A Freaking Fast Tank

[@JonesingUSAF]

Love your vids, especially military related. It’s very obvious you do your homework as best you can. I’m retired USAF and can say, 99.9% of the time, you are dead nuts on.

[@JonathanVucic]

I was going to say the same type of thing but you already said it better.

[@soonerfrac4611]

One of my NCO’s was originally a tanker and said that many units removed the governor on their M1 Abrams. Without it he said they could regularly get a fully loaded vehicle up to 70mph. That’s 70tons coming at you at highway speeds!

[@curezilla]

"Dead nuts on" Yes sir, I'm absolutely stealing that! 🤣🍻👍

[@Llyd_ApDicta]

@@abikeanditsboy3449 Exactly. Like when he is claiming the MBT 70 was 3.5 meters long´and 9.5 m with the gun forward. He probably mixed that up with the width.

[@CFox.7]

No one knows the truth about high level international main battle tank joint development like a KZbinr and a retired USAF.. lol

[@richardpatton2502]

“McNamara has an idea” Some of most feared words by the American armed forces All the best to everyone

[@nunyabidness3075]

That guy was amazingly good at making people think he knew things he obviously had no clue about.

[@barto4678]

He had no business being Secretary of Defense.

[@nunyabidness3075]

@@barto4678 Gotta wonder if they had not changed the office from Secretary of War to Secretary of Defense, would he have ever been considered?

[@jeffsnider3588]

Great video, I worked on some tank projects as an Engineer for Uncle and crossed paths with some bits and pieces related to this program. I was surprised at how well the hydro-pneumatic suspension systems worked as it was used on a later concept AVLB bridge launcher based on the M60 that would move as fast as an M1 MBT.

[@petervonfroster8i]

Innovative and well thought out, but the Drivers Position was a "no go" from the Start... and i really like the Idea of an external 20mm Gun for smaller Targets!

[@Emdee5632]

As far as I can recognize them in those short seconds, it starts with the German Mark III tank I believe; a Sherman mine-flaling tank; several T-34s; a type of Soviet pre-war multiturreted tank; some tank in a factory I don't recognize, could be Italian; something I first thought was the Italian P26/40 ''heavy'' tank but the road wheels and bogies are wrong or maybe one of the Britsh Cruiser tanks (I would REALLY like to know!); several M3 Lee tanks; a M551 Sheridan; an APC, Japanese or British maybe; and finally one of the many versions of the CV90. Those are just the ones I think I can say anything about. It's always a feast of recognition Dark Tech. Thank you!

[@chuckmesser2202]

The unidentified tank you asked about is an Italian Carro Medio Celere M16/43 Sahariano, which was inspired by the British Crusader cruiser tank. It was cancelled after the North African campaign ended in defeat.

[@chazzer7564]

The Soviet multi turret design appears to be a T-35, the tank in the factory is the Neubaufahrzeug, a German inter war secret tank, very few built.

[@mrnice81]

Just one thing: please don't call Panzer III a 'Mark III', if you have to, 'Type' would be the better way to do. 'Mark' implies a version within one series/model of tank, thats not how the german tanks of WW2 were named. Mark I, II, III, IV and so on would follow each other, but the Pz III and Pz IV were developed at the same time for different roles, the Pz VI 'Tiger' (by design the successor of the Pz IV) was even developed (and fielded) before the Pz V 'Panther' (successor of the Pz III). I know its nitpicky but its just wrong.

[@Mostexcellant69Dude]

@@mrnice81 that sounds like a confusing way of labeling your tank variations.

[@haplessfurball5497]

@@Mostexcellant69Dude it's the right way and the better way so you don't confuse people

[@haterbehavior4583]

Happy Veterans Day everyone 🇺🇸

[@simtalkayak]

❤️

[@123blakes8]

Happy Remembrance Day from up North

[@jhonfloibelmiculob6581]

The MBT-70 prototype was later cancelled after a year. And the two parties decided to built their tanks with the technology they acquired from the cancelled MBT-70. The Germans built Leopard 2 and the Americans built M1 Abrams both tanks a successor from MBT-70 technology.

