Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Christie M1931
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2024
- The first of the Army's Christie-type tanks, which they put a lot of effort into testing in the 1930s, came in two designations: Convertible Medium Tank T3, and Convertible Combat Car T1. This is one of those two vehicles, though in fairness, we're not quite sure which. After editing, I'm mostly leaning to the idea of this being a T3 which was converted to have the machineguns in the same manner as the T1, which seems to be unreported in the books, mainly due to the period photograph at 24:55 which, if so, simply did not have the machinegun mounted at the time.
Financial donations:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal: paypal.me/thec...
Utreon: utreon.com/c/t...
Merchandise
the-chieftains...
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Thank goodness the Chieftain is doing these videos, otherwise, with Fort Lee being off limits to civilians, we muggles would never get to see these treasures.
Exactly right.
I forget if this was one of the tanks on the old Patton Museum "petting zoo", but at least it has some form of corrosion control applied. I remember the ones at the Museum (in the 70's) being in less than optimal condition.
That being said, there should be some form of public access, considering we did , and are paying for them.
THE JEWELS
@@jballew2239 It was better when I was there in the late '80s, at least the part of the collection that was indoors.
Well it's a lot easier because he is still in the US Army reserves or National Guard I forget which one.
"The armor is so pointy, you can use it to bayonet people" - games workshop designers: "write that down, write that down!'
I must say, your audio equipment has improved drastically. This video sounds better than the last Inside the Hatch.
It was filmed it’s the same old equipment.Since I have gone shopping, I have not filmed anything, so I’m just releasing what I had recorded with the old stuff. Some vehicles came out better than others.
placebo is a hell of a drug
I dunno man, there definitely were some audio issues with the last few ones and I think if you couldn't notice them then you must be partially deaf. This one has seemed to escape those tech issues though
@@TheHarvHR This one got lucky, as it were. I didn't screw up the gain, and I wasn't using the wireless mikes which have been causing trouble of late.
@@TheChieftainsHatch boom or separate lav?
Given the age of the vehicle I wouldn't discount it originally being a T1 that adopted the turret of a T3 either through the loss of its own to age/rust or the great military storage system!
Looking at the condition inside, I'd guess this was a display pieced together out of a number of different vehicles.
Ha, my thought exactly! Posted something similar, sorry I missed your comment.
@@kirkmooneyham y'all good friend it's a pretty obvious answer to the problem.
Medieval knights had sloped armor, castles and fortresses had angled walls.
Jesus had a sloped nose
If the length of the 50. and the length of the 37mm were so close, would it have been possible that Christie used the same ammo bin?
That's what I was thinking. It's not a bad idea if they work equally well for both types of rounds.
@@derkaiser9881 'Specially if you wouldn't get another beltholder in using the slimmer messaurements.
I cannot find any solid data on the 37x94mm with a quick google. So, 3.7 inches but that is just the casing length. Some more quick Googling suggests the projectiles typically add about 60-70% or more to the casing length. But hard to say what exact shell the US was using as everyone and their granny was running some flavour of 37x94mmR.
Very rough maths but even assuming the protruding part of projectile is only half the length of the casing you exceed the 5.45 inches of of both bin and the .50 cartridge. So I am leaning towards a .50cal bin.
-edit-
Looks like the US shell might have been 6.566 inches. Considerably longer then the bin.
@@Elmarby the 37x94 used by the US was generally similar to that used by the French since the US had adopted the short Mle 1916 Puteaux infantry gun and that was what eventually mounted in the M1917 light tank
the cartridge length for that gun was between 160mm and 180mm (6.29 to 7.08 in) from what i can find, depending on the specific shell type
wikipedia gives a max cartridge length of 138mm (5.45 in) for .50 BMG, so the bins are quite probably for a .50
in addition to that, the wikipedia page for the 37mm M1916 shows a photo of said gun in a tank mount, and it is pretty clear the mount is very different to the one seen in the tank (afaik the US never adopted the semi-automatic gun the french had developed for the FT)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_d%27Infanterie_de_37_mod%C3%A8le_1916_TRP#/media/File:37-mm_M1916_gun_in_a_tank_mount.jpg
finally, the 37mm fed with single cartridges fed by hand in the breech
in the french tanks, the 37mm ammo was stored vertically in racks, shell pointing down; and they were delivered in crates, no belt ever seen or mentioned
forum.pages14-18.com/viewtopic.php?t=52826
@@Elmarby "37x94mm... so 3.7 inches" I might be too drunk, but how did you get that conversion?
