Most prototypes who never see a real combat: in WW1 the US troops use only Renault FT17 or the licence copy M1917 in combat, only 3 Ford 3ton was tested in France, but was found innefficient...
Thank you for sharing. Good work archiving and organizing these obscure images and videos. Excellent citations and resources. Your many programs are most interesting.
The steam tank was actually a good idea. Three reasons. #1: It had 500hp. Giving it more power than any other tank at the time. #2: It used some of the steam to power a flame thrower. It did NOT use a boiler, instead it used something called a 'steam-generator' which is made entirely of small tubes and cannot explode like old fashioned boilers did. This had the advantage of being both safer and providing much hotter and higher pressure steam. Making the engine much more efficient as well as being able to power the flame-thrower. #3: Due to having a high pressure steam system, the tank had two motors. One for each track. This meant that they didn't need complex transmissions or clutches. In fact, they didn't even have reverse, instead just flipping a valve to run the engines backwards. The tank could zero-turn by running one track in reverse and one track forward at the same time. The tank carried a large radiator on the rear roof to condense the steam back into water thereby reducing water loss. The flame-thrower used a separate water tank with a separate steam coil in the steam generator to power it. The engine system was designed by the Doble Steam Car company. Who had improved steam power substantially and used their expertise to build a very powerful power plant for the tank. If I recall correctly the engine ran on kerosene. It was quiet and had much more torque than gasoline engines. The engine was very effective and had it had a chance to see battle, very likely most WW1 heavy tanks would have been powered by Doble Steam plants. Steam engines are known for being big and weak. But the design that Doble used made them right about the same size, weight and power as diesel engines of the day. The gasoline engines were a bit lighter and smaller, but the steam package was quieter, had much higher torque and didn't need a transmission. After the Steam tank was tested, it was left to be forgotten. And the advantages and advances of the Doble Steam system were forgotten with it. By WW2 gasoline engines were so powerful per pound that steam wasn't even considered as anything other than archaic. But by the 1960s, steam was again considered for the M1 Abrams, as diesel engines were to be too heavy for the desired 1500hp. And a steam power plant was proposed with the same power and more torque and no transmission. But the idea for using a turbine beat out both ideas due to weight and space savings.
VVovv ! TY for the vvell researched info . I had read that steam cars vvere being used during the era & some could be pretty fast but like the early electric cars they lost favor in the eyes of the public . 500 Hp & not needing a transmission though sure vvould've been advantageous to povver tanks vvith back then . Also didnt knovv that the M1 Abras vvas supposed to be steam povvered . If the Allies had decided to adopt the Doble Steam System it really vvould've changed things & the developement of all future vehicles . VVould make a great premis for a Steam/dieselpunk Alt History novel .
@@rogerwhite9484 I have to make a slight correction, the Abrams wasn't the tank that was almost steam powered, it was the M60. But it was mentioned during the development of the Abrams. If you're interested, I found an article that explains the whole story. But I'll have to dig up the link. It is fascinating that steam wasnt used in the early heavy tanks. But perception is a major factor in developing things. And the military is either wanting only the newest and most cutting edge or wants to stick with tried and true. So it's a fickle thing for sure. Apparently there was some efforts to power the M4A4 Sherman with a 500hp steam engine. The team that wanted to develop the engine were convinced of the advantages. But we're treated like ignorant outcasts. The engine would have also used independent motors for each track. And apparently they produced more than 1500 ft-lb of torque at all RPMs which would have given the performance of a 900hp engine. Which could have enabled faster and more nimble tanks as well as the ability to endure more added armor later in the war.
Because of my use of being logged in, favorites, and things like that, RUclips does the whole "personalized" list, to the right, of things - some of which are "recommended for you." I'm quite sure you're familiar with it but I feel I need to point it out to lead to this... I watch a lot, and I do mean a lot, of documentaries - to the exclusion of all else, and have, as a matter of preference, since I was a child and I'm quite old now. For me, the Internet has been a great thing with so many previously unavailable things becoming available over the last several decades. (I did mention I was old and you could say that I was a bit of an early adopter to the 'net.) At risk of making a short story long, I'll also point out that I've never been a fan of regular television and haven't really even watched regular television in decades. As odd as it may sound to some, I'm not even remotely kidding when I say that I watch documentaries to the exclusion of all other programming as a preference. It's very, very rare that I watch anything else. Now, I said all that to point out that your material has been recommended to me on more than one occasion and I've even opened and taken a look at your material on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, I had not, until just a short time ago, actually spent more than a few moments reviewing your work and have moved on to other things - many of which I've already seen. Yet, still, I quickly looked and moved on and hadn't noticed something - thus hadn't seen a reason to watch. I have since paid more attention and have given it more than a few minutes glance in passing. What I'm trying to express is that I see, now, is that you have put an immense amount of effort into composing these bodies of work and that I, for one, appreciate that labor and the results. I am quite sure that I'll not only watch the rest of them, having made it through this one, but that I will also watch the new ones that you create. Not only will I watch them but I'm quite likely to watch them a number of times. So, in short, thank you for your effort in creating these bodies of work.
