Watching this I just lost my mind when he said that the Panzer IV F2 is impenetrable. Imma say them boys are squishy af. Nearly as squishy as the Bradley in the game, but the F2 gun is hardcore pain
MBT-70 is so fascinating both in terms of the tank itself and how utterly FUCKED the project was. Germans and Americans working together to build a brand new tank to replace Leopard 1 and the Patton. They wanted: hydro-pneumatic adjustable suspension; all the crew in the turret, with the driver's position having a rotating cupola; a 20mm autocannon in a remote-controlled station; 152mm gun/launcher system much like the one used in the Sheridan and the M60A2 Starship, except longer, so it could use conventional 152mm shells; spaced and radiation-shielded armor; turbine power pack; and many more things besides. It was a disaster in trying to make a cooperative tank, since the Germans and Americans built their own prototypes with little to no component interchangeability, the engine got choked out too easily, the Shillellagh was troublesome from the start, the Americans insisted on using imperial measurements, and the systems of the tank were so complicated, you needed a master's degree to operate it. It did provide technical knowhow for the Abrams and Leopard 2, though, so it wasn't a total loss.
i like how they mistake the panzer 4 as the tiger 1h, as in the game the panzer can barely hold off even against the sherman 75mm, and as the tiger, i honestly laugh so hard at this one, the tiger used to be as good as depicted in the movies, but now ingame, almost 75% of enemies it could expect to encounter could penetrate even the front armor. but you know what, this guy probably havent really understand the full aspect of the game, so i gave him some credit here
Just a friendly clarification, in the video it seemed to be implied that the germans took the gun from the americans, quite the opposide is true. The gun in both Abrams and Leopard II is the Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore L/44 gun. It was developed for the Leopard II and impressed the US military so much that it was licenced by General Dynamics in 1986 and build as the M256. While more often than not US equipment has been copied around the world, it should not be the go to assumption ;)
What I now know from the video: Chellby does know a lot about Abrams and its handling, but other than that, eegh, well at least something was right. The other man is however... knows no more, maybe less about tanks than any average citizen, which is strange for a serviceman and a green baret. And, of course, Panzer IV is a very scary and impenetrable tank - I didn't expect the Tiger fear/phobia to be in a video with a modern tank crewman XD
14:35 the leo gun looks like m1s bc the m1 gun is from rheinmetall and they make the guns for leopard in germany , rheinmetall is german and america bought it
I do find it funny how they say the Panzer 4 was a scary tank, couldn't be pen, and they only said this after the guy mentioned fury. So they mistaken the Panzer 4 for the Panzer 6 Tiger. i like that funny mistake honestly.
What's funnier is that was a real and a very common mistake IRL. When american crews arrived at Europe they often reported encounters with Tigers, which were in fact Pz.IVs
To be fair, thats a good thing. I would rather the military import from capable allies, than go for the more expensive and sometimes less effective domestic solutions
@@cuhgaming4943 On a seperate note, its wild how South Korea and Japan went from the countries they were in WW2, to the countries they are now. Pacific Asia as a whole are taking Ws this century. I just hope everyone stays wary of the CCP though.
Funfact: Germany builds the gun system for the Abrams. It's basically the same gun, but build for another tank. Also the circles on the Leo2 are the cooler for the engine
@@RandomThingPosted then tell me, why did Rheinmetall send a delegation to Trump to exclude them from the import-bans he proposed? The 120mm L/44 is german in design and production
Slight amendment, the gun was developed by Rheinmetall for the Leopard 2, and the americans liked it. However the M256 is a license build of the 120 L/44 gun from america, whereas the Leos moved on to the L/55 guns with the A6.
Trust he knows that one. But that's about 10 years before my time, 15 for his. 103s went out roughly in the 90s. A shame because they are an interesting design.