Great video as always. They should have the tracks on one side and wheels on the other for contrast and comparison.
Thank you for this video. I've been looking for years to find something on this vehicle that went in depth.
That’s the way it was displayed indoors at Aberdeen
10:00 - Regarding the issue of surface grip when in wheeled configuration, I couldn't help but imagine a tyre burnout-start with a Christie Tank. A very unique way of smoke generation.
Thank you for getting us in where we usually wouldn't be able to.
Cool video Nick! Really enjoyed your discussion at the end about whether this was originally equipped with the 37mm or the M2 .50 caliber.
I finally understand the Christy suspension well enough to see why it's considered a dead end, so thank you for showing the springs and spring towers, I could not understand the written descriptions.
I was aware of some of the different issues U.S. Army had with Christy's design concepts, usually these are depicted as a great loss due to the Army's lack of foresight. Your presentation help me to understand that situation was based on careful consideration.
It appears that what happened is that Christy wasn't willing to accept that his ideas needed to be altered to meet the Army's requirements.
Is there perhaps a chance this tank is a Chimera? With a body of a Converible Combat Car T1 (Thus having the .50 boxes in the hull) with the Turret of a Convertible Medium Tank T3 (Thus resulting in the mounting for the short 37mm)? The date of acquisition on the document at 32:51 says 1945, so perhaps the tanks where already stored outside for some time and they just combined the best looking turret with the best looking chassis from the lot that was rusting out somewhere?
As much as I appreciate getting to see this amazing piece of armored history and having it all explained to me in that great Chieftain fashion I do have to mention the camera work. In the explanations about how the steering mechanism worked and latter how power was sent to the wheels, I couldn't see the parts being explained because of the camera angle and wheels etc being in the way. This was a bit confusing when it came to the drive mechanism. A minor complaint overall but changing the angle so we could see what was being talked about would have been a great improvement. That's not to say it wasn't a good vid on an important tank that I had no idea still existed and I certainly appreciate being able to see and learn about it, so cheers from down under ;).
That tank in the opening scene looks like a perfectly weathered scale model!
You put out the best tank videos on youtube. It's always a absolute joy when I see a new video pop up. Thanks for your hard work!
I'm really glad that Chieftain has the great opportunity visit the very interesting convertible Christie M1932. Probably the fastest tank ever produced. The Christie suspension, not adopted by the US Army, apparently because of it's cost and very difficult character of Christie himself was adopted by the Brits in quite a few AFV and in particular by the Russians resulting in the formidabile T-34 despite knowing the limitations. As always a very interesting video on a tank I never have seen. Good job again 👍👍👍👍
It was more the problem that the Christies didn't meet US requirements as well as other options. See ruclips.net/video/0APcEvupuiA/видео.html
If you can define it as a tank when it is not on tracks. Modern tanks will do 50mph or better on tracks, with 70 time if armor. And they do that routinely in service, I am sure they did even better in testing.
@@TheChieftainsHatch thanks for replying and I saw the link that you sent that somehow I missed 2 years ago. It really explains a lot. Found it very interesting!
@@justforever96 I don't really agree with you because the AFV vehicles on wheels despite being good are too top heavy, extremely expensive, and will never have have a good off road capability especially in very muddy conditions.
It makes you wonder what the ideal tank would be at any time, pre ww2 and after ww1.
I suspect you will find that very much depends on who you ask. As has been mentioned by this channel, a tank is only one part of a system with many interlocking parts. A person's perception of the role tanks play in this system will vary widely on circumstances.
As the cheiftain out it; the best tank in the world is (for Israel) the merkeva, because it does everything they wanted the tank to do. For, say, Japan or Russia, the merkeva is probably terrible
Given the available technology, the old joke applied - "You can have firepower, protection and mobility - pick any two", So if you wanted a fast cavalry tank you went with mobility and firepower, while if you needed an infantry support vehicle, you chose armor and firepower. It wasn't until the current generation with advent of engines well north of 1000 hp (1500 hp in the Abrams) that you could have all three. And even then, is the M1 ideal for Central America Indochina?
The end of vid piece, looking at the .50/37 racks is great. Reminds me of a couple of instances on BB-55 "What is that?" "Never seen that before." "Waaaaiitttt a minute. Stand by one..." Headscratching and chin rubbing commences, as we dove into the weeds.
