It's only a carbine if it comes from the carbine region of France, otherwise it's a sparkling short rifle. EDIT: I get notifications about this comment every few days. This is apparently my legacy.
I had to look it up: "The Oxford English Dictionary suggests that the origin of carbine is the word escarrabin. This was an occupational word which described a mortician, one who prepared a corpse for burial. Well as they say, somebody has to do it, although quite how this squares with a short firearm is not explained." Another entry linked the name to firearms by way of it also being an old French name for "carrion beetle" due to the association with corpses, and, that name was also used by the French for Flemish archers.
Blame camera battery capacity. :< If only civilian sector would develope camera equipment that works with AC transformer and a wire. More seriously though, I wouldn't mind some proper drunken history of weapons, arms, and tanks.. which this could have developed if it were hour or two longer. :p
On the note of "Silliest disable of an armored vehicle," during WWII one British Major Digby Tatham-Warter disabled a German armoured car by sticking the point of an umbrella through the vision slit and poking the driver in the eye
Ref. 'pegasusarchive.org/arnhem/tatham_warter.htm' April 2014. "On another occasion he used the rolled up umbrella to in-effect disable a German armoured car, simply by thrusting it through an observation slit in the vehicle and incapacitating the driver."
The Molotov cocktail (specifically the finnish-refined petrol bomb "Molotov cocktail" as opposed to petrol bombs in general) actually started out as a finnish anti-tank weapon during the winter war. You'd throw the burning bottle into the air intake (after potentially having jammed the track with a wooden log) of the T-26 tank and the engine would suck the flames in, disabling the tank. Alternatively on other tanks (including atleast most of the modern tanks as far as I know) you can throw the molotov on the engine bed and have the burning liquid drip down into the engine supposedly with the same effect, though obviously nowadays actually getting close enough to a tank to be able to use one without dying is quite the challenge in itself. The fire bottle is still mentioned as a makeshift anti-tank weapon in the official finnish army manual, though. The name was given to it by finns in response to the USSR minister of foreign affairs Vyacheslav Molotov stating that USSR hasn't bombed finnish civilians but rather dropped food supplies to the starving people. Finns started referring to soviet bombs as "molotov's breadbaskets", so they named the bottle "molotov's cocktail" as a drink to go with the food.
@ur momTechnically "Molotov cocktails" were first used in winter war, fire bottles in general were not. Their use in the spanish civil war is exactly why I made it clear I'm specifically referring to "Molotov cocktails" and not fire bottles in general. Molotovs were manufactured in Finland on an industrial scale with more reliable mechanism using storm matches to light them up, which wasn't the case for the fire bottles used in Spain (as far as I know). Despite being essentially the same concept, there's still a minor difference, if nothing else then the name "Molotov's cocktail".
@@rothary1641 Technically they were named first as the "Molotov cocktail" in the Winter War, not used, they were used before. Giving it a different name doesn't make it a different thing. Arguably we can go back to naptha and Greek fire with use, but certainly the Spanish Civil War. Finland is hardly the first country in the world to mass produce liquor on an industrial scale, Scots beat them to it if no one else. The company that made them in the Winter War was a liquor company (actually the Finnish company that has the legal monopoly on liquor, Alko), in a distillery, and then they tied matches to it, and they did it in response to a demand part way through, not in dedicated military factory as military equipment in preparation for the war or a conflict. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "technically". Also, the "petrol bombs" were used by both sides in the Spanish Civil War, the Brit "Tom Wintringham", does not specify that he used them against T-26s (but they were common both sides eventually). Early on most of the T-26 losses were to the Fascists and arguably they came up with the idea, Franco gave specific orders about doing it and then it became popular apparently. The Japanese also used petrol bombs at Khalkin Gol, but there is a debate to what effectiveness, the Japanese claimed hundreds of kills, out of proportion with the Soviet loss records (they claim only 5-10% were to petrol bombs, www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/battles/khalkhin_gol/losses.htm). Also of note and related to what he was talking about when it comes to tank on tank combat, the Japanese did not have a lot in the way of good tanks for fighting other tanks. Their primary tanks in Khalkin Gol were intended for infantry combat (type 95s, 89s, 97s and type 94 and 97 tankettes. Math comes out to 38 57mm cannons of which four were short barrelled and meant specifically for HE, 129 shells fired. 39 37mm cannons which were considered a little underpowered and fired 1100 shells. The remainder had mostly or only machine guns, and fired some 16000 rounds). The Japanese specifically noted that their 37mm was not so great compared to the T-26's 45mm in range or effectiveness, there is also a comment that the "Russians were good shots too!" That's the largest tank battle in that had occurred to date, with nearly 700 tanks and tankettes (although like 550 were Soviet, so fairly one sided). The Japs used theirs to charge the artillery, these are the same people that push bayonets on squad machine guns, although also scopes which turned out to be more useful after some tests against the Yanks.
