Eta Rants: Heavy Tanks, Future Tanks, and the M10 Booker

#eta320 #tank #tankhistory #livestream #highlights #streamhighlights
Along the lines of taking live streams and cutting them up, today I bring you a section of the hour + long tank rant I went on with my chat after a session of playing the original Half-Life. We had some interesting things to say on the development of heavy tanks after WWII, the M10 Booker and other new futuristic tanks, and a healthy debunking of the concept of the Air Deployable tank!
If you like what you see, check out my other videos, and my other channels.
Join my discord: / discord
I have a Patreon: / eta320
I Live Stream: / @eta320live4
I have a podcast: / @gettingside-trackedpo...
For business inquiries: [e-mail]

[@eta320]

As the intro says, I really wanted to post this because I found the topics interesting, and wanted to spark some discussion on this type of stuff, obviously criticism of my points is welcomed and encouraged. But, y'know, keep it civil. Check out the original stream on my LIVE channel - kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3fCeaWYp7xrkNE Updated list of Patreon Members (I really need to fix this IN the videos I'm so sorry) - Joseph O'Halloran - Brandon Hall - Little Z - Checo - Jacob Moore - Lukeisadog - Dynasoar - IAMDEPREST - hackerkm - Joseph Marshall - Sir Charles 'Foxtrot' Oscar - Battleship61 - Raz Reviews - blake smith

[@JustfullmetalEdge-rs7nl]

I think heavy tanks can definitely work however they have to be built for their weight. I'm a expert because I made a 87 ton tank in sprocket that goes pretty fast and obviously sprocket Is just as hard as real tank design

[@JustfullmetalEdge-rs7nl]

In all seriousness though what a heavy tank needs to work is it has to be built to handle the weight and not sacrifice too much in terms of mobility and such as to be not viable. I'd argue modern MBTs are heavy tanks though because of their weight and general firepower and protection. Sure they arent typical heavies but a Abrams that weighs nearly 80tons is definitely heavy

[@emperorofwarusthundus]

The it 1 was built on a t54 chasis but with less armor and no main canon only a atgm launcher, also the t62 chineese medium tank is the same as a t54 with a weirdly shaped t62 turett but with only 50mm of max armor and only a very very bad 85mm gun while the t62 turett has well over 200mm on the turett and the chasis has 210mm+ effectivness

[@catt0215]

I will completely ignore every disclaimer and take everything at face value, then blame you when you got something wrong

[@justbeq5177]

Absolutely based

[@sottourr]

Me

[@jaidenlopez9032]

based

[@dankovac1609]

Alkaline

[@democrack113]

Not based, completely acidic.

[@thepatrioticpole2269]

When he said the words "I like tank" I really felt that.

[@Prootgen]

Imma be honest how good a tank is in warthunder definitely affects a good chunk of people’s opinions on how good the tank is in reality

[@tablesizeproductions4360]

Sad but true.

[@Seris.]

About the air-deployability of a Weisel, it's really rather neat that they were light enough that you could stick them in a Sea Stallion helicopter and bring them with helicopter-borne troops. Dropping things out of a plane in active combat is a kind of stupid idea where as forward deploying it is not. Having a light mobile TOW/Fire support platform not so heavy that it breaks itself constantly and one doesn't demand an insane supply chain to give paratroopers rapid defence against Armor is inherently rather useful to me. The Wiesel is effectively just a lightly armored vespa.

[@justbeq5177]

but multi-purpose chassis existed since the cold war examples: -M113 -T-55 (ZSU-57-2 for example, also an example of a tank chassis that was modified with less armor) -MT-LB -BTR-60/70/80 -BRDM-1/2 -PT-76 -BTR-D

[@Vincent98987]

T-34

[@mr.jancok4413]

Don't forget that T72 also have many variant that have less armor, they are mostly arty and MLRS but they do exist and in service right now

[@EdyAlbertoMSGT3]

@@Vincent98987 T-34 didn't get a lot of use as more vehicle types though.... Not as far as i know at least. Kinda sad there was no anti-aircraft version of it.

