My dad, serving in the US Air Force, drove a Sherman-based vehicle in the 1970s. It was an arctic tractor in Alaska at a remote radar station. At one point he had just about everything non-articulated on his military driver's license because he thought it was cool, so he pursued it. After one too many times being woken up at zero-dark-thirty to move an all-terrain crane or a bulldozer or something else stupid he took an opportunity on changing stations to "lose" his driving license, and when the sergeant asked him what was on his old license, he said "a pick-up truck".
> Abrams drives down road > gets hit by an RPG > pauses for a minute > leaves > refuses to elaborate If you really did get hit by an RPG I can only imagine how useless the guy who launched it at you must have felt
When I was Over There, there were always rumors we had found an insurgent training manual that included advice that RPG teams should wrap tinfoil around the warhead as this improves penetration of an M1's force field. Despite my clearance and position at the time, I was never able to confirm the existence of said document.
@@matthewbeale5083 😄 That sounds like the tale I just heard that locals believed that pressing the forward assist while firing made the M16 more accurate. 😜
I think the reason for Lazerpigs confusion over the 'comb' is the fact that not every tank that was shipped off had it installed, as he showed with the sunken transport that had a cargo of M4 Mediums, none of which had the comb. Someone in the comments for that video actually did give a full answer on why- it was only used for tanks that were 'deck stowed' where they needed to be waterproofed, with the comb letting them run the handbrake cable through the MG ball mount, which could be easily sealed. Tanks stored below decks didn't require it, since you could just climb inside and set it unlike the waterproofed ones, and it wasn't welded on for them.
He made a whole extended video of a topic which could be answered with the smallest amount of research or asking around... Just another reason that I don't like the content he produces. Feels less like historical and informative and more like dramatic and exaggerated.
Timed Time Stamp 1:47 What's the process for when the tank fills with smoke after a loud bang? 4:24 When is it appropriate to give measurements such as armor or guns in millimeters or centimeters? 5:26 Could a 'training tank' of unarmored metal find its way to a line unit? 8:32 Any trips to Switzerland planned? 8:38 Any plans to do a video on Israeli armored doctrine? 9:04 Aren't the Swiss Leopards getting a little obsolescent? 11:08 Why don't tanks neutral steer more? 13:52 Are tank fuel tanks left near-empty when transporting? 15:09 Would you prefer to command a Bolo battalion from a MkII or a Mk III? 16:23 What sort of 'field modifications' have found official approval from higher? 18:49 Would a tank resupply vehicle make sense? 20:11 Would Operation Downfall, had it continued, affected US tank development at all? 21:12 Why did the British stick with multi-fuel engines for so long? 24:21 USSR ammo developement in Cold War - No special info 24:35 How good were the spall shields on US turrets behind the mantlet? 26:41 How long would it take to train a modern draftee, and what proportion of draftees would go armor? 28:13 Gun of the Month 31:58 Opinions on elevated ATGM vehicles. 34:34 How do I explain the B1 and the lack of German optics on tanks? 36:11 Are Molotovs capable against modern AFV? 37:19 Is there an 'Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" drill for the M1? 38:06 What's the best weapon for the TC to keep to hand as he sticks his nose out? 39:25 Why do some smoke grenades come in a cluster vs a line, and how are they fused? 40:09 Will the Ukraine thing affect my work with Wargaming and access to Russian musea? 41:17 Did anything come of MGV(NLOS)? 42:29 Are MRAPs going to remain in service? 43:29 Evaluate Red Storm Rising fire commands. 45:21 Harold Coyle 45:51 Dark Rose 47:50 Did the USSR push autoloaders to make up for a manpower crisis? 48:30 Could one field-expedient uparmor a bulldozer in WW2? 49:53 What vehicle performed far better than expected? 50:40 What's with the Sherman comb? 50:57 Can you use third-parties to direct fire from vehicles in limited visiblity? 52:31 What tank from the last 50 years would win a tug of war? 52:59 If the US had to accept Ram into service due to Sherman problems, what modifications might they have made? 53:56 Why did the US drop development of stabilisers after the M4? 58:07 Modern rod projectile passing overhead sounds like? - No idea 58:23 Why did tanks go out of service by 2052? 1:01:07 What is the archiving process, and what will it look like for my successor a hundred years from now? 1:03:41 Would I rather have an M1 in WW2, or a Sherman in Iraqi Freedom? 1:04:17 Did my tank have a name? 1:04:57 Does recon doctrine change when you're in a mechanised unit vs leg infantry? 1:06:20 Will I make General?
Modern sabot, to answer the question at 58:11, is bloody loud. It's the sonic crack of a bullet amplified massively because of the size of the round and how fast it's going. It's actually comparable to the sonic boom of a jet, to a degree, but a bit more frightening knowing that it's a few kilos of steel/tungsten fired by someone rather miffed at you being there.
Why, you have had someone shooting sabot rounds at you? I don't see how much more scary that would be than any normal artillery round or anything else begin shot at you.
Regarding bunker range cards, I've been in an old Soviet era nuclear silo security post in Kazakhstan. All the windows, which could close with steel shutters, had painted geographical features and distance painted above the windows.
I found the ATGMs mounted on the Challenger very funny as well - it’s something straight out of 40k! Imperial Guard armoured vehicles of all sorts have always been able to mount Hunter-Killer missiles if you have a few points spare.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Has any nation studied a tank, scout car, or IFV so automated that it specifically required a single crew member? (as opposed to a two man crew or completely automatic vehicle)... If so, would that individual likely have been designated to be an NCO or officer?
I read Red Storm Rising. It struck me as funny that the Russians have trouble getting over the river Leine at Alfeld, Germany. The Leine is tiny, if you ran two tanks into it you could have used them as an impromptu bridge. I always thought that maybe Mr Clancy just looked at a map of Germany, saw a blue line, looked up the legend, saw it meant „river“, and then thought of the Mississippi. I live about 60 kilometers from Alfeld, so I know the Leine.
9:12 very nice that you also mention swiss tanks, especially because im gonna crew such an tank in mandatory service which starts in january next year. Also your prononciation of "Werterhaltung" was almost perfect.
The reason for filling the tanks on an airplane when done with it is to prevent space for moisture condensation inside the fuel tank. More of a procedure to keep water out of the fuel than to keep the planes from exploding.
Back when i was in the military this was standard procedure for trucks and the likes as well for the same reason. Combined with the idea that you always want to stow your vehicles in a ready state. I suspect the reason why it is not always done in civilian use hasn't got that much to do with safety but more with economics. And safety is just used as a nice excuse. After all, any amount of fuel left in a fuel tank to be able to drive to the nearest fuel station is enough to start a fire that if left unattended will burn the whole vehicle because there is a lot flamable on a vehicle. I now work in a civilian workshop, and all the vehicles arrive with a minimum of fuel because the transport company has to pay for the fuel, and we only fuel up for all the work we need to do and to get the vehicle to the end user. We never fill more than necessary for the same reason,.. But in the army, the fuel is already paid for, so that is no issue.
I agree!! I got his one "Remove that car it offends me" shirt. When the going gets tough the tough go cyclic would be epic. Complete with a guy standing there going ham with a 249.
@@CMDRFandragon if cyclic rate is the issue, the MG3 is the only option. Also, the FN MAG 58 can achive the same cyclic rate as a light bolt MG3/Mg42, at least those in Swedish service with 8 gas regulator settings.
My unit actually dealt with the lad seen on fire escaping from the top of the warrior. Apparently the seals on the hatches were old and buggered and weren’t doing their job very well. He was happy inside the turret until he noticed some smoke and some heat and realised “holy fuck” fire is leaking from the hatch and onto him. Poor sod got burnt and a kicking from the Iraqi crowd Luzzing Molotovs at the warrior
Early 70's I was loaned to my armor battalion's transportation platoon and assigned a multi fueled M54 5 ton cargo truck. After being there a while I was switched to the pol section and they dropped a couple of tanks to hold diesel on the bed of that M54, I"m thinking they were 800 gallons each. Always wondered why they didn't switch those tanks with the mogas tanks on a M813 5 ton, which ran on diesel only. Rumor had it that there used to be a 2 1/2 ton tanker truck there before my time, it had a tank body with 3 tanks. Apparently the guys would empty the front 2 tanks first, and then try to pop wheelies with it, eventually resulting in a broken frame. Went off post one night towing with a load of diesel towing a trailer with a mogas tank. The tanker lt was ground guiding me backing in, trailer tilted on a bit of a hill I didn't see, and rolled. My fault, should have checked it out first, driver is always responsible. Turned into a real clusterf**k, first they started to bring a M88 over, but I've seen the flames shooting out of their engine pack when the engine was started up after being taken out, talked them out of that due to all the fumes. Then they got a gamma goat stuck try to get into position to pull the trailer over. The lt was cool though, the next day all types of guys in the battalion motorpool came over to sign for 'using' that missing fuel.
The original M88 had a gas engine in it, an AVSI-1790, that had to be hand primed to start. The primer pump was located near the driver’s seat. The primer pump fuel lines ran under the crew compartment floor to a block on the rear firewall connecting to the fuel tank bus inside the engine compartment. The pump was part of the Daily PMCS check for leaks, and hull connections were on a wider schedule (monthly?). Unlike the newer NATO style single pin jumper cables, the old style though similar looking outside had two large off set pins that could be inserted only one way. If you weren’t careful, you could accidently arc the cables against the metal sleeve holding the insulator or metal screw cap. The older M88’s had the slave receptacle inside the crew compartment at the driver’s station. In Germany, during the cold war, all vehicles were always topped off with fuel and the tanks had a full load of main gun ammo. Small arms ammo was stored at the ASP, with a small amount locked in the arms room. One morning walking to the motor pool we saw an M88 from HHC 1/33 Armor parked to the rear of the wash rack and an M151 parked next to it. The M88 driver was climbing up the side of the vehicle slave cable in hand. The side hatches were pad locked, the TC, and center hatch were combat locked. The driver climbed into the vehicle as the M151 driver plugged his side of the slave cable. The M88 driver disappeared into the crew compartment followed by a loud explosion that blew the right front hatch 20 plus feet into the air, the locked side hatches were blown open, one was ripped from its upper mount. We started running toward the 88. The M88 driver came up very wobbly out of the hatch and slid down to the other crew member standing by the M151, who caught him. The M151 driver threw the m88 crewman in the passenger side of the vehicle and drove off to the dispensary. One of our guys looked into the drivers hatch to see if anyone else was inside, fortunately there wasn’t. Unexpectedly, there wasn’t any fire either. My unit, E Co. 122 Maintenance conducted the initial investigation with 3AD DISCOM, and MATCOM. It found that the purge pump had a leaking line and fumes built up in the hull. When the driver plugged into the slave receptacle he hit the cap, causing an arc that ignited the fumes. The driver was flash burned but was saved by being in the center of the explosion. The full fuel tanks may have prevented a larger explosion by reducing another potential source of fumes. How they concluded that, I don’t know for sure, because the tanks are in the engine area separated by a removable firewall from the crew. We did have explosive fume meters to check radiators and fuel tanks before repairs. The recommendations were to check all gas powered 88’s for purge pump leaks, increase the frequency of hull checks, move the slave receptacles outside of the crew compartment, and place and external fire extinguisher handle on the hull.