[@TrangleC]

It is a common misconception, or misunderstanding that the Leopard 2 was a direct result of the MBT/KPZ 70 program. Better said, it is right and wrong at the same time, or right, but not in the sense people who say that mean it. When the MBT 70 shaped up to be way more complicated and expensive than the Germans had expected, they didn't want to immediately bail on the project, but they revised their plans to fielding a mixed force of two different tanks in the future. The idea was to use a smaller number of MBT 70s for long range engagements together with a cheaper, more conventional new tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun named "Keiler" ("Boar"), which they developed on the side on basis of the Leopard 1, for the shorter range engagements and to do most of the dirty work while the expensive elite KPZ 70 would stay at a safe distance. When the MBT 70 project finally imploded, they continued their work on the Keiler and developed it into the Leopard 2. As far as I know pretty much none of the exotic stuff developed for the MBT 70 actually made it into the Leopard 2 prototypes and outside of using a gas turbine, the M1 also doesn't really have anything in common with the MBT 70.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Germany used metric. US industry mostly did not. That in itself was enough to scuttle the project

[@datadavis]

Someday the u.s will join its own space agency and go metric.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@datadavis …. Eventually

[@brinsonharris9816]

I remember reading about the difficulties of the design. After some serious problem solving, it was decided that the American parts would be Imperial measurements, but all interfaces would be metric for compatibility with all the German parts. Another problem was the Americans wanted a tank that could fight anywhere on the globe, and the Germans needed a tank specifically designed for the plains of Europe. Boondoggle all the way.

[@TrangleC]

But the difference in systems wasn't really the problem and wasn't why the project failed. It just got too complicated with mostly the Americans insisting on putting every space age science fiction idea they could come up with into the tank while the Germans (quite against the common myth of the over-engineering Germans) wanted to keep it simple.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@TrangleC …. That was the 1960’s. German engineering isn’t a myth today. Is the Leopard 2 any less sophisticated today compared to the M1 Abrams series?

[@exo068]

The German and French are currently developing a tank together.

[@Emdee5632]

The Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)?

[@exo068]

@@Emdee5632 yes but who knows how that will end.

[@Emdee5632]

We'll see what happens - or not - by 2035 or 2040.

[@exo068]

@@Emdee5632 yea a promising idea but it suffers because of the FCAS program, hopefully that problem gets solved.

[@kenneth9874]

That should be interesting

[@xenophonBC]

when i was at fort knox, there was an mbt 70 as a monument. it's in a museum now.

[@Wolverines77]

Hmmm, I thought I was a military tech junkie as I was constantly thumbing through every copy of Janes I could find when dad was stationed in West Germany for his 2nd and 3rd tours there. I never read anything of this project. Thank you for your great work and don't mind the peeps who criticize your sometimes wrong piece of gear in the video...

[@theFordy97]

your channels and videos are my go tos for my bedtime insomnia and I’d be buggered without them! Thanks for all the military vids and the depth across all you make Legend 🙏🏻 - all the way from south west aus, sittin on a sunny Cheers fella, keep it coming please

[@TheArcticFoxxo]

Not only could the MBT/KPz lean both forward and backward, but it could also raise and lower itself, in addition with tilting itself to the left or right.

[@Zach-ku6eu]

Yeah, too bad all the hydraulics made it into a big oil lantern when it got hit or just blew a line from poor crew maintenance.

[@TheArcticFoxxo]

@@Zach-ku6eu So... The exact same thing America adopted afterwards? Even less so than Britain and Japan, yet there are surprisingly more reports of hydraulic issues and even fires due to it from American tanks. "When it got hit"? When did it get hit?

[@Zach-ku6eu]

The Russian tank carcass is the same now as it was since before the 1990s. BMPS have one hole in the side and melt. MBTs pop their lid and it lands upside down on the burnt crew.

[@seventhson27]

Should have had a "Low Rider" club design it.

[@jeffho1727]

@@Zach-ku6eu Most of the tankies I knew were religious on their maintenance. They knew an imobile tank has another name...Target!!

[@THESocialJusticeWarrior]

One tank went in. Two tanks came out.

[@Normandy1944]

I need to dig the pics up, but I believe one of the prototypes was on display at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Armament Museum when it existed. Probably was taken to Ft Lee or Ft Benning.

[@Dirtyharry70585]

Nice to have back ground on the leopard and Abrams tank

[@pspboy7]

Lest we forget. November 11, 11th hour. Remembering those who gave their lives for our freedom.

[@drmarkintexas-400]

✌️🏆🇺🇲 Veterans Day Appreciation for duty, honor and sacrifice 🎖️🇺🇲⭐❤️🛐 Thank you for sharing

[@Mark_317]

The model pictured without tracks sitting in the dirt was sold for scrap metal in 2019.

