The T 72 also know as the tank that restarts the Sputnik program when shot

Deeezzzzz nuts!

T-72 turret the best shuttle the ISS! 😂😂

We would also like to see inside the T-64, kindly make video with it too if it is available. Thanks

Ha

A few thoughts about the turret. Ammo placement in the carousel is fairly safe as most hits come higher up. The danger is high-explosive ammunition inside the tank hull. We could see leopards in Syria who lost their towers due to the presence of high-explosive shells inside the hull. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jpyejdl105zLgoU.html

@@VVV85650 - I am ignorant of tank warfare. Does the location of those shells inside the turret matter - in a statistical sense - to the survivability of the crew? Is it not the case that most events leading to a loss of a tower would disable *any* tank, even if the shells were not inside the turret? I am under the impression the turret is lost only after a hit that would kill or maim the crew, or at least ruin the tank.

was a very advanced and effective tank for it's time.

@@bruzote да, большинство пробитий брони происходит в боковую проекцию ниже самой башни. А взрыв боекомплекта и "полет" башни оттого, что снаряд попадает туда, где стоит карусель, т.е. боковая проекция, ниже башни. В этом месте практически в любом даже самом современном танке хранится часть боекомплекта. Так что практической разницы между почти всеми танками в мире в этом вопросе нет.

​@@VVV85650 The carousel design has its benefits, the ammo placement somewhat being one of them, however it also has several major flaws. First, the carousel cannot have blowout panels, at least not without requiring a total redesign to shield the crew while the ammo cooks off out the bottom (if such a design would even be feasible as I've not heard of one), this would require a considerably heightened profile thus defeating the point of the T-72 as a cheap and relatively low profile fire support platform. Second, the carousel introduces a hard limit to the size of the ammo that can be used, consequently forcing them to use shorter ammo with worse penetrative performance as compared to non-carousel designs. Third, the carousel itself is just not that good of a design anymore, for its time it was an effective means of handling automated loading, but bustle/cassette style loaders like those on the Type 10 or Leclerc have solved both of the aforementioned issues with no major downsides while also being capable of a much higher sustained rate of fire even compared to a carousel loaded with exclusively one type of ammo. The tank was designed to be a relatively cheap platform to serve as a fire support asset for second and third line units in the USSR and DDR, while the more modern T-80s handled breakthroughs. The war in Ukraine has proven a lot of its limitations though, no matter what FCS you slap on it or how much ERA, it can't solve the fact that one penetrating hit to the side is going to cause a catastrophic unscheduled disassembly. Ukraine is teaching a lot of hard lessons about the place of all tanks on the modern battlefield, but the Ts as a whole are not taking to them particularly well.

no, he has no experience, he's just worked at a school.

I am confused, Dag seems to be English with no hint of Eastern European accent.

@@sigbauer9782 can you prove that?

@@sangeetsubedi9509 You should trust him bro, he knows the guy personally, I'm sure of it. ;)

@@Pau_Pau9 He has a very slight hint of an accent, and I think that, just like the tank in the museum, he probably served in East Germany. It would also fit with him crossing the Elbe, the southern parts of which ran through the DDR.

Tanks are machines, people have national egos

Which is ironic considering this channel is ripe with throwing their personal egos into everything, guess they need to satisfy someone.

@@SMGJohn to be fair, they still tell u the facts, just with what you call *personal egos* in some cases

Yes, all i ever heard abiut about this tank in english language was everything awfull , now i see it was only jealous westerns 😂😂😂

@@lukaspundzius9293 You don't watch or read much do you?

Question: Is it true that T-72 has a very high gear ratio (14.3) for it's reverse gear which provides alot of torque in exchange for slower speed and to give the tank a higher chance at freeing itself in muddy terrain?

@@flogger8413 I've witnesed T-72 being stuck in mud and not being able to get itself out on its own. I also saw how those tanks were able to get out. So, the answer is: it depends entirely on muddy conditions.

​@@mikhailtrokhinin1168thank you for the answer 👍

@@flogger8413Are you Making Tank?

What do you think of the t72 overall? I imagine that you being the commander, you are intimately familiar with it. It’s one of those machines I think would do very well in its job, with a well trained crew and used within the doctrine it was designed for. Am I wrong?

History? You mean Russian training material

Hey mate why use all old footage? you have actually modern footage in ukraine.

