If you enjoyed the channel why not check out my merch store on either Teespring or Amazon. I have quite a few designs available already with some new ones coming very soon! teespring.com/stores/coneofarcs-merch www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
4:26 The British Flail Tank system was clearly cuperior. It could be fitted to a Churchill or Sherman with very little modification, and the tank in question could retain its turret and armament. It also had the added benefit of being very good at tearing up barbed wire.
It was a good design but the flail wore out quickly in use. The Canadians developed the CIRD that worked a lot like the device for this tank so that the tank it was attached to could scout ahead quicker and more mechanically reliably. Then, when a mine was found, the flails could be brought up to clear a path through the field. They, for reasons I'm not sure of, decided the CIRD roller attachments were unnecessary and just went with flails. I guess they figured to only use normal vehicles to "scout" for minefields.
@@MonkeyJedi99 not as a primary clearance device though. It can miss mines and isn’t effective against blast resistant mines, which means civilian mine clearance agencies tend to use them in vegetation clearance or to ‘prove’ an area is clear. Militaries don’t like them because you can’t use the main armament through them, which is why most armoured engineer units these days tend to use ploughs, rollers or a combination of both. It’s like rock, paper, scissors though. Each of these technologies tend to have disadvantages, which is why today most civilian clearance (as opposed to breaching) is still done by hand, using metal detectors.
Probably as bad, remember that ground pressure is what counts, and though this has less because of the hull removal, if the turret was readded it would have more as the running gear lift obviously added weight. Object 279 shows what is needed for Russian mud and bog, similarly T-34 performed better because of the large tracks and the German Ostketten grousers for Panzer III and IV chassis were made to improve mud handling. Now this lifted Panzer III chassis with Winterketten or Ostkennen together with a skirted turret would look quite dieselpunky though
@@RoachDoggJr2112 even with the lifted suspension its probably still somewhat shorter than the standard panzer 3. And much lighter aswell without the weight of the turret, and thus the gun, half the crew, ammunition, and other turret related equipment.
200 thousand mines at Kursk. For a similar-but-contrasting case: I read that when Rommel was put in command of the Atlantic wall he ordered an additional one *million* mines. A million, and that was in addition to what had already been emplaced. A much bigger area, built up over time - but boy, they liked a lot of mines.
Can't blame them relatively cheap and effective if you have the time to set them up you can deny massive stretches of land forcing the enemy to attack by one route or spend massive time clearing it making them easy targets for snipers, artillery and or close air support altough late war germany didn't have any real airpower
In the 1960's I used to play football on a piece of flat reclaimed salt marsh in Norfolk. In the 1970's it was discovered that part of it had been sown with anti-tank mines in 1940 and forgotten about. It was quite exciting watching them being cleared.
Well, the Atlantikwall did go from the border of spain all the way up to Spitzbergen in north norway, and even for the coastline of the normandy 1 million for around 300km is not that much, thats only one line of mines every 30cm
The turret was probably removed so the power-plant could cope with the rollers. The roller kit tends to be very heavy (so it can survive numerous blasts) and probably weighed more than the turret.
Personally I like the length of a video to be determined by the topic it covers and how it is covered. Extra padding for length, removal of key info for making it shorter, those are the things I hate. This video here, I think it worked quite well. As for the vehicle itself, aside from never seeing this one (which tends to surprise me with the subject), I find it interesting yet not surprising, that here and elsewhere people came to the same conclusion you see with some modern designs, simply move everything up. The most interesting thing is the gap that seems to exist between those modern designs and those of a few generations ago. It seems to me that people either deliberately ignored or had forgotten about this as a concept. Given the ludicrous height of some armored vehicles since WW2, I can't imagine that it was simply out of a desire to keep things short, that might be part of it, but it seems insufficient to me.
@@tonedeaftachankagaming457 I think the video lengths on a channel like Drachinifel, which range from a few min to several hours, depending on topic and type of video, sums up my feelings pretty well. (If you don't know that channel and like naval stuff, I can't recommend his channel enough btw)
That's not cursed... that's *_ADORABLE!!!!!!_* Like you mentioned, it's a little tank with a lift kit and now I want one! For what it's worth, I'd like to see a video on that T-10 mine exploder if you have the time. Keep up the awesome work Cone!
You do such a good job with these videos you cover topics that I’ve never seen videos on and you keep it very interesting and use a lot of great photographs I find myself screenshot and a lot of the pictures that you put into your videos! Thank you very much for your dedication to awesome tank content!