[@johnhauslein7845]

Having driven the M60A1, M60A3, IPM1 and the M1, the IPM1 is the fastest tank I've ever driven. The speedometer only went to 65 mph. I buried the needle driving on the autobahn from Vilseck to Grafenwöhr.

[@chrisperrien7055]

well you know the speedometer, so I know you ain't bull-chitting. . LOL . I never saw any IP's that could move/had the power like some of the M1/XM1's, the IP's we got were all governed down it seemed.

[@joebfnl1079]

From what I have heard is the first thing that is removed from a M-1 is the governor!.

[@johnhauslein7845]

@@chrisperrien7055 You are a non-tanking individual

[@chrisperrien7055]

@@johnhauslein7845 SURE

[@todd4866]

How many Autobahns do they fight major tank battles on ??How many Autobahns did Iraq have ?!

[@attilazk]

1:35 T-62 as "Colossus"... hahahahaha. Look like you never seen one. :D

[@danko8983]

the picture doesn't have anything to do with, but i dont think that by colossus it is refering to the T-62, as they said earlier, soviets were working on something much more advance than T-62 and T-55, and it was the T-64

[@JonesingUSAF]

While kneeling is always a neat feature, it’s immensely unreliable and leaves you stuck in one position all the time. Just like the C-5 can kneel it’s nose, but most of the time, it’s broken and they can’t load or unload the aircraft…

[@superwout]

Well there's little difference between a cargo and an MBT... the Koreans and the Swedes were not afraid of hydropneumatics

[@JonesingUSAF]

@@superwout we had plenty of pneudraulic troops at my 130 squadron. The C-5 kneeling system was just a shitty design. The C-17 or C-130 is definitely the way to go if you want to get anywhere reliably.

[@todd4866]

The more crap you put in , the more crap you have to deal with .

[@JonesingUSAF]

@@todd4866 one reason I loved my old 130’s! It was tech from the 60’s and only had what it absolutely needed for CSAR missions. They just worked and could fly with a bunch of systems down if they needed to.

[@stevegreengrass7727]

I love your videos, but I've noticed in the last few videos that the music is overpowering your voiceover, I don't think it's my device as I haven't changed any settings but it is annoying when trying to hear you explain things! I just thought I'd bring it to your attention.... Absolutely love your videos tho, lots of research goes into these and I truly appreciate it!

[@basilb4733]

Good videos but always a lot of unrelated pictures / clips like - in this case - pre-WW2 tanks and tank production.

[@zalstryverzzz5019]

German engineering with American financial muscle and technology - an unbeatable combination 😀

[@Emdee5632]

3:55 Its WIDTH is 3.5 meters. Not its length. I love you Dark Tech!

[@dannewth7149]

The key to top speed in tanks is the strength of the tread chain.

[@chrisperrien7055]

Yea, it more in how the suspension/drive spocket handles that 3 tons of track on each side spinning around(the force and friction involved are immense). That is why the M1 is /was faster than the Leopard II. Leo's II at speeds of "about" 45 MPH+ *, the track start really banging alot and getting "loose", Limiting how fast considered "safe" And you definitely want to know every pin/bolt/connector, and sprocket condition of your track before you go "flying". *Never drove a Leo II myself, but have talked several Leo vets over the years, and was the general consensus IMO I got a few years driving M1's, various models

[@martijnb5887]

"the secretely improved version of the Soviet T-62 main battle tank". By now we know how good that tank is.

[@ghost-jesus]

mostly we know how bad the russians are at using tanks, ANY tank is a coffin in any state-level conflict if there is no infantry support, just like infantry are mincemeat if they have no tank support when facing combined infantry and tanks, combined arms warfare is the rule and if you fail at coordinating the different arms of your forces you will lose thousands of men for nothing, but if you have air cover and artillery softening the field before you move in tanks and dismounted infantry in together you will make massive gains.

[@1flybyman]

I think all of your informative videos on dark doc and dark tech should be utilized in all history lessons across the United States. Amazing work thank you for the videos

[@IINC0RRECT]

No

[@andyd2960]

This is good entertainment, but you'd be surprised how much incorrect information is in many of these videos across all channels.

[@zetamafia911]

Yeah could certainly boon from better fact checking tbh.

