Old US Junk Shows Stunning Results In Russia-Ukraine War

[@JamesKirk-q9b]

It’s fair to say that the equipment that was sent wasn’t junk after all

[@LuvBorderCollies]

I figured there had to be a lot in some forgotten cave. The WW1 French fast firing 75mm could probably find uses in limited situations, if it was still around with ammo.

[@m2hmghb]

No, it's just our definition of junk and the russian's definition are completely different.

[@CaptApple]

Yeah, silly damned premise.

[@CaptApple]

@@m2hmghb LOL. True.

[@Tigerous]

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure.

[@waheex]

The idea that old means useless is bizarre

[@That_Guy_Says_Hi]

It began in the sixties.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Early in 2022 maybe two months into the war, I was seeing quite a few US "light"machineguns M1919 even a couple firing with cloth belts. That was a blast from the past but just as deadly as ever. The ammo also had been stored in perfect conditions, with no rust or corrosion. Just beautiful new looking brass.

[@MalcolmRose-l3b]

@@LuvBorderCollies I saw a couple of videos where the Ukrainians were firing M1910 Maxims - everybody was laughing at them but they were perfectly serviceable weapons doing exactly what they were designed to do - a sustained fire role defending a fixed position. The fact the Ukrainians were using a weapon that was 70-100 years old was irrelevant - the main improvements since those were made have been to improve mobility but since the weapon wasn't going anywhere those improvements were irrelevant. They were still capable of laying down a beaten zone and all the other stuff you want from a machine gun.

[@guessundheit6494]

@@MalcolmRose-l3b The idea of Russia using T-34s in tank battles is laughable. But if used as mobile artillery in close combat or as towing vehicles, they're still capable.

[@orion3253]

This video is almost certainly based off of an AI generated script.

[@MoralHazard-g1e]

I've worked at the China Lake Weapons Reservation, hundreds of square miles of ammo bunkers above death valley. Under those conditions, munitions can easily last for decades.

[@tedoptional-p8l]

Or 80 years even.

[@m2hmghb]

Store it in a climate controlled area (underground is great) with low humidity and ammo will last.

[@realhorrorshow8547]

A lot better than the North Korean stuff Putin is paying top dollar for, that's for sure.

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

My grandfather brought a .303 immediately after WW2, it had a cleaning rod and a hand written poem about Egypt in the buttstock, it very probably had been in N.A. It was obviously not new, but is not bad. That was in 1947. He brought 200 rounds of ammo for it, and never even used 50 he hunted for meat. It sat in a cupboard until he died in 1989, my dad got it, cleaned it though it didn't need it he said, put it and the rounds into the back of his gunsafe, and put it out of bounds for us boys. He used to have a dehumidifier in the room the gun safe was in, and run it once a week or so but I am sure it hadn't been run for the last good long while. When dad died in I got his guns which none of them had been fired since probably around 1980?. I have a .222 myself already, almost never hunt anymore, certainly no expert about firearms, just used to shoot for fun when I was a teen, 45 years ago and go hunting once or twice a year. I took the .303 to the range just because I never fired the actual proper Kiwi weapon of WW2, had the trusty old guy there look it over just in case he had some advice. Asked him if the ammo was any good "Yeah? Why wouldn't it be?". The cardboard boxes they were in looked brand new. I had him show me how to sight it, straightforward, could have done it without asking but why not let him teach me, he was happy to. Fired it twenty times, twenty five including the sighting. Just one dud round, primer didn't fire.

[@MrGivmedew]

That did rate is excessively high but back to your point… it probably had nothing to do with the age of the ammo. Either the ammo was like that when it was new or it’s the guns age or just how it’s made that caused the issue. I often fire incredibly old surplus and I agree that the stuff is fine even after being stored 50-80yrs. Most of the ammo I use Korean War/Vietnam era because I won’t use the old stuff if it has corrosive primer though. Interestingly though it is the corrosive primers that last the longest with the primers typically expected to still fire after centuries not decades. Non corrosive surplus can get a bit picky in its late age.

[@Soulessdeeds]

The absolute BALLS to show a M2 after saying "OLD JUNK". Those old girls sing just as fine as they did back in the 1930's. Edit: Not talking about the Bradley (M2). Talking about the M2 machinegun.

[@reaperbsc]

The Bradley is is over 40 years old. The design program that lead to the Bradley started in 1969... We can do much better now is all he was saying. And that's true.

[@ToolofSociety]

@@reaperbsc The concept of the Bradley is over 40 years old but the equipment is not. The F15 is over 50 years old. The F22 is over 27 years old The M4 is over 37 years old The M2 ma duece is over 106 years old The B52 is over 72 years old. Age of the platform matters to an extent but what you bolt on to that platform matters more. For example the M1 abrams MBT is over 52 years old at this point. You can't tell me that the first abrams with it's 105mm rifled gun is anywhere near the capability of a modern sepv3 M1.

[@andrewgates8158]

New and improved....self headspacing.

[@DEP717]

Methinks the poster means the same thing, the same reaction I had. The M-2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun. Still a very effective piece of equipment. There were no M-2 Bradleys around in the 1930s, though I am sure that General Omar Bradley and a few of his friends (George Patton comes to mind) would have loved to have them!

