"there may be more Ian and Nick to be released" I'm the happiest man in the world right now

At least if the war gaming stuff ends we won’t have to deal with the same way too loud, generic and repetitive rock song every time.

@TheAmazingCowpig

4 жыл бұрын

It might have Stockholm Syndrome'd me over the years, I find the music to be pretty atmospheric. :P It is still way too loud at times and the name card editing too obnoxious though.

@EradWir

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheAmazingCowpig Stockholm it is I can't watch the panzer 1 video as the music is louder then chieftain

@dukenukem8381

4 жыл бұрын

just start a campaign for cheiftan for him to add this music to every video even q&a

@leoarc1061

Жыл бұрын

It took them quite a while to get rid of it. The old videos are absolutely unwatchable.

9:10 "British national treasure" LOL You made my day Chieftain. I concur on your opinion of David Fletcher's stache.

@Coffreek

4 жыл бұрын

He did quite a professional job of supplying information, without directly answering the question.

@joeblow9657

4 жыл бұрын

@@Coffreek He should be promoted to a higher rank in the US Army and put in charge of research and development for that spin job

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

Well, to be honest, grading anothers facial hair is a grave insult requiring martial redress at dawn or high noon. And considdering the passionate interests of the gentlemen in question, there is quite a probability of grevious collateral fallout of significant emotional events to anything ot to three miles behind and in a three hundred yard radius from either duellist. Not to mention the diplomatic consequences of this kind of altrucation between a gentleman of the Queen and one of an Eire born colonial ;)

@JenniferinIllinois

4 жыл бұрын

@@Coffreek He talked circles around it before coming up with the British national treasure comment. I love it!

The Australian Armour faced two threats in Vietnam, 1 was from our own mines that the Vietcong cheerfully relaid the other was from the fact that one of the Centurions was radioactive (following an unfortunate bureaucratic error involving a nuclear bomb) the result was that the crew and maintenance team were slowly irradiated and also hit by an RPG for good measure.

@maxpower3990

4 жыл бұрын

It was named "Atomic Tank". The only tank fatalities were 2 drivers killed by mines. That being said the tank came later in Australia's deployment and saw extensive and practical use in the battles of Binh-Ba and FSB Coral/Balmoral. They were used in a standard Combined Arms method providing armoured protection and accurate direct fire that was very useful against bunkers. 1 canister round to strip cover and a HE round in the view slit or front door.

@shawnc5188

4 жыл бұрын

The tank itself was ok in Vietnam as it had been decontaminated by then (the atomic test was in 1957). The crew who suffered from cancer was the crew that maintained her immediately after the atomic test. I had a high school teacher who was part of the Woomera atomic tests and showed his students pictures of how callous they were on the soldier’s life - they had guys in PT kit standing miles away from the blast! He was a real character - retired a Major in the Australian SAS and took part in Konfrontasi in the 60s. io9.gizmodo.com/the-atomic-tank-survived-a-nuclear-test-then-went-to-w-1542451635

Back in '87, a couple of guys stole an M109 from Ft. Carson and drove it up I-25 towards Denver. I remember seeing so many flashing lights on my way home from a softball came, and remarking to my buddy it looked like a scene from the Blues Brothers.

My father loved and feared the cannister round on the centurion, it was a great foliage clearing round and could even be used to clear infantry off tanks... imagine having your tank covered in blood and body parts, that's what cannister does.

My understanding of the San Diego M60 incident was that the joyrider was a former tanker. And so was the cop that shot him, he knew how of open the commanders hatch. Tanks were later removed from that NG location.

@MalikCarr

4 жыл бұрын

There's one still parked at that armory as a gate guard (M47Asomethingorother) but I assume it's been deactivated mechanically.

@diltzm

4 жыл бұрын

Yakima has a company of M1s if you really want to have some fun.

@DmdShiva

4 жыл бұрын

The biggest argument for him _not_ being a tanker was the way he disabled himself -- not realizing that if you don't climb the concrete center divider squarely, you run the risk of dropping the tank with the track on one side of the barrier and the hull on the other (which he did), at which point you have immobilized the tank until it gets hauled off the barrier. Tank obstacles that function by hoisting the tank off the ground when driven over have been around since WWII (look up 'dragon's teeth'), and tanker training would have included the various stupid things that you could do to immobilize your vehicle.

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

@@DmdShiva he may well have been a tanker, only not a designated tank *driver* I wouldn't, for instance, expect a loader or gunner to remember about such details in the heat of a chase even though I would expect every member of a vehicle crew to drive well enough to take over with guidance to get out of a FUBAR situation where the designated driver is a soft or hard casualty and the tank is still mobile.

Nice nod to Bolo's. For the Honor of the Regiment always brings a tear to my eye.

@mrd1433

4 жыл бұрын

Little Red Hen is the one that gets me. Canasta is now a dirty word.