"and tonight sgt. Bilko gets some big rims on his M4A1 so he can go cruisin down the ville in his T10" ----- didn't know they had pimp my ride in Normandy --- lol
Its incredible that you have to elaborate on magnetic mines with how advanced your content is about tanks. You would hope that if people were on your channel they'd understand the very basic knowledge about zimmerit and magnetic anti tank mines. Turns out that is not the case. Your information has always been accurate, at least to my knowledge. Please keep making killer content
@@ChopperMeir glad I'm not the only one. It has to be the result of Hollywood's depiction of combat and perceiving all the tacky depictions of how weapons are used as fact rather than fiction 😑 do people even do their own research of their opinions anymore ? Lol
@@celtoucan4956 I definitely don't disagree with you. That is the point. I was just stating that it's a bit goofy to begin to correct someone on a fact that is quite well known to even the most basic of enthusiasts of AFVS & Tanks. Especially when the comment is making the creator seem like he isn't making sense. Just my thoughts on it
My old neighbour had been an artilleryman in the desert war. He told me of a way to clear minefields that was used by some (I don't know how many) units in the British Army. Men with 'sub normal intelligence' would be taught how to drive Bren Gun Carriers. Then when a minefield needed cleared, the carriers would be loaded up with sandbags until they were heavy enough to set off an anti tank mine. Then the men would be sent forward into the minefield without being told what was ahead of them. I don't know how often it happened. He just said a few times.
It might be worth contacting Chris from the Military Aviation History channel as he regularly visits the German archives in relation to WW2 German aircraft.
In regards to your explanation about the magnetic AT mines at the beginning of the video, it's essentially a very early version of tossing a C4 block onto a tank, like you do in the modern Battlefield games.
Extra armor to the hull floor would be redundant and add additional weight for next to no extra protection. This is because the distance between the explosive and the hull floor plays a big role in focusing the blast energy, where as increasing the hull floor height from the blast allows it to dissipate. The best modern example are mine resistant vehicles that use decent ground clearance and V shaped hulls such as the Australian Bushmaster, which focuses the blast waves away from the hull floor and exponentially improves crew survival.
@@5RndsFFE Perhaps I wasn't fully detailed in my first comment, the extra plating idea wasn't strictly just a flat aplique to the existing hull belly. That said, how does extra armor not add protection? The Panzer III's floor is only a measly 5mm thick, any additional armor whether flat or angled would be a benefit. Plus a lower center of gravity would slightly reduce the chance of flipping and overall reduce the movement of the vehicle as to not slam the heads of the crew into the ceiling or other components of the tank. Of course that might strain the engine even more, but I don't believe the assessment of "redundant" is valid. More armor is not going to reduce your protection.
@@thelieutenant7732 Because armor is to stop penetrating projectiles and tanks driving headfirst into a high density minefield wasn’t that commonplace, thus adding extra armor to the hull floor is redundant as you more often than not mark and bypass a minefield. Tank designers are always looking for ways to trim fat off of tanks where and when they can, that’s why tanks almost always have minimal armor on the hull floor, roof and rear, places that yes you could get shot from but that are purely situational and outside of the intended purpose of said vehicles. Further you’re forgetting the intended purpose of most AT mine wasn’t to outright destroy a tank, but rather mobility kill it by destroying tracks, road wheels, running gear, torsion bars etc. While I will concede yes thicker floor armor might increase crew survival from mines using shaped charges, those that used pure HE, you’d still have all that over pressure from kilograms of HE focused onto a flat plate, thus spalling is still a very real threat.
@@5RndsFFE You didn't need much floor armor to protect from antitank mines, but if it was too thin, then the mine explosion could kill crew members. When it comes to tanks mines were capable of mostly just damaging tracks.
Stalin on a tsar tank: "its over Hitler! I have the high ground!" Hitler on a minenräumpanzer: "you underestimate my power!" Stalin: "Don't try it..." Hitler: Stalin: "d- I said don't try it!" Hitler: "....?" Stalin: "well?" Hitler: "o- ohhhh... uh, I'm gonna jump!" Stalin: "of you were gonna jump, why would you say anything?" Hitler: "because I'm strong" Stalin: "okay, whatever, let's just get this over with..."
A bit off-topic, but the picture of the Panzer IV with Zimmerit applied to the Schürzen is what intrigued me the most about this video. This is the first time I'd ever seen a photo like that, and it's my understanding that this was very rarely done. (As a sidebar, this was also noted by Sheperd Paine in his "Tips for Building Dioramas" leaflets that were included in Monogram 1/32 scale Armor Kits from the mid 1970's.) That would make an unusual modeling subject, if I can locate more documentation online. That said, the Minenräumpanzer III is interesting in its own right, and would also make an impressive model. But with my luck, if I tried scratch building one, Dragon or Trumpeter will release a full kit just as I apply the last decal . . . . Thanks for posting this!
I think the reason they called it a mine is because it's not launched from something. I am surprised that someone watching these videos doesn't know what magnetic mine is. Just think about the sticky mine used in Saving Private Ryan. Instead of being made of explosives, socks, and grease. It's explosives in a cone with magnets on the edge. I do believe that he showed a picture of a cone shaped magnetic mine in that video.
@@Jonathan.D They did. There were German antipersonel mines that also had a similar tall and narrow design, so that might be where the confusion is coming from.