[@paulflak2823]

This comment is coming from a no nothing civilian.

[@pedalpower57]

M 101 was solid and very dependable, the ease of use allowed a short learning curve to operate

[@razvananghel7492]

The problem with the M101 was its range. or lack of. 7 miles is not acceptable in a modern warfare environment, and the gun was scrapped. Also, the 105 caliber is too low for many targets. 105mm howitzers had their hay days in WW2 and the M101 showed its shortcomings already as early as Vietnam War and especially in Irak and Afghanistan. Where the American Expeditionary Corps relied on artillery from allies like Romania that brought 152mm guns with 30mile+ range that offered great cover for the soldiers patrolling the area around the bases, where most attacks came from and. The 101 was useless with its very short range. Thats why the M777 was developed, which is magnitudes better than the M101

[@946towguy2]

@@razvananghel7492 7 miles is plenty for a front line close support gun (2x range and 4x the explosive of 81mm mortar) and the 105 does a wonderful job of turning infantry into hog feed or light armored vehicles into scrap. It can be towed behind a pickup and can be air dropped.

[@meilinchan7314]

Patton would be proud to see Khokhols using them. He was deeply anti-Russian.

[@razvananghel7492]

@SpyderNL where did i mention the D20? that 50s era piece of crap

[@Xiaengao]

@@razvananghel7492 Obviously they weren't scrapped.

[@tomanders5958]

As Corey said, old does not mean dead and new does not mean best

[@katyelder.5]

Same with people 😊

[@VineGrove123]

Most of the old men in America are tougher and stronger than the young ones.

[@chuckabbate5924]

And that applies to a great many things.

[@DEP717]

Quite a few U.S. Marines protested when the 60mm Mortar was retired. They liked them for portability on stuff like Airmobile or Amphibious Operations.

[@zedeyejoe]

Ukraine has also found the old Russian PM M1910 7.62mm WW1 machine gun has been highly effective. Keep it fed with ammunition and water and it will fire all day. Ukraine just updated them with modern sights

[@truck6859]

Amazing.

[@tedmoss]

Getting tired of changing the barrels on the M-60?

[@ToolofSociety]

@@tedmoss air cooled vs water cooled.

[@NJPurling]

Hiram Maxim would be dancing on top of his tombstone. We British had the Vickers. To dispose of surplus ammunition they fed it to a Vickers. For a week, continuously. Total 5 Million rounds. They stopped to replace barrels & top off the water. After they were done the weapon was checked & found to be still within spec.

[@juhajuntunen7866]

Maybe tiny radar and aiming computer to use it against drones?

[@jasonariola6363]

There were a lot of people from the Korean War that were very thankful for those guns

[@ohnodevo]

The browning M2 .50 has not changed in all it's years of use. It's been in use for almost a century. It is not junk; they just built it right the first time.

[@dspencer1969]

Ma Deuce

[@tedoptional-p8l]

The German based M-60 is good also.

[@946towguy2]

There were certainly changes from the 1920's to the mid 1940's but they haven't changed much since 1955.

[@dposcuro]

It was a great design for it's time, but it is certainly feasible to design a better .50 caliber MG today. Dual feed, proper quick change barrel mechanism that doesn't require timing or headspacing, a little lighter, all are possible. But the cost would be enormous, and the functional benefit would be miniscule.

[@ohnodevo]

@@dposcuro I agree with what you say. Still, for being built almost 100 years ago they sure knew how to design for the time.

[@jackbarnhill9354]

105mm howitzer is the standard weapon for light, airborne, and air assault units.

[@NeroontheGoon]

Still…

[@DeadLikeMe-ir9ix]

Nothing is obsolete as long as it works. All weapons kill!

[@JWWhiteTX]

There it is

[@InHellBaby1]

This is ridiculous. These weapons are certainly not junk.

[@Cp-rp5tr]

If its designed good,its timeless!

[@Group_Anonymous]

its junk on paper, now please STFU

[@1ntwndrboy198]

It's man made. If not maintained it will be junk.

[@Canthus13]

Compared to the new, shiny toys they are. Look at the Air Force and how they've been trying to get rid of the A-10 for decades. It's not sexy enough for them. And without the constant upgrades and maintenance up until the point they were stored, they would be. And without the advanced fire control and precision drone spotting they have now, they would be. It's the tightly networked artillery system they're using (Apps custom written to work with the drones. Back in the early days of the war they were collecting old tablets to repurpose into artillery 'terminals', for lack of a better term. That new capability is what has brought them out of the 'junk' status.

[@BigBrainBrian]

I've restored several WW1 and WW2 firearms and they are 100% as effective as any modern guns. I've even fired WW2 surplus ammo through my M-1 Carbines - no problem.