How cool is it that you have made a separate file with links to past questions. You can easily and simply see what questions have been asked up to this point in your Q/A. I really like it and admire that it was done so conveniently!
I absolutely love these Q&A videos. Your mention of the fact that your email to your buddy in S5 to get lunch is now a part of the national archived record made me chuckle more than a little bit.
Good stuff, and as an Aussie I'd like to thank you for helping out Perun, he's specifically thanked you at that end of his latest video. While I'd miss your videos if you go on to do further education I wish you the best of luck making full Colonel.
Pivot steering was forbidden in training for the M113 family--except for some activities such as rail loading and driving on tank transporters. The HMMWV had a plastic fuel tank and the doctrine for those 25 gallon tanks was to fill them no fuller than 3/4 unless moving. I was in desert units with the HMMWV and the difference in daytime and nighttime temperatures could rupture a fuel tank. I did recommend a self-venting fuel cap that would spew diesel if the pressure became too great before the pressure ruptured the fuel tank and spilled all 25 gallons--but it didn't happen.
38:06 as a former AAVP7 crewman I agree the rifle is handy for quick suppression since 7/10 times you're not buttoned up just hanging it off the turret sight block and it's it the perfect position to grab if you need it.
Tanks do exist in 2077, they're named Panzers for some reason, but there are two main types, Gun Panzers and Cargo Panzers, their purposes are self explanatory with Gun Panzers being MBTs and Cargo Panzers being AFV/IFVs depending on their loadout. They are also near exclusively suspensor/hover propelled vehicles, no tracks involved at all. In the latest VR documentary of Night City the viewer can see a resident of Night City using a Militech Basilisk Cargo Panzer to great effect.
The original RPG had a splatbook with military vehicles (Maximum Metal), terrible for the RPG but a nice piece of world-building. There are still tanks, just their role is diminished by smarter munitions and an ever greater proliferation of portable ATGMs. Power Armour is around but is very much "Big Infantry" over "Walking Tank", a 1-2t biped that can take a burst of 50cal and keep going but anything bigger will KO it. Usually carrying an HMG or autocannon and something mission-specific (auto-GL, mortar, ATGM tube). Basically an armoured Bren Carrier with legs.
Most likely, the reason for calling them "Panzers" is because of how heavily Japanese inspired the whole world is, and because the Japanese love everything German. For a recent example, Alita: Battle Angel having a fighting style called "panzerkunst". Attack on Titan was also full of Germanic elements, like the name of the protagonist and much of the architecture
@@filmandfirearms that would make more sense if Arisaka were the ones to create the first modern Panzers, but IIRC they weren't. Also the only japanese inspired bits of Cyberpunk's setting are those imported by Arisaka and the Tiger Claws. The author and creator of the setting is an american (who writes awesome work), and he's spoken about each bit of the setting and its inspiration and reasoning, and its not at all related to being generically japanese inspired.
I am so glad you are back with another QA, Chieftain. I have to ask, is there is a sci-fi weapon (or weapons) that you don't care how impractical, or how dumb it seems, you want to get one just to see how it would work? Limited to small arms, as I know you would love to crawl over Bun-Bun and see how it works.
@@chrisc1140 official name of the series was Legacy of the Aldenata, I believe. The vehicle was a SHEVA Gun. Less of a tank than a giant tank destroyer. Really a mobile AAA since it’s intended targets were Posleen landers, which were on scale with a Arleigh Burke destroyer or bigger. Also, a SHEVA gun’s hull was mild steel, so not really armored. I am slightly embarrassed that I could write that all from memory.
Chieftain, your the only tanker I know with a Monty Python Killer Rabbit Plush on the bookshelf PS - was great inspiration for daughters Christmas present a few years ago.
"Take These Men" is a great book about tank warfare in WW2 North Africa. First hand accounts of battles by a crew commander in a variety of interesting tanks.
Re calibres (or "calibers" or the USA among us): it may be of mild interest to hear how another country's military does it. In Sweden Since the early 20th century, calibres up to 59mm are given in millimeters. Calibres 6cm or more are given in, you guessed it, centimeters. A few odd calibres from the century before were then rounded to the nearest centimeter- particularly those that had been previouly given in decimal inches.
Thanks Nick. As always - interesting and informative. One problem future historians may have is - whether or not they have a device that can access the media data has been backed up on. There have (iirc) been organizations which did have to access their old records only to find that they no longer had a device that could do so. There are - for such organizations - companies that specialize in accessing old media - or - new media from failed devices. Here - the future Historian will have two considerations. One - does an organization which can access that media still exist. Two - if so - can he afford it ... Today - Banks can ... Historians ... eh ... .
When the tank fills with smoke? I saw a flash fire on a Chieftain once. Driver dropped back his seat, pushed past the gunner, loader, and squeezed passed the commander, and was running down the road in about 5 seconds!😅
Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers had the tank replaced with powered armored suits, able to jump over buildings and which among it's capabilities include tactical atomic ammo. The movie didn't even try to replicate these, they didn't have much chance to match the book since the book was more about the narrative happening inside his head.
If you read interviews of Verhoeven regarding his directing, he quite explicitly defied the books. He said he "got bored with it" a dozen or so pages in, and moreover found Heinlein's type to be his cultural / political enemy. Verhoeven was a great satirist, but he's a bubble-dweller like most coastal entertainers.
@@MrCantStopTheRobot No, it's more the fact that someone with a fundamentally English philosophy (Heinlein) isn't going to be appreciated by a continental inferior.
the book was more about politics and how the individual relates to them on a personal level. the war and the combat were all secondary, just to provide a framework to discuss the other points. there was very little dramatic romance triangles or intense firefights, and no hot young coeds soaping up their tits for the money shot to attract young male viewers. the film is an insult to the book.
There's quite a well known story of a "lucky" Cromwell that survived battles through France Belgium and Holland as a front line tank. It was only when some 8mm rounds stuck in to front armour that rear echelon mechanics realised the mistake. Apparently the tank crew was offered a "real" tank and they flatly refused and kept their lucky set of wheels instead. This could well be apocryphal but is a reasonably well known tale.
5:26 - And of course unarmoured Mark II tanks were intentionally sent into action at Arras in 1917 as the Mark IVs were not ready in time, according to David Fletcher's tank chat on the vehicle.
@@justforever96 David Fletcher has written books on the subject and is one of the historians at the Bovington Tank Museum, where a surviving example is on display.
In reference to the bunker part of your explenation (52nd minute) I have seen a panorama painted on the inside of the bunker/ turret of the bunker that is used for fire support and repeling of enemy attack. The crew gets intel from spotters (or any soldier for that matter) that enemy troops are located near this or that building, meddow, tree line.....make them go away. They load the cannon, traverse to indicated area and boom.
1:50 Had 2 acquaintances who were tankers. One a Kiwi who was in Valentines in the desert, the other in a Firefly in Normandy. The one in Normandy was the tank commander, and when they were hit and immobilized their immediate expectation was for the next shell to come through the side. No heroics, simply bail out, especially when you didn't see where it came from. The guy who was in the desert...all I can say is that it was pretty grim. It was nearly 35 years ago but as far as I can remember someones liver was removed by a penetrating hit. His face showed that it was something he would have preferred he had not witnessed. Grim.
I was in a reserve cav scout training unit (instructors and Drill Sergeants) during the 1980s. Our mission was to go to Fort Bliss and train draftee Cav scouts after the start of World War III. Typical Basic/AIT (OSUT) for 19Ds was about 14 weeks at the time. Our mission was to train x3 eight week cycles, shipping out as cadre with the third as a combat unit. Basically about half the normal training cycle. I never saw the full training plan but I would imagine we would cut short much of the nuanced scout training (which itself relied on plenty of OJT at their first unit) and basically crank out undertrained infantry that could drive a track or Bradley and operate the basic weapons.19Ks might have had a longer cycle give the more complex platform found with a tank. However, WW2 saw a lot of "warm body" level training so who knows. In reality, I expected a bunch of bright flashes in the sky about week 3-4 of the first cycle as tactical nukes slid into all out nuclear war.
34:00 In the era of fifth generation ATGMs with Beyond Line of Sight capability - shooting on coordinates, for example over the hill, tree line or buildings, with real time course correction and full control authority till the impact (Spike, Brimstone etc.), such ATGM vehicles as mentioned doesnt seem to be needed anymore.
2 года назад+1
I feel privileged to be among the 4% who can and already have seen Mr. Raths Video on the Giraffe :) The Rang card for Night was something that was already discussed in a Chieftain Video I think. So the List of older Questions is a good idear. A german project that comes to mind regarding the peace dividend casaulties is the Marder 2. Which had come quite far along and there is a prototype of it in the german tank museum. And of course the entire "Tank for the 90s" program that would also have been going on at that time to replace Leopard 1 in service.
