If you liked this video please consider checking out my video on the Hanoi Hilton, I think you would find it quite informative and interesting: th-cam.com/video/ycAKaCCot5U/w-d-xo.html You can also support this channel through becoming a TH-cam Member through the "Join" button or by buying some merch from my website: www.coneofarc.com/merch
I quite liked the lazerpig section. I'm not russia's strongest soldier but I found that he often misinforms people. It gets to points where it seems /on purpose/.
Aircraft can shoot other aircraft down, therefore the day of the aircraft "if" over as well. In fact, pretty much everything the military uses is useless since it can be destroyed by other weapons/vehicles.
Anything made, can be destroyed by some means to a degree that its functionality is either diminished or eradicated, and can be disassembled unless designed otherwise.
@@Vincent98987either sheer torture to it's metal frame like in Terminator 1 or kicking them into a furnace/ molten metal like in the end of T2. Damage caused by freezing can also glitch out their systems like in Terminator 2.
6:28 No, reactive armour is an Emu technology. During the Emu wars of 1932, armoured Emus used reactive extra armour out of feathers to harden their hulls. The next documented usage of extra armour blocks is from New Zealand, where corrugated sheets were used as extra armour on the Bob Semple Armoured Fighting Vehicle. From there, it went to Israel and the Soviet Union when Emus of the Trotskist Down-Under Avian Anarchist Liberation Front, a dissident Emu group, made the technology available.
Ah, yes, I remember the Trotskyist Down-Under Avian Anarchist Liberation Front. It's a bit annoying that people keep confusing it with their rival organisation, the Anarchist Avian Trotskyist Liberation Front of Down-Under. That organisation was mostly made up of cassowaries, and famously had the slogan "What have the drop bears done for us?"
@@minimalbstolerance8113 Weren't the Inter-Island Anarchist Avian Liberation Front those cassowaries who came up with the idea to put explosives directly in their feathered extra armour, while the Emu and the Bob Semple relied on the enemy to bring the explosives? If I remember correctly, they trapped Bombardier beetles between their feather extra armour and their hulls.
ERA originally stood for "Explosive Roo Armour" and operated via miniaturised Kangas being placed in the small brick housing and kicking the incoming round away from the tank when it was in close enough proximity to it. The explosive element's purpose was dual fold, firstly as a backup to destroying the incoming round and secondly it's to hide the miniaturised kangaroo technology from the wider world.
You can write an entire book with arguments from those kind of people. One time, a Wehraboo told me that if Michael Wittmann wasn't killed - By a plane, obviously... God forbid a Tiger I being destroyed by a Sherman - Germany would have been capable of turning the tides in the Western Front... No, i'm not kidding. This guy tought tank a single Tiger I crew could have turned the tides of the entire war, if they weren't killed. I didn't even bothered to reply...
@@carlblack8574I love when armchair historian wehraboos simp over the tiger 1 and are baffled to find out they were realistically meh tanks all together.
@@lexif.5463 In my opinion, the Tiger Is were good tanks... But people hype the shit out of them, after all they were another heavy tank. I'm even going to say that the IS-2s were better heavy tanks designs. The IS-2s are often overlooked, when in reality they were some of the best designed heavy tanks of the war.
There was some guy on a Mark Felton Productions video claiming up and down that "the HE-177 was the best heavy bomber of the war if it had just been given more time to fix engine issues it would have turned the course of the war" which is rare you see a take as unique as that one.
You could do a satire video like this but you review correct comments and say dumb stuff to explain that they’re wrong and end the video with a rickroll
Here in brazil we are calling these "experts" couch general, you need to see the pearls that show up on a article about the KC-390 caring a Black Hawk on its cargo Bay during a transport test
You need to add clips of family guy or rocket league to keep the shorts-viewers entertained, they don't have a long enough attention span to comprehend the things being said
I've seen it happen on other channels too, it's really quite remarkable. I can excuse people missing an important point in a long video, but when I see multiple comments from people about things that had already been addressed in the video, and the video was *less than 60 seconds long,* it really blows my mind.
@@ConeOfArcI've had people ask me for TLDR's in comments I make for historical things. Comments that are less than one full paragraph. Barely longer than this comment. It's insane how low people's attention span is getting.
@@hitechinc.7875 i doubt you could People named "covid masedmorons" teach anything, they would doubt that the earth is round even if you put them on a Spaceship
The state of stupidity has at least one thing in common with the state of death; the dead do not feel the pain of their condition nor do the stupid...everyone else does.
Tanks can’t take or hold ground now. The Russians proved that with their failed attacks last year. What’s needed is APCs with tank level armor to be resistant to artillery. Armored vehicles are not going away but the primary purpose is going to be infantry and drones instead of big gun fire power since infantry equipped with rapid fire grenade launchers and drone guided artillery strikes is more effective than tanks on a modern battlefield.
@@yosarianilivestech4018 I seem to remember Abrams by themselves racing to Baghdad and then ambushing everything that came their way while they waiting for the infantry to catch up. That’s taking and holding ground. Today those Abrams would be taken out by ATGMs and drone guided artillery because tanks are just too damn big to hide from drones. A similar force of heavy APCs like the Israeli Namer could move men and drones into an ambush spot, and long range artillery and rapid fire grenade launchers would cause the same effect and would be much harder to kill. Tank fire power was useful because artillery used to suck at actuality hitting the target before modern artillery and drones. Tank armor is still useful but the size of the tanks makes it hard to hide them from drone guided artillery and ATGMs. Better to use that armor to protect infantry instead of an obsolete direct fire system.
@@atomicnut1486 yeah. Honestly I did take Red's video too seriously because I just couldn't believe that the Russians would actually use an updated SLR-16, but when I saw this one it just left a bad taste considering Cone's own research blunders. Its satisfying watching all the fresh comments clapping back
to be fair a lot of this was a bunch of "woozle effect" wasn't it? essentially everyone would inevitably fall for such things. (essentially all journalists nowadays are essentially never checking for woozle's and always take stuff for face value because they suck like that. so war/tech historians are by default 100 times better in my book.)
@@tram1839 Totally ok to fall for it. Shit happens. Whats not ok is smugly calling out others over research while doing so and then making some god awful crybully response when called out on it.
@@tram1839 Cone put out a community post, and tries to play the victim. He seemingly forgets he was the one to start this whole thing with this video.
@@mozzym770 Wasn't Lazerpig the one who put out the first video that started it? I'm going to look into this BS, but I know Lazerpig to be incorrect or misleading in previous videos.
Imagine dedicating an entire section of your video to a rant that's just completely wrong. Bravo cone, maybe you should dO sOmE aCtUaL rEsEaRcH like you suggest.
FWIW, I watched the Hanoi Hilton video. Props to you for researching and sharing, I learned quite a bit and it was a jumping-off platform for me to dive into research. I learned a fair bit. 👍
"Infantryman chokes to death by canned food. It is now confirmed that infantry is obsolete against such devastating anti-personel weapon." - some rando on the internet
19:38 I mean, just because the barrle is raised, doesnt even mean that the digital scope is raised with it. I mean just because you lift your arm doesnt mean that you need to move your whole head upwards.
Cone can I just say that in regards to the 19-K comment about the bore evacuator, you're putting a lot of faith into the idea that someone in the Army can read lol
in all honesty, it's pretty sad to see. I liked some of your videos but to be completely ignorant of someone's research and do a very lackluster effort yourself only calling them out as lazy is quite disappointing.
