I can't imagine being part of a tank crew in these things. The NOISE, the HEAT, the FUMES, and the difficulty attaining situational awareness, thus the CHAOS.
As a former retired tanker this is a great historical video, but you forgot something key. The open engine caused a few other problems. The extreme heat could catch shoelaces on fire or laces could get caught in the gear. The solution was removing laces and securing your boots with belts. This created the tanker boots. A second invention of tanks (not necessarily this one) was black berets. The constant grease and oil in the tanks made uniforms and headgear basically black. The solution for many was black berets. Which was so cool other units began to adopt it.
I believe that the term “tank” comes from the fact that the early tanks looked like water tanks and they were called so in order to help keep the project secret as opposed to “land ship”, which kind of gives it away.
The story I recall was that crates containing parts for early prototypes were labeled as "tank" or "water tank" to disguise the reality of the project. Would have been a plausible disguise given that much of it was heavy steel plating as a tank might be made from. Though the true nature of these machines - nothing to do with liquid-containing vessels - was soon widely known, the term "tank" has stuck ever since for not only these but all vehicles of this sort through present day.
i think there are various stories. the one i've always heard was due to the amount of steel needed for production, foundries started getting curious (it was a secret project, they were just told to make more steel). when asked, the War Department simply told them "for mobile water tanks"
it was called tank to keep it secret, if the germans found out they would think its some plan or vehicle to get water to the troops since that was a problem, if you called it landship it would be pretty obvious
The Abrams Tank has not been built since the 80's, and they just add gear and equipment to the base armored hulls called "Rusty's" if they need a replacement. And I believe the Grant was used by the US in WWII, and the Lee nomenclature was used by Lend Lease nations, including the British Empire and Soviet Union.
Probably a fair number of humans did too. I could imagine the pigeons also serving as a "canary in the coal mine" to warn if carbon monoxide was building up inside the tank - if the bird is dead and you feel woozy, turn off the engine, open the hatch, and get fresh air immediately.
Could not imagine a worse job to do in the Army during this era... The poor blokes inside wouldn've also been excited about it early on, then the realisation wouldve hit when you start attracting the fire of every field gun and artillery piece for miles around.
The reason for the length of WWI tanks was for trench crossing. A short tank would nose in to the bottom of the trench and be rendered almost completely useless until it was extracted but a long tank (sometimes with a big bundle of sticks for those extra wide trenches) is more adept at crossing trenches (the shape and location of the tracks of the mark IV and mark V tanks also helped crossing holes, craters and trenches...kind of, not a whole lotta traction on some of those early designs).
@@moldovanbeniamin1578 Quite a lot has changed, the elimination of the Germans' idiotic suspension design in favor of a torsion bar setup, reactive armor, active defense systems (such as Trophy), angled armor becoming the norm instead of the notable exception, spalding armor plates, hunter-killer style combat systems, gyroscope-balanced gun, blow-out panels/ammo vault, steering wheel type controls (instead of two levers) and thermal vision to name just a few major additions to the modern tank compared to those of WW2. Then there's the thousands of improvements to existing systems/methods such as much better steel for armor, larger caliber cannons with higher velocity, much more effective shells including the spigot, much more effective communication links and battlefield data systems allowing tank commanders to collaborate with ground troops and air assets and many more things. Compare a Sherman or Pantzer to an Abrams/Leopard/Challenger, they look nothing alike other than they all have tracks and a turret, but so does an excavator.
What first got me interested in military technology as a kid was a book called Tanks: cross section which showed the inside of tanks I thought it was the coolest thing. This was way back in 1st and second grade, the book was in the 4th grade section and I wasnt allowed to check them out, but showing the librarian how much I loved reading and how well I could read she let me check out the more "advanced" books. Good memories.
Battlefield 1 is still going, keep playing to keep it alive! Was the last good battlefield game in my opinion. I enjoyed that the operations mode, actual battles and they provide history about the battles. Great blend of learning and an engaging game.
What truly brutal times and conditions. God bless all the men that were part of these tank crews and the ones that lost their lives in combat during those times. Love the simple history! Always informative and entertaining!