[@chrissmith7669]

I have heard that it’s dangerous to try and fire modern ammo through these barrels. Just never meant for the high pressure modern rounds generate

[@JohnSmith-pl2bk]

@@chrissmith7669 If you are talking about rifles and pistols.... the modern standards for ammo made in the USA are actually lesser pressures than some of the old ammo.... the danger comes from old ammo made for a particular purpose e.g. submachine guns.....being used in pistols. I have fired ammo manufactured in 1903, 1915, 1924, 1941 and 1953 .303 British ammo in the 1990's... and they all went bang and hit the target....

[@allangibson8494]

The problem with old ammunition is unpredictable yields (due to degradation of the powder) leading to poor accuracy. Cordite loads are particularly vulnerable to this as they sweat nitroglycerin out of the mix leading to detonation rather than deflagration on ignition.

[@jtstacey83]

It's because back then, those women on the line knew that a bullet, gun, plane, jeep, and so on could be used by their loved one, and they worked as hard as possible to ensure that the item worked.

[@Canthus13]

Yeah, but they also had way heavy ammo (aside from the M-1 Carbine, maybe). The advances in gun design aren't about how well they fire down a range. It's about weight, ease of use for the average soldier, accessories, and ease of battlefield maintenance.

[@Jacob-W-5570]

An old shell that lands is always better then a new shell that doesn't get fired.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Exactly! In warfare, reliability and effectiveness are key, and sometimes older equipment performs just as well, if not better, than newer tech.

[@SlideRulePirate]

To call it junk is simply to rephrase "the best is the enemy of the good". Circumstantially true at best.

[@ta192utube]

Isn't the expression, "The perfect is the enemy of the good enough."?

[@BiGDuke6Actual]

Fair to say - if these 'junk' weapons are neutralizing Russian assets - they're not junk

[@dantruong2582]

Basically stuff from the US was stored properly and still works correctly. Stuff from old USSR and N.Korea, well we already know.

[@ZERO-F2G-]

Are you so confident with our out dated nuclear ballistic missiles? They are way past expected shelf live, meanwhile Russia's are fresh. Lets hope we don't have to find out!

[@dantruong2582]

@@ZERO-F2G- bad Putin Bot bad.

[@jamesflaherty8739]

​@@ZERO-F2G-Why is Russia losing to a small country full of farmers and so it wants to blow up the world? Pathetic.

[@cubed0724]

@@ZERO-F2G- Incorrect, the US can spend the money to update their nuclear stockpile whereas Russia can't. It's part of federal law that nuclear ballistic missiles be constantly updated.

[@mtaylor3771]

@@ZERO-F2G- People always think America's enemies are 10 feet tall. Look at the Russian military. Putin spent the last 20 years modernizing it and yet it has FAILED miserably in Ukraine. The systemic rot has been exposed. Poor training, leadership, tactics and logistics. But somehow, their NUCLEAR weapons are the best maintained and most modern in the world.

[@carlmaruyama6863]

I follow an auto mechanic on KZbin. One of his favorite sayings is, ‘just because it’s new, doesn’t make it good”. There are so many old phrases that could apply: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, why reinvent the wheel. If these “old” weapons can still shoot, damage, and kill, use it.

[@alexandermartincausey7333]

@SouthMainAuto

[@jackjones9460]

Old and “obsolete” doesn’t mean ineffective. The M2HB .50 Caliber has been used for almost 100 years now!

[@marzinjedi6437]

It’s only obsolete when we forget how to use it !

[@jonnyboy8000]

A sword is an ancient weapon, but it can still kill you

[@DrakeN-ow1im]

...and a small pocket knife can as well.

[@GTFour]

Same as a stick

[@philipthecow]

sure, but as European colonization showed, guns are much better than swords.

[@DrakeN-ow1im]

@@philipthecow Only if you have enough ammunition.

[@philipthecow]

@@DrakeN-ow1im Lol, real life isn't Farcry 3. Ammo's cheap for what you get, and has gotten relatively cheaper. My point that Europeans shows guns >> swords still stands.

[@adrianlane4256]

And there’re Americans who complain about the cost of supporting Ukraine. Reality is, Ukraine has done America a favour by taking this aid.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

And using it to fight Russians, which is something that we would have had to do sooner or later, and based on what is happening in Ukraine, it may be much later. If Ukraine and the sanctions are successful, we may see the end of Russian aggression. They will know that if they can't beat Ukraine, they don't stand a chance against NATO.

[@David-gh6vp]

@@shenmisheshou7002 This is all true and to the point. Additionally, an unintended benefit of the WAR in Ukraine, is the knowledge that Western weapons are generally superior, even to the point that Russia's best missiles [e.g. kinsils] can be brought down with Patriots. . .

[@cvr527]

@@David-gh6vp You dont have the slightest clue what you are talking about. NONE!!!!

[@cvr527]

Americans are sick and tired of bankrolling every war across the globe.

[@razvananghel7492]

@@cvr527 butthurt russian spotted

[@tedoptional-p8l]

You go to war with the equipment you have.

[@natehill8069]

Especially when the war comes to you

[@SteveW-lb2hc]

The Ukraine war is a win win for the Americans, they get to ship old obsolete weapons to Ukraine saving an absolute fortune on the disposal costs, also Ukraine is Decimating the Russian military, who were Americas biggest adversary, without having to put any American boots on the ground, The russaian military has taken such a beating it'll take decades for them to recover, leaving America to focus on their new biggest Adversary namely China.

