US Light Tanks: From Obsolete to Best on the Battlefield
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- The evolution of US light tanks during World War II began with the M3 Stuart and evolved through models such as the M3A1, M5, M5A1, and M24 Chaffee. It also included unique tanks like the M3 Satan flamethrower and the M22 airborne light tank. In this video, Dan Starks, Founder of the National Museum of Military Vehicles, describes the progression of these tanks from obsolescence to being the best on the battlefield.
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - M3 Stuart and its Origins
10:47 - M3A1 Improvements
15:04 - M5 & M5A1
20:44 - M24 Chaffee
24:21 - M3 Satan Flamethrower
28:04 - M22 Locust
Highlights Include:
* M3 Stuart Tank: Learn how the Spanish Civil War influenced its development and the pivotal role it played early in WWII.
* M3A1, M5, and M5A1 Stuart Tanks: Discover the incremental improvements that enhanced their combat efficiency.
* M3 Satan Flamethrower Tank: A unique adaptation of the Stuart tank, designed for specialized assault missions.
* M24 Chaffee Tank: Explore the culmination of light tank design in WWII, offering superior firepower and mobility.
* M22 Airborne Light Tank: Insight into the design and deployment of this airborne light tank during WWII. 
Авто/Мото
The M24 Chaffee also had the advantage of a 3-man turret, meaning that the commander no longer needed to load the gun and could focus solely on commanding the tank.
Cant call it an advantage when by that time virtually every tank use a 3-man turret anyway
...Over the older light tanks that use a 2 man turret yes it is an advantage
@@arandomcommenter412 Sure, but the way OP worded it made it sound as if a 3-man crew is a completely new invention
I'll tell you what, though, history shows having a three man turret was a huge benefit.
That, the radios and no rivets were all the advantages the early PZK's enjoyed over tanks that were much more mobile, heavily armed, and armored.
@@AHappyCubno the way he worded it was pretty clearly in reference to the other u.s light tanks with the phrasing of "no longer needed to" making clear reference to a change in operations from the prior circumstances
It's incredible how much information this video packs into a half hour.
Just imagining how cool it'd be to hang out with Mr Starks and the tanks for an afternoon.
Agreed! Awesome video!
I work at the NMMV, and I can confirm he is very knowledgeable about the subject matter
Good idea for a raffle to benefit the museum.
I agree this is a brilliant video with a great amount of information.
When I visited, he was giving tours in the mornings
The M24 Chaffee still looks surprisingly modern compared to the M3 Stewart. It adopted so many features that became standard on Post-War tanks up to the present day.
Sorta...but the Panther tank looks more modern cuz it's a lot bigger
My uncle was a tank commander in Vietnam. He said he spent much of the time relaxing on the beach because tanks didn't do good in jungles and swamps. I believe he had a M-60 tank.
M-48 far and away the most likely tank your uncle served in. There were other special purpose tank versions present as well.
To: @@davidk7324
I was a tank commander on the other side of the fence with a T-55A in East-Germany in the mid. 1980s-
Our then opponents (Dutch, West-German and US-forces) were always described as equipped with Leopards 1 and 2 and the M48.
Since we still had pure optical sights so we had to mental-math to measure the target first with a scale inside the sights and then calculate the firing distance. So we had to memorize the main dimensions of these three types. A M-60 type of our then opponents was never mentioned.
Maybe this helps.
PS; the T-55s were soon updated with laser range finders, skipping the mental math - which was the real slower for us to have a faster firing sequences at a otherwise quite good tank.
Peace! from Dresden / Germany
@@gerdlunau8411 Thanks for this. We just missed one another. I served with USAEUR 1977-80 in a Dustoff unit near Stuttgart. All the tanks I saw were M60s. They certainly look similar from a distance.
To: @@davidk7324
We never managed to see them and you guys never invited us 🙂to come over for a beer.
I served in Rostock, a larger Baltic port city with an infantry regiment, which had a tank battalion imbedded. Our task was an amphibious one - to be transported by ship and then to attack the Danish coastline.
Gruesome time this f... Cold War (like any war). Unfortunately we are starting it all over again. Obviously no lessons learnt.
I also witnessed in 1991 the withdraw of a larger (tank) units of US-forces from Hanau near Frankfurt (at the Main river), when I started to work there as an engineer after I graduated.
I still observed your buddies doing the physical exercise at the local sports area from the backside of our company.