[@Emdee5632]

IF Dark Xxx promises to remove all that completely unnecessary and unrelated footage from vehicles planes people etc. that he always throws in his videos I'm okay with the history lessons. Mind you you cannot learn everything about the MBT-70 program and the two tanks it spawned by watching a nine minute video.

[@chekaschmeka4283]

No, and the reason why is chassis.

[@slickar2752]

And yet, another thing McNamara screwed up. He couldn’t get anything right.

[@xijinpingpong4426]

8:43 "the last time two nations joined forces to develop a MBT" ... Now France and Germany also do it (join forces to develop a MBT), but it will probably end the same way.

[@Korfax124]

At least they can agree on using the metric system xD I think the concept was shown to the public this year under the name EMBT, same timing as the KF-51 Panther from Rheinmetall

[@xijinpingpong4426]

@@Korfax124 No, the Politicians wanted that Rheinmetall, KMW and Nexter develop a MBT together. But the cooperation between the German and French companies does not work that good. So Rheinmetall left the project to do their own thing (KF51 Panther). It is even worse with the German, French (and Spain) cooperation to develop the next fighter jet. The French company Dassault does not want to share any information about their technology with Airbus Defense, because they don't want that the Germans steal their technology. It will probably end like the French involvement in the Eurofighter project.

[@Alexander_Hodge]

@@xijinpingpong4426 I think KMW and Nexter can develop one hell of a tank. With KMW's experience in tank armour and hull design, coupled with Nexter's huge 140mm cannon and autoloading technology. A monster of a MBT especially if it is equipped with further improved composite armour and new kits. French firepower, German armour and an Israeli APS would be the ideal tank. If they could get the Americans to make them ammo it would be even better :)

[@Angelthewolf]

Officially they are, but the project didn‘t make any progress in years, now the newly introduced Panther by Rheinmetall could end that cooperation if accepted by the Bundeswehr

[@xijinpingpong4426]

@@Alexander_Hodge I think KMW and Nexter could both develop a great tank on their own. That they work together is a purely political decision, but it could have the advantage, that the tank is cheaper, when more tanks of the same model are produced (KMW and Nexter built, maintain and export the same tank => the same tank model for more countries => cheaper tank because of mass production). I thought the 130mm cannon of the KF51 would already be too much, I am not sure if a 140mm cannon will really bring an advantage, unless you want to shoot through a building to destroy a tank behind the building.

[@waffensachverstandcom5505]

KPz 70 set the stage for M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and LeClerc- a good result

[@Angelthewolf]

Not really, the Kpz. 70 has no connection to france or the leclerc. The tank the leclerc was effected by was called Kampfpanzer III or Napoleon in france

[@Tay-ky3fi]

Dude.. I feel like you've unlocked a new level with your music..

[@AyoubusMagnus]

One of my favourite tanks in warthunder along side the German bulldog

[@lutzfilor56]

1986 I saw this monster in a museum while serving in the army. The idea to built a toilet in a tank seamed so crazy to my at the time, but how little did I knew with 20. All I had seen was school and Boot Camp … but even at that time I was only driven by one question. How do I survive the next war. I was a ranger. In my choice between death, I had a horror to find my death in fire. If you are no soldier or even when you are, I don’t know how much you think about you own mortality and survival of any conflict. I was serving during the Cold War when over 3.5 million soldiers starred at each other, my cousins on the other side and I was confronted with 17 times Overkill. If you think this has no impact on you psyche good look. This war I. The Ukraine was my nightmare for 35 years. So if you still think the Cold War was no real war, and the soldiers serving didn’t see “real” combat, let’s just settle that this war was fought on the psychological front, and it was real. But mission was accomplished - the armistice was kept. Now let’s be resilient and resisting and hope and pray for a better time. Because if anyone thinks that our world is in a more stable place today, then you have not faced your own fear and horror.

[@aidan4472]

I’m just imagining that thing going across a field with the driver blaring ‘free bird’ on an mp3 player in his cabin

[@leontodd1289]

Think of how crazy war machines would be today if all close and committed powers were to join together and design and build new capabilities.

[@paktahn]

nothing would get done due to ego

[@yzorgone]

yea..we are just waiting for the US to finally switching to metric. then we can talk :)

[@paktahn]

@@yzorgone doubt that will ever happen far too much legacy equipment and tools reliant on the imperial system to realistically replace it would probably cost billions of dollars to do so with no benefit other than not needing to convert from one system to another when it isnt that hard to do the math in your head

[@petervonfroster8i]

Yes, but where does the Motivation/Reason come from, if there is no Enemy? Aliens?