Thanks for the cool videos, theres a nicly restored version of the King Armored Car from 1916 in the U.S. Marine Corps Museum, Quantico Virginia, and a M1917 6 ton tank being restored to running condition a few miles away from there at the Virginia Museum of Military Vehicles, Nokesville Virginia.
Great video just shovved up in my suggestions vvhich is odd as Im subscribed & this is 2yrs old , thought you just put it out lol. TY for shovving the vvhole of the Ford 3 ton tank film as I didnt knovv the other half featured the 6.5 ton tanks running through the same obstacles behind the Ford plant . VVere the 6.5's a licensed copy of the Renaults?
This is so awesome! I never seen any of these before, but never also thought they was actually American as i thought other countries was the ones to be having these kind of armor vehicles then us. But that M1917 six-ton Tank looks like what the Japan and Italians used as i thought they made they'er own designs as i know the France was using them. But i bet if they put three design all together on that pioneers tank skeleton like that Trench Destroyer Tank with that McClean Gun Carriage and Holt 55 Propelled Gun i would think with all of that in one vehicle to used that we would of probably make history of no end with that kind of fire power of an tank in one, maybe even better then any other kinds during that time line of first tanks in war.
I'm now on my second viewing, more if you count my use of the pause and rewind buttons and I figured I'd enter the comment section anew and see if anyone had commented on it. They haven't but you mentioned it. That means you get my question about this "it." See, I don't know what "it" is. You mentioned the Ford 3 ton. I've done some looking and I can't find any information to confirm this. In one of the Ford 3 ton pictures, there is a handle on the front. It is in the picture at 14:21 if you want to take a look. It's in the front and near a hook. It kind of looks like a starter crank though I'm not sure why it'd have one in that year. Is that a starting handle to start the engine? The electric starter motor had already been invented and was in common use at that point. (It was in use in Europe in the late 1800s and DELCO filed their first patent a number of years before they made this tank.) It is very much like the French Renault FT-17 which I can find information about and the FT-17 did come equipped with an electric starter. It is heavily modeled on the Ford Model T, sharing a bunch of parts, internally - of course, and that also had an electric starter - maybe, as an option and then as the default in 1919. Additionally, and entirely off-topic but added because you mentioned liking it, the Ford 3 Ton never saw combat as the war was over before it made it there. It was, however, one model that had been approved and ordered. In fact, Ford had delivered something like 15, or some-such, but the war was pretty much over by then so I believe only a couple ended up shipped to France in the wanning months of The Great War. From that, and perhaps directly responsible for it, we got one of the finest early tanks ever made - namely the Renault FT-17 which was fantastic for the day and age. It does look like it would be an absolute blast to drive WITH hearing protection, a proper restraint harness, and probably an air-ride suspension seat. I can't imagine it would be much fun after about 10 minutes without that stuff equipped - we're talking broken teeth type suspension and near-instant-OSHA-be-damned noise levels that might both be mitigated by the inner-child. But, even the inner-child has old bones these days so I'm thinking the fun would wear off in just 10 minutes *unless* I had the aforementioned seat, harness, and hearing protection. As an ENTIRELY (and near-pointless) addendum, the famous scene of the British tank being trialled - where it goes over a bank, slams down in the front, pauses for a second, and then keeps going - it's quite common so you're probably very familiar with it, well.... In one of the tank documentaries there's an anecdote from the pilot of that tank in the video and it lacked any protective equipment of any type and the reason that it paused and then kept going (like it was supposed to and like it was on purpose) was because the driver had slumped onto the controls due to having struck his head with enough force to lose consciousness. It stopped moving very shortly after and the video is never shown beyond that point. That is, of course, just an anecdote from a documentary created for the BBC (I think) and I've no idea of the veracity but many other tankers tell tales of rough rides so I don't find the tale too difficult to swallow. Ah well, sorry for the novella and off-topic chatter but you listed it as your favorite so I'm hoping you've more information about it. Much thanks for reading all this and, perhaps, for sharing the answer.