Some precisions and expansions: 21:12 multifuel question: A recently uploaded archive indicates France officially dropped the multifuel requirement in 1969. It was suggested to develop an improved HS-110 engine for the AMX-30 that would be optimized for diesel fuel. Without the later archives I can't say if this was done in the end. 24:21 Soviet ammo development initially followed world trends from 1945 to the late 50s: improved full-bore AP, HEAT and APCR was shelved in favor of APDS with sharp tip for the core. From the late 50s on (and 1959 in implementation), they moved to steel and steel rod+tungsten carbide core APFSDS all the way to 1978, which was enough to deal with Western armor arrays of the time but saved precious tungsten. 1978-1983 was a transitional period with early studies in tungsten and DU-only penetrators, but the development that was implemented was a steel rod with a tungsten alloy core at the tail end of the projectile to improve performance against high obliquity and spaced targets (3BM26, previous projectiles always lost the tungsten carbide core beyond 15° angle from vertical so it didn't contribute to angled penetration). This also saw new charges and new sabots to increase velocity and reduce drag. Then from 1985 to 1991 we see normal APFSDS development with first two parts (1988 BM42) and fully monobloc (1985 for BM32 but less common, and vaporware rounds that never saw service). HEAT-FS improved over time too but nothing too fancy. 36:00 on B40: B40 was actually a fully clean-sheet design that kept little of the B1 lineage. Components and many layout features were brand new, such as a new 500hp engine (gasoline Talbot V12 or diesel ARL), hydropneumatic suspension and electric transmission (alternatives to the latter existed). The turret was also finally 3-man with a long 47mm gun in a 1.68m turret ring (changed in June 1940 to a 3-man 75mm turret).
I remember that range cards where printed on the cardboard box of the one man ration packs that where issued to us in the 90's (British Armed Forces), so a very common thing.
While I know why the Chieftain loves talking about track tension, it puts a needle in my heart every time he does. The pain is from remembering four years of SQT tests which included questions on tensioning the track on an M163 Vulcan (an M113 with the M61 in a turret on top)... ...while I only served in units equipped with the M167 Vulcan (towed version, using an M561 as the prime mover). . This was made worse because, to my memory, there was NEVER a question on mounting a truss kit on the Gamma Goat, thereby sharing the pain to my self-propelled cousins.
Dear chieftain , tanks for answering the question about the model train from the previous Q and A , there’s one question that has being coming to my mind , and this is recently due to what’s going on in Ukraine. I am referring to the use of rocket artillery. I am fully aware that modern rocket artillery was used practically in World War Two by the Russians with the Katyusha , the Germans with the Nebelwerfer, and the uk and us with LST rocket ships and the Sherman calliope. After World War Two , the Soviet Union kept rocket artillery in their doctrine , such as the grad system , while the United States and Britain seemed to drop the idea of rocket artillery in a saturation role postwar, until the 1970s with their MLRS. Why was that the case ? Did the fact that most allied rocket artillery used airplane launched rockets that made them fall out of favour?, and how did they come back to using rocket artillery such as the MLRS ?,
Well! I thought I was the only person to have read Dark Rose. As a Brit (who knows Dublin pretty well) it made me chucklemore than once. Truly risible. I recently re-read Hackett's "Third World War" and I'm glad to see we have moved a long way since then. It's now a piece of interesting-for-its-time semi propaganda, up there with "The Battle of Dorking" and "Riddle of the Sands".
Is there a strange subgenre of (fictional) books about countries invading ireland? I think I read a different one decades ago (and I'm pretty sure I didn't dream it) about the Israelis buying up a load of land and invading ireland from within. The resistance was led by Queen Maeve, a descendent of ancient Irish royalty, with the help of some lads from the IRA.
Halon turret fire suppression systems were not traditionally designed to save the crew, if it did, that was a bonus; hence one of the purposes of "gun drills" is the "Standardization of replacement crews".
As far as multi-fuel goes, the French Army GBC8KT and AMX-30 had that capacity. It makes sense when you consider that when they were introduced, the French Army was running diesel and petrol vehicles. However, due to diesel being widely available and vehicles being run on either diesel or jet fuel (mixed with oil) in operations, the GBC180 upgrade program went to a straight diesel engine from Renault and the Leclerc is built around a diesel engine. The choice not to stay with multifuel in parts comes from the fact that the energy efficiency of multifuel engines is terrible. Got that info when I did work experience at the SEA (fuel services of the French Army) in 1999.
Interestingly, multi-fuel engines did come back. The MTU MB 873 used in the Leopard 2 is a V12 MF diesel. MF doesn't stand for multi-fuel, but for the improved Mittelkugelverfahren (M-system in english). A special type of direct injection diesels. Those engines apparently do pretty well with a wider range of fuels. I guess when Chieftain was being developed engine technology just wasn't matured enough to make it truly work.
Another reason aircraft are left with full tanks is to reduce the condensation and therefore water inside the tanks. Love the tank with the twin mount M2 with the parasol. I was watching a video the other day on a millsurp John Deere bulldozer, that had extra filters that added lubricant to jet fuel.
But it is a lot more difficult to produce and to machine hard alloy steel so a mild steel version will be cheaper and easier to make. If you need some training tanks that will react almost like the real thing and you need them beforehand you starting to roll out thousands of not so cheap tanks I would go this way.
9:04 on the Swiss Pz87, 42 of Pz87s are sold to Rheinmetall Initially to be converted, it's actually sold to Indonesian Military Later, it is shown by Indonesian 2A4 have a Grouser, and several individual equipment made for Swiss Soldiers.. and some of the Sensor including FCS also upgraded by Rheinmetall
Sir, the pronunciation of REME is REEMEE, we grafted our nuts off keeping you buggers on the road. We spent all day toddling on behind tanks & most of the night sticking 'em back together, powered by alcohol admittedly (who goes for a kip when there is still beer available?) Thanks for your channel, enjoy most of it. Not many include the thoughts of us 'nut stranglers.'
I read the guy's book. I think the only thing different about the tank was no heat treat/soft armour. It was only supposed to have been used for training. Don't know how much money that saved. They were offered a new tank but since the war was almost over and they'd survived in the tank since they were issued a tank they decided to stick with it. It was a good book with some exciting events. Altering the dimensions of the tank and it's components would have more or less required a new manufacturing line. That isn't going to save money.
Multi Fuel there were trails and plans of using anhydrous ammonia in M48 tanks. I have seen the test reports and photos they worked with four High pressure cylinders in heated wall lockers laid on and strapped down to the engine deck. It was one of many fallback plans if Diesel fuel ran short. Intended to get the tank up to the forward assemble area where the cylinders and wall lockers could be dumped off for reuse.
Russian tanks aren't operating alone (Moran even has a video pointing out the "lone tank kills" Ukrainian videos were released without context), they are suffering the disadvantage of invading a country with prepared defenses and stubborn, wily fighters.
I'd love to know what you are talking about, because even in the footage i've seen where the russians do not employ the sacred "infantry + tanks" doctrine, the tanks roll in a company of four vehicles. I've only seen fotage of a single vehicle doing something in those videos where the tanks pops round the corner in urban combat, fires off a few shots and then pulls back and even then, the person filming is presumably part of the infnatry holding that position
@@CaptainSeato Also intense satellite information relayed to Ukraine. They should have accounted that, yet keep acting as if Ukraine dod not know where they are
Southern Armoury, a British gun shop used to run ads on the back pages of various shooting magazines. Occasionally they got "interesting" stuff on catalogue. One such item required the purchaser to have a shotgun certificate and a track-laying vehicle driving certificate -- it was an ex-WWII Wehrmacht heavy mortar (150mm IIRC) mounted in the back of a half-track. It was a smoothbore with a barrel length in excess of 24 inches so it was classed as a shotgun for legal purposes.
On your fuel tank question, another reason to fill the tanks when parked or transport is if the vehicle is fueled with JP-5 or JP-8. Both of these fuels have several additives mixed in that are needed for proper aircraft (and probably Abrams) fuel system operation. One of these additives is the Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII). In the right circumstances, a partially full fuel tank can cause the FSII to condense on walls of the fuel tank, reducing the anti-icing capability, possibly damaging corrosion protective finishes on the inside of a fuel tank and plugging of fuel filters. This has been a big problem on some USAF aircraft.
As an Ammo-62 guy (HazMat transportation, including fueled/loaded combat vehicles), I always found it silly that we had to transport vehicles with partial fuel loads. In the advent of an accident, yes, by EPA logic more fuel theoretically could end up on the ground to reach the waterways and poison the fishies. But from a DOT/Firefighter perspective, shipping a vehicle with only 1/16th to 1/4 of a fuel tank meant it was full of FUMES ready to combust.
Sounds like the sort of people that would mandate a fuel tank nozzle design that reduces lost vapors at the cost of generally spilling a quarter or half of the contents when trying to actually use the thing.
Yup, the joys of ullage and lots of explodying. The particularly impressive example was the German girl who ended up alone in the jungle when a lightning strike blew up the plane she was in and she landed still in her seat.. When she got back home, she became a librarian.
Thanks for answering about the bulldozers! I was already aware of the dozer blade tanks and hedgerow cutters. I was operating under the assumption that a purpose-built bulldozer would be better at earthmoving functions than a dozer blade tank, especially when crewed by a trained construction worker. But I dunno how much expertise and finesse is needed for the jobs a dozer does at war.
I think one big item is that while under fire you are looking for good enough. Someone else can come along and make it pretty after the fighting is over. And while the dozer may be better at being a dozer, the tank will be better at taking fire and is able to punish whoever tries messing with them while being good enough as a dozer. And non-armoured bulldozers will be better bulldozers with less weight and better visibility etc. Of course dealing with insurgents where everywhere is liable to be attacked this calculus can change significantly.
M48 and M60 Cupola are a nightmare to rapidly reload the ammo whereas grabbing a standard ammo can and slotting it into a can holder opening it and feeding the M2 is much, much faster. I have tested this in our centers M60 turret trainer in Arlington Heights Illinois way back when. The Cupola offered nice headspace and not much else.
In the Canadian Leopard C1 & C2, many drivers would use the "Pivot" gear selection when sitting stationary in a fire position instead of putting the gear/mode selector in neutral and applying the mechanical hand brakes. This would save time if the tank needed to move out of the fire position in a "hurry".
Thank you for the "Cliff Notes" on 'Dark Rose' . . . I don't know whether I'd want to see a Hollywood adaptation of this, or if I'd be better off sporking out my own eyeballs . . .
Question for next Q&A: Yes or maple flavoured yes, the Canadian Army needs more tanks as it does not currently have enough Leopard 2’s to fully outfit 3 Armoured Regiments (1 battalion per Reg Force Mechanised Brigade Group. What in your opinion would best suit the Canucks? More 2A6M, 2A7, a hypothetical 2A8, or selling them all to Turkey and buying Abrams?