I don't know about this tank but a lot of the early tanks had exposed driveshafts which went straight down the length of the tank, they could literally stick their feet or fall on the spinning drive shaft while it had no suspension and bashed around in the destroyed mud and craters of no man's land.
4:00 My grandfather was in the trenches at Neuville-Vitasse, near Arras, and never complained about the lack of toilet or shower facilities. He told me he met my grandmother out there. She was shot in Arras: couldn't sit down for months.
Thinking of those massive 19l i6 engines putting out the same power as the strongest V-twin motors made by Harley-Davidson, that sits comfortably beneath the seat of a motorbike. It's insane how far engine design has come.
@@thomasmiddlebrooke1012 That's where the difference is. Those large pistons made it possible to produce the torque needed. Like the engines on ships. They produce lots of horsepower and the torque is even more immense.
And Harley-Davidson engines are not particularly power-dense, they're seen as rather primitive even, by modern motorcycle standards. There are sportbikes that make this or more power out of an engine slightly bigger than a shoebox.
Excellent animations, and a great overall history of the MkV. I live down the road from Bovington camp where this tank was tested and the crews were trained: the cordite for the ammo for the tanks was also produced locally at a large Admiralty facility nearby - a huge factory that was (ironically) expanded by German engineers in the early '30s. Bovington camp now has one of the best tank museums in the world, featuring one of the only working Tiger Mk 1 tanks remaining in operation in the world. I really enjoyed this - I hope you will all be able to visit to see the original "Little Willy" (yeah, I know) prototype tank, and all the WW 1 tank variants on display here. Great! More like this, please!!
Well a private collector did spend 15 years refurbishing a Tiger tank in his basement in Germany…only for it to be taken from him from the German Government. No respect for private property.
Quick note: the sponsons weren't because the turret wasn't thought of or invented yet, it was so the crew could attach an unditching log to the tracks and allow it to go around the entire vehicle without needing to detach it at the rear and reattach it at the front. The "rails" you drew on the top of the vehicle was so it could go above the roof without hitting anything. A turret would have prevented such a design. The Brits went into so much trouble with this, that with the Mk V, the log could be carried on the roof and attached from the inside, exposing only your hands through roof hatches, which is very handy (pun intended) if you get stuck in mud while in combat. Also, you failed to mention the pistol port between the driver and commander/front machine gunner, pointing down, to shoot at any enemy jumping under the nose of the tank as it crosses a trench. Apologies if I sound like an elitist, it's not my intention, I just like tanks more than I should. Loved the video :)
Not elitism, just really interesting info! It is interesting to compare these tanks versus later designs, some of it I suspect wasn't just technology so much as they had different challenges to face. These tanks were built before tanks were common, so they mostly encountered anti-infantry weaponry and obstacles - small arms, machine gun nests, barbed wire, and trenches. Enemy tanks were not a common encounter. The goal of these machines was to be able to drive across no-man's land impervious to enemy fire, then drive straight over the enemy's trenches, all without getting stuck. In WWII things were very different, anti-infantry weapons and obstacles (trenches in particular) were less common, but enemy tanks and aircraft were a bigger threat. The tanks needed to be faster, more maneuverable, more heavily armored, and equipped to take out enemy tanks. Less concerned about getting through trenches and mud. I'd even suspect an M1A1 Abrams would struggle in many ways in the environment of WWI because it was built for a different type of war.
I thought them not including a turret was them being unsuccessful with the little willie as it lacked the cross-country capability to even traverse the muddy terrain as well as struggle to even cross a trench. Which was designed to feature a turret but was abandoned. Since the Mk1 tank had a missing feature and a pretty significant obstruction to even include a unditching beam. Since crews hadn't figured out as well as the designers, that the crude wheels which was meant to steer the tank in the back that it's fixed to, it was completely unecessary as the tank could be steered with just the tracks. This meant when the completely exposed fixture broke, the crew of the tank usually high tailed it out and ran. Even though the tank was normally fine. This wasn't fixed till the MKIV. Which got rid of the wheels. It was also the tank to feature the rails for the newly included unditching beam.
I'm only saying this because of how significant the Little Willie was in tank development yet never get much attention. Heck the giant Russian tricycle gets more appraisal.
