Thanks to Call of War for once again sponsoring my videos. Download the game for FREE: callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ConeofArcNovember and get a special bonus pack.
In fairness I think in a equal tonnage brawl K-Wagens might have the upper hand. The short 6-pounders might struggle with the K-Wagen's armor at combat distances, but the inverse with the K-Wagen's 77mm guns might not be true. For tonnage, there could be three Mark VIIIs for one K-Wagen.
I would argue this was most definitely not 'cursed by design'. Cursed by timing, perhaps, but it was an excellent tank for its intended purpose. Thankfully for human life, it was never required.
A pity that they weren't used as training vehicles until they have fallen apart due to wear. It's always a pity to see when something that is so expensive and hard to make is just left to rust without any output. Test vehicles are good, but that's 1-2 Mark 8's at best:(
If I remember correctly there was an experiment done on the mark VIII where they fitted a steam engine into it. The tank generally saw improvement in flat ground mobility tests owing the the greater power of the steam engine, but the problems of taking a horizontal boiler up slopes and the ever increasing efficiency and power of internal combustion engines meant that the experiment was ended very quickly.
@@ConeOfArc Sorry I was mistaken, it was a design based on the mark IV not the mark VIII, it just looked slightly similar to the mark VIII with all the extra space needed for the engine. It was intended to be a flamethrower tank, using the excess steam from the boilers to pressurise the flamethrower fuel tanks. The prototype got shipped to France to be tested, but from my quick digging to refresh my memory doesn't turn up much else on the matter.
Steam engines have always been more efficient than internal combustion engines. The down side of steam engines is the hours required to bring them up to operating temperature.
@@allangibson2408 And when they were installed in submarines (yeah it happened) the other downside was the time needed to shut down the boilers before diving...
Having been a tanker with the Canadian Military, I have to say that I have never seen any pictures of Canadians training with this tank. The Renault yes. Perhaps contact the museum at base Borden in Ontario Canada. They may have something in the archives
I'm an American born in North Idaho and I have to admit there is not a lot about the Canadian participation and involvement in world war 1 or 2. That really is a disservice to your country in my mind but with as arrogant is most Americans are especially the politicians it makes sense. We probably wouldn't have come anywhere close to a successful as we did without you guys and that is a fact.
Ah, Liberty engine, the heart of BT series tank... until they were standardized on the more powerful, but also more expensive, heavier and more problematic engine with T-28 and T-35.
@@CZ350tuner The BT series used a license produced Liberty, the M-5, before switching to the license produced BMW VI V-12, the M-17, which is what the T-28, and T-35 used. The BT series switched over to standardize.
Wait, what, it was the Brits who wanted machinguns everywhere and not us Yanks? It is official, I have somehow made a transit to an alternate universe.
Few of the early Tanks had any suspension either. And those that did... didn't have much. Keep in mind: even various Tanks with suspension in WWII were rough to ride around in. Crews who switched over from M4 Shermans' to A35 Comets noticed the upgrade in ride comfort immediately. (Christie suspension may be more maintenance intensive than volute ... but it's much more comfortable)
God that is one of the first times I've ever thought about that LOL! Thank God they were not very fast otherwise they would beat you to death. I friend of mine designed boats for the military and he said he make the boats go way faster than the humans can handle inside the boat. He said I could design a boat that would go to the worst hurricanes without any problems but the humans would be goo inside!!!! The hell of a guy and always had something interesting to talk about when I was training him. He was a good Patriot because he cared more about people in the boat than they both itself
Thank you for digging up and relating information on yet another obscure tank. I very much appreciate that you distinguish between facts with sources as compared to speculation. You are totally credible in my book.
Dude. That must have been so much fun running over trees in that thing lol... I can totally see my grandfather (who was a tank engineer) just driving over random shit after he got done putting some tanks together ❤
You have to be very careful knocking over trees with a tank. Any tree with a big stump/root system can come up under the running gear/track and throw the track. It might not have been as bad as a problem with these Liberty tanks or other similar WWI tanks with their enclosed running gear ,but the stump if it comes up under the track can break the track pins holding the track together. It is such an issue, that many commanders simply forbid tankers from pushing over trees. Between damage to the tanks and also environmental damage(knocked down trees) in training areas/countries it is not allowed. Over in Germany , if you ran over a shrub much less a tree, the Army would be fined a good chunk of money and the tank crew would catch hell.. So you did not dare run over any bush /shrub/tree/small flower/etc. LOL I was lucky , and got to knock down many big trees In Ft Polk La. with my M-1 tank back in the late 1980's. Other drivers/crews tried to do it and ended busting two tanks, so in the end I was the only tank driver in our division authorized to knock down trees during training exercises. I did it mostly to clear firing ranges/lanes for TOW Rocket Launcher systems as their control wires can be snagged by trees. It is kinda interesting to me , to see this Liberty tank at 37 tons with a 300 HP motor knocking down trees, I was using a 63 ton tank with 1500+ HP.