[@John_Redcorn_]

@@yzorgone just learn both. Its not difficult

[@joshweickum]

I think sabot is pronounced "say-bo"

[@russianyoutube]

Yes.

[@TrangleC]

It is a common misconception, or misunderstanding that the Leopard 2 was a direct result of the MBT/KPZ 70 program. Better said, it is right and wrong at the same time, or right, but not in the sense people who say that mean it. When the MBT 70 shaped up to be way more complicated and expensive than the Germans had expected, they didn't want to immediately bail on the project, but they revised their plans to fielding a mixed force of two different tanks in the future. The idea was to use a smaller number of MBT 70s for long range engagements together with a cheaper, more conventional new tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun named "Keiler" ("Boar"), which they developed on the side on basis of the Leopard 1, for the shorter range engagements and to do most of the dirty work while the expensive elite KPZ 70 would stay at a safe distance. When the MBT 70 project finally imploded, they continued their work on the Keiler and developed it into the Leopard 2. As far as I know pretty much none of the exotic stuff developed for the MBT 70 actually made it into the Leopard 2 prototypes.

[@METALMISFIT6]

Well he gets ALOT more right..than the schools do

[@thetanksofworldwarii-tanka4368]

Had to stop at the point it said the engine was a turbine. No, it was not. The American version used the diesel AVCR-1100 engine built by Continental Motors.

[@lloydfortner1510]

I was on the “OT2” for the Abrams in the mid 1980s before it was type classified the M1. It was and probably still is the best in the world, no question about it. I still believe that today.

[@dannykaye4859]

Overtaken by challenger 2 I’m afraid!

[@razony]

Well, the world really knows how those Russian tanks fit up to reality.

[@rodrigoquiroga8590]

I love this channel.. Many Congrats !!

[@dnate697]

Not TRUE, it was not the last time. The Brits and Germans on one project and the Germans and France worked on another. NATO works to have common Fuel, Ammo, and Parts whenever possible. Take a look at the UK's Chally 3 for example?

[@leonardmiyata482]

The MBT-70 one of the worst examples for the US DoD trend where instead of trying for evolutionary development of existing technology, the DoD would try for revolutionary pie in the sky product development. Other examples from this era would be the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Mach 3 capable intercontinental nuclear bomber, The Joint Air Force/Navy FB-111 strike bomber, which proved successful for Air Force service, but a failure as a Missile armed Carrier based interceptor. And it took years for the Army to work out the problems with M-16 infantry rifle. One of the few technological leap frog projects that actually worked was the development of submarine nuclear power. And the XM803 was a MBT-70 with all the expensive options removed, but still tried to use a more powerful version of the 152mm gun missile launcher, which proved unreliable in the M-60A2 Starship Variant, and in the M551 . The XM1 was a completely different tank project, developed in desperation of the need to replace the M-60 with something that could stand up against Soviet developments. It still needed the contribution of British Chobham armor and the German 120 mm smooth bore cannon in the first product improved variant

[@Sturmgechu]

“Unlike the American M60….” Shows an early ww2 Italian light tank 💀

[@killerdoritoWA]

Whenever I hear the name McNamara, I know it’s not going to end well.

[@makegaminggreatagain3907]

This is the 3rd of 4th video I've watched on this channel, I'm liking it so far, Question is Dark Seas your sister channel?

[@ivanvarela3215]

One of many. Dark docs, files, skies, seas, and like 4 others all are the same group.

[@haplessfurball5497]

just be careful filled with errors and such. take it like a grain of salt.

[@pughoneycutt1986]

Macnamara has an idea. GOD WHAT A SCARY STATEMENT!!!!

[@senior_alpaca2845]

The historical inaccuracies are staggering

[@Vachalen]

The stupidity of not even agreeing on which measurement to use, Imperial vs Metric, already doomed it. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but even a layman could see how well this would work out.

[@TrangleC]

But the difference in systems wasn't really the problem and wasn't why the project failed. It just got too complicated with mostly the Americans insisting on putting every space age science fiction idea they could come up with into the tank while the Germans (quite against the common myth of the over-engineering Germans) wanted to keep it simple. On the Challenger 2 the team that designed the chassis used the Imperial System and the team that developed the turret used the Metric System (or maybe vise-versa, not sure anymore), so the crews and mechanics need 2 different sets of tools to maintain or repair one tank. That still didn't kill the project though.

