Absolutely true, as I learnt a few weeks later while researching for another topic. And it goes even further back: The M4A2 HVSS used by Canada had infantry telephones as a post war modifaction as early as 1946 according to our dear colleagues in Bovington; and the colleagues at the USMC museum even has a diaroma of a Sherman in a Pacific diaroma with a phone IN ACTUAL USE: scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/107611249_10157732567012880_2290673068350331714_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeFpmNnYhlpNk4OSkXfZNWHdY10WC53sp4djXRYLneynh4YI4jQiYWf5SMrTO8gF9Ecch-eMbVjoYbZhjeSGTDGN&_nc_ohc=zK6hnjilZvYAX_WGk3d&_nc_ht=scontent-frt3-1.xx&oh=62a5364898cba1ab171d78f50bb92117&oe=6021A762 So yeah, I really could have known better and learnt my lesson. /Ralf Raths

I think the phone on the M48 was shown being used in the movie Full Metal Jacket.

In fairness, one can still say that infantry phones were not very common because pretty much only the Americans had them fitted as standard on most of their tanks. The British and others understood the idea, but tended to not require them as standard, which is surprising because Mr. Panzermuseum is right, it is an absurdly simple and useful tool to include.

I was FDC for 155mm and 8 inch and we had nuke rounds back then. The plan was only to use them if we were on the defensive and being over run by the Russians or Chinese divisions. We were never to shoot at anything smaller than a division sized target or city because we fired Hiroshima sized nukes. Roughly 16KT. The rest of the company would be looking to hide behind a mountain or in a canyon to shelter from the blast wave while we sent one gun forward with the M577 to fire the nuke. This is while we're being over run by at least a enemy division mind and driving towards the front. Not a good plan in my military mind. Even with the rocket assist we couldn't fire the 155mm nuke far enough to be outside the blast radius so we were supposed to dig a trench first and then park the M577 over it to use a a shelter. The hope was that we wouldn't loose the vehicles when the blast wave rolled over us. P.S. Personally I don't think anyone is going to be fighting in a nuclear environment immediately after a blast. That's unless they plan to write off all their armor and probably all their troops. You can't decon radioactive armor and the radiation would prove fatal if the troops attacking through the waste land got delayed by a rear guard action, blown bridges, etc. Plus the defender has the benefit of being further away from the source of the radiation and getting less fallout while at the sametime the attacker would be much closer to the hotspot and in the worst of the fallout as they attack through or around the blast area. In other words even if the defenders are dying from radiation, the attackers would be dying faster since they'd be going through or around the hotspot and their reserve forces and follow up forces would be in it even longer as they waited for a hole to be punched in the enemy defenses.

@@readhistory2023 For an educated engineer, it is not actually that counter-intuitive. It is only for us people who mostly only hear that gasoline burns so don't keep flames around it that we think gasoline or other hydrocarbons are particularly volatile. For engineers, learning many of the basic mechanics of fluids, chemistry, and such quickly make it obvious why liquid hydrocarbons are not very volatile. Heck, my dad had an old text book from before the First World War that included a laboratory demonstration involving dropping a flaming match onto a cold puddle of gasoline and then holding the match above a warmed puddle, showing how the former didn't incite combustion while the latter did. You can find naval architects using oil bunkers as added protection well before the battle tank was even a concept, and if you look into tanks designs after WW1, even then some designers were using the fuel as protection enhancement.

a funny thing I just noticed from my last visit to Yad La Shiryon - there IS mk 3 Chieftain on display, but the notice board showed a Centurion tank picture next to the info !!

The Israelis would have just fixed the problem before inflicting it on their Troopers and Mechanics .. unlike the MOD.

@@thomasmusso1147 I would have loved to see what the IDF would have stuck in the back of the old girl

@@stevenbreach2561 Most probably a tried and tested USA-type Diesel .. with emphasis on reliability, simplicity and field serviceabiliy.

The British Army joke about Chieftain was as follows: Chieftain will always prove itself the most powerful tank on the battlefield, provided that it breaks down in the right place.

thank you!

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized "Laying" from Jonathan H should have been "lying," you know. Getting to be a frequent mistake among less educated English speakers.

@@ericrachut4207 No you Lay (aim) a weapon on the target, you do not "lying"" a weapon a Target, you do that when you are asked why did you miss? I am a native English speaker.

@@Delgen1951 To lay is transitive, meaning it requires a direct object. One lays SOMETHING down, for example. To lie is intransitive - no direct object. One lies down. The confusion seems to arise because the past tense of "to lie" is the similar word "lay." Examples: I lie down- present tense; I lay down - PAST tense - I did it yesterday. Those who incorrectly use these words will say "I lay down" to describe a present action....."I walk in the door and lay down." It should be, in this present tense, "I walk in the door and lie down." To use a proverb, you should let sleeping dogs lie. You do not let them lay. To summarize, for the present tense (right now) if you're using "lay," you need to be laying SOMETHING - your coat, a book. Otherwise, use "lie." (OK, there is the sentence: "Now I lay me down to sleep....." Notice that here there is indeed a direct object - yourself! ("me"), so it is correct. You should not say "Now I lay down to sleep"). In regard to a weapon, here again you lay the weapon on target - "weapon" is the direct object. PS You can see "I lay down to sleep" when it happened in the past - "lay" is past tense for "lie" in this situation. It sounds confusing, but when you grow up with the correct usage, it is ingrained.

About #2 ; yes, thought so. The Weisel also has no-skid patches on it that serve the same function. And I see the myth of Infantry in the back of the tank has finally been ended.

guess some comitted suicide.

