China's Tanks (And Their Surprising Weakness)

Подписаться 483 тыс.

Просмотров 901 тыс.

50% 1

Click the link www.blinkist.com/covertcabal to start your free 7 day trial with Blinkist and get 25% off of Premium membership!
For Business Inquiries - CovertCabal@Ellify.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
L7 105mm Royal Ordnance Image
Author: CIB2008 OEF
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
Type 96A Tank Image
Author: Vitaly V Kuzmin
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
Type 59D Image
Author: Tyg728
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
Soviet T-54 Image
Author: Vitaly V Kuzmin
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
Type 99A Image
Author: Tyg728
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
T-14 Armata Tank Image
Author: Vitaly V Kuzmin
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

Опубликовано:

26 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 2,4 тыс.

@CovertCabal 2 года назад

Click the link www.blinkist.com/covertcabal to start your free 7 day trial with Blinkist and get 25% off of Premium membership!

@QuizmasterLaw 2 года назад

Good video. "A New Cold War: Global Strategy"

@slslbbn4096 2 года назад

Strategically unimportant The Chinese have recently discovered a coronavirus variant with 30% mortality rate in animals and was only 1 mutation away from being able to infect humans. And every state and non-state actor knows the US has proven itsf incapable of handling any biological attack. Funnily the Chinese state forbids the use of such weapons against the US. However I do know some Chinese university students who have become so enraged by the racism they faced in the US or the biased dehumanizing US media coverage of the Chinese that they themselves have postulated and perhaps even have started employing CRISPR technology to create such weapons to strike back at American racism. That is the sad tragedy we find ourselves in today. We must build an inclusive world that includes all cultures. And the Chinese with their average IQ of 100-105 will definitely have the technological and intellectual means to strike back at the US in ways that IS IS never will

@tomlee3412 2 года назад

🇬🇧 WTF Challenger 3 Tank

@zhufortheimpaler4041 2 года назад

@@tomlee3412 yeah still, Challenger 3 is primarily Rheinmetall designed, as domestic designs failed. And it will only enter production at the end of the decade and reach full troop saturation at the start of the next decade. That is just not sustainable, considering, that Challenger 2 is already 2 decades out of date and dangerously obsolete

@rat_king- 2 года назад

7:39 excuse you? A british AS90 and challenger 2?

@thelieutenant7732 2 года назад

I’ve had a running theory about the lack of side ERA, I’ve seen photos of the transport craft they use to ferry tanks and the tanks are nearly touching each other side to side, adding ERA to the tanks would cut out a fourth of their ability to transport tanks. The Chinese definitely are aware of this weakness and are familiar with ERA coverage since they have clients who purchase vehicles with front and side protection. I’d assume that in a hypothetical wartime situation that ERA would be a field modification to be added on after landing rather than before.

@mutiurrehman175 2 года назад

Thank you Lieutenant for this salute!

@TryptamineSparkKs 2 года назад

They have attachable side-armors to be put on when it goes into live battle, don't they? They're just off most times because of their insane weight..? Please correct me if im wrong! I don't have any sources for this haha.

@chaosXP3RT 2 года назад

Why not composite armor?

@TryptamineSparkKs 2 года назад

@@chaosXP3RT Don't ask me, I know jack about modern tanks in general hehe ^^

@Excelray1 2 года назад

@@chaosXP3RT Composite armour reduces the available internal volume for the crew in a already cramped vehicle. I't easier to add stuff outside after than add it inside during construction

@sophrapsune 2 года назад

Operationally, Chinese tanks are mainly used to defeat a man walking home with a shopping bag in hand.

@ether23-23 2 года назад

Hahahaha wtf

@wolfgangjr74 2 года назад

@@jack99889988 Yea. I remember Tiamin or something and square.

@sgt.slaughter8170 2 года назад

😂. That’s the only thing Chinese tanks will ever be remembered for.

@azjnqh7310 2 года назад

A very disgusting racist joke based on CIA propaganda and an insult to chinese soldiers. As chinese, seen these too many times, cannot blame. after all the entire west society learnt world history from CIA.

@azjnqh7310 2 года назад

@@wolfgangjr74 Tiananmen square. A failed US. backed coup to overthrow China government. and if they succeed, china will be worse than Iraq or Syria now. Plus a bunch of Chinese student protest leaders taking money from CIA to encourage other classmates to kill the soldiers, but the protest leaders fled to U.S. to get greencards and marry white people. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-27T63QNLpqg.html

@TheBlankJoker 2 года назад

Everybody that talks about how quickly a loader can become tired has never felt the adrenaline of combat. Especially combined with proper training / physical fitness.

@ALLMINDmercenarysupportsystem 4 месяца назад

Maybe, but that can't go forever. Neither can anyone or anything else in the tank, admittedly.

@Fazbear-qy8mo 3 месяца назад

Well Abrams generally carry around 40 ish rounds and each weigh about 10-11 lbs and that seems pretty viable for a loader to remain at full speed throughout a battle.@@ALLMINDmercenarysupportsystem

@songokucarot1668 2 месяца назад

@@ALLMINDmercenarysupportsystemCanadian tanker here. In a challenge I was able to load 78 in a row before getting tired, and that was without a good meal before and no available water nearby

@ALLMINDmercenarysupportsystem 2 месяца назад

@songokucarot1668 Good job, but that's still not forever. As I said though, nothing in a tank would last forever. Even with an autoloader, crew still needs breaks, ammo needs replenishment, and the tank itself needs maintenance.

@harrythej9683 2 года назад

Two corrections: The only M1Abrams lost in Iraq in 2003 were destroyed by the US themselves, none by the Iraqis. Manual loading in the Abrams is a lot quicker than autoloaders, not the other way around.

@haruyanto8085 2 года назад

That's wrong information with some facts, they lost 23, but 7 lost to friendly fire but 2 purposely destroy by the US. Manual loading can* be quicker.

@harrythej9683 2 года назад

@@haruyanto8085 Sorry, but I am correct on 100% of the facts. 9 Abrams were destroyed, which I mentioned. You may interpret lost to mean damaged, while I meant destroyed. Something damaged is not really lost, even if some say it that way. The Abrams' rate of fire is 3-5 seconds per shot, the T 90 takes 5-8 seconds. There is no autoloader quicker than what the Abrams does it. So where is the wrong information please?

@harrythej9683 2 года назад

@Su Li Hang I agree with everything you said after normally. Tank battles aren't about loading speed, but i never claimed that. I just said that autoloading is significantly slower. Taking 5 seconds for an Abrams to reload would mean messing up bad. The ideal conditions are basically always, since none of the aspects you mentioned interfere with the loading, since they are "normal" and fatigue would come in after prolonged engagements which is not how tank battles take place.

@thebag1236 2 года назад

@@harrythej9683 autoload on new t80 mod and t90 mod provide 5-7 second reload and sometimes in videos it's almost instantly like 3 seconds to load shell and charge but the crew has to wait for the drum to cycle causing it to be 5-7 seconds so autoloader is more reliable than human depends on condition

@harrythej9683 2 года назад

@@thebag1236 So it is still slower, just as I said. I don't know if it is more reliable, but I'll just believe you there, even though a human can't jam.

@sebresludolf9611 2 года назад

*I am from Bangladesh and my country recently bought Chinese light tanks VT5, we were literally shocked to know that the Chinese sold us better VT5 tanks than the they use, I mean they literally gave customised features like added armour and sensors plus cage. I mean what's that about.*

@blackkn1ght 2 года назад

China's priority isn't tanks, it's navy and air force currently, as well as up gradation of basic infantry. China's thinking is that their tanks are good enough for now, as they have bigger priorities elsewhere.