[@USMC_Matt0351]

Amen

[@howardhughes7596]

A huge win as long as P is not completely crazy and pulls the nuclear trigger. It is now clearer than ever that times have changed and military equipment and tactics need to change as well. But it also shows that command and control is the keystone on any campaign of note.

[@АндрійЛавриненко]

We, Ukrainians, understand perfectly well that the US does not want our victory, so they give us a minimum of weapons. The US does not need the collapse of the Russian Federation and the strengthening of China. But we ourselves are to blame for believing the lies of the US in 1994, when we gave away nuclear weapons.

[@donwyoming1936]

​@@howardhughes7596Don't put too much stock into what's happening in Ukraine. You have two poorly led, poorly trained, conscript armies brawling in the streets. No one in NATO will ever be in this situation.

[@zedeyejoe]

@@howardhughes7596 Putin can order the use of nuclear weapons any time he likes and has always been able to do so. It just means that Russia would cease to exist.

[@davids1inwestholl45]

I've always wondered why the focus on "sell-by-dates"....or "retire by XXXX" date. I recently saw "Dispose of this (Tylenol) by 2026" at a CVS. I asked my retired pharmacist Grandfather why meds, like Tylenol "expire"? They contain very stable compounds. He said a marketing genius at Big Pharma asked..."What if we put expiration dates like grocery stores do?" Gramps said it could lose some potency over several years, but to throw it away is ridiculous! The US Military did a study on prescription meds they had in storage for 10 years or MORE. It was just as potent as if brand new. I've literally seen people go thru their medicine cabinets & toss over $100 of meds, to go buy new. Somewhere, that Big Pharma guy is going, "Cha-Ching!" in his head!

[@Xiaengao]

Just like spices. We're told that they "expire" in a year, but they just start to lose potency. In the age of sailing ships, it took a year for them to get to market in Europe.

[@matchesburn]

Well, explosive compounds do go bad after time. They become more sensitive, lose their potency, etc. And if it has a rocket engine component to it, that fuel has a shelf life (longer than you might think, but it exists). Guided munitions also have batteries that have a shelf-life. Ammunition when properly stored hasn't existed long enough to go bad, however.

[@budroberts5929]

I just ate an energy bar, Luna brand, with expiration date 2019. Perfectly fine. Today is October 10, 2024. Expired 5 years.

[@KennethMorris-bl4hr]

Ma Deuce never goes out of style 😮.

[@massimomera3053]

I was an Alpine artilleryman in the Italian Army in 1989, we were still using the M114 155 mm howitzer, the big brother of the M101. Very reliable gun.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

That's awesome! The M114 155mm howitzer is indeed a reliable piece of artillery, and it's interesting to hear about its use in the Italian Army. It has a long history, and its proven performance over decades speaks to its durability. The Alpine artillery units, with their challenging terrain, must have relied on its robustness even more. Thanks for sharing that experience!

[@bluemountaindrivepae]

Long live NATO

[@cesaravegah3787]

Uh, if you have a few dozens of those on the Alps no sabe attacker will try to go that route.

[@misterramon7447]

From an old US Army soldier from the same general time frame. Thanks for your service. 👍👍

[@Xiaengao]

You can't shoot me with that! It's an 1874 Sharps Buffalo Rifle! Oh yeah? BOOM!

[@CygnusFour]

Our 'old' junk' is still pretty good; they were the best of their day.

[@squatchpnw2331]

Artillery never goes out of style even if it's from WW1 and 100 years old. It is still a very effective weapon.

[@dennisyoung4631]

“…One-o-five is the name of my fame…” From the poem “Oh Gun,” about 1998 or so.

[@Skindvrs]

The 105 MM howitzers produced outstanding results in Vietnam...

[@jackbarnhill9354]

A mortar round is not a mine.

[@zedeyejoe]

Well back in the day, thats what mortars were called, mine-throwers. A short ranged, low velocity bomb. Some used ammunition made from used food tins.

[@commandro]

In Russian a mortar round and a mine are the same word.

[@joseph1150]

There are mortars that deploy mines.

[@wharris7594]

Минамот [minamot] mortar Мина [mina] mine the words are similar but not the same in russian

[@commandro]

@@wharris7594 Minamet - mortartube "mine thrower" literally translated. Mortar round - mina

[@yutakago1736]

Maxim machine gun and rifle from WW1 are aso in use in Ukraine war. Ukraine also have a huge stock pile of weapons from WW2 inherited from USSR. T-54 and T-55 are made in the 50s, not WW2.

[@jasonariola6363]

It makes me happy to know the U.S. keeps lot of weapons in storage. Cluster weapons are effective

[@link10909]

I doubt we keep enough though. From what I gather Ukraine has shown burn rates are higher than our inventory is built for. The assumption in US planning is more service of ground targets by air assets which is outside Ukraines ability to replicate though I would love to know how ammunition production forward planning has changed across the inventory. The press has been all about the 155mm story but Id love to see that math for things like mortar, GMLRS, patriot, etc.