You know that's only what they used from their own tax payer money what's left was payed by the US tax payer money as part of the yearly 30 billion dollar aid to Israel from the US, while they are creative with their designs they would not have achieved this without the help. Look at the LAVI fighter plane which they sold to china after they acquired and integrated US tech into it then cancelled it so that it does not take sales from the F-16

@@hamzahfrs6548 not correct.. U.s will never go to help where and or when it's ain't paying well... This "aid" is to get 3 times more back !!! On each billion they "aid" they are saving 3 ! Its all matters of interest... The prove at the first time was at the end of 1930es until end of World war II When they refused to aid for real and rejected all those who have been burn in hands of germans , because nothing would come out for that.... Don't try to describe us as greed people... Our government like that situation because their off record deals around that aid... Think about how much it's cost to have an army in most of the globe , to keep it active , soldiers , fuel, all logistics... And again , cause its pays well... If you ain't know about, it doesn't say it's isn't exist...

@@asafgl4281 it's you who is incorrect, your President helped to steal krypton triggers for your illegal nuclear weapons program, from the U.S, stop with the laughable gaslighting b.s

@@craigharrison6662 first, nuclear weapons in my country are originally from France , and by that time there ware no kryptons.... Second , speak nicer , watch what you are saying..

Hey, mister. you are good! I am an Israeli, and we make this kind of jokes here. Blessings and Good health to your people.

@@user-qk4wh6sh8c surprisingly wholesome lol

@@user-qk4wh6sh8c Fellow Israeli I confirm that

@@neptune3569 plz free palestine

@@timotejmason4971 No

Is the Merkava 4 bigger? I ask because the 120mm ammunition is bigger.

@@jordansmith4040 to use the tank as an ifv the ammou is removed

Das ryte

Spookston I think.

@@williambodin5359 Ėxactly, they need air-supremacy and overwhelming numbers on land to defeat some illiterate yihadists

@@williambodin5359 ya the first few. Now the tank is old and dated and it SHOWS. If that thing fights against modern tanks like a t72b3 or t90 it would get it's face smashed in. The thing only has steel armour plating with era coving the front and sides. Which can be defeated anyways so back to steel we go.

@@Thekilleroftanks uhhh you are behind on your tank knowledge by like 30 years

which position?

..just make very, very sure, if you're a grunt coming up behind that thing to use the phone that the crew KNOW you're there...

The Merkava is my favorite tank. I think it is a brilliant idea to combine an armored transport vehicle with a tank. It's one of those - "Why didn't I think of that" wonders.

@@amirhellsing5746 gunner

Friend of mine (IDF) used to pester the Merkava crews with ordering pizza from that phone.

חשבתי שאני הישראלי היחיד שצופה בערוץ הזה

מאייק איט טריפל

@@tzurn 😂

נהיה צפוף פה

למי שלא מכיר אני ממליץ גם על ערוץ בשם TIK ניתוחים ברמה מאוד גבוהה של מלחמת העולם השניה

/ban

@@crashthecon5303 banana?

What are your thoughts on Zionism?

@@thomasaquinas1163 do you normally ask people if their country should exist?

Toda raba. A great country. After this pandemic I will go there again.

slowly but surely :)

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Annotation: Now that I have seen this "Tank Chat", will you go over the Israeli fighting doctrine? Do they even have something like the German Weißbuch (Stichwort: Vorne-/Vorwärtsverteidigung etc.)? I realize that some of the tactical stuff may still be classified but one of the biggest questions I have had since I read about the 48 war and the 6 days war is in how German and Israeli doctrine is related.

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Churchill tanks confirmed!

See "Full metal jacket"

I know M60's had a phone, but finding one that work was a diferent story.

The Leopard 2 has one as well. I have personally used it.

Leopard 1 also had this phone capability...

And Shermans in WWII! Watch the movie "Sands of Iwo Jima" as the grunt direct fire from a phone on the back of the tank! www.theshermantank.com/category/tank-infantry-phone/

iirc all the modern tank parked close to it are parked like that. It is not a problem of available space, it is a statement: we did with our 50 t behemoth what you haven't the guts to do with your fancy car. Impressive unforgettable museum really.

The glass wall was put up perhaps after that chariot was parked, yes?

It probably isn't that hard to do with a modern gearbox and a steady hand/foot. The wall might also be a big sliding door, it kind of looks like that but I am on a phone.

The museum 's forklift driver is very good ;)

Very low speed, many spotters, good communication. Everything is planned and discussed before moving an inch.

I mean, if you look at european weapons projects, where sometimes everyone makes his own thing, or when they do cooperation and every country has its extra wishes (think eurofighter), that can drive up costs as well. Youre certainly right when it comes to america failing at replacement of armored vehicles, but you can get into trouble both ways.

@@termitreter6545 i mean america is littraly everywhere , the Abrams is designed to 1 be good enough 2 mass producable

​@@dbzfanexwarbrady Abrams tank is aging, but its a perfectly fine tank, surely among the best. It gets constant upgrades, so I dont think that tank is an issue, assuming it gets replaced the next 10-20 years. But if you look at america trying to upgrade IFVs, APCs or SPGs, it becomes more problematic. Like, France, Brittain and Germany have all their own designs that easily outshine Bradleys, Strikers and Paladins. The US had a ton of failed upgrade programs for those vehicles. Or even something as basic as an M16/M4 replacement struggles, because they somehow want a magical super rifle, rather than just upgrade every 30 or so years with the best rifle you can get, like other countries do.

It's not that hard to build a tank that will only face civilians.

@@TotalState Mate, if youre that fucking ignorant of israel history, maybe just shut up and dont spread your stupidity.