@@quillmaurer6563 you are absolutely correct, the M1 isn't "better", than the MkV, it is better what that it was designed to do, which is the balance of the "holy Trinity of tanks": firepower, mobility, and armor. The MkV disregarded mobility, because it wouldn't Make sense if it outran the infantry it was meant to protect. Tanks are expensive, so when you Look at something on a tank, it must be important, else why wouldn't they spend millions on it in mass production
@@michaelj6392 you do realize like half of Europe has conscription within their militaries right? And not just Eastern Europe, western and Northern aswell
I've always wondered what happened inside one of these when they climb out of a trench and the nose immediately drops 15+ feet. we're the crew strapped to anything? or did they just hope their spines would take it?
When the tanks were first tested, most of the tank crews ended up unconscious due to testing the tanks going over steep drops. The lack of suspension on the early tanks meant crews would often hit their heads on the roof of the tank with such force it knocked them out
The question of a turret was actually debated during early concept designs of the tank. What ultimately led to the adoption of sponsons was the concern that a turret would make the vehicle too tall and thus an easier target. Bear in mind that neither turrets nor sponsons were by any means new concepts, as both had been drawn from the navy.
While it may have been a death trap, I cannot imagine the feeling that German troops had seeing these in the battlefield for the first time. Most of the small arms wouldn't have been able to do anything with the fear of getting crushed in the trenches.
@@phlyphan1083 Still took time to train them and money to equip them. You'd think they'd see some wisdom in at least trying to minimize losses to maximize the return on that investment.
Knowing the British it's surprising they didn't add MULTIPLE tea making/water boiling devices in the tank How did high command expect those poor tankers to survive without their one cup of goodness per hour????
@@aj1218 : Onboard water boilers were not fitted until 1945, the first being in the Centurion Mk1. Before that the crews had to 'brew-up' outside the vehicle, normally using old 2 gallon cans with the tops cut off and then filled with earth or sand, to which petrol was added as fuel.
I had a short ride in the most accurate replica and it was an eye-opener. Even with the top hatches open and no gunfire it was hard to breathe. Trying to see anything through the tiny slot the gunner used was almost impossible.
I’d love to see a series of these kinds of videos. To break down how the regular soldier lived during different war periods in different roles/ aspects of wars
The civil war ironclads have been covered to death. It'd be nice to see people actually have some intrest in other ironclads; but due to the over saturation of USS Monitor and CSS Virginia, and the under covering of all other ironclads (with the exception of the HMS Warrier) its discouraging to many to try to research them
@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic either way ironclads are such a huge leap in technology especially for the time period and sort of an enigma to layman students of history. I think Simple History should do some civil war vids overall.
@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic Well like Trevor said, its a technological leap. In less than 40 years we go from the Wood bound frigates and Man-o-War's like the USS Constitution or the HMS Victoria, to the Pre-Dreadnoughts like HMS Royal Sovereign. And the Sovereign looks a lot like what we would see in the 20th century warships none-the-less. The era that connects the two is the age of the Ironclads. The CSS Virginia didn't end up becoming the type we see universally after the US Civil war, but it was an excellent first step into the concept of plated ships. And the Monitor would ultimately be one of the founding ships to establish what modern vessels would look like in the ages to come. Its a very important connection point in Naval history, so it's fair that is is discussed to regularly. There are really only a small handful of notable engagements involving the Ironclads, like the Battle of Lissa, but beyond that the fighting after the Battle of Hampton Roads is really our only other major example.
These tanks sound like a truly awful place to be - but I'd imagine it was still in many ways better than infantry at the time, certainly way more effective. Compared with modern tanks they're terrible, compared with what came before - no tank - they were truly game-changing.
@@MaticTheProto NO it's not.!!! I don't think you quite understand the term 'over the top' where our men literally came out of the trenches and ordered in a calm manner to slowly Walk towards the German machine guns, ( lots of reports of Germans having huge trouble killing men slowly walking and some refused to) I would absolutely prefer to be inside w tank neither is a good position to be in but in my opinion a tank is a bit better.
Wow! 😲 The video hasn't even started yet and I'm just amazed at the thumbnail showing just how many men there were on the inside manning these magnificent iron war machines!