"I have two boyfriends in Russia who told me this, I'm not going to name them because some other guy had not listed his sources in other video" Lazerhog
Cone may use actual books for research from time to time, but seems to be overly reliant on other people's social media posts. Criticising Lazerpig for saying that Russia is using the same X-configuration engine design that was used in WW2 German tanks in the T-14 Armata is a pretty lazy stab. Cone goes on about which models of German tank he thinks the engine went into for long enough for viewers not to notice that his argument is limited to cylinder displacement and the Armata engine having 12 cylinders instead of 16. So, Cone says, it can't possibly the same engine design. Well, it patently IS! It's an X-configuration engine! 😊
@@TheSpiderm0nkey god I love people who think the layout of the engine is enough to call two identical. "It just has less cylinders and displacement, probably completely different head designs and.. BUT ITS AN X ENGINE SO ITS TECHNICALLY IDENTICAL" by that logic the Leopard and some Shermans share the same engine as theyre both V shaped layouts. Also anyone that claims torque output of a tank diesel to be the same as that of an econo engine from a Honda Jazz has no idea what hes talking about I'm really not sure why yall grasp at straws to prove an argument thats so obviously wrong.
@@turnip5465 mate, where have you been? Does it not strike you as odd that the Russians (who aren't known for their engineering innovation) have suddenly pulled an X-config engine out of their arses for the Armata? Does it not strike you as odd that all of the historical evidence connects a unique engine in German tank design with a unique engine in Russian tank design? Quibbling about cylinder dimensions isn't a serious argument. Do you have evidence that the Russian engine has a different valvetrain to the German one? If so then please let us all know.
What seems to get lost in the T14 engine argument is that engine FAMILIES evolve and change. Saying the T14's engine is a "copy" of the Tiger P engine is inaccurate, but it can share bore spacing, crank journal size, some block dimensions... it's like the Buick/Oldsmobile aluminum V8 from the early 1960s, that engine was sold and licensed and modified so much that there were overhead cam V8 versions, iron V8 versions, iron V6 versions, and aluminum and iron turbo versions, powering everything from GM and Rover sedans to Formula 1 and Indycar. But the basic geometry was shared among all of them. This tends to make development easier and allow for accessories, production tooling and supply chains to be re-used between variants.
Right, so If I take a ford flat head V8, make the cylinders wider and shorten the stroke, Ive made a totally new engine right? Well no, Ive made a worse ford flathead. But atleast I would have done more than the russians have done to the Kharkov V2 engine over the last 80 years. And making modifications is just apart of life for engines. But there comes a time when an engine has been stretched to its absolute limit. The A85A3 reached that limit before it was even developed. X engines are pursued so rarely because they are horribly unreliable. Theyre inefficient and prone to breaking parts from excessive wear. And why was the A85 selected for the T14? Because the design bureau had to cut corners. Russia doesnt have the cash for R&D that the west does. Remember, GDP per capita, Russia is on par with Nigeria. Do you really expect Nigeria to develop a ground up new tank thats on par with western tanks? No. Because Nigeria isnt so stupid as to think it needs to maintain itself as a military power beyond its immediate defense.
Regarding the use of the terms guns in the UK military one of the mottos (although not the main one) of the Royal Artillery is "Our Guns are our Colours"
Pretty poor take on the engine on your part saying that can't be the same based on displacement and cylinder count. Especially in the automotive segment (and even in the military as well). Back in the 70s when the fuel crisis hit a simple solution to reduce emissions was to reduce cylinder count. So they would litterly chop a block of a v8 and plug all the holes on it that would have led to the 7 and 8 cylinders. The other part displacement is even worse of a measurement for relationship. For example my engine in my ford ranger is the cologne 4.0 v6 (4.0 being displacement in liters) if you go back to the 70s a cologne v6 would be a a 1.7 liter motor. That's a bit over double the amount of displacement change in a time span that's shorter than that of the sl16 and the Russian engine. So not really saying your right or wrong here doesn't really matter but those metrics are pretty bad to use. The best thing would be the valve train type. This is great for differentiating engines as it takes an entire redesign and new engine block in order to achieve a new type. This being whether the engine is sleeve valve, overhead cam, pushrod etc etc.
Other examples: The old Buick V6 was their V8 with two cylinders lopped off; same with the old Chevy V6, they took an SBC and chopped two cylinders off. The old Nissan L engine came in both 4 and 6 cylinder models, the 6 was essentially the the four, plus two more cylinders. Expanding on the old Ford Cologne engine, the Ford Cologne V6 was initially derived from the Ford Taunus V4 engine, both have significant parts commonalities, sharing V angle (60°), bore, cylinder spacing, etc. The four cylinder came in displacements from 1.3 to 1.7 litres, the V6 came in displacements from 1.8 up to 4 litres. Two OHC derivatives were also made, the older Cosworth 2.9 DOHC and the much more recent in-house developed 4.0 SOHC. There's also cases like the recent Jaguar V6 and V8, where they didn't even bother to modify the block for the V6. The AJ126 literally just blanks off two cylinders. Displacement isn't a very good guide for determining shared history, instead you'd want to look at stuff like bore spacing.
@@zanderray9823 Definitely, you made a solid point. Hopefully I'm just reinforcing your point with a bit more depth. People who want to insist that a 16 cylinder design can't be made into a 12 need to be aware that it's one of the more straightforward modifications that can be made.
This is exactly how the three different Ford 351 V8 engines still confuse enthusiasts decades later. There's the 351 Windsor and the 351 Cleveland small block V8s, they are almost completely different engines. Then there's the last one which is basically a tall deck 351C, aka the 400M block, destroked with a 351W crankshaft called the 351M. Oh and it uses a big block bellhousing. All these engines were available around somewhat the same time, and to add to the madness, the 351W was available before, during, and after the 351M
@@NKVD_Enjoyer Seriously, the pig said the SLA-16 was THE porsche tiger engine, not a small experiment; and ignored that Cone of Arc said a Tiger 2 was modified for the SLA-16. Cone said nothing wrong, yet the pig was completely dishonest with him.
My mother and father have always been fascinated with war history. My mum focuses on the civilian side of the war and my father focuses on the military side of things (something I also picked up) and the amount of times all three of us have had to correct people on basic things is annoyingly funny. Seeing people try and correct someone who knows what he is talking about is honestly funny as Hell but is also annoying
Damn if the era of "random military object" ends whenever it gets a counter then its been over since the stone age. Correct me if im wrong but the whole point of military inovation is to out do the other guy and make your shit better... now im just waiting for someone to make a counter to the american MRE
I'd say it was a bit if a improvement to use just horse and saddle cause you dont have the limitations of the horse having to pull a chariot meaning it could cross more hazards easier Now I dont know much a out chariots but I've grown up around horses my whole life. I'm not trying to argue against anything just stating what I know
I tried doing my own research on the T-14 and it's blogposts, press-releases and defunct websites all the way down. It's infuriating. There are no remotely reliable sources and not nearly enough information to properly factcheck all the bullshit, that get's thrown at you. Asking someone used to work in such an enviroment (an historian e.g.), for their best guess is probably the best we can do.
Cone is one of those kids who reads a Carnegie approved textbook and preaches it as the gospel. 1. Read our information 2. Memorize our information 3. Match our information to the buzzword when asked a question 4. Woohoo peel-off star shaped sticker The painfully “average” kid pretending to be smart because it seems exciting to be good at something, except you get an actual genius like laserpig who wears the facade of a fool for the sake of being entertaining and actually has concise and accurate information. Who could’ve imagined, a genuine intellectual who doesn’t present his information like stale monotonous bread with near zero vocal inflection. There’s a reason I neglected cones subscribe button all this time, the various videos I’ve watched really failed to impress, it’s just regurgitation of common information. But here comes Lazerpig and within the first few minutes I subbed, this was a few years ago albeit he’s gained a massive following since.
Ngl, i like these types of comments. It makes you recheck and crosscheck your facts, which makes you understand and memorize them even more. It humbles you in some way (and feeling sympathy towards them)
@@Wallyworld30it is all a bit strange and I find it weird that Cone is citing blogs to prove a point on this. Blogs can be used as sources, as a way to prove how unfounded a blog citing a blog citing a blog citing a blog citing a blog.... I hope this doesn't become a drama thing for cone's sake...