I am kinda surprised he didn't jump on it when he had the chance while there before.

@@jmullner76 I think he had not enough time for that as he rushed through the halls in the vid.

I would be stoked to see this. The Merkerva is so unconventional in many ways!

I asked him why he hadn't been to Israel yet and he replied that he was still waiting for an invitation. This Israeli Jew thinks otherwise...

That would get you a down-payment on an F35.

cry in f-35.

America paid for it in reality.

i agree but strange your buying the f35..

And Israel will enjoy the benefits

Had four rumble past us when we passed through Israel. Felt like the world was shaking itself apart. They must have been doing 20 km/hr

@@Shanetangybits The mark IV can do over 70 on even terrain, or so I heard.

It’s not how big the Merkava is, it’s how small Israel is. Remarkable tank for such a small state.

@@danbenson7587 Not hard to make when they are funded by american taxpayers

@@TheMrFu US military aid to allies all goes directly into the US defense industry. It's a way for the US to get rid of surplus equipment and to keep its industry alive while at the same time making allies militarily dependent on it.

I thought they were already on the Leo 1, in that round box on the hull rear, but I think it's missing on the Leo 2? They were also used on post war British tanks and the Swedes who had it on their centurion users included it on the STRV 122, and now its finally standard on the Leo 2A7! The squad leader in full metal jacket uses one in the film to talk to the crew of the m41 walker bulldog they're with in Hue, not sure if that's accurate to actual Nam era US armour

@@Peter50501009 the one on the Australian version of the Leo 1 is on the right hand side in a square box with round corners. Probably we just had a different version that worked with our gear.

The problem with infantry phones is the reactive armour on tanks now, rather dangerous to be near.

@@JamesNeave1978 most ERA is in the frontal arc if it's on a western tank and the tank phone is on the rear in most cases, Russian vehicles seem to put ERA in more places so I can see that! Speaking of dangerous though, the idea of going close behind an MBT in combat, and that the first they know of it is when the call comes through from the phone.... I'd be bricking it until they answer in case of a sudden move into reverse!

I'm an engineer. Worked for the company that designed the Leopard 2. I'm to young to have witnessed it but was told once it was actually offered but the german army didn't want to have it. Don't know why.

The Soviet doctrine is fascinating. Saw a 1990’s documentary.

I've learned as much about the cold war in my 20 something years as one might expect, maybe a bit more. But for some reason I've never heard anyone discuss fighting in an irradiated battlefield from a scholastic point of view. Tank's, of course, just make everything cooler. And... Somewhat more dangerous.

@@Sir.Craze- It’s been a while since I watched the show and the finer details elude my memory. Chemical and nuclear weapons were going to be used in the initial attack or first line of defense forcing NATO to fight suited up. The Soviets believed NATO wasn’t adequately trained and this would neutralize much of the technological superiority. The soviets trained in actual chemical battlefields and had casualties from it. They were counting on their numerical superiority to compensate for any losses. The one thing that was interesting to me was they were going to use the eastern bloc nations for the buffer zone dumping the munitions on them!

@@logoseven3365 I saw a paper on fallout patterns from various types of chemical weapons some decades ago, and the author noted in the end notes that the primary damage was only the beginning of the problems faced by the places the stuff touched. For instance, in order to get the German (East and West both) agriculture going again after the war thousands of tonnes of earthworms would have to be imported, along with insects, after the chemicals had decayed enough. Scary thought...

@@dogcarman The Soviets had the same problem with their allies we, Uncle Sam, did, nobody want to be turned into a NBC wasteland! When I was in school I had a Nuclear Science class. Very interesting. The teacher repeated his opinion that bio/ chem warfare was worse because the long term effects weren’t studied as much. None of it sounds very appealing to me.

I'm to lazy to look, but Wikipedia sometimes offers even spoken samples for some words.

Thank you very much! Yes, there once was a mp3 with the pronounciation of the word; I don't know if it's still there. Listened to it and tried to mimick it - and suceeded, it seems. :D /Ralf Raths

Same,they fought panzer 4s and stugs

Yes please!

handgrande

Rpg-7 grenade on the chinese fpv drone

So, you likely had to "pleasure" to wait at the Uelzen Bahnhof for a while 😂

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Lol, I'm not quite sure but I think I didn't, because I went to Munster from Bremen xD

i think they are alot of museums who are quite difficult to visit if you dont drive ....i went to Paris air and space museum ....i think was much easy just to shoot myself in middle of Paris that to travel there .....plus Paris is a shitty city :)))

@@mellasio3911 l have heard this ,amazing to see but filthy to look at ...is this true?? l only see it during TDF lol

@@chipcook5346 It's a good gun, just outdated. Armor is still getting thicker so more powerful guns are a necessity.

It does that too, of course. But it is also very effective at making dust/sand/mud stick to the surface of the vehicle so it basically picks up camouflage as it goes.

@@michaelshaposhnik4668 Then I would turn your statement around. The non-skid coating also adds something to the camouflage. If it were indeed primarily a camouflage feature, then it would not only be applied to surfaces that might be stepped on. Look at the sides of the headlight recesses or the steeper flanks of the turret, the whole back, the side skirts (they are missing in the video here). No camo needet there?

@@potator9327 Granted, you could do that.

@John Knapp The gritty coating is rather rougher with irregular sized chunks, some are a bit bigger than the usual non slip surface. And yes, you do not want to trip and fall on it.

You could use small chunks of rubber instead i suppose

It seems HaShem prevented his children from percieveing the British Goverment and the Rothschilds as being reliable allies. Humans are always greedy: your friend need not to be sad. HaShem has not forgotten his children. Yeshua Ha Maschiach, who was once denied - will one day return, and wipe away the tears of the first Sons.

what is it about tank videos that bring out the religious nutjobs?