My sweetheart is far away (Chorus:) My sweetheart is far away.... it still rings in my ears.
Peace to you and Happy Easter holidays! from Dresden / Germany
Vietnam had M48A3 tanks. The newer M60 and M60A1 tanks went to Europe, a bigger threat.
As a kid growing up in the 1960s I used to visit a surplus yard located about ten miles from home in the north Florida countryside. Among the vehicles I would crawl over was an early model M3 Stuart. I recognized it because I read a ridiculous comic book series DC put out called "The Haunted Tank". I know it was an early model because it was bristling with machine gun ports. The racks that held the fixed guns on either side of the chassis were still present. At the time I assumed all Stuarts were armed this way.
By ridiculous you meant friggin' awesome. Every tanker should be so lucky as to have a benevolent ex-general ghost protecting it and dispensing wise, cryptic advice.
@@harperhellems3648Remember the Force, Luke.
@@harperhellems3648I was referring to the idea that the "high velocity" 37mm gun of the Stuart regularly took out every known German medium and heavy tank from the front with ease.
@@Paladin1873Well, I recall that being explained by the haunted tank's gunner being so good he could put a round down the barrel of any tank they encountered.
Was that by any chance the Paramore Salvage Yard in Leon County? They had a Stuart too, as well as an early "Flying Banana" helicopter, a couple Jeep military trucks and several cut up Ford Mutt jeep-type vehicles. Fun place to look around in.
In Robert Crisp’s book “Brazen Chariots” he gives an alternate explanation of the nickname “Honey”. He said his driver put it through the paces that would shed tracks on British tanks, but the M3 didn’t shed them. It was a “Honey “ to drive.
I have that book ;)
It was really everything about the M-3 that the British crews loved: The speed, armor, and firepower were all comparable to their own kit, like the Crusader. The difference, as you partially point out, was that it couldn't throw a track, would drive for hundreds of miles with little/no maintenance and had a "roomy" fighting compartment, compared to what they were transitioning from.
One point in the book that always stuck with me was the 88mm ambush where the author ordered the driver to escape by leaping the parapet. That the driver did it and the tank survived and continued driving is all the testament you need to attest to the value of the M-3
@@karlbrundage7472 If you haven’t read it Keith Douglas’s “Alamein to Zum Zum”. Douglas was a pre war published poet who commanded a 6pdr Crusader from those two points. He later died in Normandy scouting outside of his Cromwell from a mortar shell.
@@longrider42I had it too!!
I remember in brazen chariots how they loved the “ho ey” after they put it through its paces for the first time. 👍
I wasn't even aware this museum exists. I'm subbed to a bunch of tank related channels but RUclips only just recommended this now.
Finally some competition to "The Tank Museum". And it's on Our side of the Atlantic! Great videos, please keep them up!!!
I was looking for this comment
@@Teddymcfartson Interesting that the presenter uses the word 'We' so much. The delightful egocentrism of the USA? Just me, but I would never use 'we' as a 'subject pronoun' unless I was contemporary to the events being discussed.
@@andymoore9977 we don't care
@@sadfrog5787 teehee
@@andymoore9977 It gets even funnier when Americans use "we" about events that happened prior to them or their ancestors emigrating to USA.
Excellent presentation, Thank-you Mr Starks.
You know your stuff when you establish your own museum,, thank you Mr Starks
Very knowledgeable. I had never heard of the M3 Satan before.
New one to me too,
As is a lot of the content on here, crocodile system was frightening in use, gouts of flaming gummy bears shooting towards you, satan was probably a better name tbf
Me neither, but i can see it being absolutely lethal in the island hopping campaign
I knew we had flamethrower tanks in the pacific theater of operations but didn’t know what they were called.
@@sidgarrett7247 Most of the images you will see and the greater number put into combat in the Pacific were flamethrower Shermans, I do believe.
(Most or all of these would probably be post-Marianas campaign - places like the Phillippines or Okinawa - which is were the M3 Satan was used)
edit: My post looks confusing in hindsight. I meant that the Satan was used in the Marianas campaign (Operation Forager) and flamethrower Shermans would have been utilized after that campaign, e.g. Okinawa, Iwo jima.
There's nothing better than old timers teaching. Whether it's a video on tanks, construction lumber, or vehicles, anytime the video starts with an old timer I know it's gonna be good.
Excellent presentation. Thank you so much from a former leader of a platoon of five Centurion tanks in the Dutch Army, ages ago.