@@Lowlandlord You're arguing against a couple strawmen here. I never claimed Finland was the first to use petrol bombs, I'm saying that a petrol bomb first referred to as "Molotov Cocktail" (by its users) originates from the Winter War, even if the concept existed prior to that, which I am absolutely not denying. And no, Molotov Cocktails and petrol bombs aren't entirely synonymous in this context. Giving an existing concept a different name indeed doesn't make it a different thing. Refining an existing concept and giving the refined version a different name more or less does. Just because a concept already exists does not mean you cannot refine it and then talk about the use of the refined version with the new name, especially if you specify you're referring to the new version, not the concept in general, which I already specified twice. The Spanish Civil War saw the use of petrol bombs against tanks, fine, not at all what I'm arguing against - the finns took the concept and refined it and gave it a new name, this refined mass produced version referred to as "Molotov Cocktail" was first used in the Winter War. So yes, "technically" the finnish-refined petrol bombs referred to as "Molotov Cocktail" were indeed first used in the Winter War, which is my entire point. If it wasn't perfectly clear earlier (which I admit it may not have been), then I apologize and hope you understand my point better now. I've edited my original comment to be slightly more clear about this. As for the production, I agree Finland is hardly the first country in the world to mass produce liquor on an industrial scale, though I don't see how is this related to the discussion at hand. Yes, Alko produced Molotovs, because they obviously had the tools for it. Why on earth would you not produce petrol bombs somewhere where they already have all the required machinery? No, a mix of gasoline and tar is not exactly "liquor", thus liquor production (such as what the Scots have been doing) has very little to do with this. Mass produced Molotovs were absolutely not normal bottles of liquor from the production line with a couple matches slapped onto them. They were intended as petrol bombs from the very beginning of the production line. Either way the fact remains they were indeed mass produced, which is all I was saying.
@@SonsOfLorgar The exact mix varied quite a bit, though. Most finnish sources describe it as a mix of spirit and gasoline or petrol and rubbing alcohol (or sometimes even kerosene), mixed with [a spoonful of] tar. Those specific matches are known as storm matches (or alternatively as bengal sticks) in finnish, so apologies if that's not appropriate in english and thank you for the correction.
According to Roger Hall (Who ended up in the OSS, his memoir is 'You're stepping on my cloak and dagger'), a French Maquisard found a German tank sitting in a hedgerow, all ready and waiting for a Sherman or two. He climbed on the tank; knocked on a hatch, announcing 'Mail for you'. the occupants opened the hatch, he delivered a few pre-paid grenades, and left before any complaints could be heard. If it works, it's not stupid. Especially if you survive.
@eric kowalski feels like one of thoes it probably happen the exact exchange of word is probably off. I mean if you can get the enemy to open the hatch do it. especially if your not expecting it. heck we had enemy solider walk into other bases in war because no one was thinking it can happen and regulation was lax as a result. it was not afterwards but for some time you could as long as you could pass the first glanse and look like you belong there walk into a smaller base and do anything that was not to oblivious. sure all it took was one alert German and you was neck deep in trouble.
If I remember correctly, the Finns used ski troopers to harass the Soviets, the Soviet infantry and tanks would pursue the Finns on skis, the Finns would lead them across this small open glades, where the Finnish artillery would then shell the Soviets. The artillery didn't need to hit the tanks, just hit the ice the tanks were crossing, and politely explain that they weren't crossing a field, but a small lake, and sink the tanks.
