns, killing at least 25 enemy soldiers, and capturing 132
Simon went to law school, if I am not mistaken. Being British he also isn't as knowledgeable about American war heroes (not unlike the average American, I am sad to say).
5:10 - Also, the US DOD had a rather large stockpile of 40mm guns and ammo in the '70s left over from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. In WWII, it was the most effective AA gun mounted on a ship. In Vietnam, it was mounted sideways in C-47s and used for circle-strafing over target areas to devastating effect.
This was Not a Tank it was a Self-propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun !!! You might say What's the difference ??? An accurate analogy might be that you show a picture of a Ford van and say this is a Semi tractor-trailer rig !!! And no they never did get it to function properly and that is why the Army never adopted them.
Cool it on the childish memes, guys. Information(al videos) should be close to timeless, if correct, yet with these graphics, it'll seem arcane in a couple months' time.
The M-247 (Sgt York) was intended to match the 1960's Russian technology of the ZSU-23-4, which was replaced by the by the 2K22 Tunguska SP-AA gun - which was developed and fielded at the same time as the Sgt York. The Tunguska was fielded in 1984 as the York project died.
@@sytricka3318 Chat got removed in WT? I respect both games but don't spit utter bullshit about a game like this. The only thing close to was an update that changed the 'All-Chat' setting to disabled but even then you were able to change it back and be able to talk with the enemy team. Playing since late 2014 and I have never seen a single team mate revealing information to the enemy.
Talan Uhh...there is ammo racking in WoT. Occasionally it even ignites the ammo and blows the turret up into the air (quite spectacular) Once i saw a tank get ammo ranked and his turret flew into the air and landed on the tank that killed him, killing that tank too. The video is on The Mighty Jingles' channel.
That vehicle was the brother to the vehicle my first MOS in the Army was! I was a 14R (M6 Bradley Linebacker Crewmember). If I remember my history correctly, the M6 replaced the Vulcan and the M247.
To add on something I just remembered. Between the M6 rolling out and the Vulcans being phased out along with the M247 falling on its face, they had the BSFV (Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle). This was a stopgap kind of thing. The vehicle was a Bradley, but the troop compartment was rearranged to only carry 2 soldiers with the rest of the space filled up with stinger missiles and it's appropriated gear. The vehicle would have to stop, the 2 soldiers get out and move from the vehicle and set up shop. Once fired, they had to get back in. This means a long time between set up and break down where the vehicle couldn't really leave the area or the troops would be left behind. Now for a fact I found completely stupid about their deployment. You would think a short range AA vehicle such as the Linebacker should be placed where they would be needed most. Such as rolling hills/mountains, where an attack could happen quickly, against a military that would try to use helicopters and low flying aircraft to deploy troops. This would be South Korea to defend against North Korea. Nope, they were all stateside. We used the older system of the BSFV in Korea where the Linebacker would make more sense. The BSFV should have been state side where they could be used as infantry for their deployments to Iraq/Afganistan where there was no airforce to shoot down. Never made sense to me.
As I watched this video I kept thinking of the movie "Sgt. Bilko." Also a lot of commercial software projects I've been on (there, at least, the general public rarely knows of the failures.)
Name one person that, if they refused to pay taxes, and then refused to pay the fines imposed for 'tax evasion', and then after a warrant was issued for their arrest, refused to come quietly with the arresting Officers, and then defended himself from their attempts to take him in, say with defensive weaponry, wouldn't be executed? Just because their are a few extra steps between 'The Law' and 'The Gun' doesn't mean a monopoly of lethal force doesn't exist. Just means the extra steps fooled you into thinking it doesn't exist. Do you often fall for simple sleight of hand tricks?
@@theQiwiMan if all that happened then you would still have been shot for attacking law officers with lethal weapons, not tax evasion. It's like all those times people get shot for having a tail light out. No, you got stopped for the tail light, you got shot cause you pulled a shotgun out and disputed your ticket, forcefully.
"if all that happened then you would still have been shot for attacking law officers with lethal weapons, not tax evasion." Think really, really hard about that comment.
@@theQiwiMan think really really hard about the stupidity of the lesson you're trying to impart. You go to jail for tax evasion, you get shot for resisting that punishment with lethal force. Don't like it? Stop using all the shit we pay the government to build and/or insure/protect or regulate to make sure it doesn't kill you.
Side note if you like the Swedish metal band Sabaton and WoT the game has the Primo Victoria as a bonus tank based off of the one the band uses in their music video.
It's not the music. It's the god damn passive aggressive cadence accentuating THE wrong parts of A sentence... Rapid. Little. Pauses. Breaking. UP! Meaning and? Information content, WITH constant pointless and meaningless hand gestures and nodding emphasizing NOTHING OF FUCKING IMPORTANCE!!!!! *karate chop!* All the while images in the back tell a completely unrelated story most of the time - as they are being rapidly replaced simply for the sake of variety, and NOT to add information. I feel like I'm being berated by a drunk homeless autistic person about something I don't understand cause individual words don't form coherent messages. CARROTS!? BLUE BONNET PLAYSE!!! Text and the context are completely out of sync. Spiders... *waves hands in small semicircles* *nods head up and to the left* It's like watching some deep learning algorithm NOT QUITE recreating a style of a living human being talking about an interesting topic, after "learning" how to do it by analyzing thousands of youtube videos.
If the helo was hovering still, could be part of why it couldn't target it, depending on what method it was using to target and filter background clutter.
This tank was just added to War Thunder, and now a video sponsored by WOT is saying how rubbish it was... Coincidence, I think not ;)
Adenzel Still interesting.
I mean yes the tank was bad Irl, Phly even says it in his video on it, but it is pretty funny that this is how WoT is trying to take advantage over WT. A tank’s irl stats is obviously completely different to how it will play in the game.
You know, the York actually was bad IRL.