One of my favorite vehicles is the 75mm Howitzer Motor Carrage M8, which was a M5 Stuart with a brand new turret mounting a 75mm pack howitzer. My great-great uncle serverd as a loader on one in Italy.
Sick! The M8 is also one of my favorites…though I prefer the M18 or M36
M8 "Scott".
@@BigSkyBoomer yep, that's the one. Interesting fact about the name, "Scott" didn't catch on with American crews until well after the war ended. Like practically every other American ground vehicle the British named it that, and depending on how frequently crews were in contact with the brits denoted how quickly they caught on. My great-great uncle's journal always referred to it as M8, or "Bessie" after the time their driver remarked "it feels like a fat cow" when they first drove it. (This was after making the transition from towed artillery in Africa and having to get used to the new system.😂)
Ive been to your museum multiple times. Me n my boys love this place
I know much more now than I did 30mins. ago. A really great presentation! thanks!
I like the side by side comparison.
In the 50's and 60's in Lebanon Pa. they had an old M3 Stuart tank as a memorial at a Park like intersection . High school kids one year got a battery and were able to drive it off the mount. This was before they sealed them up . They now have an M60 in its place and its locked up . I loved the old comic book " The Haunted tank " about a WW2 Stuart haunted by Jeb Stuart . This bad boy could knock out Tiger Tanks to Stukas ! One of the problems with the Stuarts in the pacific was Japanese bayonets could fit between the turret and the body of the tank .
M551 saw action in Operation Just Cause in Panama where it actually fulfilled its job of aerial deployment and in Operation Desert Storm as well, where they saw combat including using their missiles
Thank you for this wonderful overview, Dan. You must have a great team working earnestly to assure that the script, lighting, sound, cameras, editing, etc. all come together. Top notch production values. I think it underlines the thoughtful displays and layout of the galleries. Although the museum is vast, it does not feel (or sound) that way. I've always lauded the NMMV's curation but have come to notice and appreciate the contemplative design seamlessly integrated in the same place where you can turn a corner and say "wow."
I believe the M3 and M3A1 also had a few degrees of traverse in the 37mm gun mount itself, independent of the turret traverse. (Not sure about the M5 and M5A1.) I recall reading that with no turret basket, British crews would fight with the turret straight ahead, and rely on the traverse built into the gun mount.
One advantage of the M5 and M5A1 was that it had an automatic transmission. Also, if one of the two engines was damaged, it could be isolated from the drive train, and the tank would run on a single engine.
And how is automatic transmission an advantage?
@@Paciat it made it easier to drive.
@@jamescameron2490 The thing with front transmission that German and US tanks had is that the stick goes/would go into the gearbox. So its easy to shift gears. Its only a problem with rear drive as the stick has to be connected to the back of the tank. It might be a easier on long road marches. But if you need to do some aggressive maneuvers, or pull your or any other tank out of being stuck somewhere manual transmission gives you more control over the engine power - witch to most tank designers was a bigger advantage.
One of the best presentations on tanks. Keep up the great work and tanks !
The reason they changed from rivets to welding was when the armor was hit the armor plates shifted and the rivet head became a high velocity object flying around the inside of the tank. Not good on the crew or ammo.
Yeah he said that genius
Welding also produces lighter tanks because you no longer need a frame for the rivets.
The US Army Arsenal invented the vertical and horizontal volute bogie suspension. The flat wound spring was chosen because it could still support some weight when broken in two. The M3 and M5 also used the Buick Hydromatic automatic transmission that had 4 forward speeds and one reverse gear. The British and Aussies really liked the automatic transmission since that allowed the driver to keep his eyes 'on the road' and not looking at the gauges when shifting gears. They also liked the twin Cadillac V8's since one could keep the tank moving if the other one became disabled. The Caddy V8 was also used in the Marine Corps LVT Amttaks with engine inside each side to power the tracks. The early M3 halftracks used factory Caddy V8's that were assembled to go inside cars. Those were fancy with polished aluminum intake manifolds and water pumps plus other deluxe features. Those stayed stateside at the training bases.
Excellent, although I would have liked more on the M24
This video os the first time ive heard of the M3 Satan. Thats a gnarly little tank.
Great vid just to add the M24 Chaffee also served and saw its last combat with the Pakistanis in the Indo-Pak war in 1971.
