I wanted to talk about the VK 45.01 (H) a bit more, but there is little info on it compared to the more documented VK 45.01 (P) Be sure to like in order to help with the algorithm and if you subscribe, you'll get to see my videos a lot faster since I'm still growing and the system isn't pushing my videos to more people yet. EXTRA HISTORY: The magnetic anti-tank mines were made exclusively by Germany, as they had figured out that they could make anti-tank weapons with magnets; so could other countries. This thinking made Germany panic and start fielding the Zimmerit, which caused the production of tanks to slow down and fielding tanks take much longer, as most were sent more North West Germany to factories who were made to specialize in applying the Zimmerit. The US did not need special anti-tank grenades as the Bazooka worked well enough, as well as land mines. The Russians used anti-tank guns, their own Bazooka type which would be the RPG-1 (designed 1944), and they used bundle grenades and other anti-tank weapons (like the PTRS and PTRD) instead of magnetic weaponry.
It was good, but as you mentioned with the copper. It relied on materials they already barely had access to, and were WAY too complex to be viable for long campaigns, without maintenance it's reliability would tank. There's a triangle to it that's better than the commonly known one, most people say "armor, guns, speed." I think a better description of a tank's actual performance is -design (good) -ergonomics (great) -manufacture/maintenance(fail)
You're completely right yeah. It was one of the issues later designs faced due to the complexity of using Tungsten Ball Bearings, which could only be gotten from Sweden. And because of that and them being hard to acquire and poor maintenance, vehicles like the later Tiger E and Tiger IIs would have hard times existing in a functional condition
@@JangoF12b I did enjoy though, keep it up! My advice is save some space for the downsides as well, it'll make your content more well rounded in my opinion. But, it's just opinion- take it or leave it
@@rudolphpohl4115 The Pershing was a pretty late war tank, I will do a video on it some day since the Pershing series is pretty cool. I do love the few Pershings that were fielded in WW2. It's mostly a Korea War tank though, since that's where a lot of them were fielded even though it was built from experience in fighting the 88mm on the Tiger I and Tiger II series
I wanted to talk about the VK 45.01 (H) a bit more, but there is little info on it compared to the more documented VK 45.01 (P)
Be sure to like in order to help with the algorithm and if you subscribe, you'll get to see my videos a lot faster since I'm still growing and the system isn't pushing my videos to more people yet.
EXTRA HISTORY: The magnetic anti-tank mines were made exclusively by Germany, as they had figured out that they could make anti-tank weapons with magnets; so could other countries. This thinking made Germany panic and start fielding the Zimmerit, which caused the production of tanks to slow down and fielding tanks take much longer, as most were sent more North West Germany to factories who were made to specialize in applying the Zimmerit. The US did not need special anti-tank grenades as the Bazooka worked well enough, as well as land mines. The Russians used anti-tank guns, their own Bazooka type which would be the RPG-1 (designed 1944), and they used bundle grenades and other anti-tank weapons (like the PTRS and PTRD) instead of magnetic weaponry.
you diserve way more than 21 views and 3 likes man
Thank you honestly. The video should grow in due time
It was good, but as you mentioned with the copper. It relied on materials they already barely had access to, and were WAY too complex to be viable for long campaigns, without maintenance it's reliability would tank. There's a triangle to it that's better than the commonly known one, most people say "armor, guns, speed."
I think a better description of a tank's actual performance is
-design (good)
-ergonomics (great)
-manufacture/maintenance(fail)
You're completely right yeah. It was one of the issues later designs faced due to the complexity of using Tungsten Ball Bearings, which could only be gotten from Sweden. And because of that and them being hard to acquire and poor maintenance, vehicles like the later Tiger E and Tiger IIs would have hard times existing in a functional condition
@@JangoF12b
I did enjoy though, keep it up! My advice is save some space for the downsides as well, it'll make your content more well rounded in my opinion. But, it's just opinion- take it or leave it
@@thericepotato5847 Yeah I didn't include much of that. I should next time. Thanks for the great comments though
Unveil??? Are you the First ????? DORK
peak comment
The Tiger tank was not the most formidable the American M26 was
Pershing ag please. Why then the hype to this very day, of the Tiger, when the M26 is virtually unremembered?
@@rudolphpohl4115 The Pershing was a pretty late war tank, I will do a video on it some day since the Pershing series is pretty cool. I do love the few Pershings that were fielded in WW2. It's mostly a Korea War tank though, since that's where a lot of them were fielded even though it was built from experience in fighting the 88mm on the Tiger I and Tiger II series
The Persian m26 was too late in world war II to be of any significance at all