Jump to content

Video Thread


DemolitionMan

Recommended Posts

Magach 3 no. 817581 returned to Israel from Russia after it was captured by the Syrian army on the Sultan Yacoub Battle in 1982 (from which 3 IDF tankers are still MIA):

 

 

Now it is displayed in the Latrun museum:

 

%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%97_3_%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%

 

Israel sent Magach 3 no. 819406 to Kubinka as a replacement:

 

 

 

 

The 8 Magach 3 tanks captured in that battle were very interesting for the Soviets, introducing ERA and APFSDS rounds. Another one of them, no. 817688, is displayed at the Tishreen War Panorama Museum in Damascus:

 

4299318730_3315a592e0_z.jpg?zz=1

 

 

Edited by Iarmor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

A few comments/ideas...:

  • Third guy in the cockpit might not be part of the crew, but of the dismount squad. Note that the video claims "two-man crew operation".
  • "close" terrain might be a translation issue, referring to terrain that is NOT urban but which still reduces engagement distances; given this one is from Israel my money would be on terrain with narrow ravines (dense hedges, or fields with circumfering stone walls would be another case).
  • Whether one "should" go into combat at short distances is up for debate, and I think it's kinda obvious that anyone with a sane mind and minimal military education would prefer standoff engagements. And yet, armies need to fight where the enemy is (d'uh...), and if the enemy chooses terrain denying standoff you can give up, or try to fight him even on his terms because those are the only terms you'll get. Armor that can't go into urban terrain is unfit for contemporary combat, period.
  • It's fully your right to lambast the production values of the video; even if the simulation/animation doesn't come with a vehicle suspension it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the vehicle can't have one either.
  • "Lighter" vehicle is comparative ... comparative to what? Again, this is from Israel, so I guess the comparison are vehicles like the Achzarit (55t range) and the Namera (70t range). That kinda puts things into perspective, no?
  • Yes, cameras are vulnerable. So are exposed crew members. Yes, the concept of virtually transparent armor may need more work, but well - this is a concept video, so I guess it's only fair to assume that they are putting some extra effort into the thing to make the concept work. There's always the risk that the efforts won't be "good enough" in the end, but if one would know the outcome of a concept before the implementation is complete, engineering would just be 90% easier than it is.
  • Nuclear sign could be an NBC threat detector, or maybe we're reading too much into concept artwork when we all agree already that the production values aren't top class anyway.
  • The steering wheel is in no way particularly odd. I have yet to see a round steering wheel in any of the armored vehicles that I have ever visited. "Round" takes up too much space/is an impediment to speedy vehicle evacuation. Trapezoid with rounded edges is a valid, ergonomic shape if the steering range is about +/-60° from the neutral position.

This is just from the first six, seven minutes of your video.

Seriously, I think you have fallen into the trap of looking at a video with low production value and drawing conclusions about the quality of the underlyign engineering work, when all that we can actually judge may be the merits and weaknesses to the concept itself, based on a best and a medium case analysis. The worst case of course is that not a single one of the suggested concepts will work, but that doesn't require much analytical effort of course. I mean, you lambast the "decision support system" when by your own admission you don't know what it does or how it works, but you've already made up your mind that it can't work. (I don't know the system either, and you may very well be right that it won't work - but I'll withhold my judgment until more facts are in. Maybe the route's waypoints are being received by a battlefield management system, and projected onto the scene via augmented/mixed reality. Which could actually be quite useful. If that's what it is. We don't know, of course.