@shivanshna7618 2 года назад

Probably Bangladesh paid good money for those adjustment and china need thousands of tanks so they used (mostly) regular version

@derek8564 2 года назад

Shouldn't you guys of bought food for your people first?

@shivanshna7618 2 года назад

@@derek8564 ? I don't think they're having crisis or something in food and defence of country is always important.

@TheZachary86 2 года назад

@@derek8564 You’re probably thinking Sri Lanka. Your geography needs some work

@SkyWKing 2 года назад

Chinese MBTs were designed to hold off a Soviet/Russian invasion from the Mongolian steppes. They expect large scale tank combats so only frontal armor matters. They will likely be dug in so mobility is also a low priority. They never intend to use tanks against their other neighbors because MBTs aren't suited in those terrain. But now that Russia is in an alliance of convenience with China they no longer need to protect their northern border so MBTs are naturally a lower priority. Light tanks are actually more useful against their neighbors.

@christaylor6654 2 года назад

I’m not trolling but when people say heavy tanks are useless in urban, beach or mountains I wanna laugh. They have never been on a tank or ever seen a MEU operate on beaches all over the globe. Tanks are expensive, that’s their Achilles heal.

@Hierax415 2 года назад

@@christaylor6654 Imo the video sort of ignored the real issue, China isn't going to be driving MBTs over the Himalayas into India or floating them into Taiwan. I personally think the only reason they have any is to keep a base level of training for crews and logistics.

@xchazz86 2 года назад

@@christaylor6654 "heel"

@greybuckleton 2 года назад

@@Hierax415 They can move them to Taiwan, same as the USA moved them in to Europe. And with less shipping capacity.

@MrMichaelBCurtis 2 года назад

@@greybuckleton They will not be worth the cost, anything the tanks can do the ships can do better, and there is no room on that rock island

@Chopstorm. 2 года назад

I always have to be a bit skeptical when people claim auto loaders have a faster rate of sustained fire. ""Sustained" being the key word here. The 120mm shell is not _that_ heavy. Yes, I'm sure slinging 40 odd shells into the breach would be tiring. No, I do not believe that anyone will be doing that. If your loader is having to load more then a few rounds at a time, you have bigger things to worry about then your loader getting tired. I would much rather take a loader who can pump out a higher initial rate of fire, then worry about sustained fire.

@logannicholson1850 2 года назад

It really comes down to what your tank is doing if its engaging a limited amount of targets (let's say a couple trucks or IFVs) it's fine having the manual loader, but in larger conflicts or in direct fire support auto loaders are far superior since you need a sustained amount of fire to cover advancing friendly forces or to pin down enemies for allies to eliminate them

@Chopstorm. 2 года назад

@@jack99889988 That's what I mean. They bring up the fact that auto loaders are faster for sustained fire, but completely neglect to mention the fact that instances where that capability is used are exceedingly rare. Like I said, manual loaders are faster when using the ready rack. Loaders _should_ be restocking between engagements in preparation.

@IronPhysik 2 года назад

modern autoloaders beat manual loaders you average loader in the M1 can pump out a round every 6s The autoloader of the Type 10 and Type 90 both can fire every 3s thats twice as fast!

@kevinl2482 2 года назад

@@IronPhysik Average loader in the M1A2 is expected to load a round in at most 5 seconds(if you can't then you won't be a loader anymore). Experienced ones can do it in just under 4 seconds. Still, autoloaders are faster, just wanted to correct something.

@Chopstorm. 2 года назад

@@kevinl2482 I would say that's below average. A good loader is around 3-4, especially when lap loading. The Type 10 autoloader does it's job in _approximately_ 3.5 seconds. They're comparable. The M1 is also the only tank with fully compartmentalized ammo with blowout panels. All other tanks have at best partial compartmentalization, such as with Leopard and Leclerc. Auto loaders using 2 piece ammo like many Russian tanks are even slower then that. The 3.5 seconds listed is the best you're going to get, and is only a factor in the fastest auto loaders.

@theimmortal4718 2 года назад

4:05. I disagree. Any well trained loader can lift the 40 pound shells in the Abrams into the breech without much trouble. Most men can do this. Do it 42 times in a few hours? Absolutely. It's not as much weight as people make it out to be. These guys hit the gym. They do this in training.

@fightfan2 2 года назад

Former tanker here and you’re 100% correct. In fact, loading the shells into tank prior to battle is much more physically demanding and we had no trouble with that either.

@666vicrattlehead 2 года назад

Former tanker. I would put an Abrams and a well trained crew up against any country on the planet and will always win. hands down.

@mnm8818 2 года назад

see 'Why the T-90 is Cheap Useless Junk' - done 8mths ago predicted the poor system currently in engagement... the above vid, aint accurate at all...

@chrisg2739 2 года назад

Not to mention a machine has parts that fail and the Russian auto loader is known for injuring crew members. Would rather have a man in there that can also help with in field maintenance.

@theimmortal4718 2 года назад

@@chrisg2739 And they explode when they get hit

@HKSFMinerva 2 года назад

I recall in the face-off with India in the Mountains, reports stated the Chinese discovered that the chonky engines of their MBTs lacked sufficient oxygen intake at high altitudes. Which is why they've invested in light tanks mainly for that purpose.

@magni5648 2 года назад

Light tanks are in general better suited to that terrain. Better p/w ratios help with going up and down steep inclines and lighter vehicles in general are less of a problem for the limited local infrastructure. You try operating full-size MBTs on those small roads, you're gonna cause the roads to get torn up pretty fast.

@MMA-gb6to 2 года назад

Type 15 tanks are in service since 2018. So, which "face-off" you talking about? 1962 "face off"?? Lolll...

@rainman2222 2 года назад

@@MMA-gb6to the 2020 one

@rainman2222 2 года назад

@@MMA-gb6to honestly the wumao stuff genuinely doesn’t work. People have google

@mikep1831 Год назад

Yes yes, Indian Arjun tank is the bestest tank in the world, Indian army should stop buy russian tanks and equip proud Arjun tank.

@kw8435 2 года назад

The reason why chinese tanks aren't equipped with additional era and side armor is the same reason why chinese infantry wear vests without armor plates, in order to save money and prevent additional spending during training and peaceful operations. If you're really looking at chinese tanks intended for direct frontline combat, say Chinese tanks (vt-4, vt-5) sent for peacekeeping operations or built for export to Africa/Southeast Asia (where guerrila warfare and urban combat is common place), they are usually covered in advanced ERA and cage armor very much unlike their domestic counterparts. When it really comes to the time for china to launch an large offensive operation into the harsh terrains of Taiwan or on the Indian border, the would be surely be equipped with sidearmor and additional protection, not doubt at all. Plus, I believe that modern Chinese tanks are fitted with modern mapping and positioning GPS systems integrated somewhat into the beidou network, correct me if I'm wrong.

@Phantom-bh5ru 2 года назад

Yup and Chinese soldiers that are sent on peace keeping operations all wear body armor too.

@kw8435 2 года назад

@@damanchan6839 What, should I go on with the made in china stereotypes and praise Indian Arjun MKIIs to be the best tank in the world just for some stupid likes? hell no

@kidsarebadcheckmychannel949 2 года назад

china has body armor, where did you learn that?

@yourtypical1722 2 года назад

@@damanchan6839 you forgot that china has Russia on their side, once the T14 goes into production, the Arjun won't stand a chance against them

@therover65 2 года назад

Arjun, 68 ton monster with a weak engine and a crap gun. Even the Indian Army resisted adopting it.