Love these old finds.
Very good mechanical detailing as always.
I love these old Christie tanks and their derivatives. He didn't design them to be really fast on accident or to suit any particular technical or doctrinal need in military service, especially not on behalf of the Americans or the Soviets, he just made them fast because he knew that it'd be cool for an armored fighting vehicle to move so quickly. And it is cool.
Don't underestimate the Christie suspension!
My man of culture here
~Säkkijärven polka intensifies~
It was pure genius and totally under-rated.
@@MagosMirka you must be a man of culture as well
I too indulge in Christie suspension lore.
Thank you for explaining why the non-toothed drive wheel died with the T34. I've been asking folks at Bovington about this and could never get an answer.
Az oroszok által sokat szidott USA adta ezt a tankot neik. Még a T 55 nél is ezt a l fogas ánc feszìtő szerkezetet hsználják.
Those huge track links must have made an ungodly racket at speed.
Been hoping you'd cover this one for a long time. Brilliant video (as always)
The driving roadwheel being on a pivot arm sleeved to the rear 'sprocket' axle is a necessary feature to ensure that the distance between the driving road wheel and the 'sprocket' remains constant, which keeps the tank from throwing the drive chain when in wheel mode. When in motion, the rear of the road wheel and the front of the 'sprocket' wheel are moving in opposite directions, which means that one or the other would be trying to fling any rock that tries to jam itself between away from the gap. That said, a sufficiently big rock, too big to be dislodged in this manner, would still jam the two wheels, and a greater separation would be better. However, this would make the lever arm for the driving road wheel longer, requiring a larger spring to get the same suspension response, and I suspect Christie simply ran out of room while trying to keep the size, and therefore weight, of the vehicle down to something even loosely approximating the Army's requirements, and he just accepted the tradeoff.
I remember Scale Modeler Magazine, in one of the 1980’s edition, had an article on Scratchbuilding a Christie M1931 armed with a 37mm gun. This is great seeing the Chieftain discussing am actual vehicle and history around this vehicle. A great video, thanks
Thanks for this! I've found this tank to be the most interesting USAA tank, and it's awesome one still survives!
Tornado has always been armed with a 37mm in every photo I've seen of it, except for the modern photos of it in museums. It seems more likely to me that it was a museum botch job where they stuck a .50 cal in the hole where the cannon goes. As for the ammunition, the 37mm Browning T9 they planned to upgrade these to was definitely belt-fed, but that was never installed. I don't know if the original short 37mm was belt-fed or not, probably not.
I think you misunderstand what Chieftain was getting at. The belt for the short 37's would be for Storage, not as part of the feed system. Think of it as a big bandolier
Thank you for sharing
🇺🇲✌️🤗🙏
Thanks for an interesting video colonel. By the way, apparently there were cloth “cartridge belts,” for the 37mm. forgotten weapons has a photo showing a gun team using one that holds 16 rounds.
Sauce?
@@Wolvenworks i0.wp.com/www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/m1916-37mm-tripod-2.jpg
@@Wolvenworks I'll take the Romesco, extra parmesan please!
There's some pictures of bastion forts from the sixteenth century to prove his point on "we've known about sloped armor forever".
Breastplates were sloped and deflected arrows. They even included a pronounced 'v' on the chest to correct for a shot trap that would deflect arrows from the chest towards the neck.
lovely video on the famous Christie. Military history buff since childhood. Served in the US Army - 11B Infantry, not armor, no apologies :) Thank you for all you do, your videos are very entertaining and enjoyable.
The earlier M1921 .50" did mount differently than the later M2 (ANM2, etc) having a large diameter pin bore on an extension that protruded fore of the receiver.
19:22
Chieftain: "ok".
Don't know why, but that delivery had me dying.
I wish that these little museum exhibits would be open to the public
The ammo stowage reminds me of my 18E Vietnam veteran father's reaction on seeing the first of the movies with Sly Stallone toting an M60 -- "Those belts come in a bag that clips to the side of the gun!"
A genus pushing blindly into the unknown.
To further support Chieftan on sloped armor predating the T-34, sloped armor was being used routinely by the Confederate military in the U.S. on their iron-clads as well as in the Crimean War in the artillery/mortar barges.
Sloped armor was known, and understood far further back than modern history revisionists would have you believe, it was always a matter of the practicality of its use.