Ha! Actually a total coincidence, but that is hilarious. :-)
TankDaily proved it's great at shooting down choppers with the VT fused 40mm. He needs to get with the Battle of Italica memes, though
nobody:
M247: "You are required to wash your hands after using the latrine. You have 20 seconds to comply."
M247: You are illegally parked on private property. You have 20 seconds to move your vehicle. "
I heard with new covid guidelines if you don’t wash your hand for a minimum of 30 seconds you will find one of these waiting outside the bathroom waiting
www.ebay.com/c/1931381714
"Casually walks away as the M247 is aiming at a sign"
Ed 209
I have literally driven this tank! In fact, as an ex-paratrooper, it’s the ONLY tank I’ve ever driven. In the mid-1990’s, we found one of these full of fuel on a demolition range on Fort AP Hill, VA. Needless to say, we paused training, and played tanker all day (until we ran it out of fuel).
Fuggin' really?
How did you guys figure out the controls? Did you have some tank crew dudes with you?
@@ChryslercSRT- it's made to be driven by soliders , not scientists
I fooled with the switches until I heard the pumps come on (master power switch), then hit the button labeled “start!” Driving it was just like the zero-turn lawn mower I grew up with. It was shockingly easy, but we weren’t driving it buttoned up using perescopes.
@@Mick762 they need to be dead simple seeing as if you lock a grunt in a room with a ball bearing and come back 30 minutes later, there WILL be a broken bearing. In this case, apply the concept of the ball bearing to multi million dollar machine designed to kill
Fired On Rigged Drones. Having it target the audience reminds me of the original Robocop and the ED-209.
LMAO.... Was going to post the same exact RoboCop reference (early CGI was pretty gritty looking, which added to that creepy Robot Guard)... Saw this post. Well Done, Good Sir.
Thats exactly what comes to mind for me whenever I hear about this failure, im suprised there isn't any inspiration between the two
Same
Classic movie.. Classic scene
It didn't "target the audience". It identified a rotator (radar doppler return of a rotating object at the RPM common to helicopter blades), queued the contact as a contact of interest, slewed to contact, and prompted the operators to identify the contact and make a decision whether to engage or not.
Exactly as it is designed to do. It was designed to automatically identify radar returns that looked like they could be aircraft or helicopter- even if mixed in with ground clutter radar returns- then automatically slew to the contact, to reduce the time it took the operators to identify the contact and begin the engagement if it was hostile.
This is much, MUCH more sophisticated than the Russian analog, the ZSU-23/4, which forces the operators to do all of that manually.
The vehicle doesn't make the decision to shoot on it's own. It just automates the first couple steps in target acquisition and slewing, to speed up the process.
For 1970s computer technology, this was VERY smart automation.
the irony of the M247 Sergeant York being added to War Thunder in the next patch is not lost on me... awkward.
Yet we are not getting the Skink. FOR SHAME
yup, no skink but instead they add such a shit tank for us to play instead
I mean, it’ll be decent in game but it was evidently terrible irl.
Wargaming is shittalking it
@@kizzer222 good thing WT players have better situational awareness than some expensive and useless detection system ever had!
there was a movie *loosly* and jokingly made about this tank, called "Best Defense" with dudly moore and eddie murphy
Pentagon Wars is another good comedy about this kind of thing
@@jackofalltradesmasterofnon5765 specifically, for those interested, the M2 Bradley
@@sibire8284 And specifically, the M2 Bradley has proven itself one of the most effective combat vehicles of the last century, and the Sergeant York was a way, WAY better vehicle than this (hilariously misinformed) video makes it out to be.
There are plenty of interviews with actual test crews (military, not company representatives) and pilots who served as "targets" for tracking and tactics tests that are quite clear about how good the Sergeant York actually was.
It was cancelled because A) the Stinger missile was fielded, and could fill the same requirements better, for cheaper, B) it wasn't fast enough to maintain the pace of advance the Army wanted, and C) Politics. Not because it didn't work.
"Today I Found Out" is quite bad about propagating hearsay, folk tales, and "conventional wisdom".
@@bronco5334 so you're saying that a hand held device could out do it and the platform couldn't even keep up with and thus slowed down the things it was meant to protect, but was still "effective" lmfao.
@@Cenentury0941 I'm saying that it worked as a radar-and-optically guided gun-based AAA platform. It could track targets that entered it's range, and could hit what it tracked. However, radar-and-optically guided gun-based AAA platforms were in fact obsolete as a concept.
It's kind of like saying "a yew longbow is effective at shooting arrows, but arrows are not effective weapons in 1950"
The Gepard was similarly obsolete. As was the ZSU-23/4. And the Sidam. And every other gun-based AAA. None of them are effective at deterring air attack on the modern battlefield.
Now, if you haven't the wit to understand that concept, I cannot help you any further.
They should named it M247 Stormtrooper
Yes
M(isses) 24/7
should have named it the ED-209
@@lightninglj goddamnit, you beat me to it... for about 1 month earlier.
Yessss
Ironically if you took off that ridiculous radar and put the 40mm auto cannons on an M1 Abrams chassis you would’ve had a great medium range anti-infantry and anti-light armor vehicle. The same way the M-44 duster was used in Vietnam.
M42 Duster
It's still pretty useless when fighting soviet tho. Sure it can kill infantry and light armor but warfare changed a lot during that time where war was fought much further away.
GigawingsVideo look at who we are fighting now. It could be handy. Not a game changer, just handy.
People hiding in caves, mountains, and thick jungles where tanks can't even traverse?
@@GigawingsVideo Funny enough, the Soviets used the Shilka more in Afghanistan, going so far to make a model without radar attached to it. The reason for this was that the tanks couldn't raise their guns high enough.