[@Vincent98987]

​@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3phong kong T-34

[@aptpg4746]

it seems to me the best base to do multi-purpose chassis is probably ether an IFV or an APC

[@jaidenlopez9032]

When eta said he likes tank, I cam, cried, and whined… his words are so inspirational

[@easternspy1739]

9:00 If i can recall the MSTA-S is on an T-72 or T-90 chassis stripped from armour.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The MPF is meant for the heavier “rapid response forces” or heavy airborne forces. So there will still be paratroopers for jumping out of planes, while the units the MPF is primarily designed for already have a lot of heavy-ish equipment it’s difficult to dump out the back of an aircraft

[@TankGaming1942]

My favourite tank enthusiast

[@breadboysmokingmonkey8542]

Love your content man, IDC what happens please dont give up, you are awesome and I will watch you from any ac I make watched you sense the start around 1 year and 11 months ago and wont stop till you stop.

[@Blader445]

I also love interwar tanks! They’re so weird and interesting. Personal favorites include the Hotchkiss H35, the Vickers Mark VIB Light Tank, T-28 Medium Tank (nicknamed The Stagecoach by the Finnish), Italian M11/39, and the L-60. Modern Tanks are nice (I love the Merkava and LeClerc, as well as the Abrams because USA), but they’re not the same. If you want a fun short topic to cover, try the M45. It’s a assault version of the M26 armed with a M4 105 Howitzer. It was used briefly in Korea mainly.

[@lennyfieldy]

The place I see paradropped light armored vehicles being the most useful is when difficult to reach/reinforce friendly positions need that capability. In that situation you wouldn’t deploy them at the frontline or behind enemy lines, but behind your own position and drive them up to wherever they need to be. I think in that situation they would be very useful.

[@Drownedinblood]

Paradroppable light tanks would be much appreciated by paratroopers, even when think skinned, tank is tank, big gun that infantry aren't carrying, worst thing is just managing fuel.

[@blindedreaper6914]

Thank you for just being a true tank lover, I can't wait to see you grow, I wish you a happy halloween Eta!

[@no-legjohnny3691]

One major example of a tank chassis modified in the way you described is with the Communist Chinese and the type 62. From the outside, it looks like a run-of-the-mill T-54, but looking closer reveals a bunch of differences. Long story short, they basically made a Diet T-54, having SIGNIFICANTLY less armor, redesignating it as a light tank, and arming it with a smaller 85mm gun. It still largely uses the same stuff as a regular T-54, it's just downscaled to be as light as possible with the same general chassis. I also remember the Germans made various modifications of the Panzer 38 chassis to fit different roles. You had the traditional general use medium weight tank, there was a light scout version, one that used a 20mm open top turret, another used as a SPAA, one that was used as a open top tank destroyer, and of course the ubiquitous last ditch casemate tank destroyer/assault gun known fondly as the Hetzer.

[@gustaveliasson5395]

4:45 Nikita Khrushchev, General Secretary of the CPSU. The weight limit, iirc, was 37 tonnes. Edit: Apparently he made that decision on 22 July 1960.

[@BHuang92]

Mentioning how the French and Germans are collaborating again on a future MBT comes to show how little people learn. Do you have any idea how mind-boggling dysfunctional past collaboration in tank design have been resulting in a dead-end?

[@milojinvente7746]

I feel like its BECAUSE the french and germans have failed before that they might get it right this time. If you try and fail, you learn and next time you will do better, if nto get it right. Imo i am really hoping that it works this time, because it will be awsome if it does, so i am coping a litle.

[@Faded._]

​@@milojinvente7746right? Lol, don't know what this guy is on about

[@no-legjohnny3691]

I think the issue comes from every nation having a different idea of what they want from their vehicle. Using the MBT-70 program as an example, the resulting developments by Germany and America fundamentally split into the Leopard 2 and Abrams respectively. While the two tanks were relatively similar on paper due to the fact they took notes from the MBT-70 program, the Leopard and Abrams are VERY different tanks that catered to the interests of the countries that built them. France, like Japan, has always had a very strong reception to auto loader systems on their tanks. Germany however is perfectly content having a manual loader instead. Preferences like these that arise from differences in doctrine absolutely KILL any attempts to collaborate in building military equipment.

[@G31M1]

When we collaborated with the French to develop the Tiger attack helicopter it was a huge fuck up on our end. The german version apparently swallowed up tons of tax money while it doesn't even have a basic machine gun because an internal computer takes up too much space. At least we can shoot rockets that are more expensive than a middle class car, why bother with machines guns, right? The german tax payers won't mind.