@@anzaca1 So the title of mine would be the only title that fits. The word mine is a tricky one to figure out its correlation. After looking at a bunch of different sources I finally had my hunch verified. I was thinking that because the first land mines were laid under the ground in the civil war. They took their name from the mineral mine. As in to dig in a mine under the ground. Then the term mine was used to refer to any explosive device that isn't launched or fired from something. Rather it's placed and set to be triggered either by a timer, the victim, or by remote trigger. Of course, to differentiate between the different types of mines the word mine is kept but where it's to be used is added to it. ie Land mine, Sea mine, Limpet mine, etc. The limpet mine is magnetic but because it's placed in water the word limpet is used to reference it to the limpet snail. You probably came to the same conclusion as I did but I figured I would include it for the few that might not.
@@Jonathan.D mine warfare goes back at least to the fifteenth century. During sieges, the besiegers would tunnel under castle walls and plant huge caches of gunpowder, and blow them to undermine the fortifications
It looks like one of those super deformed toys that comes out of those capsule coin machines. It also weirdly reminds me of a Churchill with all that ground clearance.
Magnetic mines bursting from the ground like explosive death potatoes to cling to the vulnerable underside of a tank sounds like some real sci-fi shit and I love it.
Please discuss the widely known among mild enthusiasts allied methods, equipment& tools for mine clearing & sweeping. . For example the “chains attached to a rotating drum” on Sherman’s & Churchill’s front’s. 🤗.
I'd absolutely love more short videos like this to cover weird variants and the like that arent really enough for a full feature episode! More chances to get home and see great cursed tanks in my sub feed too :D
I love how, apparently, the Nazis built a full scale prototype before even checking if the floor armor was up to the task. Sticking some damaged Pz III hulls on blocks and detonating some mines underneath them could have saved them the trouble.
Zimmerit for the layman = Ceramic coating that was thick enough to stop the use of magnetic mines on a tank hull. the only problem is that the only people who used magnetic mines in ww2 were the germans and the japanese so it only protected against captured munitions.
Part of the fascination we feel for the matter stems from the wide array of prototypes and technology demonstrators created; especially by the Japanese and German manufacturers. Feel free to throw us a "now, this is odd" bone from time to time.
The Germans did put into production a series of remote control vehicles (some with the option of having a driver) that were used to destroy minefields. No, I'm not talking about the Goliath.
I must say I’m pretty impressed. I stopped watching your channel regularly a long time ago back when you were doing war thunder content, in my opinion you were adding to the toxicity of the community and I was just tired of it in general. But to come back and watch some of the newer videos which seem to be more from the education people about AFV’s and associated equipment I’m quite glad to see it. I like the chieftains style of video but with a focus more on small things, unknown vehicles which don’t have surviving examples, ect which the Chieftan generally doesn’t cover in favour of vehicles he can show off.
It might be worth taking a look at modern and cold-war minesweepers to see the principles that have been discovered since such as the blast-hull, modular traction components, and thrashing/beating Vs turn-over designs
There's confusion over magnetic vs magnetic-influence. The first sticks to metal, the second detonates when in the presence of a large metal object. It's the same issue you encountered when you referred to sea mines in the earlier video. One is a method of attaching a weapon to a metal target, the other is a method of detonating a weapon in close proximity to a metal target without requiring actual contact with the target.
4:23 What is hanging off the tank on the far right of the picture? It looks like it might be a mine roller, but it also appears to be attached to the rear of the tank.
The design of using large roller or wheel is like playing on hard mode at least for me, if the wheel jammed then it would be a hard day for the crew, not only have to repair the machine they aoso have to be careful with other land mines nearby, apart from this configuration, the roller probably able to operate even if it jammed. Flail Sherman like configuration probably the best design (i just wanted to say that)
If a roller jams, the vehicle has more than enough traction and engine power to continue to push the non-turning roller along at the cost of burning more fuel, and maybe going even slower. The vehicle also would have no problem backing up and dragging the jammed roller back out of the minefield using the path it cleared for itself. Flail tanks, panzers with lift kits, and other obvious mine clearing vehicles aren't particularly useful for many kinds of mine clearing because it's blatantly obvious what the vehicle is there for. "Knock this vehicle out to stop the advance of the tanks." Mine plows and mine rollers fitted to less obvious vehicles are usually preferred. A Flail tank does have certain psychological benefits, as it's obvious what will happen should it run over troops, entrenched or not. That alone is usually more than enough for the defending troops to abandon their positions, or just outright surrender.
So cone you responded to my last comment now I question this tank and the german weapons I want to see more of this stuff keep up you're work mr cone 👍,
I love the zimmerick video . I've already found half the ingredients to make it! I wanna put it on my truck . I still got to find polyvinyl acetate and barium sulphate! This video is real good to
And here I always thought a magnetic mine was a mine that was triggered by the magnetic field of a passing vehicle, not a form of sticky bomb. The anti-magnetic coating makes a whole lot more sense now.
You are correct, what is being referred to was a magnetically attached mine. Sadly the other video referred to degaussing ships which would be of absolutely no use to defend against magnetically attached devices (the steel is still magnetic) and is only of use against magnetically activated mines.