@leonpeters-malone3054 2 года назад

In a moment of trying to quote a certain Chieftain, I think there's a bit of a misconception here. I'm under the impression the US doctrine sees tank to tank combat being rather different. Fire from defilade, only one or two shots, move and relocate. I don't think there's really the old idea of a straight up tank shoot out anymore. If you're being shot at, smoke up and get somewhere else. In part due to the fire control systems, range finding etc and in part because the nature of the onion of tank combat has changed so much. Especially when it's working on rules if you're seen you can be hit, cue Monty Python on how not to be seen. As well as being far more immediately destructive with modern kinetic kill projectiles and the like. And of course, not to repeat the point, also from said Chieftain, the tank who shoots first generally wins. The tank who shoots first is generally calm, collected and adjusting for the second shot, the other guy is having a Significant Emotional Event or an overwhelming case of dead.

@phanhophuong9422 2 года назад

Why the chinese PLA care about quality of tanks. They have abundant of man.

@fyrchmyrddin1937 2 года назад

@@phanhophuong9422 Which is precisely what thermobaric or cluster munitions are for.

@tba113 2 года назад

Generally, if you're in a tank battle going on long enough for an autoloader to outpace a manual loader, something has gone dreadfully wrong.

@michaelvangundy226 2 года назад

The autoloader puts the ammunition in the turret where it is prone to get set off when hit. The lack of armor is just how the government feels about the men. The Abrams has the best target acquisition and can get that first hit farther away.

@cavtastic5691 2 года назад

Autoloaders take twice as long as a good loader. And rounds are not heavy enough that loaders getting tired is a real concern. Not to mention that autoloaders break all the time

@thefrog6065 2 года назад

The lack of side protection is definitely a mixture of different factors. The dotrine of armored forces in PLA has always been conventional large-scale armor assault like the desert storm. Although it is highly likely to face urban environments in the future, generals from the 70s and 80s are notorious for clinging onto obsolete ideas. Another problem is the lack of demand. The current lineup would face conventional threats from neighboring countries just fine. It is not a hard thing to put on some extra ERA blocks anyways. But I think the biggest reason is their vision for tank as a weapon. PLA stopped further modifications of 99A a few years ago which probably means the ground forces would have to use existing equipment for at least a decade. This really shows that tanks/ground forces, in general, are getting less and less attention compared to PLAAF and PLAN.

@josephahner3031 2 года назад

The only place that the PLA would ever have terrain suitable for that kind of armored assault would be along the Russian and Mongolian borders.

@gattlinggun9881 Год назад

AGREE!!! CH!NA M0RE F0CUS IN A!R AND NAVY F0RCE!!!

@Channel-sp3fp Год назад

@@gattlinggun9881 Just like the USA.

@nalcij 9 месяцев назад

@@Channel-sp3fpThe USA is more focused on infantry, infantry support, and aircraft. Tanks haven’t seen much of a change besides in internals and external armor packages.

@nalcij 9 месяцев назад

@@Channel-sp3fpWe have a priority for the Navy, however some ships are actually shockingly old. They still outperform most Chinese naval vessels.

@richardhall1667 2 года назад

I would love to see a similar version on their aircraft or ships.

@AKlover 2 года назад

Their missile tech likely works better than we think ....................... The Israelis "Our Allies" sold them the tech.

@ricksuter6038 2 года назад

@@AKlover look.I have a iwi galil ace gen 2...does not make it anymore advanced then any other rifle...an the missile defense system Israel uses is us made... I think we should give one to Taiwan...

@timothygoodwin3287 2 года назад

@@AKlover a while back yes but mostly the Russians who are helping them along with their own developments

@flipmanlet8982 2 года назад

@@AKlover yep they sold python air to air missiles to china

@AKlover 2 года назад

@@ricksuter6038 We go to war with China for whatever reason A LOT of American pilots and crew will be dead THANKS TO ISRAEL!!! They sold the ChiComs engine tech too IIRC less than A decade ago. Even the Saudis who openly despise us don't even do that.

@rogerdodger8415 2 года назад

The auto loader feature in Chinese and Russian tanks has proven to be a catastrophe, since they are blowing the entire tank turret right off the top of the tank. The USA has manual loading for a reason.

@NewAgeOfPower 2 года назад

Autoloaders themselves are not dangerous... Russian T72s (and early Chinese tanks) store a huge amount of ammo in a carousel in between the turret and hull... the Abrams carries a few rounds ready to fire in turret, but most of the ammo is tucked in the hull, making it harder to hit. Of course it helps the Abrams just has alot more armor and US propellant is highly insensitive to sympathetic detonation compared to Russian propellant - America spent *alot* of money on improving munitions safety, while Russia has always been poor (and getting poorer) while China was desperately poor until the last few decades.

@greyfox79007 2 года назад

@@NewAgeOfPower Exactly combat data is also projecting they are a necessity as Russia and Ukraine are using two man crews to combat manpower shortages. Something that the Abrams cannot do.

@josephahner3031 2 года назад

@@NewAgeOfPower current Abrams variants store 42 total 120mm rounds. 36 of which are stored in the turret bustle behind a pair of armored blast doors and under a set of blowout panels on the roof. 6 rounds are kept in the hull to the right rear of the turret.

@josephahner3031 2 года назад

Autoloaders are not the cause of these explosions. It is the ammunition storage layout and a lack of proper compartmentalization and blowout panels. General Dynamics designed an autoloader for the Abrams that uses a rotating magazine in the turret bustle that retains the blast doors and blowout panels and is just as safe as the current manually loaded Abrams while not even eliminating the space where the human loader would normally occupy.

@MrYodi2007 2 года назад

@@NewAgeOfPower The Russians also cheaped out om armor protection! a 90k round can and will kill that 5 million dollar tank!

@Mrgunsngear 2 года назад

Thanks

@KX36 2 года назад

0:30 British challenger 2 tanks have similar "thin armour" in most footage for fuel efficiency and speed, but in actual combat they put on a skin on much more substantial armour. I assume that's what china would do.

@ianmcsherry5254 2 года назад

First I've heard of a replacement for Challenger 2 being proposed, and then cancelled. The idea has just not been seriously considered due to the sheer cost. The Challenger 3 upgrades, which certainly should have been started long ago, are now proceeding as a co-operative project between BAE Systems and Rheinmetall.

@shamanbhattacharyya9285 2 года назад

And I thought Rheinmettal was already given a contract to build the MGCS with Krauss-Maffei and Wegner-Nextar.

@Channel-sp3fp Год назад

Ajax is intended to replace their FV series of armored vehicles. It has not proven sufficient. They have nothing better to replace the Challenger 2. Either design and mass produce a new MBT, or make the Ajax into something like Germany's Panther KF51 built on the KF31 and KF41 which are based on the CV90's design.

@tetraxis3011 2 года назад

ATGMs are advancing too, the RPG 29(not very new) already uses tandem warheads.

@user-vv7ir1pl4j 2 года назад

I just had a quick theory which I came on to say. China could be using forward amoured tanks for conventional war but it's also easier to mass produce side protection and Era for ur modern tank fleet rather then mass produce modern tanks with Era at the same time.

@Cartoonman154 2 года назад

What do you mean the Uk cancelled challenger 2 replacement? They're still going ahead with the upgrade but scaling back.

@jakehayes1998 2 года назад

Yeah that's what I thought... And I believe America is still looking into replacing the Abrams at some point as well..