[@RUBIZEN]

It's not the equipment....it's the Soldier fighting with it that matters.

[@monky7628]

If it works, it works.

[@cooljets]

I liked using the 3.5 in bazooka round as an improvised device. The sqib can be elecrically fired from the simplest batteries and the round is armed before it leaves the tube, which by the way the round comes in a cardboard shipping tube that doubles as a launch tube, and it is cheap. We were paying the depot about $3.50 per round

[@wascally60]

The T-54's and T-55'sw were mid-1950's vehicles, not World War II. Look it up!

[@rustyshackleford3053]

They kind of are. The T-54, and especially its earliest versions, is little more than an upgraded T-44. Which is very much a WW2 tank. Despite being built in the 50s, the T54/55 family are still built on what could be described as the most modern armor design principles of 1945, in much the same way that the Mk1 and Mk3 Centurion are the culmination of Cruiser tank construction principles and technology. Especially the damned gearbox, and the literally WW2-era 17pdr. That said, the gun didn't last that long, but the 20pdr that replaced it was developed on the basis of the KwK-43. They're very much WW2 tanks, that began development during said war.

[@runebel]

Actually no, it was designed before 1945

[@kirkstinson7316]

And BUILT after the war. So they are NOT WWII tanks

[@stewartreed652]

was just about to say the same thing

[@misterramon7447]

@@rustyshackleford3053 And the B-36 was designed to be able to bomb Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan from the USA...still don't think it can be considered as a Weapon of WW2

[@attilahun77]

Bow and arrow are developed milleniums ago and still can do what they are made for -to kill. Mortar shells are perfect for drone use and all sides now using them...

[@CptKirk-yt2qx]

Imagine old things that are made to unalive people can still do it, amazing!

[@MaskinJunior]

Ukraine reacently got Swedens remaining fleet of PBV302, APCs from the 1960:s

[@rufuswilliamson1722]

The U.S. Military will undoubtedly send modern equipment to Ukraine if for no other reason but to evaluate the equipment's success in a real battle situation. LIVE TESTING PHASE.

[@mikebrown5066]

Nothing crazy about Ma Deuce... none of that stuff is junk, man, it's working...

[@ThomasStell]

That 8" ammo was used by the US M110 8" Self-propelled Howitzer. the oldest shell we ever used in our M110s was from the 60s. We were STILL making 8" shells in the 1990s for the HUNDREDS of 8" M110s that we sold to Turkey and Greece.

[@tusk3260]

Ukraine is also using its old T-55 tanks. Its not just Russia. And Ukraine is able to resist Russia because essentially Russia is fight itself. Its like if Texas became independent and 30 years later the rest of the US invaded to take back Texas. Most of the army of Texas will remain nearly identical to the US, they will know each others strategies and tactics too. Its much harder to conquer someone who already knows how you fight.

[@slipperyzoom]

T-54 and T-55 were not used in World War 2, they did not enter service until after the war! The T-54 entered service in 1947 and the T-55 entered service in 1958.

[@RedDwarf1]

Absolutely correct! Good fact check.

[@reaperbsc]

So? What difference does a handful of years make? That's still "ww2 era".

[@RedDwarf1]

@@reaperbsc Wll if you really followed wartime and post-wartime tank development then you'd know what difference it makes. Your statement shows your ignorance.

[@joshuauriarte452]

Ukraine's oldest weapon still in use is from WWI and dates back even further to 1886. It's the Maxim gun as the ammo is still made, and it's easy to make parts for this simple gun. It can even be turned into a portable MG with the water reservoir being taken off to be more mobile. The water reservoir was designed to keep it cool, while also being designed to be removable as it was also designed to be on ships later turned to a twin AA

[@Bogie3855]

Hey, if it still goes bang you use it. Even Civil War cannons are capable of some serious damage at relatively close range. Guns are made for long lifespans and are often still effective. Age has little to do with it sometimes and it just might work for you especially if you have nothing.;

[@davidfrank2824]

Everybody thinks unless you are in the government or military that all these countries are feeling sorry for Ukraine and helping them out of their kindness. This isn't even close to the truth. Even though we have had wars around the world we have not had a modern war. The closest we came to was Iraq and even then it wasn't any competition and big country did not get to try out all their toys. Flash Forward to today and it's a completely different world. The reason most of the world built the weapons we have was to fight Russia and their allies. So now everybody has a chance to see how their toys actually work in real-world condition. Whenever a modern tank is blown up the country that made the tank want to do everything possible to get it back. It's not because there's secrets in there there are, they want to know what went wrong and can it be something that's fixable. Look at what we are learning from what's happening right now. Countries are now aware of little drones becoming a huge issue. Now these countries are making weapons that are capable of taking these drones out. You might see some of them in Russia and Ukraine I wouldn't hold my breath. The reason for that is that again if it doesn't work the country wants that back and wants to figure out what went wrong. So you might see them in a support role where they are behind the front line and if it doesn't work it's not a big issue of picking it up and taking it back. They are doing this right now with the Russians electronics. Everybody is grabbing up the different weapons that are sitting on the field and even though they have been on fire and blown engineers can see what it was supposed to do and in some cases they can still turn them back on. Search just remember we're not giving this equipment to them because we like them we want to see how our big toys are working. You best believe that the United States Germany Poland France UK don't want to find out that there's an issue with their equipment if war would break out tomorrow. Here's one last thing to remember. It is called HISTORY! When Germany went into Russia the Allies were not on the side of Russia. At the time they considered Russia as an enemy just like Germany. It wasn't until Germany came across the fields and towns and cities of Russia when they realized what was happening and the rest of the world realized what was going on. So just like today with Ukraine yesterday countries like the United States started shipping weapons of war to Russia. As fast as we were making these things they were on ships heading to Russia. And again we did get to see what different things were working and what wasn't working. If it wasn't for Roosevelt and Churchill it's doubtful Russia would be here today. That's why when we are children they want us to learn history. We don't want history repeating itself. We want the future to know what happened to bring all this Carnage to other human beings and how we can avoid it in the future. And the way to do that is to remember the pass. Time for me to get down from my soapbox today. I do enjoy this channel I absolutely love history. My favorite is the American civil war and my second has to be the Pacific war.