Great video dag very impressed

Agree100%.

the important word in "East German army" is German

​@@kleinweichkleinweichso in this case, the adjective "East" doesn't work in its European definition and doesn't turn them into Asian-European hybrid abomination? Europe lore is complex.

East Germany took full advantage of the German (traditionally Prussian) pride in their military forces. East German units were going to be the core of their offensives. It's not a bad strategy by any means. They knew an offensive at the Fulda Gap would have been a meat grinder on both sides, so having a hardened core to punch through the defenses and mass waves of mechanized infantry flooding through and spreading out along the rear of the main defensive line in an encircling maneuver is the best way to go. In fact, its textbook Blitzkrieg.

The East Germans are the Saxons, as in Anglo-Saxon. They are more Scandinavians than Germanic, that's why most of them liked the East German communist society, so they were finally again an independent country from the Germans.

@@NorceCodine The Anglo-Saxons came from the Angles from south-west Denmark downwards the coast and the low Saxons from Lower Saxony, the German north sea coast. They don't have much to do with the midland Saxons from Saxony.

Вы сейчас на фронте?

​@@rizzo9748да мы вместе

Ты реально танкиста?

@@lefranor5773 да, мы с ним вместе служили в world of tanks

@@lefranor5773 Уже нет я инвалид он 200

they expected west da best. Met reality.

@@cdgncgn really? you want to sit in a t72 in ukraine right now as a russian tank crew member? or would you rather be sitting in a M1 Abrams tank as a ukraine tank crew member?

@@Valueshooter neither of them. both would get destroyed by artillary

@@Valueshooter situation is way more complex. M1 would end up in mud with nobody to pull it out of. Tiger II with turbine engine. 72 is a sort of IS-2 in ww 2 terms.

@@falcon6329 same with anything in this world. If you sit there and let them hit you. Problem with Russian artillery is they can't hit jack $h!+

I think there's definitely some bias here, which is understandable, but the commander defended almost all of the criticisms of the T72. If this was your only view of the T72 you would come away from it thinking that an autoloader is the best thing ever, that the tank is actually as comfortable as bigger tanks and that the constant cook offs and turret throwing isn't indicative of any design issues. Infact he said that the turret flies off 'by design'.

@@maxpollardelite The turret going off is not as important as media says. A top attack missile on a western tank will also kill everyone inside. The ammo may not expolde and the turret will more likely stay attached to the smoking carcass, but the resut is the same, the tank and its crew are toally lost. If the missile manages to create enought heat and debris inside the tank to detonate the ammo, it will have killed the crew between the roof and the caroussel before the detonation. Maybe an armored plate above the caroussel could prevent a few detonations but it would only be helpful in very rare cases. Its just not worth the trouble. About an autoloader, there is western tanks with autoloaders like the french Leclerc, in the T-72 removing one crew member allow a 25% reduction of personal (and loses, as the russians tank philosophy is based on " we don't care if they are destroyed, we'll just send more" ). I personnaly think the T-72 is a very interesting concept that perfectly fit the Russian doctrine. I prefer the western philosophy of trying to protect the crew as much as possible, but I understand their vision (btw design doctrine and actual application are completely different things). Difference doen't mean one is worst or sucks compared to the other. If thrown by thousands with barely trained crew just like the Russians does, western tanks would not resist much better.

@@maxpollardelite The ammo carousel is a design decision, it increased the amount of rounds that are carried decreases the size and thereby cost and decreases the risk of a turret hit. The disadvantages are that it is less survivable against top down attacks and in the open field. In the end a conscript crewed T72 costs ~$2million and an expert crewed Leopard 2, Challenger 2 or Abrahams tank costs $10+million. To me the biggest drawback he highlighted is the worse sensory of a T72, because being the one who hits first is more important than where you store the munitions.

Comrade is still in the east German army!😮😅

@@justeunfan3364 Ackshually, this is utterly false given Ukrainian and Russian reports. Generally, as long as the ammo in a tank isn't detonated, a top attack missile will kill only what is within its kill cone of the vehicle. Don't swing too hard that you're playing into russian propaganda, a Western tank will fare far better than a Russian tank against a top attack

You can get those in Russia in about half an hour though, lol.

Not a flex. Simply was saying in front of the audience that even though it's been a few years and decades now he's still can and knows what he's talkin about with this vehicle. That is no flex at

@@superbeedge You can get any license in russia if you pay 100,000 rubles and a bottle of vodka.