@@decagamin5901 Hence why I said "running gear". The WWI Rhoboid type tanks did have a enclosed system of rollers/small wheels on the bottom of the hull so the tracks could slide/roll over them. You can see the line of roller pin ends in Liberty Tank pictures and other WWI tanks. IIRC, Most were "unsprung" , i.e. fixed. , still a suspension, just not like later tanks with what we generally associate suspensions with , i.e. sprung/torsion/Hydraulic/- "floating" suspensions. The word, "running gear" covers both types and also the idler wheels, road-wheels" and track adjustment systems/compensating idler wheels. We tankers(I was one 8 years) generally exclude ,the tracks themselves , and the drive sprockets/final drive units, from being part of the "running gear" and consider them separate if there was an issue.. But they too are part of the "running gear", in the big picture. Addenda; it took a while to find but here is a picture of the Liberty tank "running gear". condense to link http: // www. landships. info/ landships/ tank_articles/images/Mark_VIII_18.jpg
This tank was used as an inspiration for the Indiana Jones tank movie the last crusade. The movie crew used a HYMAC 590 escavator as a base, modified the chassis and added two rover V8 engines. drive gear installed and modified by a specialist engineer
I first saw this beast on an old ('70s) tank encyclopedia, naturally it's dubtful, with the chronical fuel's crisis that late war Germany had, that we would've seen some epic clash btw them and A7vs, also if the allies would've fielded them in big numbers. One thing puzzles me, either brits & US used the Imperial system, but the french used,as the whole Europe, the metric one: didn't they would've had some compatibility's problem with French made parts?
The factory was going to be British built and with all the components being already made there really wouldn't be any issues as far as I can tell. At most they might need to just make minor adjustments to fit everything together.
I'd heard of the mark 8 but I never knew they actually made so many of them, and it was so cool hearing that they didn't scrap them all, like so many other unique tanks that were sent to Aberdeen
I'd love to hear more about the one steam-powered tank that was proposed during WWI. Editing to add, are there any examples of international cooperation like this that have actually worked? Because videos on some of the other failures, like the MBT-70/Kpz-70 could be interesting.
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 that's the one. Although I believe West Germany developed their own 120mm gun for the monstrosity. It's a surprisingly good-looking design when you're close up to it, but yeah.
@@thomaszinser8714 the full shortened name for it is KPFPZ, which is why its referred to as KPF rather than PZ, which is also influenced by the 400 different panzer variants, most of which are panzer 4s
Glad to finally see a video on this beast, got to see it in 2017 at the tank yard in Fort Benning, it is a massive machine similar in size to the tiger they had next to it.
I did enjoy this video as much as your other videos. I actually have no interest in war related material but you make the engineering aspect so interesting that I have watched every video since I discovered your channel a few months ago. One can tell how much passion you have for the subject. Keep up the great work! It is most certainly appreciated!
I've been consistently reading/learning about tanks since I was in elementary school, yet I don't recall ever seeing anything about these tanks. Thanks for bringing them to my attention! Very interesting part of history.
Thanks I agree that the early interwar tanks don't get enough coverage. I have wondered how the Navy got interested in tanks.. was it an out-growth of the Land Battleship idea or they were worried the didn't get enough use in WW1?
The good old rhomboidal tanks with exposed tracks! Back in the days when bigger was better! The Brits and the French continued to make tanks with exposed tracks, like the Churchills and the Char B1. A very informative video, Cone!
I love these old WW1 & early interwar designs that you can call landships. I don't like the giant WW2 designs nearly as much, since the WW1 designs were from a time when people were still figuring out what a tank was. By the late interwar period and WW2 enough of that had been ironed out to show that ginormous tanks were not practical.
My favorite of those WW1 tanks is the Fiat 2000. Ahead of its time in some ways (like the Renault FT, it had a fully rotating turret), but it's also so goofy from the modern perspective. And when you see a cross-section drawing, it's even goofier than is obvious from the outside; the 10-man crew are literally standing on top of the engine.
The WWI Rhomboid "Landships " had an advantage with their enclose running gear to crash over mass barbed wire obstacles and not get stucked . No later tank could do that. Even modern day M-1's are scared/concerned of 1 strand of barbed wire much less a wire obstacle( I drove one many years I know) . Those WWI MK's could go through 20-30 feet piled high of wire which was common in WWI. I have seen too many modern tanks get immobilized by even a simple 3 strand barbed wire post fence, or 1 strand of Constantino wire.
@@chrisperrien7055 There are reports of the tanks dragging barbed wire along with them, and all the horror you might imagine that goes along with that. Don't know about you, but I don't want to be anywhere near that kind of human sized cheese grater.
Fascinating programme, particularly with all the moving footage of the machines in action. Sadly the Mk VIII (I'm British) is almost totally forgotten here - like various aircraft which arrived too late to see effective service. (Packard - Lusac, de Havilland 110 Amiens, etc etc) It's taken years of hunting for information in various books for me to know anything about it, and here you have it all in one concise film. Well done, and thank you. Thankfully we also have the one in Bovington. (PS somebody mentioned the K Boats, the steam driven submarines in an earlier post. On paper they were the most powerful subs in creation, and the RN were very proud of them - until they got them. The ships were something of a flop - a number of them took part in the Battle of Scapa Flow as it was known, when two fleets, one inbound and one outbound, got caught in the tidal currents and collided with one another.)
