Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M4A1 Sherman part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- In the second part of the "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch" episode about the M4A1 Sherman, Nicholas Moran takes a look inside and talks about a surprising omission that left the loaders feeling disappointed, and also shows a stabilizer that only a few could use. Enjoy!
NA forum thread:
forum.worldofta...
Asia:
forum.worldofta...
"the loudspeakers are optional" That just made my day. :D
'and paint ammunition' would have been the icing on the cake.
Off Topic - Loudspeakers...that reminds me of Paul, of Paul's Engine Machine Shop in Santa Cruz, CA. Paul liked to drive his Buick Toronado down to Mexico and give presents to
the kids of a village down there. The kids knew his Toronado and would swarm around his car when he was trying to find a parking spot, so he had a loudspeaker installed on the car
to tell the kid to get back. If you live in California, Paul was instrumental in pushing legislation to allow self-service gas stations.
"Always with the negative waves".
“Don’t hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning.”
I liked how he debunks a lot of the myths about Shermans.Its likely that in any tank that is hit,and you have crew trying to get out,there might be guys already injured,or dead,and if only 3 guys get out,you could assume that 2 guys were simply trapped,rather than dead.
The " oh bugger the tank is on fire " is still making me chuckle ! Keep up the good work The chieftain and team !
Now you know why the Soviets called their Lend-Lease Shermans "Cadillacs". The crew positions were so outrageously comfortable compared to the T-34, because the Armored Force understood one basic fact: a comfortable crew will fight better, for much longer. Compare the basic design philosophy of the Sherman to the Panther. The Panther is designed for maximum fighting performance, at the near total expense of crew comfort and ergonomics. The Sherman is designed for crew comfort and ergonomics at some expense of battlefield performance. The story about the mounting of the 3 inch gun is an example of this: While the gun offered a good performance upgrade, it was not incorporated into the design because it negatively effected crew efficiency.
+Chris Maillet
Thanks for the info! This is very interesting!
You did watch the Inside the Chieftain's Hatch episode about the Panther, did you not?? That thing is an ergonomic nightmare. It's all well and good to talk about a Tank as it appears in a friggin' video game, it's a whole other thing entirely to live in the damn thing for weeks on end.
Tigers were plenty comfortable, the only problem is they could only build about 1500 of the things. The manufacturing process was enormously complex.
In my opinion, his heavy criticism towards the crew comfort in the Panther came from a very obvious reason: "what he's used to". He's used to drive American tanks, which are known for being rather roomy, compared to other countries'. And while he isn't as redundantly harsh towards russian vehicles, simply because everybody knows how horribly dreadful those weaponized cans are, he probably was critic towards the Panther from the point of view of a tanker used to American tanks all his life.
German crews probably found their tanks adequate for what they had to do, just because that's what they had to work with and, frankly, they were pretty decent in that regard. As for the russians... Well, let's just say they had a lot less short people in the country after WWII.
I suspect it very well may be a case of not knowing any better. For a tanker coming out of a 38(t), StuG or Pz III and getting upgraded to a Panther, yes, it will be thought of as roomy. And for the gunner and driver in particular, I can't really find much to complain about in the 'roomy' category. But when you actually have the ability to compare the ergonomics of an American tank, to show what can be achieved if the designers consider it important enough, then failings in other vehicles are brought to light. Not a single round stored in Panther's turret? That could be a problem when shooting to the side.
As to Firefly, it can come down to a cost-benefit analysis and opinion. Every now and then, a British crewman might be thankful that he's in a Firefly, as he can punch a hole in a Panther with greater ease at short range, for example. On the other hand, that same British crewman might be cursing that he's in a Firefly if he finds that his opposition is an AT gun, or Panzerfaust infantry, which are more common threats. For that advantage in penetration, Firefly loses rate of fire, fire-on-the-move capability, ammunition capacity, a machinegun, long-range precision, and a man to help with maintenance. The British made the decision that this was worth it. The US did not agree. You can't claim that either side is wrong, I don't think, but similarly, you can't ignore the 'intangible' benefits that the non-Firefly tanks had, as they were very definite benefits in battle.
