Lindy (at bar): I love tanks Young Women (fiddling with hair): *seductively* Oh, I love tanks too Lindy: Ah, what's your favorite part about the Sherman barrel design?
Young woman (me): Nothing. Its gun was designed to fire explosive shells at low velocities and was instead being used to fire armour piercing rounds at only slightly higher velocities. Sherman tanks had to flank Tiger tanks to get a shot at the thinner rear armour plating. Usually this meant an average of five Sherman tanks being destroyed, because the Sherman's gun had to be within 600m and facing the Tiger's rear armour and the Tiger's gun was capable of destroying a Sherman tank in a single shot, frontal armour, 2000m.
...In other words the Sherman was a highly overrated tank and that blind faith cost soldiers their lives, because it was an utter failure of a design. It would even explode well before the crew had a chance to escape, if a shot hit the fuel tanks.
You know nothing, Green Whovian. Those shirts are specially modified by Lindybeige himself. He buys standard white shirts, then he snips the pointy ends off the collars, makes the collars round and sews them up. He then proceeds to dye the shirt beige, of course.
I love how he uses 0 script, and 0 jump cuts... unless he's showing you an image or something, his videos are 10 minutes of him speaking without any mistake
Additionally: As evidence of the superiority of the three-man turret, the soviets upgraded their turret on the T-34 from having two crew members to three later in the war.
Speaking of tank miniatures, I'm thinking of getting into plastic model kit both to relax and to learn more about whatever I'll be building. I'm on a disability pension so I cannot afford anything pricy and would prefer a smallish scale, high historical accuracy would be good but not if it raise the price too much as I figure inaccuracies are probably fixable in a plastic model kit. I would also prefer a company that sell on amazon. Any suggestions? I'd like to be able to build tanks from WW1 to the present days in the same scale.
SlyPearTree The firm Master Morgoth is referring to is Tamiya, they do indeed make very affordable and good models. The russian Zvezda is also a great option, very affordable, I've heard their models come with small defects more often than others but they are easily fixed during assembly (like crude casting marks etc). Good luck with the endeavor, I can assure you it's a lot of work
Greetings. Tank historian here. Without detracting from your main point as regards the advantages and disadvantages of the one-man turret, all of which I agree with, a couple of observations. With respect to the fall of France, neither the one-man-turret nor the 'penny packet' theory of tank deployment was really to blame. Instead you're looking at a much larger discussion as to the nature of the French doctrine with regards defensive operations, which revolved around telephone communications with senior staff far to the rear, and a decision cycle which was well behind that necessary. If you get a chance, Julian Thompson's recent book on Dunkirk focuses primarily on the ground operations which set the stage for the evacuation. (Granted, primarily from the British POV, but it does a good description of the problem). It is worth noting that the Somuas were not, however, penny-packeted out. They were placed in the Division Legere Mechaniques, and their doctrine for use was quite modern. The problem was that the DLM doctrine in practice did not really match the reality on the ground as it required a set of circumstances which the rest of the Army could not provide. Further, it is worth noting Zaloga's opinion on my Think Tank panel. (Search for "Operation Think Tank Part 2 on RUclips, I don't think I can hyperlink here). The vehicles were simply not fit for service, too new, unknown, and unreliable to be used correctly. Finally, with regards to your question at the end, I believe you would find the development history of the S-Tank to be of interest. This was a modern, post-war tank capable of being operated by a single person. However, to reduce the workload, they added a second, allowing the commander to perform solely the typical commander roles of spotting, directing, communicating etc. However, this was still deemed insufficient. It was decided, after investigation, that it was still necessary to add a third person to the vehicle. His primary function in combat was just manning the radio, alleviating that one aspect from the commander which was still considered to be something worthwhile to reduce his workload. He couldn't even contribute to spotting, since he faced backwards. A bonus feature was the fact that they figured that the dynamic of the third man could prevent the other two folks from killing each other before the enemy did. The volume he took up was actually very little, given the design of the tank, so a lot of the arguments on size/weight don't really enter play. So, in a thorough post-war analysis, greater crew members to spread the workload purely on its own merits was considered worthwhile.
"Crawling Dragon". Idk why, but for me it sounds like a term more likely used by East Asians (like Chinese or Japanese) rather than Vikings/scandinavians.
@Jim lastname I mean, I'd say that the stories of the Volsungs would explain why that comment is even more accurate: even a dragon's got a weak point. And I'd say that would be exactly what they might've thought, and probably exactly why the poets would pick that word.
@Jim lastname I mean, I'm literally looking at another video in the suggestions, titled, "fire-arrows!" But a spear is a big arrow that can be manually guided by some particularly crazy, glory-hungry viking. vision slits would be weak points, and infrared and cameras would leave them blind. However, I'd say it wasn't a tenth century Viking that created the name. It was someone who had probably both read more books, and had more firepower.
The hatches on tanks were actually very rarely shut. At least the TC's. Mostly for observation's sake. Also for the "oh my god, the tank is on fire" factor.
This was especially true of the Panther where the TC's hatch doesn't simply swing close but has to opened and closed via a hand crank. Definitely a bad thing in those "oh my God, the tank is on fire" situations.
K den Funny fact the Germans never used blitzkrieg it was just used by the allies and a lot of the high ranking officers were surprised when the heard the allies were calling their tactics blitzkrieg etc more or less , what we call blitzkrieg was normal German tactics just updated to use tanks and aircraft .
+cpiippi dpipipip He's saying that the word "blitzkrieg" was never used by the Germans in reference to the tactics used in Poland, France and Russia, it was a term coined by Allied commanders, despite the fact that the tactics used were really just an evolution of the ones used towards the end of World War One.
No wonder their confusion though it wasn't their fault. In actual fact one of the treads broke and that was the real reason they were driving around, around, around and around in a tight circle.
There's another aspect to parachuting in, in uniform. Parachuting is one of the situations where you are most likely to be captured. If you are captured in uniform you are an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war. This lent you a number of protections from being persecuted under the Geneva conventions. If you parachuted in as a civilian you could be tried and executed as a spy.
The germans did not care for conventions or treaties. I mean they burn villages and had executions en masse on the streets. Not to mention that they illegally broke a the treaty of Versailles.
Master Morgoth I have a feeling the same does not apply for spies. Either way if you were a Spy, if they found out: Wheter you were wearing military clothes or not is not going to make a differance.
Wrong. The Germans obeyed everything outlined in the Geneva convention when fighting against fellow signatories of the Geneva Convention. The Soviet Union did not sign and committed numerous atrocities in Poland both times they invaded. The Soviets often executed prisoners. The Nazis responded in kind.
reason why one-man turret is bad: 1.too much jobs being pressured on commander due to taking roles of gunner and loader 2.little time being used for commanding the tank properly 3.cramped space causes poor ergonomics effect:VERY bad tank crew performance.
He did admit the French tanks were immune to german anti-tank guns but didn't mention the English longbow which could pierce the flimsy steel with ease
teh french tanks can eassily be destored viv armour periceing tins of baked beans edit: teh jerrys hacked my compooter end made me double poost comments
Spandau-fired pommels? Are you crazy? When you try to take over a country, most people would likethere to be a country left by the time you're done, not a cratered wasteland with some burned down ruins! What about the french wineyards eh?
Another reason why the Blitzkrieg was so efficient and quick was that almost every single German tank had a radio and dedicated radio operator, so quick communication with other armed forces, artillery and infantry was a lot better than with the French tanks, who had (I believe) one radio per tank group.
Yeah... Not sure about the French, but Soviets early on were using signal flags for communication. Waving nice coloured flags around in the heat of battle is not a particularly great way of communicating.
Especially if you see the division of tanks, one with flags to communicate nicely to you that if you shoot him, his team will be totally clueless of what is happening.
MajkaSrajka yeah that is about as tactically sound as British and French officers in Napoleon area up to WW1 marching up and down the front lines in brightly coloured clothing showing off their importance...to enemy sharpshooters
The S35 and Char B1bis all had radios and radio operators as standard equipment. However, the radio was only capable of transmitting Morse code so it was not as tactically useful as the voice radios used by the British and Germans.
Pffft, I'm a woman and I love tanks. Very interesting videos too... and a very curious arrangement of pictures on the wall behind you. A ton of nature and... is that Jeor Mormont?
It's ok sweetheart we will all give you the attention you so clearly need. WOMAN ON THE INTERNET OVER HERE, EVERYONE! SHE'S INTERESTED IN SOMETHING AND NEEDS ATTENTION!
mostly because they spent the better half of the last 500 years killing eachother in small wars think nine years war 1678-1687, spanish war of succesion 1701-1714, as well as the French and indian wars 1754-1763. these are just a few but the gist of it is basically they were both powerful countries with competing interests who sat right next to each other someone's gonna start something and that turned into generational hatred for each other
+Mika AaltoI would still consider that a compliment, They did something right at least, its not the tank designer's fault that the people commanding them failed. They lost because of poor strategic choices not poor tank design.. which is a compliment to their tank making capacities at least.
The Germans at the beginning of the war also took it a step further to a degree. They started the war off with radios in all tanks so they could all talk to one another, in addition, they used those throat radios, instead of having to shout over noise into a speaker you just had to talk.
Nope. Only the group leader had a transceiver. The subordinate tanks in the squad [3 of them, iirc: 4 tanks total in a squad] only had receivers so they could take orders but they had to jump out & run over to bang on the leader's hull if they wanted to converse. It was still a GIANT leap over what anybody else had at the time, and greatly affected the USA's efforts at tank design which came along afterwards.
What I find fascinating is that Lloyd illustrates this issue better than even the Chieftain. And the Chieftain was inside the flipping turret when explaining it. This is brilliant.
+Lindybeige It was a bit of a knob joke but you're alright. It was still funny because it was silly enough to let you know it's just for a laugh. I just wish there weren't so many people in the comment section saying such things as "lolololol iz funy cuz iz tru!"
Hey now, I'm a (straight) lady who is interested in tanks! My father was in the 2nd armored division and I can recite all of Patton's famous May 31, 1944 speech from memory. I probably don't know as much as a lot of people do, but I do love learning about them!
it seems to me that with some modern technology a single man turret or even a single man tank could work to some extent. modern tech as in cameras and communication integrated into a semi virtual battle field so the operator wont need to look around for the most part. this requires a high level of trust in sensitive technology. also auto loading mechanisms in the case of a true single man tank, also put the tank on legs instead of tracks and dress it up in samurai style armor!
Not the same tech. The autoloader is trivial - I mean the Russians have already done it, but for the two guys, I'm sure it's easier to automate the aiming and shooting part than the decision if that thing over there is a target (i.e. an enemy vehicle we have some hope actually harming with our armament) in the first place. Not to mention all the other stuff the commander must do.
I was thinking of the same thing... autoloader, cameras, rangefinders, integrated information sistem for battlefield awareness... but you could also deploy your own small drones for a much, much better local recon then you could achieve by sticking your neck out a hatch to take a look with a pair of binoculars!
The one man turret is inferior because of the fact the gun needs loaded and sighted and spotted. Even if the spotter and sighter are the same person you need loaders. Russian T-55 autoloaders were inferior because the required resighting after each load. Armata has a zero man turret. The problem with small turrets is inferior crew comfort. French tanks lacked radios, which is why they performed tactically worse than German tanks. Same is true of Russian tanks in early WWII.