Leonardo da Vinci’s “tank” also had it.
Plate armour, for humans, is mostly slopes.
@@СусаннаСергеевна Indeed it was in the design, however, it also never went beyond a drawing in its day.
@@julianshepherd2038 Most definitely, however practical experience with angles and deflection of broadhead vs bodkin point arrows wasn't really scientifically studied or implemented. Add to that, the production technology of the time was basically how good and consistently a blacksmith could make sheet metal, shape it, and it not be fatigued by it.
@@nobodyuknow4911 The point is that the concept of deflecting projectiles with sloped armour plates was evidently already well understood. There are elements of this in the trace italienne as well, the term "glacis" originates in the raised ramps leading up to the encircling ditch, which would deflect cannonballs fired at the lower wall upward, so they would hit the less vulnerable earthwork there instead, or to even miss the fortress entirely.
I am a huge fan of the BT tanks, and seeing what is essentially (I know it’s not technically part of the series, but let me dream alright) the earliest BT available is cool as hell. It’s an awesome piece of history and I’m so glad you were able to get your grubby hands on it for a video.
Looks like it's a hybrid of both. Depending upon its armourment equipped. It could be used as a infantry support tank against machine gun nest or after a artillery barrage. It could speed behind enemy lines and run around causing chaos and doing some scouting. But who knows
the road configuration was intended to get it to the next battle at the same speed as the trucks that were carrying the infantry.
I’ve been binge watching your videos and I’m now to the point where if you said that this combat car was an M1 Abrams I’d believe you. What I’m saying is that your knowledge of these vehicles is so vast that I’d take what you say over pretty much anyone else. Keep up the good work, your videos are extremely detailed. You provide information that has even you questioning your own assumptions and for an expert to call into question their own knowledge - not as if you have gaps in your data but that there’s overlapping historical content - means that you know a lot about your subject matter.
Christie tanks always fascinated me. The what could have been! Cheers!
looks like you need to start carrying random dummy rounds, when you visit wierd old tanks! great video as always
6
Looks like the wrong turret on a Cavalry Combat Car. An aside are there any US M41 light tanks left to poke around in. I visited one back in 1972 on a demo range at Fort Belvoir 14 miles south of DC. It was damaged but the inside was accessible on a no activity weekend when I visited it very near to where the T28 was found on the night vision range. Also, down at Stump neck annex part of the Indian Head Naval ordnance station there was a Martan Mauler Hidden off in the woods. On main post there was a F105b and a F11.
I had a tour of the APG museum facilities before it closed. I was taken to a warehouse whose main function was to store samples of American and foreign ammo. But that building also had a T34, an M3 halftrack and the Christie tank. At that time the Christie seemed to be in excellent condition. The docent also took me into the paint booth where the disassembled Elephant was sitting while being painted.
Well presented history lesson. Well done Sir!
So many interesting items in the background.
The OG sports tank!
This thing going 70mph must have been wild to see.
3:15 "The armor on this is so pointy you could use it to bayonet people!" Those red stains near the point suddenly look a lot more suspicious...
Formula 1 Racing tank! Complete with go faster pointy nose. On a more serious note, great to see another video on Inter-War tanks, their design and thoughts. Nice one Mr Chieftain sir
Just got to see this tank at fort lee (gregg-adams) and it was cool seeing after this video!
26:00 is that M2A2E3 sitting to the right of the frame? The suspension bogies seem different than standard VVSS of other M2 lights, and although it has a Stuart style trailing idler it clearly has the twin MG turret setup.
Very interesting Video. Fascinating Tank.
Great video as always!
I'm not gonna lie, the tracks are the weirdest looking things I've ever seen... lol
fun fact: Soviet union use it as BT's tank
another fact: even without track it still can move
Thank you. Very cramped.😃
Climbing out was a nice view. I would have liked to see you climb in.
"Gotta respect the Christie suspension."
RUclips auto captions never fails to amuse:
15:10 "It's actually a relatively large one man turd"
I’ll always believe The Chieftain is the Doug Demuro of tanks, finding all the quirks and features and getting around a tank as if I may consider buying or using it lol
Cheers Chief. Great vid as ever.
So is this a father or a sibling of Soviet Bt-2 tank? Great video and narration. Thanks
Probably older sibling, really.
Quite the speed demon!
Letterman is an awesome tool to have around. 👍
Get the WAVE model, its the best.
This is great. Thanks!