@mrd1433

4 жыл бұрын

Bolo stories rarely have a happy ending.

@havokvladimirovichstalinov

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrd1433 Dont even get me started on the loss of Ferdy.

@dropdead234

4 жыл бұрын

Rommel's story had a happy (even funny) ending..."Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!"

@Womgi

4 жыл бұрын

Ah planetary siege units, when someone saw power armor, snorted and said "Hold. My. Beer!"

Is wet ammo storage still a thing? Or have storage compartments separated from the crew compartment like on the M1 replaced wet storage?

@das3610

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly I also want to know

@dustindubbo2892

4 жыл бұрын

I would think it’s a mixture of both, it’s separated but also stored in a wet storage.

@HaVoC117X

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah good question? I also wonder why the following generation of US tanks like m26, m41, m46, m47 and m48 had no stabilizer!? The Sherman had both wet stowage and a stabilizer. The rotating periscope for the loader was also missing on the post war designs.

@Panzerzwerg

4 жыл бұрын

Tanks like the M1 and the Leo 2 use separate ammunition compartments protected by armoured bulkheads. They would blow out in case of a cook-off, preventing the crew from getting hurt. Challenger 2 uses armoured bins, + no explosive stored in the turret. Russian tanks use no ammo protection as they all use carousel autoloaders. The ones I'm not sure about are Leclerc, Ariete, Type 90 and Type 10.

@genericpersonx333

4 жыл бұрын

Wet-Storage was not as common as one might think, being used mostly in late-WW2 Shermans and not much beyond that, so it didn't really get replaced. Most post-war designers figured that it was more cost-effective to compartmentalize ammunition in the lower hull rather than cramming in expensive wet-storage systems that put serious limits on ammo capacity at a time when the size of shells was growing by leaps and bounds.

The NVA did use tanks (PT76's) in overrunning the US Army Special Forces camp at Lang Vei in Feb. 1968. Anyone interested there was a book called "Tanks in the Wire" written about it.

So here the question i asked in chat : ​I would like to know more about why the US army refused the AVRE's and other Funnies the the UK offered to use on D-Day. Why DID they used the least succesfull design ( the Sherman DD..) And would it make a big difference in casualties ? Maybe for a next Q& A or a solo-video. Thanks Chieftain, i hope to see you in Holland some time at the National Military Museum in Soesterberg

@DC9622

4 жыл бұрын

Kommissar Killemall, David Fletcher does cover this in his book on British Tanks. To paraphrase, there wasn’t enough equipment to provide a division for the Americans. However, the funny’s particularly the Crocodiles did support America units. www.normandywarguide.com this has archives for the Crocodile units.

@Ally5141

4 жыл бұрын

Better question, why do you think Sherman DD was the least successful design?

@DC9622

4 жыл бұрын

Aliant indeed, they worked well for the Commonwealth units, and a number did land at Omaha. The problem was a company was launched too far out. That was the US Navy, not the Army or the tank.

@chaz8758

4 жыл бұрын

79th Armd Div was still recieving new specialist armour all the way till they embarked for D Day, some missing equipment like sights on the AVRE's, crew familiarisation on their own vehicles - there was not the time nor production facilities to produce enough specialist engineering vehicles for the British Commonwealth and sponsored units let alone train them in the new tactics, logistics support etc - never mind providing the same to the US who did not even use the main base vehicle (Churchill).

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

@Aliant My guess is the...mixed result it had on D-Day. But that was afaik more of a problem of insufficiently carefull planing. For one thing, they overlooked the currents. The concept itself was sound, as was the engineering side of the execution. If I recall correctly, they profed very usefull in crossing the Rhine.

Yes, mention of the mighty Bolo again CSU’s for the win.

@dropdead234

4 жыл бұрын

"Why did you send only one Bolo!? " "...You only had one war."

@Plastikdoom

4 жыл бұрын

dropdead234 most of the times...you only need one

@havokvladimirovichstalinov

4 жыл бұрын

@@dropdead234 Mk. XXXIII Bolo. For when you absolutely, POSITIVELY have to have an entire continent slagged and be done in time for dinner!

love these chats, so informative!

Fletchers stash is f#$%ing EPIC! Needs it's own channel.

Good to see you again Nicholas!

Great video! Also it was SO AWESOME to play a round with you!

An 88M here who will continue to support your channel regardless of wargaming support. Truely enjoy the educational and entertainment value of the content you produce, to the point me and the son regularly watch videos on the TV to the dread of the wife.

Great session. Merry Christmas Nick.

CSU reference, love it. Bolooooooooooo. Very impressed with your sci-fi armour references, and alluding to PAPA armour.

Excellent Bolo reference there Chieftain at 21:355 :)

I had the pleasure of meeting the platoon leader from that tank battle in Vietnam, we were on the same squad in a shooting competition in 2016.