Yeah that's exactly what he meant, I don't mind that cone responded to the stuff happening with lazerpig, but as an avid viewer of both channels I thought then and I think now that it was rude and uncalled for to respond like cone did. Why can't we all get along guys? Everyone makes mistakes and you guys have to share a space together, just be civil. All I can say tho is at least nobody acted like gonzalo lira
There's probably some sort of lineage between Sla.16 and the engine mounted on T-14 Armata, considering that X-layout engines are a relative rarity - I don't think anyone has produced a notable one in a while. From what I found with my limited research, most are just glued-together V60s to increase power, which the Armata's powerpack looks to be as well. Coming from engine harmonics viewpoint, X-layouts are probably unpopular because they will have much higher adverse loads on the crankshaft if the firing isn't done very cleanly, so they're likely to end up as maintenance nightmares in the long run. A 90-degree X-layout would be balanced, but it'd completely lose the space savings which is why you'd do an X-layout to begin with... Anyway, this is probably something we'll be able to read on in 10-20 years, all this is speculation on my part. Either way, good commentary on the matter.
@@gheetza14 Pretty much! However, I'm fairly confident that it's likely a case of someone making an Sla.16-style X layout engine after WWII in soviet russia, then someone else looking at that and going "huh that's neat" and then making another, etc; so the lineage is caused indirectly if anything.
From my understanding Soviet X engine development goes back to the 50s. I forgot the name of the X diesel engine developed in the 60s but that used the Sla-16 as a reference among other X diesel engines known at the time. The development of the A-85 which is the T-14's engine dates back to the late 70s and was known as the 2V amongst other names. It was used in many projects before the Armata. There was a experimental T-72 with a welded turret and the 2V16. To my knowledge the 2V and this earlier engine I mentioned are not directly related in a technical sense but they have used it as a reference. Later on the Object 187 made use of it as well as the Object 195. It was offered as an engine for commercial purposes later on which is where the whole T-14's engine being a pumping engine thing comes from.
I love Laserpig because he is funny. I love ConeOfArc because he is informative. I will continue to watch both and hopefully maintain a balance between light entertainment and limiting exposure to misinformation.
People actually thinking that Laserpig's channel is anything but click-bait entertainment is embodiment of the phrase, "I only believe what I CHOOSE to believe!" :b
About the Lazer pig bit. please don't do that again. And by do that again I mean being so rude to him. just if you're going to respond to him just be nice man
I like the barrel lowering to reload comment. Reminds me of a story one of my soldiers had when he was in the Marine Corps a few years ago. During a training excerice, every time they fired the cannon, the entire electric system would shut off and put them dead in the water, so they'd have to restart it 🤣
8:55 That commenter is going to be very confused when he reads a Napoleonic history book and sees that the British only had 152 Guns with them at Waterloo. "Guess they all shared between them?"
Here for the upcoming comments🍿 "Never trust any information in any video, regardless of the creator at face value" -This video creator who makes videos on historical topics and equipment... 🤔 (BTW I watched this video when it originally came out, just back for entertainment 🤠)
22:27 That's not quite right. It was intended to install the Sla. 16 in a Jagdtiger, but the Jagdtiger ended up not being available at the time, so it was in fact installed in a Tiger II at Nibelungenwerke. (Professor Porsche's Wars - Karl Ludvigsen)
@@podfuk The anime cringe in the tank/historical community is why I’m glad I went infantry instead of tanker 😂 but there’s insufferable weebs there now too.
@@CallanElliott Not really, Ukraine has always had one of the most advanced military industries in Europe right after the big players. A lot of Soviet military industry was located there after all and it was maintained after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not to take away from the incredible achievements of the Ukrainian armed forces in defending their country but the war was never as one-sided as media liked to portray it when it first broke out. Since 2014 Ukraine has been embarked on a pretty serious military modernization program so that by the 24th of February invasion they were very well prepared. It's also why a lot of people thought that Russia wasn't going to invade because it didn't seem like they really had the strength to do so, having something like 300.000 lined up against the roughly 250.000 in the regular Ukrainian army.
Russia suffered more casualties fighting littral militia men inside their own country for 4 years than any US invasion since the war on terror. This montera of high losses solely applies to russia, in ww3 mabey but in a regular conflict russias ability to send young men to the Graves will remain uniquely russian.
@@winstonchurchill5892 Those "literal militia men" Were trained and led both by former Soviet commanders (who were pretty good, judging by their performance in Afghanistan), and by various fundamentalist guerilla fighters (from the same Afghanistan, where they had 10 years to come up with tactics to counter the Soviets'), not to mention using the exact same weapons the Russians were using. And after the first disastrous campaign, lost for the reasons mentioned above, while the Russian generals were busy jerking off or something, the Chechens were preparing, and quite thoroughly, I must note. And yeah, fighting a prepared and a highly-motivated army in urban environments tends to raise the casualties significantly. You can compare photos of Al-Falujah or Baghdad to Grozniy after the respective battles to notice the difference in the intensity of the fighting.
beware countries with corrugated sheds and unsupervised space, for bored middle aged men can be eerily crafty in the quest to blow things up to amuse their friends, especially when provided with machine tools and beer.
Laser pigs comments on the engine are correct . And had you done sone good research you would have figured this out. One of the sources for this info is by a former British army intelligence officer. " Sergio Miller". As well as other sources. So you might want to watch getting ahead of yourself.
I 100% agree that people should be wary about trusting TH-cam videos outright. Laserpig is a prime example, but I would also throw into that list most of “Historytube” into the category, especially the likes of Atun-Shei, Cynical Historian, and (if you go back far enough) Potential History. After spending a good amount of time researching particular conflicts (specifically the American Civil War), the massive holes in those videos become more obvious the more you look into them.
The closer to politics a topic gets the more likely some rando on the internet is going to be a partisan who wants to push propaganda first and use whatever facts best suit that goal. This is especially apparent if you look at people talking about the American Civil War, which is apparently the only conflict in human history you can neatly fit into a single cause and single motivation for literally everyone involved. The "it was _only_ about states' rights" people have died down a lot but the "it was _only_ about slavery" people are still alive and well.
Yep, I watch most of those just for fun, people who take it as full value, as a real history class is not as smart as they think of themselves, but you know what I love the most? Those comments saying: "thank you for the unbiased video about..." Bruh, imagine believing for real that there is no bias in anything... That's beyond salvation.
Oof. Cynical Historian, I forgot about that guy. It's really painful to watch some of those videos. At least Atun-Shei makes entertaining videos, fun to watch.
A85 X engine, is a turbo charged upgrade on the X12 prototype designed for the T64 before they chose to just use the same engine as the T62. That X12 was a carbon copy of the SLA 16 with just 1 row of cylinders cut off.
Red Effect proved this is not the case in his video breaking down the numerous differences between the two engines. Even without all that though one is air-cooled and the other is liquid-cooled making it literally impossible for it to be a "carbon copy".
Short form content is where intelligence goes to die. I've had people comment on a 15 second video and they clearly hadn't watched all of it or if they did completely failed to understand.
@@jamesmandahl444 it shouldn’t matter if he did make a mistake (he didn’t) no excuse talking smack towards a colleague. Imagine if LP did the same when cone admittedly misidentified the panther model. It’s hypothetical because LP isn’t a lifeless jerk, waiting to catch mistakes from other folks doing same kind of work. It was pathetic regardless of who’s correct about an engine model ffs.
So in te 1960s the Soviets took to 16 cylinder SLA 16 and made a 12 Cyliner version. This was regected for the T-62. Jump forward to post colapse Russia and a modinized verion of the 12 Cylinder was released by no one brought it. Now Russia under embargo neaded a New Powerful Tank engin thay can make so they fall on this 12 Cylinder Tank engin desined for the T-62 as a starting point. Oink
God that Panzer 2 with the 17cm snub-nose looks so damn derpy, it makes the 15cm Sig look normal 😆. There was also apparently a Tiger 2 with a 17cm gun as well called the Grille 17, dunno if its 100% real or not, but I'd love to see a video over it.