One would suspect the T-72 is not that difficult to drive, which is the point.

@@ffff7164 And any vehicle probably

More than that. The technological refinement of the T-72 blew every other contemporary tank out of the water. The reason the western countries didn't use autoloaders, outside of cope, is that they simply could not develop a reliable one. It took some of them years to copy and catch up with the soviets- some of them still can't replicate the feat decades later and are stuck with giving a teenager conscript loads of testosterone and amphetamines to have him lift the heavy shells faster, blowing out his back in his early 20s.

60s-70s was okay. Boom after WW2 was still in effect (economically speaking). Communist countries go bankrupt eventually and innovation suffers. 80s and after all downhill. Russia is very behind because of this.

​@@danstiurca7963what are you talking about?

That's because most of those "stereotypes" are probably based on cold war propaganda

Indeed! Very impressive!

Exactly. Thank G we did not come to blows at the time.

Fulda was supposed to be totally destroyed - the area was indefensible. The only idea was to slow the soviets down and die. Glad you survived.

@@minimax9452 We knew it too, but we were going to make it hard for the eastern forces to get through, with some extreme measures to be used if needed. We all took it pretty seriously, since a lot of us had wives, friends, children in and around Fulda and we would have given them as much time as possible to be able to evacuate. Definitely glad we never had to find out what would have happened if the baloon had gone up.

@@SgtBones It was planned to destroy my hometown and the area I lived in. Only for geopolitical games the superpowers played in cold war. Fortunately the Soviets left Germany unfortunately the US stayed. Now we are living in fear again for Ukraine. The games begin again.

@@minimax9452 Yeah, politicians will play their games, won`t they? I live in Fulda, going to Point Alpha tomorrow with my sister, my son and grandchildren to show them how it was and hopefully never will be again.

russians are good at making reliable and efficient war machines

❤🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🔥❤🔥🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

Its a good tank, even the Ukrainians prefer it, I just find it very sad that in armchair netizens mind, western tanks are somehow invincible God charriots when in reality, western tanks are primarily built for defensive wars while Soviet tanks are build for deep battle doctrine which means they need to be good in a lot of things, agile and small vehicles. USSR also has way more experience in tank warfare then the west does, almost every major battle on Eastern Front were fought with thousands of tanks while the most any battle on Western Front saw was a couple of hundred tanks that were fighting against a very tired German forces, and almost all tank battles before D-Day fought by the allies were defensive in nature except in the deserts but desert combat with tanks is combined arms warfare, otherwise sending columns of undefended armoured vehicles into an open field never ends well.

​@@Pionel_pessi.Which one? It will be more honesty to compare M1A1 with 105mm gun against T-72A or SEP version against T-90M?

@@Pionel_pessi. they actually do, but not because of any design characteristics - western tanks get blasted by absolutely everything the second they show up as there is a hefty bounty on them

@@Pionel_pessi. ну да😂😂😂 думай так и дальше. Чем больше вы так думаете тем лучше нам

​@@Pionel_pessi. Massive copium

Indeed, carrying 22 only is quite standard, as the tank cannot really carry extra ammunition outside the carousel "safely" (really, it doesn't matter that much, but it will protect you from more penetrations) in the same way that western tanks can (they also have trouble with this, of course, but they have like 20 tonnes worth of extra room)

@@TheFanatical1 вы всегда упускаете один момент: это пространство удобно, если вы планируете стрелять с места. Судя по всему, вся "западная" концепция использования танков на этом и построена. Да, в этом случае несколько выстрелов в начале боя вы можете сделать быстрее, далее заряжающий устанет, и, главное, закончатся снаряды первой очереди, придется тянуться дальше, скорострельность неизбежно снизиться. А во время движения это будет еще сложнее. И тут автомат или механизм заряжания будут работать как часы, неважно в каком положении на какой скорости. Все это было учтено при проектировании т-64 и последующих машин, да и когда это было... полвека уже этим идеям. По всем планам у нас должна быть уже совсем другая техника, но вот на момент создания - машины с автоматическим заряжанием были бы очень неприятными противниками.

all tanks can have ripped turrets this remains true since ww2 anything else is fake news

Same. 5/77 Armor, 8th ID

Not only looks, but also a pretty good tank. Specially when with modernization etc, its a pretty capable tank to even todays standards.

Agree

Wet ammo storage stopped the main ammo from brewing up as much or as quickly. The carosel loader cannot have that layer of protection.