It's funny how alot of WT players make fun of Strv103, when they have no idea about the swedish doctrine. 103 was never designed for attacking, or even urban combat, really. It was purely build for digging in, in a defensive position, waiting to ambush the pesky russians, hehe. (yes, they were our biggest threat during cold war)
As a old Abrams tank commander myself. And a big player of war thunder. I witch those gun sights were in the game and not as a mod. Bruh the Abrams uses a ATG1500 Turbine. And it’s not Rolls-Royce. It was designed by Chrysler
There was quite a bit of misinformation in this video...the bit about the Abrams engine, saying that the Leopard's gun was "reverse engineered" from the Abrams, saying that the canisters on the turret of the Leo were flares when they were clearly smoke grenades, saying that APFSDS somehow "sucks things through a small hole"...basically all of it was wrong lol
As a war thunder player for more than 5k hours (mostly on japanese side) i have enjoyed the video and would like to add that the Type 5 Ho-ri has that hatch for the depression of its big cannon, and also has a ton of front armor, its specialized on sniping, and can take lots of hits from very far (or at least it used to, before they added soo many different rounds that ignores armor)
First time I saw the Ho-Ri it was ridiculous, and when I finally able to play it, blew my mind even more, like honestly that thing have no business being that fast for being so big, like wtf are the engineer feeding this monster
Ho-Ri was designed to be a defensive/bunker buster variant, inspired by the German Ferdinand, as the allies mostly used M4, or lighter M5 Stuart or M3 or the LVT, the Ho-Ri is able to puncture vehicles and even be used a naval deterrence. If it was used during 1945, it would still prove deadly to ground vehicles as the U.S mostly produced M4 short 75mm with a decent amount of the long 76mm.
"Reverse engineered Leo 2 gun"...The Abrams uses the german Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 gun and went into service a year after the Leo 2. Both tanks were designed to allow a greater standardisation and compatibility within NATO. Also, not every "Panzer" is a Tiger. The Panzer IV did NOT have thick armor.
The MBT-70, is from 1970, its kinda in the name, it was an American/German test bed for different ideas, were produced more than prototypes but didnt really go anywhere, and with the Panzers, it was the Panzer 5, 6 and 7 that were the ones that scared allied tank crews, they are more colloquially known as Panther, Tiger and King Tiger, the later models of panzer 4 had a respectable but easily penetrated 80mm of flat armor
I would like to add that "Panzer 7" doesn't exist unless you would like to count the blueprint Lowe, since King Tiger's official name is Pzkpfw VI Ausf. B
@Tai lumis Panzer IV was never invulnerable to Allied guns, since the tank was ment to be for infantry support it only have 30mm of frontal armor at the start, it did get upgraded to 50mm and later 80mm once the Panzer IV started to took over Panzer III's job as the main tank
They didn't start using autoloaders until the T-64. Before that, they had a fourth crewman. (However, in this case you're not wrong; since this is a T-80 it would have an autoloader.)
@@TheWabbitSeason doctrine in all nations in shifting towards this low profile. there isn't really a way to counter these atgms, so getting smaller and lighter is the way
i find it funny how little he knows, despite working in tanks. The APFSDS was absolute bull where he said it acts like a black hole, no it doesn't. The tanks in game dont actually have flares either they have smoke launchers.
Once again, he's simplifying the effect of the sabot. If all hatches are sealed, yes, there is a pressure difference when we're engaged. It will fuck up your body to have a penetrator rod enter a sealed compartment at Mach velocity.
@@thanatosstorm there was the test where goats were loaded into a Bradley and after being shot with apfsds, the inside was bloody and the other side was gutty and mush
@@thanatosstorm That's a myth. Your body will be fucked up because you are getting hit by the shrapnel generated by a proyectile moving at 1700 M/S. There are a LOT of videos explaining how APFSDS shells work... You don't get destroyed by a pressure difference.
You mentioned the Leopard 2A6 "reverse engineering" the Abrams' gun, but it's actually the opposite lol. The M256 120mm smoothbore cannon used by the Abrams is actually a license built modification of the Rheinmetall L44 which is used by the Leopard. The earlier M68 105mm rifled cannon was a license built copy of the Royal Ordnance L7.