Holy crap, that's a quick dismount. Any faster and you'd need ejector seats on that thing.
now imagine the fact that the crew would be younger, not worried about damaging the tank, or hurting themselves. And the fact that there is a real fire. That'd probably cut the time by 25% maybe up to 50% due to the motivation
If crew managed to squeeze out of the hatches on the Comet and the T-34 in a big, big hurry, imagine what they could do on this thing. Shell goes in, crew pops out like (hopefully) five Jacks-in-a-box.
well 4 jacks-in-a-box because you know. Fuck the loader
Literally laughed out load at that! :)
Seems to me as well (I know this is an old comment, they all are, I'm late) that for all positions but the loader, the ability to reach in and pull out a disabled crew member is fairly simple as well. Two guys reach in, grab clothes at the shoulders and pull...
The reason why you were encouraged to hide wrappers and cans from your rations was due to Aerial reconnaissance. Tin cans and rappers glisten in the sun and it would be very easy to figure out where troops have been or where they're heading to
I have been watching a lot of these videos and love them all. This one in particular hits close to home. I have a great uncle that was in the 3rd Armored Division, 33rd Armored Regiment in WWII. He died going into Cologne. We know he was a tank driver but are not 100% sure what he drove. From what research we have been able to put together, we are about 80% sure, he drove a Sherman. Thank you for what you do. Getting an inside view of what my uncle controlled is something extraordinary.
Under LT Kellner's command?
@@peterson7082 I do not know off the top of my head.
I love you tank Jesus. Never stop making content.
Agreed. Let's all go buy some gold and premium vehicles in World of Tanks so he can keep making these great videos :)
The factual history is so much better than a game ;)
hi
Tank Jesus should do a face off with Gun Jesus from forgotten weapons !
Derek Frankovich Stop, I can only be so erect.
This has to be one of the best presentations you've done. Truly excellent.
"We need a loaders hatch!"
"Why, are loaders in short supply?"
Unfortunately I think this was true. Loaders can be relatively untrained, compared to commanders and gunners who need to be intimately familiar with their equipment and orders.
@@coaxill4059 bow gunner
you all prolly dont care at all but does someone know a method to log back into an instagram account??
I was stupid forgot the account password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
@Ares Vincent Instablaster ;)
@Enzo Nikolai Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
I see it takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.
Please keep doing Shermans, I love the caliber of these videos.
Adam Mann hello Adam. Didn't expect to see you here. Your videos are the best
Thanks very much. Chieftain is a very legit armor historian, so even though I don't play WoT these videos are fantastic. I even plan to somethign similar with a few near me at some point.
These 2 were very good, I thought it was because I am American.
Would be fun to see him squeeze into the turret of the Firefly since he keeps refering to how cramped it must be =)
Lavrentivs Yea good point. I would love to see that from inside too
I hear the early Sherman tank's escapability was rated 4 out of 5 stars by the crew!
Thanks for 2 great videos that are both educational and entertaining.
My eldest paternal uncle, Tommy, was a driver of an American M-4 Sherman in the ETO of WWII. Tommy was a good fit for the job considering that he stood 5'4" if you stretched him. He, like his middle brother, Phil, was extremely taciturn about their experiences in World War II. Phil had been a Seabee in the Pacific.
Your 2 videos have given me a bit more insight in to what Uncle Tommy went through.
Thank you, sir!
That was quick with part 2, I love it. :D
I was expecting to wait weeks like usual!
Maj. me thinks you Sir need a wee bit of Jamison's before singing... that alone made watching to the end very much worth while.
Still secretly looking at that Pz IV, mister Moran. ;)
He finally got around to doing an Inside The Hatch on the Pz IV.
1000 days later...