I believe that Norway used a heavily modified version of the M24 well into the 1980's possibly into the very early 30:15 1990's. Though not in combat of course. Variouse south American forces might have used them even longer.
wth gave this a thumb down? great vid. straight to the point and not dragged out
While the 37mm gun was not effective against bunkers, it did have cannister round that was very effective against infantry. The he round while small was effective as well.
I need understood why they didn't redesign the m5 series to take a 57mm/6pdr in a wider turr.
The 57mm gun was the same size as the M24's 75mm and while it was better against armor it fired a vastly inferior HE round.
The main reason why M3 series tanks were still being co-produced with the M5 series was Lend-lease ..... a significant number of M3's were sent to the USSR, but none of the M5's (that I know of). There's lots of photos and film footage of the Red Army employing M3's.
The m3 series eventually received the same hull and turret improvement as the m5a1. The distinguishing difference between the two was the engine.
The soviet army used diesel for their engine and I don't believe the m5 had a diesel engine variant.
To: @@crimsoncrusader4829
I am coming from the other side of the iron curtain, being a tank commander of T-55 during the mid 1980s in the East-German army. But I am also a stereotype of a German engineer 🙂.
One of the challenges for the lend-lease vehicles for he USSR where the metric threads being used all over the USSR already at the time.
The fuel types were not so much a problem since indeed the Soviet tanks were all running on Diesel (at least all T-34s, plus the heavy tanks like the KW / JS series). It was one engine type (a V12 Diesel) anyway, although a very sophisticated one - a Diesel engine with an aluminium block and two aluminium heads - but all the military trucks of the Red Army were running on patrol. Since any tank unit needs a lot of support trucks, the Red Army always had two fuel types to manage and it was not a challenge for them.
The metric thread issue was one of the great technical issues for those American armour deliveries. I heard from some different sources that American and British vehicles were redesigned for metric nuts and bolts. But those sources are more not solid to me, since I do not find anything in the literature about it.
The issue looks minor, but is actually is a challenge at the engineering level but also if threads not standardized a logistic nightmare for the spare parts and tools which needed to be dragged behind the fighting columns of tanks by the repair and recovery units.
Particular since the British imperial and American threads are quite similar but still different. Three different thread standards at a battel field - what a nightmare. No repair crew wants to have it.
On our Soviet designed tanks everything was metric, but the fine pitch version. Living in a society where everything and anything materialistic was limited and within the GDR (East-Germany) the standard pitched threads the common norm, it drove us tanker men nuts to arrange the nuts, bolts and tools necessary to carry out maintenance and simple repairs. Just to prove my point.
Anyone here who knows more about that seemingly unimportant but in reality pressing issue for those lend-lease vehicles?
Peace! from Dresden / Germany
When you see a M24 Chafee, it looks similar to most US post war tanks before the M1 Abrams. It's like the developers finally hit on the shape that a good tank should look like and then up sized it for the armor and gun requirements with the required increase of the power plant.
M24 had that much better suspension system, why it was used post war tank designs, M26, M46, M47, etc.
a very nice collection. I need to pop over to Wyoming and see these.
M24 is my favorite tank ever.
Excellent Presentation and so thoughtfully delivered and enunciated. Nice to learn info I did not know. As a WWII history buff, thanks.
My uncle was a Marine on Iwo Jima. He was a flamethrower man. Got hit through both legs. Missed the tanks on his back by an inch!
It's always great to be asking myself 'how did I miss this channel ?' 👍
There is a fully restored British M22 Locust light tank on display at The Tank Museum at Boovington in the UK.
Some M22 locusts were used by the British as command vehicles from what I've read.
Very informative video. I had no idea we had so many light tank versions. They seem to have forgotten them in a lot of the movies and videos of WWII.
Such a knowledgeable and to the point narration - highly enjoyable. Thank you! 👏👏👏👍💐
Good lord I have not seen a video of a tank of this era ever blowed on its side from a field gun. Props!
The amount of history, details, technical data all condensed in one video. Thank you, Mr. Starks, you are awesome.
Wonderful video, and I wish I could visit. Thank you!
You're wrong on the number of M22 tanks produced. You said approximately 220 + or- were built. My sources quote around 830 were built in total.
You are correct. I knew better and misspoke. Thank you for the correction.
I would love to go see that place, just watching the historical accuracy on the videos
Plan on an entire day at a minimum. I plan to do yearly visits (3 already) as Dan and his team are constantly enhancing and honing existing displays and adding new ones. A national treasure.