@@Bitt3rh0lz The A5 was armed with the L44, same as the Abrams. You're not wrong, though... The M256 is a license-built copy of the A5's gun, not the A6's gun. Thanks for the correction. 😊
@@ItsJakeTheBrake I did exaggerate a little bit sorry. but length wise and turret size, there is a considerable diffrence, and if you just look at each individual measurement (except the turrets) it doesnt seem that big a diffrence but again if you look at a size comparison the T-90 is smaller in literaly every way. and you only compared the 2 smallest differences
@@unclesam5733 That is actually a really controversial and interesting topic because the historical archives on japan are really hard to access there was actually a person u/MaiWaffentrager that helped Gajin do research on Japanese tanks and as for the production of the tank really little is known, the gun the tank has was actually built.
All in all, quite interesting. I don't want to judge too harsh but I would expect more knowlegde from a tank commander, especially when it comes to Abrams related questions (for example the engine).
@@g.williams2047 Yeah, that's what it actually sounds like. What also surprised me is that the 30mm autocannons were called "machine guns". If you are or were in the military, you don't call weapon systems with such a large calibre "machine guns". 😅
@@humanhuman5024 Youre confusing the Panzer IV with the tiger too. The Panzer IV could NOT survive a frontal shot from a 76mm (americans used the 76mm, germans and russians used the 75)
@@Anarcho-harambeism Exactly! I love this dude, but just because you know how to drive a car, doesn't mean you're qualified to work on it, or talk about its inner systems, history or doctrine, let alone for other vehicles or nations you aren't familiar with
I completely agree. The Tank Museum channel have fantastic rundowns of tanks from all eras and countries. Well worth a view. If you live or are in the UK, the museum itself is fantastic.
They were. To the point that most allied munitions couldn't pen it from the front. this changed later in the war as the germans started using more and more lower quality steel. in war thunder, it's stuck with piers rather than what it would normally go up against.
@@jaydeleon8094 He was talking about the specific model of the panzer iv. the f2 did not have the 80mm ufp of the g and h, it only have 50mm. Also in war thunder, the panzer ivs indeed has the worst armour compared to other vehicles in other countries of the same type
@@jaydeleon8094 even the french tanks with thuer 37mm guns could pen the early panzer 3s and 4s don‘t forget, the early war models were less well armoured than late war models. The panzer 3s and 4s were always medium tanks =>they were armoured just enough but not one bit too much. Speaking of them as if they were heavy tanks just feels wrong
@@anticlaassic buddy, buddy.. the F2 had the same hull armor because that is where people shot most often. the F2 existed for about 3 months, before it was upgraded to the G. Until the shermans came around, most shells could not and would not penetrate the hull at the usual ranges they had in combat. and even then, The germans had a range advantage that they knew how to use.
@@jaydeleon8094 Says who lmao, 75mm M3 mounted on the Sherman can reliably pen that, also the Panzer IV's armor goes from 30mm, to 50mm and later 80mm, which the 75mm can still reliably pen
Did the tank commander just call smoke grenades flares?! Also the 120mm of the leopard is longer in length then the Abrams. Well beyond the 2A6 that is. 2a5 and a4 have the shorter l44 cannon that is similiar to the abrams
They are defensive grenade launchers that could shoot flares, chaff, smoke or a combination. For instance there are radar guided missiles and so the chaff is mixed with smoke to help save the vehicle.
He's a tanker, not some military nerd. The guy can make mistakes, cause at the end of the day he's the one who's ACTUALLY operated a tank in combat IRL. Who cares about minor details other than other military nerds?
"one of your favorite games: war thunder" *ah yes most definitely we love , the headache, depression, and anxiety inducing game with one of the hardest grind*
@@soupidmonkey oh, lmfao. Yeah i guess he doesn't have much time spent into WT, figures since he's not like the entire player base, he's a man who's gotten himself probably a decent life. he probably bought some tanka to start off, nothing against that.
@@rebinregi1990 Yeah... the amount of bullshit this supposed tank commander talked about even his own nations tank and especially things like APFSDS being a "Black hole" and shit had me questioning whether this guy ever actually saw a tank from the inside...