Information isn't that hard to find. It's the M1918 light tank, or the Ford 3 ton model 1918, or the US Tank Mk Vl. Versions with both manual and electric start were made. By the time it was approved for service the war was literally weeks from ending. 15,000 were ordered, 15 were made, and 2 all still here today. One is at the Patton museum in Fort Knox, Kentucky and the other is at the tank museum in Fort Lee Virginia- it's in all original condition and gets started and driven every year for the veterans day parade.
Ol' Mr. Ellis Sweet. Thank you! Your Google-fu is superior to mine. I couldn't find anything about any that were manually started. What I did get to thinking about was that, given the time and the need to have maximum availability, they might have had the electric starter but still kept the attachment so that it could be manually cranked if the battery was dead/damaged/etc. I do appreciate your help and clarification. The next time I'm down in Kentucky, I'll visit the museum - I go through that area once or twice a year so I'll be close enough to skip over and see them. If you are in that area and see a dawdling old man with long hair and asking the poor museum guides too many questions - that'll be me. ;-) If that should ever happen, I'll buy you a beer to repay you for your help and kindness. Then again, on that same trip I also go through the Virginia area so maybe I'll be super lucky and my trek will be near the time of the parade. But yes, I'll actually stop in and see it. It's one of the museums I've not visited but probably should. Again, thanks.
Glad to provide some enlightenment on the matter, you appreciate the forgotten classics just like me. I'm from Virginia, but every time I've gone to Fort Lee the tank museum would be closed. (The Ford 3-ton used to be way up in Aberdeen MD, so I guess I shouldn't complain). Anyway enjoy your visit whenever you come around and be blessed in the mean time!
Ol' Mr. Ellis I've got a couple of bucks. I'll make sure to stay in a hotel and wait until it is open. ;-) I want to see it that much. And yes, I'm also old (probably not as old as you) but I've an appreciation for the older things, They tell us a lot, like how people thought and how we got from there to here. Without them, without their preservation, the world would be a worse place. Prior to tax time, I donate to a few museums that are non-profit. Even if I didn't get a break on my taxes, I'd donate regardless. I'm retired and have plenty, sending them a few bucks isn't going to limit my lifestyle any so I'd do it anyhow. I'll do my best to get pics and video and put them online. It really is an interesting looking tank.
I got a question for you Jmantime . Were there ever Japanese hand grenades that were made before the type 10 grenade from the 1920s. If they did. Can you do a video on them. It would be so cool to see the models of them. Not foreign made grenades but Japanese designed grenades.
Zack Hansen yeah, i found a few , the Type 1907 - The " Pot " Type Grenade from 1914 and a Strange grenade launcher from 1914 Battle of Tsingtao - and the " Jia type hurriedly constructed grenade" from 1918 - i just need to find photo's of them - www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~fuwe1a/newpage81.html
An interesting video, showing how American entrepreneurial spirit could have overcome most obstacles placed in the way of weapons development by inveterate, blinkered military bureaucracy.
You show a large # of types of armored vehicles but no real information of the items or how they compare to others of there time. What they were designed to do and how well they accomplished that mission. Sorry to be critical but that is the information that most people are looking for.
Most prototypes who never see a real combat: in WW1 the US troops use only Renault FT17 or the licence copy M1917 in combat, only 3 Ford 3ton was tested in France, but was found innefficient...
the Mack armored car , the Ford 3-ton Tank & the Oakland Tank are my favorite
Excelente!.
Love the 3 ton, something charming about how simple and small it is
Thank you for sharing. Good work archiving and organizing these obscure images and videos. Excellent citations and resources. Your many programs are most interesting.
The steam tank was actually a good idea. Three reasons.
#1: It had 500hp. Giving it more power than any other tank at the time.
#2: It used some of the steam to power a flame thrower. It did NOT use a boiler, instead it used something called a 'steam-generator' which is made entirely of small tubes and cannot explode like old fashioned boilers did. This had the advantage of being both safer and providing much hotter and higher pressure steam. Making the engine much more efficient as well as being able to power the flame-thrower.