"For example the M1 Abrams was designed to protect the crew from cook-off, which is accomplished by storing the main gun ammunition in a compartment at the rear of the turret. The compartment is separated from the crew by a power-operated armored door, which is only opened for a couple of seconds each time the loader needs to grab another round. The top of the compartment has special roof panels that are armored against outside attack but are much less resistant to pressure from inside, so that if the compartment is penetrated by enemy fire the panels will vent the explosion generated by the ammunition while protecting the crew. Other western designs from the later Cold War era to the present with manual loading have similar protective features. In contrast, the Soviet tanks of the Cold War which employ autoloaders store the ammunition on a carousel in the middle of the crew compartment, where any penetration by enemy fire is likely to incinerate the crew and blow the turret right off the top of the tank (known as the jack-in-the-box effect).[6]" From Wikipedia. Seriously, if autoloaders were a good idea the Israelis would use them. They captured a bunch of soviet tanks back in the six day war, and did not adapt autoloaders to their other tanks. www.quora.com/If-crew-protection-is-so-important-to-the-Israeli-Army-why-doesnt-the-Merkava-IV-use-an-autoloader Autoloaders only make sense if you are Russian and regard crew as expendable. www.quora.com/In-a-modern-tank-is-the-auto-loader-better-than-having-a-human-loader-and-a-crew-of-four-rather-than-three-What-advantages-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army Autoloaders sound good in theory but in practice: no.
First- I was joking, as T-72 and T-64 does not have a one man turret... the only one that is placed on the hull is the driver, and both commander and gunner stay on the turret Second- Six day wars? the most advanced tank that fought against the IDF were T-62, as T-64 were never exported during the could war, and the T-72 was developed only after the 70s Third- ammo just explode because of the way their propellant are made, so a WW2, AP ammo, even if less effective, would not explode on the autoloader, in other hand APCs use autolader because it make the the firing rate faster, as Arty and naval cannons Forth- Actually the Russian tanks that were made before the first Chechen had low amount of armor, and most of then did not had ERA, The new T-90, not only have the best ERA, they also have better armor and safe systems, like not all ammo being on the auto loader; The T-95 and Black Eagle project were projected to have a Western-like system to store the ammo that you see in modern tanks, not that, but the Lerec, the K2 Tank(the most technological advanced and expensive tank in use) use autoloaders, which also save weight to the tank, making then a lot cheap Last- a New trending, no man turrets, as the T-14 armata can prove, as unlike you sad, Russia cares about their crew, they did not only during WW2 Auto loaders have both downsides and upsides, one downside is that when you are removing the gunner you are removing 2 eyes and a mount, that can be used for situational awareness and communication, or the fact that they cannot change the ammo as fast as a human loader, which can also get a faster firing rate for a short period of time... The IDF, and other nations on the world that don't use autoloader, use because of this, not because of Crew safety, which was a design flaw from the soviets (as was their round, but weak turrets and hull from tanks before the T-72B, and T-80U) EDIT just to reinforce the point about URSS, the URSS was a project w/ a giant design flaw, what would you expect about the russian back then
The links I gave provide compelling reasons not to use autoloaders. Though by all means, go right ahead, just don't be surprised if they cost your gunner an arm and a leg )
First, I will ask you a Question: If the Autoloader is that useless, why: The French, The North Korean, The Chinese, And the Russian use that in their tank design, even after most of the T-72 exploding? (answer is below) did u even read my response? I sad that, the two reasons that you gave, about the six day wars and Russia not caring about their crew are wrong, as there was no T-64 or T-72 in the six day war, instead the less numerical, but most advanced tank in the Syrian side was the T-62... After that, I told you that the Autoloader killing a lot of T-72 users was a soviet design flaw, as they had low armor amount, and any shot would penetrate the turret and ignite their ammo, go other way around, like the Korean, Chinese and French, making a Strong Western turret, and you don't have this problem, making a proper autoloader w/ ammo in a Safe place, as the T-95 project,same thing, make a turret w/ no man Crew as the T-14 Armata,but instead put then in a giant armor box, even better Then I told you the main downside of the Autoloader, which is: its a autoloader, so it cannot have a fast fire and a quick change of ammo, and because you don't have the gunner, the radio go for the Tank commander.
Well, the Panzer I had a one man turret with two MG 13s which had a combined rate of fire equal to a MG-42. The Panzer I also sucked as a combat tank, so, screw your unoriginal meme.
Whatever the British tanks were that had the kettle for making tea, the French responded by installing wood ovens for making pastries. Even if they survived the smoke inhalation and heat, after eating all those pastries and rolls they wouldn't be able to fit out of the exit.
Almost all UK tanks have tea making facilities as do most of the wheeled and tracked APC/AFV and scout vehicles. I say most as I do not know of any that do not have them but do not know the specifics of all of the vehicles.
When the swedish army accquired the leopard 2 (strv 122) they had to significantly reengineer the electric system for it to handle the kettle warmer that had been specifically requested since they had it ,and apparently liked it quite a lot, in the centurion
Danny Brown When did this happen! I go away for a few decades and people are already acting up I hope my good friend chairman Mao can sort this mess out.
I don't know if it's just me but Lindy is my version of Bob Ross, I could just listen to his videos for hours learning about this type of stuff. It's so fun and interesting.
UGH you're so right on the first part. I'm the only girl I know that thinks tanks are awesome, artillery is beautiful, and guns are, of course, to be used carefully, but also dreadfully fun. Like, really, what girl doesn't want a 155mm howlitzer, or an M1A1 Abrams for Christmas? I haven't had time to really focus on specifications of individual tanks. I'm more interested in warships myself. My personal favorite tank is the German Tiger Ausf. B. Not the best tank in the world, but I just like it.
Lillian Winter I'll have to introduce you to my girlfriend who can walk through an armor museum and discuss all the tanks down the the serial numbers on their engine parts. You two can talk tanks to your hearts content.
@Jim lastname it's an expression on french forum when somebody tell you something unbelievable i don't know if in english it"s work but the translation is " source of information : believe me"
The french actually had some of the best tanks early in WWII and arguably in WWI. French tank design implemented a large number of features that became either standard, or set them ahead by quality and ease of manufacture. Indeed, the french military preformed admirably, however their real defeat came from the method of how they used their tanks. The Germans in the blitzkrieg actually had difficulty defeating the renowned Char B1 tanks. These tanks were tough, and were fairly advanced and could serve well into the mid war. As shown in the video it was how the tanks were deployed that caused them to be seen as ineffective. The Germans took control of many of the french tanks and used them while they brought their tanks up to a similar standard.
actually it's one of the fastest in the world and the german are wondering about working with nexter to make the best tank in the world : a mix between the leclerc and the leopard. and you're right the white flag was the flag of monarchy who saw the victory of the 100years war and the american revolution (remember yorktown). here you go mr i talk shit about people without knowing anything about them.
"The one-man turret was a mistake", it was not when it was designed in 1917 for the first time... The problem is French doctrine didn't change much during the interwar period. It worked really well in 1918 so why change it huh ? Even so peoples like De Gaulle tried hard to make them change tank doctrine, the higher-ups were stubbornly reluctant to change because " I'm older than you so i know better than you, so shut up ! " In the end when they finally decided to change their mind it was too late.... Few people know that there was a new variant of the Somua in production, the S-40, equipped with a two-man turret. There was also a three-man turret tank already produced before the war, the AMC 35, and a new tank was in development, the G1 ; it would have been similar to a Sherman or a T-34. When you look it up, you realize France had good technologie and designs (they build a fighter plane that could exceed 700 km/h in 1940 !), but the ones in charge were old stubborn idiots who utterly screwed it up.
"Sir! I can't see the tank!" "Fine, I'll hop out and see where it is." *Opens the top hatch, looks out, and comes back down* "So? Where is it?" "Driver! Full reverse!" "Sir?" "IT'S RIGHT BLOODY IN FRONT OF US!" "You know, I was wondering why I couldn't lower the cannon... we're right fucked aren't we?" [*Insert opera music for comedic effect here*]
SirMan McDude you should be in cinema business ,seriously you should be writing scenarios ,if you're still in school (like me) and supposedly have a lot of free time (like me) then give it a shot ,write a scenario of a film and to make it easier take it from a book ,and try sending it to a director or a movie company or whoever you should send it to.
Random thought about more advantages of the 3 man turret: When you were describing the situation of the 1 man turret in operation, it jumped to mind that the tank commander is in a giant metal protective shell, but he keeps needing to stick his soft squishy head out to look at stuff. He's pretty exposed out there. In the 3 man turret, this isn't a huge issue, as the loader and gunner are both safe in the tank, the loader can probably also fill in to look about if he needs to, and sure things will be slower, but they'll still work just fine. But If the one man turret gets shot by something or other while his head is sticking out, the entire tank is rendered almost completely useless.
Lindybeige is the ultimate man. He's nerdy enough to know everything you'd ever need to know, but fun enough to still love tanks because they make things go "boom".
3:09 Most American tanks in 1939 were domestic built. They were just hopeless. eg the M2 medium, and the M2 Light and the M1 combat car (which was a tank, but was given a different name as it was owned by the US Cavalry and the government had not given them permission to develop tanks, so they called it a "combat car"). All made in America, but all hopelessly outclassed by their european counterparts.
yes, we made shit tank after shit tank after shit tank until we reached the Sherman were we struck absolute gold. -very good gun, -very good armor, -very good mobility, -very good Ergonomics, -very good survivability -very good Industrial wise just very good all round the board with the Gen 1.0 Cast Homogeneous M4A1(75) VVSS in 1942 gradually improving on everything each year until it's greatest from Gen 2.0 Rolled Homogeneous M4A3(76)w HVSS in 1945 Giving the sherman unparalleled flexibility and arguably the best all round tank of the entire war. (and no it was a not a death trap, Belton coopers book is fill of shit). M1918 Ford 3-ton: i wonder if we could design a tracked vehicle like those European's and glue a gun on it, It was fucking joke. M1927 T1E1 Cunning ham: be built our own FT-17 Renault now...10 years too late. M1933 Christee: an innovative design with great suspension for fast speed travel, too bad we never adopted this tank instead Christee sold it to the Russians to become the BT series and then the T-34 (yes this was the birth of Russian tanks). M1 Cavalry Combat car: First US tank to adopt the british Horstman like suspension (the VVSS) and the Drivetrain Testbed chassis for later light tanks such as the M3 and M5 Stuart. (also first tank to use the Innovative Rubber and steel track design which almost every millitary tracked vehicle uses today offering more grip than regular steel tracks.) Aside from those key innovations it's primary gun was an m2 browning with an M1919 side arm....Now ik the M2 Browning is the best Heavy machine gun in the world but compared to 37mm and 50mm guns on the PZ III it ain't got shit. M2A1 Light tank: not that much of an improvement really over the M1 Cavalry combat car just an improved turret and 2 fixed m1919s on the sides for the front hull. M2A2 Light tank: What the actual fuck were they thinking!!!, so the M2 and M1919 are too cramped in the same turret so what do we do!, let's create not 1 but 2 turrets and put the M2 browning in one and the M1919 in the other like some 2 headed Radioactive fetus...BRILLIANT FUCKING IDEA!!!! M2A4 Light tank: Nowwww where talking, holy shit we've actually got a tank now, the Precursor to the M3 stuart with it's larger upgraded SINGLE turret and 37mm gun, this was a pretty nimble little killing machine but it's still a tiddly little thing in comparison to the PZ.III at the time. M2 Medium: Obsolete before the paint was dry but it's the birth of Drivetrain Testbed chassis for our star the M4 Sherman. It's turret and gun is exactly the same as the light tank and it had 4 m1919 machine guns in rotating sponson turrets 2 at the front hull and 2 at the rear...........what were we thinking. M3 Lee: you know this could have been a very good tank for m1941, it had a very good gun, very good mobility and decent armor but Picasso must have snuck into the design studio over night and added his artistic touch to it's design because it ended up looking like Steel wedding cake. despite it's ugly appearance it's actually very under rated. It was a fan favorite in the Desert and In my honest opinion the second or 3rd best all round tank of 1941. M4 Sherman: AHHHH the golden star herself, after the 9 failures that came before we finally struck a very good highly flexible tank to be considered for it's time one of the best if not THE best.
NedYarbNexus The Lee and Grant were not shit either. Just had an awkward turret layout. But the British loved them in North Africa. They we're reliable and the 75mm was fine against Panzer II, III and IVs.