More of what they currently have unless upgrading those tanks to a newer standard. Stick with Leopards as they meet Canadian needs and any benefit to having Abrams is going to be marginal and not worth the cost to modify the infrastructure now. If you want to go full modern, better to wait a few years and see how Ukraine shakes out as there is no short term threat with significant numbers of more modern tanks and well trained crews. Don't sell any materiel to Erdrogan unless it is delivered at a high velocity with an armed fuse.
Nick, good luck with the greasy pole. I found Unit Command the last highlight and didn’t’ the mind so much not progression too much further (to date). Of course we don’t have your “up or out” policy.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Neubaufahrzeug were only ever built as prototypes in mild steel, as it (wisely) was rejected by the WH. One or more of these mild steel prototypes were sent to the occupied Norway for police duties. They weren't expecting to meet any other tanks there anyway, I guess.
Question for the next video: How is tank armor hardened? Is it done whole hog in something like a giant furnace? If it is done to individual parts before they are assembled, how are the heat affected zones created by welding dealt with? (In case you don't know, the heat affected zone is the area of the metal where the temper of the metal is destroyed because of the heat of the welding process.)
its welded after hardening. and techniques to deal with the process were only developed after ww2 and even now its still a weak point in metal armour (which is one of the reasons casting became popular pre-composites).
You make plate, you treat the plate, you put the plate together, metal box happen. Thos is the process of making steel plate armor since the 14th century.
Spoke to a LAV-25 gunner during the Desert Storm (1991) who was with that unit near Kanji that ran into Iraqi armor. Having JUST a 25mm autocannon and a machinegun available they used the 25mm. He said that wile they were unable to penetrate the turret (I seen to recall he said it was a T-62 variant) he got the strong impression that given a few shots in the same location they could have chiseled a hole thru it.
Lindybeige did a video on the underarmoured Cromwell. Can find it by looking for Tales of Cromwell tanks. If I remember right it was a squad of training tank that got sent to the field by accident with less armor then the standard one and they figured this out after getting hit by a AA gun that got embedded in the plate. They also refused to have them switched out I believe. Been awhile since I watched the video so not 100% I'm remembering correctly. Think the info comes from a memoir of one of the crew.
One of your best so far of these Q&A. Do be careful with "inside baseball" jargon. Not all of us know what an M17 or Baretta is off0hand. I had to look it up. Not the end of the world, but I was lost fo a bit. Keep up the great and good lunk on making Colonel.
One advantage of tanks, even lighly armored machines, is that they are demonstratively intimidating. Rouges and bandits and terrorists will pause upon seeing a tank, look at their rifle or machine gun and ask themselves. 'if that is looking at me, am I actually going to make a difference here?' Orbital artillery strikes might be effective and accurate with guided munitions, but you cannot SEE that they are pointing at you as the truck with the megaphone asks you to drop your weapon and exit the building with your hands up before you are fired upon.
Are you going to take the building in the first place expecting it to be effective if you know people with orbital strike capability are in the area? Children in heavy drone used areas have been conditioned to fear blue skies after all.
@@Zraknul so. It's easy to talk it up to your new recruits how Innaccurate or terribly bad the orbital weapons are to give false confidence. And also it's the case that if you think they can't see you then you might act in such a manner. They can't spot where I am. I'm inside a building after all and hiding, they won't know what hit them! Wait. That tank is pointing it's gun at my building... Maybe I should wait till it loses interest. Look at the size of that thing compared to the infantry walking with it. So big, it'd make paste of me. No. I didn't sign up to eat tank shells. I'm going to stay hiding and NOT get involved. I saw what happened last time a tank shot a building, the whole thing blew up!
5:10 In math the number of decimals used signifies (or is intended to signify) the precision of the calculation. So if you see a value of 1, you know that value was intended to have the precision to say it is >=0.5, and =0.995 and
In my experience engineering people use millimetres, people in construction use millimetres, it is common for someone to talk about "a gap of 200" and the units are not stated because they are obvious. Nobody on a building site would say "20 centimetres". (In my experience). Centimetres tend to appear on packaging of retail items, so my impression is mm for professionals and cm for amateurs.
Since the bookshelf question seems to come up a lot, here is the official product name straight from Crate and Barrel's site: Beckett 6-High Storage Bookshelf Sable
Minute 53: It was possible to up-gun Rams to 75 mm guns with only minor modifications to the turret. All Ram tanks left Montreal Locomotive Works with 2-pounder (37 mm) or 6-pounder (57 mm) main guns, but porst-war, some were converted to carry 75 mm QF guns. . After rigorous training in Canada and the UK, most were well-worn by the time of the Normandy Invasion, so were replaced (Canadian Army) by new-production Shermans. Only de-frocked Rams fought in Normandy. The first batch were de-gunned to serve as forward artillery observers. Come August 1944, hundreds of de-frocked Rams were re-purposed as Kangaroo APCs. At the end of WW 2, all Canadian Army vehicles were stored in Holland. Post war, the Dutch Army installed British 75 mm QF guns in some of their Rams. 75 mm QF guns had the same external dimensions as 6-pounders, but they could fired standard USA 75 mm ammo.
0:13:00 Also the vehicle pretty much needs to come to a complete halt to neutral-steer as throwing one/other track into reverse/forward while in forward/reverse motion still results in pivot steer. Halts being euqalamnious to Significant Emotional Vulnerability, they are frowned upon.
Halon is very effective at smothering humans too. Ventilation is very important. I am aware of one pilot being killed in his cockpit by the halon extinguisher in the cockpit going off in a light aircraft.
I'd be surprised if you even noticed an RPG round hitting a M1. I know for a fact that a 100mm APDS round from a T55 from a bit over ~1km hitting the front of a Challenger 1 only makes a mildly loud-ish "whump" sound over the noise of the vehicle and rocks it back slightly. It also causes the gunner to comment, "I think we ..... was that someone shooting at us?" I don't think I'd even notice an RPG over the noise of a moving vehicle unless it penetrated somehow. And if that happened, I still don't think I'd hear so much as I would "just Experience An Event" as we used to say.
I think the lack of filtering might be a good thing. Historians always struggle with the little things about people's lives in the past, like going out to eat. Big picture Military Historians are going to hate it, but smaller scale focused people might have a gold mine.
Boom.. crack.. that is what a sabot sounds like going overhead. 3-116 Cav had a 2LT in the gunners seat on range one at Gowen and he got outside the range fan.. My FST was a click or so off to the side and the round went over us. Much consternation amongst the safety people..
More on the question of the bulldozers with armor. I had a great uncle serve in ww2 pacific theater building runways after the Marines would say "all clear". That didn't always mean it was totally clear. They did discover that the blade on them was pretty much bullet proof against anything they came up against. To either get away from it or just burry it in a mound of dirt, and have the Marines deal with it.
Regarding why things are measured in millimetres, it is down to the International System of Units, also known as SI Units. For measurement of distance, the meter is the standard unit, then units are scaled by 10^3 or 10^-3 increments. For distance, smaller scales are millimetres, micrometers, and nanometers. Larger scales are kilometres, megameters, and gigameters.
G'day Nick. I enjoy your Q&As. Here's a possible Q for a future one - Whilst gun mantlets were often made quite thick, what effect(s) did heavy impacts that didn't penetrate have on the trunnions and other gun support/movement elements, not to mention more delicate stuff like sights, etc? Thanks. (Please do something more with Ian when/if you get the chance - you make an interesting duo :-)
Obsolescence of a weapon is actually rare. The two examples I know of are armored knights and battleships. In both cases it required the defeat of both their offensive and defensive capability. The first was by reliable multi-shot fire arms and the second by smart weapons from airplanes. To obsolete tanks would take something like smart transporter artillery teleported from the Enterprise.
My dad, serving in the US Air Force, drove a Sherman-based vehicle in the 1970s. It was an arctic tractor in Alaska at a remote radar station. At one point he had just about everything non-articulated on his military driver's license because he thought it was cool, so he pursued it. After one too many times being woken up at zero-dark-thirty to move an all-terrain crane or a bulldozer or something else stupid he took an opportunity on changing stations to "lose" his driving license, and when the sergeant asked him what was on his old license, he said "a pick-up truck".
> Abrams drives down road
> gets hit by an RPG
> pauses for a minute
> leaves
> refuses to elaborate
If you really did get hit by an RPG I can only imagine how useless the guy who launched it at you must have felt
I liked the video from the shooter’s POV where he hits the tank and the turret starts swinging toward him…
I've heard that most of the RPG used in Iraq are anti-infantry HE warheads, so nearly useless against tanks.
When I was Over There, there were always rumors we had found an insurgent training manual that included advice that RPG teams should wrap tinfoil around the warhead as this improves penetration of an M1's force field.
Despite my clearance and position at the time, I was never able to confirm the existence of said document.
@@matthewbeale5083 😄 That sounds like the tale I just heard that locals believed that pressing the forward assist while firing made the M16 more accurate. 😜
He was only thinking of the 70 virgins in the afterlife. :D
I think the reason for Lazerpigs confusion over the 'comb' is the fact that not every tank that was shipped off had it installed, as he showed with the sunken transport that had a cargo of M4 Mediums, none of which had the comb. Someone in the comments for that video actually did give a full answer on why- it was only used for tanks that were 'deck stowed' where they needed to be waterproofed, with the comb letting them run the handbrake cable through the MG ball mount, which could be easily sealed. Tanks stored below decks didn't require it, since you could just climb inside and set it unlike the waterproofed ones, and it wasn't welded on for them.
THE COMB
It's also lazerpig. He probably made a big deal out of something so trivial as a joke in and of itself.
man lazerpig is CRINGE
@@sparklestonebro that makes them free
He made a whole extended video of a topic which could be answered with the smallest amount of research or asking around... Just another reason that I don't like the content he produces. Feels less like historical and informative and more like dramatic and exaggerated.
Still wondering when we get 6+ hour long Q and A video's of the The Chieftain. Drachnififel has set a new standard.
Timed Time Stamp
1:47 What's the process for when the tank fills with smoke after a loud bang?
4:24 When is it appropriate to give measurements such as armor or guns in millimeters or centimeters?
5:26 Could a 'training tank' of unarmored metal find its way to a line unit?
8:32 Any trips to Switzerland planned?
8:38 Any plans to do a video on Israeli armored doctrine?
