A few observations from a Ford Model T owner/driver (whatever that is worth) who has looked into the tank more after seeing the video: The three pedals do what the Chieftain says they do; the gas pedal is linked to a single carburetor that serves both engines, the two brake pedals control a band type brake in each transmission. Of the four levers, the two closest to the seat on either side control what forward gear each transmission is in (high or low). They have ratchets released by a lever on the handle to hold them in position. Pulling these levers up puts each transmission in low, moving them level with the floor should be neutral and released all the way to the floor is high. Pulling the outer levers up should put each transmission in reverse. Minute 13:53 shows a great shot of the front of the engines. The square opening in the center of the shot is meant to receive the mechanical starting handle. The starting handle should be kicked forward and disengaged automatically once the engine catches. The big round thing with the cable coming out above the square opening should be the electric starter. The unpolished metal item to the right of the starter is the sediment collection bulb for the fuel system above which should be the fuel tank. Directly below the sediment bulb should be a lever for adjusting ignition timing, this should be linked to both engines by the wire passing under the starting handle. The two black boxes on either side of the starting handle each hold the four ignition coils for their respective engine. The lever on the front of each box controls where electricity for spark ignition comes from; right for battery, left for magneto, center is off. One thing I am not seeing is how the two engines are mechanically connected, I'm thinking this would be needed since I can't see a way to change the speed of each engine independently. Having the engines mechanically linked would ensure the tank goes straight when both transmissions are in the same gear.
Every solution to an immediate issue can be described in one word with an exclamation point. Trenches too wide. Skis! Engine's not powerfull enough. Two!
@@TheArklyte well, if you think about it rationally, the dual-engine setup was quite logical in it's design. saves the need for complex machining for a differential transmission, and metallurgy back then was very primitive, so more breakdowns and a long R&D time would be necessary for it to mature. it's also what many advanced designs in armored vehicles still do, specifically diesel electric ones. it's one or two engines driving two electric motors/transmissions. hell, Tesla still uses multiple electric motors for their newest cars, one per wheel. I don't see how that is so different. think of it this way, can you keep a Model T running? it's surprisingly easy if you learn how to drive one. can you keep two running? with the minor assistance from another fella with the same training? the answer is yes. I've got a 1919 Model T touring. I've daily driven it for shits and giggles before. it starts easier than some other vehicles I've had.
This is the most fascinating time of tank design for me. It was a complete wild west with different designs being used, some for too long. Today designers have so much info to work with and back then they had basically none
"Basically none" means they were free to let their creative side run amok. If only more thought to crew ergonomics and that steering mechanism had been lavished on the project. Even back then, Ford certainly had the engineering knowhow to solve the problems and mass produce a great tank. Unfortunately they gave the world this pile of junk. It's sad really.
@@gusgone4527 to be fair, I think if you went to the government with 2 almost identical designs, but one with great crew ergonomics, but 5 km/h slower, I think the government would choose the other one. So not all of the faults lie with designers imo
@@cvetomirgeorgiev9106 The problem was they ignored the primary rule. "Try before you buy." Instead, placing very few target guarantees and penalties on General Dynamics. For a massively modified ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development) vehicle they could not test! CV90 by comparison was ready to go, tried and tested. The new Mk.V vehicle currently being bought by Norway, should have been ours. Built here in the UK at Vickers Scotswood plant on Tyneside. CV90 has been and still is constantly developed. New engines, new electronic systems and new turrets. Numerous variants there to be tried and field tested by potential buyers. It's a no brainer if the playing field had not been booby trapped by plans for an EU army.
If the allies had hit the beaches with a few hundred of ^these on D Day, the war would've certainly been over within a week or so! There would've been newsreel film footage of entire German divisions surrendering almost as soon as they saw ^several of these advancing on them... 😉👍
Those videos of archive footage are an amazing way to add a better understanding of the way tanks like this moved! I especialy love the tiny details like the guy using his foot to let the hatch come down slower at 17:35. And of course the tank falling into the trench at 9:06 is a hilarious video.
That one had me rolling. Had to watch it several times. Also the one dropping dead after "climbing" the "mound" at 18:07. The original "Rush B", I guess.
The tailpiece also prevented the hull from digging in against obstructions when the tank was backing up. Watched it's value in an original Ft video. Model T's did not have fuel pumps so either they made one for this tank or mounted the fuel tank high or that may be the reason that one stalled out crossing that berm. A model T low on fuel often had to be backed up steeper hills to maintain fuel flow.
I'm guessing that the original tank was part of or mounted just under that triangular hunk of armor that he lifted to be able to pull the side armor on the engines down.
Even then you didn't normally require to back a model T up a steep hill unless it was a driveway or something where you intended to go very slowly regardless. Otherwise you sloshed the fuel by slowly veering off towards one side of the road and abruptly jerking back to the other. The issue also only existed because the fuel was at opposite end of the vehicle, had the tank been in passenger footwell (not a good idea for other reasons of course) you'd need to be essentially empty before even the steepest slope required the driver to act to keep mixture from leaning out... so in 3ton (2,700kg) "tractor" its probably was not an issue that required extra parts to solve.
@@SheepInACart The T had a number of oddities, including the coils. There were one for each spark plug. They were mounted under the dash board. My father told me that if your coils were bad, you (not him, of course) could easily switch your for another set at night at a barn dance. You took a chance of ending up with another set which were also bad, but if yours were shot, you might end up with a good set. He said it only took a couple of minutes( or so he was told). The guy with the good set probably couldn't figure out why T was running so poorly all of a sudden. My father grew up in Oklahoma, and was 11 when the Depression hit in 1929. He had a lot of stories about that era. It was fascinating to listen to, but I'm sure glad I grew up in the 40's instead (I was born in 1942).
