Jump to content

More Chieftain's Hatchiness


Coldsteel

Recommended Posts

Because the conflict very much seems driven by the "need to be right" over a less personal "here is what evidence is available and based on that, this what can be reasonably concluded".

I admit I did get a chuckle at Cone of Arc telling someone else to do some research, give he has in the recent past expressed a view of something along the lines of magnetic influence naval mines can be prevented from magnetically adhering to the hulls of warships by degaussing coils. I don't remember exactly and he seems to have edited that part out, or I was looking at the wrong video.

Just chalk it up to Youtuber's doing Youtube stuff and enjoy the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Coldsteel said:

Because the conflict very much seems driven by the "need to be right" over a less personal "here is what evidence is available and based on that, this what can be reasonably concluded".

I admit I did get a chuckle at Cone of Arc telling someone else to do some research, give he has in the recent past expressed a view of something along the lines of magnetic influence naval mines can be prevented from magnetically adhering to the hulls of warships by degaussing coils. I don't remember exactly and he seems to have edited that part out, or I was looking at the wrong video.

Just chalk it up to Youtuber's doing Youtube stuff and enjoy the show.

Haven't watched any of Coneofarc's videos myself, but maybe it's this video? He doesn't mention magnetic mines adhering to hulls though, he says that magnetic mines don't get magnetically stuck to ship hulls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be, but I suspect it was the Zimmerit one a few dozen videos earlier. The pinned comment there he says he edited out one error regarding sea mines and the other comments seem to verify that. I think the bit about the Clam magnetic charge at the 5 min mark is also wrong as that's a sabotage/demolition device not a magnetic anti tank mine, the shortest delay time pencil issued with it is around an hour (temperature dependent). And yeah in later videos he corrected himself because his audience pointed out how wrong he was.

The point is that he has found himself in the Didn't Do His Research spot before, relying instead on Gilligan's Island type popular culture understanding of how a mine works, and so you might have expected a little more sympathetic and understanding approach to the whole matter, rather than the quote that is probably going to haunt him for some time of "seriously man do some actual research".

Just for clarity: None of this should be taken to mean an inebriated pig, or anybody else on Youtube for that matter, is necessarily a good source of information. Only that the whole matter was avoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Next up T-28? There are a pair in Finnland. 

Would be awesome, but sadly they, and a third one are in a very bad condition (gutted). There are two more in Russia, one is again an empty hull (as far as I know), the second one is running, but it is a half replica. :( 

What I would love to see, is a collaboration with the guy who runs the "Shawshank redemption" youtube channel, a Chieftain's hatch with him about the T-64BV would be awesome. Of course after the war is over, and if the guy survives. 

Edited by old_goat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manic Moran Answering to your question, about the choice of amphibious capabilities for our new IFV, I would say, that perhaps both reasons are valid.

But the story here is deeper. I had opportunity to talk with General Gromadziński about this subject, and he said some interesting things.

We need to move back in time, when Rydwan (Charriot) program was ongoing. Within this program, it was envisioned that two tracked platforms would be developed, a lighterweight tracked platform with amphibious capabilities and a medium weight platform.

The lightweight tracked platform evolved in to Borsuk (Badger) IFV. A mediumweight platform was evolving in to direction of the fire support vehicle codenamed Gepard, but there was idea that Gepard will be a basis for heavy IFV. Gepard can be called conceptual equivalent to M10 Booker.

In the end  Gepard was cancelled as conclusion was that such vehicle was not needed.

Then again, after some time, idea of heavy IFV returned and right now, PGZ received a contract to develop heavy IFV, right now known as CBWP which means Ciężki Bojowy Wóz Piechoty or literaly Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

CBWP is meant to be based on the K9/Krab 155mm SPH chassis and subsystems, with ZSSW-30 unmanned turret, that is also intended to be used on Borsuk IFV, Rosomak wheeled APC/IFV and also new wheeled APC/IFV which probably will receive codename Serwal (Serval).