9:04 Aren't the Swiss Leopards getting a little obsolescent?
11:08 Why don't tanks neutral steer more?
13:52 Are tank fuel tanks left near-empty when transporting?
15:09 Would you prefer to command a Bolo battalion from a MkII or a Mk III?
16:23 What sort of 'field modifications' have found official approval from higher?
18:49 Would a tank resupply vehicle make sense?
20:11 Would Operation Downfall, had it continued, affected US tank development at all?
21:12 Why did the British stick with multi-fuel engines for so long?
24:21 USSR ammo developement in Cold War - No special info
24:35 How good were the spall shields on US turrets behind the mantlet?
26:41 How long would it take to train a modern draftee, and what proportion of draftees would go armor?
28:13 Gun of the Month
31:58 Opinions on elevated ATGM vehicles.
34:34 How do I explain the B1 and the lack of German optics on tanks?
36:11 Are Molotovs capable against modern AFV?
37:19 Is there an 'Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" drill for the M1?
38:06 What's the best weapon for the TC to keep to hand as he sticks his nose out?
39:25 Why do some smoke grenades come in a cluster vs a line, and how are they fused?
40:09 Will the Ukraine thing affect my work with Wargaming and access to Russian musea?
41:17 Did anything come of MGV(NLOS)?
42:29 Are MRAPs going to remain in service?
43:29 Evaluate Red Storm Rising fire commands.
45:21 Harold Coyle
45:51 Dark Rose
47:50 Did the USSR push autoloaders to make up for a manpower crisis?
48:30 Could one field-expedient uparmor a bulldozer in WW2?
49:53 What vehicle performed far better than expected?
50:40 What's with the Sherman comb?
50:57 Can you use third-parties to direct fire from vehicles in limited visiblity?
52:31 What tank from the last 50 years would win a tug of war?
52:59 If the US had to accept Ram into service due to Sherman problems, what modifications might they have made?
53:56 Why did the US drop development of stabilisers after the M4?
58:07 Modern rod projectile passing overhead sounds like? - No idea
58:23 Why did tanks go out of service by 2052?
1:01:07 What is the archiving process, and what will it look like for my successor a hundred years from now?
1:03:41 Would I rather have an M1 in WW2, or a Sherman in Iraqi Freedom?
1:04:17 Did my tank have a name?
1:04:57 Does recon doctrine change when you're in a mechanised unit vs leg infantry?
1:06:20 Will I make General?
Modern sabot, to answer the question at 58:11, is bloody loud. It's the sonic crack of a bullet amplified massively because of the size of the round and how fast it's going. It's actually comparable to the sonic boom of a jet, to a degree, but a bit more frightening knowing that it's a few kilos of steel/tungsten fired by someone rather miffed at you being there.
Why, you have had someone shooting sabot rounds at you? I don't see how much more scary that would be than any normal artillery round or anything else begin shot at you.
A set of bookshelves with a randomly tilted selection of well thumbed books is a sign of someone who studies a lot. Full marks :-)
Regarding bunker range cards, I've been in an old Soviet era nuclear silo security post in Kazakhstan. All the windows, which could close with steel shutters, had painted geographical features and distance painted above the windows.
you can see something similar in the German fortifications in normandy
It's nice to see you finally see you embrace your "I can get away with this at this rank" hair cut.
I found the ATGMs mounted on the Challenger very funny as well - it’s something straight out of 40k! Imperial Guard armoured vehicles of all sorts have always been able to mount Hunter-Killer missiles if you have a few points spare.
The Emperor Protects.
@@Uncle_Neil But having a bolter is always handy.
This is why DPRK tanks are the best in the world.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Happiness is a warm, well coded, bolter. Oh and thanks for all you do, long time subscriber and fellow Cold Warrior.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Has any nation studied a tank, scout car, or IFV so automated that it specifically required a single crew member? (as opposed to a two man crew or completely automatic vehicle)... If so, would that individual likely have been designated to be an NCO or officer?
I read Red Storm Rising. It struck me as funny that the Russians have trouble getting over the river Leine at Alfeld, Germany. The Leine is tiny, if you ran two tanks into it you could have used them as an impromptu bridge. I always thought that maybe Mr Clancy just looked at a map of Germany, saw a blue line, looked up the legend, saw it meant „river“, and then thought of the Mississippi. I live about 60 kilometers from Alfeld, so I know the Leine.
9:12 very nice that you also mention swiss tanks, especially because im gonna crew such an tank in mandatory service which starts in january next year. Also your prononciation of "Werterhaltung" was almost perfect.
The reason for filling the tanks on an airplane when done with it is to prevent space for moisture condensation inside the fuel tank. More of a procedure to keep water out of the fuel than to keep the planes from exploding.
Back when i was in the military this was standard procedure for trucks and the likes as well for the same reason. Combined with the idea that you always want to stow your vehicles in a ready state. I suspect the reason why it is not always done in civilian use hasn't got that much to do with safety but more with economics. And safety is just used as a nice excuse. After all, any amount of fuel left in a fuel tank to be able to drive to the nearest fuel station is enough to start a fire that if left unattended will burn the whole vehicle because there is a lot flamable on a vehicle.
I now work in a civilian workshop, and all the vehicles arrive with a minimum of fuel because the transport company has to pay for the fuel, and we only fuel up for all the work we need to do and to get the vehicle to the end user. We never fill more than necessary for the same reason,..
But in the army, the fuel is already paid for, so that is no issue.
Applies to all vehicles. Certainly standard practice for diesel fuel vehicles
"When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclical" Has got to be on a shirt......just an idea.
I agree!! I got his one "Remove that car it offends me" shirt.
When the going gets tough the tough go cyclic would be epic. Complete with a guy standing there going ham with a 249.
Keep it Semple
Semple Fi
Chieftain’s unofficial high speed t-shirt
Just some thoughts of my own.
@@CMDRFandragon I think a 240 fits better personally
@@bagobones9891 I mean, id personally prefer an M60E6. Just the 249 has a really high cyclic rate so it fits the theme better
@@CMDRFandragon if cyclic rate is the issue, the MG3 is the only option.
Also, the FN MAG 58 can achive the same cyclic rate as a light bolt MG3/Mg42, at least those in Swedish service with 8 gas regulator settings.
My unit actually dealt with the lad seen on fire escaping from the top of the warrior. Apparently the seals on the hatches were old and buggered and weren’t doing their job very well. He was happy inside the turret until he noticed some smoke and some heat and realised “holy fuck” fire is leaking from the hatch and onto him. Poor sod got burnt and a kicking from the Iraqi crowd Luzzing Molotovs at the warrior
Early 70's I was loaned to my armor battalion's transportation platoon and assigned a multi fueled M54 5 ton cargo truck. After being there a while I was switched to the pol section and they dropped a couple of tanks to hold diesel on the bed of that M54, I"m thinking they were 800 gallons each.
Always wondered why they didn't switch those tanks with the mogas tanks on a M813 5 ton, which ran on diesel only.
Rumor had it that there used to be a 2 1/2 ton tanker truck there before my time, it had a tank body with 3 tanks. Apparently the guys would empty the front 2 tanks first, and then try to pop wheelies with it, eventually resulting in a broken frame.
Went off post one night towing with a load of diesel towing a trailer with a mogas tank. The tanker lt was ground guiding me backing in, trailer tilted on a bit of a hill I didn't see, and rolled. My fault, should have checked it out first, driver is always responsible.
Turned into a real clusterf**k, first they started to bring a M88 over, but I've seen the flames shooting out of their engine pack when the engine was started up after being taken out, talked them out of that due to all the fumes. Then they got a gamma goat stuck try to get into position to pull the trailer over.
The lt was cool though, the next day all types of guys in the battalion motorpool came over to sign for 'using' that missing fuel.
The original M88 had a gas engine in it, an AVSI-1790, that had to be hand primed to start. The primer pump was located near the driver’s seat. The primer pump fuel lines ran under the crew compartment floor to a block on the rear firewall connecting to the fuel tank bus inside the engine compartment. The pump was part of the Daily PMCS check for leaks, and hull connections were on a wider schedule (monthly?).
Unlike the newer NATO style single pin jumper cables, the old style though similar looking outside had two large off set pins that could be inserted only one way. If you weren’t careful, you could accidently arc the cables against the metal sleeve holding the insulator or metal screw cap. The older M88’s had the slave receptacle inside the crew compartment at the driver’s station.
In Germany, during the cold war, all vehicles were always topped off with fuel and the tanks had a full load of main gun ammo. Small arms ammo was stored at the ASP, with a small amount locked in the arms room.
One morning walking to the motor pool we saw an M88 from HHC 1/33 Armor parked to the rear of the wash rack and an M151 parked next to it. The M88 driver was climbing up the side of the vehicle slave cable in hand. The side hatches were pad locked, the TC, and center hatch were combat locked. The driver climbed into the vehicle as the M151 driver plugged his side of the slave cable. The M88 driver disappeared into the crew compartment followed by a loud explosion that blew the right front hatch 20 plus feet into the air, the locked side hatches were blown open, one was ripped from its upper mount. We started running toward the 88. The M88 driver came up very wobbly out of the hatch and slid down to the other crew member standing by the M151, who caught him. The M151 driver threw the m88 crewman in the passenger side of the vehicle and drove off to the dispensary. One of our guys looked into the drivers hatch to see if anyone else was inside, fortunately there wasn’t. Unexpectedly, there wasn’t any fire either.
My unit, E Co. 122 Maintenance conducted the initial investigation with 3AD DISCOM, and MATCOM. It found that the purge pump had a leaking line and fumes built up in the hull. When the driver plugged into the slave receptacle he hit the cap, causing an arc that ignited the fumes. The driver was flash burned but was saved by being in the center of the explosion. The full fuel tanks may have prevented a larger explosion by reducing another potential source of fumes. How they concluded that, I don’t know for sure, because the tanks are in the engine area separated by a removable firewall from the crew. We did have explosive fume meters to check radiators and fuel tanks before repairs. The recommendations were to check all gas powered 88’s for purge pump leaks, increase the frequency of hull checks, move the slave receptacles outside of the crew compartment, and place and external fire extinguisher handle on the hull.
How cool is it that you have made a separate file with links to past questions. You can easily and simply see what questions have been asked up to this point in your Q/A. I really like it and admire that it was done so conveniently!
