What actually IS an "SPG"? And why are they so important in Ukraine? 

Americans will do anything to avoid SI units.

@@jaex9617 I'm partial to the rural American system of using time as a unit of distance measurement, for example, at average Floridan highway speed(~80mph, so on the lower side of the real average), the M1299 can fire a shell over 30 minutes away!

Bro you are CRAZY crazy

Is that Big Mac system based on the advertising photo, or the real "stepped on" dimensions?

Finally, a real American.

Yes! No music. It's rare that I finish watching a video with music.

Wish they were longer ☹️☹️

Thanks so much! There is actually some music it’s just very quiet :)

@@RedWrenchFilms Russian always have number

​@@carkawalakhatulistiwawhat?...

Stug is an assault gun

@@gotanon9659 and what exactly is the difference between an assault gun and an SPG that‘s getting used as a tank destroyer 70% of the time?

​@@raylast3873Generally assault guns would be armored enough to survive expected frontal threats SPGs are armored to defend from small arms and shrapnel from bombs and enemy artillery

@@demanischaffer exactly. Which means your assault gun is pretty much just a better SPG and in most cases you‘re going to have zero problems if for whatever reason you use the assault gun instead.

@@raylast3873 Yes'nt Things like the Stug started as Self propelled artillery, but were re-gunned to work better as tank destroyers, Germany had other SPGs that differed greatly in design because they stayed pure artillery The Short Barrel Stugs were artillery at first, if you look at photos from early or pre war you'll see their crews do not wear the tanker uniforms Now a Stug makes a great assault gun because it's armored and enclosed, a long barrel stug makes a good tank destroyer because it's low to the ground and armored, a Priest or Hummel make better artillery platforms because they have higher elevating guns their designs would allow bigger guns to be employed

While you're waiting, there's plenty of good information on the M982 Excalibur round on the internet (including here on RU-vid). That one is probably the most interesting one. (There's also the Precision Guidance Kit, which can be attached to a dumb round to give it a significant fraction of the capability for far less cost).

@@jeffbenton6183 Nah, it's complete shit. Russian Krasnopol costs 1/20 the price and is much more accurate, happens when you don't build stuff to enrich 1% first and foremost...

@@KuK137 India has large stocks of both Excalibur and Krasnopol. Their conclusion is the opposite of yours. They've found Krasnopol unreliable at high altitudes (each one becomes a "dud" to use a direct quote). Excalibur, on the other hand, does not have this problem. The Indians also like that it has a bigger warhead and has "more penetration power" - again to quote their own assessment. Starting in 2019 they began to actually *replace* their stocks of Krasnopol with Excalibur. Also, Krasnopol is *not* one-twentieth the cost of Excalibur, it's one-fifth. Excalibur is still considerably more expensive than Krasnopol, but it's nowhere near as expensive as you claim. Moreover, Excalibur *can* be much cheaper: in 2006, it was fully *half* the price it was now, because they were being built in greater numbers. The US chose to buy fewer of them because they were so effective, that they didn't need as many as they thought in Afghanistan. Remember that economy-of-scale is a thing - they could be built in even greater numbers than they were in 2006, which would make them even cheaper. In any case, the Indians think it's worth the extra cost (and I think they're looking to license-produce their own Excaliburs, which are likely to be cheaper). Lastly, you don't honestly believe that Russia has a weaker 1% than the US, do you? Russia is practically *owned* by its oligarchs. The one societal difference that likely accounts for the extra cost is that American workers demand extra pay. The median household income in the US is 5-10 *times* higher than that of Russia (depending on which part of each country we're discussing, and when in the last five years as well). This more than accounts for the increase in price. If anything, US production of the rounds is likely much more efficient than the Russian procedures, since Excalibur *should* be even more exspensive than it is.

​@@KuK137And I have oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you Russian claims on accuracy and reliability must be taken with a large amount of salt

​@@KuK137mad cope

or people who think ifvs are tanks

Ryan Mcbeth's HAT method works for them.

I disagree. The definition of a tank has never really been defined and you can find a lot of different definitions wether it's people or Google who said it. To me , SPG ,SPAA, IFV , MBT... They all are tank but with different characteristics and function.