Love the semi-dry Chieftainese humour. :)

What is your take on unmanned turrets with main guns such as the Russian T-14, Cockerill 3105, and Jordanian Falcon turret?

They say «why bother to have tanks where the enemy has none» just like it's not in a fundamental purpose of tanks to bring firepower and armour there, where the enemy is unable to oppose them.

@adm0iii

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's like "why bring a gun to a knife fight?".

@rhamph

4 жыл бұрын

Unless the enemy doesn't have tanks because they're wildly unsuitable for the terrain, a fact that will be aggressively exploited if you do bring any.

@maxpower3990

4 жыл бұрын

The enemy didn't have tanks because they couldn't transport or supply them that far South and while some of the country was unsuited due to vegetation, rivers or hills alot was very suitable. It depend on which province the tank was sent to as well as inside a province.

@cmck472

4 жыл бұрын

To quote Field Marshal Slim, "There is nothing wrong with using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you have a sledgehammer, and you don't care what the nut looks like afterwards"

@C.D.V.Rchsg.

4 жыл бұрын

It's not like Vietkong wouldn't like to have some tanks and use them because of «terrain», they very much tended to do so when USSR has started to send them tanks. North Vietnam hadn't any tanks mostly because you can't grow a tank on a rice farm.

Many thanks kind sir for the answer and reading. I'll have to shout you a pint or two we ever end up in the same part of the world.

Do a series on myths of Soviet armor with Pasholok/any other Russian Tank Jesus.

I sufficated on the “where definately not to look for battery amd final sprocket drive” Fletcher - Chieftain - Doyle 4 life ❤️

My friends took a tank from the 82d ABN for a spin during an air show at Maguire AFB, NJ in the 1980’s. It freaked out the crew, but they didn’t go far and they laughed it off.

The glass on the track tension wheel on our CV9030N broke once, the lubricant flowed out and the wheel started burning. We took the track off, and the wheel fell off, the bolts were sheared right off.

16:08 HAHA!!!!! Lol. Is there anything the Sherman isn't good at. It's literally the duct tape of the tank world :p

And WG has not released your Panzer IV coverage YET?!?!?! Weird. WW2's Big three are the T34, the Panzer IV, and the M4. You've done all three . . . but no release of the Panzer IV video. Cutler, bless his heart, is not an in-depth person. He's a popularist with nothing bad to say about anything. We don't learn anything from his videos that we didn't already know.

I remember the Tiger that came out of the 13th's Mess Hall. (looks like a M7)

I love the remark about the Mk33 Bolo ("Planet Destroyer"). Have you talked about Keith Laumer's hell-on-wheels AI tanks before?

@Coffreek

4 жыл бұрын

Q&A 5, and 4 also, I think. Some of us got, probably, a little too interested. He also made references to Hammer's Slammers, and Warhammer 40K.

Merry Xmas and happy new year Chief!

Good episode!

Have you considered doing a nice lecture of tanker gear? I would love to see info about different suits, hats and helmets of WWII.

@KevinSmith-ys3mh

4 жыл бұрын

Chieftain did one recently reviewing its development from WW1 to his own issued tankers gear, so USA historical point of view mostly. An international comparison done decade by decade would be instructive, especially showing design influences like the football helmet designed by Rawlings for USA armoured forces. Most successful design attempts are evolutionary vs revolutionary. 🙂

A BOLO reference! I’m very happy!

nick i know a vietnam vet who was a tanker and i asked him about the lack of m60s present in vietname and he said that it was because the m60 is much larger and heavier so they were worried about them getting bogged down in mud and generally less mobility and it wasn't worth the trouble of sending them over

@davidknight9709

4 жыл бұрын

STG44SPECIALIST 1 The official explanation I was told by my MSGT who was M103/M48/M60 Marine tanker who went to Vietnam was that the M60s had priority for Europe, the 90mm on the M48 had massive surplus stocks of ammunition of HE and flechette, and the expectation of contact with enemy armor would be minimal and older stuff so the M48 could easily handle them. If I remember correctly the Hunnicut book “Patton” says the same thing, though it has been a few years since I read it.

No worries about the delay. You also had that computer meltdown to deal with after all. However, I think you missed my second question (about crew compartment ventilation systems)! I'll restate that one for the December Q&A.

Good stuff. Thanks.

For Specialist tankie kit, the Germans had two examples The Panzerjacke (panzer wrap) Schutzmütze (aka Panzermütze) don’t miss the second, it wasn’t issued very long for some reason and is now exceedingly rare. It’s not a beret as much as an attempt to make a soft helmet.

FYI, this video *Did Not* appear in my _Subscriptions_ feed. I just stumbled across it in the generic _Home_ feed. Yes, my Notifications Bell is set to *All* 🛎️.

Love the BOLO reference. Would like to know your thoughts on the Air Cushion tanks of the Hammers Slammers series.