The tank commander probably understands operating a vehicle, though when it’s in regards to history or on vehicles outside his circle he doesn’t know much about that
There was a lot of inconsistencies and sometimes falsehoods in this video. Calling the Panzer IV a Tiger, Saying the leopard 2A6 had "flares" when they were smoke dischargers, saying the Leopard stole their gun from the US (The Abrams gun is actually a licensed copy of the older German L/44 gun) Calling the ATGM mounts on the Italian IFV "Missile launchers" and saying that sabot rounds create "black holes" which is physically impossible. APFSDS "Sabot rounds" have a tungsten penetrator (he got that correct) but the mechanism in which it damages a tank is by "spalling" in the vehicle. The projectile begins to break apart when hitting a tanks armor, and sends metal shards throughout the crew compartment, killing the crew. This is just nitpicking now, but the Tunguska doesn't have machine guns, it has auto cannons. A caliber less than 20mm is considered a machine gun, whereas 20mm and over is a cannon. I'm sure Mr. Chelby knows how to command a tank, but knowing how to operate a car doesn't mean you're a mechanic. I have respect for these individuals but I think it's better to let military historians evaluate and discuss topics involving historical equipment as well as the functions of modern armor and their development.
@@thewhiteowl9885 when you play WT you get burned out pretty cuz of the grind, atleast i do, also, i dont even count spent-hours-on-the-game anymore, i count by matches fought, which is at around 15.000 for me
He said he worked in every position as a tanker. Unfortunately I don't think he repaired Abrams. Or maybe he happened to be in some Frankenstein monster of a vehicle
As much as I like him talking about modern tanks, please don't ask him to do WW2 tanks again, I'd rather you get a Military Historian in, or if possible an ex-tanker from that period, someone that has experience and an understanding of those vehicles
To be fair to most tank commanders (and tankers in general), their tank knowledge probably only covers how to operate the one they use and how to knock out the ones they might get in a fight with. Tank history and development are where the historians and nerds know more. Or you're the Chieftain himself sitting in the overlapping section of the Venn diagram of tankers and tank nerds.
That's because it's not what they teach TC's. It's like saying "I know more about the history and development of trucks than a truck driver"... well yeah... the truck driver knows how to drive the truck and possibly how to fix minor issues with the engine and such.
As a former tank driver and history buff, I don't even know all that much. But I know enough on how to operate the Beast and how to play and recite plenty of old battles, tactics, and strategies. First rule: Find, fix, communicate, engage, report.
1. The MBT-70 program was from the 1960-70s 2. The Leo 2A6 does NOT use the same cannon as the Abrams. The 2A6 has a L/55 cannon, while the Abrams uses a L/44, being more inline with a Leo 2A5 or 2A4 3. The Abrams uses a Honeywell AGT-1500 gas turbine. It is similar, but NOT a jet engine NOR is it made by Rolls Royce. 4. The US uses depleted uranium penetrators for there APFSDS ammo, while export versions of the US's 120mm ammo and other nations use tungsten 5. The Ho-Ri uses a 105mm cannon. The top hatch opens because it allows for more gun depression. 6. The big circles on the back of the Leo are radiator fans 7. 15:02 They're not flares,. they are smoke grenades. No tank that I know of has a flare launch system.
@@Kwisss L/44 has the same pressure tolerance then the m256, m256 uses a simplified design that reduced to number of parts and it changed the recoil mechanism L/44a1 has better pressure tolerance.
I already said it in the last video with this guy.. no the Abrams has no fking jet engine and especialy not the same as the one in the Apache. I dont know what they are teaching tankers in the US army but the Abrams has a gas turbine wich is a huge differnce and its especialy not a damn helicopter engine... also nice how he treats the Merkava as if its the only tanmk that can elevate its gun to a lower degree, sounds very educated.
And one should note that this gun was developed by the Germans (through Rheinmetall/Kraus Maffey) and then licensed by the Americans, not the other way around as these guys described it.