Yeah, I was aware of the sea mines and assumed they had the same technology in land mines. Of course the anti-magnetic material isn’t on the correct place to avoid mines, and I don’t know if it could overcome the overall field of the vehicle. There are modern mines though with magnetic triggers.
@@DVSnark no there are not, magnetic triggers for ground based explosives have to deal with a multitude of factors that would make them detonate at seeming random, they are not reliable outside of a water enviornment
@@gaiamission7200 I’d think that too but ‘le google’ and ‘le wiki’ state that modern anti-vehicle mines are triggered by seismic and magnetic triggers and lists the finnish msm m2 as an example of a magnetic triggered land mine. So they must have found a way to overcome electromagnetic shifts and natural fields in the ground, but maybe it senses a sudden shift in the field? I don’t know, just going by what I looked up, would be curious to know the cause of the discrepency..
A comment to your clarification. If you had called the panzerknackers and alike "magnetic AT grenades" would you have avoided the problem as a whole. I understood immediately what you were referring to when you originally said it, but I've rarely heard others call them mines.
I dont blame them, since limpet MINES, yes those magnetic attachable explosive devices were for some effing reason called mines... actually limpet mines were of british origin, If I am not mistaken, but germans used a similar thing in fight against the masses of T-34s, and that was mainly in the earlier stages of the war on the eastern front, before they developed panzerschreck and panzerfaust
If you enjoyed the channel why not check out my merch store on either Teespring or Amazon. I have quite a few designs available already with some new ones coming very soon!
teespring.com/stores/coneofarcs-merch
www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
Aye nice
Needs a serving of CRAB
You should take a look Marder 2, it had no ATGM but a 35 mm autocannon that could also shoot 50mm ammo with only a change of the barrel.
Please do a video over the Preying Mantis tank.
Btw. Äu is pronounced like oi just as in oil
This tank speaks to my inner teenage off roader.
Me too
Nah, you could just use a Kettenkrad for that.
Slap some rims and a spoiler on that
Instant pussy mobile
…teenage? Ouch 😂
4:26 The British Flail Tank system was clearly cuperior. It could be fitted to a Churchill or Sherman with very little modification, and the tank in question could retain its turret and armament. It also had the added benefit of being very good at tearing up barbed wire.
The flail tank is such a good design that the methodology is still in use today in both military and non-military mine-clearing vehicles.
It was a good design but the flail wore out quickly in use. The Canadians developed the CIRD that worked a lot like the device for this tank so that the tank it was attached to could scout ahead quicker and more mechanically reliably. Then, when a mine was found, the flails could be brought up to clear a path through the field. They, for reasons I'm not sure of, decided the CIRD roller attachments were unnecessary and just went with flails. I guess they figured to only use normal vehicles to "scout" for minefields.
British is the one who tries to achieve big things efficiently and less efforts
while german is the other way. They tend to complicate small stuffs
@@MonkeyJedi99 not as a primary clearance device though. It can miss mines and isn’t effective against blast resistant mines, which means civilian mine clearance agencies tend to use them in vegetation clearance or to ‘prove’ an area is clear.
Militaries don’t like them because you can’t use the main armament through them, which is why most armoured engineer units these days tend to use ploughs, rollers or a combination of both.
It’s like rock, paper, scissors though. Each of these technologies tend to have disadvantages, which is why today most civilian clearance (as opposed to breaching) is still done by hand, using metal detectors.
Germany: "Los Santos Customs Suspension!"
England: "Oy mate we beat the bleedin dirt with alot of long sticks innit!"
I wonder how this configuration would have performed in the Russian mud that bogged down normal tanks.
Probably as bad, remember that ground pressure is what counts, and though this has less because of the hull removal, if the turret was readded it would have more as the running gear lift obviously added weight. Object 279 shows what is needed for Russian mud and bog, similarly T-34 performed better because of the large tracks and the German Ostketten grousers for Panzer III and IV chassis were made to improve mud handling. Now this lifted Panzer III chassis with Winterketten or Ostkennen together with a skirted turret would look quite dieselpunky though
Bogg down, but lifted to be an even higher target.
@@RoachDoggJr2112 even with the lifted suspension its probably still somewhat shorter than the standard panzer 3. And much lighter aswell without the weight of the turret, and thus the gun, half the crew, ammunition, and other turret related equipment.
Quite well, I imagine. Mine rollers have remained very popular in Soviet tanks, without the extreme hull modifications.
Once the bottom of the track breaks through the soil and bogs down. Its locked in place. Think of continuously pulling a loop of rope through pudding.
Though shorter still very interesting. I would not mind more of these if not to much extra work alongside the longer videos.
200 thousand mines at Kursk. For a similar-but-contrasting case: I read that when Rommel was put in command of the Atlantic wall he ordered an additional one *million* mines. A million, and that was in addition to what had already been emplaced. A much bigger area, built up over time - but boy, they liked a lot of mines.