I really like your series. Accurate, informative & fun. Giving honest opinions on historical afvs. Pros & cons. Keep going. I love it.
Thank you for this video. This is the tank that my uncle drove in the army. They got hit by what thinks was a tiger. He lost a larg part of his right leg. But he got out ok. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate the tour of his tank. Thank you
Sad thing is. Those rations are probably still good for consumption
Skystalker no ration is good for consumption...
+Matt Thew well someone has a week gut.
There are people on youtube who actually consume such old rations.^^
ZoidFile yeah like steve 1989 MRE info
ykhm Steve1989 :D
Thank you for including your singing of a tank chanty at the end of the video.
Now we need more Irish folk songs in each episode
So from what I gather about the Sherman in this video, is that it was rather mediocre in term of armour and firepower, but all of the secondary systems were what made it so much more capable. It's relatively easy and comfortable to use in almost all aspects. Quick to engage, comfortable to drive, easy to aim, easy to load. It seems to be built purely around the mentioned idea that the 1st to shoot is the 1st to win, and absolutely everything about the whole tank makes getting that first and second shot easier.
my great grandfather served in shermans in the 40th btn royal tank regiment during the second world war never had the pleasure of meeting him. unfortunately he passed away in a car collision in the 80s but just watching this gave me a small view into his world. story my grandad passed down to me about his father is that he was say out of the hatch and had some shrapnel go through his forearm he was sent to get fixed up but some shrapnel was still lodged in his arm and my granddad said you could push it up and down his arm under the skin, another story he told was his commander stuck his headout and had it removed by a german shell direct hit to his commanders head, he told my granddad they pulled him down to then realise what happened.
Nice, as for the last clip. Don't give up your day job.
Great video. Gratifying to see a tank that did so much right.
Saw that you uploaded this,stopped everything I was doing instantly.
*titanic 1912* hay look a new episode of cheftons hach. Cool. Oh a icberg. Huh.
logan Random last name this is the Internet
Hahaha
Great video as always.
The entire portion you spent on the optics and stabilization system had me thinking: Shouldn't the advantage this provided be reflected in-game by the Sherman having one of the best aim-times of any of the mediums in tier 5? Seems odd that given the historical advantage the Sherman had in this regard that it would not be given the same.
The stabilization is implemented in-game: Not only do the different Shermans have generally superior gun handling compared to similar mediums, but last time I checked the tier 6 Shermans (E8, Jumbo and Firefly at least, dunno about premiums) have access to the vertical stabilizer-module. You otherwise don't get access to it 'till tier 8.
Not really referring to the tier 6 variants.
The M4A1 featured here would be closest to the tier 5 Sherman, and simply look at the other tier 5 mediums. With the top turret and top gun (76mm) the Sherman has a aim-time of 2.3 seconds, which is tied for worst among non-howitzer guns.
The better aim times are right at the 2 second mark, with the M7, Sherman III (with the 6 pdr), and G1R all being tied for that.
With what Chieftan stated about being "turret down" and being able to very quickly engage a target, the M4 should have a faster aim-time than its fellow tier 5's to reflect this (or at least be on par with the class leaders).
The Sherman already is not the most mobile, nor does it pack the most damaging gun, nor have the best pen (good all around however), but if it was able to snap shots off even better it'd be even better at working ridges which is its strong suit.
At the very least, the Tier 5 Sherman should get access to the V Stab upgrade.
Slayer Jesse That'd be pretty nice as well, and a fair way to implement what I'm referring to (faster aim time) since the Vstab makes your aiming circle 20% smaller.
It's called power creep.
Back when the Sherman came out in the game, it was one of the best tanks at tier 5 outside the stupidly imbalanced KV, and 2.3 aim time was excellent, and most tanks didn't have anything better.
Really, it still is one of the best tanks at tier 5, outside the silly, arcade 57mm machine-gun plink tanks.