Motti is Finnish for chopping a big piece of wood into smaller fire wood. A Russian column would be halted by a road block, a party would seal off the retreat, then the column would be "chopped" into small pieces that could be defeated in detail.
Counterpoint, from the Seventy Maxims of Maximally-Effective Mercenaries: Maxim 43: If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky. Corollary to this is Maxim 42: "They'll never expect this," means, "I want to try something stupid."
"Hostile, Engaged, 1 o'clock! RPG!" "Eh, could be worse." "Could be worse?! He's got an RPG and we're in a bloody non-upgraded BRADLY!" "Could be getting stabbed....."
Concerning the M85 MG apparently needing a "beer" can to help with feeding, this is something early M2s experienced as well. My grandpa was an Armorer in WW2, and he swore by the Mott's Apple Sauce can to solve feed problems in their MGs. Though replicating a problem from 50 years earlier is itself a mark against the M85.
If you look at footage from Vietnam,the Huey door gunners used I believe a spaghetti can( no idea why) just below the feed. There is at least one story that the bad guys shooting back hit a can,spraying the door gunner and the rest of his crew started shouting the gunner had been hit. He had,but with spaghetti sauce. The writer was matter of fact,so using a particular full can was widespread.
paul manson paul manson that had to do with the poor belt feed pull of the M60 trying to drag the belt out through several feet of feed chute. The belt pull was enough for reliable feeding of short belts from ammo cans right next to the M60 as intended in the infantry roll but was inadequate for the long belts in remote ammo cans typically used in door gun configurations.
@@mikemcginley6309 The M85 on the tanks I served on were either crap or worked flawlessly. As in the video, it had to do with the dedication of the operator to following the operator's manual & PMCS. I was never a TC on an M60A1/A3 but had TCs that could get them to work well. A buddy of mine was a TC on an LVTP-7 and hated the M85 due to the long vertical feed chute for the ammo, he said it would never fire more than 2 or 3 rounds before a malfunction.
There is next to last question about strangest way to kill a tank and 'digging a pit' was mentioned. I think it actually happened during Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 30s. Ethiopeans destroyed a number of Italian tankettes by luring them into such traps and killing crews with spears through the view-ports. It is probably the strangest way to defeat a tank that I know.
And then there was the time that the M8 GMC (M5 light tank with a snub nosed howitzer) took out a Panther during the Battle of the Bulge. The Panther drove by the M8 in the dark of night which was off the side of the road. The M8 took a shot at the back of the Panther. It didn't do any real damage, but when the Panther's commander opened the hatch on the back of the turret to see what the "thump" was, the M8 put another round in through the open hatch.
@@DarknessInferno15 No, I'm telling it straight. The M8 Light Armored Car isn't the same thing as the M8 Gun Motor Carriage. It's just the Army nomenclature of the day. Each type of equipment, i.e. medium tank, half track, rifle... had its own series that counted up through the integers in order. M1 medium tank was followed by the M2 medium tank, etc. There were some exceptions like the M4 once the Sherman came out. Other series skipped M4 (light tank for example) to avoid confusion. An M4 Sherman along side of an M4 light tank might cause an identification error. But, I also believe there was at least one case of an M8 armored car taking out a Panther during battle as well. More conventionally, it just snuck up on it and shot it in the ass until it burned.
Wow, it's like literally a historical justification for the famous "Spearman kills Tank" situation in Civilization. Although this also makes me wonder... did early tanks not have any glass at all in the viewing ports? Or did only the major viewing ports have glass and there were smaller ones that weren't considered important enough to protect?
@@Mishn0 I'm not sure why you're trying to give me a lecture on nomenclature, I'm well aware of something that basic. I was just saying that the story I read was about an M8 Greyhound taking out a King Tiger during The Battle of the Bulge. I've never heard anything about an M8 HMC doing anything. Hell, I'm pretty sure that it was phased out of US service by the time of The Battle of the Bulge, so it sounds very off to me.
@@cheesuschrist8248 I can totally see why you would think that. My response was kind of an add on to the one previous about the bottle not emptying itself, and a jab at the idea that just because Scotland and part of Ireland are in the UK, calling natives of those countries Englishmen can be seen as mildly insulting. As OP said British tank, I went the direction you can see. And I can see I am still needing more sleep, as this kinda rambles, sorry.