[@cut--]

I used to work with some Amish in my furniture business. They would go to auctions in New Holland, PA, and buy the oldest machinery they could find-like 19th-century stuff! First, it usually didn't require electricity; second, it was tough as an anvil; and third, it could all be repaired if you had some simple machinist skills (which they all have). SLAVA UKRAINE! 💪💪

[@chrissmith7669]

Lol. Shoot n scoot. Not shoot n run

[@oldernu1250]

Saw an army training video. Howitzer was hauled by truck , detached, coordinated like choreography, fired seven rounds, secured, attached and driven away in less than three minutes. And these guys weren't the we fastest!

[@bradleyanderson4315]

Some of the older munitions were what we had loads of and could easily spare. They also worked fine.

[@motomike3475]

One man's junk, another man's treasure.

[@snowwhite7677]

This howitzer is now being mounted on trucks that can fire & immediately move after. The horses that were pulling arty were sold to the glue factory along with the horses replaced by cars. The early 20th Century was not a good time to be a horse.

[@JWWhiteTX]

Hell, if it's still efficient at putting steel on target, it's not old junk is it? I retired from The Marine Corps in 2003, The Corps was still using them well into the 90s, the cannon-cockers just loved them, were bummed when they were finally taken out of service. It was kind of like the M1911 .45 and the M2 .50 caliber machine gun. Old as hell but still capable and relevant.

[@gryph01]

I was in the Canadian Reserves in the late 80's and operated the C1 Howitzer. Great system. We got a target round quickly and could out a lot of rounds on it really fast. A HE quick round doesn't have the same hitting power of a 155 mm. But we made up for it with putting more rounds down range than a 155 crew. My beef was it was slow to get out of action compared to newer 105 systems in NATO. And BTW, I had a good laugh with the cannon cocker jab. 😁

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Absolutely! It’s all about how well those tools perform, regardless of their age. The M101, M1911, and M2 .50 cal are perfect examples of how effective design can stand the test of time. It’s interesting to see how some of these older systems continue to be loved by those who use them. Do you think there are any modern equivalents that will have the same lasting legacy?

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

That's awesome to hear! The ability to put more rounds downrange is a huge advantage in some scenarios. I can imagine the pressure during a fire mission when every second counts. And I totally get the frustration with how quickly you could get into and out of action compared to newer systems. It's great that you can laugh about the cannon cocker jab-it's all part of the camaraderie, right? What was your favorite part of operating the C1?

[@Comm0ut]

"Should have been thrown away" is a pretty stupid way to describe the equipment. It was held in reserve because it works.

[@jasonariola6363]

Geapard is a great gun system , especially in shorad

[@SMGJohn]

Most of these are destroyed now, the problem Ukraine has is not the choice of equipment, but rather lack of a quantity of it.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

That's a crucial point! It really emphasizes the importance of logistics and supply in warfare. Even the best equipment can't perform if there aren't enough units on the field. What do you think are some effective strategies Ukraine could use to boost their equipment supply and improve their combat effectiveness?

[@SMGJohn]

@Weapons.Of.Victory There is none, Ukraine in the ideal scenario would need its own manufacturing to supply whats lost on the frontline. People forget, modern war is a war of production. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is size of a theatre of WW2 with one million troops on each side, quarter of which are on the front. On both sides. Ukraine should need at least 100k artillery guns to win the war and 10k tanks. Thats more than the entire west posses right now, only South Korea might be able to provide half of that but it would also weaken their own defence since the North Koreans are most armed country on the planet.

[@johnquinn456]

Best country Best weapons Best ammunition

[@jointedlimb]

just goes to show how outclassed Russia would be vs modern US weapons.

[@pedalpower57]

I qualified on the M-50 machine gun when I was in the army, firing it was an instant orgasm

[@Predator42ID]

There is no M50 machine gun.

