What Makes A Good Tank?
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 02. 2020
- Topic discussion video on what truly makes a good tank. Many people will simply leave it at firepower, mobility, and armor, but there's a lot more to it than that. Tank design is an extremely tedious process.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
WH40K Mechanicus - Noosphere
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=2750276
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#tanks #tankdesign #tankhistory - Hry
If you have an idea for a topic discussion video like this one, feel free to reply to this post.
Best designs of vehicles from sci-fi.
Not a discussion video, but I would LOVE to see Spookston-created vehicle designs. It could be from an existing franchise or something original, so long as you design it. Bonus points if you could also add a backstory / lore and explaining your design decisions and such. I know this sort of thing isn't exactly something that you do in this channel, but I really love your re-designs in Everything with Halo's vehicles.
If it has to be a discussion video though, I'm curious as to what your *ideal* modern tank / AFV would look like and how that would complement an existing military
I'm making a video on designing my own scifi tank, and I'll be starting a series where I redesign fictional tanks.
Spookston idk if this would count as a discussion video per say but I think it’d be interesting if you had a look at the combines vehicles and synths (that fill the role of a vehicle) in half life 2.
Considering that todays tanks become more and more obsolete, because of modern anti tank weapons. Do tanks even have a future in a Sci Fi scenario ? A discussion about that would be interesting.
What makes a good tank?
*WELL IF IT WAS A BAD TANK, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE, DISCUSSING IT NOW WOULD WE?!*
Nice TF2 reference.
Nice reference to the videogame released in 2007 named Team Fortress 2 for which a promotional animated short was produced for it named "Meet the Demoman" wherein the titular Demoman says that exact line.
I should like to commend you on the comment you have posted above. I find the comment’s reference to Valve Corporation’s “Team Fortress 2” to be highly amusing. Of particular note was your decision to modify a line from the promotional short animated film “Meet the Demoman” in which the titular character, the Demoman, makes a statement quite altogether similar to the one you have just made. Bravo, sir or madam.
Y e s
Aaaay, let's do it!
*Rolls into battle with artillery fire nearby*
I think there is one more important aspect of a tank: optics. Being able to see the enemy first often enables you to fire the first shot, and thus kill the tank first. This is different from the fire control mechanism. I most modern tanks this aspect is fulfilled with infrared and night vision optics, enabling to spot the enemy faster. The chieftain actually names it as the main thing he would had to the classical triangle of the perfect tank.
Optics are usually defined as a part of fire control. Number, spread and quality of optical devices are all important factors. Eg. the Panther's infamous lack of periscopes and wide-angle optical devices for most of the crew meant that it often didn't get the first shot on enemy tanks that had more (T-34) or less (M4) inferior sights if you only look at raw quality and clarity of the sight itself.
I'd say communications is another equally major factor to consider
MrJoe99998 Nigh vision is a thing of the past. Thermal is king
@@fulcrum2951 thats actually a really good idea, be it radios in old Pz.4's or Battle Management Systems in modern armoured vehicles, communication is always important
@@colin.k6263 as the French learned the hard way in 1940
So, instead of a “Golden Triangle” for tank design, it should really be a “Golden Decagon?”
Something like that
*Y E S :))))))))*
you mean the "Golden Rhombicosidodecahedron"?
Communication equipment can be more important than fire power and armor
A combination of radio communications equipment, superior crew ergonomics, and superior optics is what allowed the lighter German tanks to defeat more heavily armoured and armed french tanks. If you only looked at the "Golden Triangle" of tank design there, there should be no way the lighter German tanks were better than the french ones, yet they were.
@@isodifbrakiul6387 Pelt anything with enough rounds and eventually you'll bust through.
@@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 or your convince the crew it's not a good idea to stay in their tank or they'll bang their various body parts on the inside of their tank enough to die or get seriously injured to the point where they can no longer fight
TL;DR: Basically the Shermans
On a similar note, and I know it was mentioned in the video; design specifications and doctrines also take into play. If the design specifications specifacally says for an air-liftable amphibious light tank, it doesnt matter if your tank has the strongest armor or the most advanced gun if it can't be air-lifted or swim.