@@teku0000I guess it's because of the Russia things. Since it's been confirmed that nato pmcs were in there since the invasion and also the truth behind mobilization (it was an obscenely cruel opposition suppression method). That and well, Ukraine has been running out of troops and NATO tanks have proven worse than expected as the challenger doesn't go that well in the Ukrainian geography. The leopard is too unprotected and problematic (the why the U.S chose the Abrahams model over it) and the Abrahams being improved to survive tank on tank engagement. It's not that Russia best and shit but the tank community overestimated their grand strategy. Albeit not their intelligence services LOL. It's either this or they are just simping for Lazerpig kekkkkkk
People really be argueing over whether Cone-man thinks War thunder or World of Tanks is better, meanwhile I'm one of the only 3 people in the clan he made to continue playing Armored Warfare.
@ConeOfArc, my guy, attacking LazerPig in the manner you did *not* age well. I think you made the mistake of assuming that he is just a "funny youtube man", and not a historian who has done "actual research" to the extent of going into archives and getting primary materials from abroad. Worse, accusing him of mistakes you committed yourself is not a good look.
Here lies a career. It’s got a massive stain on it and will probably be source checked to hell. As all history channels should be. But god the last part hurts my brain to watch. Articles with no sources? Well that can’t be right. Bro do u know what a primary and secondary source is.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
If you liked this video please consider checking out my video on the Hanoi Hilton, I think you would find it quite informative and interesting: th-cam.com/video/ycAKaCCot5U/w-d-xo.html
You can also support this channel through becoming a TH-cam Member through the "Join" button or by buying some merch from my website: www.coneofarc.com/merch
Ill watch after this one
I quite liked the lazerpig section. I'm not russia's strongest soldier but I found that he often misinforms people. It gets to points where it seems /on purpose/.
Ill start by not trusting anything you say, shill
@@ryanbennett1314 i think he did an excuse for the T14 video
being, Y'know, british, yeah gun is anything that is... a gun. it's almost like we have names for things.
Aircraft can shoot other aircraft down, therefore the day of the aircraft "if" over as well. In fact, pretty much everything the military uses is useless since it can be destroyed by other weapons/vehicles.
Fully agreed, all in favor of just going out onto the battlefield fist draw?
@@greydearing That won't work either. What if the enemy breaks your arm? The only way we can wage wars is through sleeping competitions.
@@KyklopCZ-DaTrueOne the only true solution to this, is to have all conflicts be decided by Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Anything made, can be destroyed by some means to a degree that its functionality is either diminished or eradicated, and can be disassembled unless designed otherwise.
BR
You are prettier up close 👍 Good job to you cone da arca ✌️
Since humans can easily be killed the day of soldiers are over. Replace all of them with terminators.
Terminators can also be destroyed so they are also opsolite
With UTube comments
@@nikolaideianov5092with what you can destroy terminators?
@@Vincent98987either sheer torture to it's metal frame like in Terminator 1 or kicking them into a furnace/ molten metal like in the end of T2.
Damage caused by freezing can also glitch out their systems like in Terminator 2.
@@watamelonythey tried that in genesis, it didn't work
I can't stop laughing at the idea of a Panzer II with a 17cm howitzer. Imagine firing it and absolutely crushing the poor ol' Panzerino
They did put a 150mm on one so not too far off
You can most definitely put a 17cm howitzer from WW1 on a modified chassis: what will happen to the hull, suspension, crew is another matter 😂
@@alessiobubbles5345 in Germany, it is a question if could, not should.
@@lemagicbaguette1917 “it works, so we shall do it.”
@@lemagicbaguette1917 [Insert Ian Malcolm quote from Jurassic Park here]
6:28 No, reactive armour is an Emu technology. During the Emu wars of 1932, armoured Emus used reactive extra armour out of feathers to harden their hulls.
The next documented usage of extra armour blocks is from New Zealand, where corrugated sheets were used as extra armour on the Bob Semple Armoured Fighting Vehicle.
From there, it went to Israel and the Soviet Union when Emus of the Trotskist Down-Under Avian Anarchist Liberation Front, a dissident Emu group, made the technology available.
Ah, yes, I remember the Trotskyist Down-Under Avian Anarchist Liberation Front. It's a bit annoying that people keep confusing it with their rival organisation, the Anarchist Avian Trotskyist Liberation Front of Down-Under. That organisation was mostly made up of cassowaries, and famously had the slogan "What have the drop bears done for us?"
@@minimalbstolerance8113 Weren't the Inter-Island Anarchist Avian Liberation Front those cassowaries who came up with the idea to put explosives directly in their feathered extra armour, while the Emu and the Bob Semple relied on the enemy to bring the explosives? If I remember correctly, they trapped Bombardier beetles between their feather extra armour and their hulls.
History channel at 3am
This thread is redeeming a lousy day. Bless all you maniacs.
What will emutopia think of next! /J
As an australian, i can confirm that our kangaroos do, in fact, do most of our research. So yes, it would be kangaroo technology.
Bloody Aussies. What about the Kiwis? Nobody ever talks about our wonderful breakthroughs...
this was a joke, Aussies are awesome
ERA originally stood for "Explosive Roo Armour" and operated via miniaturised Kangas being placed in the small brick housing and kicking the incoming round away from the tank when it was in close enough proximity to it. The explosive element's purpose was dual fold, firstly as a backup to destroying the incoming round and secondly it's to hide the miniaturised kangaroo technology from the wider world.
They did win the war after all
Don’t forget the emus!!
An expert in a comments section told me that Germany should have melted down all the ferdinands and cast all that metal into stugs to win the war
You can write an entire book with arguments from those kind of people.
One time, a Wehraboo told me that if Michael Wittmann wasn't killed - By a plane, obviously... God forbid a Tiger I being destroyed by a Sherman - Germany would have been capable of turning the tides in the Western Front... No, i'm not kidding.
This guy tought tank a single Tiger I crew could have turned the tides of the entire war, if they weren't killed.
I didn't even bothered to reply...
"Expert"
@@carlblack8574I love when armchair historian wehraboos simp over the tiger 1 and are baffled to find out they were realistically meh tanks all together.
@@lexif.5463 In my opinion, the Tiger Is were good tanks... But people hype the shit out of them, after all they were another heavy tank.
I'm even going to say that the IS-2s were better heavy tanks designs. The IS-2s are often overlooked, when in reality they were some of the best designed heavy tanks of the war.
There was some guy on a Mark Felton Productions video claiming up and down that "the HE-177 was the best heavy bomber of the war if it had just been given more time to fix engine issues it would have turned the course of the war" which is rare you see a take as unique as that one.
You could do a satire video like this but you review correct comments and say dumb stuff to explain that they’re wrong and end the video with a rickroll
April is far away.
NAH CONE OF ARC APRIL FOOLS SPECIAL 2024
@@naamadossantossilva4736 never gonna give you up!!
CoA also should use a Redditor voice when “correcting” all the comments
he did, rewatch this video.
Finally a another comments reading. It have been too long indeed… nice glasses by the way.
Here in brazil we are calling these "experts" couch general, you need to see the pearls that show up on a article about the KC-390 caring a Black Hawk on its cargo Bay during a transport test
In English, we call them "Armchair Generals." Same meaning! I guess they show up in every country.
or armchair admiral, which has a nicer ring, for the naval ishooos
Same in Russia - Sofa/Couch Armies, we called them. Or in russian words - "Divannye Vouyska".
nunca ouvi ninguém usar esse termo seria algo tipo general de sofa ?
@@siluda9255 exatamente esse termo
i like the "tank is dead" i mean what, everyone gonna walk into battle? like yeah tanks are vulnerable, but they have been since ww1
By their logic, the second the Germans made their ww1 AT rifle the game was up and the tank was six feet under.