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

Mentioned one or two Q&As ago. They have no track to tension. Boo! Hiss!

The big red one with lee Marvin and mark hamill had some m50 and m51 Shermans posing as tigers. You can see the " German " commanders wearing modern ( 1980s) headsets and helmets. The movie Patton had the Germans and Americans both using US tanks.

@davidknight9709

4 жыл бұрын

Erik Stenberg Basically if the movie was shot in Spain the Americans will use M24 Chaffee for Sherman’s and M47 Patton for tigers. The reason is that the Spanish military was actually the extras and crews for those movies and they were using their issue equipment.

I agree Pershing likely wouldn't have had much impact on the war, but I'm curious on how earlier adoption of 76mm HVAP could have affected the war. Lets say US started ramping up HVAP production earlier so that by late-1944 both TD and tank units could be properly supplied with HVAP, how much would it have affected the Battle of the Bulge and the push into Germany?

I really (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAN'S HATCH) hope the editing (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAN'S HATCH) would be improved so (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAN'S HATCH) it could be (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAN'S HATCH) more (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAN'S HATCH) watchable

@eagletanker

4 жыл бұрын

It’s really (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAIN’S HATCH) repetitive, and breaks (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAIN’S HATCH) the flow

@axeavier

4 жыл бұрын

@@eagletanker no (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAIN’S HATCH) kidding (INSIDE THE CHIEFTAIN’S HATCH) .

I can't wait to see the video about the Mk-33 planetary siege unit.

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

I know that was a joke, but I would actually find a video about possible future tank concepts quite intresting. Especialy from the perspective of someone who has pracitcal experience with the tactical use of tanks.

Ian and NIck *thumbs up*

@edwalmsley1401

4 жыл бұрын

I'd quite like to see karl in that mix too

@mattwilliams3456

4 жыл бұрын

Ed walmsley I’d prefer just Ian. Karl has knowledge but to me just isn’t likable. He seems smug and arrogant to often for my tastes.

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

@@mattwilliams3456 I partially disagree, I think that's more apperance due to a habit of authoritative phrasing than any actual attitude on Karls part. And I hold the impression that that is the main cause of the "arrogant overconfident 'murican" trope.

For the next Q&A: What was the opinion of the western allies on the STUG and soviets SU as weapon systems and why they didn't go down that path. (noting the british Archer which is more of a Marder than STUG).

According to my father (RTO in vietnam) they were also used quite extensively in clearing mines from roads. My dad recalls one such "thunder run" on i believe an M60. So maybe not much enemy engagement but still a very iseful potentially life saving tool

@triffton1

4 жыл бұрын

In reaponse to the tanks in vietnam question

@triffton1

4 жыл бұрын

Also it is my dad who says M60. I wasnt there but given the similarities and environment a misidentification may have occured

Great book on tanks in Vietnam called Tank Sergeant by Ralph Zumbro ska Sgt Zippo

Where did you find that demilled shillelagh missile? I would love to find one of those for my collection.

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

I bet it was a retirement gift or a reward in some kind of AFV competition. My dad has plenty of old polished shell cases from his career as an officer affixed to hardwood display bases with engraved brass plaques explaining why and when they were awarded as prizes, in lieu of silvered tin cups.

If you ever head through italy in your travels you should see about doing itch in italian ww2 vehicles. The Rome museum has many and there is a organization that has privately owned vehicles from fiat trucks to tanks.FUN FACT italy made a folding bridge cv33

Question: Noticed that the length of tank guns have increased dramatically. The original M4 medium 75 mm(Sherman) and just was about at the front of the tank. The Firefly (Sherman VC) was much longer and today, the barrel can be the length of the whole body - Was this done to boost the muzzle velocity? With the move to a smooth bore weapon, were the HE rounds adjusted? Is the modern tank still mostly HE support? Or has IFV's taken on that role? Great channel!

@bluntcabbage6042

4 жыл бұрын

1) Longer barrels were meant to increase muzzle velocity, yes. 2) HE rounds were adjusted for tanks that still used bog standard HE rounds. The Russians switched to HE-FS (High Explosive Fin Stabilized) when they moved to smooth bore guns. Tanks like the M1 Abrams use HEAT rounds in place of HE, and currently no HE round exists for the 120mm L/44. 3) Modern tanks most often find themselves in warzones with very little enemy armor. As such, they do mostly perform infantry support roles above all else. That being said, they still have plenty of capability in terms of fighting other MBTs. IFVs are an addition to an armored force, and the role of infantry support isn't exclusive to just IFVs or just MBTs, rather any vehicle that is in a position to perform infantry support effectively.

29:30 Mk. XXXIII Planetary Siege Unit??? Chieftain, is that a BOLO reference I detect?? Nice

BOLO reference for the win!

I would like to know how much manpower it takes to keep an average tank (ww2 or otherwise) functional. How many men, supplies, wrench work did it take?