@@Tuck-Shop The carousel is generally below the line of sight of enemy tanks, the main culprit for most T-series ammo cook-offs is the excess ammo stored around the turret compartment AND ammo stored in fuel tanks, which is generally around the carousel. The carousel itself has a fire suppression system that can delay or IDEALLY prevent the cook-off from happening.

not just the ammo in the turret but also the other ammo in the hull. In most cases the carousel isnt the source of those fatal explosions

@@codenamecrusade1083 it's always good to have layers of defence in event of a hit. Be it penetrator or as Ukraine has shown more commonly the anti tank mine.

Jupp, I heard that too. It´s about risk assessment and the compromise between crerw safety and volume of fire, much like the british battleships at Jutland: If you stuff everything with extra ammo because you think you might need it, or you think resupply will be unreliable or insufficient, it´s getting risky. The maximum full ammo load has the commander literally sitting on a propellant charge, which obviously is asking for trouble. Ukrainian T-72s apparently have a lower turret ejection rate on average, because the crews mainly stick to only loading the carousel, which is pretty much in the safest spot of the tank, with its 24 rounds, and fall back for resupply once those are spent. Because they have the logistics in place and can afford the maneuvering. Same with the Leopard 2: The ready rack in the turret with its blowout-panels is reasonably safe. The basket of extra ammo in the lower right corner....debatable. If you have a nicely prepared firing position where you can protect this spot with cover and maneuvering, ok, bring ammo to last longer. If you are venturing into uncertain terrain with possible ambushes from who-knows-where....maybe leave it empty?

Tanks are part of system and Soviet designers were not stupid and guys writing Soviet Army doctrine also were clever. Many countries have used T-72 and it was designed to work with Soviet Army doctrine.

Canada bought 5(4)? T-72s from Czechoslovakia in tbe late 80's, I recall that they're experiences with the T-72 were also pretty positive, apparently they had the run of CFB Suffield, quite liked surprisingly!!

War propaganda leave no place for truth and loves to accentuate small defaults or negative aspects. I'm sure in Russia, China or NK western tanks are seen as giant impractical and overpriced boxes, driven by obese blue haired americans. This was very interesting to have a neutral/opposite vision of the T-72 in english. I think museums and technical documents are the best way to have neutral informations, these guys are professionals/passionates that don't try to please peoples for a political agenda.

You hear all that stuff from propaganda sources..

@@rflats771south korea still uses T-80U's received from russia to pay off soviet-era debts, to this day. and actually plans on continuing their use

What made you more concerned about the T-64? I'm just getting into this type thing so I know nothing about nothing.

​ @matthiasthulman4058 Our belief at the time was that the T-64 was a better tank; the T-72 being a more economical downgrade, cheaper and easier to build. Before the internet warriors get all in an uproar... when I say we, I mean the armor crewman on the line. Also, this was the mid to late 80's and we didn't have clear intel on the vehicles like we do now. We believed that the T-64 was a better built tank and that we would fight them outgunned four or five to one. (We expected to live one to two weeks if the war ever kicked off.)

@@AbramsGunner It is a better tank right? Like most tanks manufactured in Ukraine, everything I've heard says the T-64 was better. Needed more maintenance and cost more though.

The T-64 was initially better as the T-72 had all of the good (and expensive) features removed. However as the years went by and the T-64 upgrades were also applied to the T-72, it was realized the T-72 had better features, was simpler, cheaper and more exportable.

