there are tales that the NI tank and the Bob Semple met and mated. they would lay an egg that would find its way to America. it would lay dormant until 2004 when it would hatch into the mighty killdozer.
Google translator can't handle anything but simplest sentences and phrases when translating from Russian into English and vice versa. Sometimes it's better to look for translations of single words and choose the most appropriate meaning
"When one side brings tanks, and the other doesn't, the side with the tanks usually wins." -Nicholas Moran, speaking in defense of Japanese tank designs
@@accountname9506 How many examples can you give where this was not true? Obviously, the clusterfuck that is the modern Russian military has managed to do quite a bit of losing, but the Ukrainians have tanks too. It is also worth noting that this quote refers to conventional battles, not asymmetric warfare.
@@st3vorocks290 It's not always true anymore. Obviously, having tanks is good, but gone are the times where you needed to set up established antitank positions or drag around a tripod mount for a ATGM. Anyone can lug around AT weapons now. The tank isn't obsolete, of course, but whether it's asymetric or conventional tanks are long past the stage where infantry was completely and utterly fucked if they met a tank. Now they're only mostly fucked.
@@accountname9506 The first man-portable anti-tank weapon was deployed in 1919 or 1920, I think. Certainly well before WW2. Sure, the newer ones are better by far, but so is the active protection that wealthy nations are putting on their tanks. Tanks have always been vulnerable. That is why when Rommel requested reinforcements in North Africa he asked for infantry to support them, NOT more tanks. Also, I cannot stress enough that the quote says the side with the tanks *usually* wins. There are several instances in WW2 where tank destroyer units stopped armored units dead in their tracks(pun intended lol).
I dont know who wrote the words on that board, but that person did a pretty good job, except that in the comissar bubble *пописать* should rather be *писайте* . Then it would be just right.
There seems to actually be a common thread of improvised tanks, being that someone with limited resources takes tractors, armors them and installs some machineguns and then calls it done. And this has been shown several times to be moderately effective when supporting an infantry force, both in world war 1 and 2 and in small town america with the Killdozer. There really isn't anything to laugh at, these machines work.
I still wonder just what exactly made Google Translate to mess up so badly... EDIT: And I found it. The primary source cited used a very archaic/jargon term for "car wheel (and axle)" and used it incorrectly (basically it said "wheels of wheels.") The word can also mean a half-dozen other things. Броневики в бою оказались уязвимы с передней части, так как разбивались скаты колес. Пришлось с задней части сделать надежную защиту и водить броневики в бой задним ходом. As close to original as I can: Armoured cars in combat proved to be vulnerable from the front, as the wheels of wheels were shattering [sic]. A reliable defence for the rear of the cars had been made and the cars were driven in combat in reverse. It doesn't sound like combat damage, maybe front axles/suspensions weren't sturdy enough to carry armour, but the rear ones were?
I'm actually impressed with what Google Translate did here, I mean this sentence can be baffling even to a human native speaker. The most common meaning of "скат" is "ray" (fish, as in "manta ray") but it went with "ramp" which is much less frequently used, but at least kind of can appear in this context. It's almost as if GT is gaining some ground on the frame problem...
@3dent «скат» was used correctly in the original text. It is not the wheel itself, it referrs to the wheel's rubber coating or a tire. Basically, if we're talking about railcars, then yes, скат would most likely be used as a synonym for a wheel, but hardly here.
@@LeninPolimorfed Well, you're right, it's the most common usage today, but I frankly can't imagine how the rubber can be "разбита," (bashed/broken/shattered) they'd use a different verb if they meant that... Some Googling and dictionary search made me think that back then it might have meant "wheel and axle as an assembly" which is something I could imagine being shattered.
@@LeninPolimorfed Another possibility is, of course that those cars didn't have pneumatic tyres at all, that it was some kind of a hard rubber shell with soft rubber filling (I remember reading somewhere that Germans occasionally did that with some vehicles to prevent punctures in combat) but even such a thing would be torn, not shattered if damaged...
Another thing against it meaning "tyre rubber" here is that it's very unlikely that whatever kind of damage it was, front tyres were more vulnerable to it than the rear ones, while it's easily imaginable with axles or suspensions... Or even disks themselves, I guess...