They don't even look the same to me, which I guess shows that I've spent too much time learning about military history 😅

​@@mateomignone947 If you're using Google to look up the definition of "tank", I think you just proved my point. ;)

It is a 155, and noteably, it's pretty much just the already in use Excalibur. It's the gun that's experiemntal, not the round.

With radars, satellites, drones and fast computers (not even considering AI) I wonder what the future for SPGs will be. Imagine someone starts firing at your position and your computer (with all the available info) immediately calculates the origin location, sets up and fires the gun...

@@ThatAnnoyingGuyOnTheInternet Methods will be developed to at least confuse and slow the process, then countermeasures will be figured out; rinse and repeat.

⁠​⁠@@ThatAnnoyingGuyOnTheInternet well the typical tactic is: shoot and disappear. First you're hidden in a forrest or a village. You get the order to strike and drive to the shooting position. The radius of the shooting position is very big and every spg has it's own sector. You get the order and shoot a few times and immediately disappear and hide again. All that happens whithin few minutes. Counter battery fire is a very big danger and could damage a battery very hard but normaly there isn't just one battery so we can triangulate their attack and start our own counter battery fire. Sorry for my poor English and greetings from a M109 commander of the Swiss military.

@@xDlol24 Cool, that makes sense. Assuming both you and the enemy have the same idea you described (fire and hide), would counter battery even make sense? Or would it be worth trying it "just in case"?

@@ThatAnnoyingGuyOnTheInternet well it depends on many factors, like what sort of artillery it is, what's their range, how fast can they opperate and is the risk worth it. So I can't give a clear answer.

@@volteer1332 I'd still count it as DIRECT fire. You aim at area on the sky which is in your direct line of sight.

Thanks for the idea!

Even more oversimplified explaination of the SPG: Big gun on big metal vroom-vroom go boom-boom then zoom-zoom to prevent counter boom-boom from mean people

@@Techno_Idioto " Operation of a SPG for Dummies "

@@Techno_Idiotoeven more simplified version... TANK

@@LottoDub720 Yeah, that's the long and short of it.

So, a tank

​@@volteer1332that's not indirect fire If I have a rifle and I'm shooting a fast-moving man, it's not indirect fire because my sight is not directly at him Lobbing rounds up in the air with the goal of them coming back down and hitting someone is indirect fire

@@volteer1332 Flak88 in AA use is still direct fire, you aim at the spon on sky in your direct line of sight.

@@demanischafferyes you explained indirect fire which shouldn't be confused with indirect weapon. Direct fire weapons you can still shoot indirectly but that still makes them direct fire weapons because they're most effective when you have direct line of sight or physical sight of the target. But indirect weapons are weapons that you don't specifically need to see the target in order to destroy or cause damage. For example non artillery tanks are direct fire weapons and artillery tanks are indirect. Simpler terms is that direct and indirect fire weapons can both be fired directly or indirectly, but if it's effectiveness to contact or destroy a target is better directly or indirectly is what dertmines if it's one or the other. Or a simple anology would be guided missiles(direct weapon) and non guided missiles(indirect weapon)

How is the shell trajectory calculated by the system? I'm currently building an SPG tank in a game but I'm not very sure what to calculate to fire from a significant distance. Are there also calculations for aiming the gun on high angles like a mortars?

Whats the maintenance like? Are there any parts prone to breaking? Whats the funniest thing you’ve seen while maintaining the m109?

In the Swiss M109 KAWEST it is possible to shoot direct with a scope. Is that Swiss thing but also on the paladins?

I understood miles perfectly. Football fields, what is that, 100 yards plus both end zones? How long is each end zone, are they even counted at all when defining a football field? Football fields use yards which is also another conversion I have to make, ugh!!!!!1

​@@uss-dh7909imagine meters

Really good idea David

Most things inside mostly all military vehicles are classified upon technical details

@@LottoDub720 Yeah that's unfortunate

Oh fuck you right 😮🧠 💥

I’m not sure! I’d presume it was just fired last. I think the animation exaggerates the differences in elevation.