@Officia1PTG 2 года назад

You know its the weekend when Covert Cabal uploads 🍻

@Saint696Anger 2 года назад

you do a good job with your video's 👍

@justanotheropossumchannel5304 8 месяцев назад

"has a tank detector that can detect tanks 2km away" M3A3 bradley with its 3 mile reach with a TOW "thats cute"

@obsidianstatue 2 года назад

No matter how much funding you have for spending, you still need to prioritize certain things. For China that's the Navy and Air force, and it makes sense, since the main immediate goal for China is the unification of Taiwan. the navy is used to deter an American intervention, imagine several Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups placed in the Philippines Sea East of Taiwan, as America do you attack the fleet and risk escalating the war to the wider region? And if you don't want to escalate the war, then there is no viable way for US to intervene. Air Force is perhaps the most crucial aspect in modern warfare, if you lose air superiority, you lose all initiative, and your ground target like tanks, not matter how well protected from the sides are all sitting ducks. That is especially the case in the era of drone warfare, just look at the Azerbaijan Armenian conflict.

@andrewbastian9980 2 года назад

China is screwed 💯 American haves secrets…. It’s sad like the F-22 is almost 30+ years old. China finally haves stealth? 🙄 like the world is shocked wow! Not like how the United States continues to shock the world. Like the first stealth black hawk helicopter? First stealth missiles? Not to mention all the top secret programs that United States haves. We are waiting for China to do something?? Then we will shock the world again by releasing new technology. Just wait and see 😂. China knows this and Russia period.

@joserodriguezjr.6422 2 года назад

Go away lol. You must be fun at parties...

@calvinblue894 2 года назад

@@andrewbastian9980 Like US F-35s special underwater stealth technology? Very capable indeed..

@axepro3053 2 года назад

@@andrewbastian9980 first, learn how to stop crashing your jets

@simpmaster7995 2 года назад

@@axepro3053 China experiences way more crashes because their air force is trash but doesn't reveal it due to foreign image.

@think4099 2 года назад

Great video but we (the uk) haven't cancelled challenger 3. It's just been scaled back to 148 tanks.

@Ukrainian.avenger 2 года назад

Hey Covert , as always great video. I know this is a unusual request but would you like to do a video of top 10/15 military strategy and technology books you would recommend for reading. It would be appreciated. Thanks to you I started readings Tom Clancy. Red Storm Rising is best book in my opinion

@Karthagast 2 года назад

Very good and reasonable explanation. Certainly that idea of a light tank, particularly for marine forces and other forces deployed in rough terrain, seems quite practical.

@SelfProclaimedEmperor 8 месяцев назад

Light tanks would get wrecked by even Taiwan's oldest MBTs, never mind the M1A2 Abrams they are starting to get

@Karthagast 8 месяцев назад

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor What makes you think the engagement will consist in combat tank vs tank?? That's naive, to say the less.

@awesomebydefault3877 7 месяцев назад

@@SelfProclaimedEmperorhuh? China obviously isn’t developing its tank on tank capabilities against near pear adversaries. China is instead investing heavily into its airforce, navy and infantry

@SelfProclaimedEmperor 7 месяцев назад

@@Karthagast well you can try to storm a beach without tanks but that's even worse

@SelfProclaimedEmperor 7 месяцев назад

@@awesomebydefault3877 china has invested alot into tanks, it has nearly as many as the US, though how good they are is up for debate. As for other capabilities, the US air force is 3X larger than the Chinese air force, and with better aircraft overall, the Chinese navy lags behind massively in tonnage, training and quality on its navy compared to the US navy

@muhammadazeem1346 2 года назад

It must be about their doctrine and strategy or something because they have much better tanks in the export market costs for upgradation could also be an issue or a combination of both

@Userext47 2 года назад

Most likely doctrine. China needs a strong navy and airforce. Their tanks are good enough for now and should they need it, they could kick production into high gear, churning out hundreds of thousands tanks in mere months. The only threat to them on land with tanks is russia and russia is busy with west. India has mountains between the two, pointless to use tanks at. China's military rivals are in pacific. Japan, Taiwan, United states. It wasn't the tanks that won the pacific war in 1944.

@jeffpeng1118 2 года назад

So the main weakness pointed out in the video is the lack of ERA on the side armor. That's alright because Chinese tanks aren't active in any sort of conflict right now. In case they need to use these tanks in a war they can quickly upgrade them with the latest ERA side armor.

@RocketPropelledMexican 2 года назад

It's because almost all the modernization focus has been on the rocket force, navy and air force. If you read Chinese papers it's pretty clear they think the ground force will be a minor sideshow in any future confrontation especially with the US. So modernization has been slower there

@blahbleh5671 2 года назад

@Legalize Raping Russian Broads In America you think you're anonymous and your degenerate spiel will have no consequences for you in real life but all you need to do is piss off the right person with the right skills

@ivanstepanovic1327 2 года назад

Well, they have huge number of tanks and massive population to recruit crews. So, who cares if a couple of hundreds of tanks are knocked out? They will make more tanks and recruit more crews. After all, they are communists and to them, life of an individual is worthless... Also, they don't have any actual combat experience. No large engagements outside China since Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979.

@LLAALALA 2 года назад

One answer to the Chinese tank design's lack of side armor, I think, is most of those tanks are built for sale rather than expected to fight in a war with other nations. The only land battle China can reasonably expect anytime soon is with India or Taiwan. Both would be fighting in terrain where MBT has limited use. It makes sense that they build cheaper and less well-armored tanks so that nations with less well-funded armies could afford them.

@Skyfishist 2 года назад

Chinese exports have much better specifications than tanks for self-use.

@ieuanhunt552 2 года назад

Why would MTB be less useful against India. I know the border is very mountainous but no all the fighting would stay at the border.

@LLAALALA 2 года назад

@@ieuanhunt552 The fight actually would stay within the border area. Any fight between China and India will most likely be in the form of a border dispute rather than total conquest unlike what is happing in Ukraine right now. If you look at the disputed region "Arunachal Pradesh" it's all mountains and neither side has the logical capability to maintain a significant number of MBT when the supply line has to go through that region.

@ggg-wt7jw 8 месяцев назад

@@ieuanhunt552The area of the mountains is even larger than you imagine. It is the highest plateau and highest mountain in the world, and the area of the plateau is larger than the entire Ukraine

@judas57650 7 месяцев назад

India maybe? But almost impossible since the treaty not to use hot weapon. Tw even lesser chance. If China manage to get their mbt into tw island. Mean the fight is as good as over.

@tylerdurden69420 2 года назад

Red Effect did a similar video recently about the reason why Chinese MBTs don't have side armor. As many people have already pointed out, the main reason comes down to money. Equipping so many tanks with additional armor when there hasn't really been a major tank battle within China's borders in over 60 years is a bad return-on-investment. There are many other weapon platforms that China can focus on.

@hurbrowns5397 2 года назад

Yes, Chinese can defintely slap on these ERA block on the side armour and even put on GL5 active protection system but it just doesn't make sense to retrofit thousands of tanks with these, especially they haven't gone to war for long time and most likely scenario for in future conflict is not on land. Side ERA and APS is also not so useful for tank to tank combat. They're useful against RPGs used by insurgents which China isn't engaged in like that of Western/Russians tanks in Middle East. However, their export tanks features side protection and APS.

@HanSolo__ 2 года назад

I mean they really should focus on this shit because its a major problem - skimping on the money!

@HanSolo__ 2 года назад

@boris sato ERA is the lightest armor available that brings value (bar cage brings shit.) It is also one of the cheapest components of the modern tank - poor one or bold.