"Expert" commenters are the kind of people who say that Germany if would have produced more Tigers, they would've won the war.
of course they would have won the war if they had 1000000 tiger II by 1929 like duh
They wouldn't have won even if they could mass produce Panthers and King Tigers, it's stupid to think they could have won if they did.
nah,the T 34 is the best tank EVER
jesus christ!!! Its SARCASM!!
@@kiliandrilltzsch8272 bro has never heard of logistics
@@kabob0077Live metal shortage and factory bombings reactions:
You need to add clips of family guy or rocket league to keep the shorts-viewers entertained, they don't have a long enough attention span to comprehend the things being said
True, I should put sped up HOI4 gameplay or something on the bottom half of the video
I've seen it happen on other channels too, it's really quite remarkable. I can excuse people missing an important point in a long video, but when I see multiple comments from people about things that had already been addressed in the video, and the video was *less than 60 seconds long,* it really blows my mind.
@@jic1 I've had people leave TLDRs on my shorts. Like bro I literally condensed it down to an incredibly short video already what more can you cut out
@@ConeOfArcI've had people ask me for TLDR's in comments I make for historical things.
Comments that are less than one full paragraph. Barely longer than this comment.
It's insane how low people's attention span is getting.
@@John.McMillantl;Dr?
Watching ConeOfArc lose his sanity for half an hour.
RIP
It's good to teach other people what's true and wrong source. Just opinion
@@hitechinc.7875 i doubt you could People named "covid masedmorons" teach anything, they would doubt that the earth is round even if you put them on a Spaceship
@@toucan2227 th-cam.com/video/ltPcPouSDBA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=LazerPig
@@toucan2227 that comment didn't age well XD
lol at the "does not excuse lazy sourcing", says the guy who only glanced at a picture instead of reading the text
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I do wonder .... How you actually read the book about the King tiger point you make? .... Interesting stuff.
The state of stupidity has at least one thing in common with the state of death; the dead do not feel the pain of their condition nor do the stupid...everyone else does.
I love the comments about tanks being obsolete because they die to atgms, it's like in mtg people complaining that creatures die to removal
AiRcRaFt ArE ObSoLeTe BeCause Sams exist.
That was pain to type fully
@@watamelony I've seen pretty much that comment about aircraft carriers.
Tanks can’t take or hold ground now. The Russians proved that with their failed attacks last year. What’s needed is APCs with tank level armor to be resistant to artillery.
Armored vehicles are not going away but the primary purpose is going to be infantry and drones instead of big gun fire power since infantry equipped with rapid fire grenade launchers and drone guided artillery strikes is more effective than tanks on a modern battlefield.
@@MrWolfstar8 tanks never could take land on their own. Tanks always needed to be accompanied by infantry
@@yosarianilivestech4018 I seem to remember Abrams by themselves racing to Baghdad and then ambushing everything that came their way while they waiting for the infantry to catch up. That’s taking and holding ground. Today those Abrams would be taken out by ATGMs and drone guided artillery because tanks are just too damn big to hide from drones.
A similar force of heavy APCs like the Israeli Namer could move men and drones into an ambush spot, and long range artillery and rapid fire grenade launchers would cause the same effect and would be much harder to kill.
Tank fire power was useful because artillery used to suck at actuality hitting the target before modern artillery and drones. Tank armor is still useful but the size of the tanks makes it hard to hide them from drone guided artillery and ATGMs. Better to use that armor to protect infantry instead of an obsolete direct fire system.
“Do some actual research” says guy who was wrong on the engine lol 😂😂
Aaaay someone else from LP's new vid. Notify me when the comments get spicy 😂
@@ramblingrenegade6346Love coming to see all the fresh comments, wonder if Cone will respond truthfully or give a half assed "WELL ACKTULLY"
@@atomicnut1486 yeah. Honestly I did take Red's video too seriously because I just couldn't believe that the Russians would actually use an updated SLR-16, but when I saw this one it just left a bad taste considering Cone's own research blunders. Its satisfying watching all the fresh comments clapping back
@@ramblingrenegade6346 I just didn't like how Cone went on the attack. At least Red tried being proper lol
god i love the community post
"does not excuse lazy sourcing" ironic isn't it?
to be fair a lot of this was a bunch of "woozle effect" wasn't it?
essentially everyone would inevitably fall for such things.
(essentially all journalists nowadays are essentially never checking for woozle's and always take stuff for face value because they suck like that. so war/tech historians are by default 100 times better in my book.)
@@tram1839 Totally ok to fall for it. Shit happens. Whats not ok is smugly calling out others over research while doing so and then making some god awful crybully response when called out on it.
@@XMysticHerox oooh, what was this crybully response? this a twitter thing or something?
@@tram1839 Cone put out a community post, and tries to play the victim. He seemingly forgets he was the one to start this whole thing with this video.
@@mozzym770 Wasn't Lazerpig the one who put out the first video that started it? I'm going to look into this BS, but I know Lazerpig to be incorrect or misleading in previous videos.
Next thing I know is that I unconsciously commented something stupid in the comments at 3 AM and got featured the video
Imagine dedicating an entire section of your video to a rant that's just completely wrong. Bravo cone, maybe you should dO sOmE aCtUaL rEsEaRcH like you suggest.
True
Hope she sees this bro
@@ryanchatham9971who?
@@bjam8816 probably something something lgbt identity. judging from the png-tuber stuff, best to leave it be before it becomes drama
@@tram1839 jesse what the fuck are you talking about
FWIW, I watched the Hanoi Hilton video. Props to you for researching and sharing, I learned quite a bit and it was a jumping-off platform for me to dive into research. I learned a fair bit. 👍
Be careful doing these comment roundups. They are funny/disturbing, but they can drive one mad. Like the Macarena.
I see your Macarena earworm, and raise you a Baby Shark!
@@MonkeyJedi99 You monster.
Stare at the abyss too much, then the abyss stares back at you.
Wait, does this mean they will be more Hot Takes in Cone's Comment Section now?
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 First read through I thought you typed "hot cakes" and got a little hungry.
I think of the phrase "poking the bear".
The guy: the day of tanks are over
Also him when the 125 mm gun facing him:😮
yo watched you back in the day but you should amend this lazerpig stuff cause turns out hes right just maybe check it out
"Infantryman chokes to death by canned food. It is now confirmed that infantry is obsolete against such devastating anti-personel weapon."
- some rando on the internet
Hey man machino stew was a mankiller
(I might have spelt machino wrong)
I was saying that if babies can choke by Lego bricks, whats the point of employing child soldiers
Coneofarc: "I'm gonna callout other people for their bad takes."
Also Coneofarc: *gets info from live journal*
Crazy to think I've done more historical research than this dude and I Don't make historical videos
Did all your reserch on the internet eh...
19:38 I mean, just because the barrle is raised, doesnt even mean that the digital scope is raised with it. I mean just because you lift your arm doesnt mean that you need to move your whole head upwards.
The Germans proved the arm one quite true.
Cone can I just say that in regards to the 19-K comment about the bore evacuator, you're putting a lot of faith into the idea that someone in the Army can read lol
Who told you military soldiers were dumb
@@ElmoIsMySavior12 the fact that I'm USAF lol
"do some actual research" is amazingly funny to hear.
in all honesty, it's pretty sad to see. I liked some of your videos but to be completely ignorant of someone's research and do a very lackluster effort yourself only calling them out as lazy is quite disappointing.
"I have two boyfriends in Russia who told me this, I'm not going to name them because some other guy had not listed his sources in other video"
Lazerhog
Cone may use actual books for research from time to time, but seems to be overly reliant on other people's social media posts. Criticising Lazerpig for saying that Russia is using the same X-configuration engine design that was used in WW2 German tanks in the T-14 Armata is a pretty lazy stab. Cone goes on about which models of German tank he thinks the engine went into for long enough for viewers not to notice that his argument is limited to cylinder displacement and the Armata engine having 12 cylinders instead of 16. So, Cone says, it can't possibly the same engine design. Well, it patently IS! It's an X-configuration engine! 😊
@@TheSpiderm0nkey god I love people who think the layout of the engine is enough to call two identical. "It just has less cylinders and displacement, probably completely different head designs and.. BUT ITS AN X ENGINE SO ITS TECHNICALLY IDENTICAL" by that logic the Leopard and some Shermans share the same engine as theyre both V shaped layouts. Also anyone that claims torque output of a tank diesel to be the same as that of an econo engine from a Honda Jazz has no idea what hes talking about I'm really not sure why yall grasp at straws to prove an argument thats so obviously wrong.