Can't blame them relatively cheap and effective if you have the time to set them up you can deny massive stretches of land forcing the enemy to attack by one route or spend massive time clearing it making them easy targets for snipers, artillery and or close air support altough late war germany didn't have any real airpower
In the 1960's I used to play football on a piece of flat reclaimed salt marsh in Norfolk. In the 1970's it was discovered that part of it had been sown with anti-tank mines in 1940 and forgotten about. It was quite exciting watching them being cleared.
Well, the Atlantikwall did go from the border of spain all the way up to Spitzbergen in north norway, and even for the coastline of the normandy 1 million for around 300km is not that much, thats only one line of mines every 30cm
@@wolf310ii fair bit more than 300km in total
And the Egyptians still stumble across Rommel's mines from time to time.
The turret was probably removed so the power-plant could cope with the rollers. The roller kit tends to be very heavy (so it can survive numerous blasts) and probably weighed more than the turret.
Personally I like the length of a video to be determined by the topic it covers and how it is covered. Extra padding for length, removal of key info for making it shorter, those are the things I hate. This video here, I think it worked quite well.
As for the vehicle itself, aside from never seeing this one (which tends to surprise me with the subject), I find it interesting yet not surprising, that here and elsewhere people came to the same conclusion you see with some modern designs, simply move everything up. The most interesting thing is the gap that seems to exist between those modern designs and those of a few generations ago. It seems to me that people either deliberately ignored or had forgotten about this as a concept. Given the ludicrous height of some armored vehicles since WW2, I can't imagine that it was simply out of a desire to keep things short, that might be part of it, but it seems insufficient to me.
Usually I prefer long videos, but an only six minute long entire history is hard to pass-up.
@@tonedeaftachankagaming457 I think the video lengths on a channel like Drachinifel, which range from a few min to several hours, depending on topic and type of video, sums up my feelings pretty well.
(If you don't know that channel and like naval stuff, I can't recommend his channel enough btw)
That's not cursed... that's *_ADORABLE!!!!!!_* Like you mentioned, it's a little tank with a lift kit and now I want one!
For what it's worth, I'd like to see a video on that T-10 mine exploder if you have the time.
Keep up the awesome work Cone!
This overly complex "anti mine tank" makes the M4 anti-mine Flail tank look like a genius solution.;)
"Hobart, I want you to build me a mine clearer BUT I'm not going to give you a budget"
"Challenge accepted"
Hey, great, they're immune to mines!
And now they're a perfect target for anti-tank rifles.
Not going to sneak up on anyone.
That is one of the most horrifying tank ever, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight.
Was a great length for a fast blast of history just before going out the door on errands! Keep up the amazing work!
I would like to see a video on the German wading tanks. I believe some were used to cross the Russian Bug River.
*Polish river Bug. Or did French rivers also become German because of occupation?
@@ericpear4205 Everything east from the Oder is russia
@@wolf310ii how ignorant.
You do such a good job with these videos you cover topics that I’ve never seen videos on and you keep it very interesting and use a lot of great photographs I find myself screenshot and a lot of the pictures that you put into your videos! Thank you very much for your dedication to awesome tank content!
The shiny chromed road wheels and spinners were impractical.
"and tonight sgt. Bilko gets some big rims on his M4A1 so he can go cruisin down the ville in his T10" ----- didn't know they had pimp my ride in Normandy --- lol
Its incredible that you have to elaborate on magnetic mines with how advanced your content is about tanks. You would hope that if people were on your channel they'd understand the very basic knowledge about zimmerit and magnetic anti tank mines. Turns out that is not the case. Your information has always been accurate, at least to my knowledge. Please keep making killer content
I think it's good that people who don't know much about this stuff learns more about it, this is a mostly educational channel after all.
I was just about to type the exact same thing. Mind boggling really.
@@ChopperMeir glad I'm not the only one. It has to be the result of Hollywood's depiction of combat and perceiving all the tacky depictions of how weapons are used as fact rather than fiction 😑 do people even do their own research of their opinions anymore ? Lol
@@celtoucan4956 I definitely don't disagree with you. That is the point. I was just stating that it's a bit goofy to begin to correct someone on a fact that is quite well known to even the most basic of enthusiasts of AFVS & Tanks. Especially when the comment is making the creator seem like he isn't making sense. Just my thoughts on it
My old neighbour had been an artilleryman in the desert war. He told me of a way to clear minefields that was used by some (I don't know how many) units in the British Army.
Men with 'sub normal intelligence' would be taught how to drive Bren Gun Carriers. Then when a minefield needed cleared, the carriers would be loaded up with sandbags until they were heavy enough to set off an anti tank mine. Then the men would be sent forward into the minefield without being told what was ahead of them.
I don't know how often it happened. He just said a few times.
Hard to believe - each mine set off would cost one life and one bren carrier. And moral in the man's unit would plummet.
Epic
That seems…. dark
Oh wow that's is just dark.
@@Zenek7274 Definitely. It was considered cheaper to repair or replace the carrier and train a new driver than lose a tank with an injured crew.
