Three General Principles of Combat
Another long one, this. Had it not been sponsored, It would have been three shorter ones, but if I have to put a sponsor's message in a video, then I feel that the length of the rest of the video should make the sponsor's bit seem relatively short.
Comments (4)
Spot on! Great 3 points.
I love your videos, but I must inform you that your analogy of using the minimum gun necessary to destroy a tank is very wrong. Suppose the enemy tanks have 60mm of armor all around, and your gun can penetrate 70mm of armor. You expect to win, right? Your gun is significantly more than the minimum, so it'll penetrate even after the shell slows over the flight. Wrong, you probably won't penetrate, because the tank driver knows how his tank can and can't be penetrated. So he won't give you an easy, flat target by facing you head-on. Instead, he will angle his tank. If he points it 45 degrees relative to you, you don't have 60mm of armor to penetrate anymore; you're facing 84mm of armor - because the shell must now travel through the armor at an angle. And if the tank is also on a slope, the shell must penetrate even more. So, you probably want the gun that can penetrate 119mm of armor. That gives you the greatest chance of penetrating, with no chance of the shell overpenetrating and flying out of the enemy tank before exploding. But overpenetrating still causes lots of damage, so it is far better than not penetrating at all. So overall, you want the gun that is most effective for the task: accurate, reloads quickly, manueverable, fast to aim, and has the most penetration possible. These factors must all be balanced, along with cost and production rate.
You want the gun that can do the job. If the job involves penetrating a tank that is not square on, then so be it.
Great video like always! Though, the volume for the sound effects on the numbers was a little loud, compared to you speaking voice.