I think shell flights faster with flatter arc since travel distance is shorter and it takes less affect from gravity

Some (most?) artillery have adjustable charges (edit: adjustable charge is in fact necessary to do the time-on-target fire, like shown in the video), but if you're not doing ToT, unless you needed to aim a little higher to avoid hitting an obstacle, I'd imagine you'd just fire standard/full charge. With the same charge, the velocity is the same, but firing in a low arc, the shell will reach the target faster, since it's taking a more direct route.

It is in a historical context, and is vintage footage for educational purposes. I think there are known exceptions for very clearly historical appearances. (It did give me a knee jerk reaction too, don't worry) I would be more worried about the "Z" decals on the Ukraine tanks.

Cost and payload. Increasing the payload weight of a missile is exponentially more expensive than increasing the payload of a ballistic projectile. It is also possible to track the smoke/vapor trail of a propelled charge like a missile, or intercept it with C-RAM type automated anti missile and aircraft systems. You can't reliably shoot a falling bullet out of the sky.

@@volteer1332 Funny huh, how all the extra control one has on a missile somehow makes it _more_ predictable - I see what you're saying though, it's likely just a matter of size, shooting a missile with a bullet is hard enough, but good luck shooting a bullet with a bullet like that WW1 incident

@luigivercotti6410 prediction is predicated on being able to detect an object, and the heat signature on a missile is pretty noticeable. But size is the other big thing, all that extra space for the rocket fuel and the guidance computer and sensors makes it a bulkier target to hit.

Missiles cost 10x more than artillery shells…this is the main cause of

Hahah appreciate it Jacob!

It's going places, I'm sure those are not right places though. Channels based on bias are bound to become echo chambers of little value.

Haha which ones! I couldn’t find anything concrete that wasn’t a tank destroyer, assault gun or prototype.

@@RedWrenchFilms ISU-85, ISU-122, ISU-152. They can be called tank destroyers but it doesn't make significant difference.

@@RedWrenchFilms So you don't even mention USSR at all. What a lame excuse.

@@azatmingalimov I mean - I literally do.

They didn’t really have any in World War Two. They use the Soviet style systems listed when I talk about Ukrainian SPGs.

@@RedWrenchFilms Not out of bias at all. Right?

@@azatmingalimov … which ones would you want me to talk about?

Was just an example! The XM1155 can go out to 110km.

@@RedWrenchFilms Damn, haven't heard of that one. Just looked it up, pretty wild

Football fields have a finite length though. If you used cups/glasses as a measurement it would be harder to conceptualize because he could be talking about literally any form/shape/size of cup/glass ever created

Tub?

@@eymoose The kind of tank that was denied to be a tank in the video.

You might be thinking of 'tank destroyers'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

Depends on what it is actually doing. Tanks are fully armoured because they are expected to engage in a war of manoeuvre and be able to handle more or less anything they run into. They need full armour because they can reasonably expect to encounter everything from opposing tanks to lighter AFVs to artillery fire to infantry with portable AT weapons, from the front, sides, or behind, and they need at least a decent chance to survive any of it. So, what is your partially unarmoured vehicle actually doing, and why isn't it fully armoured? Is it killing other AFVs from ambush and/or combined arms defensive positions (relying on stealth, defensive fortifications, and first round kills to protect itself)? It is a tank destroyer. Does it accompany infantry/engineers on their attacks (relying on them to protect its vulnerable flanks & rear) and destroying fortifications, strongpoints, and the occasional AFV? It is an assault gun. Does it rapidly and/or stealthily advance ahead or to the flank of the main body, perhaps skirmishing with opposing scouts, but withdrawing in the face of serious opposition (trading armour for speed and smaller size)? It is a reconnaissance vehicle. Does it stay behind friendly lines, providing fire support, and ideally not becoming engaged itself (limiting the return on investment for armour)? It is a self propelled gun. If you look at very early tank warfare (WWI, Spanish Civil War), or at forces with very limited manufacturing capability (Daesh, Syrian Opposition), you can find some very primitive partially armoured "tanks," but otherwise, nobody designs tanks without full armour.

@@boosterh1113 I was thinking about the Marder III, which was oroginally the 38 (t), but it was equipped with a howitzer with an open armor.

You clicked the video Wilhelm.

@@RedWrenchFilms I did not know its content. So what?

Same as a bullet proof vest then? Bullet proof windows?

​@@RedWrenchFilms Cope

SPG-s just aint very good in the game😅