It is a great museum - out in the middle of nowhere wyoming though. I've been once and plan on going again
Just an outstanding presentation. In the same league as the “ CHIEFTAIN “, or the TANK MUSEUM at Bovington 👏
excellent! you guys have an awesome collection! wish i could visit. maybe someday......if i win the lottery lol.
Very nicely done I’m hoping to get out to visit the museum this September I live in Pennsylvania and I’m very close to the town of Berwick during the war they were known for producing over 15,000 Stewart tanks at the American car and foundry works. They have a great little museum and a nice little World War II event on the original proving grounds for the tanks in July.
Great video thank you.
The m24 chaffey is a beautiful tank but also the latest m5. Again thank you, really enjoyed the video.
According to the Chieftain in one of his talks, He stated that to the Brits, Honey was a sweet sticky substance and not a term of endearment in that era...
Great video. Would love a follow up on the roles these light tanks played, particularly late war when they were clearly outclassed
There are two M3A3 Stuart Tanks on static display in the city where I was born. The M3A3 armor is very similar to the M5, but they still have the radial engines.
I crawled up the rear engine cooling ducts, and the engines are complete. I took a pic of the interior with my phone; could see the turret basket and drivers seat.
One of these would be great to add to your collection, since your apparently missing one.
The Army still owns the tanks and decides where they are kept. If better facilities and maintenance is offered, likely be able to get one. Be nice to see them running again. They was used for training during the war.
They would have to go to a museum, to run and drive the tanks.
It would be better for them to be stored indoors and saved; first tanks I ever saw and it always bothered me that they are stored outdoors with no protection.
please email me more info dan@nmmv.org
Beautiful machines and wonderfully explained. Thanks for a great video, and I hope to visit your collection someday!
Great video. It was fun seeing real M3's - M5's and the flame version was amazing. Usually the only Stuarts I see are the ones I build in 1/35 scale. I did a video (Meet the Stuarts) tracing the the M3 up from the M2A2 & M2A3 predecessors thru the M5A1, including the M3A3 (flat deck). I even built one as a British 'Honey' in desert camouflage. Wish I'd seen your video before I built all those little Stuarts. Particularly liked your info about the accessibility and visibility drawbacks to the M3 light tanks.
Interesting evolution of a light tank. Improving and continuing to produce at a significant amount at the same time. Most other countries failed miserably at doing this .
I can very much recommend the book, Rolling Thunder Against the Rising Sun by Gene Eric Salecker
Thanks, Museum.
Very interesting vid! Love the attention to detail. Awesome that you got the specific A3 Satan flamethrower version. Kinda odd that the history books only mention the riveted versions doing service as flamethrowers.
You fine folks have earned yourself a subscriber. Very well presented and produced!!
Thank you.
I always wondered why the US Army didn't upgrade the size gun from 37mm to 47 or 57mm in the Stuart light tank to give it a bigger punch.
Anything much larger would have been a really tight fit, effectively requiring a new turret and turret ring, which was possible on the M5 hull, as demonstrated by the M8 HMC, at the cost of the driver and assistant driver hatches. The M8 turret could fit the M3 gun of the Sherman, but not comfortably. The only off the shelf option for up-gunning, the M1 57mm/QF 6pdr takes up nearly as much space as the M3 and uses a cartridge of similar length.
At the time, the Stuart was due to be replaced by the M7, which would have been better suited for a larger gun, but it didn't work out.
Very much this. Ordinance was very careful to get tanks that were fightable. They rejected the Firefly for American service because they viewed it as too cramped.
I've also been fascinated with light tanks and other wheel recon vehicles as well the roll that recon plays. The sharp end of the spear, or security operationd.
i feel like the chaffee needed a little more screen time for the internal view. Also the torsion bar suspension took some internal space while the leaf spring suspension did not
Do you have a M8 GMC. That would make a great video. Also wasn't there also an M3A3 or was that the same as the M5? Great presentation, really enjoyed the run down!
I loved your presentation of the light tank series, however you left out the M8. Which was a M5 with a M2/M3 75mm howitzer in a M7 mount.
I know that it was supposed to be used as light self propelled artillery, however in the Pacific they were great for taking out pill boxes and machine gun nest.
The other thing I noticed was the M24 has the unit markings of the 4th AD 37th Tank , and that would be incorrect. The M5A1 that is in 25th Recon livery would have had their destroyed M5's replaced with the M24's.
The 37th was a Medium Tank Battalion equipped with the M4A3's, and M4A3E8's, and later the M26 Pershing at the very end of the war.
