So based on all your comments i did so further research into more modern autoloaders and i have to say, im impressed. i genuinely wasn't too aware of these French, South Korean, or Japanese tanks and their capabilities. So thanks for correcting my statements, from now on ill say "russian based" autoloaders when describing the ones that always explode.
Well, French, Japanese and South Korean tanks use autoloaders also. The main difference between them and Soviet tanks is that the autoloader is a cassette type put in the back of the turret with blowout panels compared to the Soviet carousel system that surrounds the crew. There are a lot of arguments between manual or autoloading, if you are interested Chieftain talks about that's stuff
Ukraine also had a few successful attempts where they increased the size of the turret of Soviet tanks and put the autoloader in the back of it with blowout panels but unfortunately due to a lack of funding those projects didn't go into mass production, also fun fact the Ukrainians changed the guns on those projects with new 120mm ones compatible with NATO ammunition. Basically Soviet tech can be good as long as you put someone competent in charge and Ukraine had a lot of interesting projects to improve Soviet tech because Ukraine had the advantage of having the most engineers when it comes to armoured vehicles back in the Soviet Union and most of the production plans were in Kharkiv after the fall of the Soviet Union compared to Russia which struggled to get those plans back but failed for the most part and being left to upgrade stuff from their inventory left from the Soviet Union
For Reference, Wankel Rotary Gasoline/Petrol Engines exist and work, but nobody’s figured out how to make it work for diesel…or why they’d want to. basically instead of using Pistons it uses some interesting geometry to make the crankshaft basically act as multiple piston heads simultaneously, in an enclosure shaped for the exhaust and injection cycles happen automatically without need of a camshaft to time it. Which *in theory* would greatly reduce the number of moving parts and make those still there more robust, and some claimed would also improve fuel efficiency…but at the cost of all those parts needing to be far more precisely machined and heavier. Mazda built its brand on sportscars using Wankel engines, but they never got enough interest to develop anywhere NEAR as far as traditional piston designs, so don’t actually see any benefits over them in practice.
If there was a single person that could qualify as a real person who could have 'inspired' the character of James Bond it was the man, the legend Sir Christopher Lee.
48:00 Spam the Meggit loader: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_D71OAAP6jg.html The advantages of the Russian design do not outweigh its disadvantages and the stigma against autoloaders is understandable but leftover from the days when technology wasn’t as good as it is, today. Today, it is possible to create a reliable system (with redundancies) to replace the human loader, which would mean one less crewman lost if the tank is destroyed. But, this is only a significant concern for anyone manning a tank with an ammo-under-the-turret Rusky loader. Also, as the sizes of guns and ammo increase they will inevitably become too large and heavy for human loaders.
Eh, final point isn't really true, people hand-load 155mm cannons all the time and with something like two-piece ammo it's certainly not beyond the means of a human loader to keep that up at a decent rate.
the reason why those Iowa carrier hybrids weren't done is that the 16-inch guns have a range of 23 miles for a harpoon missile it's 80 miles and a tomahawk can reach someone from 1000 miles away. for shore landing, destroyers would be able to get closer to the shore than an Iowa and provide better support for a landing. while a destroyer's gun may only have a 14-mile range but by the time the Marines get that far inland their field artillery will be deployed and provide gun support.
I was looking at that and thinking that a big ship that had a ton of VLS cells in the front and room for 5-6 helicopters to take off from the back might actually be a credible platform. As cool as the big guns are they aren't exactly relevant these days.
@@wombatgirl997 that's what you do when you can't get a fleet carrier. Those missile cruises with helipads on the back is what you make when don't have the money resources and technical know-how to make a carrier.
Countries are currently lining up to buy F-35, including Poland, where I live. Maybe it can't dogfight, but nowadays the one who wins the air duel is the one with better missiles, better radar and better stealth capabilities.
soviet autoloader's where the first type of autoloader's to go into production meaning like any new type tech they where far from perfect and had a lot of flaws . most of Russia's MBT including the t90m still use soviet style autoloaders meaning they still have the same issues because of the simple fact that soviet autoloader's there some of the first autoloaders for MBTs to exist in the world tanks like the K2 ,type 10 and 90 and leclerc use bustle autoloaders wacth are far newer and modern and solve issues that soviet type autoloader's have
One of the big things that stands out to me, and that I'm surprised no-one I've seen react to this vid on (heck that even The Pig didn't go on about more), is Burton's claim is this idea anyone would be shocked that a military project to build a new vehicle would cost *billions* instead of a handful of *millions* - like... um hello?! between design, manufacture, testing, redesign and testing how the hell does that stay in just the millions?!
Ya know, I distinctly remember seeing some of Blacktail's stuff come up on FurAffinity in, like, the aughts. And I always thought it was some kind of near-future fictional world-building. It is only recently that I learned that this guy was taking himself seriously!
If you referring to Abrams x isnt that technically a tech demonstrator to see what the army does and doesn't like about it but don't get me wrong I'm all for them adopting an autoloader like the one on the Abrams x it's simpler and faster than Russian autoloaders plus it's much safer
Abrams X isn’t a planned replacement, it’s a PROPOSED replacement. IE tech demo/advertisement that General Dynamics made on its own initiative to say “Hey, Army procurement officers, look at what cool toys we could give you if you can convince Congress to lob another 100 Billion our way. So far the Army hasn’t bit, largely because, as Ukraine is proving, there’s no adversary out there dangerous enough that we’d NEED that kind of massive upgrade over the current Abrams to fight. So for now we’re likely just gonna get a few choice features the Army particularly likes from the proposal as incremental upgrade packages to the existing M1 and the rest will be left on the cutting room floor until the Army actually starts seeing the M1 as insufficient to needs. And moving forward with the Booker program to fill the direct fire support capability gap between IFVs like the Bradley and MBTs like the Abrams.
I take issue with that autoloader comment, because you can have an autoloader with blow-out panels. Here you go, a design by Meggitt, dropped into an ordinary Abrams, drawing its rounds from the turret bustle: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_D71OAAP6jg.html. In addition, there are Western tanks with autoloaders, notably the French Leclerc, which also uses a bustle autoloader.
Honestly I don't think Reagan was that bad of a dude. At least compared to someone like FDR who's wife would honestly be a better president. That's not a joke, Eleanor Roosevelt was badass.