@@turnip5465 mate, where have you been? Does it not strike you as odd that the Russians (who aren't known for their engineering innovation) have suddenly pulled an X-config engine out of their arses for the Armata? Does it not strike you as odd that all of the historical evidence connects a unique engine in German tank design with a unique engine in Russian tank design? Quibbling about cylinder dimensions isn't a serious argument. Do you have evidence that the Russian engine has a different valvetrain to the German one? If so then please let us all know.
What seems to get lost in the T14 engine argument is that engine FAMILIES evolve and change. Saying the T14's engine is a "copy" of the Tiger P engine is inaccurate, but it can share bore spacing, crank journal size, some block dimensions... it's like the Buick/Oldsmobile aluminum V8 from the early 1960s, that engine was sold and licensed and modified so much that there were overhead cam V8 versions, iron V8 versions, iron V6 versions, and aluminum and iron turbo versions, powering everything from GM and Rover sedans to Formula 1 and Indycar. But the basic geometry was shared among all of them. This tends to make development easier and allow for accessories, production tooling and supply chains to be re-used between variants.
Right, so If I take a ford flat head V8, make the cylinders wider and shorten the stroke, Ive made a totally new engine right? Well no, Ive made a worse ford flathead. But atleast I would have done more than the russians have done to the Kharkov V2 engine over the last 80 years. And making modifications is just apart of life for engines. But there comes a time when an engine has been stretched to its absolute limit. The A85A3 reached that limit before it was even developed. X engines are pursued so rarely because they are horribly unreliable. Theyre inefficient and prone to breaking parts from excessive wear. And why was the A85 selected for the T14? Because the design bureau had to cut corners. Russia doesnt have the cash for R&D that the west does. Remember, GDP per capita, Russia is on par with Nigeria. Do you really expect Nigeria to develop a ground up new tank thats on par with western tanks? No. Because Nigeria isnt so stupid as to think it needs to maintain itself as a military power beyond its immediate defense.
Holy hell, the Cone got boned by the Pig.
Your sources are VK posts? Damn...
Damn, I thought you were more thorough.
Regarding the use of the terms guns in the UK military one of the mottos (although not the main one) of the Royal Artillery is "Our Guns are our Colours"
Pretty poor take on the engine on your part saying that can't be the same based on displacement and cylinder count. Especially in the automotive segment (and even in the military as well). Back in the 70s when the fuel crisis hit a simple solution to reduce emissions was to reduce cylinder count. So they would litterly chop a block of a v8 and plug all the holes on it that would have led to the 7 and 8 cylinders. The other part displacement is even worse of a measurement for relationship. For example my engine in my ford ranger is the cologne 4.0 v6 (4.0 being displacement in liters) if you go back to the 70s a cologne v6 would be a a 1.7 liter motor. That's a bit over double the amount of displacement change in a time span that's shorter than that of the sl16 and the Russian engine. So not really saying your right or wrong here doesn't really matter but those metrics are pretty bad to use. The best thing would be the valve train type. This is great for differentiating engines as it takes an entire redesign and new engine block in order to achieve a new type. This being whether the engine is sleeve valve, overhead cam, pushrod etc etc.
That is a genuinely good point, thank you sir
Other examples: The old Buick V6 was their V8 with two cylinders lopped off; same with the old Chevy V6, they took an SBC and chopped two cylinders off.
The old Nissan L engine came in both 4 and 6 cylinder models, the 6 was essentially the the four, plus two more cylinders.
Expanding on the old Ford Cologne engine, the Ford Cologne V6 was initially derived from the Ford Taunus V4 engine, both have significant parts commonalities, sharing V angle (60°), bore, cylinder spacing, etc. The four cylinder came in displacements from 1.3 to 1.7 litres, the V6 came in displacements from 1.8 up to 4 litres. Two OHC derivatives were also made, the older Cosworth 2.9 DOHC and the much more recent in-house developed 4.0 SOHC.
There's also cases like the recent Jaguar V6 and V8, where they didn't even bother to modify the block for the V6. The AJ126 literally just blanks off two cylinders.
Displacement isn't a very good guide for determining shared history, instead you'd want to look at stuff like bore spacing.
@skaldlouiscyphre2453 ya you got what I meant lmao. But ya I'd agree bore spacing is another key way to determine engine lineage.
@@zanderray9823 Definitely, you made a solid point.
Hopefully I'm just reinforcing your point with a bit more depth.
People who want to insist that a 16 cylinder design can't be made into a 12 need to be aware that it's one of the more straightforward modifications that can be made.
This is exactly how the three different Ford 351 V8 engines still confuse enthusiasts decades later. There's the 351 Windsor and the 351 Cleveland small block V8s, they are almost completely different engines. Then there's the last one which is basically a tall deck 351C, aka the 400M block, destroked with a 351W crankshaft called the 351M. Oh and it uses a big block bellhousing. All these engines were available around somewhat the same time, and to add to the madness, the 351W was available before, during, and after the 351M
man did never expect that Lazer pig would be the one making me unsub from you, forgot you still made videos
Damn he reminded you that Cone really dropped off too? Nice to know I'm not the only one
I feel you, I started watching Cone back when he first started his Warthunder videos and kind of forgot about him for a bit.
lazerpig bot
@@NKVD_Enjoyer Seriously, the pig said the SLA-16 was THE porsche tiger engine, not a small experiment; and ignored that Cone of Arc said a Tiger 2 was modified for the SLA-16. Cone said nothing wrong, yet the pig was completely dishonest with him.
@@highmolecularweightRDX fr bro, lazerpig Fans are genuinely retarded like seriously bro how can someone be so stupid like them ☠️
My mother and father have always been fascinated with war history. My mum focuses on the civilian side of the war and my father focuses on the military side of things (something I also picked up) and the amount of times all three of us have had to correct people on basic things is annoyingly funny. Seeing people try and correct someone who knows what he is talking about is honestly funny as Hell but is also annoying
Damn if the era of "random military object" ends whenever it gets a counter then its been over since the stone age. Correct me if im wrong but the whole point of military inovation is to out do the other guy and make your shit better... now im just waiting for someone to make a counter to the american MRE
Well, chariots were really kinda dead once the stirrup came about.
I'd say it was a bit if a improvement to use just horse and saddle cause you dont have the limitations of the horse having to pull a chariot meaning it could cross more hazards easier
Now I dont know much a out chariots but I've grown up around horses my whole life. I'm not trying to argue against anything just stating what I know
I tried doing my own research on the T-14 and it's blogposts, press-releases and defunct websites all the way down. It's infuriating. There are no remotely reliable sources and not nearly enough information to properly factcheck all the bullshit, that get's thrown at you.
Asking someone used to work in such an enviroment (an historian e.g.), for their best guess is probably the best we can do.
There's enough information to form a rough idea of the development and design of the vehicle but actual performance and other data is a bit trickier.
@@ConeOfArc Are you going to make some sort of response to Lazerpigs?
It's likely that Russia is hiding something about the T-14, or at least just trying to give a better picture.
Johannes Bauer blatantly remaking history in a youtube comment is one of the funniest
The problem is, that people like him do believe in what they say
13:37
Don’t worry Cone, he just works for the Red Cross.
This has not aged well.
forget aged like milk, aged like cone
Yeah, Lazerpig's response rotted away
@@theoheinrich529 how? he used several first hand accounts and credible sources cone used nut cone just looked at the fucking picture's
Cone is one of those kids who reads a Carnegie approved textbook and preaches it as the gospel.