A lot of the times, tanks (or any design in general) would have weird or missing features that could easily make it a "bad" tank if you don't take into account what it was designed for and it's original design requirements. Context really matters
Like people comparing the F35 to the Warhog even tho it won't be CAS
@@killian9314
There's some logic into this as the F-35A is also meant to be replacing the A-10. But yes! F-35A cant CAS like the A-10 do
@@killian9314 Except the air-force want to replace their A-10 fleet with it, hence the comparisons. You and I both know the F35 will never CAS like an A-10 can, except for some reason the air-force seems to think it'll be fine.
@@Justowner The Air Force seems to be angry at any combat plane that can't go at least Mach 1.5 or carry >10 tons of ordnance, or both. Meanwhile, a good CAS plane today might be something like the Super Tucano...
@@killian9314 it is worth noting that the A-10 is only useful in situations with complete air superiority/ air defenses ( due to its speed limitations). something like the F-35 does fill the role of CAS in contested regions where the united states doe not yet have air superiority.
German Tank Design Philosophy:
- Large and heavy
- Expensive, complex, and difficult to maintain and manufacture
- Absurdly thick armor
- Powerful weaponry
- Excessive fuel consumption
- Small modifications between individual vehicles
- No less than 12 variants, not including tank destroyers
- Intimidating
Still love 'em though
Russian Tank Design Philosophy:
-Small and light
-Cheap, simple, easy to maintain and manufacture
-Angled armor made from strong alloys, lightweight, abundant, cheap
-Powerful weaponry, most T-34 was armed with 85 mm gun, KV 2 - 152 mm howitzer, IS 1-2-3 no lee than 100 mm gun, not to mention 152 mm SU-152 Tank Destroyer
-Generous fuel consumption, multi-fuel engines
-Few but significant modifications between models: For Example t-34 1940 with short 76 mm gun, and t-34-85 1942-1945 with 85 mm long barrel
-1-12 variants max, including tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery
-Look simple but sometime impossible to defeat on battlefield
Oh, and I forgot, very few actually produced
*Menacing*
олег бурдин
You forget the spontaneous electrocution of the driver, can’t forget that.
The best designed tank is the Bob Semple no matter what you say
Bob semple had no cannons and had a weak engine
So its the best
@Stiff C0ckman It had the power of God and anime on its side
NI-1 wants to know your location.
No need for cannons, just machine guns and focus fire
Shortly followed by the kolohousenka
All this makes this seem like a tank is a living creature, the crew is the equivalent of its organs, it has many sensory tools as it needs them, and evolves over time to fit the need.
And if I am destroyed, my organs will flee my body and eventually join other bodies.
@@aaronclair4489 If my Feet are taken out I can have my organs come out and replace/repair them.
Aaron Clair actually if u die depending on how old u are they can still use the organs
BunBun, NTRthrologist imagine if you get shot, your organs leap out and then you might wake up with your bullet wounds healed and some new organs in there
You also have to consider it's likely opponets, ground pressure, weather or not you want amphibious capabilities, whether or not you are in a sci-fi universe where mechs are somehow magically better and can step on you.
the gp and amphibious capablility are covered in the doctrine argument, as it is not only the army doctrine, but also the use set for the tank in said doctrine, if you want a scout tank for the marshes, you won't ask for a tiger, but a T-40 might do the trick
@@quentintin1 Good point. In the end there is no perfect tank. And when designing one you have a lot to consider.
@@killfang9659 You sir are absolutely correct. I cringed when people don't understand why countries design their own tank in a way.
Almost everyone in the comments think that the best tanks in the war is either Sherman, panther or T34 when in reality it's actually what the country itself want for their tank. Germany don't have many factories and resources left, why not make 1 panther that can survive multiple missions instead of 4 PZ4 F2 that could easily be destroyed by other tanks.