I worked at Ford Aerospace on the DIVAD program! I worked with the instructors who were training the young men to operate the tank. They used to jokingly target my car as I pulled into the parking lot when I arrived at work. I remember during a session with the driving instructor, I puzzled about something and I asked the instructor, " Doesn't the turret block the driver from being able to get out in an emergency? How would he get out if something happened? " The instructor and about twenty, 18 to 20 year old enlisted men looked at me, and the instructor said softly, " They don't get out. " I was astonishingly ignorant of war considering where I worked and I looked at those young "boys" from Huntsville, Alabama, who talked to me so politely and respectfully with that soft accent, calling me "Ma'am" even though I was only 25 years old, and I said, "You're training them to DIE?" What I remember the most was the look of pity and sympathy in every eye at my naivete.
I loved my time working with the instructors and their students. I loved meeting new people from all over and hearing their stories of their home place. I didn't really care about the politics part of the program.
Well, the US Army was at the time preparing for WWIII to break out when the shells started falling on the Fulda Gap, and fully expected the troops in W Germany to mainly be used as spotters for the tactical nukes that would be used in retaliation for the Soviet first use of WMDs when the Guards Armoured and Motor Rifle divisions failed to properly penetrate the lines. Funnily enough, I worked with a Russian guy several years ago who did his national service as a 152mm SPG platoon commander based just the other side of the Fulda Gap. Red Army doctrine was almost identical, following a NATO first use of WMDs...
Almost all armored vehicles have this issue
You turn the dam turret
Cold War veterans all knew if a shot was fired we were all screwed. Nobody had any illusions to the contrary. Crew survival was a huge concern on both sides since training accidents are just as deadly as combat.
I was a Tanker for 15 years there's an escape hatch under the driver seat
I think it’s mostly just that one tank with that issue, given that it was a hodgepodge turret being mounted to a hull meant for another role.
Meanwhile, if you look at the M4 Sherman’s survivability track record, at least back then, US tanks were some of the safest in the world, allowing easy and quick escape from every position.
us army: we want a new top of the line, cutting edge anti air tank to take down helicopters at a distance.
ford engineers: sure we'll get right to work on all the new technology required for such a machine
us army: BUT you can't make any new technology and only use parts out of our leftover bin
ford engineers: ...ok?
On a bad day, the M48 tank would have a hard time keeping up with an average athlete on a bicycle
@@MonkeyJedi99 or the average bike on an athlete
@@pitts86 or the average m247 on a bike
@@yeetskitter3068 Lol
During this time period I was employed as a Weapons and Explosives Safety Officer by an aerospace defense contractor who built drones or converted retired USAF fighter aircraft into drones.
In fairness to the US Army, Simon is accurate in describing the notorious test flight in which a drone was intentionally destroyed. I personally know the controllers who were controlling the aircraft and I heard the truth from them.
It was a routine test flight. The weapons platform actually did hit the QF-100 causing it to become progressively unstable and uncontrollable. As the QF approached the boundary of the shot box (test area) the Range Safety Officer used the command destruct system to prevent any collateral damage. But the press took off running in the wrong direction and accused the US Army of trying to fake a positive test result. As explained, this was untrue.
In fairness to the taxpayer (myself included!), the DIVAD never did function even remotely close to design specifications. The infuriating part was that everyone knew that not only did the system did not work, basically nothing could be done to make it work. But instead of stopping it when that was realized, the Army kept throwing money at it.
The DIVAD was obsolete as it was being designed. A Soviet Mi-24 could execute a pop-up maneuver from 6000 meters away and shoot holes in the Sargent York with impunity as it was constrained by its ~3000 meter effective range. So even if the DIVAD performed at 100% and kept up with the main battle force, it was essentially ineffective.
When the project was finally cancelled it was summed up as "We tried to copy an inexpensive, ineffective soviet design and instead created a incredibly expensive, ineffective American design".
@@AEB1066 the shilka was pretty darn effective tho
@@AEB1066 To be fair, the ZSU-23 seems to only have been used in a limited number of conflicts, primarily in major wars in the middle-east and a number of smaller wars with Soviet/Russia being the aggressor or in African conflicts where airpower wouldn't be as strong, where it seems to have performed relatively well, albeit not always in the role it was meant to.
@Matthew Caughey
Yeah...
Thanks for the info 👍
"When the gun pointed up it got in the way of the RADAR" Lmfao like who's idea was that? Bad enough it can't even hit something sitting still, but you also blind it with it's own damn gun
The gun gets in the way of the SEARCH radar, not the TRACKING radar. The actual aiming and shooting is done with the TRACKING radar. The search radar is only used to spot targets. And the only time that the guns would be elevated would be when they had already acquired and were shooting at a target. IE, after the search radar had done it's job. As soon as the engagement was complete, the guns would depress to their ready elevation, and the search radar would return to normal operation.
Also, it didn't completely blind the search radar, it just interefered with the view to the front. Which is, of course, also being viewed by the tracking radar and the optical sights. So, not as big a problem as you would think.
And also not unique to SGT York: the Gepard and PRTL actually have WORSE obscuration of the search radar at high elevations, because it has two widely separated guns, with even longer barrels, off to the front-right and front-left of the search radar. The ZSU-23/4 Shilka doesn't even HAVE a separate search radar, only a tracking radar (at least, until later upgrades).
This tank is my spirit animal.
Its illustrious record sounds just like my love life.
I want to kill myself for you.
Stylphede I can't pick a winner for funniest comment. Sebi One has a great reply. Ugh. Okay you both get cookie.
For some reason I was thinking you were talking about: firing full salvo for a full minute but you couldn't hit the target directly in front of you.
Well, I didn't say that's *not* the case...
@@Arkhavist_S Hahaha! That's... that's just sad 😖
This is one of the reasons President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Many times they would buy the people in charge of military procurement and get contracts for garbage systems. Another reason for reforming procurement of products needed by our government as a whole, not just military purchases.