@CorePathway 9 месяцев назад

Tanks are so 1940s. Today EVERY WEAPON PLATFORM, from individual soldiers to almost every wheeled and tracked vehicle, every rotor-wing, most fixed wings, many artillery systems and DRONES DRONES DRONES have anti-armor capabilities. Tanks against a modern army are nothing but juicy priority targets.

@awesomebydefault3877 7 месяцев назад

@@HanSolo__it really isn’t a problem at all. The tanks china has are absolutely enough to fend off foreign invaders. China is prioritising investing into the airforce, navy and infantry which will have a way larger impact than tanks which r good enough for all intents and purposes

@andreashauschild7757 2 года назад

China has also been spending allot of money on Drone Tanks. These are much smaller versions of tanks that are used remotely. Cost would allow placement of 5 to 8 times as many vehicles with a much smaller logicist and tactical footprint that still manages to destroy enemy armor and support infantry. It also gives the advantages that a trained operator is not taken out in a engagement, but only reassigned another drone tank. Overall it does lose some flexibility as situation awareness on Drones is in some regards less then on manned vehicles, but more modern sensors tend to close this gap rapidly. I suspect in 10 years or so you will see no new manned tanks, but more a remote-controlled force. Possibly even with limited AI capabilities that can be given tasks as to guard a sector against enemies.

@tylerclayton6081 Год назад

China does not have any operational drone tanks. But both the US and China are experimenting with Autonomous drone tanks that work along side manned tanks. There will be manned tanks in the future, but they will be paired with more numerous unmanned tanks. Same with fighter jets. The new NGAD will have one large manned fighter jet and 5 autonomous drones with it. Russia is still stuck trying to experiment with remote operated unmanned tanks and drones. Which are far inferior to autonomous drones and tanks controlled by a smart AI

@marlo8850 5 месяцев назад

@@tylerclayton6081 a backpack signal jammer has an interdiction range of 1km, these drones would stand no chance.

@T33K3SS3LCH3N 2 года назад

Rate of fire is not usually a consideration for or against auto loaders at this calibre. Rather it is: 1. Benefit of a 4th crewmember for maintenance, security, extra pair of eyes etc 2. Autoloaders need less space to operate 3. Autoloaders deal better with ammo where powder and projectile are separate Western tank forces were often fine with building larger tanks rather than trying to make them as compact as possible, since it's more ergonomic, allows for safer ammunition storage, can fit some systems better, and fits with their relatively defensive doctrines where higher turrets allow for more gun depression from behind hilltops and other cover. Soviet tanks in contrast prioritised attack on open ground more, thus minimising size and maximising raw protection to work in places with less cover. 25% less personell per tank and smaller tanks also means that they can field bigger numbers. But as the next generation will likely see bigger ammo that gets too heavy to be loaded in one piece by humans, and possibly more unmanned turrets, automatic loaders will be the only choice.

@phunkracy 2 года назад

at this point human loader offers no advantages over automatic loader. all latest western tanks already feature autoloaders - leclerc, type 10 and K2. the only outlier is Turkey with their Altay, but 1) they are more constrained by their budget 2) it's their first attempt at domestic tank

@hentakkaki7980 2 года назад

"western tanks" yet names k2 and type 10. Nato tanks is the right word

@phunkracy 2 года назад

@@hentakkaki7980 lol neither korea nor japan are in nato. also 'the west' broadly is us - aligned countries. ergo yeah, western tanks. you tried too hard to sound smart and failed.

@hentakkaki7980 2 года назад

@@phunkracy still not western mate, maybe just call it nato-aligned tanks next time if you are so smart

@phunkracy 2 года назад

@@hentakkaki7980 they are western but keep on backtracking

@neiljohnson6815 2 года назад

Old tanker here: The M-60 and it's variants were never called "Pattons", that was the M-48 series.

@longsleevethong1457 2 года назад

19k here. Yeah he’s wrong on some of these facts

@josephahner3031 2 года назад

M-60 was never officially called Patton but is commonly referred to as Patton by media and historians because every other US tank and IFV has an official name.

@longsleevethong1457 2 года назад

@@josephahner3031 a misnomer that stuck huh …but folks still gota correct it

@marcusfountain1694 8 месяцев назад

Good ,great to know .❤

@mustang5132 2 года назад

Wait what do you mean with the cancellation of the challenger 2 replacement? As far as I’ve seen the challenger 3 development is going along

@machdaddy6451 Год назад

In the second Iraqi war (2003) Exactly one Abrams tank was lost. It was lost to an RPG fired at close range in urban terrain. Half the crew survived, and the tank was later recovered, repaired, and put back into service.

@Channel-sp3fp Год назад

Out of 12,133 total coalition losses in Iraq, 2003 during the invasion and occupation.

@machdaddy6451 Год назад

@@Channel-sp3fp Lies and misinformation.

@MK_ULTRA420 8 месяцев назад

@@machdaddy6451 Yeah this is an anti-America channel if you hadn't noticed.

@richardsuggs8108 2 года назад

Auto-Loaders can be slower than a man loader. I worked with a tank commander who had his loader trained to load the main gun in the Abrams tank in less than 5 seconds. Also the battle of 72 Easting proved that man loaders get the job done.

@dainbaril2934 9 месяцев назад

@@mandellorian790 RIP Once respected commander, Col MacGregor. Now he's a shill for the Russians. Sad.

@osmacar5331 9 месяцев назад

Uh... they're equal. The russian autoloaders and leclerc you have to command the system to reload. All do.

@liamlee8159 8 месяцев назад

@@osmacar5331Uh…but he’s saying that a man loader can be, and has proven to be, faster and better than an autoloader.

@madmullets 8 месяцев назад

Nothing can beat a 20 year old hopped up on Rip Fuel and a lip packed full with a 1/2 a can on dip for a loader. The extra guy also make the day to day chores associated with keeping a war time death machine.

@osmacar5331 8 месяцев назад

@@liamlee8159 leclerc can load in 4.5, less than 5 seconds in american means 5.5 which is .1 faster than the T-64 pattern carousel which is 5.6. americans will puff themselves up no matter what and that has to be compensated for.

@madeinbih1 2 года назад

The auto loader answer can be in question. And depending on engagement and scenario. Auto loader may or may not be beneficial

@landywilson 6 месяцев назад

The M1 doesn't have an auto loader because it is slower and can malfunction.

@historywalrus4851 2 года назад

This was a very insightful and entertaining video keep it up!

@expandedhistory 2 года назад

Very much agreed. This channel inspired me to make my military history channel!

@historywalrus4851 2 года назад

@@expandedhistory I checked it out and you’ve earned a new sub!

@thedownwardmachine 2 года назад

Seems like tanks are on the wane for the same reason knights' armor fell out of favor -- attacks keep scaling up in power, and the weight of armor (and cost of countermeasures) needed to counter them makes the tanks impractical after a certain point.

@CharliMorganMusic 2 года назад

Maybe, but the role of a tank will never go away. It may not look like an MBT in the future, but there will always be a need to cross open terrain very quickly while getting shot at.

@rocketman3046 2 года назад

@@CharliMorganMusic And it's always going to be a benefit to be able to have the ability to pull up a big gun quickly.

@rodiculous9464 2 года назад

This is an antiquated and reductionist view of tanks. Most modern tanks are very fast and rely on active protection systems and stealth for protection rather heavy slabs of armor.