Maybe you should do a longer video group all of the funnies together, doing a summary of mine clearing tanks.
It might be worth contacting Chris from the Military Aviation History channel as he regularly visits the German archives in relation to WW2 German aircraft.
Even the Sherman wasn't safe from getting a donk modification....
I never knew !!! Definitely very interesting , this would of been great , if it was remote controlled ! More one offs please !!! 😃
In regards to your explanation about the magnetic AT mines at the beginning of the video, it's essentially a very early version of tossing a C4 block onto a tank, like you do in the modern Battlefield games.
he got dat lift kit on his 1942 panzer 3.
Both short and longer videos are fine.
I enjoy learning from all of your videos.
Did they ever propose adding additional armor to the belly of the hull or did they strictly only intend to increase the distance from the blast?
The distance probably does a bit more to protect the crew but I'd imagine they would at least slap another plate of steel just in case.
Extra armor to the hull floor would be redundant and add additional weight for next to no extra protection. This is because the distance between the explosive and the hull floor plays a big role in focusing the blast energy, where as increasing the hull floor height from the blast allows it to dissipate. The best modern example are mine resistant vehicles that use decent ground clearance and V shaped hulls such as the Australian Bushmaster, which focuses the blast waves away from the hull floor and exponentially improves crew survival.
@@5RndsFFE Perhaps I wasn't fully detailed in my first comment, the extra plating idea wasn't strictly just a flat aplique to the existing hull belly. That said, how does extra armor not add protection? The Panzer III's floor is only a measly 5mm thick, any additional armor whether flat or angled would be a benefit. Plus a lower center of gravity would slightly reduce the chance of flipping and overall reduce the movement of the vehicle as to not slam the heads of the crew into the ceiling or other components of the tank. Of course that might strain the engine even more, but I don't believe the assessment of "redundant" is valid. More armor is not going to reduce your protection.
@@thelieutenant7732 Because armor is to stop penetrating projectiles and tanks driving headfirst into a high density minefield wasn’t that commonplace, thus adding extra armor to the hull floor is redundant as you more often than not mark and bypass a minefield. Tank designers are always looking for ways to trim fat off of tanks where and when they can, that’s why tanks almost always have minimal armor on the hull floor, roof and rear, places that yes you could get shot from but that are purely situational and outside of the intended purpose of said vehicles. Further you’re forgetting the intended purpose of most AT mine wasn’t to outright destroy a tank, but rather mobility kill it by destroying tracks, road wheels, running gear, torsion bars etc. While I will concede yes thicker floor armor might increase crew survival from mines using shaped charges, those that used pure HE, you’d still have all that over pressure from kilograms of HE focused onto a flat plate, thus spalling is still a very real threat.
@@5RndsFFE You didn't need much floor armor to protect from antitank mines, but if it was too thin, then the mine explosion could kill crew members. When it comes to tanks mines were capable of mostly just damaging tracks.
Videos these length are perfect for a smoke break
We have the lifted panzer, now we need the slammed panzer
yeah, but with the chopped top if you put some side skirts on it and detonated your mines underneath you could have a hoverpanzer --- lol
Stalin on a tsar tank: "its over Hitler! I have the high ground!"
Hitler on a minenräumpanzer: "you underestimate my power!"
Stalin: "Don't try it..."
Hitler:
Stalin: "d- I said don't try it!"
Hitler: "....?"
Stalin: "well?"
Hitler: "o- ohhhh... uh, I'm gonna jump!"
Stalin: "of you were gonna jump, why would you say anything?"
Hitler: "because I'm strong"
Stalin: "okay, whatever, let's just get this over with..."
"this brand new panzer with a lift kit, wild look a whole lot better with you up in it"
A bit off-topic, but the picture of the Panzer IV with Zimmerit applied to the Schürzen is what intrigued me the most about this video. This is the first time I'd ever seen a photo like that, and it's my understanding that this was very rarely done. (As a sidebar, this was also noted by Sheperd Paine in his "Tips for Building Dioramas" leaflets that were included in Monogram 1/32 scale Armor Kits from the mid 1970's.) That would make an unusual modeling subject, if I can locate more documentation online.
That said, the Minenräumpanzer III is interesting in its own right, and would also make an impressive model. But with my luck, if I tried scratch building one, Dragon or Trumpeter will release a full kit just as I apply the last decal . . . .
Thanks for posting this!
The existence of the lifted panzer now makes me think there was also a carolina squat panzer
Please carry on with such videos - no matter how long the videos are - the main thing is that they are unique
I just realized something...
Nobody:
Tank in the CBD intro: Oops, all Sprockets!
0:22 Exactly. Magnetic anti-tank "mines" (since they aren't truly mines if they aren't buried in the ground) are attached to tanks by infantry.
I think the reason they called it a mine is because it's not launched from something. I am surprised that someone watching these videos doesn't know what magnetic mine is. Just think about the sticky mine used in Saving Private Ryan. Instead of being made of explosives, socks, and grease. It's explosives in a cone with magnets on the edge. I do believe that he showed a picture of a cone shaped magnetic mine in that video.