1. Read our information
2. Memorize our information
3. Match our information to the buzzword when asked a question
4. Woohoo peel-off star shaped sticker
The painfully “average” kid pretending to be smart because it seems exciting to be good at something, except you get an actual genius like laserpig who wears the facade of a fool for the sake of being entertaining and actually has concise and accurate information.
Who could’ve imagined, a genuine intellectual who doesn’t present his information like stale monotonous bread with near zero vocal inflection.
There’s a reason I neglected cones subscribe button all this time, the various videos I’ve watched really failed to impress, it’s just regurgitation of common information.
But here comes Lazerpig and within the first few minutes I subbed, this was a few years ago albeit he’s gained a massive following since.
Ngl, i like these types of comments. It makes you recheck and crosscheck your facts, which makes you understand and memorize them even more. It humbles you in some way (and feeling sympathy towards them)
seriously dude? come on.
"do your research bro"
The chieftain has a video on the whole “tanks are useless” thing
What a stupid thing to believe in.
Arc, love you for finding the tank, but your reaction to LazerPig, especially in tone, was big fat massive leaking own goal XD
Cone careful. When you stare into the abyss the sometimes the abyss looks back.
Or the Pig does.
@@strayling1 Yes, the Pig looked back!
@@Wallyworld30it is all a bit strange and I find it weird that Cone is citing blogs to prove a point on this. Blogs can be used as sources, as a way to prove how unfounded a blog citing a blog citing a blog citing a blog citing a blog....
I hope this doesn't become a drama thing for cone's sake...
@@Wallyworld30I think he meant the pig stares back, not that he started it lol
Yeah that's exactly what he meant, I don't mind that cone responded to the stuff happening with lazerpig, but as an avid viewer of both channels I thought then and I think now that it was rude and uncalled for to respond like cone did. Why can't we all get along guys? Everyone makes mistakes and you guys have to share a space together, just be civil. All I can say tho is at least nobody acted like gonzalo lira
There's probably some sort of lineage between Sla.16 and the engine mounted on T-14 Armata, considering that X-layout engines are a relative rarity - I don't think anyone has produced a notable one in a while. From what I found with my limited research, most are just glued-together V60s to increase power, which the Armata's powerpack looks to be as well. Coming from engine harmonics viewpoint, X-layouts are probably unpopular because they will have much higher adverse loads on the crankshaft if the firing isn't done very cleanly, so they're likely to end up as maintenance nightmares in the long run. A 90-degree X-layout would be balanced, but it'd completely lose the space savings which is why you'd do an X-layout to begin with...
Anyway, this is probably something we'll be able to read on in 10-20 years, all this is speculation on my part. Either way, good commentary on the matter.
just because they are both X engines, does not mean it is probable they are related in any way
@@gheetza14 Pretty much! However, I'm fairly confident that it's likely a case of someone making an Sla.16-style X layout engine after WWII in soviet russia, then someone else looking at that and going "huh that's neat" and then making another, etc; so the lineage is caused indirectly if anything.
From my understanding Soviet X engine development goes back to the 50s. I forgot the name of the X diesel engine developed in the 60s but that used the Sla-16 as a reference among other X diesel engines known at the time.
The development of the A-85 which is the T-14's engine dates back to the late 70s and was known as the 2V amongst other names. It was used in many projects before the Armata. There was a experimental T-72 with a welded turret and the 2V16. To my knowledge the 2V and this earlier engine I mentioned are not directly related in a technical sense but they have used it as a reference. Later on the Object 187 made use of it as well as the Object 195. It was offered as an engine for commercial purposes later on which is where the whole T-14's engine being a pumping engine thing comes from.
Well Lazer pig clapped back.
"Seriously man, do some actual research."
I love Laserpig because he is funny. I love ConeOfArc because he is informative. I will continue to watch both and hopefully maintain a balance between light entertainment and limiting exposure to misinformation.
Lazerpig is almost exclusively misinformation
Humor is a easy way to deliver misinfo to low iq individuals.
lazirpig is the guy you watch just to laugh at the stupid things he says most of the time
Watching Lazerpig for educational content is like going to BurgerKing for Gourmet Food
People actually thinking that Laserpig's channel is anything but click-bait entertainment is embodiment of the phrase, "I only believe what I CHOOSE to believe!" :b
I thought the 3d printer was a bench press 💀
imagine reading what you source
About the Lazer pig bit. please don't do that again. And by do that again I mean being so rude to him. just if you're going to respond to him just be nice man
I know I'm late but it's so funny seeing people feel bad for lazerpig as if he isn't an asshole himself
Dude, you owe Lazer Pig an apology. A big one.
🤡
no he doesn't owe that bumbling idiot an apology
@@seb_1504 lol virgin.
No, he doesnt.
@@NeocadeX yes he does lmfaooo.
The part about lazer pig has aged like milk.
How dare you. Milk can last relatively long with proper chemical treatment
Milk sitting out in the Florida sun circa right now.
@@Sim6dot9profile picture is about right
@@atomicnut1486 i kinda thought the same
Honestly was subscribed to Cone before this, but after Cone’s “actual research” statement I was soured and unsubbed. Glad LP responded
I like the barrel lowering to reload comment. Reminds me of a story one of my soldiers had when he was in the Marine Corps a few years ago. During a training excerice, every time they fired the cannon, the entire electric system would shut off and put them dead in the water, so they'd have to restart it 🤣
17:12 Didn't even Russians admit their initial intelligence was HORRIBLE
8:55 That commenter is going to be very confused when he reads a Napoleonic history book and sees that the British only had 152 Guns with them at Waterloo. "Guess they all shared between them?"
Here for the upcoming comments🍿 "Never trust any information in any video, regardless of the creator at face value" -This video creator who makes videos on historical topics and equipment... 🤔 (BTW I watched this video when it originally came out, just back for entertainment 🤠)
keep sucking that NAFO troll off
"Do some actual research"
Whoo boi lazer pig made a response video
Bro has been absolutely ran through 😂
Lazerfuck died screaming when red effect ran over his argument, manchild.
22:27 That's not quite right. It was intended to install the Sla. 16 in a Jagdtiger, but the Jagdtiger ended up not being available at the time, so it was in fact installed in a Tiger II at Nibelungenwerke. (Professor Porsche's Wars - Karl Ludvigsen)
I've heard that and the other way around. Hard to say which is correct
Should have sticked to wt bud
Have you seen a microphone around here?....LazerPig dropped one.
By doing what? Lying?
I appreciate you giving yourself an aneurysm for our entertainment.
So, are you going to make an apology video to lazerpig since you didnt do your research?
No, because lazer doesnt do his either, Chieftan and red effect refuted him point by poiint.
@@NeocadeX cone didnt however, and this is his channel.
Well, this is going to be interesting. Here comes the Pig.
hes a NAFO loser
I thought you were better than that.
Lazerpig definitely just smoked you in his new vid 😂 did you really only read the pictures?
He is serious tank meme researcher ask his pillow waifu! 🤣
@@podfuk The anime cringe in the tank/historical community is why I’m glad I went infantry instead of tanker 😂 but there’s insufferable weebs there now too.
Then the Chieftain bodied LP
@@gnarl12 yeah LP ended up being the real villain in all this.
"Possible Löwe Interior Layout" killed me lol. Had to do a double take on that one.
BTFO to that video, you know the one.
desert storm and its consequenses have been a disaster for american ability to comprehend that combat against near-peer adversaries will have losses
The fact that a country like Russia is considered near peer to Ukraine says mountains...