@@Galloglaigh. Why feel you compelled to abuse a person for expressing their faith?

@@a-sheepof-christ9027your Yeshau Ha Mashiach comment made me smile.

@@Galloglaigh. It's more than you think: Yeshau Ha Mashiach is jesus, so 'generic' was clearly making an anti-semitic jibe.

Absolutely true, the single packet is no real problem, neither are small numbers. But the problem probably would have been a tendency to use these small packets in initially high numbers to get the desired battlefield effect quickly and that these numbers would have even got higher if the desired effect would not been achieved instantly - based exactly on the assumption that these devices per se are "just more efficient artillery". Escalating pounding on an assumedly possible or even probable breaking point is a classical reaction to stress situations like a battle crisis that would have called for tac nukes in the first place. Therefore a rich saturation of areas could have been quickly achieved unintentionally, but easily.

That's American nukes not Russian

Funnily enough tactical nukes are one of the dirtiest nukes (if you exclude enhanced radiation ones), big fusion nukes are "clean" enough that you can walk over ground 0 as soon as it's cool enough that your boots won't melt just basic NBC protection. Sure some of them will keel over in few weeks after stepping in extra hot puddle of mud or something but most might just get cancer in few decades if they survive the war. @DasPanzermuseum Nuclear battlefield means your assault divisions won't live long enough to see effects of radiation, so moving them through hot areas becomes palatable for command; also most of the maneuvering happens in APCs that lessen effects of the radiation greatly compared to hoofing it. You won't be fighting in radiated cities like in Fallout as there is nothing to gain "winning" Stalingrad 2.0 anymore, defenders just get more nukes and VX for their troubles until all resistance ceases. Instead of slow crawl though broken cities it will be fast assaults over hot zones to next strategic/tactically significant location that is yet to be nuked by either side. What I'm trying to get at is your 1st line divisions are lost anyway, might as well use them to gain a breach before they are lost to the Atom so saturation doesn't matter, and your 2nd line division can cross previously hot areas in relative safety after radiation has dissipated a bit (which happens in couple of hours to a day). In fully nuclear war this process gets repeated until either side escalates to MAD or runs out of mobile units. TLDR; Nukes are bad, hopefully none gets used in anger ever again.

@@demonprinces17 it doesn't matter

@@Salesman9001 unfortunately not so true... the effect of military nuclear weapons is way different to your idea. And the term dirtiest is funny, but little bit off...

Not the most populous, can't just feed troops in until you win like the US, Russia, or China

It's balance by their relative disregard for civilian human life.

@@johnsmith1474 you can’t blame the IDF that their enemies hide behind civilians as their main strategy

The took alot of inspiration from s tank and cv90 with engine in front, and troop survivability

@@Die_beiden_gameprofis They are not hiding behind civilians. This is a big lie that they always repeat Resistance fighters build underground tunnels, where they plan and prepare for all military operations away from civilians, because they do not have any air defenses or air force to protect them from American aircraft

Wait, that isn't a standard for a desert warfare armoured vehicle? How does the crew survive otherwise?

@@the_tactician9858 drink lots of water and suffer in silence...

@@the_tactician9858 like they survived in the tanks with no air con in North Africa in WW2. Yes it must get incredibly hot, but clearly the tanks crew managed too fight and survive.

with some difficulty...@@the_tactician9858

How do you feel about all the excuse making of the poor Russin armour performance in the Gulf? I've been in a lot of debates recently about this topic. There seems to be a constant overhyping and exaggeration of Russian hardware, such as armor. I dove deep in this topic because I found it interesting, and many try to make the excuse that the Iraq version was an export, therefore it shouldn't count, but when you look at the specs of the T72, it wouldn't have mattered if they had Russians crewing the most advanced T72 available at the time with the best ammo, they still would have been completely outmatched by the Abrams. They have shorter range, their optics are not as good, they didn't have night vision optics anywhere near as capable as the Abrams, they didn't have any good passive night vision equipment, the ballistic computer isn't nearly as good, when you really get down to it, the outcome would have been the same. I'm not saying Russian armor isn't a threat, of course it is, and it would be foolish not to take something as a threat. However, from everything I've gathered on the published literature on Russian armor, the T80 and the T90 and even tanks being produced today in Russia, have always lagged behind their Western counterparts in the areas of ballistic computers, optics and especially night vision and thermal equipment. This is a serious Achilles heel when it comes to fighting at night against Western counterparts. Even the T14 being produced now, They were relying on French exported thermal optics because they haven't been able to develop domestic produced equipment that xan compete. Despite all of this published literature, there's a lot of people on the Internet that will swear up-and-down that it's all propaganda and that the T72 and the T80 and the T90 are the best tanks in the world in every category and the best thing since sliced bread, I just thought it would be interesting to get the opinion of an Abrams tanker, considering you guys have to be pretty knowledgeable on potential threats you would faced in the field, and was curious if you guys actually got educated on the capabilities and equipment of your Russian counterparts?