@@Jonathan.D IEDs are improvised. Magnetic anti-tank "mines" are designed for the purpose.
@@Jonathan.D They did. There were German antipersonel mines that also had a similar tall and narrow design, so that might be where the confusion is coming from.
@@anzaca1 So the title of mine would be the only title that fits. The word mine is a tricky one to figure out its correlation. After looking at a bunch of different sources I finally had my hunch verified. I was thinking that because the first land mines were laid under the ground in the civil war. They took their name from the mineral mine. As in to dig in a mine under the ground. Then the term mine was used to refer to any explosive device that isn't launched or fired from something. Rather it's placed and set to be triggered either by a timer, the victim, or by remote trigger. Of course, to differentiate between the different types of mines the word mine is kept but where it's to be used is added to it. ie Land mine, Sea mine, Limpet mine, etc. The limpet mine is magnetic but because it's placed in water the word limpet is used to reference it to the limpet snail. You probably came to the same conclusion as I did but I figured I would include it for the few that might not.
@@Jonathan.D mine warfare goes back at least to the fifteenth century. During sieges, the besiegers would tunnel under castle walls and plant huge caches of gunpowder, and blow them to undermine the fortifications
10 mins 60 mins or more ill watch . Im just interested in rare and/or interesting military stuff . Happy New Year Mr Arc
German command: What the hell are you doing!?
Mechanic: Do not question the *elevated* one
Saw improvised anti tank sticky mine in a movie. Was just some explosive in a sock, coated is thick grease.
Honestly all I can think of when I see the vehicle at 2:00 is to call it the HELL-YEAHMOBILE. I don't even know why.
It looks like one of those super deformed toys that comes out of those capsule coin machines. It also weirdly reminds me of a Churchill with all that ground clearance.
Oh Panzer of the Hood what is your wisdom.
You can never be lifted enough.
Looks like herr Cletus and herr Bubba are at it again
Short videos on bizzarre, unique, obscure tanks? Count me in!
Yeah I'm going to need you to go over that T-10 Mine Exploder lol
Now we know where they got the idea and looks for the Goliath demolition RPV from.
5:34
"sprocket"
yeah pretty sure it is
Them Gatorjungen minenraumpanzer be ballin, dude.
Magnetic mines bursting from the ground like explosive death potatoes to cling to the vulnerable underside of a tank sounds like some real sci-fi shit and I love it.
Please discuss the widely known among mild enthusiasts allied methods, equipment& tools for mine clearing & sweeping. . For example the “chains attached to a rotating drum” on Sherman’s & Churchill’s front’s. 🤗.
I'd absolutely love more short videos like this to cover weird variants and the like that arent really enough for a full feature episode! More chances to get home and see great cursed tanks in my sub feed too :D
Now I want to know more about the T10 monstertruck sherman thingy xD
I love how, apparently, the Nazis built a full scale prototype before even checking if the floor armor was up to the task. Sticking some damaged Pz III hulls on blocks and detonating some mines underneath them could have saved them the trouble.
My first sprocket tank was a near complete copy of that thing and I had no idea it existed lmao
And today the simple chain spinning balls is king.
Zimmerit for the layman = Ceramic coating that was thick enough to stop the use of magnetic mines on a tank hull. the only problem is that the only people who used magnetic mines in ww2 were the germans and the japanese so it only protected against captured munitions.
Part of the fascination we feel for the matter stems from the wide array of prototypes and technology demonstrators created; especially by the Japanese and German manufacturers. Feel free to throw us a "now, this is odd" bone from time to time.
That is the most cursed
Tank by looks
The Germans did put into production a series of remote control vehicles (some with the option of having a driver) that were used to destroy minefields. No, I'm not talking about the Goliath.
I like the short video format. I like the longer vids too.
ive just found your channel but am super happy to find the cursed by design vids :)
Love these little obscure snippets.
I must say I’m pretty impressed. I stopped watching your channel regularly a long time ago back when you were doing war thunder content, in my opinion you were adding to the toxicity of the community and I was just tired of it in general.
But to come back and watch some of the newer videos which seem to be more from the education people about AFV’s and associated equipment I’m quite glad to see it. I like the chieftains style of video but with a focus more on small things, unknown vehicles which don’t have surviving examples, ect which the Chieftan generally doesn’t cover in favour of vehicles he can show off.
I made that tank in sprocket before I knew it existed... sprocket needs to add land mines now.
Yeah I think I'll go with the Sherman Crab mine flail or Churchill's mine plow
Sprocket update going crazy
Ahh yes the elevated panzer.
love the new intro, great channel :)
It might be worth taking a look at modern and cold-war minesweepers to see the principles that have been discovered since such as the blast-hull, modular traction components, and thrashing/beating Vs turn-over designs
one design flaw a powerful explosion to the side of the tank or a underneath bias to one side will make more likely to topple over trapping the crew
0:47 just run up to the flashing yellow bit and press F
There's confusion over magnetic vs magnetic-influence. The first sticks to metal, the second detonates when in the presence of a large metal object. It's the same issue you encountered when you referred to sea mines in the earlier video. One is a method of attaching a weapon to a metal target, the other is a method of detonating a weapon in close proximity to a metal target without requiring actual contact with the target.