4:51 It's absolutely shocking that it took 30 years of tank designing, until they got the ability to make tea inside of it, and instead having to go outside of the vehicle to make tea. 😞
One correction, the last use of the British land ships was actually the battle of Berlin. Two land ships were used as ammunition carriers by the German defenders.
Love the video as always and looking forward to more videos like it in the future. Also is there any chance you could make a cross section of the ft-17
Very good video! It was surely brutal being on a mission in a tank like these, the feeling of them is truly like some dark steampunk enviroment But very interesting
Excellent vid, thanks! There was a “double shrink” model shown on one of the stills. We need some Costanza style rulers to help plead our case to the women in cold climates.
Just a minor criticism. The Mark IV tank didn't use 4 gears man. But it DID require 4 crew to drive it which I think is probably a typo. It had a driver who couldn't actually steer the vehicle. The steering was down to the two gearsmen who'd be positioned to the rear of the tank. Also in Male tanks, crews would sometimes use expended shell casings as toilets. That way they could simply throw them out one of the view ports. Also the engine power is more comparable to a family car. I haven't heard of any modern, production HD bikes producing 150bhp. Sportsbikes however, yes. Keep the videos coming! Love Simple History!
I have one question: Did those tanks literrary had a lifespan of 2-3 days before they broke ? It seems too extreme for me to waste such materials to build a tank with such short use,but on the other hand,it could break the steelmate,saving many lives!So,is this true or not? Does it only last 3 days?
@@c15a Because I know in a battle,the army had all it's tanks opperational the first day,50% of them in day 2 , 25% in day 3 and by day 4 they were all broken or gone
This video made me appreciate the Battlefield 1 campaign so much more, just another reason why Battlefield is better than Call of Duty in terms of realism.
**Your a German soldier trying to break into a bogged down Mark V Tank but can hear the crew singing its a long way to Tipperary to keep their spirits up whilst defending themselves in the hot box of smoke and stench.**
Can we all take a moment to appreciate the video? man, it's very amazingly well done Thank you very much for this video it tells a lot about working in a WW1 tank.
Cool video about the Mark tanks in ww1 but there were only 50 built and only 20 working and they had a very negligible impact unlike the thousands of Renault FT and hundreds of Saint-Chamond and Schneider tanks that won ww1. These tanks ones deserve a video too 👍
"The engine had 150 hp, about the same as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. This gave the tank a top speed of 5 miles per hour, ALSO the same as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. '
It's very loud inside armored military vehicles but luckily we now have helmets with headphones and mic sewn into the lining and then you wear a hard shell on top. In armored hmmwvs there are headsets that fit under your combat helmet and can be used inside and outside the vehicle as there is a switch that lets you hear outside noise if you step out of the vehicle for security purposes and they're great hearing protection and also voice activated so you can talk to your driver and gunner without screaming which is what the soldiers who didn't have working headsets had to do. Headsets were especially crucial for talking to your gunner who is half exposed to the elements (although new gunner hatches have the gunner completely enclosed in armor and bullet proof glass so they can see
One glaring issue: you called it a "main battle tank". It was an infantry support or heavy tank. The concept of an "MBT" wouldn't arise until the late WW2/early Cold War era. In the period it existed [WW1/Interwar] there were 2 main tank theories: 1: Heavy/Infantry support: basically a slow moving bunker [like the WW1 designs] with an artillery piece as its main weapon, designed to clear trenches and support infantry [a self-propelled gun or IFV in modern parlance] 2: Light/Cavalry Tank or Tankette: designed to augment/replace horse cavalry, these were fast scouting vehicles. A Main battle Tank is a blend of the 2 and something different entirely. Designed to either work in armored only detachments, or more successfully, with mechanized/motorized support [make the infantry fast enough to protect the tank, not the tank slow enough to stay with the infantry]. The primary targets of MBTs are other armored units and fortifications, not Infantry. They evolved out of the medium tank like the Panther, Sherman and T-34.