Russians and Americans can make a lot of tanks so why not overwhelmed the enemy with numbers and deploy tanks for each mission and let air take the heavy tank kills.
Heck, even the Japanese design their tanks for easy transportation to the islands. It's also maneuverable on hilly terrain. It's not like the Americans can make Shermans swim. (Yes I know Shermans have amphibious modification but it wasn't reliable, that's why they stick with the Buffalo tanks)
GunShip09 yah, best tank top tens should be about in a country perspective. And instead of “best Tank in the War” it should probably be “Bests Tanks in the War “ Heavy Tanks won’t work for America and Japan but will work well for USSR and Germany.
A tank does not rely on its armor, its firepower, mobility....And most of all logistics. And by logistics i actually mean= A BLOODY BOILING VESSEL FOR TEA.
Bisquitè
Baguette
F4Wildcat british challenger tank, right?😂
*laugh in fromage vin et baguette *
The only part of the tank that actually needs armour, because the tank crew are invulnerable so long as they can make and drink TEA!
Man, you're just gonna love the Leman Russ XD
Psst, he already looked at the Leman Russ.
"XD"
found the manchild. There's one in every comment section.
Yeah I love that tank man.
Horrible4 XXDDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDDX
@@Horible4 found the asshole. There is one in every comment section.
The real golden triangle is the father (The Chieftain), the son (Potential History) and the holy spirit (Spookston)
"Fits the role of the doctrine its placed into"
America: the what now?
The enemy can't figure out your doctrine if you don't follow it yourself.
@@kyle857 LMAO
The American put chaos on their daily routine
America: Imma change the doctrine but not change my equipment
@@kyle857 : "The enemy cannot figure out our tactics if we don't know what we're doing"
Lmao cult mechanicus bsckground music, nuce choice spookston
What makes a good tank is a ferocious but compliant machine spirit. :p
"if your tank spends more time in the repair shops than on the battlefield, its not a good tank even if it has the Armour and gun"
*cough* *cough* "Chieftain" *cough* *cough*
Cough Cough "Every WWII German Tank" Cough Cough
@@tirpitz177 *Cough cough* most WWII tank types *cough cough*
@@Jfk2Mr at least they had the ability to be repaired in the field, Germany produced tanks but no spare parts so they had to send the tank all the way back to Germany for the smallest problem
Tbf chieftain never really served in an actual war, to my knowledge.
@@jacobscott1433 Kuwait had 143 Chieftan Tanks during the 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait.
37 of these Chieftains fought at the Battle of Bridges against Iraq. Not a single one of these tanks was lost in the battle and they withdrew to Saudi Arabia and later participated in the 1991 Gulf War before returning to Kuwait undefeated.
The other 103 Kuwaiti Chieftains were either destroyed or captured by Iraq after being abandoned by the Kuwaiti army due to a lack of ammunition though.
Edit: Iran also extensively used the Chieftan during the Iran-Iraq War. Apparently Iran lost 675 Chieftan tanks during the war.
He forgot the most important thing: TEA MAKING FACILITIES!
He literally included that under Ergonomics tho
Hello ☺️
How about an ice cream maker and of course one of the crew would have to be a MOOer🤔😏
What Makes A Good Tank? Plot armor, Russian bias, proper training.
When you mean proper training you mean try to drive a lada or a milk truck in the mountains ?
@@krosskreut3463 y e s
Russian bias is so beyond true
@@looinrims I don't know, man, I've seen the turret of my T-34 fly off more times than I can count when I managed to fire the first shot.
I'd say a fast tank is a good tank.
"the obvious value of human life"
PLA: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that.
Well, it was. Recently they emphasis on suitability on their Type 99 and Type 89 MBT.
I guess is more comfortable to think your enemy still stuck in the past.
I HATE CABBAGE i wasn’t talking about tanks, but about infantry.
@@commander31able60 And they just ordered 1.5 million ballistic vest last week. How convenient isn't it.
**CCP**, fixed it
Stalin: "I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that."