@@nickdial8528 If you want to look at it logically, even the Abrams gets its share of propaganda and does have its shortcomings . However I believe that you are correct in your assessment of the T72, T80 and T90 of the time. Tank evolution and design for the Soviets really was not all that different from the 1940/50's. As such it was less about the actual design and more about doctrine. Soviet era combat doctrine was that the tank was only supposed to last a couple of battles. As Nick Moran has stated many times, its was what was best for them. As far as contemporaries to the M1, Most of the western/NATO armor was pretty equivalent, with each having its own special something to offer. What made the Abrams so great was that it was designed from the start with crew survivability in mind as well as ergonomically easy to use. The M1 was never the "best" at any one thing, it was best at being balanced. There are faster tanks, but the M1 keeps pace. There are better guns (even tho most are all derived from the Rhine-metal 120mm smooth bore.) Ammunition plays a part. Some have better armor, but the Abrams is still decently strong (considering that its armor is British in origin) What make the M1 one of it not the best tanks in the world is the crew training. I will say that it has now been almost 30 years since I last rode in the M1. You can look at it and say, its an M1, but the internal tech (armor, ammo, engines, optics) have all changed and been upgraded. But so have the Russian tanks. Even the T72 has had some decent upgrade packages to make it a viable tank in modern warfare. The T 14 Armata is really the first major change in Russian armor doctrine, putting crew first over vehicle. That being said, we still do not know what all its capabilities are for offense and defense. My personal opinion is that is a major step forward. It has a lot going for it, but I can see that is still has issues. Too many "shot traps" in the Turret for example. Yet, no one is going to die if the turret in the T14 is hit and penetrated, but its now a disabled vehicle. Things I do like about the T14 is its modular design, so as it can take a variety of turret options. This will allow for a streamlining for the manufacture of the hull and its mass production. This also allows for ease of parts to fix and replace quickly. Think back to WW2 and the Sherman tank with its many variants including the M-10 and M-36 Tank destroyers. Most of the parts were interchangeable with each other. Getting back to modern tanks, I would say still that there are many tanks in the world that might be better than an M1 in one capacity or another. But the real key to battle is who has the best training and can send the round down range first. And knowing how to protect yourself from being a target at the same time. Myself now as a civilian could conceivably, with out the help of another big vehicle or weapon disable an Abrams or any armored vehicle with just a little bit of know how. Contrary to popular belief, infantry is still the real power of the battlefield. Artillery is the queen, armor is the shield and force multiplier. But it all comes down the that boots on the ground grunt. I think that for the Russians during the 90s. The T 72,80 and 90 series were outclassed by most NATO tanks, but the same could be said about Russian tanks in the 60's outclassing anything we had. Its hard to say who has the best now a days as far as equipment. I still say it comes down to crew and training. A final example would be ending with the people that started this conversation. The Israelis in the 1950's cobbled together what they could including the modified M4 Sherman (M50 and M51 mod) against tanks like the T54/55, The T55 outclassed Israels M-50 Super Sherman, but the crews of the M50's completely outclassed the crews of the T55. I hope that answers some of your questions. If not, Im sure that I can do my best to answer any further that you might have.

@@erichelvie8524 Thanks for the response, I don't doubt that the M1 has its share of propaganda, but reading the literature published on Eastern equipment and diving deep into the equipment on the tank's, it's pretty well established that Russian armor has lagged about a decade behind Western armor in regards to computers, optics, and especially night vision and thermal capabilities. Even today in 2021, T72 crews have to use smartphones for navigation. They don't have any interactive battle space capabilities. The reason I brought that up in debates with other people, as I stated before, it doesn't matter what version of these tanks were used in the Gulf, they would have been out classed by NATO armor, especially in night engagements which would have been suicide. I would say one of the biggest problems with the T series tank's, is that they have to use 2 piece ammunition, and their penetrator rod cannot be as long as it needs to be to compete with contemporary Western armor, whereas 120 mm Western guns on contemporary armor, can use one piece ammunition and extended penetrator rods in their rounds, which is a huge problem For Russian tanks. As far as the T14, my personal opinion is that it's not as much of a step up as some people think. They finally have a tank that can use one piece ammo, which is good, but even the Is T14 suffers from optics and night vision equipment that is still not on par with Western capabilities. The Russians were installing exported French thermal and night vision equipment into their armor packages, until they were recently cut off from embargo's. Now they're trying to play catch up and figure out a way to develop a domestic version of this equipment, but it's usually considered to be lagging behind By what they were receiving from the French. Not only does this put the T14 at a disadvantage, there are some other disadvantages I believe it suffers from as well. Aside from not being field tested, and there's a lot of hype with it, some forget that the T14 design is not actually new, it's pretty much a copy of the United States replica of a prototype that predates the M1 Abrams from the 1980s. The United States actually came up with a prototype that was exactly like the T14, same principle with the crew sitting together capsulated, remote turret, and the US decided to go the route of the Abrams. I believe the concern was, the turret would be too easy to become disabled, and if there was a minor problem with the turret, you now didn't have a 4th crew member inside to be able to maintain or repair a potential minor issue with the turret in the field to stay in the fight or get backup and running, whereas a design with a remote turret, if there's a problem you're not getting to it and you're out of the fight. They also found problems with situation awareness with a remote turret. Personally, I'm not sure the T14 design is design necessarily advantageous in the long run, although we probably will never know anyway because they can't afford to build it. As far as today, the vast majority of Russian's tanks, are Soviet era tanks as you mentioned, that have been upgraded, such as T72, T80 and T 90 Although even with their upgrades, they still suffer from serious flaws with the carousel, and other issues that were present in the nineties and eighties as well, and even though they've had some upgrades with their optics and night equipment, it is still vastly outclassed by the night equipment available on Western tanks I completely understand what you're talking about as far as upgrades to an older platform, it's like my 2003 Chevy avalanche, on the outside it looks like a 2003 Chevy avalanche, but it has HID headlights with projectors installed, a flat screen stereo completely compatible with all of the latest technologies, it has LED guages, back up camera, etc..it's, it is like a modern contemporary truck with an older platform as far as esthetics. I just thought it would be interesting to talk to somebody from the Gulf war era who was an abrams crew member, because there's been a lot of debate where hardcore Russian tank fanboys will argue up-and-down that if the Iraqis had non export T72s, The outcome somehow would have been different, but I believe that's nonsense. there may be more Abrams taken out of the fight, but the end result would have still been a slaughter. As I stated in other debates on this topic, it doesn't matter if you had Russians crewing their latest T72s or T-80s They still Would have been outclassed in range, Penetrating capability, And especially night optics. The end result would have still been the same. In fact, the Iraqis were seasoned and nothing to sneeze at, the Russians were very bold and even arrogant before the Gulf war started, they'd spent much time training the Iraqis in Soviet tank doctrine and tactics, and much of the tactics used by the Soviets didn't work as well as the Soviets had hoped. In fact, this is supported by the fact that after the Gulf war, many Russian commanders were horrified and Russia overhauled their tactics and made a lot of changes because of what they witnessed in that war. I think they realized, if they had tried to invade Germany in the eighties, it wouldn't have worked out for them as well as they thought. Today however, with the conflict brewing in Ukraine, the vast majority of Russian armor is older T72 and T80s as well as T90s. The bulk of their armor, still does not have optics and night vision equipment capable of competing with nato armor, in fact, Many of them still have to use active IR filtered light to get decent engagement range out of their optics at night, which of course you know is complete suicide when fighting an enemy with passive thermals and night vision equipment, that can sit in the dark and watch you light up like a spotlight searching. At the end of the day, I absolutely would not underestimate Eastern equipment, everything is a threat, but I really do think people have way too much faith in the capabilities of Eastern armor compared to contemporary Western units. in fact, I would argue one of the biggest devastating features of a modern day Abrams, is the ability for the units to communicate with everything on an interactive battle space, where long bows and other air assets can talk to each other with Abrams on the ground, and share target information, all in real time. I worked on longbows, and while I was there in the early 2000s, they were really cutting their teeth on interactive battle space capability. The Apache being able to talk to an Abrams and share target information with each other and decide who's in a better position to take out a target, is an amazing capability that most don't even think about when they're talking about armor engagements. Just some food for thought.... ..