@@jaaksootak318 What's worse is that I had a LIFE magazine from 1939 in which these tanks were featured in a long, beautifully photographed article in which you were informed that these machines were, in effect, the greatest things since sliced bread, admired by all foreign armies, etc, etc. I think it had been written in conjunction with some big Army training maneuvers being held at the time. Even worse, somewhere on the web you can find uploaded pages from POPULAR MECHANICS or POPULAR SCIENCE,or some similar publication, printed a year or so before Pearl Harbor, in which the writer asserts the supposed inferiority of the Japanese military aviation, informing the trusting reader that the Japanese are only equipped with rickety, obsolete biplanes, that their pilots can't fly very well and that they all have poor eyesight. No proof is given for any of this nonsense, except for quotes from unnamed "experts". Reading stuff like this, knowing what was really going to happen, is like watching blindfolded people walking with great confidence towards the edge of a cliff. Luckily we had a huge industrial base and two big oceans, but still...As they used to say, "God looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America.
the French had armoured divisions and many knew how to use them. unfortunately the higher ups didn't know how to use them. Gamelin stopped an attack that would have separated most of the German armour from its infantry. If that attack had succeeded that would have been the end of the German offensive.
+tajrei99 Nope, it wouldn't have been the end. The Germans had air superiority, a motorized infrastructure, coordination, superior preparation, superior strategy and they were anxious to beat the French. The French were still using horses for transport, their forces weren't properly supplied, their generals still had a WWI mentality, they didn't expect a blitzkrieg, they thought it would be all over in a matter of months. They didn't even want to fight another war against Germany... That attack would've alerted the Germans of a large concentration of French armor... Sure, perhaps those tanks would've hindered the German advance a bit, but the Germans would've reacted by sending in stuka bombers, like they did in countless occasions during WW2. Without air support, those French tanks were sitting ducks for the stukas.
Stukas were not that effective against tanks during the war. They needed a direct hit for armored targets which was difficult in practice. Kill reports were greatly overstated during the war because they would often count near hits as kills while the targets were often still left operational. The scale of ineffectiveness was not fully realized until after the war. They were more effective against unarmored targets or large slow armored targets such as ships. Large numbers of Somua S35 would have been difficult to counter at the time with air power. If more S35 had been produced and they had been deployed more effectively they could have potentially stalled the German attack.
What a terrible main pun. It made me feel quite depressed. I shell have to report you if you don't backtrack. Steel, I'll admit it made HE laugh AP the word play a little. But I'll need to knock back some beers before I feel elevated again.
I like tanks :( Admittedly more modern tanks than WW2 tanks, but its fun to see where tanks began and the huge doctrine changes of the pre-WW2 era converging to the MBT modern era in all nations. Also I'm fairly certain the 1 man turret has gone up against the 3 man turret in the modern era at least, though that includes modern technology which makes it less fair. That said there could be a very strong case for the 1 man turret with the aid of modern technology. Hull down you can make a turret so small that it can barely be seen at range along with modern periscopes and devices fitting within the space. Now for some reason the military is determined to keep using manual loading making at least 1 man needed but I can see the commander sitting in the hull with the gunner as being viable, even if he would have to go a long way to have a look around the real world. But in WW2 a full 3 man turret was undoubtably better by a long way. For a tank that large I can't see why you wouldn't want to go that route. Its only 2 men, its not like you can remove the space for a bulky engine etc too. At the least just copy the Russians and make it so cramped they can't work properly, its still better than a commander/gunner/loader hybrid.
But you can always compensate by picking smaller people for your crew, as did the Russians during WW2, and not only limited that period; for example I heard that you can't be taller than 180-183 cm if you want to be a T 72/80 commander/gunner. Different crew roles have different height limits.
If you are interested in this type of tank design have a look at the Russian T-14 (crew less turret) or the Stridsvagn (turret less main battle tank). All in all I think it is safe to assume that the current configuration of the MBT is due for a rethink. The M1 Abrams design is 45 years old now!!
Lloyd, you mentioned during your description of The Jedburghs, who'd parachuted into France to help organize the Free French Resistance in uniform, was meant as a morale booster. However, probably the main reason, was that they couldn't be shot as spies, because they were fighting in uniform. Don't you think? However, this was absolutely excellent, and was easy to absorb because of your very friendly, and comical method of delivery. Good job!
I'm interested in tanks in the sense that I think they are cool, and I'm watching this video. I know nothing about the finer points of a Sherman though. Am I a pretender like one of you straw-women?
I'm pretty sure he was talking in general. I bet if there was a survey done on who likes tanks, women would be in the vast majority. I don't know why this is, but it appears to be the case.
QuantumBullet yes, france gouvernement is flawed in multiple ways, are we gonna talk about great britain and amercan's government?(there are a lot of exemples in the first world)
I love tanks! The way they can holds things; gas, liquid, or solid your choice. There are also all sort of ways to measure the level of tanks. My favorite is capacitive. Basically, you treat the outside of the tank as one plate of a capacitor and then stick a probe into the stored material and treat the probe as the other plate and then you measure how much capacitance the tank as a hole has. Since the capacitance of a particular capacitor is effected by properties of the dielectric (the stuff between the plates) the capacitance of the tank will vary with how full the tank is. oh... you meant the military fighting vehicle called a "tank"... those aren't real tanks, as any true tank enthusiast will know... I don't know anything about them. tanks are cool with their tracks and guns.
GildedBear IIRC, during WW1, while the British "Landship Commitee" were developing landships, they codenamed it after how it looked ,water "tank", to prevent information about "landships" from leaking.
The advertising on your channel is the least obtrusive of all the ones I watch. Taking a few moments to speak yourself about them not only lets us know you are supporting the product/service, but it's less jarring than being slammed with a family ad for Netflix in the middle of a steamy chat about tanks. Great video, I have to admit I was still under the assumption that it was a technological advantage, interesting to learn that it was more tactical.
I’ve heard a reason the French favored one-man turrets was exactly to keep crew numbers per tank down so that they could field more tanks with their smaller population. France has (and had) a smaller population than Germany and it would also grow more slowly as a result, so they wanted to leverage what numbers they had as well as they could. It didn’t work out that well, since 3 man turrets are just way better. The French still today make use of auto-loader guns which allow them to eliminate the role of dedicated loader, allowing them to have 4 man tanks.
That's true. Added to the fact that, due to WW1, french population pyramid in the 30's was looking like a scary hourglass. France couldn't simply afford to put 5 crew members in each tank if they wanted to keep the total amount of tanks on par with Germany. History told us that quantity almost always wins over quality. But okay, that time it didn't go as smoothly as expected... With hindsight, we know one-man turrets on tanks were a fail. But when put back into context and if we consider the multiple factors, that was simply the sole option France could reasonably pick.
do more videos on tanks please - this is soo amazing. Oh and a question: How dangerous was the position of the commander in a battle being somewhat in the open ontop of the tank, observing the enemies and so on - as far as I understood it was very advantageous having the head out of the tank for better view but this must be much more dangerous than being inside the turret (obviously) - but how dangerous exactly was it and are there records of commanders speaking of how they handled this in combat?
I don't have figures to hand, but it was dangerous, but not as dangerous as staying buttoned up and mostly blind. Very often, commanders were injured when not in their tank at all.
Even today with modern optical systems and 360 cameras and accurate range-finders the tank commanders will often ride on top until they are getting close to likely combat. The only real threat to them is snipers.
I can help a bit. After the war, Captains Wright and Harkness of the Royal Army Medical Corps did an assessment of casualties. They concluded that some 40% of all casualties occurred in the area of the head which would be protected by the helmet, had the British tankers worn them, add to that those head injuries which would not have been stopped by a helmet. (eg shot in the face). Although certainly a number of head injuries would have been received even if the crewman were in the vehicle (eg spalling to the head), I think the figure indicates that there is a definite increase in TC/Loader risk. Further, it was concluded that about half of all casualties occurred outside the tank. Israeli experience in the Arab-Israeli wars correlated with this, they had a very high attrition rate of commanders. It should be considered, however, that the Russians, who are in no way stupid, have a doctrine which has their crewmen button up, so in their opinion, staying open is more dangerous. I'm an American tanker, so I tend, by experience, to prefer the head-out method, but I'm not going to say it's the only way to skin the cat.
I had a friend who was an American volunteer for the IDF during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He remembered the very sobering experience of arriving at the Egyptian front and seeing a whole park of shot-up Israeli tanks having blood scrubbed off the turrets while a tanker went around his infantry unit asking for volunteers to replace tank crews. 1973 was a very bad year to be an IDF tanker.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal. BattleMechs are in my opinion the sexiest mechs there is. I especially like the Awesome.
Considering half the fun of BattleMechs revolves around geeking out over rigging one's machine/army, I'd say this absolutely counts. Also, it has the added benefit of making girls that are into it mui caliente!
I didn't see it as a joke. And he didn't say they didn't know incredibly specific things, he *asked* about those, and it gave away that they knew barely the basics. Whether you consider it being into it, the point stays that women are much less committed to the interest, if they pay any at all. And for Fraxxxi: It's not a rule, it's a trend. There is no rule that -demographic X- can't be into -hobby Y-
The French actually did what you said, throw a whole tank unit into the enemy and push them back. That battle was Sedan. The French threw like 4-10 Char B1 into the fray against Guderian's 30-50 Panzers. When the Germans started firing, they immediately got shocked that the Char B1 managed to bounce off shot after shot of everything they had from the Panzer IV's HEAT ammo to the Panzer III's AP shells. Even the 50mm AT guns they were using at that time had issues and it nearly "steamrolled" (They were going at such a slow pace that even an old man walking can walk faster than that but because they're in a whole column and everything the German had bounced, it was fearful) the Guderian back to where he came from across the Meuse if not for the pesky German artillery and the Stukas.
I love your videos and one of the main reasons is your "digressions". They add the peripheral information which tends to expand and deepen the basic premise. LINDYBEIGE!!!!
Bumbling Brit I have a feeling that we'll see versions of the Armata come out that have the crew in the turret again as well. Video cameras create very limited view, and the commander not in the top also drastically limits visibility in a combat scenario because they're unable to turn out and look out. I'm not saying its guaranteed, I'm just saying it seems likely.
I love tanks but I have kinda shifted towards warships now. Not that I grew bored of them, I just feel like I know enough facts about them and found these new big manly toys I wanna learn more about. With that said, have you any interest in making one about warships? If not then you can always do more videos about tanks, or even warplanes! :D
After man o wars things picked up pace quite quickly Well first you had Steam Man O wars like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Napol%C3%A9on_(1850) Then early Ironclads such as CSS Virginia & USS Monitor Then early Turret ships & Late Iornclads Then Pre Dreadnought Battleships 4 Big guns 18 or so smaller fast firing guns. Then Dreadnoughts USS Arizona HMS Warspite & the like Then Post Dreadnoughts Bismarck Iowa South Dakota North Carolina Yamato & KGV. Then Aircraft carriers & Missile cruisers/ Destroyers. Then early Modern Ships such as USS Long Beach & USS Enterprise. Then Modern ships Arleigh Burke Kirov Ticonderoga & Nimitz. Finally Current ships Zumwalt class Destroyer Independence & freedom class Corrvettes/Frigates Jerald R. Ford class carrier.
***** For the turret I would guess it was mainly for the protection of the gunners and the cannon itself and to rotate the cannons that became larger and larger as the time went by. So instead of many small guns that could only fire at a limited arc you had fewer but heavier and most importantly stronger guns that could shoot the target from almost any angle and with a higher arc (if the turrets were designed like that) so they could shoot further.
***** Ironclads were possible do to more powerful coal fired engines. They were developed in response to explosive shells. Then for turrets it was simple you could have 20" guns like on U.S.S. Puritan & only need 2-4 to outgun a Broadside warship like C.S.S. Virginia with her 42lbs 5.4" guns. Also this made it harder to destroy guns & therefore you wouldn't need to turn your ship into an unfavorable position. Barrettes offered similar capabilities & traded protection for speed Rate of fire & weight. Eventually Pre Dreadnoughts evolved from Ironclads as extra medium guns could sink light ships not worth a 12" salvo. Then in the 1900s Turbines & reciprocating engines made warships even faster & powerful. Then around the 30's Aircraft were such a threat that speed & AA guns made it necessary to find new things like angled armor. Also Monitor had 2x11" guns while most American Monitors had 2x15"-4x15" guns.