If I recall correctly, the M2 hvy machine gun didn't have the universal receiver modifications made until after this tank was designed. Might that be the reason for the difference in the mounting?
Interesting investigation at the end there
Thanks for the video: I was under the mistaken impression that Christy used torsion bars when it did use vertical springs. The question becomes who used torsion bars first?
Sweden, with the L-60 (1936).
@@СусаннаСергеевна wiki says 34 but definitely first
@@julianshepherd2038 I'm sorry, I misremembered.
Porsche patented the concept of torsion bar suspension in 1931 and it was used on a number of civilian automobiles (Citroen I think being the first company to have a production car using it) before being adapted for use on the Swedish tanks in 1934-1936. The basic concept of a metal bar twisting on itself was a bit older, but I think only used in some industrial machinery before then.
I can also see the mistake of thinking Christie used torsion bars because the Soviets famously opted to replace their Christie suspensions with torsion bar suspension, so the two are frequently mentioned together and can become blurred in one's mind.
The thing I've been wondering by these Christie tanks is when they drive around on their tires, is if the number 1 axle does the steering, that means that, since the wheels on the no. 2 axle are so close to the no. 1 axle, the wheels on the no. 2 axle are being dragged sideways. I can't imagine that would help the manoeuvrability of the whole thing.
Also....
30:24 An unfired .50BMG projectile has a diameter of 13mm. The 12,7mm is the distance between the lands of the rifling.
I just couldn't help myself.
We've had suspensions on tracked vehicles for nigh on a century at this point. I wish someone would tell the skid/track loader manufacturing companies about it. My butt would be very appreciative.
I have the opinion that what made the Christie suspension system tank so important
is that it is the first tank that did not have an agricultural basis for track and largely non existent suspension.
The Soviet t34 and German Panther are examples of what I consider modified Christie suspensions
Terrific tour of an M1931, whatever T it is
Oh no!
The tank is on fire!
My thought was what if they simply put together the best turret and best hull that they had remaining back in the day. So, it's a mismatch only due to someone back then trying to preserve some history, without thought to any accuracy. (Edited to add: seems like I'm far from the only one to have this idea. Were any of the parts serialized? A casting, or stamping, or data plate, perhaps?)
My grandfather was an infantryman in 1918. When he mustered out in 1920, he brought home an inert round for the 37mm IG that was used in the trenches. My understanding is that was the same gun used on the early Christie tanks as well as the FT7. The round was much as you describe and I doubt it would have the ability to penetrate the armor on a WWII M3 scout car, let alone another tank.
I imagine the short 37's would be entirely HE, unless there were different fillers that can be used in a low velocity round, like smoke perhaps. Creating any type of kinetic AP that would fit the breech would be wishful thinking really. Just my logic based opinion.
Sounds like the Chieftain needs to start carrying around an Emotional Support Inert Caliber 50 round.
Chieftan, I have a book: " United States Tanks of World War II" by George Forty. On page 12 it shows this particular tank. Dont know if you can tell from the photo if its a 37mm or a .50cal. The muzzle does look bigger than .50, but it would be a really short 37mm.
That must b e a very heavy hatch - see how all the lights flicker when he removed it (17:30?😁
Looking for extra holes, its safe to say, these tanks were experimented with in every way Patton, Ike and others could think of.
All one needs to do is look at how castles changed after the development of reliable bombards and cannon to realise just how long we've know that sloped armour is more effective against bullets...
But forts weren't angled to deflect shot or increase the thickness, they were angled to create fields of cross fire from the walls. The first sloped walls were sloped so they could use soft material that would absorb the shot instead of smashing.
@@justforever96 Yes. And then we realised that because the front face of the wall was sloped instead of 90 degrees to the shot, the shot would just bounce. And after that fortifications were built with sloped walls for more than one reason.
Happened with breastplates, too.
My point is that we've had the knowledge for centuries; it doesn't matter if we discovered it by accident or through someone being clever.
Col. I thought the Idler Wheels were RR track adaptors. Now I know but that seems like a good accessory. Use RR tracks as highways. All the bridges are strong enough and much better mileage.
But you can only go where the tracks go. And trains can't use the tracks at the same time. And you are a lot less efficient than just loading the tanks onto flat cars and having a locomotive pull them. And how do you organize 100 take all trying to drive on the same tracks? There is a reason they use trains and not hundreds of small railcars. Advancing into enemy territory on rails is making yourself seriously vulnerable and unable to maneuver, using the tracks behind your own lines takes up badly needed trackage that they need to keep the front supplied.