Hammer's Slammers is what the future of Armored Warfare will look like.

I think more videos with Ian would be a very good idea.

Nice reference to Bolos.

A friend of mine was a M/Sgt, US Army tank co. in Viet Nam. He ran a Tiin 40 mike mike on a Sherman hull. Was this an M-42 Duster or some other variant? He said it was used as a convoy escort, the weed eater effect did the work. Most useful for clearing fields of fire for the quad 50 tracks at night lager..

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

M19 or M42, based on Chaffee or Walker Bulldog hulls.

Might I suggest a timestamp list for the questions in the description or in a pinned post? Not really a problem, especially not in this episode, but previous episodes have been a bit longer, and not all questions are equally engaging to everyone.

Could you speak to some of the foreign variants of the M4 Sherman, such as how they varied from the American production and how that changed their capabilities?

All for the return of Chieftain's facial hair say aye.

@derrickstorm6976

4 жыл бұрын

Naye

@potatopants4691

4 жыл бұрын

Aye

@andypanda4927

4 жыл бұрын

Neigh! Hi-ho silver &away...... about as applicable, maybe. On another note: "Mark 33 Planetary Seige Unit..." we talking Bolo, maybe?

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

Aye

@peterson7082

4 жыл бұрын

@@andypanda4927 *raising arms* "You've done it now Yanks, you've captured me."

Lol you're talk about power armor made me think about "Think Tanks" from Ghost in the Shell. I think tanks will always be around but perhaps we might not recognized as a traditional "tank" in the future. That being said it's hard to think of a mobility system that would be as effective and cost efficient as tracked tank.

@Coffreek

4 жыл бұрын

Cost effective is always the question, isn't it? Well, that and reliability. Battlesuits have continued to fascinate me, even as I got older and began to understand the technical problems. I guess they have exoskeletons now, but as soon as any useful amount of armor is added, the weight overwhelms any practical power source. "Kilopower", Thorium reactors, or some novel fusion power system might solve the power density problem. In that case, I wonder what man portable railguns, or even straight up plasma bolt weapons, would do to tracked vehicles? As a spinoff wargame sim, it would be interesting (and extremely labor intensive), to figure out how to represent "practical" battlesuits in a reality-based combat video game, and face them off against tracked MBTs, to see what happens. It might not be fun in the usual sense, but if you like "hard" sci-fi, it's an alluring idea. Then of course, the same power generation technology would have to be simulated in tracked vehicles......

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

@Coffreek Not sure about portable nuclear reactors. Leaving aside the whole issue off "what if something goes wrong?", I realy don't see how you could miniaturize something like this to the point where it will fit into a tank, let alone a power armour. Same goes for fusion. Even if you can do it, you will still run into the problem with the cooling system. Any combat system with that power source will have an IR signature about as discrete as a bonfire in the middle of the night...

@KevinSmith-ys3mh

4 жыл бұрын

You should try searching "US Army FCS program" (future combat systems), an extremely expensive attempt to jump to the next generation military technologies of the 21st century . Too much, too soon ; of course it was shuttered by budget cuts - anyone remember 2008 economic crash and potential bankruptcy of US automakers and their supply chains? Just the R&D budget projections rivaled the F-35 fighter jet program costs. I get reminded of it when I'm drinking coffee out of the FCS logos mug over at one my in-laws house, he was part of the Boeing engineering team then. Anyway, much of what you are postulateing above was considered by one or more research departments while trying to evaluate potential design options. After skimming through some of the publicly available documents, I have to say that Bolo supertanks and PowerArmor fighting suits / Gundams are quite some time in the future, if ever. Quite a few basic tech challenges have to be solved, like power systems that are light & compact but won't kill the crew horribly if hit. Not much point fighting to protect our city only to find your decimated platoons burned out armoured units turned our homes into a Fukushima dead zone. There are good sane reasons why most of the US Navy nuclear surface ships are scrapped, with none planned in the future besides SuperCarriers. The argument against hundreds of fission reactors going into harm's way deliberately (working definition of all warships) is more than economies of operations.

If you're somehow reading this comment Mr Moran, the video you did with Ian Mcollum was very interesting, especially the 'training' you gave him with the operation of the tank, that was really, really interesting and drove home how ergonomics is important. When the firefly came up though, it made me wonder something. While I agree with the firefly was a bodge-job (and I suspect the distaste of the 76mm shermans was as much removing yet *another* shell sizer from the logistics train) it got me wondering: why there weren't any 76mm shermans taken and converted to the roomier turret. I don't doubt the British disliked the ergonomics for the firefly, yet the stuck with it. Was it due to factories tooled up for that turret, America going "No they're mine!" or the unlikely idea that it simply didn't occur to the british they could put the 17pdr in the bigger turret?

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

Near as I can tell, the 'pinched' front of the T23 turret resulted in an inability for the gun to be mounted and balanced.