I am disappointed that the image of the renault on the back of the mark viii was apparently just showing off its power and not an intended feature. "Sir, I think we have enough tank." "Nonsense. Build another, smaller tank and gave it ride into combat on the back of the big one before deploying for attack." "That doesn't seem efficient, sir." *SMACK!* "Never question me again!"
Even in their first heavy tank design, the US was already embracing the cult of the machine gun. 10 machine guns. My god. The noise alone would drive you mad
Love this beast. Since the FT17 was the first tank with a rotating turret, this was the first one which had the engine seperated from the crew compartment. So the only person who got gassed during operating was the mechanic in the motor compartment. All the other tanks before had the engine and gearbox inside the crew compartment. For todays use i would dump the superstructure, stick a Goalkeeper CIWS on top and replace the sixpounders with M61 Vulcans. Then trade the MGs for Miniguns and you get a moving gatling farm.
My fav. Curse by design tank is the object 279, I just fell in love with the tank and I discovered it from a manga titled "sailor fuku to juusensha". Also, panjan drim solves everything
In fact, 100 Mk VIII ' s were sold to Canada at scrap prices in the summer of 1940 - of these, 90 were restored to running condition by the U.S. Army, and delivered to Canada, at Camp Borden, where they formed the basis for General Worthington's Tank Corps, and were used for training purposes in the Autumn, and Winter of 1940 and Spring of 1941, along with the 139 American built copies of the Renault FT ( Model 1917 Light Tank ) There are photos of them at Camp Borden, being used for training Canadian troops.
Interesting video as I know next to nothing about the technical aspect and some history about Mark VIII, practically the first heavy American tank. I didn't know that the 300 hp V-12 Liberty was used on this tank. It was quite an improvement compared to British tanks especially as it separated the engine with a panel from the fighting room helping a lot the crews conditions by protecting them against the deafening engine noise, noxious fumes and heat. Finally I can see that it was fitted on the turret armoured glass ports instead of fitting simple vision slots offering better protecting for the eyes! Good job again and looking forward to see your new videos 👍👍
Fascinating tank. I thought it was simply a U.S. built MkIII when I saw the preview. I had no idea there were so many different rhombus tanks made. Far more developed as well. Thank you
As much I know, the Mark VIIs were offered to Canada, but Canada politely declined and opted for the much more useful for training M1917 Six-Ton Tanks aka US licence-built Renault FT-17s.No Mark VII is known to cross the border.
I live near Aberdeen and i remember back when they had a massive tank museum. they had one if i remember correctly. honestly is amazing the amount of tanks that where there. also iv been to the one at fort mead and saw that vary tank mentioned in the video. i hate Maryland but we got a lotta cool historical stuff like that around here!
American military strategists in the early part of the twentieth century: "For instance, how are we gonna stop some big mean Mother-Hubbard from tearin' our vehicles structurally superfluous new behinds?" American AFV engineers in the early part of the twentieth century: "The answer? Use a machine gun. And if that don't work... use more machine gun."
The American version may have used 57mm. 6 Pounder AP shot & HE ammunition, however British tanks used 57mm. 6 Pounder APHE Mark.XIII & APHE Mark.XIV, both equipped with the Hotchkiss Mark.IV base mounted inertial deceleration fuse. The shell filling was Lyddite granules. WW1 HCSA & later 1920's RHA range tests give the following performance: 57mm. L.23 APHE = Up to 27mm. of HCSA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards. 57mm. L.23 APHE = Up to 16mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
Well this Video sure did Increase my knowledge about WW1 Tanks. Cant wait to see more Videos from Cone talking about Tanks. Same goes for the M6 Heavy Tank from the Americans.
I've always wanted to see a video like this on the direct successor of the big land crawlers of The Great War. A lot of history makes it seem as if more or less modern takes and weapons just appeared magically on the drawing boards of a raging WW2. And warfare went from muzzle loading cannons to nukes in a matter of decades with not much or nothing in between. I would say that modern machine guns changed warfare more than tanks in and just (as in a few decades prior) to WW1. Tanks were the answer. And between The Great War and The Continuation Conflicts, there was a heck of a lot of innovation. Things stayed in development because tension were still at a boiling point. And the modern world feels like one big standoff at times. Big Governments seem to be fine with it, while your average person knows exactly what they will face and none actually want to take part.
EA, puts extremely unknown spinning copula on top of the Char 2 in BF1, also EA, has troops wearing digital camo in the promotional footage of BFV as well as Germans wielding Katanas.
@@calebdean2440 little known fact, the whole nuclear deterrence concept is a cover. The truth is inside every warhead a Bob Semple sleeps awaiting international deployment
Well yeah, I mean obviously. The Bob Semple makes the M-1 Abrams looks like a L-3/35 tankette in terms of combat ability and firepower never mind a Mark VIII
The British tanks, that were armed with the Hotchkiss 57mm. L.23 6 pounder tank gun, used solely dual purpose APHE shells. These would be either the Mk.XIII or Mk.XIV, both which used the Hotchkiss Mk.IV base fuse and filled with Lyddite explosive granules, which occupied 80% of the volume of the shell. Period & 1920's range test show that the Mk.XIV APHE shell was capable of penetrating up to 23mm. of "Harveyised" high carbon steel armour (WW1 tank armour) @ 100 yards & up to 18mm. of rolled homogeneous armour @ 100 yards. Needless to say, the American use of solid shot AP, would give a superior performance versus armoured targets.