I do wholeheartedly appreciate that the 37th Tank Battalion has been recognized, it's just on the wrong class of tank.
Extremely well done video. The wealth of knowledge shared so seamlessly was very enjoyable. It is clear you enjoy what you do.
The sloped armor is longer from top to bottom, so it winds up weighing the same for the same level of horizontal protection. This is more easily visualized with a roofless tank destroyer where there is no verticle protection regardless. A thicker 12" verticle, vs. 17" @ 45° weighs the same. You can't fit a dude in the wedge any more than you could fit into a 90° design. There can be a little more elbow room depending on the way it's designed..., or not
Sloped armour provides protection greater than the line of sight thickness through the armour. For example a Panther hull at 55 degrees adds about 25% more resistance than the line of sight distance through the armour.
Friends have gone to your museum, hope to visit soon. Thanks for the very informative video.
Thank you for a very interesting video.
Excellent presentation.
Excellent content, I can see how this would have influenced future light tanks.
So what's next, the M41 Bulldog?
Thank you for this incredible content. Even more, thank you for creating this museum and preserving those incredible vehicles . I'll be visiting as soon as possible.
Excellent video 😁
Great restoration and coverage! Algorithm likes this one! Knowing what i know now, the stuart was an amazing tank. Mobility, quickness, not very wide, gun plenty strong enough to hit weakspots and even detonate armor, no armor is best armor, lower ground pressure meant it could use its speed better. Maybe looking at the M8 versions we see a more complete tank in that it could function with better HE. Good height so it could see well and communicate what it was seeing, I would think that a well commanded and communicative team could accomplish a lot. We were lucky to have them. Would like to hear some war stories about these things at some point. You don't hear that much about them.
Another great video. Keep up the good work!
I've always wondered what the lil swoop was on the right side of the M5 Stuart's turret. It's a very aesthetically pleasing tank
Well presented history lesson. Thanks
Awesome video
A lot of interesting information
What I would really like to see the inside of, is the LVT-A4 Alligator. I have looked at the troop carrier version of this at the Museum Of the Pacific War in Fredricksberg Texas, but the cannon or howitzer armed fire support version, there has been precious little ever shown of in video, or books for that matter.
I can only think that it would be the roomiest of all amphibious light “ Tank” ever made. If your museum, or one of your affiliates have one of these- please please please do a video!
Great presenter and information. Great video in general
Excellent and fantastic video! You have answered a lot of questions I have always had on this series of tank. Thank you.
I absolutely love how much you go into detail on the development evolution of the tank. It's a wonderful breath of fresh air. One thing I wanted to point out that maybe you could discuss in further detail was a comment made here, that may have been 'refuted' by 'The Chieftan'. You commented that the engines in the M3 Stuart were so good that the British nicknamed them 'The honey'. But the Chieftain has in a previous video at some point mentioned that (And I'm tremendously paraphrasing here) "The word 'honey' to the Brits means 'A sweet golden liquid that you eat'. Not a word you would say for a pretty girl. (Or a vehicle)". Calling something "a honey" was an Americanism.
as you see from the string posted above under michaeltelson9798, there are a lot of different views surrounding he nickname "Honey". Far be it from me however to argue with The Chieftain.
Love these videos! 👍
Good show, the man knows what he's talking about, informative progression of the US light Tanks.
They had their problems, as did all light tanks, but they all did sterling service.
Thank you for this, I'd like to see him do more shows like this.
Excellent video
Thanks, a really good and informative video.
Great production; very professional work!
Thank you for your interesting presentation I didn't realise that there were so many M3 variants. I thought they removed the turret to make it a better reconnaissance vehicle.
Very good,Very informative.
Great informative content yet again.
Great video, thanks for sharing
I'm consistently impressed by the quality of content on this channel. The videos are very informative and well presented and produced. The identification tricks for American light tanks are good too. It helps to distinguish these similar-looking tanks when learning about them.
A bit of a tangent, but considering the bit at the end about less impactful tanks such as the M22, do you think there is anything worth saying here about prototype light tanks along the way such as the M7 medium/light? Thanks for the videos!
Very informative. Thank you. I am looking forward to the next series.
Great video!
Fantastic, thank you
Very well done. Very interesting and informative.
Very nice! Thanks!
very interesting and ty
Thank you! Was the M-22 called the "Locust" in British Airbourne use?
Yes.
I liked the idea and format for this video. Well made ❤
Great info!