"I know cuz Ive done this" sounds arrogant not good way to start vid, maybe why low exposure vs quality of content??

Yes, they were ''bad''.

The US M-68 was in fact a licensed copy of the British L7 105mm NATO gun. The main issues with the M-60 is that ti was a tall target like the WW2 Sherman. It used hydraulic turret traverse which the Israeli's discovered, that it often leaks in combat filling the turret with a highly volatile mist. The Israeli's generally preferred the Centurion. Russian Smoothbores may have the long range, but the fire control was bad with poor optics, so it could rarely hit a stationary target beyond 1,000 meters.

‏‪0:54‬‏ thnks you for metion israle is acualy the god father of drone

Pretty much every piece of Western military hardware after about 1960 scared the Soviets, and rightly so. Once the captured Nazis died off and their research became obsolete, the Soviets could do little except watch as the free world blasted right by them.

Note that the British at Islandwana were trying to get to their spare ammo, packaged in wood boxes with metal strapping, without the axes which were supposed to be there to cut the straps. They were overwhelmed by Zulus armed with spears and slaughtered.

Didn't need to watch it. The M-60 was a huge leap ahead of the T-54-55 and more than a match for the T-62.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed to hear that the author of the Definitive Guide has never actually sat in a T-72.

@militaryhistorynotvisualized The site to get the Books isn't secured with HTTPS

While the Soviet tanks being lower to have less profile and thus not being spotted so easily is a good idea back then it stopped being an advantage today due to drones and better aiming systems. It's still a pretty good concept it just aged badly.

Imagine being subject to extreme over pressure in a confined space. Depending on the angle of ANY penetrative event. Some have appeared to have run away from a "square hit" however what that does to the nervous system almost always is fatal. After the adrenaline and shock .

Back when Wargaming was about war gaming.

This is quite an excellent post MHNV. Your guest Mr Then seems to know the T-72 backwards and forwards. During the cold war the Russkie tanks, particularly the T-72, were at times the worst nightmare for NATO. It was dreaded not for its armor nor its gun nor anything else like that, but for the huge numbers of tanks that NATO believed was certain to come pouring through Fulda Gap one day. During the (first) cold war, whenever NATO armies tried to truly assess the threat, they believed, and always assumed, the Soviets might have pulled off some clever "Maskirovka" somehow, and hidden their own true military capabilities. NATO, and particularly the US Army, always talked of the "Soviet Threat" in the most urgent terms (at least to the American public and the US congress). So particularly at budget times, the US Army's leaders repeatedly warned congress of the massive danger the Red army presented it in Western Europe - mainly to justify the latest multi-million dollar M1 tanks and F-15 jets. But now the Ukraine war has revealed the awful truth about the Russian army. And it's hard to believe any attacking Warsaw Pact army of the 1970's and 1980's, would have been any more competent than is the Army of the Russian Federation today.

I was on the M 60, M 60A1, M60 AOS and the M60A2. The APDS would penatrate any armor at 4000 meters. I know we hit a clean M47 at 4000m on range 81 at Graf. 2 rounds went in and out and the third hit the breach block.

didn't the guy who built the zero go to germany as a young engineer to learn from them and their planes only to be treated pretty bad once there, they didn't let the japanese engineers near anything or share anything they didn't already know, i think he did befriend some german engineers but down to their shared love of aircraft not cos of the german government putting them together, the man came up with the zero probably the best aircraft of the war of its type

Clark Sharon Thompson Carol Hall Steven

I had a chance once in my life to sit in a T-72B3 first and Leopard 2A5 perhaps one hour later. The difference couldn't be more noticeable. I'm 1.78 and I could fit into a T-72, but it was very cramped and performing of any real combat tasks would have been challenging. In Leopard 2 I had plenty of space and comfort, so much so that any task would be very easy to manage.

The cost of the powder coated, weld components for handles and the locking mechanism of the army ammunition can is enormous. Yes, crated on a pallet you can move them in and out of an airplane at the depots but it is just a storage can and I have no idea how many might be returned since you never see anything but new cans. Shocking to hear the ammunition of the new XM-7 battle rifle and light machine gun 6.8×51mm (.277 in) is 13 cents a round. "Make every shot count " is very true for a country fighting everywhere and so heavily in debt.

Herr MHV, been seeing your videos for years now, and your complete thoroughness is consistent throughout every video.

Iy always amazes me alot of people think the 105 cant take a t 72 which makes zero sense the 205 is still a very deadly gun

Very late to the party here. BUT........Its just like me and mate Oly on our way to a Roman Re-Enactment event where we have ample time in the van to discuss our interpretations of certain issues that occur within the Roman Army of the 1st cent AD. Boy, do we go off on tangents...Good fun to discuss things.