I was on two M48 tanks destroyed in Vietnam. Love juice was taken out by an rpg near Khe Sanh, Cheap Thrills was by a huge mine near Con Thien. I can't imagine being in one of these death traps.
tea in other nation: +relax buff tea in england: +1000 fighting spirit +1000 reload speed + 1000 damage boost +99999 durability + 100 god save the queen intensifies + 1000 to health & speed
I'm ex mechanized infantry, and could not even imagine going to war in a death trap like that. Brave, brave, brave dudes.
Then again, if someone from the far future watched a video about our tanks and vehicles in our present day they'd likely say the same thing 😂
@@jeongna LOL, probably so.
even if they were a deathtrap. they were less of a deathtrap than doing a trenchcharge against machinegun & sniper enplacements
@@TheGamingSyndrom good point
The only thing worse was the German tank. It was so slow they often had pizzas delivered while making the slow approach to the trenches. 🤣
“Hey Edwards! She loves it when ya swear boy!”
"What do we do now... Driver?"
"We walk."
* Battlefield 1 theme intensifies *
Bf1 😏
Release the pigeon!
So glad they included our tank corps in that game. Coolest war machines ever
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d like to see a video on the Mesopotamia Campaign in WW1 or Italian Colonial troops during the World Wars.
Recently returned from North Korea good country I advise everyone to go there
@@tankie373 what?
Nah I'd prefer WW2
@@tankie373 I call bullshit. You can't just freely go and visit, you must be invited.
@@RUclipsSaysThereCantBeTwoRyans most likely a bot
I can't imagine being part of a tank crew in these things. The NOISE, the HEAT, the FUMES, and the difficulty attaining situational awareness, thus the CHAOS.
And the smell of every fluid male organism can produce.
Still better than marching over no-man's-land.
They had no choice.
Imagine seeing a tank for the first time in ww1, that must've been like a boss fight.
Hanz, I hear ze boss music!
anytime infantry come into contact with an enemy tank it's a bossfight.
@@madjack1748 except these days we have mobile AT weaponry.
Watch the film "Quiet on the Western Front" twords the end sums it up
@@dragoxk4542 They already had mobile AT weaponry in WW2.
As a former retired tanker this is a great historical video, but you forgot something key. The open engine caused a few other problems. The extreme heat could catch shoelaces on fire or laces could get caught in the gear. The solution was removing laces and securing your boots with belts. This created the tanker boots.
A second invention of tanks (not necessarily this one) was black berets. The constant grease and oil in the tanks made uniforms and headgear basically black. The solution for many was black berets. Which was so cool other units began to adopt it.
Interesting information, thank you 👍 👍
this is interesting - do you have any more sorces about that?
What's the ignition point of shoe laces? That's crazy
@@Einhauser wool shoelaces covered in oil...idk
First thank you for your service. That’s interesting information thanks for sharing.
I believe that the term “tank” comes from the fact that the early tanks looked like water tanks and they were called so in order to help keep the project secret as opposed to “land ship”, which kind of gives it away.
The story I recall was that crates containing parts for early prototypes were labeled as "tank" or "water tank" to disguise the reality of the project. Would have been a plausible disguise given that much of it was heavy steel plating as a tank might be made from. Though the true nature of these machines - nothing to do with liquid-containing vessels - was soon widely known, the term "tank" has stuck ever since for not only these but all vehicles of this sort through present day.
i think there are various stories. the one i've always heard was due to the amount of steel needed for production, foundries started getting curious (it was a secret project, they were just told to make more steel). when asked, the War Department simply told them "for mobile water tanks"
it was called tank to keep it secret, if the germans found out they would think its some plan or vehicle to get water to the troops since that was a problem, if you called it landship it would be pretty obvious
The Abrams Tank has not been built since the 80's, and they just add gear and equipment to the base armored hulls called "Rusty's" if they need a replacement. And I believe the Grant was used by the US in WWII, and the Lee nomenclature was used by Lend Lease nations, including the British Empire and Soviet Union.
@@quillmaurer6563 yes that's the story I am familiar with to.
6:47
Fun fact, it was so loud and hot inside the tanks that the poor pigeons often died due to high stress.
that's no fun fact
That's sad :(
*sad fact
:(
Probably a fair number of humans did too. I could imagine the pigeons also serving as a "canary in the coal mine" to warn if carbon monoxide was building up inside the tank - if the bird is dead and you feel woozy, turn off the engine, open the hatch, and get fresh air immediately.