@@williamromine5715 My dad and his two college roommates at Texas A&M 1941-42 bought a Model A. It laid down a blue smoke screen as they drove and you had to add a quart of oil every 50 miles, but they had wheels, Dad went on to the USN in WW2, his two roomies became Infantry Lieutenants in the Texas Guard's 36th Infantry Division. One died in its infamous attempt to cross the Rapido. "Lieutenant General Mark Clark, commanding general of the United States Fifth Army, in an attempt to break through the German defenses of the Winter Line (also known as the Gustav Line), tried to cross the Gari River, south of Monte Cassino, with two regiments (the 141st and 143rd Infantry) of the U.S. 36th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Fred Walker. After crossing the river in boats, the Americans were cut off from reinforcements and support and subjected to heavy fire and counterattacks from elements of the German 15th Panzergrenadier Division stationed on the west bank of the river. The Americans suffered very high losses, and after two days of fighting the survivors retreated back across the river."
The only tank in the history of tanks that an single crew could push start!!! But seriously, it's hard to fathom that in the space of 50 years, tanks went from this to something like an S-Tank.
The footage at 17:30 is great. It's funny seeing the tankers of the time being well over a foot shorter than he is. A mix of people generally being shorter back then plus shorter people getting tanker jobs. The top of their heads were just above the cupola whereas Nick's shoulders are higher than the cupola.
@@colbeausabre8842 Getting out actually wasn't that bad for him. His primary issue was more just hesitance to put his hands on that bar. If you really had to get out in a hurry you'd essentially just do a pull up while pulling your feet over the edge and then letting go and sliding down the front armor. It wouldn't be pleasant going over the edge of the armor plate and the axle but it would be quick and easy, if bruising. At least not if he wasn't wearing such tight jeans.
One minor correction 15:38 - the pilot tanks had the .30 Browning. 'Production series' vehicles like the two survivors have mounts for the Marlin tank MG. Hunnicutt's 'Stuart' includes a nice side by side comparison. The M1918's Marlin MG mount is also very similar to the early M1917 tank's
Although the French thought the 3-ton tank inferior to their Renault FT tank they ordered several hundred as artillery tractors for the 75mm Mle 1897 field guns. The Armistice intervened and the order was cancelled before any were sent to France.
That would make sense. The M1918 was originally meant to be a tractor, and it meant that the French didn't need to interrupt FT production. As a tank, though, I think the FT with an MG in a rotating turret would be better than the mounting in this thing.
This tank occupies a special place for me as it was the earliest US tank in the only tank book available at my primary school library, the first book on tanks that I ever read. Other memorable vehicles from that book were the M56 Scorpion, T95 Gun Motor Carriage, and the MBT-70. The apparent hinges on the rear edge of the panel above the MG mount suggest that there is a separate hatch for the gunner. If there actually is a gunners' hatch, it might have been an easier port of entry/exit.
You would also need a hatch to physically get the machine gun in and out for maintenance… Particularly if they ever fitted the M-1921 (later known as the M2) that was designed in parallel which was specifically designed for tank / antitank use.
It probably was used by both crewmen to enter the fighting compartment with the driver's hatch used to evacuate the tankette when under enemy fire. I bet the gunner's top hatch also had a provision to be held slightly open to allow the MG fumes to escape and fresh air be drawn inside.
I realize this is an unfair comment due to the benefit of hindsight, but I love that the Americans basically took the FT... and removed its revolutionary trait that basically defines the tank as a concept, the fully rotating turret.
When I was in an armor battalion in the '80s, the unofficial motto was "Why walk when you can ride!" After seeing the crew facilities and the video of the Ford 3 ton in action, there is something to be said for walking!
One of the really cute early tanks that needs to be taken home, wrapped in a blanket and fed until it grows up enough to look after itself. Cute but not very useful.
Back in 1973 when I was going through basic training at Ft. Knox, some 49 years ago, there was one of these at the Patton Tank Museum. It was located at the entrance to the museum, out side in the weather. I’ve always been fascinated with this little tank (I have photo of it somewhere) but I couldn’t find much Information about it. I want to thank you for the video you have made of this tank.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Oh thanks for the clarification! Do you know specifically about its evaluation before the war ended in France? Like what it intailed exactly? Is combat testing a possibility?
Honestly at this time of tank developpement, i do understand engineers who asked themselves good questions and got interesting answers to them ! Thinking "outside the box" was a special exercice when there was no real "box" to begin with ! :D
Excepting how much space there was for each crewman, the commander being the driver doesn’t seem like that bad of a compromise for a 2 man tank; especially given they allowed him the cupola that elevated for more vision in driving & observation.
I've been waiting to see this tank for years; I didn't even know any examples existed. It's a great experiment for the time and a lesson on what wasn't going to work. Glad it was never used in combat.
If your interested I have a pinterist board with extensive photos and documents. Also I'm not entirely sure it wasn't used in combat. It was at least deployed to a race riot once from camp Polk.
The US Army planned on using existing British and French tanks if the USA got involved in the war so didn't bother to design and make their own. Once there, the Army discovered that the British and French didn't have any to spare but could make the Renault FT under license in the states and ship those over. The Army wanted to avoid that cost so drew up specs for a lighter and cheaper tankette then got Ford to design and build 15 for testing. Henry got that done in record time with one sent to France for evaluation by the Army where it was found to be unsuitable to use. The Army told Henry Ford they would need 15,000 so royally pissed him off when they cancelled the contract after only 15 were made to make the Renault FT instead. Henry Ford refused to produce the FT so the Army used 3 different manufacturers to make the FT's. The three experienced delays getting those into production so didn't have any ready until the war had ended. The Army tried to make Ford happy by considering using his tankette to tow the French 1897 75mm field artillery guns they planned to make after the war but had to cancel that due to treaty limitations.
@@billwilson3609 Nice explanation 👍. Do you have sources for some of the specific details such as Henry's reaction and such? I would love to read up on that!
I was half expecting the second leg to not make it in, or a worried museum employee having to rush out to extract Mr. Moran. Luckily, he seems to be quite flexible.