#3: Due to having a high pressure steam system, the tank had two motors. One for each track. This meant that they didn't need complex transmissions or clutches. In fact, they didn't even have reverse, instead just flipping a valve to run the engines backwards. The tank could zero-turn by running one track in reverse and one track forward at the same time. The tank carried a large radiator on the rear roof to condense the steam back into water thereby reducing water loss. The flame-thrower used a separate water tank with a separate steam coil in the steam generator to power it.
The engine system was designed by the Doble Steam Car company. Who had improved steam power substantially and used their expertise to build a very powerful power plant for the tank.
If I recall correctly the engine ran on kerosene. It was quiet and had much more torque than gasoline engines. The engine was very effective and had it had a chance to see battle, very likely most WW1 heavy tanks would have been powered by Doble Steam plants.
Steam engines are known for being big and weak. But the design that Doble used made them right about the same size, weight and power as diesel engines of the day. The gasoline engines were a bit lighter and smaller, but the steam package was quieter, had much higher torque and didn't need a transmission. After the Steam tank was tested, it was left to be forgotten. And the advantages and advances of the Doble Steam system were forgotten with it. By WW2 gasoline engines were so powerful per pound that steam wasn't even considered as anything other than archaic. But by the 1960s, steam was again considered for the M1 Abrams, as diesel engines were to be too heavy for the desired 1500hp. And a steam power plant was proposed with the same power and more torque and no transmission. But the idea for using a turbine beat out both ideas due to weight and space savings.
VVovv ! TY for the vvell researched info . I had read that steam cars vvere being used during the era & some could be pretty fast but like the early electric cars they lost favor in the eyes of the public . 500 Hp & not needing a transmission though sure vvould've been advantageous to povver tanks vvith back then . Also didnt knovv that the M1 Abras vvas supposed to be steam povvered . If the Allies had decided to adopt the Doble Steam System it really vvould've changed things & the developement of all future vehicles . VVould make a great premis for a Steam/dieselpunk Alt History novel .
@@rogerwhite9484 I have to make a slight correction, the Abrams wasn't the tank that was almost steam powered, it was the M60. But it was mentioned during the development of the Abrams. If you're interested, I found an article that explains the whole story. But I'll have to dig up the link. It is fascinating that steam wasnt used in the early heavy tanks. But perception is a major factor in developing things. And the military is either wanting only the newest and most cutting edge or wants to stick with tried and true. So it's a fickle thing for sure. Apparently there was some efforts to power the M4A4 Sherman with a 500hp steam engine. The team that wanted to develop the engine were convinced of the advantages. But we're treated like ignorant outcasts. The engine would have also used independent motors for each track. And apparently they produced more than 1500 ft-lb of torque at all RPMs which would have given the performance of a 900hp engine. Which could have enabled faster and more nimble tanks as well as the ability to endure more added armor later in the war.
@@rogerwhite9484 I love the idea of an alt history novel!
Dude your channel is awsome
only 3 more countries left - Belgian & French Armored Cars of WW1 - British Armored Cars of WW1- and Rare Armored Vehicles of World War I
Because of my use of being logged in, favorites, and things like that, RUclips does the whole "personalized" list, to the right, of things - some of which are "recommended for you." I'm quite sure you're familiar with it but I feel I need to point it out to lead to this...
I watch a lot, and I do mean a lot, of documentaries - to the exclusion of all else, and have, as a matter of preference, since I was a child and I'm quite old now. For me, the Internet has been a great thing with so many previously unavailable things becoming available over the last several decades. (I did mention I was old and you could say that I was a bit of an early adopter to the 'net.)
At risk of making a short story long, I'll also point out that I've never been a fan of regular television and haven't really even watched regular television in decades. As odd as it may sound to some, I'm not even remotely kidding when I say that I watch documentaries to the exclusion of all other programming as a preference. It's very, very rare that I watch anything else.
Now, I said all that to point out that your material has been recommended to me on more than one occasion and I've even opened and taken a look at your material on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, I had not, until just a short time ago, actually spent more than a few moments reviewing your work and have moved on to other things - many of which I've already seen. Yet, still, I quickly looked and moved on and hadn't noticed something - thus hadn't seen a reason to watch.