Here is early concept graphic of the CBWP heavy IFV.

aCz6OD7RcdzZETJpbNyVV5FCaToFGl7MfRFN0XFf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manic Moran

Muzzle break vs blast deflector - When Yugoslavia introduced M74 HEAT ammo for M-36 Jacksons muzzle breaks/blast deflectors were removed and firing of M304 HVAP was forbidden, other than as wartime emergency*, due the high wear to a gun recoil system when firing w/o muzzle break.

*it was also removed from combat load and only HE, AP and HEAT were left.

So it appears that in M36 it has indeed served as muzzle break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Couldn't suppress that smile, riding the Leopard... :)

I was thinking the same thing myself. 😁

I must say I really enjoyed the recent video on the T28/T95 assault tank.  Hopefully one covering the T30 with the whopping 155mm T7 could be forthcoming although I couldn't even guess what the interior of that would be like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gavin-Phillips said:

I was thinking the same thing myself. 😁

I must say I really enjoyed the recent video on the T28/T95 assault tank.  Hopefully one covering the T30 with the whopping 155mm T7 could be forthcoming although I couldn't even guess what the interior of that would be like?

It's in... not ideal shape, but good enough to film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave a presentation at Army Futures Command the other day. Timestamped to about 55 minutes in, but the whole thing is interesting: Note the speaker before me is Chief of Armor, probably worth a listen.
 

The slides in the bottom left don't always update. Here (with possible formatting issues courtesy of Google Drive), is the deck. The link will only be valid for a few weeks before I delete it.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yPslK40_cQrdiVJ1xFG1lg2ZSXXqauyE/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117795378986577713857&rtpof=true&sd=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I gave a presentation at Army Futures Command the other day. Timestamped to about 55 minutes in, but the whole thing is interesting: Note the speaker before me is Chief of Armor, probably worth a listen.
 

The slides in the bottom left don't always update. Here (with possible formatting issues courtesy of Google Drive), is the deck. The link will only be valid for a few weeks before I delete it.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yPslK40_cQrdiVJ1xFG1lg2ZSXXqauyE/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117795378986577713857&rtpof=true&sd=true

Interesting about the prevalence of drones and the efficiency of Russian electronic warfare.  I really don't put electronics and Russia together, guess I'm wrong.

Is. C.A.S. really "dead" for the U.S. Army? U.S.M.C.?

Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system prices of aircraft know only one way, and that's way up. CAS at the same time has always been the most risky type of aircraft use. That creates an ever growing incentive for mission planners to look for any other task that has a justifiably higher priority than close air support.

The USMC might hold out longer against this trend, but I bet that with the F-35 the number of air frames for their aviation wing is becoming much smaller, so that by the time that all Hornets have been phased out, USMC aviators will perform exactly one more war with CAS missions, and then either they lose 50% of their jets, or they basically strike CAS from their mission task plans after losing the first F-35. Or, after wasting their F-35 fleet, they won't get replacements. Or they can see the writing on the wall, and start thinking of ways how they, too, can abandon CAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAS as people like to imagine it - gun runs, unguided rockets, and dive bombing - hasn't been viable against an enemy with good air defences since the eighties or nineties.  Stand-off CAS with PGMs directed by a forward observer is still very much viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

CAS as people like to imagine it - gun runs, unguided rockets, and dive bombing - hasn't been viable against an enemy with good air defences since the eighties or nineties.  Stand-off CAS with PGMs directed by a forward observer is still very much viable.

This is what has happened in Ukraine. Lot's of stand off cruise missiles launched by bombers and Su34 and CAS undertaken by the Su25's which has resulted in lots of losses in this aircraft type on both sides.

The use of Russian stand off missiles hasn't resulted in success on the battlefield, something that pre-F35 Euro nations  own stand off missiles were thought would work well against.

It will be interesting histroically, that after the war all the truth comes out about various weapon capabilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...