[@capnstevoanythinggoes]

NIce video, thank you.

[@trescatorce9497]

a freaking fast tank is only a maybe, mildly, hard to heat target for a WWII German antitank gunner. XXII century, TOW, NLAW, Gustav, Javelin... it is a piece of scrap metal, with the smell of very well cooked meat inside.

[@reganmorben9248]

cool documentary!

[@thealpaca8hay]

4:06 Just to say, it shows the Italian Celere Sahriano, which was a prototype light tank made in ww2 inspired by the British Crusader cruiser tank, not the American M60 MBT lol

[@barriewright2857]

This is a shame, from my view this MBT looked like it had great potential. It Just needed more time to solve the technical problems and that would have been it.

[@jhwheuer]

Leopard IIs are beasts of the killer kind

[@thebritishengineer8027]

Ironic that the superior technical proficiency of Germany and the US had to rely heavily on my Dad and his mates from Britain to get it done. Working on the gun layering drive he spent about 3+ years on the project. And offered a position as an engineer for the US military, but turned it down working for the next 30 years as a jobbing design engineer in Europe and Canada.

[@TrangleC]

You mean gun laying drive? Hard to believe, to be honest, since the M60 and the Leopard 1 had pretty good gun stabilization systems and the missile launching device the MBT 70 used was much lighter than a regular tank gun.

[@michaelhowell2326]

Why is there so much footage of early WWII tanks?

[@retired3437]

Macnamara finished up throwing all us Viet Nam vets under the bus I am an Aussie VET but his decisions affected us too.

[@mikethompson2650]

I was a board and miniatures gamer back then, mostly WWII if I admit, but still that MPT70 was just the sexist tank ever made. The 152mm main gun the US Army wanted had potential IF everything worked as advertised, but it didn't. It was used on the Sheridan light tank and did great in VietNam when a beehive round was fired. However the missile just failed and the short barrel was useless firing AP rounds.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Yet another French word tripping you up. SABOT, is French for shoe. . It is a more readily identifiable as a discarding sabot, Which is a small missile fired by a tank, which contains a very heavy metal, with the sabot filling up the cannon, for added long distant and high speed firing, upon leaving the barrel the discarding sabot is flung away by the forces of wind, leaving only the long, dense core to travel. Pronounced= sab-ohh., two distinct syllables.

[@donlarocque5157]

I worked at a gun store for a while. Some folks will argue about the pronunciation. Like Garand.

[@paktahn]

@@donlarocque5157 those folks are morons

[@stevenhoman2253]

@@donlarocque5157 Yeah, but if you take a word back to its root or the originator, you get a definitive answer. Sabot is a French word, without any filter, so it is SA-BOW. Garrand used his name GA-RAND. People do argue, that is mostly the problem. They should be paying more attention, is my view. I like etymology. The world makes so much more sense when you know the derivations. In your surname, how much does it get mispronounced or strangely anglicised?

[@donlarocque5157]

@@stevenhoman2253 A lot.

[@haplessfurball5497]

not a missile

[@danielmartin7838]

Drones are reshaping the manner in which tanks are thought of and employed.

[@frosty3693]

I wonder if McNamara was even envolved with a sucessful weapon system? The F-111 only worked for the Air Force, partly.

[@nick_steele9790]

Mentions the m60, shows an…Italian tank? Or maybe a British cruiser or some weird Soviet tank

[@thealpaca8hay]

It’s an Italian tank called the Celere Sahariano. You are somewhat right about the cruiser tank part as it was heavily inspired by the British Crusader when the Italians encountered them in North Africa.

[@nick_steele9790]

@@thealpaca8hay thanks!!

[@fugu4163]

The best thing he could have done are to develop that super tank killing helicopter instead.

[@paoloviti6156]

The MBT-70 was very innovative but it was simply too innovative! The great problem with this tank was that the Germans and USA hardly agreed on anything and conflicts between the differing engineering practices of each country would plague the MBT-70 project throughout its development including the use of inches and meter. Not to mention that USA tried to force the Germans to use the Shillelagh missile but the Germans refused to implement this system. It was possibly the only tank in which the driver got tank "sick" because of it's rotating cupola. The enormous cost and the waste of time angered the Congress forcing the cancellation of the the program. It is a shame because it was one of the fastest tanks ever made.