In the Chieftain's video about the Tiger he actually makes a point about the Tiger's lengthy maintenance requirements not being much of a problem because of the doctrine that they were meant to be used with.
Unfortunately for the Tigers they simply didn't get used in the way that they were designed to be very often and their reliability suffered because of this.
I like how literally EVERYONE now joking about Bob Semple tank, but NO ONE remember glorious NI-1, which is similar to Bob Semple, but Soviets USED it in actual battle and even WON two or three times with it.
In WWII, no less.
To be fair, the Soviet NI-1 is less well known. Also, its not easy to find pictures of it to laugh at unlike the Bob Semple.
They won by tricking the enemy troops into think the enemy's wife was showing up to complain . Collectively, that many badgering wives in metal dog houses would be very demoralizing.
Swedish S-tank. 💜💜💜
One of my favorite examples of top quality tank design.
By no means the best tank in the world, but it's one perfectly designed for it's role.
It's tank destroyer, since it has no turret, and it is specifically said, TANK HAVE TURRET at least ONE !!! Strv isn't tank
@@bastionaudio By that definition the first British Heavy tanks during WW1 wouldn't have been considered tanks, considering that their guns were mounted in casemates. A turret does not necessarily indicate whether something is a tank or not (although it is a very good indicator). Designated combat role within the doctrine the vehicle is intended for is what truly makes or breaks the classification.
@олег бурдин Strv-103 is a main battle tank, not a tank destroyer. Not all tank destroyers are turretless. An M18 Hellcat is also a tank destroyer after all, and it has a turret.
Also, depending on your definition of a tank, a tank destroyer could still be a tank in and of of it self. The colloquial definition of a tank is simply any vehicle with a significant amount of armour, a cannon, and caterpillar tracks. This is what defined tanks in World War I. Most tanks of that time didn't have turrets. The Mark 1, A7V, and those improvised armoured Holt Tractors used in World War I would have been considered tanks. Carrying that definition over to later time periods, many tank destroyers and infantry fighting vehicles would count as tanks too.
In later developed militaristic terminology, a tank became more defined by the role of the vehicle, rather than the way it is built. A tank in this case would be a vehicle designed to support infantry, break through enemy lines, and fight other tanks. If a vehicle was designed to fulfil all these roles, it was considered a tank. Now this would disclude tank destroyers and infantry fighting vehicles, since they would not have met all the criteria, but it still does not disclude turretless vehicles, so the Strv-103, which was designed to fulfill the aforementioned criteria is still a tank.
It's funny you should mention that, strv is a shortened version of "Stridsvagn" which means "Tank".
Referring to the gameplay in the video, I think the most important aspect for a tanks is that...
*IT EVEN WORKS UNDER WATER*
on reliability, I've had someone argue with me that the common soldier would prefer a weapon that is "perfect" and works 1% of the time over a weapon that works 100% of the time that is "enough";
a soldier would rather take a weapon he can rely on to not screw him when he needs it the most
Tell that to the soldier when his perfect weapon misfires and the enemy gets to him first.
@@einar8019 yes, that's what I unsuccessfully tried to inform him on. No, he did not come around to my point of view.
Inform your friend to talk to his officer
3:39 "Wet ammunition stowage"
*looks at profile*
Checks out.
?
What makes a good tank in my eyes? That the thing can hold my mountain dew and keep it cooled as I'm driving the thing through the Mojave desert during war simulation.
I feel like the panzer 3 has done pretty much everything here right
It was the best tank in the world at the start if the war.
It surely did, it's in my personal top 5 best tanks
Kyle ignoring French tanks exist
@@heroninja1125 He's not ignoring them, French tanks were actually very bad at the start of the war. Some of them had good armor but they were bad in essentially all other aspects.
They had awful ergonomics, they mostly used one man turrets, they had bad visibility, they mostly didn't have radios, and they mostly had small guns.