@@nickdial8528 No doubt that you are correct on the T72-80-90 series tanks. They were outclassed and even with substantial upgrading, they still suffer from the doctrine that created them. The advantage that they had prior to thermal sights was low silhouette. And while even today that provides some advantages, its still does not compete with modern tech. Because of that doctrine, the T-series tanks just do not have the room to place additional tech. The Abrams and its contemporaries like the LeClerc, Challenger II Leopard II all have space for upgrades. Even with computers getting smaller, one still needs the space for it to occupy. You also hit the nail on the head on communication. Its one of the reasons the Germans in the late 30's early 40's were so damn effective, communication and combined arms. What allows the US and its allies still a distinct advantage is that communication. But on top of that, is the loose system of how we run combat. Soviet era and those of the Iraqi Republican Guard were so micro managed that they could not take a shit with out authorization. We on the other had are given an objective or series of objectives but its left for the field commanders to figure out how to do it so long as it stays within the rules of war (Geneva Convention ect.) I cannot recall specifically whom said it, but a German commander in WW2 posed the rhetorical question, Do you know why Americans are so effective at war? Its because war is chaos, and Americans practice chaos on a daily basis. Even if we were to lose satellite communication or radio coms in general, we would still be effective based on our doctrine. And Yes, the T-14 is the realization of how flawed the soviet doctrine was. It is a tremendous leap forward. And as I said the hull is a great platform for other uses. And its cheaper to build than an M1 hull. Its the turret packages that cost the Russians an arm,leg and first born. I was thinking a bit more on advantages vs disadvantages in many tanks including the M1's contemporaries , One piece of old tech comes to mind. The gunners independent unity scope. All it is, is a periscope that can allow the gunner to see the point of view from the top of the tank in his position. Not necessarily as important on a tank like the M1, but most Russian and even several NATO tanks do not have it. They depend solely on the Thermals and other systems. Why is it important? Well many tankers think they have a shot lined up only to fire and realize the gun barrel has not cleared the turret down position. The round ends up in the dirt in front of them. When I was learning the gunners position, we are taught to check that scope real quick before you fire to make sure the gun is clear. Going back to a statement you made, you are correct, if the Soviets had tried to invade Germany in the mid to late 80s, they would have had a hell of a time of it. 10 years earlier in the 70's They might have pulled it off. But back then we had the air superiority, not just in planes, but in tech as well. An interesting thought tho, looking at history as a reminder is WW2's evolution of armor tactics, by all of the major players. Germany did not have the best tanks at the beginning of the war, the French actually did. And as far as the T-34 using slopped armor. . . . well the French did that too. It was the battle tactics and communication that carried the day for the Germans in the early war. I will give credit, the T34 was a decent tank, but much like the tank built to fight it, the panther, it had a lot of teething issues. The KV-I however had its teething during the winter war and was battle tested, the problem then for the soviets was Stalin. . . .His purges wiped out all of the good field commanders so he had a great tank with no one to really operate it. This of course changed as time went on. The Germans on the other hand over engineered everything past a certain point, Panther Tiger II ect. It they had started out with the later proposed E series of tanks, things might have been very different as they would have been able to re-field damaged equipment much faster. Hence why even in late war, PzKw III's and IV's were still doing well for the most part. US tank industry was already on top of that issue from the start. Knock out 5 Shermans, you could have 4 back up and running in less than a day. Germans, were looking at weeks to months, even the T-34 had some issues with this as the specifications from plant to plant differed just enough as to not be able to swap parts from tank to tank. Logistics is the mother fucker of all armies of the world. It will be curious to see if we ever see the old types of wars from days not so long ago. Doctrine is changing all of the time. Not just for the Russians or Chinese, but for all of us. The Gulf wars were I think that last of the 3rd generation of warfare. Some smaller countries might still practice it. But in the tech age, we are in 4th and 5th Generation warfare. I think this is why you see the major powers participate in so many proxy conflicts. Its a chance to test new equipment and tactics while showing our adversaries, yeah, this is what we got and you have no idea what is still up our sleeve. Its been a pleasure to chat with you, I have not spoken at length on such topics in a while (Enjoying being a grandfather :) ) Im heading to bed for the night, look forward to maybe picking back up tomorrow.