Didnt Eisenhower basically reassure people with that speech ?
@@eval_is_evil - Naa-ah, people were all excited by the new president - the youngest US president ever, a WW2 war hero, and his pretty wife. Once they killed him, they could go back to making war their priority.
I can't nail down who said it or even _if_ somebody actually said it, but I keep remembering one of the original astronauts being asked in an interview if anything really worried him while he was sitting in the vehicle on the launch pad. He said something like: "I keep remembering that every single part of this thing was manufactured by the lowest bidder." I know it would've worried me! Stay safe.
@@eval_is_evil no. He watched his whole world upended by 2 world wars. Things had changed and not at all for the better. He saw the beginnings of the nuclear arms race and sincerely wondered what we would concoct to top that. He also worried what giving over so much power to the military would do to us as a people, if it would make us seek war when and where we shouldnt.
He was right to be afraid. And anything that scares a man that was one of hitlers banes should be paid attention to.
Eisenhower only ever mentioned 2 things in the tone he used for that address. One was the military industrial complex and the other was hitler, who happened to rise to power on the back of a revitalized military industrial complex.
Not a coincidence. It was a warning and it reads like a warning. Im unsure how you could have read it and thought anything else. It wasnt written in middle english, its recent history. Totally clear intent and completely explicable.
If someone told you that was a message of hope then dont listen to them anymore. They do not have your best interests in mind.
I grew up in Michigan and this for sure sounds like a Ford product.
I grew up in Oakville and this for sure sounds like a Ford product.
Actually I believe you are both correct, a Ford Aerospacerogram
fords are
Found
On
Rubbish
Dump
because they are
Fucked
On
Race
Day
unless you
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily
otherwise the
Driver
Returns
On
Foot
@@mwbgaming28 FORD: Found On RoaDside
Here's something from one of the testers:
Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS) said:
In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video.
The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar).
A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically.
On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us.
I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems.
So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack.
Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.)
Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?)
To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation.
(The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.)
Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above.
If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was:
Helicopter flies over.
Traverse/re-acquire movement starts.
Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself).
Guns started to elevate to re-engage.
Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language.
The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change.
Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ”
I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad.
On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check.
I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time.
Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time.
[yes, I'll keep posting this little bit until people stop quoting the reformers who killed this system unjustly]
The US government *wasting money* with the military budget?
_What a twist!_
Fyrst Naym if only there had been some way to check performance before spending all that money
@@sarasmr4278
Right? Or if only another prototype had performed better in the first place.
But as the video shows, that just didn't happen.
They do waste a ton of money.
But this they should have kept right on spending money on.
@@lordgarion514 why? Genuinely curious. It sounded like a train wreck in the video, but that's all I actually know.
@@lordgarion514 this flawed system didn't even lead to an innovation derived from it.
They fell flat from the beginning with this one. You could say hindsight is 20/20 but when you deliberately choose an inferior option from the start, then the whole situation is _dubious_ at best.
"Why are we in the forest?" Concealment. If you hide behind bushes or downed trees you are less likely to get spotted even when you fire.
Also, angle your tank to make your armor more effective. Don't give the enemy a flat surface to shoot at. Unless your armor is so bad that angling won't matter.
@stiimuli so i see i wasn't the only one screaming at the monitor when he played:))) I get, i really do, but that was hard to watch... completely familiar, cause that was exactly what i was doing in my first few thousand games, but that hurt :))
I saw he fired when he should have used ap or apcr armor percing composite rigid by dabing 2 key
"This vehicle was built by Ford..."
Say no more.
"I know what the problem is, it's a Ford. You know what they say Ford stands for don't ya? It stands for 'Fix it again, Tony'."
As someone who works for a company that makes parts for Ford products, I will never buy a Ford product, even with a pretty hefty discount. The M247 never had a chance.
Fix or repair daily or Found on road dead
@@ccggenius Fix Or Repair Daily. My wonderful first car the beautiful black, sleek '93 Ford Probe had the transmission die twice, lucky to make it to 120K miles. Honda now for life!
Financing
Often
Ruined
Diesels
the 40mm rounds were already used in the M42A1 Duster, which had a fair punch to it, but wasnt up to downing jet craft. it did wonders on helicopters where deployed. it also liked medium and lightly armored ground targets.
Never before have I heard of such a military clusterfuck. Such an impressive failure.
Honestly it kind of reminds me of the scene in RoboCop 2 where they're showing off the Robocop knockoffs and they all fail spectacularly.
Or Hammer Industries in the Marvel movie version. :-)
Oh yeah, that one where the guy in the suit gets twisted in half still makes me shudder to this day.
Oh man, you need to do more reading. Military clusterfucks of this ilk are distressingly common.
Reminds me of the production of the Bradley
Aaaand speaking of the Bradley, there's a movie from '98 called The Pentagon Wars (starring Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes, Viola Davis, John C. McGinley, and others) all about it. Loved it, would recommend.
"There were no back ups"
General dynamics: *sad sniffle*
The problem with WoT and Warthunder is that you can’t really get far into it if:
1. You have a job
2. You like to do other things
Basically to get the max vehicles you either need to spend thousands of hours playing it or shell out hundreds of dollars to get double XP.
@ganymedeIV4 Are you refuring to Call Of Duty WW2? If you are then thats just stupid.
@ganymedeIV4 maybe if they upgraded the gane engine and graphics id play it.
@ganymedeIV4 yeah I gave it a go a year ago and thought it was really interesting, also the weapon mechanics are both fun and rewarding. I might have to go download it again.