The most accurate comment I have ever seen
@@CallanElliott Not really, Ukraine has always had one of the most advanced military industries in Europe right after the big players. A lot of Soviet military industry was located there after all and it was maintained after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not to take away from the incredible achievements of the Ukrainian armed forces in defending their country but the war was never as one-sided as media liked to portray it when it first broke out. Since 2014 Ukraine has been embarked on a pretty serious military modernization program so that by the 24th of February invasion they were very well prepared. It's also why a lot of people thought that Russia wasn't going to invade because it didn't seem like they really had the strength to do so, having something like 300.000 lined up against the roughly 250.000 in the regular Ukrainian army.
Russia suffered more casualties fighting littral militia men inside their own country for 4 years than any US invasion since the war on terror. This montera of high losses solely applies to russia, in ww3 mabey but in a regular conflict russias ability to send young men to the Graves will remain uniquely russian.
@@winstonchurchill5892 Those "literal militia men" Were trained and led both by former Soviet commanders (who were pretty good, judging by their performance in Afghanistan), and by various fundamentalist guerilla fighters (from the same Afghanistan, where they had 10 years to come up with tactics to counter the Soviets'), not to mention using the exact same weapons the Russians were using. And after the first disastrous campaign, lost for the reasons mentioned above, while the Russian generals were busy jerking off or something, the Chechens were preparing, and quite thoroughly, I must note. And yeah, fighting a prepared and a highly-motivated army in urban environments tends to raise the casualties significantly. You can compare photos of Al-Falujah or Baghdad to Grozniy after the respective battles to notice the difference in the intensity of the fighting.
"do some real research man" GETS DISPROVEN BY HIS OWN SOURCES
Australians, inventors of the tank, ERA and now the loyal wingman drone. We are really good at making weapons of war
beware countries with corrugated sheds and unsupervised space, for bored middle aged men can be eerily crafty in the quest to blow things up to amuse their friends, especially when provided with machine tools and beer.
Laser pigs comments on the engine are correct .
And had you done sone good research you would have figured this out.
One of the sources for this info is by a former British army intelligence officer. " Sergio Miller".
As well as other sources. So you might want to watch getting ahead of yourself.
Hey remember when that T-95 went to Korea? What was that about "dO bEtTer rEsEarCh"
The pig just skewered you brah 😂
Lazerfaggot was stomped by red effect, not a single argument of his stood up dude.
I 100% agree that people should be wary about trusting TH-cam videos outright. Laserpig is a prime example, but I would also throw into that list most of “Historytube” into the category, especially the likes of Atun-Shei, Cynical Historian, and (if you go back far enough) Potential History.
After spending a good amount of time researching particular conflicts (specifically the American Civil War), the massive holes in those videos become more obvious the more you look into them.
The closer to politics a topic gets the more likely some rando on the internet is going to be a partisan who wants to push propaganda first and use whatever facts best suit that goal.
This is especially apparent if you look at people talking about the American Civil War, which is apparently the only conflict in human history you can neatly fit into a single cause and single motivation for literally everyone involved. The "it was _only_ about states' rights" people have died down a lot but the "it was _only_ about slavery" people are still alive and well.
Yep, I watch most of those just for fun, people who take it as full value, as a real history class is not as smart as they think of themselves, but you know what I love the most? Those comments saying: "thank you for the unbiased video about..." Bruh, imagine believing for real that there is no bias in anything... That's beyond salvation.
@@Oppen1945Lazerpig is a glowie, he knows that he spreads misinfo.
You should never assume good faith from people like him.
How coincidental that the only three TH-camrs you mentioned are notorious anti-confederates.
Oof. Cynical Historian, I forgot about that guy. It's really painful to watch some of those videos.
At least Atun-Shei makes entertaining videos, fun to watch.
lazerpig lobotomy victims in the comments
Yea quite depressing seeing such level of stupidity
well that lazerpig rant aged badly
A85 X engine, is a turbo charged upgrade on the X12 prototype designed for the T64 before they chose to just use the same engine as the T62. That X12 was a carbon copy of the SLA 16 with just 1 row of cylinders cut off.
Red Effect proved this is not the case in his video breaking down the numerous differences between the two engines. Even without all that though one is air-cooled and the other is liquid-cooled making it literally impossible for it to be a "carbon copy".
Short form content is where intelligence goes to die. I've had people comment on a 15 second video and they clearly hadn't watched all of it or if they did completely failed to understand.
An apology to LP is probably in order here...
lolol what??? LP didnt correct anyone about the t-14 engine which is totally different and not related to the experimental german tank engine.
@@jamesmandahl444
It is a modification of the Sla 16
@@marseldagistani1989 Which it actually isn't. Per the 0 sources provided by the pig boy.
@@marseldagistani1989how so
@@jamesmandahl444 it shouldn’t matter if he did make a mistake (he didn’t) no excuse talking smack towards a colleague. Imagine if LP did the same when cone admittedly misidentified the panther model. It’s hypothetical because LP isn’t a lifeless jerk, waiting to catch mistakes from other folks doing same kind of work. It was pathetic regardless of who’s correct about an engine model ffs.
Go find tanks in a lakes, that's the best you can do.
YES😂😂😂
honestly, his the fist youtober who I've gotten sad at going this much down hill
So in te 1960s the Soviets took to 16 cylinder SLA 16 and made a 12 Cyliner version. This was regected for the T-62. Jump forward to post colapse Russia and a modinized verion of the 12 Cylinder was released by no one brought it. Now Russia under embargo neaded a New Powerful Tank engin thay can make so they fall on this 12 Cylinder Tank engin desined for the T-62 as a starting point. Oink
Sad that they never went beyond the 8,8cm ≠ 88mm logic
Huh?
Metric system bad. Ooooga booga!
@@killergames391 Imperial system is worse
@@SweetSniper5197 Not really, although fractions are a pain. Anyway, I think he was being sarcastic.
@@jic1if he wasn't being sarcastic he has no idea how metric conventions work
Well well well how the tables have turned
18:26 Imagine trying to reload the Sturer Emil as it has its Gun on the Lowest Depression Angle. good luck trying to use that 1 Piece Ammo kid
God that Panzer 2 with the 17cm snub-nose looks so damn derpy, it makes the 15cm Sig look normal 😆.
There was also apparently a Tiger 2 with a 17cm gun as well called the Grille 17, dunno if its 100% real or not, but I'd love to see a video over it.
Totally fake. There were some plans, sure, but that is all that was ever made. Germans never put on tank something bigger then 15cm sig.
LazerPig owns you.
Red effect stomped pig weeks ago clown.
Wow. This video aged poorly.
Like spoiled milk in a summer day!
@@BirbUp no need to insult milk they did nothing to u
What happened?
@@teku0000I guess it's because of the Russia things. Since it's been confirmed that nato pmcs were in there since the invasion and also the truth behind mobilization (it was an obscenely cruel opposition suppression method).
That and well, Ukraine has been running out of troops and NATO tanks have proven worse than expected as the challenger doesn't go that well in the Ukrainian geography. The leopard is too unprotected and problematic (the why the U.S chose the Abrahams model over it) and the Abrahams being improved to survive tank on tank engagement.
It's not that Russia best and shit but the tank community overestimated their grand strategy. Albeit not their intelligence services LOL.
It's either this or they are just simping for Lazerpig kekkkkkk
People really be argueing over whether Cone-man thinks War thunder or World of Tanks is better, meanwhile I'm one of the only 3 people in the clan he made to continue playing Armored Warfare.
Armored Warfare clearly the better game
@@thefelon8027 This is now day 1 of asking ConeOfArc to do something with the game Armored Warfare.
@ConeOfArc, my guy, attacking LazerPig in the manner you did *not* age well. I think you made the mistake of assuming that he is just a "funny youtube man", and not a historian who has done "actual research" to the extent of going into archives and getting primary materials from abroad. Worse, accusing him of mistakes you committed yourself is not a good look.
Here lies a career. It’s got a massive stain on it and will probably be source checked to hell. As all history channels should be. But god the last part hurts my brain to watch. Articles with no sources? Well that can’t be right. Bro do u know what a primary and secondary source is.
lets be realistic, most of his audience dont care and are here for the tainment part of edutainment