Lindy missed one important part: All german tanks had radios because Guderian came from the signal corps. It was very easy to coordinate them. Most French tanks had no radio. This was a HUGE advantage too.
I would also mention that having multiple crew members would allow cross training in case something like a driver or turret loader were killed in a battle.
I once read that tanks are usually less well armored in the rear than front. What if two tanks face each other frontally? Which part of the tank would you aim at?
Very often, the only bit you can see is the turret. One favourite target with a tough target was the front of the tracks - going for a 'mobility kill'.
I heard how the Russian dealt with the Tiger II was to just bombard the hull with high explosive shells due to the quality of steel the Germans were using at that time the front plate would eventually crack rendering the tank a complete loss. Also when the Shermans were first put into service some bright spark decided to paint the US star where the Ammo rack was on the side it didn't take long for German antitank gunners to catch onto this and aim at the star for a big boom.
Depends on the tank and your gun. If you have a big gun firing at a weak tank, just aim at the middle and get your shot off ASAP. If you have a relatively weak gun firing at a tough tank, at close range, try to aim at a weak spot - often under the barrel of the gun, or at the tracks. Or try to get round the side - all tanks had weaker armour of the sides. There are even recorded cases of gunners trying to bounce shells off a road and into the weak underside of a tank!
In a "neck" That is a spot under turret, where its joining on chassis. Basically turret ring. It was extremely thin and usually behind it was ammo. Hard to hit, but when it hit, cock off was imminent.
That must be myth. When Reich have Tiger II, Soviets already heave Zveroboy (SU AND ISU 152), IS 1,2 or T34 100 with HEAT and APCR munition + sometimes British HESH. There was no point shooting HE. Actually later in war, HE was not loaded at all. Only in artillery.
Can this be followed by 2 man turrets. And an excerpt on why the Russian T-34's performance was lower than it could have been? 8:30, I'm going to guess this is a story of Pierre Billotte? To be quite frank. This video is actually one of the most un arguable videos you've ever made Lloyd. Every point is spot on.
the T34 had more problems then just being a two man crew in the 76MM version, it had no turret basket. Think of a modern tank, the crew moves inside the turret along with it, if you where in a T34, the turret rotated around you, you don't stand on the floor of the turret, you stand on the floor of the hull......so you can't react very fast to anything because you have to concentrate not being hurt by the tank's moving equipment. the T34/85 gained a third crewmember to be a dedicated gunner, but still no turret basket. The russians never figured this out, they only put a turret basket in their tanks......with the T62.
yeah i would have love if he tagged 2-man turrets in. i never understood in a T34 why the commander was the gunner, surely the commander should have been the loader?
Kirothe Avenger Neither. The T34-85 had combat records an order of magnetude higher than the T34-76. This was mostly due to the commander being only a commander, and being able to do his job. The 85mm, while a good gun, hardly accounts for the sharp rise in capability of the machine. As they were still fighting, for the most part, things that the 76mm could penetrate at decent range.
Linkxsc oh i agree, i was talking about as far as 2-man turrets were concerned. 85s also had a cupola, which seeing as russian tankers almost always fought buttoned up, was a big boon as well
They are in fact was about to be called landships but then the British disguised it as a water tank, because the MK 1 heavy tank did borrow some designs from ship, like sponson, and a 6 pounder gun which is a Naval gun at the time
The post-war analysis of tank combat indicated that the tank that fired first defeated its opponent four or five times more frequently. This and the need for a division of responsibilities made the three man turret (commander, gunner and loader) ensured both more efficient gunnery and tactical performance. This and a radio transceiver in each tank gave platoons and companies equipped with PzKfw.IIIs or M4s significant advantages over even two man turrets like the early T-34/76.
Can I just say before watching even a second that your WW2 stuff is my most favorite. Please continue your balance of all topics, the rest is cool too. I just prefer the WW2 content. :)
About girls not into tanks, once in work, a new employee shows up, we eventualy start talking about shit we like or not and the first thing she mentioned was how much she likes tanks and we just started geeking out on them lol
Lindy (at bar): I love tanks
Young Women (fiddling with hair): *seductively* Oh, I love tanks too
Lindy: Ah, what's your favorite part about the Sherman barrel design?
duftyr I imagine this happening! XD
Young Woman: Um... it shoots?
Young woman (me): Nothing. Its gun was designed to fire explosive shells at low velocities and was instead being used to fire armour piercing rounds at only slightly higher velocities. Sherman tanks had to flank Tiger tanks to get a shot at the thinner rear armour plating. Usually this meant an average of five Sherman tanks being destroyed, because the Sherman's gun had to be within 600m and facing the Tiger's rear armour and the Tiger's gun was capable of destroying a Sherman tank in a single shot, frontal armour, 2000m.
...In other words the Sherman was a highly overrated tank and that blind faith cost soldiers their lives, because it was an utter failure of a design. It would even explode well before the crew had a chance to escape, if a shot hit the fuel tanks.
Erin, I suggest you watch a few Chieftain videos to see the comparable high survivability rate of the m4
ive grown to love this guy, like an overly enthusiastic eccentric uncle
You know nothing, Green Whovian. Those shirts are specially modified by Lindybeige himself. He buys standard white shirts, then he snips the pointy ends off the collars, makes the collars round and sews them up. He then proceeds to dye the shirt beige, of course.
I would love a uncle that goes on near psychotic rants about tanks and killing men :D
And im aimin to be that uncle
Mark Heinonen you said that far later than the original comment it seems sinister.
I've grown to love ths guy like... "Celebrity crush"
"This is a 38T..."
"OH MY GOD THAT MAN IS ENORMOUS HE WILL DESTROY US ALL"
"or rather a model I made of one."
"Oh well that explains it."
He never said it wasn't made to scale
Alexander Mcharek oof
Alexander Mcharek dear god
"By later war standards it's a tiddly little tank"
@@punic4045 well. it was made to scale. just 1:76 or something rather than 1:1
I love how he uses 0 script, and 0 jump cuts... unless he's showing you an image or something, his videos are 10 minutes of him speaking without any mistake
Federico Olivares you never know he might be using a script
he's eccentric enough that even if he messes up it's just normal
@@uaidavi They aren't mistakes, they are sojourns.
At first I thought it was just poor video making. Then I realized he's just brilliant. His mind is much better unedited
@DATING HARLEY QUINN It's the complete lack of hesitation or repetition. Very impressive. I wouldn't say there's no deviation though!
Admit it Lindy, this was but an excuse for you to show us your tank miniatures.
Additionally: As evidence of the superiority of the three-man turret, the soviets upgraded their turret on the T-34 from having two crew members to three later in the war.
Do you know about T-35?
and that dank golden pencil
Speaking of tank miniatures, I'm thinking of getting into plastic model kit both to relax and to learn more about whatever I'll be building. I'm on a disability pension so I cannot afford anything pricy and would prefer a smallish scale, high historical accuracy would be good but not if it raise the price too much as I figure inaccuracies are probably fixable in a plastic model kit. I would also prefer a company that sell on amazon.
Any suggestions? I'd like to be able to build tanks from WW1 to the present days in the same scale.
SlyPearTree The firm Master Morgoth is referring to is Tamiya, they do indeed make very affordable and good models.
The russian Zvezda is also a great option, very affordable, I've heard their models come with small defects more often than others but they are easily fixed during assembly (like crude casting marks etc).
Good luck with the endeavor, I can assure you it's a lot of work
We finally have an answer!
Q: Why isnt Lloyd married?
A: He talks to women... about tanks.
Or perhaps because he is just, like 30?
He is a super nerd, Hail king of nerds!!!
How come being 30 prevents one man from getting married?
How do you know he's not married?
Briseu De: Could he possibly be a closet married? Na, he'd never marry a closet.
POV : Lindybeige holds you hostage after destroying your tank fleet , interrogating you about tanks
The type of enemies you need in a war
Say less
Every time lindybeige imitates a Frenchman, a Bren gun gets its wings.
And everytime a Frenchman imitates lindybeige a ft 17 gets its wings
hey Lindy, the reason those tanks seem so tiny is because you are using models.
Patrick Ellis
No way.
French tanks were fast, but tiny as fuck :P
dey are 1/76th scale yuo french spy
teh r for stuffing teh french ants
Hank Pym stole them from some private militia in Arizona then shrunk them down.
Yet the German shells still couldn't pierce their armor.
Greetings. Tank historian here. Without detracting from your main point as regards the advantages and disadvantages of the one-man turret, all of which I agree with, a couple of observations.
With respect to the fall of France, neither the one-man-turret nor the 'penny packet' theory of tank deployment was really to blame. Instead you're looking at a much larger discussion as to the nature of the French doctrine with regards defensive operations, which revolved around telephone communications with senior staff far to the rear, and a decision cycle which was well behind that necessary. If you get a chance, Julian Thompson's recent book on Dunkirk focuses primarily on the ground operations which set the stage for the evacuation. (Granted, primarily from the British POV, but it does a good description of the problem). It is worth noting that the Somuas were not, however, penny-packeted out. They were placed in the Division Legere Mechaniques, and their doctrine for use was quite modern. The problem was that the DLM doctrine in practice did not really match the reality on the ground as it required a set of circumstances which the rest of the Army could not provide. Further, it is worth noting Zaloga's opinion on my Think Tank panel. (Search for "Operation Think Tank Part 2 on RUclips, I don't think I can hyperlink here). The vehicles were simply not fit for service, too new, unknown, and unreliable to be used correctly.
Finally, with regards to your question at the end, I believe you would find the development history of the S-Tank to be of interest. This was a modern, post-war tank capable of being operated by a single person. However, to reduce the workload, they added a second, allowing the commander to perform solely the typical commander roles of spotting, directing, communicating etc. However, this was still deemed insufficient. It was decided, after investigation, that it was still necessary to add a third person to the vehicle. His primary function in combat was just manning the radio, alleviating that one aspect from the commander which was still considered to be something worthwhile to reduce his workload. He couldn't even contribute to spotting, since he faced backwards. A bonus feature was the fact that they figured that the dynamic of the third man could prevent the other two folks from killing each other before the enemy did. The volume he took up was actually very little, given the design of the tank, so a lot of the arguments on size/weight don't really enter play. So, in a thorough post-war analysis, greater crew members to spread the workload purely on its own merits was considered worthwhile.
Haha wow, the Chieftan watches Lindy. So much nerdy goodness!
Nice video game historian you are
I wonder how many of us are watching Lindybeige :)
And SilentStalker too!! Omg.. *faints*
Yeah I know, this is great, lol
if u cant see the tank just move closer and theyll be highlighted in red duh
Problem solved
But then to then you will also be red
imagine not being able to punch through enemy armor, just don't shoot if its highlighted in red
Then you can also activate your aim bot but don't leave it on too long otherwise you'll be banned
Hardee har har
Fun fact:
The word tank in icelandic is skriðdreki wich mean crawling dragon
That's sorta awesome.
"Crawling Dragon". Idk why, but for me it sounds like a term more likely used by East Asians (like Chinese or Japanese) rather than Vikings/scandinavians.
@Jim lastname I mean, I'd say that the stories of the Volsungs would explain why that comment is even more accurate: even a dragon's got a weak point. And I'd say that would be exactly what they might've thought, and probably exactly why the poets would pick that word.
@Jim lastname I mean, I'm literally looking at another video in the suggestions, titled, "fire-arrows!" But a spear is a big arrow that can be manually guided by some particularly crazy, glory-hungry viking. vision slits would be weak points, and infrared and cameras would leave them blind. However, I'd say it wasn't a tenth century Viking that created the name. It was someone who had probably both read more books, and had more firepower.
