Видео

Probably this channel have reviewed half-tracks. It was a feature military vehicle for the 1940s, and it was used by all sides (unsure if the Italians or Japanese had one). It was however, expensive and quite a bit of manpower to make. Post-WW2, few of these half-track vehicles were made for the military, for example, in NATO. I do note that in carrying a squad of soldiers, these vehicles are poorly protected for the crew.

Pak43/48 has a loooong barrel with a muzzle brake. Seems to be firing a high velocity shell somehow 😅

Interesting video, have you considered making a similar one for the Prussian army of the period?

These would be great escorts for armored troop transports. I disagree with IFVs because, like the Bradleys, they carry less troops and put the troops in harms way when combating enemy vehicles and enforced positions. If you build troop transports without heavy turrets you can afford more armor protection and fit more troops. Then you accompany those transports with light tanks. You let the light tanks do the fighting while the transports stay back. You just never assume that you can take on MBTs, that's just stupid, especially when you have infantry in those transports who carry antitank weapons.

One millimeter of flat DEVTCH STEEL is the equivalent of 3 meters of sloped all*ed """""steel"""" aka grandmas melted down cast iron skillet

Dislike

My Uncle Harold was on Ark Royal. The Swordfish has always been my favourite aircraft.

I suspect that the Russians could cope without land lease, but with much greater losses

Oh no another video that could be 16s and it's 16m instead

I come to this piece late, but I only began my study of the Pacific War about 2 years ago. MARVELOUS analysis of factors which, due to my scattershot approach, I was just beginning to come to on my own, but with a mass of additional factors I had not remotely begun to arrive at. This is enhanced by a multitude of equally perceptive viewer comments. Thank you for this, whoever you are. I shall subscribe immediately-I have a lot of catching up to do.

Simple, it was 88 mm sherman has like 55 🤮

They forgot to angle 90 degrees

Thank you

Thank you

Perfect sponsorship for this video

isn't it true that the box design is much more spacious to crews inside? from what I understand the T34 was extremely cramped, even a small penetration could easily ignite the ammunition inside.

Long story short, aim for the sides of the tank.

Flak 88 destroyed tanks in 1 hit right?

At least wth one of the early sloped armor examples you use (the one right behind you), is there evidence that the armor was sloped because it was more in the shape of the vehicle as opposed to intentionally sloped?

The music really adds to the industrial power of the United States outproducing Japan.

Those are usually effective during peacetime, not during wartime

Thank you, very interesting and well presented!

Very much alike the newer Swedish pansarskott(like the Faust) and the grg(grenade rifle literally) which is reusable and has a loaded and a gunner

Call to arms>

Would be ideal for bridge heads established in the South across the river. Could perhaps be delivered by fast armored river boat.

Quick answer: Probably for the same reason that British sloped armour arrived so late ... Actually, proper German sloped armour arrived before proper British sloped armour (which arrived in the dying days of the war with the Centurion). Not taking the Mickey here! Both nations had their valid reasons, one of them being the difficulty of re-jigging wartime production to new types of design & techniques, despite the old methods , which were perfectly capable & effective at the beginning of the war, becoming obsolete half-way through.

This. This is the kind of sponsorship I appreciate

That was an integration that worked very well 👍

Why did the British not have horse cavalry? They had their own steeds of steel, - the humble and ubiqutous universal carrier.

Marching on 4 hooves is traditionally faster than on 2 boots.

Hitler gave Stalin exactly what he wanted....ALL OF EUROPE

Everyone should watch this. It is important information for WW2 nerds and it may save lives from Soviet tank attacks.

Wiesel: Regarded as the ultimate game changer. The turtle: hold my beer!

This type of fastening is caused by the need to create a strong connection when the quality of the armor deteriorates. Even with this connection , there are recorded cases of armor splitting at the seams , with a conventional seam, more than 90 tanks would burst after the first blow . With each year of the war, the quality of the armor deteriorated, the engineers solved these problems as best they could.

You have the Panzer fast and Panzer Langsam

The Panzer 1 had already slopped armor.

Burger panzers

T72 is more sold than 1a5

And I just became a new subscriber today Mr military visualized. Alex from USA 👍👍

To Mr military visualized if the Germans would have stuck to producing the panther and King tiger instead of jagdpanthers and jagdtigers which have no turrets which put them at disadvantage in combat I still don't understand why not stick to tanks with turrets they clearly have the area of firing better while in combat. What do you think of my comment of yes to tanks and no to tank destroyers for Germany ? Danke Alex from USA. 👍

Amazing

even some medival castles had sloped walls to make cannonballs useless.

Great video! A nitpick though. All hollow charges are shaped charges, but not all shaped charges are hollow charges. Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFPs) are for instance shaped charges, but not hollow charges, using a metal plate instead of a hollow "tube".

The Coriolis effect needs to be accounted for as well.

18:55 What does represent that icon??? An odd chainsaw maybe?!

Anyone who's played Advanced Squad Leader knows "Cellar" rule B23.41 -- that there's a good chance you'll destroy your tank and end up in a basement if you plan on crashing your AFV into a building.

Pretty gehy dude. Used to like your content

The Americans and British made good use of forwards artillery observation to intergrate artillery with the other arms. The soviets lacked the expertiese, and radio equipment to effectively intergrate their artillery and other arms to the point that soviet units relied much more heavily on their organic mortars for any supporting fire. Which is not as effective against troops in APCs and tanks as medium calibre field pieces like the 155mm or 5.5 inch guns of the western allies.

If you want to point to a failure of German counter attack, look at Al Hafia, the Mareth line, the Falaise pocket, the battle of the Island(which is severely underrated) and the defence of the Rhine. In all cases here their counter attack was stopped dead by massed artillery, anti tank guns and tanks.

It’s funny to think how tanks were created to cross trenches and now tanks don’t like to cross trenches because it’s frankly too dangerous.