There are Tungsten and DU shells available for the M256, although DU is definitely more economical. Also his explanation of APFSDS was pretty much 100% wrong lol
“Russians man, always bigger” - fun fact: russian armor tactics emphasizes not being seen or hit than having more space for the crew, so they’re usually smaller (or at least flatter) than the western equivalents. On the other hand, the Abrams is one of the biggest, most spacious MBTs, allowing better future modifications. Every time I see an American calling something bigger/ better, it makes me laugh- They literally have a much bigger or better version of it, they just don’t know yet.
When you mentioned the Panzer, more particularly the Panzer IV, you mentioned that it was terrifying due to it's near impenetrable armor. The Panzers were different, as separate models and designs were used, with the Tiger and Panther taking most of the spotlight, while the Panzer IV was the most produced. Initially the Panzer IIs and Is weren't much more then training vehicles, but as World War Two began and progressed they moved into larger, heavier more powerful tanks. The Panzer III took over the role as the dominating Anti-Tank vehicle of Germany, however the Panzer IV was not used as an Anti-Tank vehicle. Rather, the Panzer IV, specifically the earlier models such as the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. C were more or less infantry support vehicles, carrying large, yet low velocity 75 Millimeter cannons. The Panzer III did it's job relatively well, until the Germans invaded the USSR and encountered the fabled T-34. The T-34 carried thick side and rear armor, nullifying the benefits of flanking attacks, as the Panzer III's gun, a relatively meek 50 MM cannon, was unable to penetrate the Soviet armor at ranges of 150-300 Meters. The Panzer III's small size meant it couldn't mount a larger turret, and thus a larger gun. The Panzer IV then took over the role as the primary anti-Tank weapon of the German Panzer Armee. Going from the Panzer III's 50 Millimeter Cannon and fifty millimeter armor to the Panzer IV's 75 Millimeter cannon and 50-80 MM of armor was helpful but didn't result in a superior tank to the T-34. The Tiger and Panther, the ones that the Allied Shermans, Cromwell's, and Fireflies were nervous about were rare but also deadly. The Tiger was far more menacing to fight then the Pz. IV, with over 150 MM of armor, an 88 Millimeter cannon, and often legendary crews, the Tiger was sometimes considered invincible, but the Panzer IV hardly ever earned that.
Unlike standard tank design, the Merkava has the engine in the front and it acts as another layer of protection for the crew. The extra space in the rear can be used to carry more ammo, or a six man infantry squad. It has also been used to collect and transport casualties. Something reassuring about being in an "ambulance" that shoots back, am I right? I've read that the Abrams was actually designed to be used in Europe against the Soviets because they were the "big bad" at the time. Though, its use in the Middle East over the last twenty years probably has changed its development path toward that theater of operations.
Imagine warfare like this where it can be remotely controlled precisely like the game. Military would start hiring professional War Thunder players by then.
Couple of things: -ERA (explosive reactive armor) on the T-72 is not meant to inverse the force of a high explosive round. It detonates itself on impact to trigger the round prematurely and stop it from hitting the armor plate. -APFSDS (sabot round) is not meant to create a “vacuum” to suck elements out. Is is made like that to maximize penetration of armor and minimize the ballistic curve. -The Panzer IV F2 is NOT a Tiger I. The Panzer VI Tiger was armed with an 88 milimeter gun, and the Panzer IV was armed with a 75mm gun. -The Italian Dardo has a different shape, smaller gun and missile launchers because it is not a tank. It is and Infantry Fighting Vehicle or IFV. Most IFVs are not armed with tank-caliber guns, and are meant to destroy light armored targets like APCs, armored trucks and other IFVs.
12:43 the hatch on the top is for the cannon breach because the breach for the tank is so massive a hatch had to be installed above the cannon breech so that the gun could depress to its full extent on the tank
5:19 sadly you can't have a WWI tank fighting a M1 Abrams because WWI tanks do not exist in War Thunder, but there are interwar period tanks in War Thunder like the British "landbattleship" A1E1 Independent tank built either in the 1920s or in the 1930s, there is also the 1930s Russian "landbattleship" T-35, hell even the Germans get a 1933 designed tank called the Neubaufahrzeug
Javelin is a lot different bc it has a 2 warhead layout that strikes directly. In fact, the Javelin is more like a helfire since it just smashes into the top not over the top.