I absolutely love these Q&A videos. Your mention of the fact that your email to your buddy in S5 to get lunch is now a part of the national archived record made me chuckle more than a little bit.
Good stuff, and as an Aussie I'd like to thank you for helping out Perun, he's specifically thanked you at that end of his latest video. While I'd miss your videos if you go on to do further education I wish you the best of luck making full Colonel.
Pivot steering was forbidden in training for the M113 family--except for some activities such as rail loading and driving on tank transporters.
The HMMWV had a plastic fuel tank and the doctrine for those 25 gallon tanks was to fill them no fuller than 3/4 unless moving. I was in desert units with the HMMWV and the difference in daytime and nighttime temperatures could rupture a fuel tank. I did recommend a self-venting fuel cap that would spew diesel if the pressure became too great before the pressure ruptured the fuel tank and spilled all 25 gallons--but it didn't happen.
38:06 as a former AAVP7 crewman I agree the rifle is handy for quick suppression since 7/10 times you're not buttoned up just hanging it off the turret sight block and it's it the perfect position to grab if you need it.
Tanks do exist in 2077, they're named Panzers for some reason, but there are two main types, Gun Panzers and Cargo Panzers, their purposes are self explanatory with Gun Panzers being MBTs and Cargo Panzers being AFV/IFVs depending on their loadout. They are also near exclusively suspensor/hover propelled vehicles, no tracks involved at all.
In the latest VR documentary of Night City the viewer can see a resident of Night City using a Militech Basilisk Cargo Panzer to great effect.
The original RPG had a splatbook with military vehicles (Maximum Metal), terrible for the RPG but a nice piece of world-building. There are still tanks, just their role is diminished by smarter munitions and an ever greater proliferation of portable ATGMs.
Power Armour is around but is very much "Big Infantry" over "Walking Tank", a 1-2t biped that can take a burst of 50cal and keep going but anything bigger will KO it. Usually carrying an HMG or autocannon and something mission-specific (auto-GL, mortar, ATGM tube). Basically an armoured Bren Carrier with legs.
Most likely, the reason for calling them "Panzers" is because of how heavily Japanese inspired the whole world is, and because the Japanese love everything German. For a recent example, Alita: Battle Angel having a fighting style called "panzerkunst". Attack on Titan was also full of Germanic elements, like the name of the protagonist and much of the architecture
@@filmandfirearms that would make more sense if Arisaka were the ones to create the first modern Panzers, but IIRC they weren't. Also the only japanese inspired bits of Cyberpunk's setting are those imported by Arisaka and the Tiger Claws. The author and creator of the setting is an american (who writes awesome work), and he's spoken about each bit of the setting and its inspiration and reasoning, and its not at all related to being generically japanese inspired.
Related to one of the original cyberpunk stories, Walter Jon Williams "Hardwired"
I am so glad you are back with another QA, Chieftain.
I have to ask, is there is a sci-fi weapon (or weapons) that you don't care how impractical, or how dumb it seems, you want to get one just to see how it would work? Limited to small arms, as I know you would love to crawl over Bun-Bun and see how it works.
I'd love a Bolter...
A powergun from Hammer's Slammers.
Bun-Bun being the Bolo-sized tank with the 16" gun? Can't remember the name of the series...
That, Bolos, or Ogres are all solid options.
@@chrisc1140 That's from John Ringo's Posleen War series.
@@chrisc1140 official name of the series was Legacy of the Aldenata, I believe. The vehicle was a SHEVA Gun. Less of a tank than a giant tank destroyer. Really a mobile AAA since it’s intended targets were Posleen landers, which were on scale with a Arleigh Burke destroyer or bigger. Also, a SHEVA gun’s hull was mild steel, so not really armored.
I am slightly embarrassed that I could write that all from memory.
Chieftain, your the only tanker I know with a Monty Python Killer Rabbit Plush on the bookshelf
PS - was great inspiration for daughters Christmas present a few years ago.
"Take These Men" is a great book about tank warfare in WW2 North Africa. First hand accounts of battles by a crew commander in a variety of interesting tanks.
I like your edc choice. Also, from one cwp holder to another I like that you're honest about the fact you carry. Keep up the good work.
Re calibres (or "calibers" or the USA among us): it may be of mild interest to hear how another country's military does it. In Sweden Since the early 20th century, calibres up to 59mm are given in millimeters. Calibres 6cm or more are given in, you guessed it, centimeters. A few odd calibres from the century before were then rounded to the nearest centimeter- particularly those that had been previouly given in decimal inches.
Thanks Nick. As always - interesting and informative.
One problem future historians may have is - whether or not they have a device that can access the media data has been backed up on.
There have (iirc) been organizations which did have to access their old records only to find that they no longer had a device that could do so.
There are - for such organizations - companies that specialize in accessing old media - or - new media from failed devices. Here - the future Historian will have two considerations.
One - does an organization which can access that media still exist.
Two - if so - can he afford it ... Today - Banks can ... Historians ... eh ...
.
When the tank fills with smoke?
I saw a flash fire on a Chieftain once. Driver dropped back his seat, pushed past the gunner, loader, and squeezed passed the commander, and was running down the road in about 5 seconds!😅
How long did it take for them to follow you? :-D
@@OneLeatherBoot you guessed!
@@jon9021 nothing wrong with being the first out.
Hopefully no injuries to you or any of the crew from the flash fire.
@@OneLeatherBoot all good, no injuries…except my pride!
Fills with smoke? GTFO!
I remember reading an anecdote from Vietnam where an up armored airfield clearing tractor was used as a tank by the Marines
Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers had the tank replaced with powered armored suits, able to jump over buildings and which among it's capabilities include tactical atomic ammo.
The movie didn't even try to replicate these, they didn't have much chance to match the book since the book was more about the narrative happening inside his head.
If you read interviews of Verhoeven regarding his directing, he quite explicitly defied the books. He said he "got bored with it" a dozen or so pages in, and moreover found Heinlein's type to be his cultural / political enemy. Verhoeven was a great satirist, but he's a bubble-dweller like most coastal entertainers.
@@MrCantStopTheRobot No, it's more the fact that someone with a fundamentally English philosophy (Heinlein) isn't going to be appreciated by a continental inferior.
the book was more about politics and how the individual relates to them on a personal level. the war and the combat were all secondary, just to provide a framework to discuss the other points. there was very little dramatic romance triangles or intense firefights, and no hot young coeds soaping up their tits for the money shot to attract young male viewers. the film is an insult to the book.
@@CallanElliott Heinlein was more American "prepper" than English
@@johnbaker1256 Yeah, the foundations of the American republic come from England.
There's quite a well known story of a "lucky" Cromwell that survived battles through France Belgium and Holland as a front line tank. It was only when some 8mm rounds stuck in to front armour that rear echelon mechanics realised the mistake. Apparently the tank crew was offered a "real" tank and they flatly refused and kept their lucky set of wheels instead.
This could well be apocryphal but is a reasonably well known tale.
Lindy beige covered it in a video, I believe.
5:26 - And of course unarmoured Mark II tanks were intentionally sent into action at Arras in 1917 as the Mark IVs were not ready in time, according to David Fletcher's tank chat on the vehicle.
I always trust people who's source for commonly known facts is some dudes RUclips video.
@@justforever96 David Fletcher has written books on the subject and is one of the historians at the Bovington Tank Museum, where a surviving example is on display.
These q and as are always super informative, relaxing, and generally good for a few laughs too! Thanks for keeping the series going.
In reference to the bunker part of your explenation (52nd minute) I have seen a panorama painted on the inside of the bunker/ turret of the bunker that is used for fire support and repeling of enemy attack. The crew gets intel from spotters (or any soldier for that matter) that enemy troops are located near this or that building, meddow, tree line.....make them go away. They load the cannon, traverse to indicated area and boom.
The title reminds me I want a Chieftan does fiction reviews for books like Flint's 1632, or Stirlings Island in the Sea of Time.
Of the US Army vs Aliens in Western Afghanistan in Out of The Dark.
Out of Flint's work I like the Belisarius series better.
1:50 Had 2 acquaintances who were tankers. One a Kiwi who was in Valentines in the desert, the other in a Firefly in Normandy. The one in Normandy was the tank commander, and when they were hit and immobilized their immediate expectation was for the next shell to come through the side. No heroics, simply bail out, especially when you didn't see where it came from. The guy who was in the desert...all I can say is that it was pretty grim. It was nearly 35 years ago but as far as I can remember someones liver was removed by a penetrating hit. His face showed that it was something he would have preferred he had not witnessed. Grim.
I was in a reserve cav scout training unit (instructors and Drill Sergeants) during the 1980s. Our mission was to go to Fort Bliss and train draftee Cav scouts after the start of World War III. Typical Basic/AIT (OSUT) for 19Ds was about 14 weeks at the time. Our mission was to train x3 eight week cycles, shipping out as cadre with the third as a combat unit. Basically about half the normal training cycle. I never saw the full training plan but I would imagine we would cut short much of the nuanced scout training (which itself relied on plenty of OJT at their first unit) and basically crank out undertrained infantry that could drive a track or Bradley and operate the basic weapons.19Ks might have had a longer cycle give the more complex platform found with a tank. However, WW2 saw a lot of "warm body" level training so who knows. In reality, I expected a bunch of bright flashes in the sky about week 3-4 of the first cycle as tactical nukes slid into all out nuclear war.
34:00 In the era of fifth generation ATGMs with Beyond Line of Sight capability - shooting on coordinates, for example over the hill, tree line or buildings, with real time course correction and full control authority till the impact (Spike, Brimstone etc.), such ATGM vehicles as mentioned doesnt seem to be needed anymore.
I feel privileged to be among the 4% who can and already have seen Mr. Raths Video on the Giraffe :)
The Rang card for Night was something that was already discussed in a Chieftain Video I think. So the List of older Questions is a good idear.
A german project that comes to mind regarding the peace dividend casaulties is the Marder 2. Which had come quite far along and there is a prototype of it in the german tank museum. And of course the entire "Tank for the 90s" program that would also have been going on at that time to replace Leopard 1 in service.
Some precisions and expansions:
21:12 multifuel question: A recently uploaded archive indicates France officially dropped the multifuel requirement in 1969. It was suggested to develop an improved HS-110 engine for the AMX-30 that would be optimized for diesel fuel. Without the later archives I can't say if this was done in the end.
