YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Flaming Insignias]

Update: Red Effect does a short breakdown of the russian released footage of them claiming the kill

He thinks it was abandoned before the russians hit it with kornet missile

The abandonment is a concession that should be made, but this cope about how the hohols scuttled it with a vodka Molotov is ridiculous. People were claiming that these tanks were going to crush the Russian forces, and instead it ended up getting disabled with a mine and finished off with a drone missile. I don't like these tankies backing Russia due to anti-western contriarianism and a deluded idea that the Russian Federation is still communist, but at least they aren't those delusional NAFO fuckers.

 

[Corn Flakes]

The abandonment is a concession that should be made, but this cope about how the hohols scuttled it with a vodka Molotov is ridiculous. People were claiming that these tanks were going to crush the Russian forces, and instead it ended up getting disabled with a mine and finished off with a drone missile. I don't like these tankies backing Russia due to anti-western contriarianism and a deluded idea that the Russian Federation is still communist, but at least they aren't those delusional NAFO fuckers.

Anyone talking about any piece of equipment being indestructible is talking out of their ass. There is quite literally no modern tank that won't be taken out by an anti-tank mine (or large enough IED) to the track. Sure, the crew might escape without injury and the rest of the tank (read: the guns and engine) might still work, but an immobilized tank is effectively a dead tank in the modern battlefield.

And if there's something the Russians have... it's a lot of anti-tank mines. So yeah, that Challenger 2 being taken out is about as unexpected as a sunrise, and anyone making a big deal out of it is an idiot, NAFO or vatnik.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The abandonment is a concession that should be made, but this cope about how the hohols scuttled it with a vodka Molotov is ridiculous. People were claiming that these tanks were going to crush the Russian forces, and instead it ended up getting disabled with a mine and finished off with a drone missile. I don't like these tankies backing Russia due to anti-western contriarianism and a deluded idea that the Russian Federation is still communist, but at least they aren't those delusional NAFO fuckers.

It's surprising really how well it held up. Tanks get blown up in war, it happens. What's important is if the crew made it out. Seems like they did. In that sense, it did its job.

 

[Trig.Point]

The abandonment is a concession that should be made, but this cope about how the hohols scuttled it with a vodka Molotov is ridiculous. People were claiming that these tanks were going to crush the Russian forces, and instead it ended up getting disabled with a mine and finished off with a drone missile. I don't like these tankies backing Russia due to anti-western contriarianism and a deluded idea that the Russian Federation is still communist, but at least they aren't those delusional NAFO fuckers.

The operator level publications for every piece of British military kit has detailed instructions on how to deny it to the enemy, if needed. I don't know what it is for the Chally 2 but I suspect it's igniting the bag charges which depending on how it's done would probably result in a fire rather than an explosion and the tank essentially melting.

Also British tankers are usually cavalry and essentially retarded, but one of the things they train for is fighting to retain control over knocked out tanks.

 

[Corn Flakes]

It's surprising really how well it held up. Tanks get blown up in war, it happens. What's important is if the crew made it out. Seems like they did. In that sense, it did its job.

Anyone following this war would be forgiven for thinking tanks are all death-traps that atomize themselves and their crew if you so much as sneeze at them, but that's more an issue with all the T-72s (and derivatives) that both sides use.

Even with shit like the Leopard 2's front hull ammo rack, Western tanks put a lot more emphasis on crew survivability. Sure, they do go up in huge fireballs when unlucky or not used correctly (the Turks' Leo2 are a great example), but if a penetrating shot or explosive hasn't killed them outright a Western MBT crew should be able to bail and make a run for it. With Soviet MBTs it's a luck-based mission. We've seen plenty of footage of Russian tankers getting out of stricken tanks, but it's often only one crewman out of three, and the interior of the tank is usually already on fire and about to pop. The joys of having a small tank with little internal space, storing all that ammo just below the turret.

Really goes to show everything is a compromise.

Actually, this is something I noticed about this war: it got a lot of "history" youtubers to pivot into current events they really aren't qualified to talk about.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Anyone following this war would be forgiven for thinking tanks are all death-traps that atomize themselves and their crew if you so much as sneeze at them, but that's more an issue with all the T-72s (and derivatives) that both sides use.