Could not imagine a worse job to do in the Army during this era... The poor blokes inside wouldn've also been excited about it early on, then the realisation wouldve hit when you start attracting the fire of every field gun and artillery piece for miles around.
The reason for the length of WWI tanks was for trench crossing. A short tank would nose in to the bottom of the trench and be rendered almost completely useless until it was extracted but a long tank (sometimes with a big bundle of sticks for those extra wide trenches) is more adept at crossing trenches (the shape and location of the tracks of the mark IV and mark V tanks also helped crossing holes, craters and trenches...kind of, not a whole lotta traction on some of those early designs).
Amazing how much tanks evolved from these Early Land ships to what we recognize as a modern tank in WW2.
In only 2 decades at that. You're right.
And even more amazing how little they changed from ww2 to prezent day!
The only difference is bassicly the elimination of the light and medium tanks
@@moldovanbeniamin1578 Some countries still use light tanks because they're much smaller and less heavier than MBTs.
@@moldovanbeniamin1578 Quite a lot has changed, the elimination of the Germans' idiotic suspension design in favor of a torsion bar setup, reactive armor, active defense systems (such as Trophy), angled armor becoming the norm instead of the notable exception, spalding armor plates, hunter-killer style combat systems, gyroscope-balanced gun, blow-out panels/ammo vault, steering wheel type controls (instead of two levers) and thermal vision to name just a few major additions to the modern tank compared to those of WW2.
Then there's the thousands of improvements to existing systems/methods such as much better steel for armor, larger caliber cannons with higher velocity, much more effective shells including the spigot, much more effective communication links and battlefield data systems allowing tank commanders to collaborate with ground troops and air assets and many more things.
Compare a Sherman or Pantzer to an Abrams/Leopard/Challenger, they look nothing alike other than they all have tracks and a turret, but so does an excavator.
What first got me interested in military technology as a kid was a book called Tanks: cross section which showed the inside of tanks I thought it was the coolest thing. This was way back in 1st and second grade, the book was in the 4th grade section and I wasnt allowed to check them out, but showing the librarian how much I loved reading and how well I could read she let me check out the more "advanced" books. Good memories.
I had a book like in my elementary school library.
@@wyattpeterson6286 Awesome I remember there being one about ships and one about trucks.
@@Aatell764 I would get that tank book almost every time and I would be extremely hesitant to return it.
@@wyattpeterson6286 Hahaha same here! I kept getting it renewed until she told me I had let someone else atleast get a chance to read it.
@@Aatell764 I hated when the librarian would do that.
I know it’s only a video game but BF1’s “Mud and Blood” campaign depicted well the hardships of operating a metal death box
BF1 is my favorite FPS of all time. It’s a masterpiece.
@@michaelj6392 100% agree,mainly because I am a fan of ww1 history,but it sure is a masterpiece
@@michaelj6392 I just wish we got those side facing MGs.
The amount of infantry on the flanks isn't even funny.
my favorite story line of BF1
Battlefield 1 is still going, keep playing to keep it alive! Was the last good battlefield game in my opinion. I enjoyed that the operations mode, actual battles and they provide history about the battles. Great blend of learning and an engaging game.
What truly brutal times and conditions. God bless all the men that were part of these tank crews and the ones that lost their lives in combat during those times. Love the simple history! Always informative and entertaining!
I don't know about this tank but a lot of the early tanks had exposed driveshafts which went straight down the length of the tank, they could literally stick their feet or fall on the spinning drive shaft while it had no suspension and bashed around in the destroyed mud and craters of no man's land.
4:00 My grandfather was in the trenches at Neuville-Vitasse, near Arras, and never complained about the lack of toilet or shower facilities.
He told me he met my grandmother out there. She was shot in Arras: couldn't sit down for months.
The fact that later and modern tanks were designed to have a tea-kettle inside is the most british thing EVER
I think you mean Bri’ish
To bw fair, it can also heat MRE rations
Only the essentials for our brave boys what-what. *Sips tea* 🇬🇧☕️
When in doubt.... brew up !
The Italians had pasta cookers. Your point?