Absolutely amazing. I really enjoyed the time and effort put into this series of videos.
Thank you, Nicholas for a great review of the great tank of WWII! I have a particular question about the subject that is wildly debated, and the one you already touched a few times in your previous tank reviews... That is a gun stabilization in Sherman tanks, but unlike firing from a concealed position(as you mentioned in this vid) how much accurate firing on the move this tank is? What speed, distance and battle situation would this stabilization would make a difference in a tank battle? I know that engineers of Panther tank kinda thought of implementing of "accurate" fire on the move by making a Panther suspension very smooth, or was it to fire effectively on distances over say 400 meter, was only to completely stop a tank, and even then its not a guaranty to hit it on a first shot? What does it takes(gun stabilization in vertical and horizontal planes, target ranging, some ballistic computer) to fire effectively on the move in a modern tank? And again what is the reasonable speed and distance for firing on the move for modern tank? I'm sure I'm not the only one who curious about it, and unfortunately can't find this info in a books on armored vehicles. Oh, BTW love the way you present a material, just keep 'em coming. Your loyal fan, BB.
The song at the end:
[Triggered in 1916]
The song is The Foggy Dew
@Celtic Resistance You misspelt foresters.
@@collinfreese2987 Sinead O'Connor and the Chieftans did a fabulous cover of it.
Is having an escape hatch in the floor a liability in the case of landmines? I would imagine that it makes a weak point in the armor.
A reasonable assumption, though I have not seen any official analysis on the subject
thaxs for the video also great singing voice
Your videos are among my favorite on RUclips. Really enjoyed this one, and I look forward to other variants of the M4 you are able to review. Thank you!!!
Thanks!
Optics is very nice! being able to find the target in "body hide" as a periscope is a target you'll seldom see in a tree line or towards the top of the hill
if u ever get a chance.... id love to see an episode on the Merkava!
Trex Dave No modern vehicles.
He's done some more modern vehicles. There's an older model of the Merkava that could fit the bill. It's more a question of being allowed to do a video on one, my guess.
@Alasdair Stewart lol. There'll always be an Ireland
Great Kelly's Heroes reference. Looking forward to watching you get into an improved M4!
Thumbed up for the singing at the end :)
This was posted on my birthday. Thanks for the birthday gift Chieftain. Love the Sherman tank, currently building the old Monogram 1/32 Calliope Sherman kit. I know there's a better Sherman tank model kit out there, but this one takes me back to being a kid again.
The "Snake anti-mine devise" was several lengths of bangalore torpedo that were pushed across a mine field by an M4 (in this case) and then a fuse was attached (the small hatch) and and the tank disconnected (also small hatch) and reversed to a safe distance and set off the torpedo. Boom, instant safe path across!
I really admire the way you do these things.
Kelly's heroes is great
Woof Woof
The Ghost of the Flying Dutchman "it's a mark 6 and we got it by the ass".
Knock with them Negative Waves, Moriarty !
only way to kill a tiger is to hit it in its ass
The Ghost of the Flying Dutchman we have special ammo , its filled with paint, and when it goes off it makes beautiful colors
Suggestion for the chieftain's hatch : It could be very interesting if you did a tour of the Toldi I or II. Sadly, the only remaining ones are in Kurbinka. But if you happen to get by it, I think it would be worth the detour :)
I enjoy this history and the way you present it! Thank you.
So glad for the video but especially d for the Kelly's Heroes reference, especially the loud speakers!
The foggy dew rebel song at the end was a nice touch :)
Thanks for helping to dispel the old " deathtrap" myth. In North Africa, the Pacific and most of the Italian campaigns, the Sherman was equal to or better than the enemy armour. It was in the bocage hedgerow country in Normandy that the Sherman got its poor reputation which wasn't fair. No tank ,even Panthers, would have faired well in the close quarter short range engagements . Once out of the hedgerow country, the Sherman's numbers, effective dual purpose gun, and reliability overran the Germans. Yes allied airpower helped of course.