@@erichelvie8524 I'm glad you pointed out the fact that the T-34 wasn't the 1st to have sloped armor, there's a lot of claims surrounding the T34 that are beyond belief to be honest, it's one of those built up over hyped things. The T-34 was a decent tank, but it was outclassed soon after it came out. After its teething issues were resolved, I would probably argue the panther tank was up there in the top. Although when you look at the kill ratios of the tiger on the Eastern front versus Russian armor, it is mind blowing, if they had more Tigers produced and out there, it very well could have changed things. Although, while clearly not the best tank in any category, like you said about the Abrams, I would have to put the Sherman up there with the top tanks of the war, simply because of its versatility. It really was a work horse of a tank that may have not done one thing particularly the best, but overall it did everything decently well. Although, it would still be terrifying to face German armor. My Uncle was a paratrooper the 101st airborne in World War II, he fought in the battle of the Bulge, band of brothers was basically his story. He was a demolition's expert, and after attempting to blow a bridge with 250 men, he was 1 of 25 survivors on Christmas morning after fighting all night with a panzer division, that surrounded them and took him and the other 24 prisoner. He escaped off a POW train when it was strafed by Allied aircraft, and made it back to Allied lines. Before he died, he began telling me with tears in his eyes, crying, about how German tanks could punch right through an American piece of armor and hit another tank. He said when they passed by blown out armor, you could see the crew inside mangle all over the inside of the tank, and and how they would Wash them out and patch them up to get them right back out, if able. That man lived an amazing life. It's been a pleasure to speak with you as well, it's nice to actually talk to somebody that understands what I'm referring to when getting into the meat and potatoes of the equipment and capabilities, and not just looking at a tank as a stand alone piece of equipment and not understanding how drastic things can differ, such as ballistic computers or the type of night equipment on board. A lot of people will simply look at something like a T72 or T-90 and say "oh, it has night vision and thermal"... Sure, but not all night vision and thermals are created equal, and this would be like comparing Is a standard DVD player on a standard television, with a 4K player on 4K TV. They're both Tv's with players, but with vastly different capabilities. one thing that was brought up in a conversation that I never thought about in regards to the low Silhouette you brought up with the T series, was that it caused them to be severely affected for down hull tactics. I never thought about that one, but that makes a lot of sense. I'm actually surprised that Putin is pushing as hard as he is with the Ukraine build-up, maybe hes He's gambling that nato won't actually do anything, but I'm not so sure about this one. I think nato may in fact step up if he invades, and while I don't have any faith in this administration, and I'm starting to lose a lot of faith on military leadership with people like general Millie, I at least have faith in the boots on the ground, and if it really does come to blows, I think the Russian military will get absolutely knocked silly and would be making a big mistake, they have a few nice things such as the S 400 system and some other equipment, But the Russian military as a whole, is still far behind in being able to match nations, and I'm wondering if he would really get into a hot war. He must know that in reality, the Russian military is not equipped to compete on equal footing with nato nations in an actual hot Conflict. they're used to fighting small engagements with satellite nations using similar Soviet era weaponry. I was reading the other day how the S 400, while affected with 4th Gen. Fighters, has some shortcomings with 5th generation fighters like the F35. If it really kicks off, I guess the debate will soon be over, when it comes to equipment vs equipment and doctrine verse doctrine. Personally, I think he would be making a huge mistake, they would be absolutely pounded into the ground if the full force of nato nations came down on top of them. When you look at the Gulf war and how massive the air campaign was with sorties leading up to the ground war, it will make your head absolutely spin like a top, I'm not sure they would handle such a oversattrated campaign similar to that. it's been awesome talking to somebody who understands what's being discussed, the other night I kept trying to explain the difference between active and passive night systems, and they just weren't getting it.

Key word here is "series". Lol Please look it up.

S-103 A/B/C/D @@corybrown8422 lel

Funnily enough the Stridsvagn stands right next to it in the Museum...

The 103 isn't produced any more nor in service.

This is known @@randomname7063 what is your point?

I agree. Would be a nice topic to listen to. ^-^

Agreed. Logistics probably becomes WAY harder on top of everything they said.

I think "duck, and cover" was about as far as they got with tactics to deal with nukes. Remember the educational videos.

Israelis dont prepare for nuclear war because they know nukes dont exist.

The Soviet plan to conquer Northern Europe assumed nuclear weapons on 'their' troops - and the battlefield being contaminated. The Polish (!) troops would get iodine pills, which would/should keep them alive for about 3 (more) days - enough to reach the North Sea, occupying Rotterdam and the South of Holland (probably Antwerp as well), blocking supplies being shipped in. Plans became public after the USSR fell apart (showing how they would be screwing the Polish over once more).

it's kind of surreal to stand on as well

In Arabic : Chariot : markaba Four : arbaa Greetings from Iraq 🇮🇶 ❤️ 🇮🇱

Never knew that hebrew sounds a lot like Arab. In Malaysia we called hebrew as "bahasa ibrani" (abrahamic language)

@@adude8424 yup Hebrew grow alongside or even FROM Arabic, many words are alike

@@Stewie-Griffin greetings, yea our languages are really similar

@@minus7621 correct!