@phunkracy 2 года назад

Modern active protection systems can literally destroy apfsds projectiles flying towards tank at 1700 m/s. Most of at missiles are much slower than that. Tanks aren't going anywhere

@jonathanpfeffer3716 2 года назад

@@rodiculous9464 plus modern armor can likely stop frontal shots, armor on most MBTs is incredibly thick frontally

@theDiprovate 9 месяцев назад

is there any video showing abram weakness, i would love to see it

@sudhendugupte7562 2 года назад

Thanks.

@johnyricco1220 2 года назад

There was a Chinese tank designer that said they are not scheduled for side armor upgrades until after 2025.

@ricksuter6038 2 года назад

I don't trust the value in that, probability just propaganda....you know how the ccp is.....stupid...not you.....the ccp.

@johnyricco1220 2 года назад

@@ricksuter6038 How is it propaganda that the army is short of funds?

@robertcurry389 Год назад

None of these tanks seem like they have stabilized guns.

@AwardQueue Год назад

WTF. stabilized is not an advanced tech thing. find it out from the video source.

@AwardQueue Год назад

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IPlOekOW3bM.html

@robertcurry389 Год назад

@@AwardQueue Yeah stabilized guns were around in WW2.

@caprarescuserban4677 2 года назад

The Type 80 looks rather similar to the Romanian TR 85M1 and TR 580 (580HP) Romania and China collaborated for the tank development. The difference is that Type 80 has a smoothbore gun (Type 85IIA/Type 88C) the older have rifled gun like the Romanian TR 580/TR 85M1.

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 года назад

9:16 - "the Taiwanese M-60 Patton ..." The M-60 was NEVER called "Patton", and in fact never got a nickname at all, it just derived from the Patton series of tanks and still looked a bit similar to it.

@tylercoombs1 2 года назад

The Chinese and Russian auto loaders take 10 seconds a round, the avg Abrahms fires a round every 4 to 5 seconds. The crew of an Abrahams would run out of ammo long before fatigue sets in lol

@thekatanaguy Месяц назад

brroooo, like i said with another guy, even if ur claim is 100% correct, it's still quite challenging to quickly turn, move, and reload within a narrow space in 5 seconds. The first three shots might be fast, but continuing to reload at such a high rate, let's see how long you can keep it up.

@johnwalsh4857 2 года назад

thsi shows to me that China's army is mostly defensive in nature. its navy and air force are more advanced. and geared towards a more offensive doctrine.

@josephsatricleofevillanuev3194 9 месяцев назад

Their "surprising" weakness is that they're slower than a Russian T-80BVM despite being similar in size and weight.

@Failcard 2 года назад

Leaked document of the DTC10 gives its 680mms at 2 kms, your 650mms estimate was pretty accurate, and this was 3 months ago. not bad

@sangmoon2464 2 года назад

Their tanks are used to quell internal unrest, and they don't need fancy armor to do that

@irregular2329 2 года назад

Wrong, riots may get RPGs and Incendiary bombs that can destroy tanks easily. That's the doctrine of U.S MBT, see the total weight of an Abrams... Chinese MBT is designed to match with Russian tanks and fight them in the front, it's not designed to be used to slaught innocent Muslim civilians as Americans did.

@ricksuter6038 2 года назад

@@irregular2329 let me ask you.... how do you know ,US tanks are used in a support role like a shield or breacher. Sounds like you have a bias.

@cplson2706 2 года назад

I really enjoy this channel. Its not trying to mock china, just giving some interesting insight. much appreciated.

@skatedonut952 2 года назад

I mock China and it’s communist regime.

@vincentfang5639 2 года назад

@@skatedonut952 You do like China when it was in the imperial eras or ROC years, the time you were able to freely bully this country and slave its people. Hope God can bless your bloody ancestors.

@richardmoskalyov8503 2 года назад

@@skatedonut952 Ah yes, the communist regime

@skatedonut952 2 года назад

@@vincentfang5639 they could of went another way and didn’t now there’s another genocide happening. I don’t feel bad calling them shit bags, they are. Not citizens, just the citizens who voted for it, and the regime they have currently. Just like liberals. They vote liberal expecting different results. Nothinf happens same bullshit pandering to people of color, who still don’t get a different result but it’s been the party they always vote for because liberals lie like communist.

@z3056 5 месяцев назад

Interesting analysis, although one correction: the UK has not cancelled its Challenger 2 replacement. Challenger 3 is already in production.

@lordtemplar9274 2 года назад

Will you being doing a video on China's Belt and Road initiative?

@antimono5528 2 года назад

The export ztz-99a has actual side armor, I don't think they believe it to be worth it domestically.

@AdamJRowen 2 года назад

Since when 99A were being exported by CPC?

@hekrad 2 года назад

@@AdamJRowen maybe VT4 that thailand and pakistan buy ..

@dabo5078 2 года назад

@boris sato No they are not, exported tanks use Chinese engines. 1500hp domestic engine is more than enough to take on any sort of armour package you can throw at it.

@Autofire-nw5ty 2 года назад

You assume they care about crew survivability...….

@spudnikflyover1227 2 года назад

Part of me thought that we would see prices listed for each ERA panel at 2:25. It looks like it's from a dang military surplus site!

@GdaySport 2 года назад

Question: 1 X M1 Abrams battle tank, or 50 X Toyota Hi-Lux's with 105mm guns?

@marlonsong9280 2 года назад

Come on, let's be real here Chinese military strategy is mainly defence(or taking Taiwan). If anyone is invading the Chinese mainland, with the numerous Chinese infantries and the advantage of fight in their own country i don't think the invading forces will get much chance to strike the Chinese MBTs from the sides. Also on the Chinese CCTV2 or 4 I forgot, their military expert did mention that Chinese mbts 99a, 99 and 96a or b did have slots reserved on side plates for additional era or composite armour.(And yes China has ERA, the FY4 which is equipped on the current expert VT5 and local Type 15 light tank, it is said to have comparable performance to the Russian Relikt ERA) Remember the slots on side plates that i mentioned, China will rig armour on side of tanks if they were deemed needed. A great example of this is the Type 15 light tank which is designed mostly for operation in the Tibet highland against the Indianas which are considered as more of a frontline duty, thus it was rigged with FY4 ERA on the side and extra heavy ERA on the upper glacis.

@mastrammeena328 2 года назад

You haven't heard of India I think I am no nationalist but all I am saying that India has similar size to chuna

@marlonsong9280 2 года назад

@@mastrammeena328 First of all, Indians have no interest in invading china. Second, that is why i mentioned that the Chinese armoured up their type 15 light tank for border conflict against the Indians.

@JoeOvercoat 2 года назад

3:40 use the right word when you say sustained rate of fire, But neglect to note that a human can reportedly outperform and auto loader for the first handful of rounds which of the ones that matter the most. There are lots of reasons to get rid of the fourth crew men but that point should not be lost in a ‘shoot first = kill first’ world.

@jonsong4592 2 года назад

well i reckon it depends on the type of autoloader. the carousel autoloaders range between 6-7.5 seconds, but bustle autoloaders can be much faster at the expense of smaller ammo capacity.

@J_X999 2 года назад

Could you do a video on the Chinese infantry with their new rifle, the QBZ 191?

@Tomartyr 2 года назад

When did the Challenger replacement get cancelled?

@indycustommade3568 2 года назад

Great job on all the info. I was an FDC guy for the US Army Artillery. Back in the '80s and early '90s we had 155mm M109 Howitzers. We had three batteries which consisted of 2 platoons of 4. So in total, we had 24 Howitzers and 6 FDCs for them. During Desert Storm, we provided support for the Armor units, sort of. We started with having our 155s loaded by hand. Later we received autoloaders. They are not all the hype. I think what makes us more deadly is not just the tank but the combination of all our support units. In my opinion, some of these countries have what they have with the understanding that the end will ultimately end in nukes. That's their fallback plan. I just see Russia or China getting into trouble and the soldiers abandoning the vehicles and running away. I hear about that in Ukraine and I don't think it would be any different in China.