24:21 Soviet ammo development initially followed world trends from 1945 to the late 50s: improved full-bore AP, HEAT and APCR was shelved in favor of APDS with sharp tip for the core. From the late 50s on (and 1959 in implementation), they moved to steel and steel rod+tungsten carbide core APFSDS all the way to 1978, which was enough to deal with Western armor arrays of the time but saved precious tungsten.
1978-1983 was a transitional period with early studies in tungsten and DU-only penetrators, but the development that was implemented was a steel rod with a tungsten alloy core at the tail end of the projectile to improve performance against high obliquity and spaced targets (3BM26, previous projectiles always lost the tungsten carbide core beyond 15° angle from vertical so it didn't contribute to angled penetration). This also saw new charges and new sabots to increase velocity and reduce drag.
Then from 1985 to 1991 we see normal APFSDS development with first two parts (1988 BM42) and fully monobloc (1985 for BM32 but less common, and vaporware rounds that never saw service).
HEAT-FS improved over time too but nothing too fancy.
36:00 on B40: B40 was actually a fully clean-sheet design that kept little of the B1 lineage. Components and many layout features were brand new, such as a new 500hp engine (gasoline Talbot V12 or diesel ARL), hydropneumatic suspension and electric transmission (alternatives to the latter existed). The turret was also finally 3-man with a long 47mm gun in a 1.68m turret ring (changed in June 1940 to a 3-man 75mm turret).
I remember that range cards where printed on the cardboard box of the one man ration packs that where issued to us in the 90's (British Armed Forces), so a very common thing.
While I know why the Chieftain loves talking about track tension, it puts a needle in my heart every time he does. The pain is from remembering four years of SQT tests which included questions on tensioning the track on an M163 Vulcan (an M113 with the M61 in a turret on top)...
...while I only served in units equipped with the M167 Vulcan (towed version, using an M561 as the prime mover).
.
This was made worse because, to my memory, there was NEVER a question on mounting a truss kit on the Gamma Goat, thereby sharing the pain to my self-propelled cousins.
Dear chieftain , tanks for answering the question about the model train from the previous Q and A , there’s one question that has being coming to my mind , and this is recently due to what’s going on in Ukraine. I am referring to the use of rocket artillery.
I am fully aware that modern rocket artillery was used practically in World War Two by the Russians with the Katyusha , the Germans with the Nebelwerfer, and the uk and us with LST rocket ships and the Sherman calliope. After World War Two , the Soviet Union kept rocket artillery in their doctrine , such as the grad system , while the United States and Britain seemed to drop the idea of rocket artillery in a saturation role postwar, until the 1970s with their MLRS. Why was that the case ? Did the fact that most allied rocket artillery used airplane launched rockets that made them fall out of favour?, and how did they come back to using rocket artillery such as the MLRS ?,
Well! I thought I was the only person to have read Dark Rose. As a Brit (who knows Dublin pretty well) it made me chucklemore than once. Truly risible.
I recently re-read Hackett's "Third World War" and I'm glad to see we have moved a long way since then. It's now a piece of interesting-for-its-time semi propaganda, up there with "The Battle of Dorking" and "Riddle of the Sands".
Is there a strange subgenre of (fictional) books about countries invading ireland? I think I read a different one decades ago (and I'm pretty sure I didn't dream it) about the Israelis buying up a load of land and invading ireland from within. The resistance was led by Queen Maeve, a descendent of ancient Irish royalty, with the help of some lads from the IRA.
Halon turret fire suppression systems were not traditionally designed to save the crew, if it did, that was a bonus; hence one of the purposes of "gun drills" is the "Standardization of replacement crews".
As far as multi-fuel goes, the French Army GBC8KT and AMX-30 had that capacity. It makes sense when you consider that when they were introduced, the French Army was running diesel and petrol vehicles.
However, due to diesel being widely available and vehicles being run on either diesel or jet fuel (mixed with oil) in operations, the GBC180 upgrade program went to a straight diesel engine from Renault and the Leclerc is built around a diesel engine.
The choice not to stay with multifuel in parts comes from the fact that the energy efficiency of multifuel engines is terrible.
Got that info when I did work experience at the SEA (fuel services of the French Army) in 1999.
Interestingly, multi-fuel engines did come back.
The MTU MB 873 used in the Leopard 2 is a V12 MF diesel.
MF doesn't stand for multi-fuel, but for the improved Mittelkugelverfahren (M-system in english). A special type of direct injection diesels.
Those engines apparently do pretty well with a wider range of fuels.
I guess when Chieftain was being developed engine technology just wasn't matured enough to make it truly work.
Another reason aircraft are left with full tanks is to reduce the condensation and therefore water inside the tanks.
Love the tank with the twin mount M2 with the parasol.
I was watching a video the other day on a millsurp John Deere bulldozer, that had extra filters that added lubricant to jet fuel.
The difference in wheight is 7.85 kg/10 cm cube mild steel to 8kg/10cm cube with stainless steel alloy, so the saving is rather minimal.
But it is a lot more difficult to produce and to machine hard alloy steel so a mild steel version will be cheaper and easier to make.
If you need some training tanks that will react almost like the real thing and you need them beforehand you starting to roll out thousands of not so cheap tanks I would go this way.
9:04 on the Swiss Pz87, 42 of Pz87s are sold to Rheinmetall Initially to be converted, it's actually sold to Indonesian Military Later, it is shown by Indonesian 2A4 have a Grouser, and several individual equipment made for Swiss Soldiers.. and some of the Sensor including FCS also upgraded by Rheinmetall
Sir, the pronunciation of REME is REEMEE, we grafted our nuts off keeping you buggers on the road. We spent all day toddling on behind tanks & most of the night sticking 'em back together, powered by alcohol admittedly (who goes for a kip when there is still beer available?) Thanks for your channel, enjoy most of it. Not many include the thoughts of us 'nut stranglers.'
I read the guy's book. I think the only thing different about the tank was no heat treat/soft armour. It was only supposed to have been used for training. Don't know how much money that saved. They were offered a new tank but since the war was almost over and they'd survived in the tank since they were issued a tank they decided to stick with it. It was a good book with some exciting events.
Altering the dimensions of the tank and it's components would have more or less required a new manufacturing line. That isn't going to save money.
Multi Fuel there were trails and plans of using anhydrous ammonia in M48 tanks. I have seen the test reports and photos they worked with four High pressure cylinders in heated wall lockers laid on and strapped down to the engine deck. It was one of many fallback plans if Diesel fuel ran short. Intended to get the tank up to the forward assemble area where the cylinders and wall lockers could be dumped off for reuse.
"Tanks don't operate alone." Russia wishes to learn this magic of which you speak.
@James Price tl;dr Putin.
Russian tanks aren't operating alone (Moran even has a video pointing out the "lone tank kills" Ukrainian videos were released without context), they are suffering the disadvantage of invading a country with prepared defenses and stubborn, wily fighters.
I'd love to know what you are talking about, because even in the footage i've seen where the russians do not employ the sacred "infantry + tanks" doctrine, the tanks roll in a company of four vehicles.
I've only seen fotage of a single vehicle doing something in those videos where the tanks pops round the corner in urban combat, fires off a few shots and then pulls back and even then, the person filming is presumably part of the infnatry holding that position
@@CaptainSeato Also intense satellite information relayed to Ukraine.
They should have accounted that, yet keep acting as if Ukraine dod not know where they are
@@MatoVuc a platoon of 4 tanks is still alone, because they don't have any infantry with them.
An Aer Lingus B-737 model! Nice! Either that or it's the Airbus A-320.
737. The A320 has no fin fillet. Probably a 300 or 400 series.
"I swear officer, it's just recreational."
"Sir, that is a smoothbore 120mm cannon."
Southern Armoury, a British gun shop used to run ads on the back pages of various shooting magazines. Occasionally they got "interesting" stuff on catalogue. One such item required the purchaser to have a shotgun certificate and a track-laying vehicle driving certificate -- it was an ex-WWII Wehrmacht heavy mortar (150mm IIRC) mounted in the back of a half-track. It was a smoothbore with a barrel length in excess of 24 inches so it was classed as a shotgun for legal purposes.
@@robertsneddon731 And now you need a license to walk the streets with a spoon. SMH
I have that P365 XL. Took me surprise when you showed the same Sig. Thanks again.
On your fuel tank question, another reason to fill the tanks when parked or transport is if the vehicle is fueled with JP-5 or JP-8. Both of these fuels have several additives mixed in that are needed for proper aircraft (and probably Abrams) fuel system operation. One of these additives is the Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII). In the right circumstances, a partially full fuel tank can cause the FSII to condense on walls of the fuel tank, reducing the anti-icing capability, possibly damaging corrosion protective finishes on the inside of a fuel tank and plugging of fuel filters. This has been a big problem on some USAF aircraft.
Sigs made with love from New Hampshire 🇺🇸
As an Ammo-62 guy (HazMat transportation, including fueled/loaded combat vehicles), I always found it silly that we had to transport vehicles with partial fuel loads. In the advent of an accident, yes, by EPA logic more fuel theoretically could end up on the ground to reach the waterways and poison the fishies.
But from a DOT/Firefighter perspective, shipping a vehicle with only 1/16th to 1/4 of a fuel tank meant it was full of FUMES ready to combust.
Sounds like the sort of people that would mandate a fuel tank nozzle design that reduces lost vapors at the cost of generally spilling a quarter or half of the contents when trying to actually use the thing.
Yup, the joys of ullage and lots of explodying. The particularly impressive example was the German girl who ended up alone in the jungle when a lightning strike blew up the plane she was in and she landed still in her seat.. When she got back home, she became a librarian.
Thanks for answering about the bulldozers! I was already aware of the dozer blade tanks and hedgerow cutters. I was operating under the assumption that a purpose-built bulldozer would be better at earthmoving functions than a dozer blade tank, especially when crewed by a trained construction worker. But I dunno how much expertise and finesse is needed for the jobs a dozer does at war.
At a guess the level of expertise and finesse is inversely proportional to the volume of incoming fire :)
I think one big item is that while under fire you are looking for good enough. Someone else can come along and make it pretty after the fighting is over.
And while the dozer may be better at being a dozer, the tank will be better at taking fire and is able to punish whoever tries messing with them while being good enough as a dozer. And non-armoured bulldozers will be better bulldozers with less weight and better visibility etc.