@@lowesmanager8193 Some french tanks could actually take on panzer IIs and 3s on a head on fight. Unfortunately the germans made sure this never happened. Another issue is that tanks that could take on panzers where in very low quantity by the French, so though they where decent on their own there where several other factors that made them bad
Crew comfort and morale also plays a key role in a tanks effectiveness. Heaters, cooling jackets, spacious fighting compartments, and a comfortable ride can go a long way.
The abiity to depress or elevate your gun so you can fight in hilly terrain is also another aspect... going hulldown against an enemy that needs to show itself fully so he fire over a rigde is a big advantage
Bob Semple. That is all
God tank
I think of how motorbikes are. They're more aspects than just speed and acceleration. There's comfort, brakes, and other pretty major points
Really loving the videos you've been putting out man
Historian: A good tank needs to be fast, have good armour and visi...
Me: *BOB SEMPLE AND SHUT UP*
Hey mate, these videos are really good for studying military design and functionality. Thanks!!
I love your videos! Keep up the good work!
bro KEEP THAT OUTRO its so dope being a war thunder fan now and watching all these new war thunder vids and then randomly hearing Halo music from around the halo 3 era on your WT Videos it makes me so happy .. the nostalgia! *Halo 3 : ODST + Regular halo 3
I was literally listening to Noosphere before clicking on this video wtf google
It’s the same with just about any military equipment which videos games always overlook.
Soldiers would almost always prefer a reliable, ergonomic, easy to maintain rifle over one that does the most damage or highest RoF.
Lol I just watched Pentagon Wars again like 4 days ago too.
I wish if there are videos like your for combat ships and fighter planes,great analysis!
I love the 40k soundtrack in the background! :D
This basically reminds me of small arms: reliability and logistics outclass marginal design improvements. By this analogy I'm going to assume that the best tank is usually the one that you're tooled up for and mass producing.
Those were all great points. I wish you would've provided some examples for what you find to be tanks that fit most or all of that criteria. Great video though!
Since i am STILL designing my own MBT, this video can help make information on it!
I fucking love that you use Mechanicus Soundtrack
Thanks for doing this
Do what makes a good mech next.
Just got the T114 as my first higher tier premium, it's quite reassuring to see t114 footage chosen for this vid lol.
You should try it as a sniper sometike, it's indirect fire and followup shots are devious.
Nice analyse
pentagon wars... awesome film
Ah yes a reference video so we can all design tanks
once again a great video
Ey dude thats me at 3:06 that last tiger II you failed to kill
That time my teammates were having trouble to find you
Well done! It’s never an easy answer and full of caveats
I would also like to add that the quality of the training the crew underwent is paramount. A tank, in the end, is just as effective as the crew who operates it, and a crew that doesn`t know how to properly use a tank`s features to its advantage will not be able to the use the tank effectively.
Try the hull of an Strv 103 upgraded for more armor and with an elongated back portion to fit a turret on top, use a smaller capacity version of the normal autoloader in the back of the turret, and angle to fit uniform with the UFP. Thicker armor means move the engine back a little more, composite internal spall shields. More powerful engine can be added with the elongated hull, move compartments all the way back with the removal of the autoloader/gun from hull since it's in the turret. Ammo holding in rear fuel tanks that can be accessed through a hatch in the spall shield separating the crew from the fuel tanks/engine. Still very light side armor but composite side skirts and better top armor, probably 40mm top of turret. The suspension will still be operable by the driver to pitch forward/backward to make up for poor gun depression, and aid in maneuverability. Breech won't be exposed in the front of the turret as the wedge armor will just be attached to the gun and move with the barrel. Still working on the idea but I think I've found a great tank design
So. in short, aside from the Armor, Mobility, and Firepower. You are also talking about logistics and survivability. In WT however, the latter two aren't really factors in how a tank performs in game. Survivability to a small degree as an exception. This not only applies to tanks, but the aircraft in game as well. Like your 'If x was more like real life vs WT" videos. Vehicles with terrible maintenance and logistics needs shed those limiting factors in WT and can shine in the game were as they were considered failures in real life.
His video's arent strictly about warthunder you know, its just background gameplay to give us someting to watch.