I have since paid more attention and have given it more than a few minutes glance in passing.
What I'm trying to express is that I see, now, is that you have put an immense amount of effort into composing these bodies of work and that I, for one, appreciate that labor and the results. I am quite sure that I'll not only watch the rest of them, having made it through this one, but that I will also watch the new ones that you create. Not only will I watch them but I'm quite likely to watch them a number of times.
So, in short, thank you for your effort in creating these bodies of work.
Thanks for the cool videos, theres a nicly restored version of the King Armored Car from 1916 in the U.S. Marine Corps Museum, Quantico Virginia, and a M1917 6 ton tank being restored to running condition a few miles away from there at the Virginia Museum of Military Vehicles, Nokesville Virginia.
I do not ever comment on web sights but yours is great really love the retro guns tanks ect ,the sound tracks are great too
keep up the good work
thanks
Great video just shovved up in my suggestions vvhich is odd as Im subscribed & this is 2yrs old , thought you just put it out lol. TY for shovving the vvhole of the Ford 3 ton tank film as I didnt knovv the other half featured the 6.5 ton tanks running through the same obstacles behind the Ford plant . VVere the 6.5's a licensed copy of the Renaults?
Did any of these tanks/ACs see combat in WW1? All the footage/pictures you found just show test footage of these vehicles, great video as always.
not many , only the jeffery & white armored cars were used in the war
jmantime Good to know, Thanks for replying.
the Ford 3 ton had real possibilities.
09:18 if the war wagon was modified into a tank
How is everything going Jman?
This is so awesome! I never seen any of these before, but never also thought they was actually American as i thought other countries was the ones to be having these kind of armor vehicles then us. But that M1917 six-ton Tank looks like what the Japan and Italians used as i thought they made they'er own designs as i know the France was using them. But i bet if they put three design all together on that pioneers tank skeleton like that Trench Destroyer Tank with that McClean Gun Carriage and Holt 55 Propelled Gun i would think with all of that in one vehicle to used that we would of probably make history of no end with that kind of fire power of an tank in one, maybe even better then any other kinds during that time line of first tanks in war.
My favorite? Probably the King armored car... and of course the Ford 3 ton.
I'm now on my second viewing, more if you count my use of the pause and rewind buttons and I figured I'd enter the comment section anew and see if anyone had commented on it. They haven't but you mentioned it.
That means you get my question about this "it."
See, I don't know what "it" is. You mentioned the Ford 3 ton. I've done some looking and I can't find any information to confirm this. In one of the Ford 3 ton pictures, there is a handle on the front. It is in the picture at 14:21 if you want to take a look. It's in the front and near a hook. It kind of looks like a starter crank though I'm not sure why it'd have one in that year.
Is that a starting handle to start the engine?
The electric starter motor had already been invented and was in common use at that point. (It was in use in Europe in the late 1800s and DELCO filed their first patent a number of years before they made this tank.)
It is very much like the French Renault FT-17 which I can find information about and the FT-17 did come equipped with an electric starter.
It is heavily modeled on the Ford Model T, sharing a bunch of parts, internally - of course, and that also had an electric starter - maybe, as an option and then as the default in 1919.
Additionally, and entirely off-topic but added because you mentioned liking it, the Ford 3 Ton never saw combat as the war was over before it made it there. It was, however, one model that had been approved and ordered. In fact, Ford had delivered something like 15, or some-such, but the war was pretty much over by then so I believe only a couple ended up shipped to France in the wanning months of The Great War.
From that, and perhaps directly responsible for it, we got one of the finest early tanks ever made - namely the Renault FT-17 which was fantastic for the day and age.
It does look like it would be an absolute blast to drive WITH hearing protection, a proper restraint harness, and probably an air-ride suspension seat. I can't imagine it would be much fun after about 10 minutes without that stuff equipped - we're talking broken teeth type suspension and near-instant-OSHA-be-damned noise levels that might both be mitigated by the inner-child. But, even the inner-child has old bones these days so I'm thinking the fun would wear off in just 10 minutes *unless* I had the aforementioned seat, harness, and hearing protection.