@Ben-yv9id

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch Ah-ha, so less 'wouldn't' and more 'couldn't'. Thanks for the answer!

Do you know if they tried making the barrel of the existing 75mm sherman gun longer to increase APC round velocity? I read the Russians have a system to drop a tank with a crew in it from a transport plane. I hope you can make a video on this one day. I like the Q&A'a. Cheers from Canada.

Do you think the gap between the hull and the turret of the M1 is a weak spot/shot trap?

How did different countries deal with bridge wights and railway limitations such as tunnels and rail width?

thanks Chieftain. Always learn something! Question: what happens to armor when Hellfire missiles or similar weapons are mounted on swarms of large drones? They can fly low using available cover then pop up and fire off a swarm of missiles. I guess we'll need to develop a working version of the defensive system that the Russian T-14 uses???

@chaz8758

4 жыл бұрын

The UK developed the Brimstone for "swarm" attacks from long range with the missiles not even needing target ID by the launch aircraft (being able to be delivered by fast jets unlike Hellfire and much cheaper than Mavericks with 3 x Brimstone being carried on a single hardpoint).

Would the T92 light tank have been viable in terms of reliability and ergonomics had it not been cancelled and entered service in 1962 as intended (notwithstanding the fact that the 76mm gun was probably outdated at that point and that a HEAT-firing 90mm might still not fit)? And would it have been more successful than the M551 Sheridan, especially in terms of timing?

How do you get most of your primary sources? Is it just getting a bunch of books, or is there some website that has a whole host of primary sources?

Do you think laser warning receiver would change armour combat in the future ?

@The_Chieftain what are your foughts about the M36 Jackson as a tank/TD ?

One thing that stick out in my mind that they got wrong in hollywood is the tank battles in the movie Patton. Nothing like a bunch of german panzers that look strangely like Pershings, Caffees, and Pattons.

As a follow up to the question about tanks in movies. What's your opinion of fury?

chief, where do you get your models?

Vietnam US tanks. A friend commanded an M88 in Vietnam. Believe they were used for more than just recovery. He often talked about recon by fire missions. Cheers!

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

They also used the M50 Ontos (Ontos being greek for "the thing" which I think is a hillariously fitting name for this abomination) and it seemed to be quite effective. Especialy in urban combat, where the marines aparently used it like a long-ranged wrecking ball to tear down the eintire facing wall of a building with a volley of HESH - sorry americans, off course it's HEP - rounds.

@bluntcabbage6042

4 жыл бұрын

@@Bird_Dog00 They mostly used the M50 because their restrictions with ROE forbade any use of tank guns inside cities without permission from high command, but 106mm recoilless rifles were exempt from this. As such, they used the Ontos effectively in place of a light tank, only because they couldn't use a light tank due to aforementioned ROE restrictions.

Lets get a video review of the Jeep and compare it the other small vehicles of the other armies.

I spot a little Wiesel (Weasle) AWC on the Desk :D

Is there a way to find out which steel was used in ww2 armor? I only found few militarly standards but i can't find any in writen in ISO standards. It should be high alloy steel, if I at least knew which materials were added to it and the hardnes i could figure out the material.

@Romanov117

4 жыл бұрын

There are two types of armor being used. Rolled Homogenous Armor and Face Hardened Armor. But there's a Catch. When an Armor has higher brinel rate, it can be seen as good armor but were vulnerable to spalling that can make crack due to the lack of sufficient materials.

@MegaloHorse

4 жыл бұрын

@@Romanov117 I know that it is RH Armor, the problem is I don't know which alloys re used. (dunno if I said it correctly, not native english speaker) I want to find the ISO name for the steel used. Like: X210Cr12 which has 2.1% C and 12% Cr Like that, but for armor plates.

@Romanov117

4 жыл бұрын

Megalo Horse As I remember, every Tank Steel during WW2 has steel alloys mixed within like Molybdenum, Nickel and Chrome but I forgot the specific amounts.

@MegaloHorse

4 жыл бұрын

@@Romanov117 oh thanks, that is useful too

@KevinSmith-ys3mh

4 жыл бұрын

I suspect you won't find a single answer or spec to your question, because there was no one way to formulate armour plates. The process varies widely between manufacturers in different countries, and at different times based on then current research and production techniques combined with limitations on access to strategic metals. I recently viewed a great historical overview of armour development for warships (where the ideas for Tanks originated, and the technology base). See Drachinifel's KZread channel on naval warships and history, he's become quite a respected history presenter. The video had clips of production of casting and forging plates, informative narration and tables of alloys that should help with your question.

I saw a video stating that the Leopard 2A5 and above is able to take any hit to the turret front as long as the hit on the turret is where the shaped armour is "thicker" than the APFSDS is long due to the fact that the APFSDS wont go straight once it enters the V shaped front if its shorter than the V shape is long. What is your view on this? I also wonder about Strv 103, it had a longer L7 gun, was it better and if so in what way?