I needed this
Obviously what makes a tank effective is the blessings of the machine god. I hear that music, spookston...
Yoooooooo that machanicus soundtrack tho
Super late to the video but, I LOVE THAT YOU USED HALO ODST MUSIC FOR THE CREDITS ❤️🔥👍🏻
The most important aspects are the headlights and the coaxial mg
I'd love to see videos on the history of tanks like the T-34, and Panzer 4 in the same series of your M4 sherman.
except anybody who studies tank design knows that not the golden triangle, those issues come much later.
3:37
When you play jagtiger and get penned without any trouble from a light tank
Zis-30 can pen jagdtiger
And the Sherman covers almost all of that.
However if given a choice on what to crew during WW2 it's obvious what people will choose.
The Tiger.
Because on a strategic level everything sounds great but down in the field on the tactical such people will want to live at the end of the day and the Tiger has produced some of the best tank aces and survivability rates.
Except for the cost
Seriously 1 m4a3(w) 76 cost 48000 dollar,even a IS3 only cost 44000
@@Aes880 That's because the Soviets produced the shittiest tanks during the war and their only redeeming quality was that they could overwhelm with their numbers.
@@TigerBaron so can we down Br soviet tank now?,they pretty much shit
Also you are ignorant af
@@Aes880 He's right though, T-34 broke down as much as Tigers and they couldn't survive 90% of direct hits due to the hard steel their armor was made of
@@TotallyNotAFox the German when they first encounter the T-34 may have a diffirent opinion than you
that first play just killed me
Verry good and interesting video.
You should consider doing a series on fictional small arms design. Like whether the SPNKR from the Halo Series is practical or not. Thanks for the upload!
I'm not super knowledgeable on small arms, but I could certainly learn.
if you gave an example of a good and bad tank (which you kinda did with the Panther) then it'll be amazing
Im glad your not blinded by the panzerwaffe
Im not glad that the de cache apc hasnt been covered
Maybe I'll get to it at some point
The most important aspect is the freedom dispenser
Even these factors all depend on the intended role. The Tiger for example was intended for a role where transportability and reliability were not quite as critical because it wasn't intended to be used anywhere anytime. While that was completely different for Panther.
0:21 that poor bench
Spookston: What makes a Good Tank ? Me: A Good Designer 😏
The title of the video Reminds me of the intro for the tf2 demoman
"Not only should the components have a relatively long service life"
*excited Wehraboo noises*
"But they should also be relatively easy to access for maintenance and replacement."
*ANGERY Wehraboo noises.*
I guess lower profile is a bit of a priority but I only see a huge problem for m3 Lee that cannot be argued upon.
the reason the M1A1 Abrams tank mopped the floor with Saddam's elite guard in the first gulf war was the fact that the Abrams had superior targeting capabilities that allowed for night engagements against the T-45/45 and T-64, and T-72 tanks. I've played both Arma 2 and VBS 2, and I was In the M1A1 Abrams tank when I was taken down by a T-72---the very tank everyone says can't kill the Abrams.
many of the folks that write these TVs know as much armored warfare as they do using the toilet.
so there is no such thing as the perfect tank as I've learned the hard way through painful experience, and in case you don't know, VBS 2 is an actual battlefield simulator that was used by the US military as well as other militaries to train combat personnel prior to their deployment into real warzones.
and this led me to accept the author of this video's words when he said that you only need to really defend a tank against infantry held anti tank platforms. Tank main weapons are so powerful, that if your tank is hit, it's going down anyway, so there's no real point in building it to be the invincible as it's impossible.
for my own light tank, which I'm not going to name, I'm intending it purely as an infantry support light tank for the counter insurgency role . As the most insurgents will have on hand is Soviet era IFVs or similar. and for this, a light tank is all that's needed. and My design only has critical areas of the vehicle armored. I've played war thunder, and noticed the critical areas of the vehicles like the crew, the ammo, the engine, final drive, or the main weapon are the first things to go. so I'm only protecting those areas on my vehicle with armor.
but this is a very good video, and could not have said it better myself.