In the Pacific the Japanese had nothing even remotely to counter Sherman's. They had good antitank guns and soliders willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy a Sherman though.
All tanks will burn when penetrated. Tigers and Panthers were not exceptions. The German commanders envied the over numbers of allied tanks, as they knew at the end of the day that was was counted. 100,000 Sherman's and T-34 vs 5000 Panthers, 1500 Tigers of all types, 8500 Pzkfw IV tell the story. And very few tankers on the Western front EVER encountered Tigers. They were very rare beasts and on any day only a handful would be in action over thousands of miles of front.
My favorite part of these videos is that you are wearing the appropriate footwear...I'm planing to go to Bovington in March, and will be bringing mine too!
Like the reference to Kelly’s Heroes! One of my favorite military movies.
Nick - terrific video. I hadn't ever read or heard about the balance qualities of the 75mm gun in the M34A1 mount. By the way, those screws around the inner gun shield - they were not for "upgrading" as much as they facilitated pulling the entire mount when the weapon or mount was damaged or needed heavy maintenance. There are several WW2 photos from rear areas showing Ordnance personnel pulling the gun mount with the aid of a wrecker truck. Then the gun could be replaced and the tank was put back into service. Those screws were part of the "Shermans are easy to repair" equation (along with a steady stream of replacement parts). Tank fans who focus on the guns and armor failto appreciate that the Germans were chronically short of spares for their tanks and new tanks were often canabilized to keep others running/fighting.
When I was a poor (well, I'm still 'poor') College student, in Phoenix, Az, i sold my 'Starfleet' and "Ro-Co" hand-painted models thru a Mall-shop north of town. I put out, at the shop Owner's behest, three Tank "battle Scenarios", along the lines of 3 Time-lines; WW-2, Korea-Nam-Era, and 'modern day'. My 'WW-2' set-up was a Pz-III, 2 Panthers, and a King-Tiger, Vs. a Comet, Churchill, and 2 Shermans, and a Hellcat. One of my 'Shermans' was modded to be a 'Firefly' (Ro-Co didn't make that, so a Scratch-built 'whatever' didn't kit out). I did the 'scratch-built' thing to make a FAV from a Kublewagen, because the Chenowith's were barely even in testing, yet. Anyhow, my Sherman-long-gun Vs. Panther set got the attention of two WW-2 vets, one Austrian/German, the other from New Mexico. They Argued, for about a half-hour, over both tanks, just outside the shop! The Austrian/German calling the Sherman's "Ronsons", the US Vet noting we could escape, but also noting that the 'Big-Gun' Shermans only feared King-Tigers, and JS-2's!! The two left, still bickering, but alongside each other. Two days later, my Shermans, a Panther, and King-Tiger, plus other things like some Jeeps, Opel trucks, etc, were marked as 'Sold'. No one took my Sheridan-inspired 4-x57mm Radar-controlled scratch-built AA gun system? Would've been in service by 1990, I swear! Oh well.. I wish those to Vets the best (I'm certain, by now, they're at Peace),; it was an enlightening discussion to over-hear! I hope they were happy with my attempts at painting the camo of the era.
10 seconds from “O Bugger” to boots on the ground! Stuff like this is invaluable historical research, especially now when most of the WWII vets are gone:(
Thank you Chieftain, another excellent pair of videos done!
I enjoy your tank reviews. Very interesting. :) Thank you.
Great videos, I have been watching you channel for a while now, very good please keep them coming.
26:04, I've got you clocked at around 9.25 seconds from the end of "oh bugger the tank is on fire" to your feet hitting the dirt.
I'm rather impressed. Wonder how fast you could do it if the tank was actually on fire?
I love the M4, thank you for doing this.
Great video, I am a fan of the Sherman (M4) and when I play World of Tanks it is my go to tank.
Oooh a K-ration! Someone call Steve1989 so he can eat it for us! It'll be nice™!