Chieftan: "So that was an unnecessarily long and overly technical answer to a gun-related question, maybe I'm boring you a bit..." Ian "No no, PLEASE, do continue!"
Given Ian's doubts about bullpup rifles, and Nicholas's enthusiasm for them, I'd love to see a debate (or Desert Brutality shootoff!) between them about the pros vs. cons.
If I recall most of Ian's misgivings come from application, ie he doesn't see any advantage to a bullpup for a private individual looking for a personal firearm, but he recognises their value in a military context where you're getting in and out of/ having to engage in fire from vehicles and small spaces much more often
Ian, Nicholas, you owe me a lamb roast. I was listening to you two brilliant chaps whilst doing dinner and over did the lamb. Great vid, look forward to more. :)
The P90 suddenly seems to make a ton of sense when thinking about the problem of small arms for tankers. Compact, handy, and large mag capacity so you can suppress while you run away.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I especially enjoyed drinking along with you both. My tipple of choice was Magnanimous IPA from Ft George Brewery. Thanks to you both for the fun & informative video. fortgeorgebrewery.com/beer/magnanimous-ipa/
As far as I have seen, the Chieftain is a chatterbox even without any liquid booster. Can't think of an appropriate measure of alcohol to get an irish more jolly than usual.
Several US and UK battleships supported the D-Day landings. No tank of that or this era wants to be in the same neighborhood as an incoming capital ship round.
The classic Russian problem-solving technique In the early rocketry days, Russia had to change its rocket fuel from ethanol to methanol as the troops/launch crew would drink all the fuel
Didn't the Finns take to stuffing logs into the tracks of Soviet tanks to immobilize them during the Winter War? Taking out a tank with a great, big stick is pretty "silly" in my book, even if it worked.
@@herknorth8691/videos And from what I've heard about it, it's because they trained the dogs by starving them and then putting food underneath the tanks at the training grounds, which of course were Soviet tanks. So dogs go to the field, hungry, "Oh goody, those are the tanks that have food underneath them!" -> Kaboom!
Being an Australian, I swear that during the 30’s or 40’s we tested the effectiveness of rocks against tank tracks, and only recently the classified photos of an anti-tank rocks where realised by The Australian war memorial. Or something similar to that, can’t remember entirely.
On the silly ways to kill tanks part of the British Home Guard training doctrine during WWII to kill tanks in built up areas was to hide in a first floor window, tap/knock on the turret as the tank passed below and then drop a grenade or " Molotov cocktail" into the hatch when the enemy opened the hatch to see who was knocking. Though thankfully the Home Guard never had to do this regular forces were said to have employed the tactic on occasion. Great video chaps, always fun when you two get together.
@@dougstubbs9637 Excellent, suppose it shows two good reasons why you don't send unsupported tanks into built up areas. It's just asking for your expensive "Tonka" toy to be taken out by the cheapest of means.
I love when you guys get together (yes you are both 2 of my favorite RU-vidrs also). I have a quick story that gets to the rearview camera stuff. When I was in the 101st in 1981 we did a training exercise with the armor guys from nearby Ft. Knox in their shiny new M-1 Abrams. We were bedding down tactically one winter in sleeping bags but no pup tents. We were told the armor would be coming in that night so get between two trees so we do not become caterpillars (which is what we were told armor guys called people in sleeping bags…..oh, squish). I did as I was told and in the later dark night these whining monsters maneuvered and backed up all around us in the pitch black (I now know what the people of Tokyo feel like when Godzilla comes to town). I woke up the next morning and to my horror I saw an M1 rear-end about 25 feet away from me. It had backed up close to me and there were tanks interspersed amongst our sleeping beauties who were all too afraid to move as these things jockeyed for parking spots in the inky dark night. OH JOY! I love the army! former SP4 Max Kohnke Co. C- 2/327th Inf. 101st ABN DIV. Ft. Campbell, KY.
Apparently, the etymology of Carbine ultimately comes from carabin - a cavalry soldier; carabin is derived from the scarab beetle, which in Greek is karabos.