I think a excellent tank held back by wieght and transport capabilities is the Is-7 it was pretty reliable, good armor even though it's like 70-80 years old, and a powerful gun and rather mobile IN COMBAT. The only reason why it wasn't put into production was because of its cost and it's a nightmare to transport into the front lines due to how heavy it was.
In terms of the Second World War, no tank embodies the idea of good tank design than the Sherman. It had good firepower, good armor, good mobility, and good reliability, as well as many innovative design choices, all at a low cost. It could be pumped out quickly, while being easily repairable and replaceable, and the US could do it without breaking an economic sweat. The same could be said for the Patton and the Abrams.
Edit: Oh, and we can’t forget the sheer amount of spare parts the Sherman had. Or how it kept being used until 2018, and had multiple variants, from the Canadian Skink, to the British Firefly, to the Israeli Isherman/Supersherman.
That said, Sherman wouldn't be a good tank for the germans or japanese, for example. It just wouldn't work well enough in their situation.
Hold it.
I know that movie in the beginning.
Wasn't that the movie about the Bradley tank and it's issues?
Pentagon Wars?
Yup
Mass produce the Bob Semple, the pinnacle of the most greatest tanks
3:00 That turret tried to create its own fuckin space program
Everything in Heavy Cruiser A41 the M4 Sherman series.
Or make an Ace tank. Like one of a kind accompanied by other types of tanks?
Please do a a video on the Elephant from Halo 3 as well as the Mammoth from Halo 4, more videos on Halo Wars would be nice as well
when it comes to good tank...
"it is the BANEBLADEEEEEE!!!!!!"
Such a cool but totally awful design.
Good video
i think one more important aspect is fuel efficiency i mean if ur tank's engine just dies because it ran out of fuel in a middle of a battle thats going to be a problem
Big boom, thicc armour!
see you went into the deep end for 40k lore
In terms of gun size, it has been shown that you should have a gun big enough to deliver a one-shot kill, no bigger
The golden vehicle triangle is decent. But cost, efficiency, lifetime, complexity and crew comfort and ease of control matter so much more in the long run.
Can you make a video about "everything wrong with just cause vehicle/aircraft/boat designe"
Well, the same principles apply to all military hardware actually - which is why people wanting 1500 F-35's just sound silly...
A few points here I think were missed though or only touched by:
First of all, crew training. A tank is only as good as its crew, and the better trained they are, the better the tank. Of course, a T-34 will never destroy an M1 Abrams no matter how good it's crew is, but it can stay out of sight, harass and damage the Abrams if the Abrams crew is a bunch of noobs.
Secondly, on a greater scale, a tank is only one part of a very complex military machine. If a tank isn't supplied with fuel and ammunition as well as other necessities, its only a bunker, to just mention one factor. And I think this is the most important thing to remember each time one of those 'best tank' or 'whch tank would win' thought experiments pop up, especially here on youtube. They are pointless, since tanks are never alone. They are always acting in an environment of friendly, hostile and neutral elements.
Hey spooks maybe for something a bit interesting how about you review the Zombie Vehicles from Zombie Army 4? Their basically an Undead Panzer III J and a Sd.Kfz. 251 with meat holding the shells together. The Demonic Tank has its advantages and weaknesses...having no crew to man it since its basically Undead and can control its own gun which bends down and up due to extended flesh neck...but its side armor is a weakness because of the hearts and how it could be shot off by excessive fire arms. Half-track can dispatch zombies on the move at high speeds and basically has no driver to sniper but it still has the same problem with the side armor. Hope it would be a worthwile interesting take?
some of the bits you say are correct but your crossings specifications and development, but your on the right track at places. golden ratios are annoying as its widely believed but wrong
Make a video about you designing your own tank
Hey Spook, can you give the tanks and ifvs of End War a look. Would love to see a breakdown of them.
Sure
The most important thing by far is if it is made out of stalinium or not