Yes all this is true BUT. One country's rails wont fit another country's locomotive engines purposely.
I am also suggesting using the rail system in an occupied country and you can jump off anytime you want
thanks
Hey Chieftain just something I noticed but a lot of your videos going over stuff like equipment reports and the Marmon-Harrington tanks aren't in any of your playlist.
I can still find them in the video tab but it requires a bit of searching. Hope to see more!
Hmm... Fair point. I guess I'll have to come up with some sort of playlist for that sort of thing
Has the Chieftain ever made a video about the history of the development of tank suspension systems? I can't find one and considering suspension systems tend to take up about a quarter of his videos; it seems important.
One should always take a tape measure with one when one goes crawling around in an old tank.
Perhaps the hull is T1 with the turret from a T3 but at some time in the past it was made to look like a T1 since that was what the hull was?
20:29 insert futurama hermes “that just raises further questions!” Gif
Awesome!
Very interesting. Thank you for the video. ^^
Since belts wrapped around those hooks, I assume the rounds were positioned back to front (depth), not left to right (width). Couldn't tell which you were measuring.
Thank you. I have been waiting for this video. Do you think that is the original paint? It does display the same markings of photos but....? The "new" mantlet would seem to indicate not original paint. I read the length of links was too long and later ( Like BT series) track links were shortened. Do you think that is true? I always wanted a model of this tank .. LOL Owning an original is unthinkable. . Thanks for covering this tank. !
AUDIO IS BACK ON THE MENU BOYS
Holy, I did not know that any Christie tanks survived except for the BT's.
The .50 cal bin looks quite new when you compare the condition to the 30.cal bin, which would argue for it being for the 37mm version, just that the rack has been replaced (possibly incorrectly?).
Is it possible that the main body is a T3 that was mated to a T1 turret when it was rebuilt? That may be why you have both 50cal belt holders and a mount for a cannon.
So the suspension is like a trophy truck? Where you use the entire height of the vehicle to mount shocks so you get as much travel as possible?
I am not convinced that Christy suspension takes up more internal volume from the of the tank then torsion bars but it certainly is harder to work around.
It's not just a case of how much but where, Christy requires two rows of coil springs, whereas torsion bars only take up space on the bottom, which case, just put a false floor in.
It’s easier to design a good narrow tank than a good tall tank. A tall tank hides behind hills or earthworks to present a smaller target, which limits its functionality to hilly terrain or retreats. A flat tank can advance over plains and fields without presenting an enormous target, and as history has shown us tanks work best in an offensive role. Ergo, Christie suspension is strictly speaking better (in terms of tank capabilities). The problem is maintenance. To replace a torsion bar you can simply unbolt it and slide it out. Getting a spring out from behind armour plate is significantly more complicated.
@@CallanElliott
You sound like you think you are disagreeing with what I said while not actually doing so.
"Getting a spring out from behind armour plate is significantly more complicated"
Almost as difficult and complicated as the interleaved road wheels on the Tiger and Panther tanks. Hours to change one inside damaged road wheel, just to get moving to take another hit in the road wheels and getting stopped again.
@@bachtomin213 Far be it from me to accuse the Germans of being a particularly intelligent lot.
Hey, I am aware this is a completely unrelated note to the topic of the video, but back in one of your Q&A's you had made a comment about the T26 over at Cantigny Park. I know I am quite late but I 'll go ahead and save you the trouble anyways. It's not in mint condition like you had said, though it is in far better shape than a great number of the vehicles over at the Fort Benning if that gives you a vague point of reference, and as far as I'm aware the interior is off limits (even to celebrities like yourself). All of the entrances to the vehicle have been padlocked with the condition of the inside being assumed terrible, considering how it has been left outside for as long as I can remember. I would still recommend you visit the 1st Div. Collection on the slim chance you find yourself in the state as Cantigny is a wonderful museum.
God knows Illinois needs some attention for something other than Chicago...
I've been there a couple of times, but I never got the impression that anyone there overly cared about the rare vehicle they have there.
@@TheChieftainsHatchUnfortunately the reality of letting everyone climb over it. Even if it does get kids and younger people interested in tanks, it's still a bit sad.
Great video Nick! Is the plan to show more of the collection at Fort Lee?