@@Spaced92 Not really, my friend, it's not like that. I regret that at the very beginning of the conflict I did not save the video of the Ukrainian tankmen on the modernized T-64 tank. In an interview with DW Who did they manage to capture, the Russian T-72B3M, also a modernized tank. Where the Ukrainians themselves say that the T-72B3M is a much better and better tank than the T-64, in every sense. In the early 70s, the Soviets abandoned the T-64 in favor of the T-72 tanks for several reasons. It has nothing to do with the unfortunately wrong and widespread opinion that the Soviets decided on the T-72 because it was "cheaper and easier to manufacture, and the T-64 was better"?! Which of course is not true, because there is no logic. Since the T-64 was abandoned at the beginning of the 70s of the last century in favor of the T-72, and already in 1975, the production of a much better and more expensive T-80 tank, which is practically the successor of the T-64 tank with a turbine engine, began. A much better tank that solves practically all the problems the T-64 has. And it was certainly much more demanding for maintenance and production and thus much more expensive than the T-64 tank, which means that money and the decision of which tank to use was not a problem. Rather, it was a problem from the beginning of the T-64, because it was simply bad tank ! In the early 70's they gave up on the T-64 tank because it's just a bad tank, poorly designed. .. There are big problems, with all the key segments, with the gearbox, the engine that often overheated, they had special problems with the wheels and tracks, very poor durability under heavy loads... Although these problems were later reduced by modernization and improvements, they remained the main problem of this tank, which is why it was abandoned. The Ukrainians kept this tank because they had a large quantity of it and it was produced in Kharkov, Ukraine... So they modernized it later... But basically it remained a bad tank, not as bad as the Challenger 2, certainly. The T-72, on the other hand, is still a current tank, with numerous modernizations around the world on this exceptional platform, as well as many modernized and new tanks, for example China and India have many new and modernized tanks on the T-72 tank platform, as well as Russia. ..Modernized variants of this tank. Such as the Russian modernization T-72B1MS /B3/B3M ... But also the Polish version of the modernization of the tank T-72 PT-91, PT-91 twardy, as well as the Czech modernization T-72M4 CZ. As well as the Serbian modernization of the M-84AS1/AS2 tanks... In a real war conflict, they all pose a serious threat to any tank of the 3rd generation of western tanks. And they are at the level of all Western tanks of the 3rd generation, which are in mass serial use... Of course, when all the advantages and disadvantages of the T-72 platform are taken into account, as well as the Western tanks of the 3rd generation, when all that is taken into account. The above mentioned versions are at the level of Leopard 2A4/A 5, Abrams M1A1/A2, while all the mentioned modernizations of the T-72 platform are far, and significantly ahead of the obviously worst tank of Western production of the 3rd generation Challenger 2 ... About the new tanks T- 90M not to mention...

Yes, indeed,. But I always imaged them (3 Shock Army) as the genuine Bad Guys. Dag seems like a really decent bloke one would enjoy a beer with not destroy with a fin round at 2K!

@@ostwelt "England expects that every man will do his duty." To include destroying Dag at 2000 meters with a HVFSDS round if Dag is driving his T-72 towards Holland. It was the game we signed up to play. VII Corps, 2nd Corps Support Command, Bamberg (2nd ACR and 1st Armored Division plus VII Corps Artillery as customers)

​@@ostweltI think plenty of the Russians in Ukraine are decent guys just like I think most of Americans in Iraq were decent guys.

​@@cyan_oxy6734Ukranian soldiers 🐷💀1 Jahr 4 monat operation. Ukranian Armee 540 Tausend Dead ,92 Tausend Captivity .64 Tage Ukranian atake .39 Tausend Dead .Ukraine lost Territorium wie Dänemark, Holland, Belgien, Luxemburg, Zypern. 8 milions Russia,Ukranian Zivilisten and Russia .Bis Oktober Ende Kriges .

Points for leaving in the bit where he guessed wrong about the ejection port, as well. It would've been easy enough to edit that out. :)

Nuclear doctrine kind of worked the same way--each side spent most of the Cold War convinced that the other was just itching to drop a first strike and planning accordingly, when in fact it was never seriously on the table in either capital after 1962. Both governments _said_ as much to each other repeatedly throughout the '60s and '70s, but of course each just blew that off as the other's propaganda machine at work.

It was a good thing because that kept both factions in check.

Both NATO & Warsaw Pact were defensive alliances. _Technically_

Dag said he served from 86 to 89 and NVA conscription service was around 1,5-2 years which puts him just around the time WarPac was (for real) shifting to a defensive strategy towards the end of the Cold War.

@@becauseiwasinverted5222 NATO invaded after 1989 a number of countries, Warsaw treaty did only internally, in defense of the order.

It would be very interesting to have an Ukrainian who was recently trained on western tanks and can compare the two in action.