As an ENTIRELY (and near-pointless) addendum, the famous scene of the British tank being trialled - where it goes over a bank, slams down in the front, pauses for a second, and then keeps going - it's quite common so you're probably very familiar with it, well.... In one of the tank documentaries there's an anecdote from the pilot of that tank in the video and it lacked any protective equipment of any type and the reason that it paused and then kept going (like it was supposed to and like it was on purpose) was because the driver had slumped onto the controls due to having struck his head with enough force to lose consciousness. It stopped moving very shortly after and the video is never shown beyond that point. That is, of course, just an anecdote from a documentary created for the BBC (I think) and I've no idea of the veracity but many other tankers tell tales of rough rides so I don't find the tale too difficult to swallow.
Ah well, sorry for the novella and off-topic chatter but you listed it as your favorite so I'm hoping you've more information about it. Much thanks for reading all this and, perhaps, for sharing the answer.
Information isn't that hard to find. It's the M1918 light tank, or the Ford 3 ton model 1918, or the US Tank Mk Vl. Versions with both manual and electric start were made. By the time it was approved for service the war was literally weeks from ending. 15,000 were ordered, 15 were made, and 2 all still here today. One is at the Patton museum in Fort Knox, Kentucky and the other is at the tank museum in Fort Lee Virginia- it's in all original condition and gets started and driven every year for the veterans day parade.
Ol' Mr. Ellis Sweet. Thank you! Your Google-fu is superior to mine. I couldn't find anything about any that were manually started.
What I did get to thinking about was that, given the time and the need to have maximum availability, they might have had the electric starter but still kept the attachment so that it could be manually cranked if the battery was dead/damaged/etc.
I do appreciate your help and clarification. The next time I'm down in Kentucky, I'll visit the museum - I go through that area once or twice a year so I'll be close enough to skip over and see them. If you are in that area and see a dawdling old man with long hair and asking the poor museum guides too many questions - that'll be me. ;-) If that should ever happen, I'll buy you a beer to repay you for your help and kindness. Then again, on that same trip I also go through the Virginia area so maybe I'll be super lucky and my trek will be near the time of the parade.
But yes, I'll actually stop in and see it. It's one of the museums I've not visited but probably should. Again, thanks.
Glad to provide some enlightenment on the matter, you appreciate the forgotten classics just like me. I'm from Virginia, but every time I've gone to Fort Lee the tank museum would be closed. (The Ford 3-ton used to be way up in Aberdeen MD, so I guess I shouldn't complain). Anyway enjoy your visit whenever you come around and be blessed in the mean time!
Ol' Mr. Ellis I've got a couple of bucks. I'll make sure to stay in a hotel and wait until it is open. ;-) I want to see it that much.
And yes, I'm also old (probably not as old as you) but I've an appreciation for the older things, They tell us a lot, like how people thought and how we got from there to here. Without them, without their preservation, the world would be a worse place. Prior to tax time, I donate to a few museums that are non-profit. Even if I didn't get a break on my taxes, I'd donate regardless. I'm retired and have plenty, sending them a few bucks isn't going to limit my lifestyle any so I'd do it anyhow.
I'll do my best to get pics and video and put them online. It really is an interesting looking tank.
My favorite has got to be the CLB tracklayer just cause of its weird look
I got a question for you Jmantime . Were there ever Japanese hand grenades that were made before the type 10 grenade from the 1920s. If they did. Can you do a video on them. It would be so cool to see the models of them. Not foreign made grenades but Japanese designed grenades.
i'll try to find some :)
+jmantime did you find any Japanese designed grenades that were before the type 10 grenade from the 1920s yet?
Zack Hansen yeah, i found a few , the Type 1907 - The " Pot " Type Grenade from 1914 and a Strange grenade launcher from 1914 Battle of Tsingtao - and the " Jia type hurriedly constructed grenade" from 1918 - i just need to find photo's of them - www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~fuwe1a/newpage81.html
awesome. I also hope that you do a video on them. It was super hard for me to find them.
Zack Hansen i will
Those early gun cars look suicidal to take into combat
An interesting video, showing how American entrepreneurial spirit could have overcome most obstacles placed in the way of weapons development by inveterate, blinkered military bureaucracy.
You show a large # of types of armored vehicles but no real information of the items or how they compare to others of there time. What they were designed to do and how well they accomplished that mission. Sorry to be critical but that is the information that most people are looking for.
Most of these look like suicide machines. LOL.
US made good trucks though : )
You are The best and you dont clikbate
Some of these are just- seriously?
Ft copy 18:00
Thumbs up if you muted the sound
again andagain, music makes one not wnt to watch.