[@pedalpower57]

@@Predator42ID it was common in the late 60's and early 70's to call the Browning 50 caliber machine gun M-50, at Ft. Lewis during basic the Drill Sgt's called them M-50, the instructors at Ft. Polk and Ft. Benning also called them M-50, later when I was with the 2ACR the machine guns mounted on the 113's were all refered to as M-50's so that is what I still call them M-50

[@dennisyoung4631]

Yep. This is “Big Mama..”

[@Ashleigh50]

@@pedalpower57 But why though? I've seen it transposed as 50mm mgs!! Why not half-inch, or point fives.

[@edletain385]

50 caliber M-2, probably the most commonly used heavy machine gun in non ex-Warsaw Pact and non-aligned countries armies today. I have photos of me firing one in 1969.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

The T-54/55 is a Cold War tank -- the prototype rolled in 1946.

[@charharn7011]

I used to crew a 105mm Howitzer M102 with the 82nd Airborne I never understood why they disbanded them to me on the back of a Gama Goat they were light portable and effective. Yet they change doctrines all the time so I guess what ever it was the mission parameters no longer fit the 102.

[@tscott6843]

Way to trivialize the Mameluke sword. The Mameluke sword is the ceremonial sword worn by Marine officers. The sword's history is linked to First Lieutenant Presley Neville O'Bannon, one of the most famous early Marines. In 1804, during the First Barbary Pirate War, the Pasha of Tripoli presented the sword to O'Bannon. O'Bannon and his Marines then marched 600 miles across the North African desert to rescue the kidnapped crew of the USS Philadelphia and rid the “shores of Tripoli” of pirates. By 1825, all Marine officers carried the sword in recognition of this historic battle, the Marine Corps' first on foreign soil. The sword is patterned after the Damascus blade that O'Bannon received from Hamet in appreciation for his services. The Mameluke sword is the oldest weapon still in use in the United States arsenal and is an important symbol of authority and leadership.

[@wayausofbounds9255]

To be fair the ma deuce was a legend before Ukraine. It's likely responsible for more death and destruction than any weapon in use today, that's its thing.

[@zedeyejoe]

The AK assault rifles beat it. 100 million of AK's produced..

[@ernestpaniagua1210]

​@@zedeyejoehow many AK's bring down aircraft or taken out light armored vehicles please explain to us from your expertise.

[@zedeyejoe]

@@ernestpaniagua1210 AKs just kill people.

[@kirkstinson7316]

​@@zedeyejoe M2 was used as aircraft armorment, ship anti aircraft, vehicles mount, ground mount, fortress mount, and has been used since WWII. AK series of firearms, assault weapon. Two separate animals. One is a heavy MG, one is an assault rifle. M2 has longer time in service. PROBABLY equal number of kills threw all conflicts

[@zedeyejoe]

@@kirkstinson7316 But only 3 million M2s built, as opposed to the 100 million AKs. So every M2 would have had to have killed 30 times as many as each AK, to even the score. The bigger numbers have it!

[@Spartan902]

Now that is very versitile ammunition.👍

[@maximusmeridius3380]

Never heard of a mortar shell being referred to as a mine.

[@Xiaengao]

I have, along with grenades, but it's old terminology found in old history books.

[@GuntherRommel]

People complaining about the M101 need to realize that it is ancient. I trained on the M101 in Canada in 1997. "Our" gun was a 1942 Rock Island Armoury. They're amazing guns, and I'm glad they're fighting for democracy still.

[@Statueshop297]

The horses weren’t freed! They were disposed of😂😂😂😂

[@MOMO41837]

I have no desire to be on the business end of a howitzer or a sword In the right hands the both are deadly...

[@acebacker1]

The horses were released from pulling gun carriages and sent to the knackery to be made into pet food and glue. Hmmm . You really want me to give a ‘thumbs up’ for that?

[@jannevellamo]

Yeah, well, the Russians have been seen using Mosin Nagant rifles, dating back to 1891, to great effect. Maxim machine guns have also been spotted.

[@neiljohnson6815]

Our old junk is better than the Russians top of the line stuff. Just because they're old does not mean that aren't still good.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Correct!

[@sibassius7674]

Calling perfectly functional weapons junks? Bruh. I thought junk would be the scrap damaged ones meant for the scrapyard.

[@eddielozanosanantonioreale8735]

101a1 (105MM) is an outstanding weapon system easy to move you can send a lot rds down range. I am retired GySgt Btry Ops Chief 0848

[@penitent2401]

There's also some WW1 machine guns they dragged out of a museum. It fires small bullets but very fast, so they rigged 4 of them together and use it as anti drones. Just saturate the air with bullets.

[@THX-1138]

Now imagine the modern full spectrum US military coming down to rain hellfire upon you

[@robertwoodhouse-bm7kt]

The US could easily send Ukraine 50 M1A2 Abrams every month along with 200 Bradleys and 200 MRAPS every month, along with ammo and spare parts. US has 3m cluster munitions which they will never use. US has 800 F-16 which are now replaced by F-35, they need to speed up the training or allow retired pilots to fly some of them. Set up the F-16 maintenance in Poland with it´s own Patriot defence unit.