The NI tank, the tank with a cannon that shouts "Ni!" Nierly no information for those who see it seldom to live to tell the tale. Those tanks are the Tanks that say "Ni, Peng, and Nee Womp".
Can't believe we ran from the battlefield when seeing what is basically a Soviet Bob Semple. Yeah, we were lacking AT weapons, plus many of the conscripted peasants (since this was basically the Romanian Army in both World Wars) had no idea what a tank is. Interesting reaction though.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JkyIBSBMXe8.html "Feat of Odessa,part 1" In part 2 you can see NI tank and Romanians fighting (somewhat).
Reminds me of Kubuś armoured car, which was a Chevrolet truck with an armour shell welded onto it and a machine gun on top of it. It was used in the Warsaw Uprising and still survives at the Polish Army Museum. It's a really cool piece of history.
Ok but seeing you talk of your effort to find only true info on this tank gave me the idea: why not an episode were you cover hilariously stupid misconceptions or myths. Instead of finding the truth find what is not.
I actually have a video planned for something along these lines focusing on the phrase "History is written by the victors" and how absurd that is given the true historical process, so stay tuned!
Now I want you to talk about the Zis-30 Tracktor that you had a picture of. It’s probably the most devastating of all the improvised soviet tractors that eventually became more like a standard production vehicle.
I believe it is somewhat safe to infer that these vehicles were *militia* and not milit *ary* and that would contribute to the difficulty of finding information about them
@@benismann factory workers assembled these tanks by using boiler plates and tractors. Since they are not soldiers they are not military. If they failed to use soviet insignia and follow the orders of a recognized military authority, under the Genova Convention they would be terrorists. However this is where the water gets murky since the Soviet Union never signed it!
Fun fact, two letters (NI or НИ in Russian) of tank’s name probably stand for На Испуг or To Frighten in English. So they were ment to frighten enemy and force them to abandon their positions. I’m from Russia and heard that on one of our historic TV channels.
So there is a book I have called "allied tanks of ww2" by David Porter, the book makes mention of this tank and other improvised vehicles, the sources about it having a bigger cannon might have been confused with the KhTZ based off of the STZ-3 tractor hull which had a 45mm.
I learned from this video that tractors can operate on urine rather than water, and that in Soviet Russia, farmers patriotically pissed into their tractors.
I just wanna say this was a solid video; saying what something isn't is often as important as saying what something is. This video was very informative and it's totally fine that some of the information is "we don't know". Cheers and happy holidays
Really appreciate the honesty in the research! Thanks for sharing and proving you did all you can, and why you were vague! Really showed you do know what you are talking about, and are proud of your content to not hyperbolize, even for the memes
Arthur Kent! Excellent journalist from Canada, I was fortunate to have him as a reference for a job with a huge Dutch company! Funny to see him here :)
The difference is that this wasn‘t a government project but an on-the-fly idea by workers in a frontline factory. Which is actually somewhat impressive.
Mr. Goldfish He tried to sell that weapon to allied countries during world war 2 basically his vision was a giant tower that would shoot electricity/Lightning beam at a direct target and defeat the whole luftwaffe.
Tesla was taking some hardcore drugs and I want some!! *in thick Serbian Accent* "Oke, we get these towers, da? We add ray death beams and kill German planes LIKE DOGS MUAHAHAHAHA"
I was originally going to sleep, but my nose decided to bleed like crazy. After fixing that I went downstairs and saw this video in my feed, as usual I clicked and watched enjoying every second of it. Thanks for the early Christmas gift Johnny, and I hope you have a merry Christmas as well!
PotentialHistory, if you’d like, I can read/speak Russian & Ukrainian, so if you need any help translating, I’d be happy to try to help! Well done on this video though overall!
Potential History of course! I’ll let you know, and just send me any information or sources you need translating with, and I’ll try my best to get it efficiently done! Thanks!
First of all,thank You for this video and Merry Christmas to You and enjoy your holidays! And secondly I would love to see a video about tank like these from the pre WW2 to WW2 eras that weren't based on chassis of a tank. Like the tank You mentioned in the video or the Bob Semple, ZiS30 and others.
Ahh yes, having to manually go through my subscriptions to see a new interesting video that has been uploaded and not being showed onto the main recommended page. This is truly a first world bruh moment problem.