 

Well I watched 50% of the clip. 11 minutes are over, not going to watch the rest of this video, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 7:38 PM, Ssnake said:

A few comments/ideas...:

  • Third guy in the cockpit might not be part of the crew, but of the dismount squad. Note that the video claims "two-man crew operation".
  • "close" terrain might be a translation issue, referring to terrain that is NOT urban but which still reduces engagement distances; given this one is from Israel my money would be on terrain with narrow ravines (dense hedges, or fields with circumfering stone walls would be another case).
  • Whether one "should" go into combat at short distances is up for debate, and I think it's kinda obvious that anyone with a sane mind and minimal military education would prefer standoff engagements. And yet, armies need to fight where the enemy is (d'uh...), and if the enemy chooses terrain denying standoff you can give up, or try to fight him even on his terms because those are the only terms you'll get. Armor that can't go into urban terrain is unfit for contemporary combat, period.
  • It's fully your right to lambast the production values of the video; even if the simulation/animation doesn't come with a vehicle suspension it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the vehicle can't have one either.
  • "Lighter" vehicle is comparative ... comparative to what? Again, this is from Israel, so I guess the comparison are vehicles like the Achzarit (55t range) and the Namera (70t range). That kinda puts things into perspective, no?
  • Yes, cameras are vulnerable. So are exposed crew members. Yes, the concept of virtually transparent armor may need more work, but well - this is a concept video, so I guess it's only fair to assume that they are putting some extra effort into the thing to make the concept work. There's always the risk that the efforts won't be "good enough" in the end, but if one would know the outcome of a concept before the implementation is complete, engineering would just be 90% easier than it is.
  • Nuclear sign could be an NBC threat detector, or maybe we're reading too much into concept artwork when we all agree already that the production values aren't top class anyway.
  • The steering wheel is in no way particularly odd. I have yet to see a round steering wheel in any of the armored vehicles that I have ever visited. "Round" takes up too much space/is an impediment to speedy vehicle evacuation. Trapezoid with rounded edges is a valid, ergonomic shape if the steering range is about +/-60° from the neutral position.

This is just from the first six, seven minutes of your video.

Seriously, I think you have fallen into the trap of looking at a video with low production value and drawing conclusions about the quality of the underlyign engineering work, when all that we can actually judge may be the merits and weaknesses to the concept itself, based on a best and a medium case analysis. The worst case of course is that not a single one of the suggested concepts will work, but that doesn't require much analytical effort of course. I mean, you lambast the "decision support system" when by your own admission you don't know what it does or how it works, but you've already made up your mind that it can't work. (I don't know the system either, and you may very well be right that it won't work - but I'll withhold my judgment until more facts are in. Maybe the route's waypoints are being received by a battlefield management system, and projected onto the scene via augmented/mixed reality. Which could actually be quite useful. If that's what it is. We don't know, of course.

 

Well I watched 50% of the clip. 11 minutes are over, not going to watch the rest of this video, sorry.

 

Lol I think, like many people, you have read into a parody video far far too much. Safe to say you probably shouldn't watch most of my videos. Our sense of humor doesn't quite match. 

 

The video is a joke snake.....its there to be satire. You really think I am making a in depth analysis of this thing? Sadly not. You missed the point so I am glad you didn't watch the other 50%. I wouldn't want to waste your time, after all, you are far too busy improving Steel Beasts to have to watch some loser on Youtube who knows nothing about tanks................

 

Have a great day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would never assume anything about your level of knowledge about tanks. But your video wasn't satire, it was just ridiculing a corporate marketing video - and as far as the low production values are concerned, rightfully so. But I think it was a locigal fallacy to judge this book (the vehicle concept) by its cover (the marketing video). That's not to say that the concept doesn't appear ambitious, maybe even overly ambitious. But defense engineering is always on the edge, pushing the boundaries of what's just feasible to win the needed technical advantage (and sometimes falling victim to its ambitions, if it turns out that something isn't feasible after all, or when group thinking gets the better of a few decision makers that cost the taxpayer millions (if not billions) in pursuit of a pipe dream).

 

Still, as far as the promised functionality of the vehicle concept is concerned, I think it is less absurd than the sub-par illustration and, probably, translation errors and a lack of contextual knowledge in the international audience apparently make it appear. Some of the promised solutions may actually turn out to work well. Some concepts may turn out to be ahead of their time, and some might not work at all.

 

 

I'm all for satire, parody, and even the good old lambasting for targets that deserve it, and corporate marketing is often a worthy target. But I think that the target must earn the distrinction to be worthy of ridicule. Laugh at something or someone for the right reasons, is all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...