My immediate thought when hearing about how much of a pain these tracks would be to tension is that you should grab two guys to sit on the track above the leaf springs. The springs compresses, loosing the track enough to adjust the tension and then hopefully the whole thing is properly set once they jump off.
The film clip as you wrap up the video shows a group smoothly getting into the tank. So that demonstrates the proper method. Of course, another factor may be that those men were significantly shorter than you are Chieftain.
And quite a lot younger. It really makes a difference. I am not even old yet, but I still can't do the things i did when I was 19 or 20. I used to be able to clamber up a tree, leap over brooks, I could climb all over buildings when we were working on them. Crawling into small spaces didn't seem very hard at all. Now I feel older and stiffer and heavier and weaker.
Assuming you man it with the shortest men in the army a self-propelled machine gun nest isn't bad. But for the purpose I'd want a water cooled machine gun in a turret on top. They did appear to have reasonable cross country capability.
Dear Chieftain, Would you also be able to kindly do a high speed tour of this museum. Lots of interesting stuff in the back ground there. Keep up the good work. Best regards Ian
You’re a very brave man to squeeze into that contraption…sitting in a museum. I can’t imagine being either of the two men crammed in there as they tried to make war!
It is always fascinating to see Chieftain react to entering and exiting armored vehicles and verbalize his thoughts while doing so. The most captivating parts to every well done video
As for adjusting the track tension from the front. I believe you nailed it with that Towing eyelet in the front. When I served in the mechanized artillery in the US Army we had long "crowbars", which were simply straight steel shafts, about 4 and 1/2 ft long. They were referred to as "Tankers bars". That's probably exactly what you would do to hold that in place while adjusting the bolts.
Thank you for doing this chat. I never heard of the Ford3ton before. Amazed they still had a video testing. Interns of Information this was you best yet.
We live next to Fort Lee and I knew they had moved the tanks there but didn't know they were on display. My father retired from Fort Lee in 1969 after Viet Nam, it's changed a lot. Now I know they're there, I'll have to visit, maybe we'll see you there doing your next video.😁 Thanks for the great videos.
What an amazing machine. Thanks for telling us about this one :)
2 года назад
I would have thought that the french would have liked this vehicle because it kind of goes into the direction of their 1 Man mini Tank idear for swarming the enemy with many small tanks as opposed to fewer bigger ones. Nice Video.
Track tensioning looks like it could be done with a car-jack [or something similar] placed between the axle and the angled front plate, and then loosening the 2 bolts.
During an Armed Forces Day ceremony in the early 1960s, they had one similar to this at A.P.G. The tank came out firing at a bunch of balloons, Then an M60 came out fired a single round of Flechette out of the main gun. Took out more balloons than the machine gun on the little tank. M.C said product improvement.
You're obviously not an engineer because the track tensioning is easier than you imagined. A couple of wooden wedges driven behind the axle before loosening the bolts would prevent the idlers from going "flluummf", and a few knocks on the wedges with a *big* hammer would add tension. Easy peasy. 😄
This was fascinating. I've watched a lot of Chieftain's reports, and this is one of the most interesting. Usually I'm left thinking that "I wouldn't want to be in that thing in combat". With this tank, I'm thinking that I wouldn't want to try to drive it around if surrounded by friends.
I'm betting the ride in that thing would have been....interesting, to say the least. Especially watching those clips of them charging up that little embankment or ripping along over a trench. Neither the suspension or the seat looks particularly good at damping, lol. And since seat belts were yet to be a thing, I can imagine the crew ending up in some rather uncomfortable positions after a good rip across bumpy ground. Anyway, really neat to see it still around. The early tanks are really interesting as you get to see so many ideas being tossed together as no one really knew what was going to work yet.
I believe at one point during the interval. There were talks of possibly using them as mobile m1921 heavy machine gun carriers. Basically sticking the proto version of the Browning 50 Calle into these things to make them little anti-tank tankettes
I imagine, if the vehicle were ever fielded, the crew would, while tensioning the track, have mates sit on top of the track over the return rollers to depress the leaf spring and make it easier to pull the big idler forward.
Watching the machineguns waving about as the vehicle moved (in the last snippet of the video) suggests that you could recognise the gunner from one of these by their pair of black-eyes, broken nose and lack of teeth.
Sounds like an excellent reason to keep a grip on the gun so it doesn't wave around like that. Although I believe that was just the mount and the gunner was not in the vehicle, as we had previously seen just the drivers getting in when the vehicles were in line.
@@kemarisite Maybe they couldn't find two people short enough to be both driver and gunner. Or hard to find two people who know each other well enough to be pretty much sitting in each other's lap whilst bouncing around a muddy field.
First you develop the mouse trap, then you make it better. I guess this may be better than the original mouse trap, though lots of improvement was still needed. A fascinating little video, of a vehicle that I had never heard of. Thanks, Chieftan.
For someone your size going in head first the exact opposite as you got out would be the way to do it. I imagine those early tankers were not taller than 5'7" at best.
One note about the fuel tank.... Model T engines were gravity fed, so it's likely the fuel tank would have been in the engine compartment above the two engines. It's likely this scheme was kept from the cars because otherwise you're relying on an add-on fuel pump and a carb with a float bowl, or a vacuum tank which were persnickety things on the best of days.
I suspect track tensioning would involve compressing the idler springs first, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to attach a winch or device to do so. Being a fairly light vehicle perhaps they could just stack sandbags on the tracks, basically add weight until the idlers sag to a measured position and then take up the slack. Maybe getting a few mates to bounce on the tracks would work.
Holy crap, I've only ever seen this thing once in a visual encyclopedia on WWI I enjoyed when I was 7. I forgot it existed, frankly, I can't wait to get a good look at it.