Actually in Greek its skaravaeos (σκαραβαιος). both modern and ancient, not sure about middle ages Greek. karabos (καραβος) is ancient Greek for crab (kavouras/καβουρας in modern)
I would say the strangest way a tank was defeated I know of is a story of a soldier who took out a Tiger during the Battle of the Bugle by dropping an apple into it as if it were a grenade. The crew fell for it.
That was the High Technology Test Bed, 9th ID at Ft Lewis WA. My first duty station was in 1st Brigade, 2/1 Inf got the FAV dune buggy, 3/39 Inf got new night vision, 2/39 was testing Canadian wheeled AFV's.
I can only imagine every once in awhile the loo would come in and say "you won't believe how lucky we just got" and then reveal a dune buggy or the like...
Ian, I beg you to invest in some lav mics. It will improve your audio quality so much Also, the whisky... Is that Midleton Very Rare? That stuff's like $500 a bottle
Ian's stated he hates audio work and isn't great at it. Better sound's not happening until he gets an assistant or the hardware/software becomes really easy.
@@rapter229 About all I can suggest is do some Patreon for his channel and then make detailed suggestions for just that subject. I believe he stated he rarely looks through non Patreon commentary,he just has so much time available.
From what I've seen no one or at least not many people actually sees a TOW or ATGM until it's too late., even though it moves so slow. With 14.5x114mm B-32 it can penetrate through 45mm of hardened steel armour, at 500 meters this drops to around 30-35mm all at 90 degrees. New ammunition which uses discarding sabot and a tungsten core penetrator called although as far as I know not in wide spread use called DGJ02 AP-T is capable of penetrating 20 mm of steel armour at 800 meters at a 50 degree angle. Roughly 14.5x114mm has twice the muzzle energy as 12.7x99mm, 14.5mm is no joke.
Israelis during the 6 day war dodged the wire guided anti tank missles. They would spot the backblast initially (and I'm sure put rounds into that area then dodge the missle when it got to close to compensate for the movement.
The 50mm chain gun the US Army is testing actually uses a linkless box feed, through some black magic they've managed to get it dual/select feed from a linkless box of shells.
It's the Hague Conventions that are about what is acceptable to kill people, Geneva are about how to treat prisoners. And the main point of the Hague Conventions is "no soft-point or hollowpoint bullets," it's perfectly legal to shoot a man with a .50 or a 106mm recoilless rifle. You're allowed to kill him on the spot with a heavy weapon (otherwise artillery would be a war crime, wouldn't it?), or punch a hole in him with a personal weapon, but the bullets hunters are mostly required to use on deer to kill them quickly and humanely are right out.
They also had an article against aerial bombardment that even by 1907 nobody in continental Europe wanted to sign. Surely that wouldn't ever come back to bite them.
The one armoured vehicle I would´ve like to have seen in action: Tucker combat car. Safe up to .50cal, even the tires, easily replaceable bulletproof window panes of identical size, radiator deflectors worked similarly, independet suspension, quite some MG mountings/ports and an automatic 37mm gun with 360° traverse and AA-capable elevation in a cupola. Too bad Tucker wasn´t liked by the other car manufacturers that much.
In the Spanish Civil War, some specialised tank hunters used double barrelled shotguns to shoot at the viewing ports of tanks, the theory being that they had a higher chance of getting in because of the spread and the smaller size of the birdshot. They then would close in and kill the tank with hand grenades.
A long time ago,I read an article about the Dunkirk debacle,and a particular Guards unit( no idea how many troops,or which,Scots Guards or the others) was ordered to be a sacrificial unit. The men were long service,and all were trained and notably good shots. The tanks they were facing( no idea which,or how many) were not defeated but backed off from advancing because they literally shot out the periscopic glass from the vision slits. Each tank had spares of course,but they literally used all of them up and the guys with the Enfields just didn't quit. I believe they stayed until the survivors were captured That is essentially all that remains to my memory from that article. Just what it would take to retrieve info on that,no idea. Maybe the battle diaries of the known Guards units at Dunkirk would be a starting point. Who the author of the article,no idea. Personal recollection I think it might have been. Just too many years ago for me.