@ReisskIaue 2 года назад

Good point against the autoloader. Another argument: You have an additional crew member when it comes to repairs in the field, e. g. replacing lost tracks.

@ibobeko4309 2 года назад

I think China it is worse, China was last time in a war 1979 against Vietnam. In Russia at least there is no infighting, in China there are 2 groups fighting for power, the old party with Jiang Zemin and the Ping faction. People in the Army only get promoted if they join their factions and the corruption is next level.

@frankfinnsweenryan 2 года назад

@@ibobeko4309 Russia's army was far more battle-hardened going into Ukraine 2022 than China would be, should they start hostilities somewhere.

@weiyang5959 2 года назад

LOL,Typically, they don't know anything about China, and they believe in the information cocoon created by their own fake media! Sadly stupid and a little scary.

@jenny2329 Год назад

Killing me

@asahearts1 2 года назад

Regarding maps, if they take out all the satellites they might have the advantage. That's probably what they're going for.

@chucknoris7648 2 года назад

True but that puts them at a big disadvantage they are as dependent on satellites as anyone else. America has counter measures for satellite losses.

@asahearts1 2 года назад

@@chucknoris7648 They're not as dependent, though. That's the thing. They only train with the maps because that's what they have. Their military won't suffer as big a loss because they weren't as high tech to begin with. In other words, the gap will narrow if the satellites go down. And not just between China and the US, but between every lower tech state and higher tech one. I hope America does have countermeasures, but I haven't really heard any details, and more than likely they're untested. They're also at best only going to limit the narrowing of that gap.

@Roborob12345 2 года назад

@@asahearts1 Honestly every tank commander relies on maps. Maybe a BMS system can be used in addition, but you will not see a tank driving around wihtout a map in the commanders possession.

@Conan-ny1um 2 года назад

Since 2020 the last 7 satellites spy / GPS the USA launched were put in the deepest orbits ever. They are unreachable by missles or any weapons. It’s easy to reaserch. Trump / Space force did a lot of smart things .

@asahearts1 2 года назад

@@Roborob12345 Yeah I wouldn't think they'd go without a regular map, at least just in case. The question is, how much of the US' edge (regarding tanks and literally everything else) is due to tech that can be easily wiped out? How much of their edge is due to the satellites, and are they as well trained to use traditional methods as their commie counterparts? Because if they aren't not only will their edge be gone, they will have a comparitive detriment. And it goes well beyond tanks. I know there's a lot of communication, guidance and calculation that goes on with targeting long range weaponry which relies on a lot of squishy tech. If the people who need a missile to be launched can't call for it, the target can't be pointed out, and the information can't make it through the communication chain, we're going to have a bad time.

@Oscarcat2212 2 года назад

Would that affect the efficiency or Javelin or NLAW missiles?

@user-vc4ho2xh7z 2 года назад

I have also asked questions like the flank armor is too thin. The Chinese replied that they will add thicker armor according to the battlefield conditions. The military exercises and military parades we are seeing now are the most primitive versions.

@yuluoxianjun 2 года назад

lol

@sosseturner 2 года назад

I wonder if the Autoloader if it is so similar to the russians also is such a death trap, I mean we see how a single hit in the conter ammunition blows the turret off and throws it literally away...

@AutisticPlays 9 месяцев назад

thats why armored carousel exists duh

@ronmaximilian6953 2 года назад

Wouldn't the PLA be able to put explosive reactive armor on the side of their tanks?

@ricksuter6038 2 года назад

Like Russia...maybe but I like to think that the pla and the ccp are just dumb 🙄.

@the_darkgameryt 5 месяцев назад

While the loader in an m1 may get tired and slow down loading, they are usually still faster than autoloaders, but if they aren’t, there are usually other tanks with them to keep cover

@marlo8850 5 месяцев назад

this isnt Warthunder, youre not firing round after round for hours on end. Theres like a couple minutes of engagement, they wont get tired at all.

@ItzCPU_ 5 месяцев назад

Cool but what br is it at

@rickjames18 2 года назад

Couple hidden issue that cannot be easily seen or verified is the corruption and lack of realistic combat training. The corruption is massive which could mean many systems look good on paper but may be lacking. The training is another issue, many PLA commanders have voiced concerns about the unrealistic training that is still being conducted.

@doujinflip 2 года назад

I've heard they spend a workday's worth every week just on developing loyalty: classroom, songs, and slogan shouting. Upper leadership must still be concerned how fast their soldiers will break down along with their expectations of New China superiority in the face of actual adversity.

@rickjames18 2 года назад

@@doujinflip Yeah, political training or classes are a thing. Weird, sounds like a waste of time but I guess Xi is worried. I mean, many CCP generals are worried about the fighting ability of the PLA. Who knows? India seems to have beat them on the LAC which seems to have embarrassed the CCP.

@JammyDodger45 2 года назад

All the keyboard experts saying tanks are obsolete because of Russia's failure in Ukraine are way off the mark. The issue is not that tanks are getting smashed by infantry level weapons but that the Russians are deploying tanks without intimate infantry support. It's the Russian tactics that are obsolete not the tank. If this was Britain or the US conducting an invasion you'd see a very different outcome with Air Superiority being gained and Combined Arms Ops executed on the ground. Russian troops are doomed to fail in the Ukraine and thousands more of them are going to die for Putins vanity but this isn't the end of tanks in modern warfare.

@dingodog5677 2 года назад

Quantity plus some quality. It might be the perfect mix.

@WilliamAshleyOnline 2 года назад

A 5km engagement area is still quite large for encirclment and infantry close support.

@ldIezz 2 года назад

China will always have tanks because what else do you use against protesting college students in a square?

@gyzq 2 года назад

Mounted police, so, that means horses.

@kanlu5199 2 года назад

Canada just showed an example of using horses ridding police against civil a few days ago

@christaylor6654 2 года назад

The auto loader selling point is BS, a loader can sling rounds until the ammo is gone and do it faster than an auto loader and the 3 man crew means less rest for crew and more maintenance less eyes on security.

@JamesGrim08 2 года назад

Yeah its always been said that the AG is slower than a 4th man so I'm not sure where he got his sources for that.

@markli247 2 года назад

Hint, your information might not be correct. type 99A has three layers of armor. Base, composite, ERA. It is said that type 99A cannot penetrate the armor of type 99A from 2km away.

@gamerdad9870 2 месяца назад

i like how the thumbnail weakness is every mbt weakness lol

@FUZionist 2 года назад

Hypothetically, let’s say that China invades Taiwan and gets rid of the Taiwanese Patton tanks either by air or using Type 96/99s, and all that remaining is Taiwanese insurgents without MBTs. What is the value of using MBTs against such soft targets? Wouldn’t IFVs or light tanks do better in city warfare? Or even just mechanized infantry? If RPGs can knock out some of the world’s most advance tank, there is probably no point of using them in urban insurgent combat.

@MrYodi2007 2 года назад

Taiwan would fight to the death! MBT's would be useless in Taiwan as it's a mountainous area. There are only like 3 places on the whole Island that china could land on with heavy losses . Light tanks or APCs would get decimated by motors and RPGs. As we seen in Ukraine, armor without logistics and ground troops is a waste!