[@genxmurse7019]

I'm proud to say that I crewed this weapon back in 1991, when USMC still had this in service along with the M198. The M101 was a great gun, and it was very well made. One of the downsides; however, is that the older ammunition was crated in only 2 rounds per box. It seemed like an eternity to unseal & break these crates open and then assemble these rounds ready to fire. You would then amass an enormous mountain of garbage from the packing material, (which is a huge disadvantage for concealment).

[@Phoenix-vg8li]

I worked a gun almost exactly like that through the 1990s. Excellent piece of kit.

[@iwantyourcookiesnow]

I think that the U.S. should invent giant surpressors/silencers for artillery cannons

[@dposcuro]

Technically possible, practically useless. The volume of gas that comes out of a small arm is manageable to build a suppressor that can contain/slow it's expansion. The volume of gas that comes out of a .50 caliber rifle requires a can that is close to half the size of the rifle itself. The volume of gas coming out of the barrel of 155mm artillery, would require a suppressor probably as large, or larger than the vehicle itself.

[@wstavis3135]

They actually did. Too large to be useful.

[@chrislong3938]

Those 105s shoot about 12 miles with a standard round. ... and as far as I recall, those mortar rounds require a number of revolutions after firing to arm, not distance. There have been cases where GIs have picked up unexploded ordinance found lying around an old impact area where, when the round was thrown away, it completed its final turn and went off! Sometimes, GIs can be really stupid!

[@stevenbrenner2862]

Older weapons sometimes are better, less sensitive to modern countermeasures.

[@brainfreeze1925]

Wow, they are still being used. I was a gunner in the last half of the 70's and they were considered old then.

[@DonMeaker]

The M-101 howitzer was the kind my father trained with, as good today as ever it was.

[@blaydCA]

It's the munitions not the equipment that costs too much to dispose of. Equipment is SOLD for scap metal.

[@tedoptional-p8l]

That's not what I saw at Flagstaff, AZ. They kept the old equipment as well as the munitions. Put them to good use too.

[@blaydCA]

@@tedoptional-p8l I'm sure if the Navy could figure out how to park a battle ship in Flagstaff, there'd be a fleet of them there now. They do "surplus" a lot of stuff though throughout the services through donations to other countries, scrap or auctions.

[@CB-ke7eq]

Cluster munitions ought to be improved not banned.

[@Xiaengao]

The USA, Ukraine, and Russia never banned them. The USA still has millions in storage. Ukraine is helping us decommission them.

[@mikepette4422]

it must be utter hell indeed with constant artillery battles ripping troops to shreds

[@michaelbizon444]

Kool vid!

[@straitjacket8689]

I was a MARINE 08 11 I fired all the artillery pieces from the M101 M114a2 M198 M110a2 M109 our blocks our breach blocks on the M101 were stamped 1940 50 by the way, I think the Marine Corps is fucking silly getting rid of artillery

[@kenolson6572]

John Moses Browning is one of the greatest mechanical geniuses in human history.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Absolutely, John Moses Browning was a true pioneer and one of the greatest firearm designers in history. His innovations, like the M1911 pistol, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), and the Browning M2 machine gun, are iconic and have had a profound impact on both military and civilian firearm design. His work set the standard for many modern weapons, and his designs are still in use today. His legacy in firearms and military technology is undeniable!

[@Harrington2323]

When the Gepard delievery was decided everyone said: "They don´t need this old trash, they need Marder and Leopard2!" and now the Gepard is the hottest sh*t available.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

It’s funny how things change! The Gepard was initially written off as outdated, but now it’s proving its worth on the battlefield. Shows how sometimes the "old trash" can turn out to be exactly what’s needed in modern warfare. Do you think we'll see more of these older systems making a comeback?

[@bashkillszombies]

Does anyone else feel like the entire world post 2000 is just a cargo cult of what it used to be? We can't even make half the things we used to consider every day equipment historically.

[@SelectCircle]

Military stuff is built to last. And it does.

Narration taken from the Ladybird Book of Howitzers!

[@geoffhunter7704]

Most NATO and allied countries are searching through their old stocks of weaponry and munitions for suitable items for UA the UK in 2022 sent all their reserve stocks of Bofors L70 40mm AA Guns for Anti Drone Defence +ammo too these are the 1950's enhanced weapons with more range and bigger cartridge cases than the more famous WW2 L6O's.The UK in 1915/6 sent the Russians the M/C for making 8" naval guns,4.5" Howitzers and 6Pdr naval AA guns (57mm).All these were adapted by the Soviets from 1922 to various uses the 8" became field artillery mounted on a tracked chassis,the 4.5" was increased to 115mm being fitted as a tank gun in 1946 and the 57mm became an SP AA Weapon still in use today.Other weaponry is donated to UA and adapted for use against the RU Orc's too all gratefully received.

[@MrChadbag]

The T-54/T-55 is not from WW2. The first prototype is from the end of 1945 and the early production versions didn’t go into service until about 1948.

[@tb7771]

As a 14 year veteran something is better than nothing.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Absolutely, and experienced voices like yours know that well. Even older or limited equipment can make a difference when used right, especially when the stakes are as high as they are for Ukraine. Every tool counts in the fight.