An amazing insight into the Sherman Tank - Very informative & once again very interesting !
I am here really to see what the Tiger Tank interior was like ! - Before I start bulding it ?
Obviously not a real one - But a 1/16 scale magazine build its all there collected over nearly 2 years and parts still in bags & packets - nows the time to build it ( C19 Detention) plenty of time on my hands !
Nice pair of episodes and thanks for posting!
Glad you did the M4 (as separate from your enjoyable, but technically not as descriptive, 360 with WoT eu opposite number, Mister Cutler, the Challenger) at long last.
I will be happy to see the M4(L) episode also, of course, the T23 turret being a much improved item of equipment and the GAA and GAZ being rated for higher power.
And . . . what? No canister? No APCR? No Shillelagh? No Anti-helicopter rounds?
A question for your technical folks, if you haven't addressed it in other work: whose radios were the best for range, clarity, endurance, and ease of replacement/repair?
What position/version of the Sherman used the M6 Parascope? I found a website selling them, and the description says they mounted to the Sherman, but not which one or what position.
As far as version, no clue, but I suspect the driver and A driver positions would use them, as well as the split-hatch versions. The gunner's fixed periscope may even be one.
Cinn357 All periscopes except the gunner's used the M6. The M4 gunnery periscope is similar, and a unity sight, but is different.
Cool, thanks.
Just wondering if there was any footage of the windshield in use that you reference at 20:30.
Your comments re: cutting the hole for a loader's hatch* have me curious about something. What piece of kit allowed soldiers in the field to work on face hardened (heat treated) armor? Stuff is made to resist. Also, it tends to shatter when pierced. I assume that battalion repair troops had adequate kit consisting of pressurized gas torches and some kind of cutter or stamp. Anyone conversant with the methods?
Any idea how long it would take them to modify all 45 tanks in he battalion to the new (i.e.: loader's door) standard?
*Navy man here.
They did indeed have oxy-acetalyne torches or the like, but as for how long it took to cut a hole and install the hatch kit, I honestly couldn't tell you.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for taking time to address my question.
You should try the Ropkey Armor Museum in Indiana. I'm pretty sure they have a few M4A3E8s on display.
Oh bugger! The chieftain is singing!
Excellent history information, plus that is my top favorite tier 5 in the game on the American tech tree.
Love the singing at the end there!
I am reading a book written by a British officer who commanded a platoon of Sherman tanks in WWII and he states that the gun recoil guard was removed by tank crews to create more room. Also, extra ammunition was stored on the floor.
That extra ammunition was the main reason why so many M4's burned up after being hit. The M4's fired a lot of HE rounds when advancing so their crews like to bring along extra rounds out of fear of running out of ammo during the heat of a battle.
The snake mine was a larger version of the infantry carried Bangalore. A few unused Churchill GCs were used to trial them in the UK.
The size of ammunition fascinated me. I was a gunner in the Navy working on a 76.2mm gun system. So basically the same diameter of shell. That’s where the similarity ends. Our round was easily twice the size. We had a nearly flat trajectory over the range of the gun.
I watch this video about once a month. I love the Sherman thank you chieftain!
Hey Chieftain. i'm curious to something. If all the tanks were real and in production around the time they were being drawn up. How many do you think would've change? Say a E-100 facing a E5 or something?
For those who haven't seen the segments yet, Major Nick also says nice things about Panzer III and Panzer IV crew positions.
It seems possible that everyone had trouble fitting big guns into tanks. Thus the inefficiencies of the Panther's 7.5cmKwK42/L70, and the need for bigger turrets on the Sherman/76 and T34/85, both derived from other projects, in order to mount larger guns.
Panzer IV, oddly enough, was perfect for upgunning (from the 7.5cmKwK40/L24 gun to the L48 "Lang"). The problems with front heaviness (later coming to roost on the JdPz IV and StuPz IV) might've been part of the reason its turret front armor was not increased to 80mm in the G and J. Overall weight concerns are there, too, but the StuPz was pretty weighty, so a better protected turret might not have been out of the question.