One things this 'Tank' demonstrated was the need for ergonometric testing of the seating and controls. Soldiers had to fit inside, and safely operate the tanks/armored cars - in combat! - for hours/days at a time. If a strapping six foot doughboy couldn't fit, then what good was the tank? Army Ordinance learned that lesson early.
You have to consider the average height of people back then. My mom said her mother's brothers - both coal miners from the hard coal region around Shamokin PA were only 5' 8"is but powerfully built. People didn't ear as well as we do, generally didn't take vitamins and were victims of childhood diseases all of which stunted growth. Having said that, the Europeans always commented on how big US, Canadian and ANZAC soldiers were. BTW, one of the features of the war were the "Pals" battalions, composed of volunteers from one particular area - "Go to war with your friends"" - (terrible idea, when a whole community would be shattered when "their:" battalion was shot off the battlefield). Anyway, the British newspapers gushed at the sight of units of Welsh coal miners - "Midgets go to war". Many of these men eventually ended up as Tunnellers in the Royal Engineers. ruclips.net/video/Vc9s3ZMYIec/видео.html Imagine a giant flamethrower popping out of a tunnel to blast your trench ruclips.net/video/Mtyt2Gj9BK8/видео.html Livens would go onto to invent the Livens Projector, a crude mortar used in batteries of up several thousand to heave whole canisters of poison gas into German trenches ruclips.net/video/_I7qRn8R0_Y/видео.html creating an instant lethal concentration and, recalled to the colors, was the primary developer of the flame fougasse (NOT Foo Gas as some of my fellow vets think) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fougasse and what is a fougasse en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fougasse_(weapon)
Dear Chieftain, All of your chats are great, especially for an older doctor like me, who has never been in a tank, but likes to think he knows a few things about WWII. Would you please make a video comparing popular tanks, that were commonly used in WWII? Compare the Sherman to the Cromwell, Churchill, Mark III, Mark IV, Tiger, Panther, T34,(76) and T34 (85), etc. This sort of thing has really never been done to my knowledge. You are ideally qualified to do this, with your insights. The sort of thing you did when you noted how a Mark III, with just a 50mm, but with a well trained crew, could knock out T34 (76) tanks without much difficulty, while the T34s struggled to even see the enemy they were up against, would be nice. You could do the same thing for other eras of tanks, such as tanks from the 50s, etc. For someone with your knowledge, this would be easy. Not everyone would agree with you, about everything, but your insight would be helpful and appreciated.
It would have been the cherry on the cake if they had also put in two drivers - one for each track. Jokes aside, a fascinating piece of history and nice presentation of it.
The steering system of two pedals and four levers reminds of "Sheila" the tank from "Red vs Blue" Sheila: Now that you’ve mastered driving the M808V, let’s move on to some of the safety features. Caboose: No! No, wait! Go back! Why are there six pedals if there are only four directions?
I was going to say the same thing. Considering how unusual the control layout on the Model T was, I was seriously expecting to see 6 pedals, and that made me immediately think of Sheila.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
A few observations from a Ford Model T owner/driver (whatever that is worth) who has looked into the tank more after seeing the video:
The three pedals do what the Chieftain says they do; the gas pedal is linked to a single carburetor that serves both engines, the two brake pedals control a band type brake in each transmission. Of the four levers, the two closest to the seat on either side control what forward gear each transmission is in (high or low). They have ratchets released by a lever on the handle to hold them in position. Pulling these levers up puts each transmission in low, moving them level with the floor should be neutral and released all the way to the floor is high. Pulling the outer levers up should put each transmission in reverse.
Minute 13:53 shows a great shot of the front of the engines. The square opening in the center of the shot is meant to receive the mechanical starting handle. The starting handle should be kicked forward and disengaged automatically once the engine catches. The big round thing with the cable coming out above the square opening should be the electric starter. The unpolished metal item to the right of the starter is the sediment collection bulb for the fuel system above which should be the fuel tank. Directly below the sediment bulb should be a lever for adjusting ignition timing, this should be linked to both engines by the wire passing under the starting handle. The two black boxes on either side of the starting handle each hold the four ignition coils for their respective engine. The lever on the front of each box controls where electricity for spark ignition comes from; right for battery, left for magneto, center is off.
One thing I am not seeing is how the two engines are mechanically connected, I'm thinking this would be needed since I can't see a way to change the speed of each engine independently. Having the engines mechanically linked would ensure the tank goes straight when both transmissions are in the same gear.
i'm glad 1918 tank designers and 1st grade me had the same design philosophy
Every solution to an immediate issue can be described in one word with an exclamation point. Trenches too wide. Skis! Engine's not powerfull enough. Two!
Yours was better…
I wonder if they issued a spatula amongst the tool kit. I'm thinking a spatula would be handy to remove whats left of the crew after action.😂
And around the same amount of experience in designing tanks as you at 1st grade...
@@TheArklyte well, if you think about it rationally, the dual-engine setup was quite logical in it's design. saves the need for complex machining for a differential transmission, and metallurgy back then was very primitive, so more breakdowns and a long R&D time would be necessary for it to mature. it's also what many advanced designs in armored vehicles still do, specifically diesel electric ones. it's one or two engines driving two electric motors/transmissions. hell, Tesla still uses multiple electric motors for their newest cars, one per wheel. I don't see how that is so different. think of it this way, can you keep a Model T running? it's surprisingly easy if you learn how to drive one. can you keep two running? with the minor assistance from another fella with the same training? the answer is yes. I've got a 1919 Model T touring. I've daily driven it for shits and giggles before. it starts easier than some other vehicles I've had.
Makes the TKS look luxurious doesn't it!
The TKS *is* luxurious. I'm not sure there's a better designed tankette.
This is the most fascinating time of tank design for me. It was a complete wild west with different designs being used, some for too long.
Today designers have so much info to work with and back then they had basically none
"Basically none" means they were free to let their creative side run amok. If only more thought to crew ergonomics and that steering mechanism had been lavished on the project. Even back then, Ford certainly had the engineering knowhow to solve the problems and mass produce a great tank. Unfortunately they gave the world this pile of junk. It's sad really.
