Thanks Ivan comment bot below. It does pretty well against Russian tanks though. Thousands destroyed in Iraq. P,lenty in Ukraine. 1 confirmed loss due to a mine in Ukraine, 1 due to friendly fire in Iraq. Technically, the only crew who has lost a Challenger (early version) learnt how to drive a tank from the Soviet army. So... yeah. The only hostile action loss in history of a Challenger tank was because it was being driven by people who grew up driving T-64/72s. Not very convincing, Tovarisch. How's the T-14 coming along? Got past the embezzlement stage of orc procurement yet?

It’s good, but it’s nothing advanced or distinguishable. Current development is already steps ahead.

hi

British tanks failed so great in Ukraine that it is very difficult now to find somebody who beleives in that Britain can create something usable.

thats interesting innovation hope to have a full documented video with all details about it it woul be be a better content .... though this video is good

I believe we should do more to help Ukraine win, but the Budapest Memorandum does NOT say what many people keep saying it says. The Memorandum, which is very short and easy to read, says nothing about the US guaranteeing Ukraine's safety. The part of the Memorandum that might mislead someone is paragraph 4, which reads "4. The United States of America... reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine... if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." This OBLIGATES THE USA ONLY TO ASK THE UN TO ASSIST UKRAINE if it either nuked or is threatened with nukes. In other words, this paragraph obligates the US to ask the UN to organize or approve some effort to assist Ukraine. Paragraph 4 does not say that the US will provide the assistance much less step in militarily. Nor is there some other paragraph or section of the Memorandum that obligates the US to do more than Paragraph 4 demands. To put it more pithily, the Memorandum does not obligate the US to assist Ukraine in its defense. The Memorandum only obligates the US to ask the UN to assist Ukraine -- and that trivial obligation applies only when Ukraine has been nuked or threatened with nukes. The absence of a safety guarantee makes sense when you think about it. After all, the US does not lightly hand out military guarantees. Indeed, the history surrounding the Memorandum indicates that the US and Britain were very deliberate in their choice of language precisely because they did not want to give Ukraine a military guarantee. Personally I'd like to see the US enter the war on behalf of Ukraine, but not because anything in the Memorandum demands it.

Given the shortage of skilled labor in the shipbuilding industry, why hasn't the Navy (or one of shipbuilding companies) asked Congress to fund a vocational school for shipbuilding that is FREE for Navy personnel (or maybe for all military personnel) who are nearing the end of their term of service? My understanding is that shipbuilders are well paid. A cursory Google search suggests they might make something like $65K to $150K depending on seniority, position level, skill type, and location. So, imagine you're a sailor or soldier approaching the end of your service and you see a Navy ad that reads: "Learn a shipbuilding skill for free at the Naval School of Shipbuilding. Graduate after only 12(?) months of hands-on learning and, according to the data available today, you can expect a job right out of school that pays novices $65-85K per year and that pays more over time with increasing seniority and satisfactory performance, eventually reaching a range of about $100K to $150K depending on seniority, performance, position level, specialty/skill type, and location.” Wouldn't such an offer attract many outgoing service members who would otherwise be entering the civilian world with no prospect for a lucrative job? If the offer wouldn't attract enough people to fix the labor shortage, perhaps the Navy could expand the offer to also include veterans who left service before the offer was available. Or perhaps the Navy could expand the offer to all US citizens who meet certain minimum criteria (e.g., at least a high school diploma, no felonies, good credit score, etc.). The school should more than pay for itself in the form of lower labor costs resulting in ships costing less to build and repair. The prices depend in large part on the costs of skilled labor and on how often the Navy tries to mitigate delay through rush requests that incur extra costs such as overtime wages. Both of these factors -- the costs of skilled labor and the frequency of rush-related costs -- depend on the number of skilled laborers in the industry. A free shipbuilding school strikes me as just the right thing to increase that number.

Given the shortage of skilled labor in the shipbuilding industry, why hasn't the Navy (or one of shipbuilding companies) asked Congress to fund a vocational school for shipbuilding that is FREE for Navy personnel (or maybe for all military personnel) who are nearing the end of their term of service? My understanding is that shipbuilders are well paid. A cursory Google search suggests they might make something like $65K to $150K depending on seniority, position level, skill type, and location. So, imagine you're a sailor or soldier approaching the end of your service and you see a Navy ad that reads: "Learn a shipbuilding skill for free at the Naval School of Shipbuilding. Graduate after only 12(?) months of hands-on learning and, according to the data available today, you can expect a job right out of school that pays novices $65-85K per year and that pays more over time with increasing seniority and satisfactory performance, eventually reaching a range of about $100K to $150K depending on seniority, performance, position level, specialty/skill type, and location.” Wouldn't such an offer attract many outgoing service members who would otherwise be entering the civilian world with no prospect for a lucrative job? If the offer wouldn't attract enough people to fix the labor shortage, perhaps the Navy could expand the offer to also include veterans who left service before the offer was available. Or perhaps the Navy could expand the offer to all US citizens who meet certain minimum criteria (e.g., at least a high school diploma, no felonies, good credit score, etc.). The school should more than pay for itself in the form of lower labor costs resulting in ships costing less to build and repair. The prices depend in large part on the costs of skilled labor and on how often the Navy tries to mitigate delay through rush requests that incur extra costs such as overtime wages. Both of these factors -- the costs of skilled labor and the frequency of rush-related costs -- depend on the number of skilled laborers in the industry. A free shipbuilding school strikes me as just the right thing to increase that number.

Good video, editing and quality wise. I was expecting more grand-scale innovations, rather than a short review of likely not practical submersibles, however.

How pathetic that you couldn't just say "Was written by Johnathan Swift" and expect the mayflies to know who he was and when he wrote. One of the greatest writers of his day, and the mouth-breathers "know not".

Wait a minute?!!! Didnt the Flatuant Felon say that you cant have batteries in boats or you that you would have to make the descion whether to be eaten by a shark or electrocuted? It did say that many times right? He should know better than those Navy Seals, simply on its connection to MIT...🤨🖕

God bless, good luck with those derechos and the tornados

Beautiful as real National dept is 230 trillion.

👍