@ganymedeIV4 I just checked it out, looks like a dead game, according to steam in the last 30 days it seemed to average 11 players, all that space in the huge map yet no one to play with
Like Clash of Clans
So...Thanks for this Upload ( thanks to WG for sponsoring it): I was an Sgt in a Swiss Air Defense Unit. I operated on Rapier SAM system as its Commander, so my job was to look on the radar screen. The Search Radar(it scans horizontal and gives you a vector) would also lock on things like fans and tractors, because the radar signal gets deflected back and would indicate a target. To counter this problem, after my gunner reported it was not a real target. I could do an input command that would mask the area, so the radar wouldn't lock that object again. drawback, in that sector( a few arc minutes) the search radar will also not detect any other valid target. Sometimes it gets some noise, and we where trained to recognize this. And yes, the Rapier, designated mobile, doesn't actually like being moved around a lot. Thats why Aircraft Radars, not work well on the ground, or rather its software(or hardware rather in the 80tis)
Simon, you and your crew should be applauded for your excellent showmanship, genuine curiosity, and incredibly well put together research.
This was so far one of the only topics I knew in depth about that Ive watched you present and you nailed it spot on, so if you maintain this level of research throughout your portfolio its safe to say you are trustworthy and reputable.
Keep up the good work.
Just before the M247 project was canceled, I was working at Ford Aerospace in the hills of San Juan Capistrano where these units were tested. We knew the contract was coming up for renewal and there was a pool going ... maybe they'll order 50 more units; no, maybe 100, people were even placing bets. We heard on the freaking radio (a broadcast of Caspar Weinberger, then-secretary of defense) that he was canceling the project. Word was that there was a riot at the main plant in Irvine when they heard the news. For two additional weeks we just kept showing up at work as normal because nobody was sure what else to do. The idea was to build the M247 using off-the-shelf, stock parts. I never heard of anything even remotely like targeting system problems; the chronic problem that killed the project was that everything broke incessantly. My job as a lowly clerk was to log parts in and out as they were sent out for repair. Initiation for new guys at the test center was to ride the 25 mile "road course" through the fire breaks in the hills; the challenge was to complete the course without vomiting. When you're in the turret that high off the ground, every little dip is greatly amplified, and you WILL get seasick. At one point I was slammed against a wall of toggle switches, even with my x-shaped seat belt tightly fastened. In my case the tank quit the course early; the turbine engine that powered the generator started a fire in the hills and we all had to jump out and put it out. But during the part of the course that we did ride, the head engineer acquired a target - a lone automobile driving down Ortega Highway at the bottom of the hills we were on to crest of. It was quite impressive; that turret moved like lightning and in no time, we were locked onto and tracking that poor unsuspecting car as it continued driving. This is one of those cases where yes, the thing had enough problems with longevity of parts to where it became impractical to continue the project, but most of the criticisms of the tank are made up and never happened. It's also quite plausible that it became outdated during its production; that wasn't the kind of thing we necessarily would have heard about. Still ... I was a peon among the tiny group of people who ran the test center where these units were run through the gauntlet. If stuff didn't break so often, it could have been quite a formidable machine. The chassis was an Anniston unit, diesel powered; NOT a Patton chassis. The M247 used 25mm shells, not 40mm; the plant to make them was at the base of the hill where the entrance to the test center was. Very, very little of what's presented in this video is correct or accurate. I was never aware of any vibration problems or issues with low-lying targets. There was never any discussion of targeting system issues in any way. It was a very small group I worked with and we tested all the units; I heard EVERYTHING. Journalists by law are hardline communists and are inherently anti-military. No journalist was ever accused of not reporting fake news.
Very interesting man, I love the 247, shame it was cancelled
So you made a video about an SPAAG that has been suspiciously recently added to War Thunder and have a World of Tanks sponsorship...
I think this is all good. Everyone gets what they need. Everything is obvious. What are you suspicious about?
And it's a vehicle that is not and will never be in World of Tanks, to boot
@@AMDeZani it just can't be, since WoT has no aircraft. Maybe this is some kind of attempt to slag off War Thunder? But then why bring attention to the fact you have worse vehicle diversity and time frame?
What a coincidence
And the comments make a great ad for War Thunder. It is not as if real world performance ever influenced what is good or bad in either game,
Little tip for driving that M6 mutant you've got at the end of the video. US heavy tanks in WoT have NO SIDE ARMOUR. Driving out sideways in front of a German Lowe heavy tank was never going to end well for you. A tier 5 M4 sherman can pen the side of an M6. Think of a US heavy tank like a claymore mine. "Front towards enemy".
But Tamiya had a cool model kit of it. So it had got that going for it.
Just a caveat, the M2A3 Bradley is NOT a tank. It is a heavily armed transport.
It’s a troop transport that can’t carry troops a recon vehicle to large to do recon a tank with no armour and carry’s enough ammo to level half of DC
@@jameson1239 Please don't quote that awful movie. It has nothing to do with reality.
AppleJooc Park except it’s based on real events and the main character existed and it actually happened
@@jameson1239 the main character in the Pentagon Wars was the knobhead responsible for botching the M2 Bradley. The events which happened in reality was far different than the one shown in the movie. The movie is basically an exageration and should not even be taken seriously, except for the bureacracy I guess.
@@jameson1239IT COULD CARRY SOLDIERS. So your point is garbage lol.
I honestly don't mind WOT sponsor even though I prefer WT. That's more money for a channel I like.
I agree with you,but a lot of people just need to hate on anything thats not their own beloved game
@@salakiadam24 WoT does have some mechanics that are better than WT's (for example, WT's spotting mechanics are quite bad if you dig into them), but I still prefer WT because HP systems bore the fuck out of me.
I can't hate any devs for making such a common mistake as implimenting them, but I really wish the mechanic would just go away as there is nearly always a better choice.
Naah man, it's because this is hella shady... Wargaming sponsors a video shittalking (rightfully so, but still) a vehicle that's just about to be launched in their main competitors game? Hella shady.
@@dynamicworlds1 You actually play arcade?LOL
Maybe in low tiers,but the real game starts at RB,it has the best spotting system aka mk1 eyeball.