@@gusgone4527 to be fair, I think if you went to the government with 2 almost identical designs, but one with great crew ergonomics, but 5 km/h slower, I think the government would choose the other one. So not all of the faults lie with designers imo
@@cvetomirgeorgiev9106 The problem was they ignored the primary rule. "Try before you buy." Instead, placing very few target guarantees and penalties on General Dynamics. For a massively modified ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development) vehicle they could not test!
CV90 by comparison was ready to go, tried and tested. The new Mk.V vehicle currently being bought by Norway, should have been ours. Built here in the UK at Vickers Scotswood plant on Tyneside.
CV90 has been and still is constantly developed. New engines, new electronic systems and new turrets. Numerous variants there to be tried and field tested by potential buyers. It's a no brainer if the playing field had not been booby trapped by plans for an EU army.
If the allies had hit the beaches with a few hundred of ^these on D Day, the war would've certainly been over within a week or so! There would've been newsreel film footage of entire German divisions surrendering almost as soon as they saw ^several of these advancing on them... 😉👍
I absolutely love the rare WW1 era videos. I'd love to see you cover the Mark V*, Mark VIII or Skeleton tank for examples. Thanks for doing this
i spy a skeleton tank in the background so i suspect that videos "in the loop" as it were.
Seconded. This video is excellent.
Was the Skeleton tank armed with a Ghost Gun? 💀👻
Those videos of archive footage are an amazing way to add a better understanding of the way tanks like this moved! I especialy love the tiny details like the guy using his foot to let the hatch come down slower at 17:35. And of course the tank falling into the trench at 9:06 is a hilarious video.
When I saw that 3-ton go backwards into the trench I winced for the driver
You can almost hear the crew laughing at 9:06.
"You're not gonna make it!"
"We'll make it."
*crashes into trench backwards*
9:06 I wonder how they got the crew out before the fuel leaked onto the hot engine with catastrophic results.
That one had me rolling. Had to watch it several times. Also the one dropping dead after "climbing" the "mound" at 18:07. The original "Rush B", I guess.
I appreciate the way the audio peaks at times in this one because it is representative of the pain you must have felt getting inside the tank
'Pretzel-in-a-can', a form of Irish origami; however, modern midwifery has yet to accept it & Pillsbury want to sue.
Gharstley!
The tailpiece also prevented the hull from digging in against obstructions when the tank was backing up. Watched it's value in an original Ft video. Model T's did not have fuel pumps so either they made one for this tank or mounted the fuel tank high or that may be the reason that one stalled out crossing that berm. A model T low on fuel often had to be backed up steeper hills to maintain fuel flow.
I'm guessing that the original tank was part of or mounted just under that triangular hunk of armor that he lifted to be able to pull the side armor on the engines down.
I imagine the original fuel tank was mounted in the center above the engines and the center cover was raised up to access the filler neck with cap.
Even then you didn't normally require to back a model T up a steep hill unless it was a driveway or something where you intended to go very slowly regardless. Otherwise you sloshed the fuel by slowly veering off towards one side of the road and abruptly jerking back to the other. The issue also only existed because the fuel was at opposite end of the vehicle, had the tank been in passenger footwell (not a good idea for other reasons of course) you'd need to be essentially empty before even the steepest slope required the driver to act to keep mixture from leaning out... so in 3ton (2,700kg) "tractor" its probably was not an issue that required extra parts to solve.
@@SheepInACart The T had a number of oddities, including the coils. There were one for each spark plug. They were mounted under the dash board. My father told me that if your coils were bad, you (not him, of course) could easily switch your for another set at night at a barn dance. You took a chance of ending up with another set which were also bad, but if yours were shot, you might end up with a good set. He said it only took a couple of minutes( or so he was told). The guy with the good set probably couldn't figure out why T was running so poorly all of a sudden.
My father grew up in Oklahoma, and was 11 when the Depression hit in 1929. He had a lot of stories about that era. It was fascinating to listen to, but I'm sure glad I grew up in the 40's instead (I was born in 1942).
@@williamromine5715 My dad and his two college roommates at Texas A&M 1941-42 bought a Model A. It laid down a blue smoke screen as they drove and you had to add a quart of oil every 50 miles, but they had wheels, Dad went on to the USN in WW2, his two roomies became Infantry Lieutenants in the Texas Guard's 36th Infantry Division. One died in its infamous attempt to cross the Rapido. "Lieutenant General Mark Clark, commanding general of the United States Fifth Army, in an attempt to break through the German defenses of the Winter Line (also known as the Gustav Line), tried to cross the Gari River, south of Monte Cassino, with two regiments (the 141st and 143rd Infantry) of the U.S. 36th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Fred Walker. After crossing the river in boats, the Americans were cut off from reinforcements and support and subjected to heavy fire and counterattacks from elements of the German 15th Panzergrenadier Division stationed on the west bank of the river. The Americans suffered very high losses, and after two days of fighting the survivors retreated back across the river."
I appreciate the dedication to historical accuracy by using a mic from WWI
The only tank in the history of tanks that an single crew could push start!!!
But seriously, it's hard to fathom that in the space of 50 years, tanks went from this to something like an S-Tank.
The footage at 17:30 is great. It's funny seeing the tankers of the time being well over a foot shorter than he is. A mix of people generally being shorter back then plus shorter people getting tanker jobs. The top of their heads were just above the cupola whereas Nick's shoulders are higher than the cupola.
Today we ask the age old question: does the Chieftain fit in a Ford 3-Ton?
The answer is: kind of? But not really.
