Imagine that the former gangster likes the gangster gun.
edit:
@RA-5C Vigilante the T-72 in DS was the monkey model; and the soviets allegedly sold training rounds as warshots or the Iraqi QM Corps was so corrupt they issued out training rounds as warshots and sold the war shots on the black market, both seem very plausible.
Whoops, forgot the respond here initially.
The Iraqi T-72s were of the "Ural", M and M1 derivatives. So the T-72 "Ural" with it's old coincidence rangefinder (totally obsolete even by 1980 and the M/M1, both of these were export models of the T-72A in Russian service. They were almost identical expect for the M having slightly thinner glacis armor and the M1 being identical to the T-72A except for radios fitted and maybe a NBC lining.
The T-72A was, in 1980, a very good tank. However by 1991 the Iraqi modules were a solid 5-7 years out of date, with a T-72B (from 1985) or even a T-72B mod 1989 fitted with ERA the most modern version they could have had in service (exported as the T-72S)
There was no real "monkey Model" Soviet AFV ever sold unless you count the Soviets selling the T-72 "Ural" up until 1981.
Iraqi T-72s got APFSDS shells that were a solid decade out of date, with simple steel darts, no DU in them and maybe a bit of tungsten, see 3VBM7:
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html?m=1
The Tiger was, basically, a design born of desperation. They took a box, slapped an anti air cannon on it, and welded big BEEFY steel plates to it. To make it easier for retarded conscripts to drive, they put in a fucking steering wheel, which was totally novel at the time.
The Tiger 1 tank was born from a 1938 request for a heavy tank. Prototypes were out when Germany was doing quite well.
The Churchill tank has a handle bar to steer it as well.
The German stuff that was made when they were DESPERATE was stuff like the Panzer 4 J, which stripped out the mechanical turret traverse and returned to the prewar manual crank traverse system.
As for the rest: pretty sure he's embellished everything there but I would not be surprised if his BF could get them a box of grenades if he already knew the guy at the supply base. Everything in Russia is based on who you know, so if the guy already knew the kid (or the kid's parents) and trusted him not to chuck the grenades into the local FSB office there was no reason not to make some quick buck selling government property. Coming out of the 90s, low-ranking Russian army personnel were scraping by as best they could. That much is well documented.
I could believe training grenades but hi explosives are another matter entirely.
As seen in the first video in the OP, mental health is not his greatest strength
View attachment 5338201
L |
A
I do wonder if he has mental breakdowns on his discord server. There’s no mention of it in the OP which is a salhame because we’re potentially missing out on some content
He almost certainly does and probably wants asspats afterwards.
I have a feeling that this man has such a hate boner for academics, as seen in his last two videos, because the man was chewed out by one or had some negative interaction with one. He reeks of that person who isn't doing well in school but insists that they are better than everybody because they read Wikipedia or forums all day (you know the one). Also does he not realize that most academics work in the field like physically in the field? Many social scientists, in order to earn their doctorates, have to do field research. What that means determines whatever your academics are. Does he also know that PhDs at least in the Western world consist of a master's, which is purely theoretical, and then the Ph.D. itself, which is practical (advancing the field)? Many people use libraries as a starting point, particularly if you're doing independent or new research. Sure, going to as he calls it "dusty books" is part of the academic model. However, you need to have some sort of background or primary evidence. But ultimately, you are in the field.
By the way, what is this nonsense he's talking about when it comes to reenactment? Reenacting is important in history, yes to fill in the more ephemeral and banal things that probably weren't recorded (see the YouTube channel Townsend for a perfect example of this) or as a way to reintroduce history or get a better understanding of the situation. As a quick aside Ian McCullen's in Forgotten Weapons specifically states that he turned his blog into a video series because he was having issues explaining patents and diagrams that were easier to understand visually but his blog is the heart of his channel. This allowed him to write the many books he had written. This is something that reenactors will do.
But reenacting is NOT a form of historical research in and of itself. It must have a goal in mind. You can not get drunk in a field and pretend to shoot Nazis. If you want to then just admit you're that kind of weirdo. Calling reenacting a form of historical research is like saying a photo of my arm describes my entire body.
I have a feeling Lazerswine was publicly called out at a tank museum by an actual Historian with sources backing him or her up.
It makes sense, he's mentioned seeing "the real deal" up close and could easily take a weekend trip to a tank museum in England.