Man, we really should call them crawling dragons instead of....tanks.
Thank you for this educational video. Now I can impress all the boys with my tank knowledge.
Never mind, I forgot all of it and embarrassed myself.
What, you don't know the number of mm of armor plates of a Tiger? Clearly you're just a dumb girl.
+Filius Gratia And occasionally, just occasionally, he's even right in what he says.
Ild lyn well then
+ild lyn Ho
The hatches on tanks were actually very rarely shut. At least the TC's. Mostly for observation's sake. Also for the "oh my god, the tank is on fire" factor.
Otto Carius contributed part of german success on eastern front to the fact, that russian commanders had their hatches usually closed.
You've been watching my videos, haven't you?
The early T-34s only had a two-man turret, so the Russian commanders had to aim and fire their tank's gun.
This was especially true of the Panther where the TC's hatch doesn't simply swing close but has to opened and closed via a hand crank. Definitely a bad thing in those "oh my God, the tank is on fire" situations.
TheChieftainWoT Avidly ^^
Every time I hear the word Blitzkrieg I have a sudden urge to go take some land from a neighbouring country. I can't put my finger on why though...
K den Funny fact the Germans never used blitzkrieg it was just used by the allies and a lot of the high ranking officers were surprised when the heard the allies were calling their tactics blitzkrieg etc more or less , what we call blitzkrieg was normal German tactics just updated to use tanks and aircraft .
Me too I get this sudden urge to want to invade Poland
It is your inner german
+cpiippi dpipipip He's saying that the word "blitzkrieg" was never used by the Germans in reference to the tactics used in Poland, France and Russia, it was a term coined by Allied commanders, despite the fact that the tactics used were really just an evolution of the ones used towards the end of World War One.
Youre so funny, ahahahahahaha. wow man you make all girls that see you wetter than the everglades.
"On my painting table for five years" I feel your pain
As my father says, you are immortal as long as you have unpainted mini's
Two fish were in a tank, one asked: "How do I drive this bloody thing?"
The other one said "Holy shit, a talking fish!"
Andrew Graham And then, the German came. #boom
No wonder their confusion though it wasn't their fault.
In actual fact one of the treads broke and that was the real reason they were driving around, around, around and around in a tight circle.
u cant drive a fish tank they are for water only.
Ben Masta
Not so. I saw it on TV. A small fish tank on tank treads and a gold fish triggers a sensor to make the tank moves forward, backward or turn.
Unmanned turrets are all the rage nowadays.
Unmanned drones? Gps satelits? Fucking laser sights?
ruclips.net/video/NPucxmxW5eM/видео.html
There’s only one operational tank that has that.
than your tank gets hacked
Branko Kocic GPS satellites is first mate, sorry XD
@@klyk69 hard wired designs work or analogue controls so its immune to hacking.
There's another aspect to parachuting in, in uniform. Parachuting is one of the situations where you are most likely to be captured. If you are captured in uniform you are an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war. This lent you a number of protections from being persecuted under the Geneva conventions. If you parachuted in as a civilian you could be tried and executed as a spy.
Yep.
The germans did not care for conventions or treaties. I mean they burn villages and had executions en masse on the streets. Not to mention that they illegally broke a the treaty of Versailles.
Eric Johansson They treaty western prisoners fairly well. They only had a 1% death rate in the POW camps.
Master Morgoth I have a feeling the same does not apply for spies. Either way if you were a Spy, if they found out: Wheter you were wearing military clothes or not is not going to make a differance.
Wrong. The Germans obeyed everything outlined in the Geneva convention when fighting against fellow signatories of the Geneva Convention. The Soviet Union did not sign and committed numerous atrocities in Poland both times they invaded. The Soviets often executed prisoners. The Nazis responded in kind.
Lindybeige's waifu is a tank with *T H I C C* armor.
Churchill 7
If you're talking about the Churchill's 102mm front then forget it. The IS-2 had better.
Soooooo Azur Lane but tanks instead of warships?
The Maus?
@@hexoslaya3696 Thicker.
reason why one-man turret is bad:
1.too much jobs being pressured on commander due to taking roles of gunner and loader
2.little time being used for commanding the tank properly
3.cramped space causes poor ergonomics
effect:VERY bad tank crew performance.
Lindy said a few good things about the french. Who the fuck is this impostor?!?!
He did admit the French tanks were immune to german anti-tank guns but didn't mention the English longbow which could pierce the flimsy steel with ease
wojtekimbier
Not to mention penetration by spandau pommels.
Nothing comes up to that.
teh french tanks can eassily be destored viv armour periceing tins of baked beans
teh french tanks can eassily be destored viv armour periceing tins of baked beans
edit: teh jerrys hacked my compooter end made me double poost comments
Spandau-fired pommels? Are you crazy? When you try to take over a country, most people would likethere to be a country left by the time you're done, not a cratered wasteland with some burned down ruins! What about the french wineyards eh?
Another reason why the Blitzkrieg was so efficient and quick was that almost every single German tank had a radio and dedicated radio operator, so quick communication with other armed forces, artillery and infantry was a lot better than with the French tanks, who had (I believe) one radio per tank group.
Yeah... Not sure about the French, but Soviets early on were using signal flags for communication. Waving nice coloured flags around in the heat of battle is not a particularly great way of communicating.
Especially if you see the division of tanks, one with flags to communicate nicely to you that if you shoot him, his team will be totally clueless of what is happening.
MajkaSrajka yeah that is about as tactically sound as British and French officers in Napoleon area up to WW1 marching up and down the front lines in brightly coloured clothing showing off their importance...to enemy sharpshooters
It's depressing to think of just how shitty it must have been to be a crewman in some of these machines and the bad ideas behind their design.
The S35 and Char B1bis all had radios and radio operators as standard equipment. However, the radio was only capable of transmitting Morse code so it was not as tactically useful as the voice radios used by the British and Germans.
Pffft, I'm a woman and I love tanks.
Very interesting videos too... and a very curious arrangement of pictures on the wall behind you. A ton of nature and... is that Jeor Mormont?
Best dating profile line ever
Katherine Winyala then you’re very badass
It's ok sweetheart we will all give you the attention you so clearly need.
WOMAN ON THE INTERNET OVER HERE, EVERYONE! SHE'S INTERESTED IN SOMETHING AND NEEDS ATTENTION!
Tanks, Mass Effect, Warhammer 40k, Paul Joseph Watson. Nice.
@@ev6558oh please tell me you’ve grown up in the intervening 3 years
This is as close as lindy will get to complimenting the french xD
why do the british hate the french so much i dont get it
mostly because they spent the better half of the last 500 years killing eachother in small wars think nine years war 1678-1687, spanish war of succesion 1701-1714, as well as the French and indian wars 1754-1763. these are just a few but the gist of it is basically they were both powerful countries with competing interests who sat right next to each other someone's gonna start something and that turned into generational hatred for each other
Oh, I don't think LindyBeige is French-bashing in any of his videos.
It's not like him to do so.
*****
A compliment to the qualities of their tank industry, I guess.
At least, a "partial compliment".
+Mika AaltoI would still consider that a compliment, They did something right at least, its not the tank designer's fault that the people commanding them failed. They lost because of poor strategic choices not poor tank design.. which is a compliment to their tank making capacities at least.
The Germans at the beginning of the war also took it a step further to a degree. They started the war off with radios in all tanks so they could all talk to one another, in addition, they used those throat radios, instead of having to shout over noise into a speaker you just had to talk.
Shouting into a speaker never did work well--- terribly frustrating ;)
Charles Wood Same goes for trying to listen through a microphone ;)
They really should label those things. Maybe put a mouth on the microphones and a ear on the speakers? Na, women would still mix them up--
+Charles Wood
It only matters what colours they come in.
Nope. Only the group leader had a transceiver. The subordinate tanks in the squad [3 of them, iirc: 4 tanks total in a squad] only had receivers so they could take orders but they had to jump out & run over to bang on the leader's hull if they wanted to converse. It was still a GIANT leap over what anybody else had at the time, and greatly affected the USA's efforts at tank design which came along afterwards.
What I find fascinating is that Lloyd illustrates this issue better than even the Chieftain. And the Chieftain was inside the flipping turret when explaining it.
This is brilliant.
Gotta love how he explains everything with tiny little models..
*SUBBED!*
I'm picturing the Audible.com marketing liaison watching this and grumbling, "Get on with it!" :-)
What do you think this is? A Monty Python missing scene?
Kevin Sullivan Python*
Lindy obviously hadn't watch Girls und Panzer.
You can like something without knowing every single tiny detail about it.
This is basic stuff - some women don't even have a favourite mark of Churchill! They are fooling no one.
panzer IV is better .
+Lindybeige It was a bit of a knob joke but you're alright. It was still funny because it was silly enough to let you know it's just for a laugh. I just wish there weren't so many people in the comment section saying such things as "lolololol iz funy cuz iz tru!"
It had a tiny gun, and terrible armor. It also broke down constantly. It was shit.
Performance statistics and what is "better" might not be the key factors in what constitutes as a favourite.
Tanks are great things to look at unless you're a protestor on Tiananmen Square in 1989
True that.
- 300 social credit
Hey now, I'm a (straight) lady who is interested in tanks! My father was in the 2nd armored division and I can recite all of Patton's famous May 31, 1944 speech from memory. I probably don't know as much as a lot of people do, but I do love learning about them!
The real one, or the sanitised version from the movie?
Well fancy meeting you here. Why is it I keep seeing my favorite youtubers watching each other? It's like Christmas day came early!
Lol, depends on my company!
it seems to me that with some modern technology a single man turret or even a single man tank could work to some extent.
modern tech as in cameras and communication integrated into a semi virtual battle field so the operator wont need to look around for the most part.
this requires a high level of trust in sensitive technology.
also auto loading mechanisms in the case of a true single man tank, also put the tank on legs instead of tracks and dress it up in samurai style armor!
I thought you were leading up to a modern tank simulator... One gamer, doing all the tasks with modern high tech.
Not the same tech. The autoloader is trivial - I mean the Russians have already done it, but for the two guys, I'm sure it's easier to automate the aiming and shooting part than the decision if that thing over there is a target (i.e. an enemy vehicle we have some hope actually harming with our armament) in the first place. Not to mention all the other stuff the commander must do.
I was thinking of the same thing... autoloader, cameras, rangefinders, integrated information sistem for battlefield awareness... but you could also deploy your own small drones for a much, much better local recon then you could achieve by sticking your neck out a hatch to take a look with a pair of binoculars!
With 1 crew it’s just gonna be an exhausting job
The one man turret is inferior because of the fact the gun needs loaded and sighted and spotted. Even if the spotter and sighter are the same person you need loaders. Russian T-55 autoloaders were inferior because the required resighting after each load. Armata has a zero man turret. The problem with small turrets is inferior crew comfort.
French tanks lacked radios, which is why they performed tactically worse than German tanks. Same is true of Russian tanks in early WWII.
unless if you are russian post 70s...
"For example the M1 Abrams was designed to protect the crew from cook-off, which is accomplished by storing the main gun ammunition in a compartment at the rear of the turret. The compartment is separated from the crew by a power-operated armored door, which is only opened for a couple of seconds each time the loader needs to grab another round. The top of the compartment has special roof panels that are armored against outside attack but are much less resistant to pressure from inside, so that if the compartment is penetrated by enemy fire the panels will vent the explosion generated by the ammunition while protecting the crew. Other western designs from the later Cold War era to the present with manual loading have similar protective features. In contrast, the Soviet tanks of the Cold War which employ autoloaders store the ammunition on a carousel in the middle of the crew compartment, where any penetration by enemy fire is likely to incinerate the crew and blow the turret right off the top of the tank (known as the jack-in-the-box effect).[6]"
From Wikipedia.