No, I want a "Bugger, the tank is on fire" episode
@@colbeausabre8842 that's cruel and unusual punishment
Chieftain in tank yoga 😀
@@colbeausabre8842 Getting out actually wasn't that bad for him. His primary issue was more just hesitance to put his hands on that bar. If you really had to get out in a hurry you'd essentially just do a pull up while pulling your feet over the edge and then letting go and sliding down the front armor. It wouldn't be pleasant going over the edge of the armor plate and the axle but it would be quick and easy, if bruising. At least not if he wasn't wearing such tight jeans.
I actually love seeing the Chieftan fit in such historical units. Ive also been a current world example of a couple of Museum tours.
One minor correction 15:38 - the pilot tanks had the .30 Browning. 'Production series' vehicles like the two survivors have mounts for the Marlin tank MG. Hunnicutt's 'Stuart' includes a nice side by side comparison. The M1918's Marlin MG mount is also very similar to the early M1917 tank's
Although the French thought the 3-ton tank inferior to their Renault FT tank they ordered several hundred as artillery tractors for the 75mm Mle 1897 field guns. The Armistice intervened and the order was cancelled before any were sent to France.
That would make sense. The M1918 was originally meant to be a tractor, and it meant that the French didn't need to interrupt FT production. As a tank, though, I think the FT with an MG in a rotating turret would be better than the mounting in this thing.
This tank occupies a special place for me as it was the earliest US tank in the only tank book available at my primary school library, the first book on tanks that I ever read. Other memorable vehicles from that book were the M56 Scorpion, T95 Gun Motor Carriage, and the MBT-70.
The apparent hinges on the rear edge of the panel above the MG mount suggest that there is a separate hatch for the gunner. If there actually is a gunners' hatch, it might have been an easier port of entry/exit.
You would also need a hatch to physically get the machine gun in and out for maintenance…
Particularly if they ever fitted the M-1921 (later known as the M2) that was designed in parallel which was specifically designed for tank / antitank use.
@@allangibson2408 Have you heard of that being planned for future armament?
It probably was used by both crewmen to enter the fighting compartment with the driver's hatch used to evacuate the tankette when under enemy fire. I bet the gunner's top hatch also had a provision to be held slightly open to allow the MG fumes to escape and fresh air be drawn inside.
I realize this is an unfair comment due to the benefit of hindsight, but I love that the Americans basically took the FT... and removed its revolutionary trait that basically defines the tank as a concept, the fully rotating turret.
When I was in an armor battalion in the '80s, the unofficial motto was "Why walk when you can ride!" After seeing the crew facilities and the video of the Ford 3 ton in action, there is something to be said for walking!
One of the really cute early tanks that needs to be taken home, wrapped in a blanket and fed until it grows up enough to look after itself.
Cute but not very useful.
Back in 1973 when I was going through basic training at Ft. Knox, some 49 years ago, there was one of these at the Patton Tank Museum. It was located at the entrance to the museum, out side in the weather. I’ve always been fascinated with this little tank (I have photo of it somewhere) but I couldn’t find much Information about it. I want to thank you for the video you have made of this tank.
Do you happen to know where it is? I'd love to see it I heard there may be a 3rd survivor.
The one formerly at the Patton Museum is now located in Fort Benning.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Oh thanks for the clarification! Do you know specifically about its evaluation before the war ended in France? Like what it intailed exactly? Is combat testing a possibility?
As a very tall (6'9") person, to me that thing looks more like a medieval torture device than a tank!
I've only seen the picture and I already know I'm going to love this episode.
Honestly at this time of tank developpement, i do understand engineers who asked themselves good questions and got interesting answers to them !
Thinking "outside the box" was a special exercice when there was no real "box" to begin with ! :D
They were working out how to build the box later thinkers could think outside of. 😄
Excepting how much space there was for each crewman, the commander being the driver doesn’t seem like that bad of a compromise for a 2 man tank; especially given they allowed him the cupola that elevated for more vision in driving & observation.
I've been waiting to see this tank for years; I didn't even know any examples existed. It's a great experiment for the time and a lesson on what wasn't going to work.
Glad it was never used in combat.
If your interested I have a pinterist board with extensive photos and documents. Also I'm not entirely sure it wasn't used in combat. It was at least deployed to a race riot once from camp Polk.
The US Army planned on using existing British and French tanks if the USA got involved in the war so didn't bother to design and make their own. Once there, the Army discovered that the British and French didn't have any to spare but could make the Renault FT under license in the states and ship those over. The Army wanted to avoid that cost so drew up specs for a lighter and cheaper tankette then got Ford to design and build 15 for testing. Henry got that done in record time with one sent to France for evaluation by the Army where it was found to be unsuitable to use. The Army told Henry Ford they would need 15,000 so royally pissed him off when they cancelled the contract after only 15 were made to make the Renault FT instead. Henry Ford refused to produce the FT so the Army used 3 different manufacturers to make the FT's. The three experienced delays getting those into production so didn't have any ready until the war had ended.
The Army tried to make Ford happy by considering using his tankette to tow the French 1897 75mm field artillery guns they planned to make after the war but had to cancel that due to treaty limitations.
@@billwilson3609 Nice explanation 👍. Do you have sources for some of the specific details such as Henry's reaction and such? I would love to read up on that!
Love these early tanks, some are so steampunk!!
this thing look factory fresh....the museum did a great job
I like the way you used a period microphone.
The Patton museum 3 ton was a great runner. Really fun to drive around.
The incredible folding Chieftain. Lol. Great video and an interesting vehicle. Thanks.
The video of the failed trench crossing at 9:09 is hilarious ... well ... Unless you were in the tank. Thanks for another great video.
The old archive footage was a real treat.........
I was half expecting the second leg to not make it in, or a worried museum employee having to rush out to extract Mr. Moran. Luckily, he seems to be quite flexible.
My immediate thought when hearing about how much of a pain these tracks would be to tension is that you should grab two guys to sit on the track above the leaf springs. The springs compresses, loosing the track enough to adjust the tension and then hopefully the whole thing is properly set once they jump off.
Would like to know more about the collection, museum. So many interesting items in the background.