The C.L. Best Tracklayer Company converted two of their tracked agricultural tractors into a novel tank to see if the US Army would be interested in using the design if the US entered the war. Best elevated the driver's position to be above the sloped romboid armor covering the tractor. It had doors in the rear for the crew that climbed a ladder to enter the top turret that rotated 360 degrees. The turret held two cannons and machine guns that could be depressed to fire into trenches due to the tanks height and sloped armor. The driver had vision slits along the bottom of the turret with the guns passing by well above his head. The tanks main drawback was having a single wheel in the front for turning. Best was the main competitor of Holt Tractor who owned the patents for track steering so didn't want to pay Holt for a license to use that design. The US Government ordered Holt to send their entire production of tracked tractors to France so Best was taking over the US ag tractor sector during the war. The Army checked out the Best tanks then decided it would be easier to use those being produced by the British and French. Best donated their two tanks to the California National Guard for use as training vehicles and in War Bond drives. Holt made a lot money during the war only to experience very low sales afterwards due to the huge number of military surplus Holt tractors being sold off overseas and in the US. The company was facing bankruptcy when bought up by C.L. Best who then changed the combined companies name to Caterpillar.
Thanks to Call of War for once again sponsoring my videos. Download the game for FREE: callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ConeofArcNovember and get a special bonus pack.
mogus
@@architecthor48 among us is sus
No don't think I will
Cone, please do a video on the Praying Mantis tank design, it's too weird not to, even if it's a short 3-4 minute video.
Hey ConeOfArc can you make the first Vtol by france but ended failure
If the war had continued for another year we might have seen these monstrosities facing off against K-Wagens.
I think it'd probably beat thr K-Wagen.
And the nice thing is that it didnt continued
Didnt the germans had a net lack of steel?
@@nahuelleandroarroyo they had a net lack of everything.
In fairness I think in a equal tonnage brawl K-Wagens might have the upper hand. The short 6-pounders might struggle with the K-Wagen's armor at combat distances, but the inverse with the K-Wagen's 77mm guns might not be true. For tonnage, there could be three Mark VIIIs for one K-Wagen.
I would argue this was most definitely not 'cursed by design'. Cursed by timing, perhaps, but it was an excellent tank for its intended purpose. Thankfully for human life, it was never required.
Well put
WWl weapon design was very.... interesting, the tanks had that industrial, over sized look about em,i like it
Slap a turret on the top and you got yourself the Indiana Jones tank.
Look up TOG1 and you'll be surprised;)
so have you searched upe the TOG 1?
+ a massive drivers hatch on front
@@TheArklyte ngl the Liberty tank does look more like the Indiana Jones tank than the TOG 1
I mean, the Mark VIII was the inspiration for the tank from Indiana Jones, as I recall.
A pity that they weren't used as training vehicles until they have fallen apart due to wear. It's always a pity to see when something that is so expensive and hard to make is just left to rust without any output. Test vehicles are good, but that's 1-2 Mark 8's at best:(
Great presentation! This seems like some of the earliest evidence of the American obsession with loading tanks with machine guns. Well done!
moar dakka
@@ENCHANTMEN_ YES! DESTROY THOSE BUNKERS!
The Cult of the Machine Gun
American tanks had tanks HAD too many machine gun like M1919 Browning like M2 Medium tank
*M2 medium intensifies*
If I remember correctly there was an experiment done on the mark VIII where they fitted a steam engine into it. The tank generally saw improvement in flat ground mobility tests owing the the greater power of the steam engine, but the problems of taking a horizontal boiler up slopes and the ever increasing efficiency and power of internal combustion engines meant that the experiment was ended very quickly.
I didn't see anything about that during the research so it may have been a different tank they tested that on.
@@ConeOfArc Sorry I was mistaken, it was a design based on the mark IV not the mark VIII, it just looked slightly similar to the mark VIII with all the extra space needed for the engine. It was intended to be a flamethrower tank, using the excess steam from the boilers to pressurise the flamethrower fuel tanks. The prototype got shipped to France to be tested, but from my quick digging to refresh my memory doesn't turn up much else on the matter.
Steam engines have always been more efficient than internal combustion engines. The down side of steam engines is the hours required to bring them up to operating temperature.
@@mezzmainia you sure it wasnt a MKV**? they look a bit similar to MKVIIIs due to the extra length.
@@allangibson2408 And when they were installed in submarines (yeah it happened) the other downside was the time needed to shut down the boilers before diving...
This is probably the only "successful" international tank ever built.
Everyone was using the same unit of measurement then? Not like the debacle with the new leopard attempt.
Having been a tanker with the Canadian Military, I have to say that I have never seen any pictures of Canadians training with this tank. The Renault yes. Perhaps contact the museum at base Borden in Ontario Canada. They may have something in the archives
I'm an American born in North Idaho and I have to admit there is not a lot about the Canadian participation and involvement in world war 1 or 2. That really is a disservice to your country in my mind but with as arrogant is most Americans are especially the politicians it makes sense. We probably wouldn't have come anywhere close to a successful as we did without you guys and that is a fact.