Seriously, if autoloaders were a good idea the Israelis would use them. They captured a bunch of soviet tanks back in the six day war, and did not adapt autoloaders to their other tanks.
www.quora.com/If-crew-protection-is-so-important-to-the-Israeli-Army-why-doesnt-the-Merkava-IV-use-an-autoloader
Autoloaders only make sense if you are Russian and regard crew as expendable.
www.quora.com/In-a-modern-tank-is-the-auto-loader-better-than-having-a-human-loader-and-a-crew-of-four-rather-than-three-What-advantages-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army
Autoloaders sound good in theory but in practice: no.
First- I was joking, as T-72 and T-64 does not have a one man turret... the only one that is placed on the hull is the driver, and both commander and gunner stay on the turret
Second- Six day wars? the most advanced tank that fought against the IDF were T-62, as T-64 were never exported during the could war, and the T-72 was developed only after the 70s
Third- ammo just explode because of the way their propellant are made, so a WW2, AP ammo, even if less effective, would not explode on the autoloader, in other hand APCs use autolader because it make the the firing rate faster, as Arty and naval cannons
Forth- Actually the Russian tanks that were made before the first Chechen had low amount of armor, and most of then did not had ERA, The new T-90, not only have the best ERA, they also have better armor and safe systems, like not all ammo being on the auto loader; The T-95 and Black Eagle project were projected to have a Western-like system to store the ammo that you see in modern tanks, not that, but the Lerec, the K2 Tank(the most technological advanced and expensive tank in use) use autoloaders, which also save weight to the tank, making then a lot cheap
Last- a New trending, no man turrets, as the T-14 armata can prove, as unlike you sad, Russia cares about their crew, they did not only during WW2
Auto loaders have both downsides and upsides, one downside is that when you are removing the gunner you are removing 2 eyes and a mount, that can be used for situational awareness and communication, or the fact that they cannot change the ammo as fast as a human loader, which can also get a faster firing rate for a short period of time...
The IDF, and other nations on the world that don't use autoloader, use because of this, not because of Crew safety, which was a design flaw from the soviets (as was their round, but weak turrets and hull from tanks before the T-72B, and T-80U)
EDIT just to reinforce the point about URSS, the URSS was a project w/ a giant design flaw, what would you expect about the russian back then
The links I gave provide compelling reasons not to use autoloaders. Though by all means, go right ahead, just don't be surprised if they cost your gunner an arm and a leg )
First, I will ask you a Question: If the Autoloader is that useless, why: The French, The North Korean, The Chinese, And the Russian use that in their tank design, even after most of the T-72 exploding? (answer is below)
did u even read my response?
I sad that, the two reasons that you gave, about the six day wars and Russia not caring about their crew are wrong, as there was no T-64 or T-72 in the six day war, instead the less numerical, but most advanced tank in the Syrian side was the T-62...
After that, I told you that the Autoloader killing a lot of T-72 users was a soviet design flaw, as they had low armor amount, and any shot would penetrate the turret and ignite their ammo, go other way around, like the Korean, Chinese and French, making a Strong Western turret, and you don't have this problem, making a proper autoloader w/ ammo in a Safe place, as the T-95 project,same thing, make a turret w/ no man Crew as the T-14 Armata,but instead put then in a giant armor box, even better
Then I told you the main downside of the Autoloader, which is: its a autoloader, so it cannot have a fast fire and a quick change of ammo, and because you don't have the gunner, the radio go for the Tank commander.
I'm a girl and I like tanks. No, I don't know the finer details of tanks, but I still like them.
^This.
I am a boy and i like barbie dolls
Selena Gamya Every British tank in WW2
Can dispense tea
What is this rant? He just explained that women dont like tanks that much, I dont think his vision of a modern women is that they like tanks?
sbcontt agreed
But what if the one man turret had a spandau on it?
I'm afraid it's useless if it meets a bren carrier :/
teh bren gun carrier wood stuff eeh viv ist accurate fire ov armour piercing salt boolets
Collin Van Der Grond Probably was a thing at some point
What if... A katana-firing Spandau that ends its targets rightly, by slaying them with pommels?
Well, the Panzer I had a one man turret with two MG 13s which had a combined rate of fire equal to a MG-42. The Panzer I also sucked as a combat tank, so, screw your unoriginal meme.
French tanks were great... it was just the French that were the problem
... as usual
Whatever the British tanks were that had the kettle for making tea, the French responded by installing wood ovens for making pastries. Even if they survived the smoke inhalation and heat, after eating all those pastries and rolls they wouldn't be able to fit out of the exit.
Almost all UK tanks have tea making facilities as do most of the wheeled and tracked APC/AFV and scout vehicles. I say most as I do not know of any that do not have them but do not know the specifics of all of the vehicles.
+Gordon Lawrence ah the boiling vessel. Best bit of kit ever
Yeah 8 reverse shifts didn't work.
When the swedish army accquired the leopard 2 (strv 122) they had to significantly reengineer the electric system for it to handle the kettle warmer that had been specifically requested since they had it ,and apparently liked it quite a lot, in the centurion
Lindybeige ladys man
Hello Mr. Hussein I hope everything is going well for you my friend and you're keeping dissidence under control.
Danny Brown
When did this happen! I go away for a few decades and people are already acting up I hope my good friend chairman Mao can sort this mess out.
+Space Stalin Mao is now a pickle.
+Space Stalin perhaps you can have Mao pickle keep Lenin pickle company?
Regrettably Comrade, Kim Il Sung is also very much a pickle.
I don't know if it's just me but Lindy is my version of Bob Ross, I could just listen to his videos for hours learning about this type of stuff. It's so fun and interesting.
UGH you're so right on the first part. I'm the only girl I know that thinks tanks are awesome, artillery is beautiful, and guns are, of course, to be used carefully, but also dreadfully fun. Like, really, what girl doesn't want a 155mm howlitzer, or an M1A1 Abrams for Christmas?
I haven't had time to really focus on specifications of individual tanks. I'm more interested in warships myself.
My personal favorite tank is the German Tiger Ausf. B. Not the best tank in the world, but I just like it.
Lillian Winter I'll have to introduce you to my girlfriend who can walk through an armor museum and discuss all the tanks down the the serial numbers on their engine parts. You two can talk tanks to your hearts content.
Alexis Finch love warships battleships especially
SpartanLord Insley I prefer aircraft carriers and ballistic missile destroyers but that's just me ^~^
***** Remember kid, if you wanna be a hardcore communist like me, eat your vegetables.
Fun fact: The last time a FT-17 saw combat was Afganistan in 2001.
Citation for that?
realy?
A 1880's era Labelle rifle also saw action.
@Jim lastname
source : crois moi!
@Jim lastname it's an expression on french forum when somebody tell you something unbelievable
i don't know if in english it"s work but the translation is " source of information : believe me"
I heard that the new french Leclerc tank has 14 gears, 13 go in reverse and 1 goes forwards in case the enemy attacks from behind.
Also a french tank commander's stardard equipment consisted on:
2 baguettes
A wine bottle
And a white flag if they ever engaged combat
vats teh thurst thing dey tell recruits et teh french army? how to say 'we surrender' eehn 17 different languages
The french actually had some of the best tanks early in WWII and arguably in WWI. French tank design implemented a large number of features that became either standard, or set them ahead by quality and ease of manufacture. Indeed, the french military preformed admirably, however their real defeat came from the method of how they used their tanks. The Germans in the blitzkrieg actually had difficulty defeating the renowned Char B1 tanks. These tanks were tough, and were fairly advanced and could serve well into the mid war. As shown in the video it was how the tanks were deployed that caused them to be seen as ineffective. The Germans took control of many of the french tanks and used them while they brought their tanks up to a similar standard.
I hear that ammo racks are perfect for storing a respectable selection of fine wines as long as you don't bring any ammo. #worthit
actually it's one of the fastest in the world and the german are wondering about working with nexter to make the best tank in the world : a mix between the leclerc and the leopard. and you're right the white flag was the flag of monarchy who saw the victory of the 100years war and the american revolution (remember yorktown). here you go mr i talk shit about people without knowing anything about them.
As someone who loves history, arts, miniatures, etc...this channel is like a godsend. Great work!
20 minutes into the video and I only noticed the giant pencil when he pointed it out.
"The one-man turret was a mistake", it was not when it was designed in 1917 for the first time...
The problem is French doctrine didn't change much during the interwar period. It worked really well in 1918 so why change it huh ? Even so peoples like De Gaulle tried hard to make them change tank doctrine, the higher-ups were stubbornly reluctant to change because " I'm older than you so i know better than you, so shut up ! " In the end when they finally decided to change their mind it was too late.... Few people know that there was a new variant of the Somua in production, the S-40, equipped with a two-man turret. There was also a three-man turret tank already produced before the war, the AMC 35, and a new tank was in development, the G1 ; it would have been similar to a Sherman or a T-34.
When you look it up, you realize France had good technologie and designs (they build a fighter plane that could exceed 700 km/h in 1940 !), but the ones in charge were old stubborn idiots who utterly screwed it up.
you forgot the B1-TER
Would a one-man turret work better if it was equipped with a bren gun?
Only if it fires fire bullets and if the gunner is surrounded by pommeluminium armor
That comment made my day, thank you sir!
Only if the Bren fired pommels made by Japanese smiths who forge katanas.
Garith Jones yes
He really captured the frustration of that poor tank crewman.
"Oh hu hu hu, sacre bleu!"
HON HON HON, BAGUETTE, CROISSANT
EIFFEL TOWER!!!
Random funny fact of the day.
More random facts: The Austrians call it a "Kipferl"....^^
Well, that's the legend anyway. I don't think there's very much evidence to back that up
"Sir! I can't see the tank!" "Fine, I'll hop out and see where it is." *Opens the top hatch, looks out, and comes back down* "So? Where is it?" "Driver! Full reverse!" "Sir?" "IT'S RIGHT BLOODY IN FRONT OF US!" "You know, I was wondering why I couldn't lower the cannon... we're right fucked aren't we?" [*Insert opera music for comedic effect here*]
SirMan McDude
you should be in cinema business ,seriously you should be writing scenarios ,if you're still in school (like me) and supposedly have a lot of free time (like me) then give it a shot ,write a scenario of a film and to make it easier take it from a book ,and try sending it to a director or a movie company or whoever you should send it to.
*ava Maria playing
Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck--- Audible book worth a look great vid by the way
Random thought about more advantages of the 3 man turret: When you were describing the situation of the 1 man turret in operation, it jumped to mind that the tank commander is in a giant metal protective shell, but he keeps needing to stick his soft squishy head out to look at stuff. He's pretty exposed out there. In the 3 man turret, this isn't a huge issue, as the loader and gunner are both safe in the tank, the loader can probably also fill in to look about if he needs to, and sure things will be slower, but they'll still work just fine. But If the one man turret gets shot by something or other while his head is sticking out, the entire tank is rendered almost completely useless.
Lindybeige is the ultimate man. He's nerdy enough to know everything you'd ever need to know, but fun enough to still love tanks because they make things go "boom".
3:09 Most American tanks in 1939 were domestic built. They were just hopeless. eg the M2 medium, and the M2 Light and the M1 combat car (which was a tank, but was given a different name as it was owned by the US Cavalry and the government had not given them permission to develop tanks, so they called it a "combat car"). All made in America, but all hopelessly outclassed by their european counterparts.
M2 Medium could mount 9 machinegus. I think it was designed to help cowboys mow down apaches in the prairie.
yes, we made shit tank after shit tank after shit tank until we reached the Sherman were we struck absolute gold.
-very good gun,
-very good armor,
-very good mobility,
-very good Ergonomics,
-very good survivability
-very good Industrial wise
just very good all round the board with the
Gen 1.0 Cast Homogeneous M4A1(75) VVSS in 1942
gradually improving on everything each year until it's greatest from
Gen 2.0 Rolled Homogeneous M4A3(76)w HVSS in 1945
Giving the sherman unparalleled flexibility and arguably the best all round tank of the entire war. (and no it was a not a death trap, Belton coopers book is fill of shit).
M1918 Ford 3-ton: i wonder if we could design a tracked vehicle like those European's and glue a gun on it, It was fucking joke.