This channel making money is great, but what if as a result of that, a few more teens will get hooked, and compulsively buy premium ammo with their parents' money? Will it still be worth it?
"Mostly because there wasn't a backup option"
Actually because there was powerful federal representation in the states they were made in. It wasn't military need that influenced the funding, it was the need to bring home the federal bacon.
sponsoring WoT, says M247 SPAA is bad, M247 coming to WarThunder patch 1.81, coincidence? i think not.
Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed it.
you know what i think?
P L A Y A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y I N H O I 4
because it is bad SPAAG
In real life the M247 was horrible, but in war thunder it is amazing... I though war thunder was supposed to be realistic
GUMBA, war thunder doesn't have automatic aiming systems, you aim it yourself, thus it's actually a pretty damn good AA
My grandfather worked on DIVAD for GD. I was present at a "shoot out" between GD and Ford at White Sands Missile Range.
You should do a video about artillery only
Hell yes pewdiepie
What's that sound? It is the sound of a single tear rolling down ISPs' cheek...
No...anti air only >:(
Sound like a solid idea
P L A Y A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y I N H O I 4
Now that's DEFINITELY going to be WoT sponsored XDDDD
Here's one you missed, Simon, but you'll appreciate. When the DIVADs barrels were at high elevation, the radar would sometimes track the muzzle brakes of the gun barrels. If PPFE rounds were loaded (and these were standard rounds, (the programmable pre-fragmented rounds you spoke of), you might then get round detonations either in the muzzle brakes (which are at the ends of the barrels) or just beyond them, guaranteed to destroy the muzzle brakes and possibly kill any infantrymen or soft-skinned vehicles nearby. Chilling to infantrymen like myself -- and they were still trying to perfect this beast when I first enlisted in 1987.
Judging from the video and title alike, the M247 was kind of _crappy_ all around.
The self-propelled anti anything except what it was designed to shoot vehicle 😂
I, personally, thought it was just plain shitty.
Timothy McLean godlike in War Thunder. Rips helicopters to pieces, don't even have to make direct hit
It was
The fucking loser doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s just parroting the shit anti-military liberal reporting of 40 years ago.
@1:58 "In a nutshell, the Army wanted a drivable anti-tank aircraft system..."
Whoops...But the video on the A-10 is for another day :)
Suspiciously WoT sponsors a video about a SPAA making it's way into WT shortly.
What would you expect them to sponsor a video about? Something which has absolutely nothing to do with their business??? LOL
Nothing suspicious about it. This is the way the world works bud.
@@GraemePryce1978 but it doesn't have anything to do with their business "bud" they don't deal with SPAA or any tanks past the a certain point.
@@DocLeQuack the earth is flat bud
if you look you might also find that the total cost spent also included all the motor pools, garages and maintenance facilities for all the units that were to get the M247, before the first units were delivered
D O A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y
an M6A2E1 popping out broadside? that is a nice thing to see(for the enemy team)
It was probably a design feature!! Think about it; You're a soldier and you come up against this... It fires and all of a sudden all your shitters explode.... The tanks rolls off. Now you have no shitters. Think about the psychological effect this tank had on the battlefield!!!!!
"Were FUCKED man, there not even scared of us! Twenty minutes ago they rolled up in a tank and blew up Ernie while he was on the shitter! Then they just rolled off like it was NO BIG DEAL! We couldnt even DO anything! WERE LOSING THIS WAR AND NOW EVERYTHING IS COVERED IN SHIT AND ERNIE!!!
Brings whole new meaning to the phrase, "This war has gone all to sh*t".
Built by Ford, that was never going to go well. They should have just bought Gepards.
Simon! Do artillery 9only!
P L A Y A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y I N H O I 4 FeelsGoodMan
Tanks for the video
Defense spending ISN'T done for quality, cost effective weapons systems. It's done for corporate profit, political favors and lastly, employment in congessional districts.
It also creates a false sense of security for many people, and when any candidate suggests rolling back defense spending those people get angry and vote against it.
So true. Sadly none of those things will matter when Canada finally decides to invade.
Ya we all no dis you can put the tinfoil hat back on now lol
@@justcallmejeff4310 That's hilarious comung from a guy who has a history of watching dark age weapons, gym workout routines and video games. Try doing something useful with your life, junior.
Bingo
Every time I watch a tank video. World of Tanks is there.
And yet we "can't afford healthcare for all US veterans"
Correct! Don't even start for tax paying citizens! lawl....
They can buy their own health care like everyone else.
Citation needed.
Because those who control the money want it for themselves. The Legislature and the Administration get free Health care, everyone else must pay in their minds. So the Millionaires and Billionaires get the perks and there is nothing for the privates and sargents etc.
Capitalism under these petty oligarchs makes us all expendable. They shout responsibility at the Middle and Lower classes and take no responsibility for themselves while driving us into bankruptcy as they exploit us.
John Smith No I'm pretty sure the implication is that the Defense Department just throws so much money on useless weapons that could be better used. Like fully staffing the VA which has been under staffed for way too long
10:13 'Famed WW2 soldier', actually Sgt. York was in WW1.
So, a good example of the sunk cost fallacy.
As a 6 year veteran of World of Tanks
Seeing the game being played so horribly makes me want to cry
Right! ANGLE YOUR ARMOR!
That heavy he was shooting at was also ugh! Disgusts me!
I do not argue the facts, but it is a bit obvious, that World of Tanks is sponsoring video about the vehicle, that will be very soon added to the War Thunder - their main competitor.
I remember the DIVAD from my days in the army infantry. It was a program that was doomed from the beginning largely because of the requirement to use off the shelf parts in a way they were never intended. The entire idea of using an outdated chassis to save money is typical of the bad decision making that doomed the program. Of course it wound up costing four times as much in an attempt to save money. The old adage that “nothing will cost you time like a shortcut” seems apropos.