Love your visual essays, best I've ever seen. Keep up the good work.
Here's some things I would like to see in the future and yes, I still put out cookies and milk on Christmas Eve.
Starting with each tank I would like a quick run down on the weight/to power ratio, the pounds per square inch ground pressure, gun caliber and velocity and how many degrees the gun can be depressed. The latter would indicate how good a tank it would be in ambush mode. I've read that in the 60s American tanks had 10% depression of the gun while the Soviets had zero.
A very nice feature of your reviews is the livability of the tank; more of that please i.e. fumes from the guns etc. Could you mention the evolution for cleaning the main gun and/or general tank maintenance?
Also, what do you think is the minimum number for a tank crew? Some have said that only three crew is too few for the ongoing tasks need to maintain the vehicle.
Any plans for more Swedish vehicles? I'd love to see inside the hatch of a Strv 103
"Here's the driver's position. And, moving to the back of the tank, here's the other driver's position!"
Outstanding video and presentation
I demand 80mph Shermans in WOT :p
Really hope you can do a Panzer IV and/or III. Love to see how they compare to others. Also, are there pre-85 T-34's still around? Mostly, I'm interested to see how many changes were made.
Are the rounds you handle the real weight? I imagine there will not be propellant charge in them, thus they will be lighter. And would it make much of a difference in your appraisal of the tank?
Hmm. They are usually heavy enough, but it's all relative, I guess. I mean, I'm used to modern 70-80lb 120mm rounds, so even a full-weight 75mm would be 'light'.
Подскажите название саундтрека вначале этого видео, кто исполнитель, please
I have a question. In Fury when Fury is batting the Tiger tank, the gunner seems to be using manual traverse and after it get it and knocks out the hydraulics, he switches to powered traverse. Wouldn't you want to be using powered traverse during the battle because wouldn't it be faster than say manual traverse?
jermster17 Haven't seen the movie my only guess is that manual traverse is more precise. I imagine a gunner would use the powered traverse to quickly get the gun roughly in the direction of the target and then the manual traverse to aim accurately esp. at range.
max mustermann You can find the video of the Tiger and Fury battling on RUclips.
Fort Leonard wood ordnance school student here: in your opinion what was the best tank of ww2 in terms of survivability? You mentioned how the M4 was better than most but not best and I'm just curious.
Well, there are a couple of issues. If you're in a King Tiger, you're pretty much difficult to kill simply because you have so much armor. On the other hand, the M4 is really easy to get out of, and with wet stowage, rarely burned, but it was easier to poke holes in in the first place.
Some things that Mr. Moran did not mention. Mortality rate was about 25% if the Tank was knocked out. Compared with the T-34 which had about 85%. Compared with the T-34, the Sherman driver did not get a stiff neck after driving the tank a couple of miles, which would have impaired his driving capability. The T-34 used to be my favorite tank, but the Chieftain convinced me, that the Sherman was a superior tank and much more ergonomic, even though I find the T-34 more beautiful.
It actually changed depend on what took out the tank. The average was closer to 20% but gunfire was about 24% casualty rate.
I don't bother choosing 'favorites', because what's the point? I like them all for their good points, and their interesting points. The world doesn't care into what order I personally rank them, and it's almost certain to be wrong anyway, since it all depends on what the situation is, what factors you are counting, how you weigh your priorities.