[@mamarussellthepie3995]

@@Faded._ same exact thing they said the last few times lmao xd

[@darracqboy]

Like the spookston end credits music at the start

[@connorkaufmann9690]

EXCUSE ME, we respect Deference for Darkness around here...

[@obamnaprismus]

7:35 the EMBT looks both weird and badass at the same time. I honestly can't wait to see if this collaboration worksout, and doesn't suffer the MBT/KPZ 70 fate

[@jackgamer6307]

"Crewless turret, it was ahead of its time" *looks at Kpz-70*

[@Minotaur4005]

The Kangaroo is a Ram 2 modified to become an infantry carrier, although I'm pretty sure the armour is the exact same. I can't see any differences aside from having no turret. It's the closest I can think of to a tank that was modified to an IFV, and it's interesting which is why I pointed it out. I think the T14 is a great idea executed horribly. My reasoning for this is the fact that they still have that carousel style autoloader that's popular on the current Russian tanks in service, which I consider to be an absolutely horrible fit for the tank considering the crew is also in the hull. Why not have a bustle style autoloader like the Leclerc, if you do this, you can replace easily replace that turret with your IFV turret that also has a bustle style autoloader. Instead, we ended up with the longest MBT to date because everything an MBT needs is in the hull instead of spread out between the hull and turret. I don't have anything to add to the later parts of the video, I find airdropping stuff to be boring. Great Video, You're doing really good with more frequent uploads Eta

[@eta320]

The Kangaroo was the first vehicle that came to my mind even while making the point, but yes as you say, they never remanufactured it with less armor, they just ripped the turret off.

[@luigili8462]

On your point about less armor but the same chassis I think the ZSU-57-2 used a t54 chassis with a thinner upper front plate but I agree it is quite a rare occurrence, interestingly the opposite has also been envisioned, the strv 2000 was meant to be built on a modified strv 90 hull

[@luisrosraio9108]

ODST THEME MOMENT

[@harpundzija]

There are several examples of a chassis being used for an afv and having less armour then the base value. First example that comes to mind is the t54/55 and the AA variant the zsu57-2

[@Levexter69]

As an aircraft enthusiast i agree, its better to land the vehicles than paradroping them. Like its just really stupid for me.

[@karimhammam9105]

The beginning felt like a spookston end

[@yakumoyukari4405]

9:34 Abrams TTB did it first, Armata has almost nothing new in it

[@abas656thegodemperor9]

if it aint broke dont fix it (by that i mean the unmanned turret concept,the armata is definitely broken)

[@simethigsomethingidfk]

paradropping tanks theoretically can work pretty good. Though it would basically just have to be something like a AGMV with some 20-40mm armored plates welded onto it and a 90mm cannon in a remote control turret. The AGMV weighs 6000lbs so increasing that to 12,000lbs with armor and a gun able to take on tanks and provide infantry support would be useful. The AGMV was designed with the idea that they would air drop them along with a platoon to assault some key location like a airfield and then hold it for long enough to get some heavier reinforcements in while taking out anti air weapons to make that possible in the first place. A light tank to support a attack like that would basically just need enough armor to stop 30mm shells frontally and maybe some kind of APS to stop heavier shells.

[@vincediscombe7360]

9:10 you're normally so hot on Sherman knowledge, for it to have slipped your mind that the sherman chassis was used for everything from lightly armoured TD and artillery platforms to APCs and ARVs surprises me. The Pz IV chassis was used similarly; certainly the chassis was used for mobile-AA and artillery platforms

[@eta320]

Of course I remember the Sherman’s many alter egos! My point is that it’s not common for a tank to be totally rebuilt in the factory with thinner armor plate to save weight for a specific role. If I’m remembering correctly most of the stuff built on Sherman’s was just a conversion of what was already there, not a total remanufacture with less armor.

[@Ari.Atland]

The failures of the Airborne armour concept for the Allies in WW2 wasn't so much a failure of concept, but more so the vehicle in question being a failure. The vehicle in question was the M22 Locust which was notoriously unreliable in terms of track tension, this resulted in more M22s being disabled by their powertrains rather than enemy fire. The concept of deploying tanks where the enemy isn't expecting them still has a strategic benefit of disrupting line of battle & causing severe trauma/shock to the enemy. So in concept, airborne tanks are more a moral hinderence to the enemy than practical application.

[@katyusha1283]

9:10 Chinese Type 62 and ZSU-57-2 comes to mind

[@G31M1]

I think whoever developed the Leopard 1 after WWI realized that guns will always win the race against armor.

[@Drownedinblood]

Something like an ifv is more feasible than a tank tank. It provides faster transport for troops , carries shit, and can engage armor.

[@JustfullmetalEdge-rs7nl]

I think a modular body for vehicles should probably be mostly for lighter vehicles. I believe mbts should be purpose built I see a IFV as the exact opposite of a mbt almost

[@SCP-4217-A]

The c5 galaxy can load 2 M1A1's (upto the m1a1 sa (later upgrade packages go above the 70 ton mark thus overloading the c5, this hasn't stopped aircraft weaker than the c5 when under a great pilots contol), the c5 can carry 3 M10 bookers (calculated using projected weight of the M10 booker and the maximum carry weight of the C-5M galaxy)

[@matthewweeks113]

the m10 booker seems like the stug lol was ment for one thing and will be used as another.

[@noahvcat9855]

I mean this was pretty much a fact even a bit before and during ww2 but pretty much by the start of the cold war and beyond the protection of tank armor these days, you can only really hope to have and pretty much can only afford to have the frontal part of your tank to withstand shots from any sort of anti-tank weaponry like guns and such, everywhere else on a tank can be penetrated by anything else from autocannons to other tank guns of all sizes it don't matter so yeah Active-Protection systems are gonna be taking a more prominent role in tank protection with the front armor being able to withstand main tank gun shots

[@kaloyanvankov8907]

on the topic of making entire tank rant streams, I could listen to hours of these rants they're so enjoyable to have in the background and they're also quite interesting imo :D

[@connorisuncool]

Love the video man keep up the great work

[@Madduckk]

Idk why I don’t stay for these end of stream discussion

[@spinosaurusiii7027]

When the tank guy talks about tanks 😳

[@overcookedcorn1992]

18:15 - "Why not to air drop tank platoon with paratroopers?" - Soviet/Russian army

[@poignantfall9568]

ngl idk anything about tanks but your videos and some others I listen to when trying to sleep and you.lowkey make me interested in tanks ngl

[@eta320]

I love that you fall asleep to tank videos

[@poignantfall9568]

@@eta320 yeah theyre pretty interesting, before listening all i know about them was from games i play featuring them, theyre so much cooler than just big heavy car with a gun, never knew they'd be cooler than that

[@DJ_not_DJ]

I like this eta320 guy, his face is funny and he’s super smart

[@ianslaby5703]

Airdroping tanks is not entirely useless. It works in a situation kind of like the one you described except it doesn't marry you to prepared airstrips. You can use a large open flat piece of ground. Obviously airdroping behind enemy lines is stupid because any modern adversary will just knock the plane out of the sky with SAMs and now you just lost your valuable transport planes and your tanks.

[@bearofthewest7644]

8:30 About the subject of tanks being used for IFVs/APCs, I think it’s totally silly to criticize such an idea when the Israeli military has already implemented this idea into their tactics. While keeping all of their new Merkava Mk4 MBTs, they reuse all their old Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 tank hulls to become APCs. The thought is: in a practical Armored unit, the infantry vehicles only need to move as fast as the tanks in their unit do. By using these old tank hulls, they are able to recycle dumped hulls and give the infantry a much larger degree of protection and survivability over other APC designs. Israeli doctrine is all about survivability-if you can offer your troops more survivability, then there’s a better chance of them coming back home and participating in the next war with better experience. Thus, anything that can increase survivability of their troops is seen as a must-have. A reused tank hull with good armor and an Active Protection System, plus with a big engine at the front of the vehicle, is gonna be pretty dang survivable. So criticizing Germany and other nations for looking into the idea is pretty silly when the concept is already proven and rather realistic.

[@gerfand]

My favorite Tank is T-80U (specific) but my favorite ERA is 1970s max Europe like the stuff that is bad now like start using Early Lasers in some tanks

[@BigUziVert2190]

T-80 is easily the coolest looking Soviet tank tbh

[@gerfand]

The start of you video is literally "Hello I'm basically the real life dude version of Yukari Akiyama"

[@itzyaboimemez2074]

Its his spirit animal

[@lastecho3130]

As someone who has an interest in ww2 Italy, nearly everything is made out worse than they really were. If you ask a question, nearly half your responses will be myths or memes. The M13 (and M14) probably get the worst for Italian armor, despite overall being just a very average tank. Not the best, but by no means the worst. Flaws are pointed out, but its strengths usually are not.

[@hiphip4808]

Interesting thing about the T14 and its Chassis changing, the T15 seems to put the crew further in the rear than the T14 does. So It makes sense for why you're able to lighten the armor, I think its like a car Chassis, the important parts are the same but the body is different

[@Ukraniman]

Deploy tanks at the coast or near airbase using ground effect

[@EdyAlbertoMSGT3]

4:04 The FAL was gonna have an actually decent caliber i think, but the americans refused to use it unless it was rechambered :c

[@wolfgang_h3t]

And then we used the POS M14 anyways :)

[@1KosovoJeSrbija1]

9:00 the soviets did it with their 2S19 SPG for one

[@gerfand]

Armor with ships is another thing, look at Iowa which has like no armor, tho its angled, or better, Yamato, then look at the average DDG.

[@A_tank_A]

I love you content and you talk about the real things of tank combat because most people talk about the heavy tanks and how good they are but there really not. The best thing is who shoots first is most important

[@WenhopOfficial]

5:05 Yeah Krushchev put in a law saying that no tank could be bigger than 35 tons, though it’s also worth noting that he had a bias towards ATGMs.

[@FadedHistory4552]

Yes please do a vid on Italian tanks I won’t stop asking until it’s out

[@gerfand]

the T-14 idea is good, yeah I know most of times you don't see what happened to it, but, T-14 idea is to from start do that, not a Tank, but stuff like the HK416 having a LMG version, XM8 back in time, and from the Russians, the RPK on top of the AK. they have some different but its made from the start to do so, but the mags are the same

[@digit-zero]

Thought this was a Spookston video at the start

[@Madduckk]

Same

[@JazzzxD421]

M1 TTB existed before the t 14

[@JohnF0X]

Having a baseline hull/vehicle for several different jobs is nothing new, this has already been a thing in WW1 tbh, The male/female versions of the early Tanks were realy just the same tank with different armament. then in WW2 you had Stug based on Pz3, you had the SU and ISU tank destroyer/assault gun family based on KV, IS and T-34. The M10 is a modified Sherman, the Brumbär an Assault Mortar, Wirbelwind AA gun, the German Panzerjäger based on... i forgot if it was Pz1 or 2. Leopard 1 has several support vehicles based on the hull, Bieber(Bridge Layer) Bergepanzer 2(armored recovery vehicle). one of them the Gepard Self Propelled AA gun actualy has thiner armor on the hull, i belive 30mm on the upper front plate compared to 70 on leo1. the engine is also a different one with a lower output. The Abrams has mineclearing and armored recovery variants, as do the T72, 80 and 90. T72,80,90 also have Artilery systems on their hulls, may it be rocket or gun based. if you look at modern Tanks a lot of their armor is build in a modular fasison too like on Leclerc for example. The composite can easily be swapped out and replaced with different ones, having a family of vehicles you could use that aswell to change armor and weight depending on mission profile that all aside heavy IFVs already exist, the Puma ifv in german service has several different armor sets that are modular. the most protected armor set is on par with the protection of Leopard2A6 but weighs nearly 10 tons more than the Leopard

[@someasiandude2008]

i thought i got tricked into a spookston video

[@someoneunusual7186]

I'm pretty sure somebody has shown me before a document regarding a battle report of an on-patrol Greyhound damaging and successfully taking a King Tiger out of action from the back. I probably just have dementia 🥹

[@gerfand]

okay I have a problem with the F-35 thing... no not past the Horizon... past "visual range"

[@mr.jancok4413]

reducing armor of a tank chassis to serve different purposed was and is being use however almost on every case the armor was reduce as it wasn't needed, things like the "kangaroo" Sherman do have the same armor as the original Sherman but other than that most don't have the same armor as the original chassis heck even the German WWI A7V have a supply carrier variant it's called Überlandwagen, it's on the same chassis it have the same engine but it look nothing like the A7V we know and loved for paradropping tanks behind enemy line I do agree that it isn't practical as the main function of paratrooper is holding key position and sabotaging until the main force arrive, and adding a tank no matter how small it is it only gonna cause more headache for planning and logistic

[@tangydiesel1886]

Yeah, parachuting tanks is one of those ideas that sounds good until you think about it. Paratroopers are suppose to be semi independent for support, and a tank doesn't allow that, it needs a supply chain. Plus parachuting tanks near the enemy sounds like giant target practice. Like you said, land them at a controlled airfield with the logistics to support it, and then send it.

[@luthfihar3211]

24:30 it sounds like you don't play the command & conquer series cause that's a staple in that game

[@Vollpfosten]

Wasn't the Gepard on a down armored Leopard 1 chassis?

[@wifi_soldier5076]

also reguarding the russian heavy ifv built on the t14 armata. there is also the kurganets 25 ifv which is much lighter. also Germany has the Puma ifv, which although not built on a tank chassie is still a very heavy ifv that weighs 43 tones.

[@RECKER-rv7nd]

Marder family and the AGS program never existed

[@irishkiwi477]

Air deployed tanks are good if you dont have a runway, or you can't get a vehicle over terrain that infantry can, if your infantry can secure a position in hostile terrain that vehicles couldnt get to before and then call in a vehicle for the rest of their mission then air dropping has a place, the only combat deployed vehicles i think are worth using is light transport and weapon carriers, like the vespa with a bazooka.

[@juannixs1524]

And don't forget to Inspect and X-ray Tanks armor, and to get Blueprint items, click *dealership* then *Blueprints* , then you need In-Game currency aswell to buy Blueprint, and needed recoursces that you got from Crates, and Common, Rare, Epic, Legendary, and Mythical crates they have a chance of dropping a UR/Ultra Rare Item, and it's pretty hard enough, they said that you need to open 2000 to get 1 Ultra Rare i geuss....., and haven't i mentioned this? you can downtier Guns, hulls or even Turret, and if it's over top, it will make the tank tier to higher tier, and You need a Little bit of skills aswell, if you are either on tier 7-8 or 9-10 or even 11-12

[@KnobleKnight2002]

Why not call the MPF a medium? Its not light, but not heavy. It isn't meant to engage other tanks, but it CAN engage other tanks effectively enough. Its not the fastest, but not slow by any means. I mean all of the things you can say about it SCREAM "I'm in the medium-class". Just my opinion though.

[@tophatcat6424]

I hope you talk more about Italian tanks. There isn't any videos out there on them that is anywhere near your style

[@Sony_SquareJpeg]

Epic

[@bruvrep]

Bro did the funny spookston intro! (spookston needs to create more informative videos nowadays)

[@JustfullmetalEdge-rs7nl]

The T14 is absolutely the right idea for a modern tank HOWEVER it was poorly produced by a country that doesn't have a advanced military

[@gerfand]

I like the idea of the M10 but no the way its done because I like Land Science fiction Think like this, you have an space nation that is composed of some 4 Core, fully controlled planets, and 6 planets with independent nations inside them, and other large nations, warfare is extremely feudal, so you have this "knight force" mostly made of heavy units with professional infantry, tanks, mechas if you want to add that, etc, and you have your Militias, the Militias get locally made stuff, which can be made standard if needed, but the thing is they are not as good, but it is there, and its gonna hold the line until your professional force gets there, its also gonna be able to defend from raiders and peace keep places. if we use Russia (just using as example no politics here) since they do that, imagine a T-55 or T-62 level that is made locally by the Donesk republics, but then you have also an professional army of proper tanks, like a bunch of T-72

[@fabovondestory]

Do you know Sinsheim?

[@mikemcginley6309]

Good stuff. But. Spend some time learning basic military formations,the role of each branch,logistics, combined arms, and a shitload of other stuff. Playing games are fun,even the military does them. But video games are not a good way to learn about tanks. They're a great starting point, but to truly understand tanks requires much more. You're doing a good job so far,keep it up.

[@eta320]

My tank knowledge these days is all drawn up from books and youtube, its been forever since I've played a tank video game recreationally. I agree I'll need to be better with the military side of things, but at the moment developmental tank history is my focus as its what I find the most interesting. I'm also SUPER rusty on modern tanks and would not even consider myself to be a voice worth listening to in that department, I'm just not all that interested in them at the moment.

[@night2957]

Notification gang

[@amazingman3023]

worst tank of them all has to be either tog 2 or ferdinand

[@barrycabbageM34]

28 minutes of rambling? yes please.

[@Tigertank131]

Please make a video about swedish tank modern Used to day tank 🇸🇪

[@comradclumsy1484]

i hava seen this before hihi

[@pij_]

IS 7 video when

[@chost-059]

Modern day MBT's are like heavy tanks without the downsides of heavy tanks aside from weight

[@ComfortsSpecter]

Eh Comprehension, Decent Presentation, Great Care Getting Massive Sturmtiger Vibes from all The Models Mentioned Great Affects and Good Doctrinal Justification Horrible-Inept way of Doing It I Love These Explorations of Survivable-Automated and Cheaper Tanks Been Waiting Years for This Actual Progress They just Aren’t Doing It Right and They’re Failing Their Own Low Standards What a Waste

[@torbjrnsteinsland8985]

Bro thinks he's Lazerpig. 💀

[@Faded._]

Go away

[@torbjrnsteinsland8985]

@@Faded._ okay. 😔

[@Faded._]

@@torbjrnsteinsland8985 I'm sorry dad

[@comradclumsy1484]

10:18🤓👆

[@eta320]

am I wrong tho?

[@comradclumsy1484]

@@eta320 no, lol

[@TabiTheCat]

Fish

[@jussi8111]

lets be honest, the M11/39 was a pretty bad tank like the italians must have know even a little what other nations had and still go "this is a good idea"

[@Drownedinblood]

So 2030 ww3?

[@Cool_guy-i1u]

Boring, where is the eta feet pics I was promised y’all said in the discord

[@plasticfuzzball9962]

paradroping tanks would never work in the "blink and you die" airspace of russia, if we learn litterally anything from the world right now its that in eastern europe, you cannot fly safely.

[@mamarussellthepie3995]

Ytp m1 exists Us modernizes it (m1a1-2) Now they want vehicles that are basically just the m1 again, lmao 🤣 M1: (literally just an armored IFV with the capability to be a tank fighter) xD Having a significantly lighter armored tank to only maybe tank (probably never) something like a bradley or 50mm gun is just shooting yourself in the foot lmao xd

[@ajented3364]

I do not care about logic I what 200 tones heavy mbt for no real reason

[@gerfand]

M10 is just a infantry Tank, but instead of the Cruiser being a crowmell and the infantry tank being a Churchill, the Cruiser is a Comet or a Crusader, and the infantry tank is a Valentine

[@awesom6588]

I don’t understand why ETA can not grasp the concept of air deployable tanks. He doesn’t even get the air maneuverable part either. Air droppable is a bit niche, but you need a mobile platform with a gun to support your paratroopers. Paratroopers are not outrunning a weisel, it doesn’t slow them down. The platform gives them greater operational flexibility. Air maneuverable means it should be able to be moved to any FOB without disassembly and in large numbers. The MPF is not either one. It can only be carried by a C17, it should be deployable by a C130 so it can reach FOBs. C17 is a massive plane that can only land at large airports, MPF provides no realistic advantage over the Abrams. Ok, you can carry 2 instead of one but the MPF is about half as capable as an Abrams. The MPF is basically comparable to a M48A2 patton for gods sake. Complete failure of a concept

[@eta320]

You bring up a good point with “Air Maneuverable” that I hadn’t thought about, and it echos the sentiment I had seen from others about the MPF. I think I do ultimately agree, that on those merits the MPF does seem to be less than ideal. However I still defend that air deployable tanks are just… not worth the effort. I concede that I’m not a paratrooper, so I have no place to tell them what they do and don’t want. But I still think the difficulties of paradropping a tank (even one like a Wiesel), and not having it break on landing or fall in a tree, are too great. I’m sure we can developer better tech for the job, but like I say in the video, I don’t think the US military is interested as that stuff just isn’t getting support. Whether that’s a good or bad call I don’t know. I also think my point about what the Military thinks of the idea is still relevant here. The idea that “well sure we could paradrop a Wiesel for support, but if we are going through the effort of paradropping a tank it might as well be a tank tank. Not an auto cannon on tracks.” So the US only seems interested in the idea if they can do it with something big, which incurs all the negatives. Again I can’t say whether that’s a good or bad idea but it’s what’s happening. The US has no interest in paradropping something as small as a Wiesel (at the moment) even though that is probably the best form factor of vehicle for the job. As a result they’ve built something too heavy for that task, and also ruined its Air Maneuverability potential. A story that’s played out 1,000 times in US light tank history. I’m sad to see it happen but am curious to see if the MPF can still prove it’s worth.

[@minus7621]

Schizophrenic tank rants is something we can all make but seldom do people have the correct mix of mental illnesses to put it on youtube for everyone else to watch.