Відео

This allows it to carry troops in the name as well

@@OJGAMING-nq2gm Counterpoint - troops ARE cargo! 😂

🤨

Doesn't mean it was good at that role. Point though is to put to rest this idea that the F-15 was developed either FROM it (copying it) or at least in RESPONSE to it (as a counter to it) because it "scared the west". Neither are true. The west was never concerned about this thing, they were just concerned about the potential security leaks, since MiG-25 looked shockingly similar to early F-X concept designs

HESH was never designed as an anti-tank round per se. It happened to be useful in that role against, say, old T-55s and such, but primarily HESH was always a demolition round, and it's bloody effective at that! MBTs don't use HESH anymore (besides Challenger) because they CAN'T. They don't have the rifled guns which HESH shells require in order to work. Light tanks and assault vehicles operating 105mm rifled guns however, still do regularly make use of HESH in the demolition role

It's a LITTLE bit cheaper than Abrams... but on the other hand Russia's military budget is 10% of America's, so it doesn't ACTUALLY work out in their favour in the end. Hence why the US have more Abrams than Russia have T-80s and T-90s COMBINED!

A half decent jammer and/or a couple VSHORAD systems and that ceases to be true. Drones have only been so effective in the Ukraine theatre because neither side HAS those things

Good luck ever hitting this with a Lancet, when it is protected by THREE hard-kill active protection systems! Plus, Germany and other Western armed forces actually have proper short-range air defences, unlike Russia and Ukraine.

@@ArmorCast Merkava was shot down with a cheap RPG-7 war in slippers... In combat conditions, all protection does not work as in exercises and demonstrations to top management

@@ArmorCast The tank was designed quite a long time ago and did not take into account many of the nuances of modern warfare. This could be good for a parade and technology demonstration. But the ancient anti-tank mine TM-62 has never seen anything like it. No matter how happy you are for this tank, it is too expensive and not perfect for warfare

"Almost no one adopting it"... Yeah mate, there's 30 countries who might wanna disagree with that

@ArmorCast adopted as last.gen models and after a serious amount of time had expired. A similar amount of countries adopted Soviet kit while more high profile amd cash enabled countries developed their own or adopted more capable platforms like the Denel systems.

Read the pinned comment mate. "Gold standard" does not mean "best"... just that the M109 set the baseline by which everything else was to be compared, from the Soviet Akatsiya, to the Japanese Type 75, to the more modern AS-90, PzH-2000, K9 Thunder or 2S19 Msta-S. Think about gold the metal. It is far from the most VALUABLE metal out there, but the value of gold is how we DERIVE the value of everything else. Hence: "Gold standard". When you want to talk about how good OTHER howitzers are; PLZ-05, Krab, Caesar etcetera... You generally do it by comparing them to the M109. That's why it's the "gold standard" of the artillery world. The M109 is also the "gold standard" not just because of its effectiveness, but because of its INFLUENCE - why do you think the Type 75 and Type 99, Abbot and AS-90, Krab, PzH-2000, and K9 Thunder all look so similar TO the M109? Well, it's because they were all developed from it. That being said, I think you're severely underestimating the M109's capabilities, at the time of its adoption. There was certainly nothing better in existence throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, and with upgrades, the M109 definitely remained competitive, at least into the 90s. There are alternatives that bring better capabilities - such as the rapid fire rate of the Swedish Bandkanon, but that vehicles was ridiculously heavy and therefore slow, while also being more expensive, less widely available, etc. The Msta-S has its advantages but lacks range, while the AS-90 lacks sustained rate of fire as well as mobility. The PzH 2000 and K9 are definitely the better systems (as they should be, being four decades newer!), but call me when they hit even 5% the production numbers or combat deployments of the M109!

@ArmorCast broseph, youre wrong on all counts. Besides having trained and fought with this platform it has never been the " standard" I got the inappropriate reference the first time by which other howitzers were tested. Since Korea US cannon artillery has been mediocre at best due to the before mentioned capabilities of the airforce. It wasn't until the introduction of the A6 model that th gun was even relevant. Looking back 40 years and you can find guns that rival or surpass the brand new A7 in capabilities such as the G5 and G6.

105mm is very standard for light tanks. Go any bigger and you sacrifice ammo capacity. The FPV drone threat will be significant, but that’s why ALSO investing in short range air defence (SHORAD) is just as important

Except that this is wrong.

Read the pinned comment mate. "Gold standard" does not mean "best"... just that the M109 set the baseline by which everything else was to be compared, from the Soviet Akatsiya, to the Japanese Type 75, to the more modern AS-90, PzH-2000, K9 Thunder or 2S19 Msta-S. Think about gold the metal. It is far from the most VALUABLE metal out there, but the value of gold is how we DERIVE the value of everything else. Hence: "Gold standard". When you want to talk about how good OTHER howitzers are; PLZ-05, Krab, Caesar etcetera... You generally do it by comparing them to the M109. That's why it's the "gold standard" of the artillery world. The M109 is also the "gold standard" not just because of its effectiveness, but because of its INFLUENCE - why do you think the Type 75 and Type 99, Abbot and AS-90, Krab, PzH-2000, and K9 Thunder all look so similar TO the M109? Well, it's because they were all developed from it. That being said, I think you're severely underestimating the M109's capabilities, at the time of its adoption. There was certainly nothing better in existence throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, and with upgrades, the M109 definitely remained competitive, at least into the 90s. There are alternatives that bring better capabilities - such as the rapid fire rate of the Swedish Bandkanon, but that vehicles was ridiculously heavy and therefore slow, while also being more expensive, less widely available, etc. The Msta-S has its advantages but lacks range, while the AS-90 lacks sustained rate of fire as well as mobility. The PzH 2000 and K9 are definitely the better systems (as they should be, being four decades newer!), but call me when they hit even 5% the production numbers or combat deployments of the M109!

No need to pay attention to it necessarily, it just serves as background footage so we don't have to pay to license footage for the full length of all our videos, which would be prohibitively expensive (or use a slideshow of still photos like a lot of other channels do). Any time there's something important to demonstrate we cut back to real life footage, but featuring gameplay also allows us to consider things like sponsorships, which are always important for a channel like this one where most videos aren't eligible for ad revenue

@@ArmorCast I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure you did solid research and put lot of effort and injected a lot of interesting information to this video, so respect for that. That's only my personal preference. But I'm the guy who don't like Top Guns because I see them as unrealistic piece of Hollywood fantasy with some random footage (I remember original Top Gun mixing footage of F-14 & F/A-18... what a disgrace it was to me...). For me it would be better if you would put some photos and real world video and talk about them rather that video from arcade game (always can use DCS instead if you really want to use game).