Home guard training (Specifically that from the Osterly Park boys, mostly former Spanish Civil War international Brigade vets) Suggested a last ditch ambush tactic of throwing a wet blanket over the Drivers position. If it was kerosene that was alight, better for panic effect, but either way, you have blinded the vehicle. Otherwise a blanket soaked in waste engine oil would gum up the drive sprocket of a lighter tank and immobilise it. I can certainly see this working on a panzer 1 or 2
@@donaldmeaker3627 fantastic film, that Sherman attack from the railway tunnel is superb. Everything else, sensibilities wise, that is more 60's But still blooming good fun!
I used to work on developmental fuze technologies, focusing around electronic safe-arm devices. It would be incredibly difficult to fit a full-feature fuze into a 25mm shell and give it more than a detonator's worth of bursting charge. It was challenging enough when we were looking into ESAD tech for 40mm high velocity shells. I mean challenging to get the required safety features implemented in the available volume, let alone a main charge. I've given some thought about the 40mm caliber. It is really begging for a redesigned cartridge case to get the same power as the 40x365R in a much smaller action length. IT would aslo be much easier to feed the gun. As was said in the video, the 40mm HV would have a quite useful HE charge (see the work that Bofors has done on the 3P fuze, though that is much too expensive for what is needed) as well as having enough velocity to make APDS work well. From a fuzing perspective, a general purpose, semi flexible HE fuze could double on both AFV and anti-air roles. The ammo could be unified across both roles. The AA gun would need to be a revolver gun at 1000-2000 SPM to get the fire rate high enough for the pop-up and CIWS roles. The AFV gun could be a chaingun, though you could probably cut the firing rate considering that the round would hit so much harder. Both the AA fun in the CIWS role and the AFV guns would need a dual feed mechanism for both HE/MP and APDS. As for the computer needed to accomplish the airburst, there is not a whole lot needed there. All you need is a $0.50 microcontroller, plus a small amount of system hardware.
always appreciative of veteran non north American fellow NATO nation veterans giving their input on things, always enlightenging ty so much for this tank chieftan and ian
Thanks for the shout-out Nick, 3:50 mark... as I said you could make the M-85 work with proper care and maintained. The old M-73 series co-ax M.G. though couldn't be fixed with anything short of Voodoo magic... and even then, you'd have better luck at a roulette wheel in Vegas... o_0 Thank god they replaced them with M-240's. (Mag-58)
I thought the biggest reasoning behind the replacing the 25mm is its anti armor capability. The armored targets like MICV that are supposed to be handled by the M2 have seen noticeable increase in protection. Many MICV are now in the 40 ton range and a 25mm gun will have problem dealing with those.
Possibly also that absolutely no one else uses the 25mm. Few exceptiins here and there, but all the serious players eithet use 30mm or are switching to it in their newest vehicles.
As a German, it's always weird to me when someone says "tank" when they talk about a Panzer. I'm also wondering why the English say tank to an aquarium. And then there's also a tank top, hahaha. Tank you for reading my comment.
Can confirm that armories full of M231's exist(at least in 2013), I brushed the dust off of a bunch of them (and wondered how cool it would look to dual-wield them) every once in a while in Kuwait
My neighbor works for General Dynamics at Tacom and when the Army asked them for a Bradley replacement that had all the same firepower, speed and protection of an Abrams he responded with "So you basically want an Abrams with a trailer?"
Well for a intresting tank kill, I can tell you one. During the winter war a guy named Einar Schadewitz blew up a Soviet tank with his hand grenade. He climbed on top of the tank and tried to open the tank commanders hatch with his puukko knife. It didn't work. Then he knocked to the hatch to trick the TC into opening it. It worked, and Einar dropped a live grenade in to the tank and jumped off of it. The tank blew up. After the battle, his comrades in arms asked him how he got the TC to open the hatch. He replyed that he didn't remember, but that the TC at least understanded his Savonian dialect. "I yelled to him "open up Ivan, this is the Death knocking!" (Avvoo iivana, tiällä kuolema kolokuttaa!)". Savonian's are cheeky buggers :D fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einar_Schadewitz
''Avvoo Iivana'' That shit got me rolling on the floor, I have a sister living in Kuopio so I have a lot of experience on how those people talk, and that feels to me exactly something that a savonian would say. Thanks for sharing, I didn't even know about this one, the only armor kills I do know about are the ones that my great grandfather got when he was manning an AT gun during the battle of Viipuri, I can't remeber exactly how the story went but you can find it in a few books detailing the adventures of various Knights of the Mannerheim cross, but I do remember he lost two loaders, one from rifle fire and the other, a random soldier who happened to be near by when the other guy died, from being knocked the fuck out by the breech of the gun, despite my great grandfathers warning that the gun has a bit of a kick to it. I can't remember if he recovered from that, but I can't remember them explicitly stating that he died either. I also have to wonder if the TC actually understood Finnish at all let alone a savonian dialect, or if he just figured that there were a bunch of angry Finns on and around his tank and decided that it might be best to just surrender, I guess we'll never know.