Ah, Liberty engine, the heart of BT series tank... until they were standardized on the more powerful, but also more expensive, heavier and more problematic engine with T-28 and T-35.
Weren’t those engines at first deratives from BMW engines ?
The T-28 & T-35 didn't use the liberty engine. The T-35 used the same engine as the TB-3 heavy bomber.
@@CZ350tuner The BT series used a license produced Liberty, the M-5, before switching to the license produced BMW VI V-12, the M-17, which is what the T-28, and T-35 used. The BT series switched over to standardize.
Wait, what, it was the Brits who wanted machinguns everywhere and not us Yanks? It is official, I have somehow made a transit to an alternate universe.
Just launch the scout tank and be happy! XD
It’s still just makes my bones ache seeing these huge things and knowing they didn’t put any suspension system at all in them.
Damm no suspesion?
Yeah. That footage of it climbing that wooden wall and getting almost vertical made my back hurt just watching it
Few of the early Tanks had any suspension either. And those that did... didn't have much.
Keep in mind: even various Tanks with suspension in WWII were rough to ride around in. Crews who switched over from M4 Shermans' to A35 Comets noticed the upgrade in ride comfort immediately.
(Christie suspension may be more maintenance intensive than volute ... but it's much more comfortable)
God that is one of the first times I've ever thought about that LOL! Thank God they were not very fast otherwise they would beat you to death. I friend of mine designed boats for the military and he said he make the boats go way faster than the humans can handle inside the boat. He said I could design a boat that would go to the worst hurricanes without any problems but the humans would be goo inside!!!! The hell of a guy and always had something interesting to talk about when I was training him. He was a good Patriot because he cared more about people in the boat than they both itself
@@BJETNT what are talking about
Thank you for digging up and relating information on yet another obscure tank.
I very much appreciate that you distinguish between facts with sources as compared to speculation. You are totally credible in my book.
Dude. That must have been so much fun running over trees in that thing lol... I can totally see my grandfather (who was a tank engineer) just driving over random shit after he got done putting some tanks together ❤
You have to be very careful knocking over trees with a tank. Any tree with a big stump/root system can come up under the running gear/track and throw the track. It might not have been as bad as a problem with these Liberty tanks or other similar WWI tanks with their enclosed running gear ,but the stump if it comes up under the track can break the track pins holding the track together.
It is such an issue, that many commanders simply forbid tankers from pushing over trees. Between damage to the tanks and also environmental damage(knocked down trees) in training areas/countries it is not allowed. Over in Germany , if you ran over a shrub much less a tree, the Army would be fined a good chunk of money and the tank crew would catch hell.. So you did not dare run over any bush /shrub/tree/small flower/etc. LOL
I was lucky , and got to knock down many big trees In Ft Polk La. with my M-1 tank back in the late 1980's. Other drivers/crews tried to do it and ended busting two tanks, so in the end I was the only tank driver in our division authorized to knock down trees during training exercises.
I did it mostly to clear firing ranges/lanes for TOW Rocket Launcher systems as their control wires can be snagged by trees.
It is kinda interesting to me , to see this Liberty tank at 37 tons with a 300 HP motor knocking down trees, I was using a 63 ton tank with 1500+ HP.
There was no suspension
@@decagamin5901 Hence why I said "running gear". The WWI Rhoboid type tanks did have a enclosed system of rollers/small wheels on the bottom of the hull so the tracks could slide/roll over them. You can see the line of roller pin ends in Liberty Tank pictures and other WWI tanks. IIRC, Most were "unsprung" , i.e. fixed. , still a suspension, just not like later tanks with what we generally associate suspensions with , i.e. sprung/torsion/Hydraulic/- "floating" suspensions. The word, "running gear" covers both types and also the idler wheels, road-wheels" and track adjustment systems/compensating idler wheels.
We tankers(I was one 8 years) generally exclude ,the tracks themselves , and the drive sprockets/final drive units, from being part of the "running gear" and consider them separate if there was an issue.. But they too are part of the "running gear", in the big picture.
Addenda; it took a while to find but here is a picture of the Liberty tank "running gear". condense to link http: // www. landships. info/ landships/ tank_articles/images/Mark_VIII_18.jpg
My grandfather was a tank mechanic. Faster than you can imagine the tanks got beat up and he said he never got to sit still except to sleep.
This tank was used as an inspiration for the Indiana Jones tank movie the last crusade.
The movie crew used a HYMAC 590 escavator as a base, modified the chassis and added two rover V8 engines. drive gear installed and modified by a specialist engineer
I first saw this beast on an old ('70s) tank encyclopedia, naturally it's dubtful, with the chronical fuel's crisis that late war Germany had, that we would've seen some epic clash btw them and A7vs, also if the allies would've fielded them in big numbers. One thing puzzles me, either brits & US used the Imperial system, but the french used,as the whole Europe, the metric one: didn't they would've had some compatibility's problem with French made parts?
The factory was going to be British built and with all the components being already made there really wouldn't be any issues as far as I can tell. At most they might need to just make minor adjustments to fit everything together.