It is ZSU-23-4 Shilka. Not Shiika.
MathiasJames2002
I caught that too.
I love it when he demos the game. It’s like watching a twitch stream and a fun informational video. Good on you man!
Built by Ford, the same company that built the Pinto, a car that had a nasty habit of exploding on contact on the rear bumper.
I enjoy this new format.
So they thought they had faked the testing cause a drone self-destruct was activated, so hilarious! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You know a system is bad when they are trying to fake it to see if it can kill something, and its still fails with unrealistically ideal conditions. Its like Mythbusters after the bust a myth, and then go to extremes to see if they can actually accomplish the myth.
I see your WOT gameplay and I notice that one guy on your team got 11 kills... congrats to him!
When you get paid and accidentally talk about a vehicle which is in the next release of the competitors game. Lawlz... Health bars, SMH.
Wood and canvas sparking 30mm shells was always so much more realistic, amirite?
Tall Troll not anymoreeeeeee, play the game and you will see ;)
@@polaskatyu9368 He is probably too busy playing Arty with one hand or driving a 200mph Battleship.
Cannons got buffs now soooo
So you likely fired a low caliber HE shell and hit the tracks of a Chaffee for very little damage and then deleted the game? Ok. A French tier 4 B1 is a "heavy" tank, but use it to shoot a Chaffee and especially if you fired HE, yeah you're not going to do much.
My unit visited the White Sands visiting center after a month of training in the heat of Ft. Bliss in August of '85 . I watched a video lauding the SGT York as a first class weapon of the future. A couple of days later I saw on the news the weapon was cancelled as being a big failure.
World of tanks? WORLD OF ARTILLERY SOUNDS BETTER
Original_Mr_Pineapple not anymore it's not.
HAIL LORD ARTILLERUS
Try an spg, you will be disappointed.
you mean world of Artillery only?
Original_Mr_Pineapple it really is World of Tanks, on tablets or phones they att the word ‘Blitz.’ It’s actually a very fun game, entertaining and the graphics rock.
That was awesome Simon, you need to make gaming videos. The last few minutes were gold! lol
2:00 Pretty sure you meant a "driveable anti-aircraft tank." :D
I was in AIT at Redstone Arsenal with Sgt. York repairmen (I was a 55G Nuc Wpns Mnt Spec). The program was cancelled while I was stationed there.
*cough* *cough* I prefer Warthunder but I guess WOT is cool
Since the first "bad tank" is one of the tanks getting added in the next update, my bet is this a hit piece.
BadPilot WoT is more of a timewaster in my opinion
was just gona say
Too bad WT is fucking trash
DaSpineLessFish you can’t ammo rack war thunder players, we WT players can ammo rack you guys ;)
Knew all of that already but it was told in a entertaining way.
Knew peole would fill the coments with "artillary only"
Jesus Ramirez Romo you should do artillery only
I don't understand this meme
+yellow berries
Ditto.
@@remliqa still don't understand ot
+yellow berries
I guess it is one of those forced meme that is too obscure to actually takes off.
Oooh boy, Potential History's going to love this.
You specifically call Sergeant York a World War 1 veteran in the first half of this video, yet you call him a World War II veteran in the second half. I've come to the conclusion that Simon is not a historian, he just reads whatever someone who is not paying attention puts in front of him.
Well he did served in both World Wars.
Alvin Cullum York (December 13, 1887 - September 2, 1964), also known as Sergeant York, was one of the most decorated United States Army soldiers of World War I.
He received the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 35 machine guns, killing at least 25 enemy soldiers, and capturing 132
He's still raising morals and helping gain fund and new recruits. That's a good duty right there.
Simon went to law school, if I am not mistaken. Being British he also isn't as knowledgeable about American war heroes (not unlike the average American, I am sad to say).
5:10 - Also, the US DOD had a rather large stockpile of 40mm guns and ammo in the '70s left over from WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
In WWII, it was the most effective AA gun mounted on a ship. In Vietnam, it was mounted sideways in C-47s and used for circle-strafing over target areas to devastating effect.
Take a shot every time he says tank
@Another Millennial As this is about an anti-air tank it should be 40mm Bofors shots
You'd have to miss every time, though, so that takes the fun out of it.
Alvin York as a "WWII soldier"????? What a trip!
The iron armenian would say other wise.
YES... KNOWLEDGE AND GAMEPLAY TRULY THE ULTIMATE COMBO
This was Not a Tank it was a Self-propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun !!!
You might say What's the difference ???
An accurate analogy might be that you show a picture of a Ford van and say this is a Semi tractor-trailer rig !!!
And no they never did get it to function properly and that is why the Army never adopted them.
Can we just talk about Simons last games ally who got 11 kills? Thats quite nice
I'm in a game of WoT right now LOL
WoT is trash. WT is wayy better.
@@Tclarke-cy1sc And who the fuck asked for your opinion?
played it.Didn't like it
Try Tank RB the kill cam is awesome
@@Tclarke-cy1sc dafuq is kill camo?
World of Tanks does seem pretty fun! Loved the video too :)
Cool it on the childish memes, guys. Information(al videos) should be close to timeless, if correct, yet with these graphics, it'll seem arcane in a couple months' time.
The M-247 (Sgt York) was intended to match the 1960's Russian technology of the ZSU-23-4, which was replaced by the by the 2K22 Tunguska SP-AA gun - which was developed and fielded at the same time as the Sgt York. The Tunguska was fielded in 1984 as the York project died.
World of tanks is cancer. Community is so toxic you can't even talk to the opposing team. Play at own rage inducing risk.
John Doe the best interaction I've had we a couple jokes at bad players and a gg from a very few polite players,kinda depressing.
What? WOT isnt meant to be realistic, its an arcade game thats why it has health bars, unrealistic controls, ect.
@@sytricka3318
Chat got removed in WT?