Of course dealing with insurgents where everywhere is liable to be attacked this calculus can change significantly.
M48 and M60 Cupola are a nightmare to rapidly reload the ammo whereas grabbing a standard ammo can and slotting it into a can holder opening it and feeding the M2 is much, much faster. I have tested this in our centers M60 turret trainer in Arlington Heights Illinois way back when. The Cupola offered nice headspace and not much else.
In the Canadian Leopard C1 & C2, many drivers would use the "Pivot" gear selection when sitting stationary in a fire position instead of putting the gear/mode selector in neutral and applying the mechanical hand brakes. This would save time if the tank needed to move out of the fire position in a "hurry".
Thank you for the "Cliff Notes" on 'Dark Rose' . . . I don't know whether I'd want to see a Hollywood adaptation of this, or if I'd be better off sporking out my own eyeballs . . .
"The Irish surrender without a fight." o.O O.o .> Unlikely.
Why have I never heard of that book? Sounds fantastic! 😀😀
Question for next Q&A: Yes or maple flavoured yes, the Canadian Army needs more tanks as it does not currently have enough Leopard 2’s to fully outfit 3 Armoured Regiments (1 battalion per Reg Force Mechanised Brigade Group. What in your opinion would best suit the Canucks? More 2A6M, 2A7, a hypothetical 2A8, or selling them all to Turkey and buying Abrams?
More of what they currently have unless upgrading those tanks to a newer standard.
Stick with Leopards as they meet Canadian needs and any benefit to having Abrams is going to be marginal and not worth the cost to modify the infrastructure now. If you want to go full modern, better to wait a few years and see how Ukraine shakes out as there is no short term threat with significant numbers of more modern tanks and well trained crews.
Don't sell any materiel to Erdrogan unless it is delivered at a high velocity with an armed fuse.
Nick, good luck with the greasy pole. I found Unit Command the last highlight and didn’t’ the mind so much not progression too much further (to date). Of course we don’t have your “up or out” policy.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Neubaufahrzeug were only ever built as prototypes in mild steel, as it (wisely) was rejected by the WH. One or more of these mild steel prototypes were sent to the occupied Norway for police duties. They weren't expecting to meet any other tanks there anyway, I guess.
Infantry One-Station Unit Training at Ft Benning was 13 weeks, 3 days in 1986.
Question for the next video: How is tank armor hardened? Is it done whole hog in something like a giant furnace? If it is done to individual parts before they are assembled, how are the heat affected zones created by welding dealt with? (In case you don't know, the heat affected zone is the area of the metal where the temper of the metal is destroyed because of the heat of the welding process.)
its welded after hardening. and techniques to deal with the process were only developed after ww2 and even now its still a weak point in metal armour (which is one of the reasons casting became popular pre-composites).
You make plate, you treat the plate, you put the plate together, metal box happen.
Thos is the process of making steel plate armor since the 14th century.
Spoke to a LAV-25 gunner during the Desert Storm (1991) who was with that unit near Kanji that ran into Iraqi armor. Having JUST a 25mm autocannon and a machinegun available they used the 25mm. He said that wile they were unable to penetrate the turret (I seen to recall he said it was a T-62 variant) he got the strong impression that given a few shots in the same location they could have chiseled a hole thru it.
Lindybeige did a video on the underarmoured Cromwell. Can find it by looking for Tales of Cromwell tanks. If I remember right it was a squad of training tank that got sent to the field by accident with less armor then the standard one and they figured this out after getting hit by a AA gun that got embedded in the plate. They also refused to have them switched out I believe. Been awhile since I watched the video so not 100% I'm remembering correctly. Think the info comes from a memoir of one of the crew.
I second that. Would have written the same
Yup, rings a bell with me too.
A second chance to get the shirt. Excellent.
One of your best so far of these Q&A. Do be careful with "inside baseball" jargon. Not all of us know what an M17 or Baretta is off0hand. I had to look it up. Not the end of the world, but I was lost fo a bit. Keep up the great and good lunk on making Colonel.
One advantage of tanks, even lighly armored machines, is that they are demonstratively intimidating.
Rouges and bandits and terrorists will pause upon seeing a tank, look at their rifle or machine gun and ask themselves. 'if that is looking at me, am I actually going to make a difference here?'
Orbital artillery strikes might be effective and accurate with guided munitions, but you cannot SEE that they are pointing at you as the truck with the megaphone asks you to drop your weapon and exit the building with your hands up before you are fired upon.
Are you going to take the building in the first place expecting it to be effective if you know people with orbital strike capability are in the area?
Children in heavy drone used areas have been conditioned to fear blue skies after all.
@@Zraknul so. It's easy to talk it up to your new recruits how Innaccurate or terribly bad the orbital weapons are to give false confidence.
And also it's the case that if you think they can't see you then you might act in such a manner.
They can't spot where I am. I'm inside a building after all and hiding, they won't know what hit them!
Wait.
That tank is pointing it's gun at my building... Maybe I should wait till it loses interest.
Look at the size of that thing compared to the infantry walking with it.
So big, it'd make paste of me.
No. I didn't sign up to eat tank shells. I'm going to stay hiding and NOT get involved. I saw what happened last time a tank shot a building, the whole thing blew up!
5:10 In math the number of decimals used signifies (or is intended to signify) the precision of the calculation. So if you see a value of 1, you know that value was intended to have the precision to say it is >=0.5, and =0.995 and
In my experience engineering people use millimetres, people in construction use millimetres, it is common for someone to talk about "a gap of 200" and the units are not stated because they are obvious. Nobody on a building site would say "20 centimetres". (In my experience).
Centimetres tend to appear on packaging of retail items, so my impression is mm for professionals and cm for amateurs.
You may be Irish but you do have a thoroughly English sense of understatement.
@16:50 I had to laugh at the tassled umbrella sheltering the twin MG mount!
Well I know what I'm listening tonight 🤪
Thanks Nicholas as always 👍🏻
Got a mate who is a major in a Swiss Tank Regiment - lucky bastard!
Since the bookshelf question seems to come up a lot, here is the official product name straight from Crate and Barrel's site: Beckett 6-High Storage Bookshelf Sable
Minute 53: It was possible to up-gun Rams to 75 mm guns with only minor modifications to the turret. All Ram tanks left Montreal Locomotive Works with 2-pounder (37 mm) or 6-pounder (57 mm) main guns, but porst-war, some were converted to carry 75 mm QF guns. . After rigorous training in Canada and the UK, most were well-worn by the time of the Normandy Invasion, so were replaced (Canadian Army) by new-production Shermans. Only de-frocked Rams fought in Normandy. The first batch were de-gunned to serve as forward artillery observers. Come August 1944, hundreds of de-frocked Rams were re-purposed as Kangaroo APCs. At the end of WW 2, all Canadian Army vehicles were stored in Holland. Post war, the Dutch Army installed British 75 mm QF guns in some of their Rams. 75 mm QF guns had the same external dimensions as 6-pounders, but they could fired standard USA 75 mm ammo.
0:13:00 Also the vehicle pretty much needs to come to a complete halt to neutral-steer as throwing one/other track into reverse/forward while in forward/reverse motion still results in pivot steer. Halts being euqalamnious to Significant Emotional Vulnerability, they are frowned upon.
Halon is very effective at smothering humans too. Ventilation is very important.
I am aware of one pilot being killed in his cockpit by the halon extinguisher in the cockpit going off in a light aircraft.
I'd be surprised if you even noticed an RPG round hitting a M1. I know for a fact that a 100mm APDS round from a T55 from a bit over ~1km hitting the front of a Challenger 1 only makes a mildly loud-ish "whump" sound over the noise of the vehicle and rocks it back slightly. It also causes the gunner to comment, "I think we ..... was that someone shooting at us?" I don't think I'd even notice an RPG over the noise of a moving vehicle unless it penetrated somehow. And if that happened, I still don't think I'd hear so much as I would "just Experience An Event" as we used to say.
I think the lack of filtering might be a good thing. Historians always struggle with the little things about people's lives in the past, like going out to eat.
Big picture Military Historians are going to hate it, but smaller scale focused people might have a gold mine.
*_GREAT_** Q&A, Nick!*
Boom.. crack.. that is what a sabot sounds like going overhead.
3-116 Cav had a 2LT in the gunners seat on range one at Gowen and he got outside the range fan..
My FST was a click or so off to the side and the round went over us.
Much consternation amongst the safety people..
Did y'all ever find the crew seat cushions after that?
There were pieces of armour with various projectiles embedded on display at the IWM when I visited back in the 1960s.
Range Cards. In the British wwii training film "Shoot to Kill" there is a section about the use of the range card at section level.
More on the question of the bulldozers with armor. I had a great uncle serve in ww2 pacific theater building runways after the Marines would say "all clear". That didn't always mean it was totally clear. They did discover that the blade on them was pretty much bullet proof against anything they came up against. To either get away from it or just burry it in a mound of dirt, and have the Marines deal with it.
Always interesting, thank you.
Steam engines for tanks…..”Thomas the tank tank”?🤔……I think I can ,I think I can.😀
I think I BLAM, I think I blam
That summary of Dark Rose is hilarious. I almost want to read it now
I unironically do. Sounds hilarious!
"I have others on my shopping list though, when I have money to buy them" relatable
As always, very informative and enjoyable!
Thank you!
Regarding why things are measured in millimetres, it is down to the International System of Units, also known as SI Units. For measurement of distance, the meter is the standard unit, then units are scaled by 10^3 or 10^-3 increments. For distance, smaller scales are millimetres, micrometers, and nanometers. Larger scales are kilometres, megameters, and gigameters.
G'day Nick. I enjoy your Q&As. Here's a possible Q for a future one - Whilst gun mantlets were often made quite thick, what effect(s) did heavy impacts that didn't penetrate have on the trunnions and other gun support/movement elements, not to mention more delicate stuff like sights, etc? Thanks. (Please do something more with Ian when/if you get the chance - you make an interesting duo :-)
Obsolescence of a weapon is actually rare. The two examples I know of are armored knights and battleships. In both cases it required the defeat of both their offensive and defensive capability. The first was by reliable multi-shot fire arms and the second by smart weapons from airplanes. To obsolete tanks would take something like smart transporter artillery teleported from the Enterprise.