I'd heard of the mark 8 but I never knew they actually made so many of them, and it was so cool hearing that they didn't scrap them all, like so many other unique tanks that were sent to Aberdeen
I'd love to hear more about the one steam-powered tank that was proposed during WWI.
Editing to add, are there any examples of international cooperation like this that have actually worked? Because videos on some of the other failures, like the MBT-70/Kpz-70 could be interesting.
the weird 152mm gun/launcher wielding, bulbous freak of nature that America and *Then West Germany* made?
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 that's the one. Although I believe West Germany developed their own 120mm gun for the monstrosity. It's a surprisingly good-looking design when you're close up to it, but yeah.
@@thomaszinser8714 meh, I play British in War Thunder, so I like killing both versions in a Sho't Kal Dalet, or Rooikat 105.
@@thomaszinser8714 the full shortened name for it is KPFPZ, which is why its referred to as KPF rather than PZ, which is also influenced by the 400 different panzer variants, most of which are panzer 4s
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 What is wrong with you? You claim to be a brit while using african and israel tanks
Glad to finally see a video on this beast, got to see it in 2017 at the tank yard in Fort Benning, it is a massive machine similar in size to the tiger they had next to it.
11:03 The fact that they thought the best upgrade for this tank was to make it *longer* is insane.
Also, Fiat 2000 and Char 2C videos when?
video starts at 2:44
Video start at 0:00 stoopid
I did enjoy this video as much as your other videos. I actually have no interest in war related material but you make the engineering aspect so interesting that I have watched every video since I discovered your channel a few months ago.
One can tell how much passion you have for the subject. Keep up the great work! It is most certainly appreciated!
Germany: The Maus will be the biggest tank ever!
US: You are 25 years late
I've been consistently reading/learning about tanks since I was in elementary school, yet I don't recall ever seeing anything about these tanks. Thanks for bringing them to my attention! Very interesting part of history.
I didnt know that Bridgeport was where the first American tank was built! I go there often so thats pretty cool!
I like big tanks. T35, Maus, KWagen, Apocalypse tanks, that french one. This is a big tank. I like.
How about something radically diffrent, the ford 3 ton ?
I'm loving the new cursed by design intro, your videos are always so interesting to watch, I always learn something new with each one
I salute the service this tank did. Even though it wasn't a lot, everything it did do was a step by step to better tank advancement. 07
Thanks I agree that the early interwar tanks don't get enough coverage. I have wondered how the Navy got interested in tanks.. was it an out-growth of the Land Battleship idea or they were worried the didn't get enough use in WW1?
They wanted them for the Marines
Remember, the Marines are part of the Navy.
According to the Marines, they are the male part of the Navy.
Lovely, now i have some new ideas for wwi tanks concepts
I started getting into tanks last year and your channel informs and entertains me so much thank you man
Never knew about this. I love learning about obscure tanks nobody else covers. Keep up the great work
The good old rhomboidal tanks with exposed tracks! Back in the days when bigger was better! The Brits and the French continued to make tanks with exposed tracks, like the Churchills and the Char B1. A very informative video, Cone!
I love these old WW1 & early interwar designs that you can call landships.
I don't like the giant WW2 designs nearly as much, since the WW1 designs were from a time when people were still figuring out what a tank was. By the late interwar period and WW2 enough of that had been ironed out to show that ginormous tanks were not practical.
My favorite of those WW1 tanks is the Fiat 2000. Ahead of its time in some ways (like the Renault FT, it had a fully rotating turret), but it's also so goofy from the modern perspective. And when you see a cross-section drawing, it's even goofier than is obvious from the outside; the 10-man crew are literally standing on top of the engine.
The WWI Rhomboid "Landships " had an advantage with their enclose running gear to crash over mass barbed wire obstacles and not get stucked . No later tank could do that. Even modern day M-1's are scared/concerned of 1 strand of barbed wire much less a wire obstacle( I drove one many years I know) . Those WWI MK's could go through 20-30 feet piled high of wire which was common in WWI. I have seen too many modern tanks get immobilized by even a simple 3 strand barbed wire post fence, or 1 strand of Constantino wire.
@@chrisperrien7055 There are reports of the tanks dragging barbed wire along with them, and all the horror you might imagine that goes along with that.
Don't know about you, but I don't want to be anywhere near that kind of human sized cheese grater.
Can we see are cursed by design on the Australian tanks? (Sentinels and thunderbolts)
You speaking about big tanks, and first come to my mind was: Mark VIII 😁
Fascinating programme, particularly with all the moving footage of the machines in action. Sadly the Mk VIII (I'm British) is almost totally forgotten here - like various aircraft which arrived too late to see effective service. (Packard - Lusac, de Havilland 110 Amiens, etc etc) It's taken years of hunting for information in various books for me to know anything about it, and here you have it all in one concise film. Well done, and thank you. Thankfully we also have the one in Bovington.
(PS somebody mentioned the K Boats, the steam driven submarines in an earlier post. On paper they were the most powerful subs in creation, and the RN were very proud of them - until they got them. The ships were something of a flop - a number of them took part in the Battle of Scapa Flow as it was known, when two fleets, one inbound and one outbound, got caught in the tidal currents and collided with one another.)