M1927 T1E1 Cunning ham: be built our own FT-17 Renault now...10 years too late.
M1933 Christee: an innovative design with great suspension for fast speed travel, too bad we never adopted this tank instead Christee sold it to the Russians to become the BT series and then the T-34 (yes this was the birth of Russian tanks).
M1 Cavalry Combat car: First US tank to adopt the british Horstman like suspension (the VVSS) and the Drivetrain Testbed chassis for later light tanks such as the M3 and M5 Stuart. (also first tank to use the Innovative Rubber and steel track design which almost every millitary tracked vehicle uses today offering more grip than regular steel tracks.) Aside from those key innovations it's primary gun was an m2 browning with an M1919 side arm....Now ik the M2 Browning is the best Heavy machine gun in the world but compared to 37mm and 50mm guns on the PZ III it ain't got shit.
M2A1 Light tank: not that much of an improvement really over the M1 Cavalry combat car just an improved turret and 2 fixed m1919s on the sides for the front hull.
M2A2 Light tank: What the actual fuck were they thinking!!!, so the M2 and M1919 are too cramped in the same turret so what do we do!, let's create not 1 but 2 turrets and put the M2 browning in one and the M1919 in the other like some 2 headed Radioactive fetus...BRILLIANT FUCKING IDEA!!!!
M2A4 Light tank: Nowwww where talking, holy shit we've actually got a tank now, the Precursor to the M3 stuart with it's larger upgraded SINGLE turret and 37mm gun, this was a pretty nimble little killing machine but it's still a tiddly little thing in comparison to the PZ.III at the time.
M2 Medium: Obsolete before the paint was dry but it's the birth of Drivetrain Testbed chassis for our star the M4 Sherman. It's turret and gun is exactly the same as the light tank and it had 4 m1919 machine guns in rotating sponson turrets 2 at the front hull and 2 at the rear...........what were we thinking.
M3 Lee: you know this could have been a very good tank for m1941, it had a very good gun, very good mobility and decent armor but Picasso must have snuck into the design studio over night and added his artistic touch to it's design because it ended up looking like Steel wedding cake. despite it's ugly appearance it's actually very under rated. It was a fan favorite in the Desert and In my honest opinion the second or 3rd best all round tank of 1941.
M4 Sherman: AHHHH the golden star herself, after the 9 failures that came before we finally struck a very good highly flexible tank to be considered for it's time one of the best if not THE best.
NedYarbNexus The Lee and Grant were not shit either. Just had an awkward turret layout. But the British loved them in North Africa. They we're reliable and the 75mm was fine against Panzer II, III and IVs.
@@jaaksootak318 What's worse is that I had a LIFE magazine from 1939 in which these tanks were featured in a long, beautifully photographed article in which you were informed that these machines were, in effect, the greatest things since sliced bread, admired by all foreign armies, etc, etc. I think it had been written in conjunction with some big Army training maneuvers being held at the time.
Even worse, somewhere on the web you can find uploaded pages from POPULAR MECHANICS or POPULAR SCIENCE,or some similar publication, printed a year or so before Pearl Harbor, in which the writer asserts the supposed inferiority of the Japanese military aviation, informing the trusting reader that the Japanese are only equipped with rickety, obsolete biplanes, that their pilots can't fly very well and that they all have poor eyesight. No proof is given for any of this nonsense, except for quotes from unnamed "experts".
Reading stuff like this, knowing what was really going to happen, is like watching blindfolded people walking with great confidence towards the edge of a cliff. Luckily we had a huge industrial base and two big oceans, but still...As they used to say, "God looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America.
@@nedyarbnexus9460 YEEEEH, The Sherman was a good tank but not for the war it was used for.
It was hopelessly misdesigned for WW2.
the French had armoured divisions and many knew how to use them. unfortunately the higher ups didn't know how to use them. Gamelin stopped an attack that would have separated most of the German armour from its infantry. If that attack had succeeded that would have been the end of the German offensive.
I might mess up the names of the French general.
+tajrei99
Nope, it wouldn't have been the end. The Germans had air superiority, a motorized infrastructure, coordination, superior preparation, superior strategy and they were anxious to beat the French.
The French were still using horses for transport, their forces weren't properly supplied, their generals still had a WWI mentality, they didn't expect a blitzkrieg, they thought it would be all over in a matter of months.
They didn't even want to fight another war against Germany...
That attack would've alerted the Germans of a large concentration of French armor...
Sure, perhaps those tanks would've hindered the German advance a bit, but the Germans would've reacted by sending in stuka bombers, like they did in countless occasions during WW2.
Without air support, those French tanks were sitting ducks for the stukas.
Goreuncle Germans did not have motorized infrastructure 75% of transport was horse drawn
Stukas were not that effective against tanks during the war. They needed a direct hit for armored targets which was difficult in practice. Kill reports were greatly overstated during the war because they would often count near hits as kills while the targets were often still left operational. The scale of ineffectiveness was not fully realized until after the war. They were more effective against unarmored targets or large slow armored targets such as ships. Large numbers of Somua S35 would have been difficult to counter at the time with air power. If more S35 had been produced and they had been deployed more effectively they could have potentially stalled the German attack.
Put it this way: on paper, in 1940, the French win 90% of the time.
20:04 - 20:06
Lloyd tries (and fails) to hide his shattering Bren gun-gasm.
I must admit I do have the same problem
Tanks a lot! I really liked this video
Ba-dum-tish!
Oh my, that hurt. lol
-Huckler Puckler
Read the first comment more carefully.
And tank me later.
Dan Drew i really reiched it as well.
What a terrible main pun. It made me feel quite depressed. I shell have to report you if you don't backtrack. Steel, I'll admit it made HE laugh AP the word play a little. But I'll need to knock back some beers before I feel elevated again.
Him actually roleplaying the commander/gunner/loader really puts into perspective just how bad those one man turrets are....
I like tanks :( Admittedly more modern tanks than WW2 tanks, but its fun to see where tanks began and the huge doctrine changes of the pre-WW2 era converging to the MBT modern era in all nations. Also I'm fairly certain the 1 man turret has gone up against the 3 man turret in the modern era at least, though that includes modern technology which makes it less fair. That said there could be a very strong case for the 1 man turret with the aid of modern technology. Hull down you can make a turret so small that it can barely be seen at range along with modern periscopes and devices fitting within the space. Now for some reason the military is determined to keep using manual loading making at least 1 man needed but I can see the commander sitting in the hull with the gunner as being viable, even if he would have to go a long way to have a look around the real world. But in WW2 a full 3 man turret was undoubtably better by a long way. For a tank that large I can't see why you wouldn't want to go that route. Its only 2 men, its not like you can remove the space for a bulky engine etc too. At the least just copy the Russians and make it so cramped they can't work properly, its still better than a commander/gunner/loader hybrid.
But you can always compensate by picking smaller people for your crew, as did the Russians during WW2, and not only limited that period; for example I heard that you can't be taller than 180-183 cm if you want to be a T 72/80 commander/gunner. Different crew roles have different height limits.
If you are interested in this type of tank design have a look at the Russian T-14 (crew less turret) or the Stridsvagn (turret less main battle tank).
All in all I think it is safe to assume that the current configuration of the MBT is due for a rethink. The M1 Abrams design is 45 years old now!!
I see you are a woman of culture
0:27 is lindybeige being a kid again.. And it's amazing
Lloyd, you mentioned during your description of The Jedburghs, who'd parachuted into France to help organize the Free French Resistance in uniform, was meant as a morale booster. However, probably the main reason, was that they couldn't be shot as spies, because they were fighting in uniform. Don't you think? However, this was absolutely excellent, and was easy to absorb because of your very friendly, and comical method of delivery. Good job!
I'm interested in tanks in the sense that I think they are cool, and I'm watching this video. I know nothing about the finer points of a Sherman though. Am I a pretender like one of you straw-women?
End Marxism It seems like to Lindy anyone who doesn't make their own models is only pretending.
That explains a lot really.
I'm pretty sure he was talking in general. I bet if there was a survey done on who likes tanks, women would be in the vast majority. I don't know why this is, but it appears to be the case.
I think he was joking. Chill....
Arthur Dent Is that a clay man from fallen london?
Lindy does a very good job of demonstrating how laborious it is operating a one-man turret.
That's France, they are a powerful country but it fails at the organization (WWII example and nowadays government).
QuantumBullet yes, france gouvernement is flawed in multiple ways, are we gonna talk about great britain and amercan's government?(there are a lot of exemples in the first world)
thibaut jourdain all governments are incompetent universally
And the FIA and the ESA and governing bodies of any number of other organizations.
I love tanks! The way they can holds things; gas, liquid, or solid your choice. There are also all sort of ways to measure the level of tanks. My favorite is capacitive. Basically, you treat the outside of the tank as one plate of a capacitor and then stick a probe into the stored material and treat the probe as the other plate and then you measure how much capacitance the tank as a hole has. Since the capacitance of a particular capacitor is effected by properties of the dielectric (the stuff between the plates) the capacitance of the tank will vary with how full the tank is.
oh... you meant the military fighting vehicle called a "tank"... those aren't real tanks, as any true tank enthusiast will know... I don't know anything about them.
tanks are cool with their tracks and guns.
Greatest tank ever was the infamous "Baghdad battery" which really isn't a battery.
GildedBear IIRC, during WW1, while the British "Landship Commitee" were developing landships, they codenamed it after how it looked ,water "tank", to prevent information about "landships" from leaking.
The advertising on your channel is the least obtrusive of all the ones I watch. Taking a few moments to speak yourself about them not only lets us know you are supporting the product/service, but it's less jarring than being slammed with a family ad for Netflix in the middle of a steamy chat about tanks. Great video, I have to admit I was still under the assumption that it was a technological advantage, interesting to learn that it was more tactical.
The introduction was the most passionate speech I've ever heard about tanks. Props man.
I’ve heard a reason the French favored one-man turrets was exactly to keep crew numbers per tank down so that they could field more tanks with their smaller population. France has (and had) a smaller population than Germany and it would also grow more slowly as a result, so they wanted to leverage what numbers they had as well as they could. It didn’t work out that well, since 3 man turrets are just way better.
The French still today make use of auto-loader guns which allow them to eliminate the role of dedicated loader, allowing them to have 4 man tanks.
That's true. Added to the fact that, due to WW1, french population pyramid in the 30's was looking like a scary hourglass. France couldn't simply afford to put 5 crew members in each tank if they wanted to keep the total amount of tanks on par with Germany. History told us that quantity almost always wins over quality. But okay, that time it didn't go as smoothly as expected...
With hindsight, we know one-man turrets on tanks were a fail. But when put back into context and if we consider the multiple factors, that was simply the sole option France could reasonably pick.
do more videos on tanks please - this is soo amazing. Oh and a question: How dangerous was the position of the commander in a battle being somewhat in the open ontop of the tank, observing the enemies and so on - as far as I understood it was very advantageous having the head out of the tank for better view but this must be much more dangerous than being inside the turret (obviously) - but how dangerous exactly was it and are there records of commanders speaking of how they handled this in combat?
I don't have figures to hand, but it was dangerous, but not as dangerous as staying buttoned up and mostly blind. Very often, commanders were injured when not in their tank at all.
Even today with modern optical systems and 360 cameras and accurate range-finders the tank commanders will often ride on top until they are getting close to likely combat. The only real threat to them is snipers.
I can help a bit. After the war, Captains Wright and Harkness of the Royal Army Medical Corps did an assessment of casualties. They concluded that some 40% of all casualties occurred in the area of the head which would be protected by the helmet, had the British tankers worn them, add to that those head injuries which would not have been stopped by a helmet. (eg shot in the face). Although certainly a number of head injuries would have been received even if the crewman were in the vehicle (eg spalling to the head), I think the figure indicates that there is a definite increase in TC/Loader risk. Further, it was concluded that about half of all casualties occurred outside the tank.