Now I wanna see a panzer on bags, maybe even the forbidden squatted panzer??
Well, now we need a stanced panzer
It makes sense to make these shorts, especially on obscure and little known info subjects.
4:23 What is hanging off the tank on the far right of the picture? It looks like it might be a mine roller, but it also appears to be attached to the rear of the tank.
Y'all heard about lifted trucks, now get ready for lifted panzers
I like the Sherman's man mulching mine muncher better.
Looking at this tank, all I can picture is hardbass donking away as it bumps up and down like a lowrider
The design of using large roller or wheel is like playing on hard mode at least for me, if the wheel jammed then it would be a hard day for the crew, not only have to repair the machine they aoso have to be careful with other land mines nearby, apart from this configuration, the roller probably able to operate even if it jammed.
Flail Sherman like configuration probably the best design (i just wanted to say that)
If a roller jams, the vehicle has more than enough traction and engine power to continue to push the non-turning roller along at the cost of burning more fuel, and maybe going even slower. The vehicle also would have no problem backing up and dragging the jammed roller back out of the minefield using the path it cleared for itself.
Flail tanks, panzers with lift kits, and other obvious mine clearing vehicles aren't particularly useful for many kinds of mine clearing because it's blatantly obvious what the vehicle is there for. "Knock this vehicle out to stop the advance of the tanks." Mine plows and mine rollers fitted to less obvious vehicles are usually preferred.
A Flail tank does have certain psychological benefits, as it's obvious what will happen should it run over troops, entrenched or not. That alone is usually more than enough for the defending troops to abandon their positions, or just outright surrender.
Perhaps they think they are magnetically triggered, like some sea mines?
So cone you responded to my last comment now I question this tank and the german weapons I want to see more of this stuff keep up you're work mr cone 👍,
I love the zimmerick video . I've already found half the ingredients to make it! I wanna put it on my truck . I still got to find polyvinyl acetate and barium sulphate! This video is real good to
Real-world physics double-bind: Tank is low to avoid line of sight. Hits mine. Tank is high to avoid mine. Is in line of sight.
If they'd keep the turret on it, this would be the funniest premium of War Thunder
Me: this is cool
Random dude from NC: can it be squatted?
If would be a great model to make hopefully trumpeter or Tamiya will make one
That's exactly what these people thought because they were thinking of the magnetic sea mines.
Nice new intro, bro.
I really liked it.
Do not question _the elevated one_
And here I always thought a magnetic mine was a mine that was triggered by the magnetic field of a passing vehicle, not a form of sticky bomb. The anti-magnetic coating makes a whole lot more sense now.
You are correct, what is being referred to was a magnetically attached mine.
Sadly the other video referred to degaussing ships which would be of absolutely no use to defend against magnetically attached devices (the steel is still magnetic) and is only of use against magnetically activated mines.
No mines that go in the ground are magnetic its pressure only sea mines are magnetically detonated
Yeah, I was aware of the sea mines and assumed they had the same technology in land mines. Of course the anti-magnetic material isn’t on the correct place to avoid mines, and I don’t know if it could overcome the overall field of the vehicle. There are modern mines though with magnetic triggers.
@@DVSnark no there are not, magnetic triggers for ground based explosives have to deal with a multitude of factors that would make them detonate at seeming random, they are not reliable outside of a water enviornment
@@gaiamission7200 I’d think that too but ‘le google’ and ‘le wiki’ state that modern anti-vehicle mines are triggered by seismic and magnetic triggers and lists the finnish msm m2 as an example of a magnetic triggered land mine. So they must have found a way to overcome electromagnetic shifts and natural fields in the ground, but maybe it senses a sudden shift in the field? I don’t know, just going by what I looked up, would be curious to know the cause of the discrepency..
A comment to your clarification. If you had called the panzerknackers and alike "magnetic AT grenades" would you have avoided the problem as a whole. I understood immediately what you were referring to when you originally said it, but I've rarely heard others call them mines.
It was very interesting, please keep em comming!
When I saw this thumbnail, I thought it was gonna be a Sprocket video
sounds like a pimp my ride episode
Great work sir; the shorter format is great!
Do not question the elevated one.
This channels really entertaining I hope one day they talk about the M1 thumper
I dont blame them, since limpet MINES, yes those magnetic attachable explosive devices were for some effing reason called mines... actually limpet mines were of british origin, If I am not mistaken, but germans used a similar thing in fight against the masses of T-34s, and that was mainly in the earlier stages of the war on the eastern front, before they developed panzerschreck and panzerfaust
It's so goofy.
And yet kinda cute.