Even with shit like the Leopard 2's front hull ammo rack, Western tanks put a lot more emphasis on crew survivability. Sure, they do go up in huge fireballs when unlucky or not used correctly (the Turks' Leo2 are a great example), but if a penetrating shot or explosive hasn't killed them outright a Western MBT crew should be able to bail and make a run for it. With Soviet MBTs it's a luck-based mission. We've seen plenty of footage of Russian tankers getting out of stricken tanks, but it's often only one crewman out of three, and the interior of the tank is usually already on fire and about to pop. The joys of having a small tank with little internal space, storing all that ammo just below the turret.

Really goes to show everything is a compromise.

Actually, this is something I noticed about this war: it got a lot of "history" youtubers to pivot into current events they really aren't qualified to talk about.

With the T-72 in particular it comes down to the autoloader. All the powder is at the bottom of the tank in order for it to function. A mine, side shot, really any penetrating hit will burn it down. Western tanks figured out shit like blow out panels. Sure the ammo goes off... in its own little compartment that blows out, hull storage not withstanding. The trade off is its a bit slower than a T-72.

And yeah, most history youtubers don't go past ww2. Lucky if they reach ww1. And many of them gloss over the US Civil War because not enough machines, even though it was the US going Total War for the first time

 

[Corn Flakes]

With the T-72 in particular it comes down to the autoloader. All the powder is at the bottom of the tank in order for it to function. A mine, side shot, really any penetrating hit will burn it down. Western tanks figured out shit like blow out panels. Sure the ammo goes off... in its own little compartment that blows out, hull storage not withstanding. The trade off is its a bit slower than a T-72.

It's not even slower with a well-trained crew in the Western MBT. That autoloader isn't there for speed, it's there to keep the tank small and to reduce the crew. Sure, it's likely faster when the tank is flinging its entire ammo load downrange as fast as it can because the human loader will get tired and/or have to fish rounds from further out in the bustle (or God forbid the hull storage), but tank engagements very rarely go beyond a few rounds before the loader has time to rest.

And yeah, most history youtubers don't go past ww2. Lucky if they reach ww1. And many of them gloss over the US Civil War because not enough machines, even though it was the US going Total War for the first time

That's one of the reasons I like Townsends. It's a different time period. Sure, Jon isn't usually talking about wars and guns and such exciting subjects, but the day-to-day life of people who lived here before my family even arrived might as well be a whole different universe. And I spent a long time in and around farms growing up, I can only imagine how it would feel to watch that channel as someone who never stepped foot outside of a big city.

 

[Jewthulhu]

And yeah, most history youtubers don't go past ww2. Lucky if they reach ww1. And many of them gloss over the US Civil War because not enough machines, even though it was the US going Total War for the first time

WWII is overdone tbh. Cold-War/post Cold-War era stuff is much more interesting to me but there's not enough content on it.

 

[WelperHelper99]

WWII is overdone tbh. Cold-War/post Cold-War era stuff is much more interesting to me but there's not enough content on it.

With the cold war, they have to talk about Communists killing people, which many of them being commies, don't want to do. So they stick to talking about Nazis.

 

[Jewthulhu]

With the cold war, they have to talk about Communists killing people, which many of them being commies, don't want to do. So they stick to talking about Nazis.

I mean there are wars that you can talk about that aren't strictly west vs commie. The Indo-Pakistani wars, the Arab-Israeli wars, the various Kurdish revolts, etc.
But yeah, I'd rather not listen to some filthy commie talking about the Cold War. Or any war for that matter.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I mean there are wars that you can talk about that aren't strictly west vs commie. The Indo-Pakistani wars, the Arab-Israeli wars, the various Kurdish revolts, etc.
But yeah, I'd rather not listen to some filthy commie talking about the Cold War. Or any war for that matter.

You kinda can... until you get to the part who sold them the weapons and why. Then it becomes a global thing. But yes, I agree, I do not wish to listen to commies that vote Labor in their shitty countries lecture me about history

 

[Corn Flakes]

Nobody really comes out smelling of roses when it comes to the Cold War, so it doesn't make for a real "compelling" narrative if you're trying to be even remotely objective. That and all the "I swear I'm not a commie/oppressor" disclaimers get tiresome really quick.

Add to it that a lot of people who lived through the Cold War are still very much alive and able to argue about it, and a lot of "history" youtubers don't want to even touch the subject matter.

 

[JJLiautaud]

A good guy who covers an interesting genre of history is Old Britannia his series of the rivalry between the US and Great Britain from 1815-1950 is really good.

Bare link because of trannies Total N00l Victory this the first part.