I hear that the German army is the most fun to do training with because of the small arms they have. Also the panzer 4 doesn’t have thick armor, only the panzer 5 (tiger 1) and beyond had the thick armor, it focused on the early war doctrine of large numbers of reliable tanks.
I don’t think Germany’s focus was to have larger number of tanks during the early stages of WW2.Look at how small their production rates were compared to late war levels.Almost 80% of all total 8,500-8,800 Panzer IVs were built and used in 1943-1945.Tanks and armored cars were only a small part of German military during first half of the war.I heard that AFVs only used 5% of whole German military expenditures.Though they were key elements for their success.
Been playing War Thunder for 10 years. It's definitely as real as it gets as far as combined arms combat in video games. I hope they add infantry someday though as it would open up all sorts of possibilities for gameplay.
@@Smokey348 While I too think that it would be a bad idea to add infantry in War Thunder, they created enlisted to prove that they were capable of getting the infantry and vehicle mechanic together. Now I don't think that they have disclosed of if it's one of their project to bring some type of infantry other than the already existing AI infantry but it wouldn't really fit other than to "spot" people.
Fun fact, no Germany didn’t steal the design of the Abrams gun or reverse engineer it. The abrams uses a license built and modified Rheinmetall L/44 Tank cannon, a German gun. The Americans based their gun off it because of its great performance
Correction* the t72’s don’t react well to modern missile systems because they are poorly maintained and are practically falling apart and they get given no infantry support put any nato tank in the exact same position and it’ll get disabled as well
the first tank you guys were playing is the MBT 70 or i’m pretty sure some people called it the KPZ 70 or something. It was a tank that the US and Germany made for a collaboration. Eventually the germans cancelled it because it was too expensive. But it did inspire the tanks that were the prototypes for the Leopards (Leopard 1 etc).
It wasn't too expensive Germany and America couldn't agree on what the tank should have at all for example I think the Germans wanted a fast tank while the Americans didn't
That thing with sabot round acting like a "small black hole" and sucking everything out of the tank was complete nonsense. It doesn't suck anything due to a very insignificant pressure difference between the inside of a tank and its surroundings. What APFSDS (Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot) actually does is punching a hole and pushing fragments of armor inside of a crew compartment. Those moving fragments of armor and APFSDS projectile due to their high speed and temperature act like shrapnel and do a significant amount of damage to the crew and tank's internal equipment. To everyone willing to know more about the physics of tank projectiles just search on YT smth like "tank shell simulation". That is a second appearance of this tank crewman on that channel, as I recall, and it's surprising how little he knows about tank physics and mechanics. I remember in a squad video he was saying smth about Abrams tank engine (which is a Gas Turbine engine) being something like a jet engine, which is just painfully wrong.
@@CareraDrift he's literally right though lol. APFSDS has nothing to do with pressure differential and there is a difference between a gas turbine and a turbojet engine, plus the tank commander says the engine was a Rolls Royce when it's actually a Honeywell. Almost everything he said in the video was wrong XD
Something interesting I've learned from playing war thunder is you can use AA guns to combat jets helicopters and tanks would have been interesting to see some use of the AA guns Like m134 AA gun for example
The first tank, which is the MBT-70, was a collaborative project between the United States and Germany during the Cold War. The MBT-70 utilizes a 152mm gun/launcher, designated XM150E5. The XM150E5 was capable of firing APFSDS, HEAT, and as a launcher, was capable of firing the MGM-51 missiles that the M551 Sheridan used. Alongside this, the tank also had a turret Rh202 20mm autocannon and a 7.62 MG. The KPz-70, which was the German equivalent, shared a lot of similarities, however this vehicle had a different engine in it. The MBT-70 featured a three man crew, which was a Driver, Gunner, and Commander, and had an automatic loading mechanism as opposed to a manual loader. After the program was initially cancelled, America attempted to revitalize it with the XM-803. This however went nowhere, and Germany moved on with lessons learned from their own program to create the Leopard 2, and America moved on with lessons learned to begin the XM-1 program, which would lead to the M1 Abrams.