Tandem rockets entered the chat:

@@allawhussein tandem are only good against passive protection systems - an active one shoots the rocket out of the sky, doesn't matter how many warheads it has.

@@Mrdardas99 I guess that means that future RPGs will need to have three charges. One rocket that takes the hit from the active protection system, and another with a tandem warhead just behind. Or the Chechen approach of using several rocket launchers and duct tape.

@@anderskorsback4104 the only real way of defeating these systems is just to fire volleys. One might get through. Also once it exahusts its ammo it is useless until the crew manages to rearm.

@@Mrdardas99 I don't think he's talking about tandem HEAT warhead, but literally tandem rocket launcher firing multiple projectiles such as the RPG30, which will give the Trophy a hard time to intercept

Me too they are surprisingly tall in person

@@urittiru3601 - they're what the Brits call " the dogs bollocks " , absolutely the business !!

Loved that Museum, and on that same trip, visited the Israeli Navy Museum in Haifa, then the AF Museum in Hatzerim. Great places to visit!

@@dmh0667ify -I'm glad you enjoyed yourself !! , hopefully we'll see you again sometime in the future !!

@@dovidell אם ירצה השם, דוד!

It’s faster to replace an engine than to train a driver.

@@mkvenner2 No its not. in the idf everyone on tank crew learning to drive.

That is intentional the Israelis don't like people knowing. Kinda shocked there is one in a foreign museum

Same, I like the look and am working on my own tank game so I'll have to model it in the future too

@@TheJttv there is one at the musee des blindes as well

And one in the Czech Republic. :D

@@TheJttv it is a mark 1 , mist armour is ballistic steel in sharp angles... It only the concept, that ant body can get to know this days...the real sharp edge in mark 3 and 4... You won't see them like you see this one... For all i know, at desert storm, idf sent 1 ir two units of Mercava 3 for testing in battle filed...mercava 1 is not in combat service any more.. Upgraded mark 2 and 3 are in service at veterans units...more protected is the namer apc, that have same hall , but stronger armour more than the armour of all together...all models have an air conditioning system, what almost nobody else does...

As an English speaking Israeli, I'm impressed with the pronunciation of the Hebrew name and doubly impressed with their English, well done guys, excellent video

I like German accents.

all our german apc`s have that phone, dont know about the leopard tho

@@911epic Siehste Mal, ich war mir nicht mehr sicher ob der marder und folgende das hatte. War nur während der AGA bei den Grennis und hatte es nicht mehr im Kopf.

"Crew safety primary" - yet no blow-out panels for the hull ammo.

דווקא זה לא יותר מידי קשה להבין שהוא גרמני, הוא הגה את הר' קצת כמו כ' רפה. אצל צרפתים התופעה הזאת היא עוד יותר קיצונית

@@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447 התכוונתי רק לפעם הראשונה

@@user-mg1xw5vy9u גם בפעם הראשונה הוא אמר את זה קצת מוזר

Ralf Raths is in Greatest Tank Battles as a historical advisor. And he's German. I love how he said 'chariot' in German!

@@user-mg1xw5vy9u Yeah he pronounced Merkavah pretty well and I wondered if he was Israeli but he continued and now we know lol.

thanks, one question, is the phrase "I digress" used improperly a lot? Cause I know that there are some pitfalls that native speakers get wrong as well, e.g., criteria is plural while criterion is singular.

I have never heard "I digress" used improperly by anyone.

as more and more Merkava's came on line , the older, upgraded models of Western tanks ( used by the Israeli tank corps ) became an issue , so maintenance of the Merkava became more widespread , hence easier to maintain

maintainability of the Merkava is relatively simple engine can be replaced in under 30min (same as all modern MBTs) the rest is also in par with modern MBTs. The items that stand out are the shock absorbers that roughly compare with the challenger II (more work) and the tracks that are all steel (less problems).

I served in an upgraded M60 (Magach7c) in the IDF back in early 2000's, and we envied the Merkava tankers for how less maintenance they had, compared to us. Our tanks torsion bars broke constantly (probably due to the added armor weight), engines had to be replaces, Turret hydraulic system was a pain and in general, it always seemed to us like the Merkava was a MUCH better tanks than ours. Because the Merkava was a much nicer tank to be in (notably, the mark3 which was air-conditioned, which is a huge plus in the warm climate over here), Merkava tankers were nicknamed "Cusiot" (can be translated to "Pretty Girls", but also contains the word "pussy" in it). M60-variant tankers were nicknamed "Tchipsim" (Meaning "French-Fries" because those tanks had the tendency to catch fire / spray their crew members with hydraulic oil). So yeah - Merkava tankers loved their tanks, and Magach/M60 tankers hated theirs. at least during my time in service

@@NimDod Your comment is as interesting as the video itself! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

@@AviViljoen thanks. I wish I had nicer things to say about the Magach7. The best thing I can say about it is that they took it out of reserves service (at least in my unit) when I was 32, and I was too old/not worth to train me on a different role or on a different tank. Can't say I miss the service or that tank. Not even a little bit

That is right. It was the circular box on the rear, or the rectangular box depending on the patch. It was already on the Churchill and Sherman.

American tanks had infantry phones until the M1 and its gas turbine made it impractical

@@Leader1623 Thx, that's what I thought.

lol

Not just nuclear battlefields, chemical contamination also has the same problem.

Just nip the tip he said...

@@genericpersonx333 105mm is not enough sometimes