[@dennyliegerot4021]

Sabot..."say-bow(as in bow and arrow)"

[@shadow4evr]

I think I there’s something wrong with the measurements. According to what was said, at a length of 3.3M without the barrel, that’s the length of a 2 door Jeep TJ - NOT a big SUV. and 1.8m tall, that’s not even 6 feet high. So I’m thinking someone did some conversions incorrectly.

[@YouTube_user3333]

Yeah that’s why imperial sucks. People just round up or down and/or get a it completely wrong.

[@TrangleC]

3.3 meters is probably the width, not the length. Most tanks are roughly 8 meters long, without the gun.

[@shadow4evr]

@@TrangleC That makes more sense. Unless someone misquoted the measurements and that’s the length of the turret.

[@King_Capo]

bro said m60 and showed a tiny Italian ww2 tank

[@adamcrookedsmile]

less than half the photos shown in this video don't depict the MBT70 but other tanks, some of which are even T-34s. Saying the names of the chapters weirds us out. No reference to sources are given either so the accuracy of the information cannot be verified.

[@manininikolas9310]

155mm canon ouch very impressive 👏

[@fredjansen2659]

naa it was crap.

[@mykillak]

guess thats why the leopord 2 n abrams look similar

[@boxhawk5070]

The best looking tank failure in history.

[@retired3437]

The Hydro Pneumatic system was invented by an American but the military turned it down so he sold it to the USSR,strange how mistakes can come back and bite you.

[@swealssharky3432]

tbh i thought this video was ganna be some sick war thunder montage

[@jeanbusarello8136]

Célere Saariano spoted 😂

[@zigwil153]

Russian tanks being fast means more oxygen for the fire onboard after being hit.

[@Grimpy970]

At 3:57 you say the mbt 70 was 3.5 meters long. It was actually 3.5 meters wide, and based off of napkin math alone, that puts its hull length well over 6 meters. Your 'gun-forward' measurement of 9.1 meters seems accurate, though Feel me here. If it was only 3.5 meters long and had a gun-forward length of 9 meters, you're looking at a 7-8 meter gun given its recessed into the main body and not just bolted on the front like a knights lance. There ain't no tank on earth of that tonnage that's only 3.5 meters long. I figure this was probably just a typo that you read without really thinking about it

[@imperialscout5566]

3:55 instructions unclear. Must have meant 3.5 meters in width and 9.3 meters in length.

[@davidcomtedeherstal]

Propz to the future Leopard 2.

[@Livi_Noelle]

Crazy to see how far you guys have come since the days of Alex's music and a text only format. Slay!

[@Livi_Noelle]

69 kph? Nice!

[@peter-radiantpipes2800]

I find this so funny. The title… if you’re a fan of his channels… it’s unlike him. It’s pretty awesome to just have that title

[@silaswolfsberger2119]

You are saying the word "Bundeswehr" very well.

[@TrangleC]

It is a computer voice.

[@Mephistopholies]

It's amazing how quickly combat has evolved BACK to small light squads. Ukraine is fortunate Mr Musk is able to be as generous as he has to that Plucky east European country. FIGHT HARD 🇺🇦

[@CHMichael]

3:25 - fight over the metric system. So sad

[@hootowl6354]

We have to be careful about assessing any Russian or Chinese equipment. As I've heard it said, Russian jets are good for air shows but not so good for battle. I saw one photo of a Russian jet downed in Ukraine and it had a store-bought GPS unit duct taped to the dash. The state of ground troop equipment gives the same impression. Tanks can be lightened and souped up to perform better for exhibitions too. And no numbers released by either Russia or China can be taken at face value - true of all militaries, but double true for those two nations.

[@DChrls]

But if they don't over estimate those military's capabilities how can they convince Congress to okay the budget for new stuff? 😉

[@hootowl6354]

@@DChrls The U.S. spends about 3.4% of its GDP on defense. There is nothing abnormal about that number, especially when the U.S. is always the nation that is expected to lead the defense of others. It's just a shame that U.S. reputation was harmed by Vietnam, the Iraq mistake and staying too long in Afghanistan. But hey, war is never pretty.