I respect both games but don't spit utter bullshit about a game like this.
The only thing close to was an update that changed the 'All-Chat' setting to disabled but even then you were able to change it back and be able to talk with the enemy team.
Playing since late 2014 and I have never seen a single team mate revealing information to the enemy.
Talan
Uhh...there is ammo racking in WoT. Occasionally it even ignites the ammo and blows the turret up into the air (quite spectacular)
Once i saw a tank get ammo ranked and his turret flew into the air and landed on the tank that killed him, killing that tank too. The video is on The Mighty Jingles' channel.
@@sytricka3318 eh nah, wot def takes the cake for most toxic community of the two
That vehicle was the brother to the vehicle my first MOS in the Army was! I was a 14R (M6 Bradley Linebacker Crewmember). If I remember my history correctly, the M6 replaced the Vulcan and the M247.
To add on something I just remembered. Between the M6 rolling out and the Vulcans being phased out along with the M247 falling on its face, they had the BSFV (Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle). This was a stopgap kind of thing. The vehicle was a Bradley, but the troop compartment was rearranged to only carry 2 soldiers with the rest of the space filled up with stinger missiles and it's appropriated gear. The vehicle would have to stop, the 2 soldiers get out and move from the vehicle and set up shop. Once fired, they had to get back in. This means a long time between set up and break down where the vehicle couldn't really leave the area or the troops would be left behind. Now for a fact I found completely stupid about their deployment. You would think a short range AA vehicle such as the Linebacker should be placed where they would be needed most. Such as rolling hills/mountains, where an attack could happen quickly, against a military that would try to use helicopters and low flying aircraft to deploy troops. This would be South Korea to defend against North Korea. Nope, they were all stateside. We used the older system of the BSFV in Korea where the Linebacker would make more sense. The BSFV should have been state side where they could be used as infantry for their deployments to Iraq/Afganistan where there was no airforce to shoot down. Never made sense to me.
LOL As soon as you mentioned Ford, it all came together. That can’t even make decent cars, and how long have they been trying?
As I watched this video I kept thinking of the movie "Sgt. Bilko." Also a lot of commercial software projects I've been on (there, at least, the general public rarely knows of the failures.)
Well, at least we're not forced by the threat of lethal force to pay for disasters like thi-
...... oh.... taxes..... :-(
Name one person who was executed for not paying their taxes.
Name one person that, if they refused to pay taxes, and then refused to pay the fines imposed for 'tax evasion', and then after a warrant was issued for their arrest, refused to come quietly with the arresting Officers, and then defended himself from their attempts to take him in, say with defensive weaponry, wouldn't be executed?
Just because their are a few extra steps between 'The Law' and 'The Gun' doesn't mean a monopoly of lethal force doesn't exist. Just means the extra steps fooled you into thinking it doesn't exist.
Do you often fall for simple sleight of hand tricks?
@@theQiwiMan if all that happened then you would still have been shot for attacking law officers with lethal weapons, not tax evasion.
It's like all those times people get shot for having a tail light out. No, you got stopped for the tail light, you got shot cause you pulled a shotgun out and disputed your ticket, forcefully.
"if all that happened then you would still have been shot for attacking law officers with lethal weapons, not tax evasion."
Think really, really hard about that comment.
@@theQiwiMan think really really hard about the stupidity of the lesson you're trying to impart. You go to jail for tax evasion, you get shot for resisting that punishment with lethal force.
Don't like it? Stop using all the shit we pay the government to build and/or insure/protect or regulate to make sure it doesn't kill you.
Hey I’ve seen the tank in the thumbnail in person. It’s in Danville, Virginia USA
We interrupt your regularly scheduled ad to bring you. . . more ads. Goodie.
I've never seen whistler as a gamer. I guess I assumed he just sat down and patiently waited for me to click the next video. Great content btw
Ofcourse it's ford after all they are known for their quality
At Ford quality is job one.
On that last game did you see the fella get 11 kills. GG 😁
Amazing that WoT looks worse now than it did on release
WTF? How did you come to that conclusion?
How the fuck...? Are you trolling? You better be otherwise you're a dumbass.
So, what exactly is wrong with how it looks? Or are you just a War Thunder fanboy angry at WoT for being so much more popular?
WoT looks like a AAA game after 1.0. If you are gonna troll then at least make sense.
no one who plays seriously will turn the graphics up in any game. FPS over useless graphics will win you the game
Side note if you like the Swedish metal band Sabaton and WoT the game has the Primo Victoria as a bonus tank based off of the one the band uses in their music video.
loose the background music . Doesnt match the theme and alltogether distract from the speech .
i would disagree
I also disagree
I didn't even hear it
There's background music?
It's not the music. It's the god damn passive aggressive cadence accentuating THE wrong parts of A sentence... Rapid. Little. Pauses. Breaking. UP! Meaning and? Information content, WITH constant pointless and meaningless hand gestures and nodding emphasizing NOTHING OF FUCKING IMPORTANCE!!!!! *karate chop!*
All the while images in the back tell a completely unrelated story most of the time - as they are being rapidly replaced simply for the sake of variety, and NOT to add information.
I feel like I'm being berated by a drunk homeless autistic person about something I don't understand cause individual words don't form coherent messages. CARROTS!? BLUE BONNET PLAYSE!!!
Text and the context are completely out of sync. Spiders... *waves hands in small semicircles*
*nods head up and to the left*
It's like watching some deep learning algorithm NOT QUITE recreating a style of a living human being talking about an interesting topic, after "learning" how to do it by analyzing thousands of youtube videos.
thanks for putting me onto this game - AWESOME!
Try War Thunder.
"Built by Ford" and "oil leaks" are often found in the same sentence. 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂.
If the helo was hovering still, could be part of why it couldn't target it, depending on what method it was using to target and filter background clutter.
You should do a video about early drone crafts. Like how did they work!