Considering that this example was from the late Soviet Period (1981), the design considerations were not centered around operational efficiency but around production limitations. In the early 1980s, a wooden box with a few simple handles would have been one of the simplest forms of packaging that could easily be manufactured at scale. The Soviet Army was predicated upon a cheap supply of conscript labor; plenty of men to lift and carry as needed. The Soviet Army was also attached to a command economy, where supply considerations over-rode what Western bureaucrats would call, "military readiness." In other words, a soldered "soup can" of generic size & shape was easier to source en masse than a bespoke reusable container with a myriad of specialized parts. Nevermind how ubiquitous the reusable "ammo tin" became for civilians in the West, with its multiple hinges and leaver-action opener. Soviet ammunition was not stockpiled with the intent to use, but stockpiled with the intent to meet a quota. The fact that it can sit in place for half-a-century and still be expected to be used remains a triumph, albeit with the drawback of being impossible to open during combat operations. Basically, the Soviets engineered their systems to cheaply meet a quota and sit on a shelf indefinitely.

a ukrainian channel called Shawshank redemption on youtube made a great video showing and explaining a captured russian t-72v3 and t-90a, it's incredible how little room they have, and because of a very compact design it lacks ANY sort of room for future upgrades, the scopes are bolted one on top of another instead of replacing them, which reduces the real estate of the crew even further

The guest is clearly confusing cause and effect. According to him, the poor understanding of energonomics by Soviet engineers led to a cramped little tank. The obvious truth is that the need to develop a small and relatively cheap tank led to cramped conditions and inconvenience, but not the other way around. The developers of the Volkswagen Beetle may have been PhD in energonomics, but given the size and cost of the Beetle, it could only have the energonomicss of a Beetle, not a Rolls-Royce.

And yet soviet tanks still suck.

Now I know why the US always fail to mention the elephant in the room and why Soviet tanks smell of sardines.

The major failing of Russian tanks has always been the same: they stow the ammunition inside the turret: and they're operated by Russians.

8 mins + of cope for what is a essentially a fatter American T-55 The Brits did better

In the last years i have seen a revaluation of Italy in ww2 and his role in the conflict ,expecially about navy and aviation .Thanks also to the objectivity of British .I write here some hidden victories of Italy in ww2: First and second battles of Sirte Operation Agreement Operation Daffodil Operation Pedestal Operation Harpoon Italian conquest of British Somalia - 1940 -Italian conquest of Cassala,Gallabat and Kurmuk (British-Egypt Sudan)1940; Victory of Petrikowka; The last charge of Izbusenskij of the cavalry Savoy in Croazia in the 1942

Will the books be available in E versions?😊

And there is a joke from Soviet era here in Finland: Inventor Uspatoff (a joke in itself Us Patent Office...) presented a new barber machine for men to the Central Committee. "It makes every hairdo look exactly the same for every man" he said. But someone from the Committee wondered "what if men have heads of different shapes and sizes?" . Inventor replied "the machine is stronk, so only at first time..."

Well, a guy interwieved about a tank which he was never used. I’m pretty sure he ha great insight of its ergonomy… Maybe he left out a few major factors in its ergonomy (like vibration…) but half the SU population at least fit into it…

Misleading title. Anyone is concerned when a new weapon system is used by an adversary. Thus starts the race for counters, parity, and then supremacy. Truly feared systems are the ones that cannot be beat for decades on end. This video was more about how the Soviets almost easily conquered the "fear" against the M60 tank.

I served as an 11H (Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman) and we worked with the tank units and engaged the enemy at our max range of 4,000 meters until the tanks got too close to use and we’d displace to alternate positions and continue engaging the enemy if needed or stayed in our hide position and observed the battlefield. The tanks would start engaging at ranges of their own choosing, often just below 2,000 meters and by then we had already wiped out priority vehicles such as command elements and ZSU-23-4/57-2 vehicles. We know that the Soviets goal is to go as deep as possible as fast as possible so we had to fight and move quickly and the tanks could displace and engage at the same time while we couldn’t.

I've been in a fair number of armored vehicles. The only one I have found to be more claustrophobia-inducing than the T-72 is the Jagdpanzer 38 with the T-55 a close runner-up.

my inner autism is satisfied

US Army veteran. I had a love/hate relationship with the 113

I have Russian packaging and. It’s great!

Germany is a small country that was fighting against very large empires.

I am surprised he hasn't been inside a T72. There are multiple museums that have them.

My dog has no nose...

I was in the Marines when we still had the (latest version) M60 MBT and were just beginning to acquire the M1 Abrams. I was in artillery and our battery was dual use or trained and equipped with both the M198 155mm howitzer and the still in service M101A1 105mm howiters that were used during WWII still in service when I left in May of 1991.

Clark Amy Garcia Sarah Smith Karen

Garcia Betty Martin Deborah Robinson Kimberly

The Japanese used Kaiwo Maru, a four masted Barque from 1930 as a training ship for merchant sailors. They replaced her in 1989 with an almost identical ship Kaiwo Maru No. 2. The old ship still exists as a museum and is in such a condition that she could still be used today. The main reason for the replacement was the huge size increase in Japanese men since 1930. 1980s japanese sailors simply were too big to fit her berthing decks.

Re averages, there was at least one crash of a (small) passenger plane in the US in the 1990s that happened because the average weight used for calculating passenger weight was still based in 1940s Americans and these particular load of passengers was almost twice the weight.