@@HandleMyBallsRU-vid From what I have read, the Soviets knocked on the TC's hatch in order to give some new information or orders. So it is possible that the TC thought it was one of his comrades giving him some new info or orders about the Finns. But we will never know for sure.
@@juhokuusisto9339 Yeah that would have been my second guess, especially since I'm not sure I could tell Russian from Finnish in the middle of a battle, what with all the noise and everything.
I've seen and held the M231! I was in B co 3-69 Ar Bat in 3rd ID back in 2009. It is a Bradley company. One of the armory's found some and we had to transferred them out somewhere who knowns where. However 2 of the older guys talk about them and said when they don't jam one trigger squeeze equals one mag dump, not by choose. They used fixed carrying handle uppers and the barrel nut was a huge acme thread so you could thread them in the ports.
The name comes from its first users - cavalry troopers called "carabiniers", from the French carabine, from Old French carabin (soldier armed with a musket), whose origin is unclear. One theory connects it to an "ancient engine of war" called a calabre; another connects it to Medieval Latin Calabrinus 'Calabrian';yet another, "less likely", to escarrabin, gravedigger, from the scarab beetle.
1:23:45 As a current Army employee at the Detroit Arsenal, I heartily agree. I firmly believe that we spend more money in the process of not "wasting" money than we would have wasted in the first place.
@cody sonnet yes they forced you to invade poland. They forced you to invade Czechoslovakia and Austria. They forced you to attack Denmark and Norway and they forced you into Barbarossa. The forced ypu into shooting civilians by the millions and document those killings on photographic paper and film. They forced Kristalnacht to happen. They forced you to invade Belgium twice. As for the rapes, dont dish it out in the first place.
I don’t have a clue what Cody said, and I don’t want to know. However, I would also like to see that scene, partly because I think the tank might actually win that fight.
Looks like Midleton Very Rare, the label is from sometime between 1994 and 2016. Having said that, it may be a special release of some sort, because I'd expect it to just say "Irish Whiskey" under the oval at the top, and that doesn't look quite right to me.
@@bohica3264 Watching at the end, it does just say "Irish Whiskey"... not sure of which year this is. Just started following Ian, but Midleton Very Rare is indeed a delicious whiskey
I am not sure who hosted the Q&A, possibly the Chieftain, (see his previous videos about house paint, it looks more like his home than Ian's). In which case the choice of good Irish whiskey is very likely.
There is a film/TV series Talvisota, think Das Boot but the Finnish side of the Winter War. Vary famous scene where they Molotov a T-26 Flamethrower tank, they use a handy log to jam the track and immobilise the tank. The attack that is the build up to that scene is possibly the biggest collection of T-26 tanks brought together since WW2, I hear half the Tanks in that scene were not 'runners' but towed on steel cables hidden from view
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 I know about those, I thought that fire, explosives and logs was a little to common 😉 and a crazy finn prying of tracks with a crowbar would do the trick. Seriosly I have heard a name, but I dont recal it at the moment, he was decorated for valor due to it.
The collab I have been waiting for to happen, has happened. Hahaha. Former military and firearms historian give a laid back yet informative discussion.
I've watched an occasional video of Chieftain's Hatch but never followed. I have to say after watching this I subscribed, and could listen to him read a phone book
information about Q4: the new German IFV, the "Puma" has digital cameras in all directions, not only for the commander, but also for the driver and any infantry which drives in the tank, so if ANYBODY sees a threat they can call this out, their sector they see, and the commander can switch his view to the camera to see and decide what to do.