I am disappointed that the image of the renault on the back of the mark viii was apparently just showing off its power and not an intended feature.
"Sir, I think we have enough tank."
"Nonsense. Build another, smaller tank and gave it ride into combat on the back of the big one before deploying for attack."
"That doesn't seem efficient, sir."
*SMACK!*
"Never question me again!"
😂😂😄
Thank you for increasing my tank knowledge, Cone
Even in their first heavy tank design, the US was already embracing the cult of the machine gun.
10 machine guns. My god. The noise alone would drive you mad
The example at Fort Mead is a fully restored beauty. I had a chance to get lots of great photos of it.
Love this beast. Since the FT17 was the first tank with a rotating turret, this was the first one which had the engine seperated from the crew compartment. So the only person who got gassed during operating was the mechanic in the motor compartment. All the other tanks before had the engine and gearbox inside the crew compartment.
For todays use i would dump the superstructure, stick a Goalkeeper CIWS on top and replace the sixpounders with M61 Vulcans. Then trade the MGs for Miniguns and you get a moving gatling farm.
That is an awesome idea, man! Very modern!
These WW1 tanks are really cool, I love how they look!!!
I got a laugh out of the Renault seemingly piggybacked on the top rear.🤣
Great content, man. I'm really glad I stumbled across your channel. May you have much success and prosper well from your contributions.
The wooden mockups gives me an idea for a playhouse for my kids.
My fav. Curse by design tank is the object 279, I just fell in love with the tank and I discovered it from a manga titled "sailor fuku to juusensha". Also, panjan drim solves everything
This was cool to learn about. I always thought it was an exclusively British design that was purchased by the US. Great video my man, keep it up!
That 3D model at the beginning makes it look like a perfect fit for Warhammer 40k's Imperial Guard tanks.
7:49: ".... with a mixture of solid shot and canister..."
Sounds to me like battlefield 1...
I have enjoyed your videos all along. This was my favorite so far. Keep up the good work you’re doing. Thank you.
The first superheavy tank was Little Willie. It was orders of magnitude larger than anything that came before it.
I saw one of these tanks at Aberdeen when I worked there about ten years ago. However it was located in an area the public was not allowed.
Rock Island Arsenal supposedly has another Mk VIII tank aside from the one from Ft. Benning. Both are currently being cosmetically restored.
In fact, 100 Mk VIII ' s were sold to Canada at scrap prices in the summer of 1940 - of these, 90 were restored
to running condition by the U.S. Army, and delivered to Canada, at Camp Borden, where they formed the basis
for General Worthington's Tank Corps, and were used for training purposes in the Autumn, and Winter of 1940
and Spring of 1941, along with the 139 American built copies of the Renault FT ( Model 1917 Light Tank )
There are photos of them at Camp Borden, being used for training Canadian troops.
Haven't seen those photos so if you have them please send them my way
Interesting video as I know next to nothing about the technical aspect and some history about Mark VIII, practically the first heavy American tank. I didn't know that the 300 hp V-12 Liberty was used on this tank. It was quite an improvement compared to British tanks especially as it separated the engine with a panel from the fighting room helping a lot the crews conditions by protecting them against the deafening engine noise, noxious fumes and heat. Finally I can see that it was fitted on the turret armoured glass ports instead of fitting simple vision slots offering better protecting for the eyes! Good job again and looking forward to see your new videos 👍👍
I like the idea of a tank so big it has a little tank on it that can be deployed as a scout within seconds.
Fascinating tank. I thought it was simply a U.S. built MkIII when I saw the preview.
I had no idea there were so many different rhombus tanks made. Far more developed as well. Thank you
Minister of Munitions: Winston Churchill
Sideways 17 pounder intensifies
I’m very glad there are still some examples of this piece of history, unlike so many others
As much I know, the Mark VIIs were offered to Canada, but Canada politely declined and opted for the much more useful for training M1917 Six-Ton Tanks aka US licence-built Renault FT-17s.No Mark VII is known to cross the border.
Saying that Canada politely declined is redundant. They're Canada, they do everything politely.
I have to say I like the new animated opening with the Porsche tiger
Nice pitched roofs... Needs some decorative guttering and a nice patio...
I live near Aberdeen and i remember back when they had a massive tank museum. they had one if i remember correctly. honestly is amazing the amount of tanks that where there. also iv been to the one at fort mead and saw that vary tank mentioned in the video. i hate Maryland but we got a lotta cool historical stuff like that around here!
This and the 9 are the coolest looking of the British ww1 Era tanks
I like the testing footage where its one dude walking along side with a rifle. Is he going to put the tank down if it gets out of control?
Minister of Munitions has got to be the coolest job at the Ministry of Magic.
American military strategists in the early part of the twentieth century:
"For instance, how are we gonna stop some big mean Mother-Hubbard from tearin' our vehicles structurally superfluous new behinds?"
American AFV engineers in the early part of the twentieth century:
"The answer? Use a machine gun.
And if that don't work...
use more machine gun."
The American version may have used 57mm. 6 Pounder AP shot & HE ammunition, however British tanks used 57mm. 6 Pounder APHE Mark.XIII & APHE Mark.XIV, both equipped with the Hotchkiss Mark.IV base mounted inertial deceleration fuse. The shell filling was Lyddite granules.