Thanks Nick, your videos are always extremely welcome!
The film clip as you wrap up the video shows a group smoothly getting into the tank. So that demonstrates the proper method. Of course, another factor may be that those men were significantly shorter than you are Chieftain.
And probably had more practice.
And quite a lot younger. It really makes a difference. I am not even old yet, but I still can't do the things i did when I was 19 or 20. I used to be able to clamber up a tree, leap over brooks, I could climb all over buildings when we were working on them. Crawling into small spaces didn't seem very hard at all. Now I feel older and stiffer and heavier and weaker.
@@justforever96 I hear you. I had that realization a few years back when I flew in one of the last B-24 Liberators.
Assuming you man it with the shortest men in the army a self-propelled machine gun nest isn't bad. But for the purpose I'd want a water cooled machine gun in a turret on top.
They did appear to have reasonable cross country capability.
This tank is adorable.
I'm glad that the Chieftain also gave us a lil insight into how a 1918 audio recording would sound like 😆
UNDERRATED COMMENT
Dear Chieftain, Would you also be able to kindly do a high speed tour of this museum. Lots of interesting stuff in the back ground there. Keep up the good work. Best regards Ian
Got to give the designers an A+ for creativity!
You’re a very brave man to squeeze into that contraption…sitting in a museum. I can’t imagine being either of the two men crammed in there as they tried to make war!
It is always fascinating to see Chieftain react to entering and exiting armored vehicles and verbalize his thoughts while doing so. The most captivating parts to every well done video
As for adjusting the track tension from the front. I believe you nailed it with that Towing eyelet in the front. When I served in the mechanized artillery in the US Army we had long "crowbars", which were simply straight steel shafts, about 4 and 1/2 ft long. They were referred to as "Tankers bars". That's probably exactly what you would do to hold that in place while adjusting the bolts.
To tension the track they had to invent the "Tank Bar"
The Chieftain Representing my Neck of the Woods.
Thank you for doing this chat. I never heard of the Ford3ton before. Amazed they still had a video testing. Interns of Information this was you best yet.
Made my day chieftain. Thanks
Watching the footage of the tank driving in the field gave me the chills. Even with a strudy stomach, I think I would have tossed my cookies.
That and RIP those lads spines.
We live next to Fort Lee and I knew they had moved the tanks there but didn't know they were on display. My father retired from Fort Lee in 1969 after Viet Nam, it's changed a lot. Now I know they're there, I'll have to visit, maybe we'll see you there doing your next video.😁 Thanks for the great videos.
What an amazing machine. Thanks for telling us about this one :)
I would have thought that the french would have liked this vehicle because it kind of goes into the direction of their 1 Man mini Tank idear for swarming the enemy with many small tanks as opposed to fewer bigger ones.
Nice Video.
Great video as always, audio through a Boss Metal Zone unconventional!
Track tensioning looks like it could be done with a car-jack [or something similar] placed between the axle and the angled front plate, and then loosening the 2 bolts.
During an Armed Forces Day ceremony in the early 1960s, they had one similar to this at A.P.G. The tank came out firing at a bunch of balloons, Then an M60 came out fired a single round of Flechette out of the main gun. Took out more balloons than the machine gun on the little tank. M.C said product improvement.
Neat little tank. Big enough for two child size adults. I need to visit this place some day and Fort Benning.
I lost a bet with myself thinking The Chieftain couldnt possibly get into it
Thanks for the vid! FYI, the audio is a bit weird (low volume yet overmodulated) on this one.
I *thought* it was sort of clipping...
"How can we make the FT worse" "Watch me"
No turret?
Just driver?
The ft was a really quite good tank for the time though
You're obviously not an engineer because the track tensioning is easier than you imagined. A couple of wooden wedges driven behind the axle before loosening the bolts would prevent the idlers from going "flluummf", and a few knocks on the wedges with a *big* hammer would add tension. Easy peasy. 😄
Mmmmhmmm
There you go. Did not think of that. 😮😮
This was fascinating. I've watched a lot of Chieftain's reports, and this is one of the most interesting. Usually I'm left thinking that "I wouldn't want to be in that thing in combat". With this tank, I'm thinking that I wouldn't want to try to drive it around if surrounded by friends.
It would definitely be a handful trying to tighten up the track against the tension of that idler spring
I saw this tank 45 years ago at Fort Knox Patton Museum when I was a young soldier!
The tankette's glory lives forever
Neat little tankette. A little bigger, with more room inside, and mounting a small cannon, it could have been the earlier incarnation of the Stug.
"Floong" is indeed a word.
Kudos for its proper use!👍
A chicken in every pot and a tank for every home. A personal tank for each soldier.
steam shovels of that era had multiple foot pedals and levers to operate them. But they had more things to control, boom, bucket, tracks, house, etc.
Reminds me of the ms1 without a torrent. A little history never hurts a fourth of July weekend.
I'm betting the ride in that thing would have been....interesting, to say the least. Especially watching those clips of them charging up that little embankment or ripping along over a trench. Neither the suspension or the seat looks particularly good at damping, lol. And since seat belts were yet to be a thing, I can imagine the crew ending up in some rather uncomfortable positions after a good rip across bumpy ground. Anyway, really neat to see it still around. The early tanks are really interesting as you get to see so many ideas being tossed together as no one really knew what was going to work yet.
I've looked forward to you doing this one someday.
Wow that thing is cramped!
Love to see "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" drill.
I had never heard of this tank. I do know the engine. Dad has one in his 1931 Model A Ford Coupe. Thank You for the History Lesson.
I love the DIY sheet metal brake project construction. A Popular Mechanics weekend project, the Sten Stug :).
The best part, i was recently at fort lee (now Gregg Adams). The first day of class tor AIT i got to see this tank. I have pictures of it too
Thank you for sharing this.
Definitely not one for an 'Oh Bugger, the tank is on fire.' moment.