Our new Boxer CRV's For the Australian Army have 30mm Lance turrets and will have Airbursting rounds. Also the israelis have that Cool Iron skin thing that lets you see through the tank. that would be good to drivers I would think.
@@Paul-ie1xp I don't think so. For one the boxer is a big vehicle, like a lot of the new AFVs coming out. Here's a picture of boxer (Far right) Compared to the Abrams and ASLAV (Far left) it replaces 1.bp.blogspot.com/-SLVvqlITeRg/WTnaXXH7X9I/AAAAAAAAzoc/bPHzQizqZBgb9J_lGu_a_O8O8g2gmIMFQCLcB/s1600/20170506adf000000_003.t59362f5e.m800.png.pv.xf707c7e7.jpg 2nd I know the ADF stated it did not want crewless turrets, part of the problem with a crewless turret is that the crew has to go into the hull reducing the dismount capacity. I believe Boxer CRV can carry 6-8 dismounts. Not accounting for a different module for more troops. However, Boxer CRV is primarily a Recon vehicle, the Troop carrier and IFV will mainly be whatever wins our Land 400 Phase 3 program. Which has been narrowed down to the South Korean Redback, and the Reinmetall Lynx. Personally hoping for the Lynx as there will be parts compatibility with boxer and they can be made at the same factory.
@@ImperatorClass Yeah I hope so. But The South Korean company recently built a factory too for the new K9 SPGs we're getting. I suspect that was partly to say "look, now we have a factory too." And take away that key advantage from the Lynx
When I went through basic in 1977 they gave us an M60 and a 50 round belt to familiarize us with it...... These guns had been used and abused, in fact they were beat to shit...... I pulled immediate action on the one I had 3 times before my 5th round went down range..... I vowed never to get behind one again.... And when I got to my home unit I told them to give me any kind of weapon they wanted to, except that M60 POS up to including a fucking sling shot..... So naturally they made me an M60 gunner and I humped the pig for the next 6 1/2 years❗‼❗ Fortunately my Squad Leader had spent 2 tours in Vietnam 2nd Cav. and he tought me to know and love that 23 pounds of scrap iron until I could take it down in a field of tall grass without a moon and put it back together ''with all the parts'' and my baby never failed me from then on till I got out..... Like any woman, you have to learn how to treat her right is all.... If you treat her wrong, sooner or later she'll be up side your head with a #11 cast iron skillet and wanting a divorce and 1/2 your shit....😱😕😋
"we have plenty of evidence that things that can't kill things have killed things" Makes me thing back to all the War Thunder compilations with SPAA or tier 1 tanks taking out MBT's
Tiny note: In US Army and Navy armor computations through the end of WWII (and even after, I assume), the symbol used for armor thickness was not "t" but "e" from the French formulae such as the ubiquitous 1890 De Marre Nickel Steel Armor Penetration Formula used by many nations for computations and test specs even through WWII in a few cases. The US Navy Bureau of Construction and Repair that in 1941 merged with the Bureau of Engineering into the overall ship construction and maintenance Bureau of Ships (as opposed to the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) that controlled guns and, interestingly, all face-hardened armor anywhere on a warship, though only the homogeneous, ductile armor on large gun mounts) called its form of homogeneous, ductile armor-type steel (made by Carnegie or, later, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, its only armor contractor -- Midvale and Bethlehem worked for BuOrd only though Carnegie also made armor for BuOrd, a confusion factor) "Special Treatment Steel" (STS), not "armor" (BuOrd's "rice bowl"), a direct translation of the French term for such armor steel. Carnegie also was the first (and only) US company to license Krupp's KC armor process, used for the improved side armor of battleships and later larger cruisers starting in 1894, which Midvale and Bethlehem had to radically modify to avoid patent infringement until the patents were thrown out by the US Supreme Court in 1912, so Carnegie can be considered a rather "international" company even back in the 1890s...
thank you Ian for this. Mr. Manic Moran is one of my favorite historians, and his book was excellent. He also posted quite a bit on a certain gun forum, so even more appropriate to have him here. you two have a combined wealth of knowledge that has single handedly changed current thinking on a lot of issues.