​@@f4ust85OpSec is top priority at the moment I think. But I am almost positive if they are interviewing here, the West is quite familiar with the T72 in the form of experts like this commander. It is a vehicle we should all know about. The autoloader is interesting. I think it just shows doctrinal differences. The T72 would be very impressive in large formations but perhaps not in a combined arms scenario. I think the tank on its own is only impressive if you have nothing to answer with it. In theory the aviation is overwhelming. I think it would have been. Not to minimize the skill of NATO ground forces or their equipment, but a lot of the battle is won before the ground personnel do their work. It is the artillery of the sky. The East German T72 crews were formidable and probably a bigger scare than Russia proper. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The submariners and naval domain, missileers, of the USSR all gave the appearance of a very formidable force in the Red Army. I think the rapid response from NATO would've been enough to leave a lot of them encircled and harried. Im glad that isn't how it came out

@@Chironex_Fleckeri Well with all respect, this commander operated a training unmodernized T-72 in the depleted East-german military 35 years ago and never saw action. I think it would be very interesting to hear from people who drove T-72-120 or the Czech T-72M4 into battle and now have an Abrams, the operational insight would be interesting in itself.

@@f4ust85 I mean the Ukrainian military isn't saying anything substantive about how they're using T-72 variants. The characteristics of the vehicle platform are quite well documented on public websites. I think cia gov has unclassified reports from the Cold War and there's some good tank forums. Ukraine is receiving aid and support on these systems which is more important information to current events than what the tank can do. I'm simply explaining why there is nothing substantial in terms of primary sources on Ukrainian or Russian T-72 in service as of this comment . That's the reason. Controlled information

@@Chironex_Fleckeri NATO would never win against the Eastern Bloc for the simple fact the Eastern Bloc was entirely driven towards military production, they outnumbered all of NATO 5 to 1 in tanks that includes T-55 which you should not underestimate they can still blow you to pieces. Eastern Bloc also had more tanks, in fact most NATO hardware, was in USA, not in Europe, thousands of Abrams were stationed in america, the war would been over by the time they gotten to Europe if they got there at all. Thats why the Pentagon were serious about scorched Earth policy using nuclear weapons, they knew they could not win, its not about skills or better weapons, but the sheer amount of hardware the Eastern Bloc possessed was overwhelming, why do you think USA have not invaded North Korea before they got nuclear weapons? It would been suicide, North Korea has more artillery and heavy weapons then ALL of NATO combined, thats hilarious how much firepower is located on such a tiny piece of land, no plane, rocket or troops could invade a fortress with a hundred thousand artillery guns firing at you every 2 minute, would make WW1 look like a joke.

Армия СССР как и других стран блока была профессиональной и что самое важное мотивированной. Это были не фанатики и роботы, это были обычные люди, но военные во всех смыслах слова. Если требуется без долгих разговоров и уговоров. Все четко и понятно. Напрасно на западе дискредитировали армии восточного блока, это опасно не дооценивать потенциального противника. В советской армии тоже говорили что солдаты аморальны приводя пример войны во Вьетнаме, что убьют любого, приводили в пример бомбардировки Югославии обедненным ураном, что там одни плохие парни и убийцы.

For the invasion of Britain (Operation Sea Lion), the nazi's adapted Panzer III's into 'Tauchpanzer' (submersible tanks) by sealing all openings and fitting them with a 20 m long rubber hose with a float. This was later changed to a 3.5m schnorkel, and they were actually used to cross rivers in the south of Russia during Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets are believed to have 'borrowed' this idea from the Germans and implement in on the tanks they developed after the war.

ابوك بيا لواء جان.. يا كتيبة!!

It very much looks like T-72s have never seen use in doctrine they were designed for. T-72 is all that with respectable gun and as consequence tends to be fragile (for MBT).

They already had a Challenger commander.

Iraq v Iran would be interesting.

Syrian tankers on the T-72 showed things that their Iraqi counterparts never dreamed of.

You have forgotten the lore of internet. You're supposed only to whine when hear not ideal and pristine English, while saying not even a single kind word about something good.

"Y'know... when I first discovered the Internet in the summer of 1989". Yeah same with me but I discovered it 1898....🤗

@@achimelale9974 ?

@@ZGryphon There was no Internet as such in 1989: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet. By the way, if its you in your channel, you haven't even been born then.

@@achimelale9974 There most certainly was. There was no _Web_ in 1989, but that's not the same thing. The Internet had existed, albeit in a form most modern users probably wouldn't recognize and much less readily accessible, since the '70s. I first used that version in the summer of 1989, while attending a summer program for "gifted" (their word, not mine) high school students at WPI in Massachusetts. Not sure what you're getting at with your postscript, but I assume you can work out for yourself that if I was in high school in 1989--which I was--I had in fact been born by then. :)

If only the 13th had a few of these back in the day.