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

As for the Strv 103, the longer gun allowed the propellant and rifling to act on the projectile over a longer time, imparting a higher muzzle velocity and a more stable spin, translating to longer range, a flatter trajectory, higher accuracy, less time to target (shorter lead), better penetration for kinetic rounds and a larger squash-area for HEP/HESH rounds.

21:15 the missing link between infantry and artillery.... Metal Gear!

On the issue of the 76mm Bursting charge vs the 75mm, the reason 76 mm was lower seems to be a trajectory aspect vs a tech issue. Why not accept a different trajectory out past (600 yards?), a sight change (flip or built in) or even walking rounds in? It seems it should have made and easily so, a non or adjusted to issue.

Hi Nicholas. I am having an extended debate with a friend's father. Do you have any resources you can point me towards on the T-34 vs M4 debate? He seems fixated on the cheapness and speed of production and I cant seem to bring in the value of ergonomics and survivability.

@SlavicCelery

4 жыл бұрын

What models are you comparing? If you're comparing base models the dedicated three man turrent already beats the t34 in efficiency.

In Zumbro's book Tank Sergeant he mentions his M60 bulldozer tank in Vietnam. Sounds like the specialist M60s made it over but the standard didn't.

@jeffreyroot7346

4 жыл бұрын

Are you sure? My copy isn't handy, but I thought it was a M48A3 with bulldozer attachment. I thought it was interesting the number of extra machineguns he and his crew accumulated.

@cynicalmedic252

4 жыл бұрын

The M60 AVLB and M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle were the only M60 variants to make over to Vietnam. The M728 was a M60 with a short barrel 165mm M135 gun and had a built in winch-boom assembly. It had the option of being equipped with dozer blades or mine plows.

@PeterDavid7KQ201

4 жыл бұрын

Fantastic book, first thing I thought of when I heard that question.

@m2hmghb

4 жыл бұрын

@@PeterDavid7KQ201 It's my go to for dentist appointments. A great distraction from the misery about to occur.

What are some of the oddest handy features you've seen on a tank?

Moustaches should be rated for the protection they give against extreme cold in the event of the wearer being posted to the Eastern Front.

In Question of translated Test Reports: You might want to ask Dr. Roman Töppel or MHV (Bernhardt Kast). They got access to the DMA (Deutsches Millitär Archiv), may be they know.

Have you started filming your ITCH episode on the T-72?

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

No, not yet.

I have a candidate for a show that got tanks terribly wrong. Modern Marvels’ Engineering Disasters regarding the M4 Sherman. They basically just used Death Traps (pretty sure it is the only source referenced during the episode) and nothing else. Only a section of a single episode but I think it qualifies as getting a tank incorrect. It certainly colored my perception of the Sherman between the time I saw that episode and when I stumbled upon Chieftan’s channel and found out more accurate information. Lesson learned: History Channel needs fact checkers on their shows and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

What documented the case for the removal of the bow machine gun and it's gunner?

@KevinSmith-ys3mh

4 жыл бұрын

Chieftain has covered this in multiples of videos, along with Bovinton UK tank museum, and plenty of US Army Armour development program records arguing the case pro & con. To summarize: tank technologies evolved over 1940 to 1960 massively, along with new threats to kill them. (read the wikipedia articles on panzerfaust & bazooka development, game changers). The hull gunner had to go to free up space for more ammo storage etc, because the duties of assistant driver & radio operator became obsolete thru better tech developments in radio controls and layout, & automatic transmissions in rear power pack layout. Hull mounted MG had very limited arcs of fire, not great vision & gunsighting, and creates a large weak area in the place where you want best protection against incoming AT hits. Just do a comparison of 1940 M3 Grant/Lee design vs 1960 M60 tank design, only 20 years in time but total rethinking of how tanks work, and what they do. Now, you are crazy with a death wish to engage without motorized infantry in APC/AFV/XYZ whatevers to scout, screen, and bring all the MGs & Manpads & AT missiles they can fit to give you close range cover in wooded/broken terrain, or suppression fire on opposing armoured forces. Essentially, the hull gunner has just been moved to their own dedicated vehicle. Survival in the modern era is via combined arms implementation, different tools used skillfully together.

I think I have a question. When you discuss WW2 tanks, Vietnam, modern or otherwise, I sense a difficulty in managing answers through the lens of strategic and logistical impact vs the inevitable minutia of tactical analysis (i.e. could 90mm Sherman defeat Tigers in those few times the 76mm or 75mm just couldn't cut it). My question is, how do you balance responding to the "Tank enthusiast" who wants to hear about the specs of each tank and how it can be used in X situation to defeat Y tank, vs the actual use of the tank as merely another capability in a very big machine? Do you find it difficult to answer questions where the focus is tactical but you know the tactical was actually likely irrelevant (again, looking at Sherman as an example). I know tanks are romanticized much like aircraft are, as the machines that can single-handedly win any engagement, and for sure, my fascination with them started here... but I imagine fielding endlessly questions only mildly different from the last 100 would get fatiguing, especially since the passion you clearly have is a combination of intellectual from a history/hobby perspective and the experiences you had as an operator. Do you ever wish you could pass on the experience side more easily?