He also covers diplomatic history with a focus on the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Nobody really comes out smelling like roses when it comes to the Cold War, so it doesn't make for a real "compelling" narrative if you're trying to be even remotely objective

That's what makes it compelling to me tbh. Complexity and "loose ends" are the most interesting parts of history. Even some of the more minor and obscure conflicts and events during that period had complex webs of motivations, allegiances, decisions, and consequences that is fascinating to untangle.

That, and again, WWII is done to death. I could probably find a hundred videos about how many schnitzels Goring ate during his time as Reichsmarschall. Meanwhile I've found only a handful on something as complex as the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[DNNS-2]

With the T-72 in particular it comes down to the autoloader. All the powder is at the bottom of the tank in order for it to function. A mine, side shot, really any penetrating hit will burn it down. Western tanks figured out shit like blow out panels. Sure the ammo goes off... in its own little compartment that blows out, hull storage not withstanding. The trade off is its a bit slower than a T-72.

And yeah, most history youtubers don't go past ww2. Lucky if they reach ww1. And many of them gloss over the US Civil War because not enough machines, even though it was the US going Total War for the first time

The autoloader is actually quite overstated. It is a hazard but it isn't as big as it's often made out to be. Well at least for the T-72 and T-90. The ammunition in the autoloader is placed as low as can be. It has simple thin metal armor in addition to a Podboi Soviet spall liner around the carousel itself to catch fragments and spall..

What is the real issue is the stored ammunition around the hull not in the carousel. Tests show that this is what is statistically most likely to start an ammunition fire. T-90M attempts to fix this most of the excess stored ammunition from the hull and into a turret bustle that is completely isolated from even inside the turret. Which might seem absurd but it makes it more resistant to ammunition detonations. Even tanks with blowout panels, while being resistant to ammo cook offs, can still be killed by ammunition detonations.

T-80s and T-64s have the MZ autoloader which store the ammo vertically in the carousel making it easier to hit and even has more ammo in the carousel itself. Which likely explains why those tanks in particular have nastier cook offs and detonations. To the point the hull has evaporated.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The autoloader is actually quite overstated. It is a hazard but it isn't as big as it's often made out to be. Well at least for the T-72 and T-90. The ammunition in the autoloader is placed as low as can be. It has simple thin metal armor in addition to a Podboi Soviet spall liner around the carousel itself to catch fragments and spall..

What is the real issue is the stored ammunition around the hull not in the carousel. Tests show that this is what is statistically most likely to start an ammunition fire. T-90M attempts to fix this most of the excess stored ammunition from the hull and into a turret bustle that is completely isolated from even inside the turret. Which might seem absurd but it makes it more resistant to ammunition detonations. Even tanks with blowout panels, while being resistant to ammo cook offs, can still be killed by ammunition detonations.

T-80s and T-64s have the MZ autoloader which store the ammo vertically in the carousel making it easier to hit and even has more ammo in the carousel itself. Which likely explains why those tanks in particular have nastier cook offs and detonations. To the point the hull has evaporated.

Oh I'm not saying a western tank can't nuke itself. It can. It's just a lesser chance of the turret fully flying off than a 72/64 because of things like blowout panels. And yeah the T-80/64 autoloader is a bit more hazardous. The upside is that it fires faster. If it's really worth anything, I'll let you be the judge, though it's notable that it's a earlier system.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Does anyone know what book the chieftan talked about that compared how the americans the bongs the krauts and the soviets built tanks its like the The Business of Making Tanks or something it was written by some british guy.

I finally found it unfortunately its out of print and like 80 bucks its The Business of Tanks by George MacLeod Ross and Sir Campbell Clarke.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

New Whatifalthist

 

[JJLiautaud]

Tired of just being a retard about tanks Lazar Pig decided to (self admitedly) rip off IH with one of his faggy OFAT NAFO buddies the first few minutes are pretty cringe already.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Tired of just being a retard about tanks Lazar Pig decided to (self admitedly) rip off IH with one of his faggy OFAT NAFO buddies the first few minutes are pretty cringe already.

The drunken gimmick kind of works on something he has presumably edited multiple takes into a single coherent video, but it really does not do it when he's got someone else in there with him. As with his NAFO "roundtable" streams, Mr. LazerPig is about as eloquent speaking live as... well, an actual pig. So I guess he's not pretending to be anything else, at least.

And yeah, I couldn't make it past the intro. His scripted videos are scattershot already. Unscripted? These two are going all over the place from the word "go".