That said the Sherman, T-34 and Pz IV all appeal to me, because they were the real war winners, plain workaday tanks that did their duties in every battlefield. They weren't the "best" by metrics others use (it seems that most people rate the "best" tanks as the ones that "kill other tanks the best", but that was really a secondary duty for most tank units, except the Germans who badly needed to kill lots of tanks). That and these are the tanks that people are always badmouthing and talking down about, based on whatever books they've read, their "stats", etc. The M4 may be the most appealing of the bunch, because it doesn't even get the credit that the T-34 gets. PLenty of people claim the T-34 was "the best tank of the war" without any real reason, almost no one says that about the M4. Yet the M4 was at least as good as the T-34, and was at the very worst still on of the top ten best tanks in the entire world in 1945. Almost all of the negative stuff people say about it is just because it was at a disadvantage against the Tigers and the Panther. As if tank-to-tank fighting was the only reason that tanks existed. The M4 was a wonderful mobile, cheap, easy to repair armored vehicle, good at fire support, infantry support, able to cover a lot of ground in a hurry. It was not meant for going out and fighting enemy tanks (although it was meant to be able to handle itself). I think the M4 was an excellent design overall, when all the factors are weighed. Even if it wasn't as good as some German tanks (which is only true if you are only counting tank-killing ability and nothing else), it's stupid to say that it was a "terrible" tank. Not being as good as the very best does not make something "terrible". Japanese and Italian tanks were terrible (and even that is a dubious statement; each should be viewed in context). Most nations didn't even HAVE tanks, or if they did they were relics from the 30s, 20s, or even WWI veterans. IN terms of numbers produced, the M4 was better than 95% of the tanks in the world, by number. And that is, again, assuming that the "best" tank is the one that kills other tanks the best. In fact, that was ALL the later German tanks did well, at the cost of effectiveness in all other roles. And while a tank-killing tank may be a big deal in a game where all you do is go around and blast other tanks, in real warfare there are other more important things to worry able. Also, in a video game the tank rarely breaks down in the middle of nowhere, and you don't need to spend hours and hours maintaining and repairing it keeping it running. These things matter in real warfare.
The T-34 did look impressive for being an utterly unreliable piece of crap that had major design and production flaws. They performed better after Stalin took US automotive engineers' advice to redesign some components, have trained machinists to manufacture critical parts, add shock absorbers and to have the engines and transmissions removed for inspection and repairs after ever 50 hours of run time. Stopping their tank armies to do the engine and transmission inspections/repairs caused delays that allowed the Germans to set up new defensive positions and bring up more supplies.
The M4 was supposed to run for 200 hours before the users would start experiencing engine problems yet the Army decided to swap out the engine and front drives after 150 hours of use for refurbished ones to ensure those stayed operational at all times. The mechanics with their forward repair stations monitored the condition of all the tanks so would have that done after 50 to 80 hours of use to tanks that were being abused by inexperienced drivers and experienced drivers that tinkered with the engine speed governor so they could go faster in all gears by running the engine at higher RPM's.
The T-34 is a mechanical marvel The sherman is a Cadillac. The T-34 may have a nicer look and sloped armor but if the crew can't use it well that's not very helpful is it? the one thing that bugs me is that in warthunder the T-34's 4 man crew make it less survivable.....
Great videos man. I love learning about this stuff.
So were there any issues with the loader's hatch? You didn't really discuss that aspect of the tank.
"oh bugger the tank is on fire, try doing that in a t-34.....wont work".......god i love this guy!
Drilling a hatch hole that big in the field is some feat indead.
Thanks for the great video. Keep up the good work!
Love the song, if you take requests can you do over the hills and far away?
the best part in this vid is 18:13 - 18:20
fantastic episode
Watching that spotlight move around is trippy.
A beautiful tank and thanks for the great information
Nice version of The Foggy Dew at the end
Why no 'tour' of a kPz iV? Even better a comparison of T34 vs M4?? vs kPz IV
Man he was not kidding when he said pistol grip for the spot light. It looks like it even has wood grip panels
Amazing video, amazing content. Keep up the good job
Would love to see you do one on the M-48.
Chris VanOsdol: He did the M47, which is essentially the same less some upgrades. Have you seen that one?
Lots of turret difference.
Anolaana Seranaar the hull is much different as well.
Great job with the overview.