4:56 damn that was a smooth turnover.
I believe at one point during the interval. There were talks of possibly using them as mobile m1921 heavy machine gun carriers. Basically sticking the proto version of the Browning 50 Calle into these things to make them little anti-tank tankettes
I imagine, if the vehicle were ever fielded, the crew would, while tensioning the track, have mates sit on top of the track over the return rollers to depress the leaf spring and make it easier to pull the big idler forward.
Love the b/w film showing it motion.
Watching the machineguns waving about as the vehicle moved (in the last snippet of the video) suggests that you could recognise the gunner from one of these by their pair of black-eyes, broken nose and lack of teeth.
Sounds like an excellent reason to keep a grip on the gun so it doesn't wave around like that. Although I believe that was just the mount and the gunner was not in the vehicle, as we had previously seen just the drivers getting in when the vehicles were in line.
@@kemarisite This☝
@@kemarisite Maybe they couldn't find two people short enough to be both driver and gunner. Or hard to find two people who know each other well enough to be pretty much sitting in each other's lap whilst bouncing around a muddy field.
First you develop the mouse trap, then you make it better. I guess this may be better than the original mouse trap, though lots of improvement was still needed. A fascinating little video, of a vehicle that I had never heard of. Thanks, Chieftan.
For someone your size going in head first the exact opposite as you got out would be the way to do it. I imagine those early tankers were not taller than 5'7" at best.
One note about the fuel tank.... Model T engines were gravity fed, so it's likely the fuel tank would have been in the engine compartment above the two engines. It's likely this scheme was kept from the cars because otherwise you're relying on an add-on fuel pump and a carb with a float bowl, or a vacuum tank which were persnickety things on the best of days.
Hoorah! Well worth the wait. 😁😎
I imagine some of the tankers pushing cotton batting into their ears for the noise.
I suspect track tensioning would involve compressing the idler springs first, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to attach a winch or device to do so. Being a fairly light vehicle perhaps they could just stack sandbags on the tracks, basically add weight until the idlers sag to a measured position and then take up the slack. Maybe getting a few mates to bounce on the tracks would work.
Holy crap, I've only ever seen this thing once in a visual encyclopedia on WWI I enjoyed when I was 7. I forgot it existed, frankly, I can't wait to get a good look at it.
The Road Not Taken. Great vid! Cheers!
Not gonna lie, the primary point of curiosity for me clicking this video is seeing a big dude like you go in a teeny tiny tank.
One things this 'Tank' demonstrated was the need for ergonometric testing of the seating and controls. Soldiers had to fit inside, and safely operate the tanks/armored cars - in combat! - for hours/days at a time.
If a strapping six foot doughboy couldn't fit, then what good was the tank?
Army Ordinance learned that lesson early.
And they fixed that problem by insisting on a height limit. A limit which to this day technically still exists.
You have to consider the average height of people back then. My mom said her mother's brothers - both coal miners from the hard coal region around Shamokin PA were only 5' 8"is but powerfully built. People didn't ear as well as we do, generally didn't take vitamins and were victims of childhood diseases all of which stunted growth. Having said that, the Europeans always commented on how big US, Canadian and ANZAC soldiers were. BTW, one of the features of the war were the "Pals" battalions, composed of volunteers from one particular area - "Go to war with your friends"" - (terrible idea, when a whole community would be shattered when "their:" battalion was shot off the battlefield). Anyway, the British newspapers gushed at the sight of units of Welsh coal miners - "Midgets go to war". Many of these men eventually ended up as Tunnellers in the Royal Engineers. ruclips.net/video/Vc9s3ZMYIec/видео.html Imagine a giant flamethrower popping out of a tunnel to blast your trench ruclips.net/video/Mtyt2Gj9BK8/видео.html Livens would go onto to invent the Livens Projector, a crude mortar used in batteries of up several thousand to heave whole canisters of poison gas into German trenches ruclips.net/video/_I7qRn8R0_Y/видео.html creating an instant lethal concentration and, recalled to the colors, was the primary developer of the flame fougasse (NOT Foo Gas as some of my fellow vets think) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fougasse and what is a fougasse en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fougasse_(weapon)
Good review. I had never heard of or saw one of these before.
I love these early tanks.
Dear Chieftain,
All of your chats are great, especially for an older doctor like me, who has never been in a tank, but likes to think he knows a few things about WWII.
Would you please make a video comparing popular tanks, that were commonly used in WWII? Compare the Sherman to the Cromwell, Churchill, Mark III, Mark IV, Tiger, Panther, T34,(76) and T34 (85), etc. This sort of thing has really never been done to my knowledge. You are ideally qualified to do this, with your insights. The sort of thing you did when you noted how a Mark III, with just a 50mm, but with a well trained crew, could knock out T34 (76) tanks without much difficulty, while the T34s struggled to even see the enemy they were up against, would be nice.
You could do the same thing for other eras of tanks, such as tanks from the 50s, etc. For someone with your knowledge, this would be easy. Not everyone would agree with you, about everything, but your insight would be helpful and appreciated.
I expected the last scene to be an EMT Team rushing up with the jaws of life to cut you out!
It would have been the cherry on the cake if they had also put in two drivers - one for each track. Jokes aside, a fascinating piece of history and nice presentation of it.
The steering system of two pedals and four levers reminds of "Sheila" the tank from "Red vs Blue"
Sheila: Now that you’ve mastered driving the M808V, let’s move on to some of the safety features.
Caboose: No! No, wait! Go back! Why are there six pedals if there are only four directions?
I was going to say the same thing. Considering how unusual the control layout on the Model T was, I was seriously expecting to see 6 pedals, and that made me immediately think of Sheila.
I like this little tank.
2 actual exhausts? No fake exhaust? That tañk is better than most modern cars! (In that respect, at least)
I think you are a very brave man keeping that lapel microphone so close to your body that obviously had an angry wasp carrying a kazoo.