[@Emdee5632]

Many Western tanks (or tanks affiliated with the West) look like the Abrams or the Leopard 2. In fact quite a few are almost clones I think. And yes armour like Chobham cannot be rounded I believe, making them even more look like each other. As usual too much footage of armoured WW2 and pre-WW2 vehicles is messing up this interesting video. By the way at the end, is that a CV90? And this is just the FIRST time I'm watching this video. But also as usual, I give it a thumbs up.

[@TrangleC]

The Leopard 2 doesn't use Chobham armor though. The British government offered it to Germany, but they declined and rather developed their own system.

[@Emdee5632]

@@TrangleC Thanks, I did not know that!

[@TrangleC]

@@Emdee5632 You need to dig deep to find credible information on those secrets, even if it is old, declassified ones. The Germans used a perforated steel armor system for the first generation of Leopard 2s. That works by putting several layers of steel plates with holes in it behind each other. The holes cause a projectile moving through the armor to be deformed and degraded differently at different points, making it lose structural coherency and thus penetrating power. Imagine shooting a carrot through a series of cheesegraters. Apparently that works pretty well and has the advantage of saving weight because a armor plate with holes in it obviously is lighter than a plate without holes. Chobham armor works on a different principle. The details were leaked in 2003 and they were surprising, because everyone thought it had something to do with ceramics, but there actually are no ceramics involved. Chobham is basically layers of steel plates bolted to plastic plates and suspended in a flexible scaffolding with special clamps that cause the plates to shift against each other when something hits them. That way additional material gets pushed into the path of the penetrating projectile. Apparently that is very effective against shaped charge projectiles but less effective against kinetic APFSDS rods, which is why the Germans went with their perforated steel system. They kind of where the first ones who realized that APFSDS would become the most commonly used tank vs tank ammunition, while the British focused more on HEAT threats from RPGs and ATGMs. Later versions of the Leopard 2 use a different, still secret armor system now, which is the main reason why the Leopard 2 got a lot heavier with every new version and the M1A2 SEP famously uses a system relying on Depleted Uranium, but you hear differing things about how exactly that system works. Some say it is just thick DU plates, some say it is a "matrix" made of DU with ceramic plates inside it somehow. There are also contradictory reports about whether the Challenger 3 got new armor or not.

[@deansmits006]

It's interesting to see what problems arise when nations collaborate on such a large project. Different use cases, different philosophy, different tactics, all can sink a project like this. Maybe it's for the better

[@bjkjoseph]

When they were first coming out with the M1 Abrams tank they said it could go 75 miles an hour and they could but they were blowing up the transmissions and I guess every other part of the drivetrain So they put governors on it I’m guessing that’s what they did, Or they were bullshitting and the prototypes never made it to 75 mph

[@miguelcastaneda7257]

Ahh Preston tucker built one from what I recall could hit past that there's arcive footage of it

[@bjkjoseph]

@@miguelcastaneda7257 You should Google it before you write a comment I did after I posted this in my memory was correct

[@miguelcastaneda7257]

@@bjkjoseph 114 top speed cruising speed 78

[@bjkjoseph]

@@miguelcastaneda7257 I guess you don’t wanna Google it

[@miguelcastaneda7257]

@@bjkjoseph did vern

[@ShonG]

Sabot, pronounced say-bow.

[@karenweakland6028]

The Gunners neck is broken.. the loader has 3 rounds bounce out of the rack onto the turret floor smashing 4 toes to mush..The Commanders nose is broken along with 4 teeth... The gunsite is off and cant hit anything it sees' thru the scope It better be fast because all it can do is " RUNAWAY"..

[@REEPER38]

Music? Anyone know what the first track is pls

[@mikepotter4109]

I cant think of any country better than Germany to have on your side against anyone else anywhere. After all, despite losing two world wars they are the most powerful country in the EU, that's unbelievably impressive.

[@ReaReaTheOne]

The Kpz-70/MBT-70 is one of my Favorite prototype tanks.

[@KingSpittusFactus]

Did you know it had a Toilet

[@ReaReaTheOne]

@@KingSpittusFactus No really?

[@KingSpittusFactus]

@@ReaReaTheOne yeah i was in a tank museum and on the description it says that it has a chemical toilet built in

[@akconcentrates2755]

Sabot is pronounced say-bow not sabat lol,love the videos tho!

[@benkr]

err, france and germany are doing this currently

[@discount8508]

3.5 meters long ?

[@sabian8700]

this guy is just trolling at this point