WW1 HCSA & later 1920's RHA range tests give the following performance:
57mm. L.23 APHE = Up to 27mm. of HCSA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
57mm. L.23 APHE = Up to 16mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
1:09 and of course, nothing more american than putting american flags on your american tank
That is an absolutely beautiful model of that tank!!!!! Thanks again for the wonderful video
Well this Video sure did Increase my knowledge about WW1 Tanks.
Cant wait to see more Videos from Cone talking about Tanks.
Same goes for the M6 Heavy Tank from the Americans.
Cone is killer at scout in battlefield 1
I've always wanted to see a video like this on the direct successor of the big land crawlers of The Great War. A lot of history makes it seem as if more or less modern takes and weapons just appeared magically on the drawing boards of a raging WW2. And warfare went from muzzle loading cannons to nukes in a matter of decades with not much or nothing in between. I would say that modern machine guns changed warfare more than tanks in and just (as in a few decades prior) to WW1. Tanks were the answer. And between The Great War and The Continuation Conflicts, there was a heck of a lot of innovation. Things stayed in development because tension were still at a boiling point. And the modern world feels like one big standoff at times. Big Governments seem to be fine with it, while your average person knows exactly what they will face and none actually want to take part.
Had this thing seen action in ww1, it would have been a beast. The K-wagen wouldn't stand a chance.
EA, puts extremely unknown spinning copula on top of the Char 2 in BF1, also EA, has troops wearing digital camo in the promotional footage of BFV as well as Germans wielding Katanas.
Sure hope a plastic kit of this comes out, 1/35 preferably, but any of the usual scales is OK.
Well hello there
General Kenobi
@@tamaspuskas4748 I've been trained in your Jedi arts by count Dukou.
Great video! A always love the obscure history you’re able to dig up.
I’d say Bob Semple Tank is better.
You are correct, if there would have been some Bob Semples in Hawaii, the Japanese would have never attacked.
@@calebdean2440 little known fact, the whole nuclear deterrence concept is a cover. The truth is inside every warhead a Bob Semple sleeps awaiting international deployment
Well yeah, I mean obviously. The Bob Semple makes the M-1 Abrams looks like a L-3/35 tankette in terms of combat ability and firepower never mind a Mark VIII
Fascinating
I never knew this tank existed
TY for the interesting video.
I learned more about the Mark viii then I'd known before.
Interesting. I had learner of the existence of the mk8 but that was all. Same with Germany's giant.thankyou.
*Unsurprisingly built by the German*
Me : Totally agreed
The British tanks, that were armed with the Hotchkiss 57mm. L.23 6 pounder tank gun, used solely dual purpose APHE shells. These would be either the Mk.XIII or Mk.XIV, both which used the Hotchkiss Mk.IV base fuse and filled with Lyddite explosive granules, which occupied 80% of the volume of the shell.
Period & 1920's range test show that the Mk.XIV APHE shell was capable of penetrating up to 23mm. of "Harveyised" high carbon steel armour (WW1 tank armour) @ 100 yards & up to 18mm. of rolled homogeneous armour @ 100 yards.
Needless to say, the American use of solid shot AP, would give a superior performance versus armoured targets.
Oooh how cute, an monna carrying its little cub
There's one of these MK8s at Bovington England, it's huge..
I love this vehicle. Thanks for covering it!
I've seen the example at Bovington. It feels *even bigger* in person.
I've seen this tank at the Bovington tank museum
The C.L. Best Tracklayer Company converted two of their tracked agricultural tractors into a novel tank to see if the US Army would be interested in using the design if the US entered the war. Best elevated the driver's position to be above the sloped romboid armor covering the tractor. It had doors in the rear for the crew that climbed a ladder to enter the top turret that rotated 360 degrees. The turret held two cannons and machine guns that could be depressed to fire into trenches due to the tanks height and sloped armor. The driver had vision slits along the bottom of the turret with the guns passing by well above his head. The tanks main drawback was having a single wheel in the front for turning. Best was the main competitor of Holt Tractor who owned the patents for track steering so didn't want to pay Holt for a license to use that design. The US Government ordered Holt to send their entire production of tracked tractors to France so Best was taking over the US ag tractor sector during the war. The Army checked out the Best tanks then decided it would be easier to use those being produced by the British and French. Best donated their two tanks to the California National Guard for use as training vehicles and in War Bond drives. Holt made a lot money during the war only to experience very low sales afterwards due to the huge number of military surplus Holt tractors being sold off overseas and in the US. The company was facing bankruptcy when bought up by C.L. Best who then changed the combined companies name to Caterpillar.
Prototype delivered on the same day as the armistice is declared? Obviously this tank scared them into peace
Is it really cursed by design ?
Looks like a good tank to me
The only time in history the US has put FEWER mgs on an armored vehicle than the British....or virtually anyone else, for that matter.
I believe that landships inspired fixed gun tank destroyer designs.
One of these is at Bovington Tank Museum. It's a beast.
So when is Takom, Dragon or Das Werke going to come out with a 1/35 scale model kit of this?
I'll buy it! Same with the German K-Wagen!
The thumbnail looks so wholesome :-3