Does the army have a theoretical weight limit on any future tank?? Since the abrams weights in at 62-67 tons.

@stephenbritton9297

4 жыл бұрын

most of the maritime logistics capacity is limited to 70tons in terms of crane and ramp capacity.

@animal16365

4 жыл бұрын

@@stephenbritton9297 Thanks for the infromation ^^

@stephenbritton9297

4 жыл бұрын

@@animal16365 Not a problem. Used to work in the field, but never on those type ships in particular. I seemed to wind up on things that could go boom, like oil tankers and ammo ships...

In a documentary I recently watched about the Battle of the Bulge there was a reference to a "Honey" tank. Which model or variation was this referring to?

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

M3 or M5 Stuart

So I didn't understand the meaning of the intro. Are you no longer an employee of Wargaming and therefore no more collaborative works between yourself and Wargaming? Or are you just ceasing the Inside the Hatch series with them?

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

We haven't filmed an ITCH with WG in two years. Although it's open to change, I'm relying on myself for new filming once the current WG stock runs out.

@Allan_aka_RocKITEman

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch >>> Here's *another* _off the top of my head_ question, although *I certainly understand* it may NOT fall under your expertise: A HOVERCRAFT WAS USED IN VIETNAM BY THE USN[?] IN 1968 OR 1969. WHY WERE THEY {HOVERCRAFT} NOT USED MORE EXTENSIVELY - WERE THEY FAILURES? {Again, Thanks in advance!}

Question who carries out the majority of repairs on modern tanks are there specilized units or do the crews do most of the work

@bluntcabbage6042

4 жыл бұрын

Last I read about it, it depends on the location. Bases will normally have repair/maintenance depots with dedicated mechanics and maintenance personnel but in the field, basic maintenance and whatnot may fall onto the crew's plate.

Question: Why did Germany, Italy and the U.S. still use front mounted wheel sprockets on their tanks in WWII while other countries like Britain, france and even the Czechs (on the 35(t) at least) already changed to rear mounted axles? Is it not always better for space in your tank to put your sprocket wheel on the same side of the tank as your engine? And if there is a good reason, why does no tank nowadays have their sprocket wheel on the opposide side from the engine?

@nahuelleandroarroyo

4 жыл бұрын

For one i read having power on the front means less clogging of the sprocket, the rear part of the track seems to be more punished by mudd

@LegoStarHawk98

4 жыл бұрын

The sprocket is in the front because they found out by moving the transmission to the front, one of the benefits was the tank had better balance/weight distribution, so they could do things like centrally mount the turret. As for today, the transmission is now not only located in the same place in the engine, but they're basically part of each other known as the "Powerpack," which makes things such as maintanence easier.

@LegoStarHawk98

4 жыл бұрын

Note that's just from what I understand so I might be wrong

@michaelritzen8138

4 жыл бұрын

@@LegoStarHawk98 I guess that one unrelated benefit might be a little extra added protection. I mean, a few feet of extra metal between your legs and the outside can't hurt, right? And isn't that one of the reasons why the powerpack of the Merkava is in the front, to add another layer of protection for the driver and increase crew survivability overall (with the rear hatch for an easy escape)?

@HerrGausF

4 жыл бұрын

Both designs have advantages and disadvantages. It depended on what the tank developers regarded as more important. Front drive allows for a better weight and space distribution and a turret mounted in the centre of the hull. In addition the track has a better chance to shake off any dirt before engaging the sprocket. Rear drive removes the need for a drivetrain going through the crew compartment, which allows for more crew space or a more compact tank in general. The disadvantages during WW2 were the long steering mechanisms (the 35(t) used pneumatic tubes of all things!) and the need to put the turret further forward, as seen for example on the T-34. For a long time German engineers were very concerned to keep the gun muzzle behind the tank's bow to prevent any collision damage to the gun, so a forward mounted turret would have reduced the available lenght. On modern tanks the engine and transmission form a single package that can be exchanged in a very short time, so a rear drive is the preferred solution. The Merkava and some self-propelled guns are notable exceptions, but they mount the engine in the front as well.

Can you comment on the slow mo guys video on youtube where they shoot a 76mm round in slow mo as well as the 152 mm Russian round? Its amazing.

Will you ever do an inside the hatch in the Parola tank museum

@TheChieftainsHatch

4 жыл бұрын

Not impossible, I'm sure I'll make it one day

@zacharyingham638

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks