Future Main Battle Tank [FMBT] - Tank Design & Development

[@Vespuchian]

You’ve certainly outdone yourself in regard to creative iconography! I’m particularly amused that the icon for ‘the Americans’ looks like FW’s Ian in a silly hat.

[@armouredarchives8867]

hahah hadnt noticed...but now you say it ..

[@petter5721]

I read that the Swedish S-tank was tested in UK, Germany and the US. It was quite successful during these tests and the reports were classified. It would be interesting to find more info about this topic....

[@armouredarchives8867]

the Later Stank traisl are part of this project and a whole lot of sneakiness goign on behind the scenes, well look at those too :)

[@pierredussf]

I have a 64 year history in armored warfare and development and think this is excellent. You have an excellent basis for a really useful book here. Great illustrations I've seen no where else and dialogue you can easily turn to print. It might well be expensive and for a rather limited audience. Perhaps an Indiegogo project. I'd buy.

[@stuartdodman9817]

Great work fella! Keep 'em coming, really enjoying these vids.

[@armouredarchives8867]

Thanks, will do! :)

[@ADB-zf5zr]

@@armouredarchives8867 I am looking for part 2 and 3 etc of this fantastic series of "Forgotten Tanks" that you are covering, I wish that you TY channel was as meticulous as your Tank History :*

[@kirgan1000]

9:06 What was the flaw in the doctrin? Infantery with western anti tank missiles can blunt/repulse a armor attack, and a western style combined arms armor thrust have incredible striking power, the technology of anti tank missiles and attack helicopters may not be "mature" at that date, but its not the doctrin that is flawed.

[@mikedrop4421]

Cone of Arc has shared a precious gem with us.

[@sharlin648]

I'd never heard of this tank at all, fascinating stuff!

[@MrOhdead]

Thank you for the vid, especially the bit that explains the 110mm, had wondered about that.

[@CthulhuInc]

great video, ed -it's good to see just how tanks develop from idea to battleground, and all the fun in between

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@williamsquare2669]

brilliant, high level info, aboveand beyond norma "wargame" info.

[@armouredarchives8867]

ty. yes a lot to cover - i have all the text, i have most of tanks themselves. but people/places/meetings are image free. so went with a new style

[@dereksg7510]

Love your content. However, pls change your mic or increase your mic volume for future videos pls. Can hardly hear you

[@afanofblacksabbath269]

Can't wait for part 2 your videos are amazing

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad you like them!

[@petesheppard1709]

Great information! It's easy to see how this is fundamental to subsequent developments. BTW, I like the video length. A nice, digestible snippet.

[@armouredarchives8867]

Awesome, thank you!

[@petesheppard1709]

@@armouredarchives8867 :)

[@diepanzerkanone1172]

I've been waiting for this one... awesome!!

[@Simon_Nonymous]

The format works fine for me thank you!

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Love this series, great information

[@tomsmith2209]

Excellent, looking forward to the next video.

[@general-sorentyto3021]

This is quiet interesting! I’ve always wanted to know more about The FMBT-70 project and it’s designs, although there wasn’t much info out there.

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@yanickgenest1324]

NOOO ! I wanted to see the bizarre ones ! Hehe. Jokes aside, that was very interesting. Good job. I would have loved to see or participate in these meetings...

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Great work ! Keep coming, really enjoying these vids*

[@ADB-zf5zr]

Just discovered your videos and channel, well into my second video and wondered about the distant siren noises... took me a while to figure out that it was in your video and not my street :) . Please keep this up, your stuff is 100% :D

[@armouredarchives8867]

Welcome aboard!

[@rodroper211]

excellent looking forward to next instalments

[@armouredarchives8867]

Thanks!

Very interesting so far. Off to Video 2 :)

[@captiannemo1587]

SWEET. Way to go Ed!!

[@armouredarchives8867]

DAWWWWWwww ty Nemo

[@WOTArtyNoobs]

Last time I was this early, I was THE sperm!

[@Wastelandman7000]

You're not wrong about TVs from back then LOL

[@slateslavens]

3:20 LOL, Kilroy was here!

[@leondillon8723]

0:31)Looks like the German WW II Sturmgeschutz (StuG III & IV). Sweden's Stridsvagn with a 105mm main gun. also, 1 or 2 other panzers. 11:20)High Explosive Anti Tank. 12:05)150mm = 6.85 inches. 1mm = 0.039 inch.

[@pontuswendt2486]

AMAZINGNES!!!

[@Vinc-bee]

very nice ! keep it up

[@armouredarchives8867]

Thank you, I will

[@davidhorn5771]

If it does not have a fully traversable turret, it is not a "tank." - former M60A1 driver who served in the Fulda Gap.

[@kuhaku9587]

Being a tanker doesn't make you right tho.

[@lonesurvivalist3147]

Many nations militaries would seem to disagree with you

[@wonniewarrior]

I always wondered if the S-tank was classified as a tank officially or as a tank destroyer / hunter such as WW2 concepts (such as Stugs or Jagds). But then tank destroyers in WW2 (M10, M18) were in appearance to tanks anyway.

[@differentsayer]

The designation is a consequence of its doctrinal usage: if the army uses it as a tank, it is one. It's features are irrelevant.

[@mitchwatson6787]

If you spell Aluminium with a second 'i' - you're not speaking English. -English speaker

[@samj.s3132]

Good video!

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@captiannemo1587]

Should really be more clear when you say 5 inch Heat Protection or 84mm Heat Protection. 84mm being the Carl Gustav's HEAT round. And thus it is a 5 inch in diameter HEAT Warhead. So as to not get people into thinking it is a literal 5 inches in length protection.

[@armouredarchives8867]

good point

[@davidrobertson5700]

I got the idea , hey stop being picky. Read my comment I added separately

[@brianclarke3880]

Those people at MVEE certainly earned their crust😉

[@RedXlV]

Interesting that this 110mm gun never went anywhere. Even with the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore rendering it obsolete, you'd thing that there would've been interest in giving some more punch to lighter armored vehicles that are too small to handle a 120mm.

[@armouredarchives8867]

oh it did the US showed interest and it was part of the XM1 project for a whiel, too M48's were also fitted with them, the short and logn for trials, but no photos

[@genericpersonx333]

Mind, one of the big aspects of tank gun design is that while the guns evolve, so does the ammunition, and often it is found more cost-effective to improve the ammunition going into an old gun than trying to make a new gun altogether. Indeed, as we speak, there are some 105mm ammunition that probably exceeds the ability of the original 120mm ammunition in some aspects.

[@antonytheocharidis9576]

"thermal imaging had been in the military arsenal since World War 1" That sounds like a stretch. I would appreciate being proved wrong, if you have said sources.

[@armouredarchives8867]

cheesy to use wiki, but the links in the sources are better en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera#cite_note-8

[@jammiedodger7040]

Why does Britain not make tank guns anymore

[@armouredarchives8867]

thatchersold off the firms that made them, so we have no capability any more

[@jammiedodger7040]

@@armouredarchives8867 would it be possible to bring the capability back

[@armouredarchives8867]

@@jammiedodger7040 unlikley tbh, once a trade is dead its dead, if we brought it back we would need to have germqan or american engineers show the new lot how, so you would end up with german or US clone guns really

[@kuhaku9587]

@@armouredarchives8867 you can learn it back but it would be a lot of trial and error and would be a few year back for a while until the trade is up to the modern standard.

[@gato2]

How do you have only 16k subscribers?

[@armouredarchives8867]

fairly new, 1yr ish, i try tho

[@covidhoax7646]

T-64 tank already had those in 1964. So these were not new ideas at the time.

[@timsweet3224]

gotta pic of the jagd cheiftain big piece of chobham on front it says inna dee book.

[@armouredarchives8867]

oh thats jot the CTR, she was in this family but there are quite a few of thse, well cover CTR as wel progress along this story, as well as many many more

[@timsweet3224]

@@armouredarchives8867 yarp good show i say .

[@rafebingham3968]

WHERE'S THE BOOK!!!!! 😁😁😁

[@kiwiruna9077]

If Drachinifel can do 2 hour ship videos + go longer please

[@cryohellinc]

Know the difference between publicly available information and actually hard to find content that Ed does that takes a lot more time and research? Give it a good thought before you write some more thick nonsense next time

[@GlowingSpamraam]

@@cryohellinc around minute 1:30 he mentions the video is condensed since he has alot on the development The original comment is in response to that and he is saying he would like less condensed vids with more info So chill mate

[@armouredarchives8867]

to be fair i like Dracs stuff, but if i was to go over every page (and some of it is pretty hard going) at a brisk 2 mins per page of text it would be a vid 100 hours long - so i condense it down to the most important parts while dropping the irelevant bits for 99.9% of viewers as just what filling a cusion inside a tank should be made of, can be mentioned but doesnt need 30 mins on. stuff like that.

[@kiwiruna9077]

@@armouredarchives8867 I hadn't meant to start a war, my comment was partly tongue in cheek ,but also to show that I at least would be happy with longer videos, I suspect that many of Drachs subscribers are also here,so would probably be able to handle 60min+ videos. But obviously it's all about what works for you, I suspect there may be topics that will warrant longer vids in time. In any case keep posting as your subject is really interesting.

[@armouredarchives8867]

no worries, no war :) i will try longer in places on some stuff, this one tho took much longer, over 20hrs to do, mostly in the little naimatiosn and editign bits all on PS/Openshot etc.

[@SanityWasTaken]

If the cybertruck was a tank

[@danreed7889]

US Army's doctrine- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle

[@armouredarchives8867]

not entirley sure how/why that is relevant to this subject?

[@danreed7889]

@@armouredarchives8867 At the beginning you discussed on how the designers felt on how the vehicle would serve-the US had the same ideas.

[@armouredarchives8867]

@@danreed7889 oh ok im with you now, right, sry it was hard to get the context of the link. :)

[@andrewnoonan4044]

You really don't like Bovington much do you.... lol

[@armouredarchives8867]

quite the opposite, i love the place and had been going since age 5 and worked in the archives, but i think its poorly run at the top and a lot of stuff goes on the public dont know about

[@andrewnoonan4044]

@@armouredarchives8867 Thanks for the reply. I have my own nickname for managers. I call them "manglers". But, you did make mention of Bovington staff wrecking some of the rare tanks on the ranges which is an action of lower level staff rather than just managers. Do you have any commentary on their plans to get rid of some of the tanks they hold?

[@widescreennavel]

How come no one wears a monocle anymore? I expect Elon Musk to wear one someday, in a desperate attempt at relevance.

[@armouredarchives8867]

he also needs a small pencil moustache to twiddle while revealing his plans

[@fredorman2429]

So many conflicting variables, then add politics and regionalism.