Israeli experience in the Arab-Israeli wars correlated with this, they had a very high attrition rate of commanders. It should be considered, however, that the Russians, who are in no way stupid, have a doctrine which has their crewmen button up, so in their opinion, staying open is more dangerous. I'm an American tanker, so I tend, by experience, to prefer the head-out method, but I'm not going to say it's the only way to skin the cat.
I had a friend who was an American volunteer for the IDF during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He remembered the very sobering experience of arriving at the Egyptian front and seeing a whole park of shot-up Israeli tanks having blood scrubbed off the turrets while a tanker went around his infantry unit asking for volunteers to replace tank crews. 1973 was a very bad year to be an IDF tanker.
Not only snipers, turret machine gun from enemy tank can be very dangerous.
I'm a woman and I like BattleMechs. Those are basically walking tanks. Does that count?
I don't know if the rules have changed, but while mechs are cool, tanks in the game can still give them a good pounding.
They can, yeah. 'Mechs generally have the mobility advantage until you get to Heavies and Assaults.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal. BattleMechs are in my opinion the sexiest mechs there is. I especially like the Awesome.
I miss piloting my Atlas...
Considering half the fun of BattleMechs revolves around geeking out over rigging one's machine/army, I'd say this absolutely counts. Also, it has the added benefit of making girls that are into it mui caliente!
to provide the exception to the rule, I'm almost certain ritagamer really really does like tanks
it was a joke, hence the "not knowing incredibly specific things means you aren't into x" thing
" ritagamer really really does like tanks":
You can't mean that, she's there because of Jingles!!!
I didn't see it as a joke.
And he didn't say they didn't know incredibly specific things, he *asked* about those, and it gave away that they knew barely the basics.
Whether you consider it being into it, the point stays that women are much less committed to the interest, if they pay any at all.
And for Fraxxxi: It's not a rule, it's a trend. There is no rule that -demographic X- can't be into -hobby Y-
I can't be interested in tanks if I don't already know a lot about them? So then how could I start being interested in anything? 🤔
Real tank enthusiasts are born with innate knowledge of all tank related information
Nice try womano
Lindybeige, master of the single take.
I nominate the "Tiger" as the armor equivalent of the "Katakana" and the "Spandau".
Katakana is the Japanese syllabary.
Exactly. Plenty of room to write on the sides of a Tiger.
Charles Wood Second.
Nice and flat too!!!
Tiger could cut through anything!
The French actually did what you said, throw a whole tank unit into the enemy and push them back.
That battle was Sedan. The French threw like 4-10 Char B1 into the fray against Guderian's 30-50 Panzers. When the Germans started firing, they immediately got shocked that the Char B1 managed to bounce off shot after shot of everything they had from the Panzer IV's HEAT ammo to the Panzer III's AP shells. Even the 50mm AT guns they were using at that time had issues and it nearly "steamrolled" (They were going at such a slow pace that even an old man walking can walk faster than that but because they're in a whole column and everything the German had bounced, it was fearful) the Guderian back to where he came from across the Meuse if not for the pesky German artillery and the Stukas.
Anyone else think that Lloyd would be “that” teacher that you never forget because he is just unique
Tanks for the memories! Also--why is there a giant pencil behind you?
;)
Michael Jenkins
To end those pommel bastads rightly!
Thank you for asking! I must know too!
Michael Jenkins did you even watch the video?
Watch The World Burn
Why yes.
Hence Mr. Smiley Face and Richard Alley's joking reply. I can't claim to be a comedian, but I try.
love your videos, congrats on getting your recent videos sponsored.
Easier to train 3 men to do 3 roles than train 1 to do them all
I've said this before, but it deserves repeating (I think) - it's like a serious history lesson. Delivered by Basil Fawlty. Brilliant combo.
"This video is going to be about tanks"
Oh boy, I love water tanks, I can't wait!!!
Dad joke
God this man is the most interesting man in the world everytime I watch him
11:46 when you don't know where the Germans went then you realise they are behind you
I love your videos and one of the main reasons is your "digressions". They add the peripheral information which tends to expand and deepen the basic premise. LINDYBEIGE!!!!
And now Russia's sporting no-man turrets!
No-man tanks soon...
Still has three men in the hull. Workload doesn't change, they just moved the crew.
I thought the ARMATA was a two-man vehicle? TO WIKIPEDIA!
Ah, you were correct... and I have no idea why I wrote Armata in caps.
Seems pretty dangerous to me to have a vehicle with so few crew, though.
Bumbling Brit I have a feeling that we'll see versions of the Armata come out that have the crew in the turret again as well. Video cameras create very limited view, and the commander not in the top also drastically limits visibility in a combat scenario because they're unable to turn out and look out. I'm not saying its guaranteed, I'm just saying it seems likely.
I love tanks but I have kinda shifted towards warships now.
Not that I grew bored of them, I just feel like I know enough facts about them and found these new big manly toys I wanna learn more about.
With that said, have you any interest in making one about warships? If not then you can always do more videos about tanks, or even warplanes! :D
After man o wars things picked up pace quite quickly
Well first you had Steam Man O wars like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Napol%C3%A9on_(1850)
Then early Ironclads such as CSS Virginia & USS Monitor
Then early Turret ships & Late Iornclads
Then Pre Dreadnought Battleships 4 Big guns 18 or so smaller fast firing guns.
Then Dreadnoughts USS Arizona HMS Warspite & the like
Then Post Dreadnoughts Bismarck Iowa South Dakota North Carolina Yamato & KGV.
Then Aircraft carriers & Missile cruisers/ Destroyers.
Then early Modern Ships such as USS Long Beach & USS Enterprise.
Then Modern ships Arleigh Burke Kirov Ticonderoga & Nimitz.
Finally Current ships Zumwalt class Destroyer Independence & freedom class Corrvettes/Frigates Jerald R. Ford class carrier.
***** For the turret I would guess it was mainly for the protection of the gunners and the cannon itself and to rotate the cannons that became larger and larger as the time went by. So instead of many small guns that could only fire at a limited arc you had fewer but heavier and most importantly stronger guns that could shoot the target from almost any angle and with a higher arc (if the turrets were designed like that) so they could shoot further.
Ravewing: How incredibly sexist of you!!!! No Steam Woman of War???? Steam doesn't allow women????
Charles Wood
1640s they were sicker times. No really catch the flu off goes your leg.
*****
Ironclads were possible do to more powerful coal fired engines. They were developed in response to explosive shells.
Then for turrets it was simple you could have 20" guns like on U.S.S. Puritan & only need 2-4 to outgun a Broadside warship like C.S.S. Virginia with her 42lbs 5.4" guns. Also this made it harder to destroy guns & therefore you wouldn't need to turn your ship into an unfavorable position. Barrettes offered similar capabilities & traded protection for speed Rate of fire & weight.
Eventually Pre Dreadnoughts evolved from Ironclads as extra medium guns could sink light ships not worth a 12" salvo.
Then in the 1900s Turbines & reciprocating engines made warships even faster & powerful.
Then around the 30's Aircraft were such a threat that speed & AA guns made it necessary to find new things like angled armor.
Also Monitor had 2x11" guns while most American Monitors had 2x15"-4x15" guns.
I am a twelve year old girl who loves all of this.
Well you're 13 now
@Draugr not all females like me like anime you know
@Draugr Ik I said I am a female weeb but she might not like it
@Draugr no worries
A Random Guy In The Internet still a creepy joke
Lindy missed one important part: All german tanks had radios because Guderian came from the signal corps. It was very easy to coordinate them. Most French tanks had no radio. This was a HUGE advantage too.
I would also mention that having multiple crew members would allow cross training in case something like a driver or turret loader were killed in a battle.
wonderboy: No doubt some auto loader enthusiast will insist that you can cross-train them too.
7:50 i thought he said Tanktically, he missed the oppurtunity 😥
I once read that tanks are usually less well armored in the rear than front. What if two tanks face each other frontally? Which part of the tank would you aim at?
Very often, the only bit you can see is the turret. One favourite target with a tough target was the front of the tracks - going for a 'mobility kill'.
I heard how the Russian dealt with the Tiger II was to just bombard the hull with high explosive shells due to the quality of steel the Germans were using at that time the front plate would eventually crack rendering the tank a complete loss. Also when the Shermans were first put into service some bright spark decided to paint the US star where the Ammo rack was on the side it didn't take long for German antitank gunners to catch onto this and aim at the star for a big boom.
Depends on the tank and your gun. If you have a big gun firing at a weak tank, just aim at the middle and get your shot off ASAP. If you have a relatively weak gun firing at a tough tank, at close range, try to aim at a weak spot - often under the barrel of the gun, or at the tracks. Or try to get round the side - all tanks had weaker armour of the sides. There are even recorded cases of gunners trying to bounce shells off a road and into the weak underside of a tank!
In a "neck" That is a spot under turret, where its joining on chassis. Basically turret ring. It was extremely thin and usually behind it was ammo. Hard to hit, but when it hit, cock off was imminent.
That must be myth. When Reich have Tiger II, Soviets already heave Zveroboy (SU AND ISU 152), IS 1,2 or T34 100 with HEAT and APCR munition + sometimes British HESH. There was no point shooting HE. Actually later in war, HE was not loaded at all. Only in artillery.
Such an animated description of the procedures. The way you tell it I had no trouble picturing all of it happening in my mind. Thanks for doing this.
No no no don't lie, that pencil belongs to Doodle Bob. He was at your house.
Can this be followed by 2 man turrets. And an excerpt on why the Russian T-34's performance was lower than it could have been?
8:30, I'm going to guess this is a story of Pierre Billotte?
To be quite frank. This video is actually one of the most un arguable videos you've ever made Lloyd. Every point is spot on.
the T34 had more problems then just being a two man crew in the 76MM version, it had no turret basket.
Think of a modern tank, the crew moves inside the turret along with it, if you where in a T34, the turret rotated around you, you don't stand on the floor of the turret, you stand on the floor of the hull......so you can't react very fast to anything because you have to concentrate not being hurt by the tank's moving equipment.
the T34/85 gained a third crewmember to be a dedicated gunner, but still no turret basket.
The russians never figured this out, they only put a turret basket in their tanks......with the T62.
yeah i would have love if he tagged 2-man turrets in. i never understood in a T34 why the commander was the gunner, surely the commander should have been the loader?
Kirothe Avenger
Neither. The T34-85 had combat records an order of magnetude higher than the T34-76.
This was mostly due to the commander being only a commander, and being able to do his job. The 85mm, while a good gun, hardly accounts for the sharp rise in capability of the machine. As they were still fighting, for the most part, things that the 76mm could penetrate at decent range.
Linkxsc oh i agree, i was talking about as far as 2-man turrets were concerned.
85s also had a cupola, which seeing as russian tankers almost always fought buttoned up, was a big boon as well
Early T34s rarely had radios too. That was the biggest problem they had.
Tanks are just land ships. And I'm a qualified sailor. And the tracks are a good make to.
They are in fact was about to be called landships but then the British disguised it as a water tank, because the MK 1 heavy tank did borrow some designs from ship, like sponson, and a 6 pounder gun which is a Naval gun at the time
The post-war analysis of tank combat indicated that the tank that fired first defeated its opponent four or five times more frequently. This and the need for a division of responsibilities made the three man turret (commander, gunner and loader) ensured both more efficient gunnery and tactical performance. This and a radio transceiver in each tank gave platoons and companies equipped with PzKfw.IIIs or M4s significant advantages over even two man turrets like the early T-34/76.
Love these. I could watch these all day while munching on MRE rations and imbibing military tea.
The main problem with the French tanks is that too many of them were driven by Frenchmen :D
Can I just say before watching even a second that your WW2 stuff is my most favorite. Please continue your balance of all topics, the rest is cool too. I just prefer the WW2 content. :)
About girls not into tanks, once in work, a new employee shows up, we eventualy start talking about shit we like or not and the first thing she mentioned was how much she likes tanks and we just started geeking out on them lol