@zhli4238 2 года назад

Tanks look simple and yesteryear's technology, however it is actually quite difficult to make that most nations cannot independently make own tanks. India for example buy their tanks from Russia while domestically researched Arjun tank never entered services after decades of R&D. China had a few generations of domestic tanks. It turned out autoloaders, explosive reactive armors are easier than basic things like diesel engines and heavy load chassis.

@JK-br1mu 2 года назад

India still uses elephants as their best armored vehicles

@williamwchuang 2 года назад

Transmissions and suspensions.

@KUNALBISWAS-NEWS-TECH-SHORT 2 года назад

Back in 2020 we expected Type15 aka ZTQ15 vs our T72M1 but they bring Type88.. :(

@deafmusician2 2 года назад

The problem with copying everyone else is that you're always a couple steps behind

@H3rraM4juri 2 года назад

well autoloaders make that you have one less crewmember on board and have higher rate of fire but more likely get killed unlike abrams but abrams the human loader has limit unlike autoloader so it is a trade offer in someway

@Wayzor_ 2 года назад

China's Tanks - breakdown in the first 3 months of ownership and can't be returned to Amazon.

@autopartsmonkey7992 8 месяцев назад

3 months, you mean days. And comes with instructions for a 1985 jeep instead

@jagdpanther2224 2 года назад

Those "Plates" were dust covers to prevent dust looming to the sky exposure the tank's position during high speed running, they were not armour. M1,Leopard2, Challenger2 were wearing the same! Only British Challenger tank in Gulf wars (1991,2003) has extra side armour but that was too heavy and difficult to manoeuvre in combat!

@meejinhuang 2 года назад

They stand no chance against Western tanks and TOWs.

@aurorajones8481 2 года назад

Well the tank was created to counter trench warfare. Something we haven't done since WWI, I think WWII they were a perfect addition to ones aggressive plans. However now we can bust up a tank w/ one person, one weapon, we no longer have trenches, now drones are on the horizon. You put those tank busters on a drone and you have game over for any tank battalion.

@expandedhistory 2 года назад

This channel never ceases to amaze us! Thank you Covert Cabal for inspiring us to make our military history channel!

@TheMonotoneMan 2 года назад

I really like your channel KEEP IT UP!

@peterallen4605 2 года назад

I'm not sure that not having a satellite based navigation system is such a drawback in a modern peer to peer conflict. In fact, training without one might yield huge benefits in a likely GPS denied environment.

@828enigma6 2 года назад

I'm quite happy they are running naked armor. Sun Tzu said if your enemy is in the process of making a mistake, let him.

@thorzcunstellarfighter3724 Год назад

i believe a new Chinese tank was teased around 2 months ago. We didn't get to see or learn much about it but apparently it will only require 2 crew members and will be similar to the Armata and AbramsX

@user-vv7ir1pl4j Год назад

Name? Whaattt

@Ottovonostbahnhof 2 года назад

ZTZ99A is most famous for its info war capability. It has the most advanced sensor and data link system, which all ignored in this video

@simpmaster7995 2 года назад

Chinese Wumao.

@jenny2329 Год назад

stupid dog

@Siao222 2 года назад

I doubt the PLA will be worrying about a RPG to the side of their tank anytime soon as they have yet to invade or occupy any foreign lands that have a native population that is aggressively shooting at them. If there is an enemy who will be fighting tank on tank with them, that will be the Russians who is currently an ally. The US will unlikely be able to land any tank force of any numbers across the Pacific Ocean to really matter. Better to invest in a stronger Navy and Air Force which will do just as well if they can sink transports loaded with tanks than killing them in the battlefield.

@Drownedinblood 2 года назад

Somebody gets it.

@stuglife5514 2 года назад

Yea but the US doctrine is still about air superiority. We have better CAS. We have better Air Superiority fighters. And we have a better carrier fleet.

@Siao222 2 года назад

@@stuglife5514 This is not about US capability, but more of logical choice selection. Yes the US Armed Forces is extremely capable no doubt about that, but it will be spread thin in a hypothetical non-nuclear war with China. It will spend most of its resources to defend its key assets (Carriers, bases, etc), that means there are plenty of opportunities to go at the transports. Instead of building another 100 more capable tanks to fight another 100 US tanks on the ground, why not spend the same amount of money to commission another submarine, or a squadron of aircraft that can take out the transports transporting that same 100 tanks across the Pacific? Remember you can't defeat an enemy without occupying the enemy's land, no matter how strong your air force or navy is.

@maximilianyuen 2 года назад

China's tanks main opponent is students that protesting peacefully. They have no need to use side armor at all.

@aopt471 9 месяцев назад

"...Germany looking for..." - Yes Germany is developing the KF51 Panther, which is not a 3rd Gen Battle Tank at all...

@wtang1121 2 года назад

tanks may be the least important weapon for the pla. who will try to invade china in a battle focused on tanks? is china going to fight a tank battle with taiwan, japan, russia, india, vietnam? they would have air superiority vs any of those 5 except with the remote possibility of russia... china is focused on taiwan and the south china sea. their weapon development seems to support the focus. whether that is silent liquid oxygen powered mini subs, or j20 with better stealth in the front, hypersonic missiles that forces us carrier group further away from their shores, drone swarms that cancel out much of the stealth advantages of us aircraft etc. even attack helicopter purchases from russia and new domestic powered up engines for j-20

@defective6811 2 года назад

A well trained crew with a loader can fire just as quickly as a crew with an autoloader in most instances, and for long enough to really matter. Also, the extra crewman presents a lot of advantages, especially in terms of maintaining the vehicle and sharing workload. A 4 man crew (commander, gunner, loader, driver) can often be a more well rested crew than a 3-man autoloader vehicle, and thus more combat capable - especially as conflicts drag on. It is _insanely_ reductive and simplistic to just say that a vehicle with an autoloader can have a much higher rate of fire than a vehicle with an extra crewman.

@fish2468 2 года назад

agreed, but extra personal can also mean an extra step for command to be executed, increasing potential latency and chance of manual failure. But ya, if it works, it works. No black mouth can deny such fact.

@defective6811 2 года назад

I'd suggest that the possibility of command delay above that which exists for a vehicle with an autoloader can easily be said to be offset by the increased complexity and material vulnerability of the mechanical loading system. Your loader can tire under protracted combat. Your mechanical loader can malfunction or even terminally break under protracted use. And, with the smaller crew size, your maintenance requirements of said autoloader just put a greater strain on those crewman which remain. If command delay is a function of vehicle familiarity, environmental noise, and crew alertness levels, having fewer men to share in the work in a vehicle with an extra quite-loud machine that 4-crew tanks lack, then once you're more than a week in to a conflict then command delay might even be greater in the autoloading vehicle.

@logannicholson1850 2 года назад

Having a 4 man crew means a bigger tank, bigger tanks are bigger targets and mean that more armour needs to be applied to protect most areas this is why Russian tanks dont need to worry about most bridges in Eurasia since they will come in at a max of 45-55 tons compared to most western equivalents which are over 60 tons that's the biggest advantage of a auto loader over a manual loader, ROF is better in prolonged fights but that's assuming that there will be large tanks battles like in WW2

@defective6811 2 года назад

@@supportsystem7134 and thats probably the best argument in favor of an auto loader Also, I should add that I do absolutely recognize the situations where using an autoloader affords designs that can't be had with a crewman loader, such as crewless turrets.

@charlesschulz8416 2 года назад

What does a mechanised army require to them moving ? Fuel, ammunition, food for the soldiers take any one of these factors away by blowing up supply dumps and your army would come to a grinding halt