Thinking of those massive 19l i6 engines putting out the same power as the strongest V-twin motors made by Harley-Davidson, that sits comfortably beneath the seat of a motorbike. It's insane how far engine design has come.
Heck, my Corolla produces 168 hp. But it’s the torque that matters on a machine that size.
@@thomasmiddlebrooke1012 That's where the difference is. Those large pistons made it possible to produce the torque needed. Like the engines on ships. They produce lots of horsepower and the torque is even more immense.
And Harley-Davidson engines are not particularly power-dense, they're seen as rather primitive even, by modern motorcycle standards. There are sportbikes that make this or more power out of an engine slightly bigger than a shoebox.
@@quillmaurer6563 when you realize those Rev up as much as a f1 engine with turbos the Harley is impressive in its own right
@@quillmaurer6563 when you realize those Rev up as much as a f1 engine with turbos the Harley is impressive in its own right
Excellent animations, and a great overall history of the MkV. I live down the road from Bovington camp where this tank was tested and the crews were trained: the cordite for the ammo for the tanks was also produced locally at a large Admiralty facility nearby - a huge factory that was (ironically) expanded by German engineers in the early '30s. Bovington camp now has one of the best tank museums in the world, featuring one of the only working Tiger Mk 1 tanks remaining in operation in the world.
I really enjoyed this - I hope you will all be able to visit to see the original "Little Willy" (yeah, I know) prototype tank, and all the WW 1 tank variants on display here. Great! More like this, please!!
Well a private collector did spend 15 years refurbishing a Tiger tank in his basement in Germany…only for it to be taken from him from the German Government. No respect for private property.
3:20 Fun Fact: The Italian tanks had 1 forward gear & 4 reverse gears.
EDWAAARDS, RELEASE THE PIGEON!
Quick note: the sponsons weren't because the turret wasn't thought of or invented yet, it was so the crew could attach an unditching log to the tracks and allow it to go around the entire vehicle without needing to detach it at the rear and reattach it at the front. The "rails" you drew on the top of the vehicle was so it could go above the roof without hitting anything. A turret would have prevented such a design. The Brits went into so much trouble with this, that with the Mk V, the log could be carried on the roof and attached from the inside, exposing only your hands through roof hatches, which is very handy (pun intended) if you get stuck in mud while in combat. Also, you failed to mention the pistol port between the driver and commander/front machine gunner, pointing down, to shoot at any enemy jumping under the nose of the tank as it crosses a trench.
Apologies if I sound like an elitist, it's not my intention, I just like tanks more than I should. Loved the video :)
Not elitism, just really interesting info! It is interesting to compare these tanks versus later designs, some of it I suspect wasn't just technology so much as they had different challenges to face. These tanks were built before tanks were common, so they mostly encountered anti-infantry weaponry and obstacles - small arms, machine gun nests, barbed wire, and trenches. Enemy tanks were not a common encounter. The goal of these machines was to be able to drive across no-man's land impervious to enemy fire, then drive straight over the enemy's trenches, all without getting stuck. In WWII things were very different, anti-infantry weapons and obstacles (trenches in particular) were less common, but enemy tanks and aircraft were a bigger threat. The tanks needed to be faster, more maneuverable, more heavily armored, and equipped to take out enemy tanks. Less concerned about getting through trenches and mud. I'd even suspect an M1A1 Abrams would struggle in many ways in the environment of WWI because it was built for a different type of war.
I thought them not including a turret was them being unsuccessful with the little willie as it lacked the cross-country capability to even traverse the muddy terrain as well as struggle to even cross a trench. Which was designed to feature a turret but was abandoned. Since the Mk1 tank had a missing feature and a pretty significant obstruction to even include a unditching beam. Since crews hadn't figured out as well as the designers, that the crude wheels which was meant to steer the tank in the back that it's fixed to, it was completely unecessary as the tank could be steered with just the tracks. This meant when the completely exposed fixture broke, the crew of the tank usually high tailed it out and ran. Even though the tank was normally fine. This wasn't fixed till the MKIV. Which got rid of the wheels. It was also the tank to feature the rails for the newly included unditching beam.
I'm only saying this because of how significant the Little Willie was in tank development yet never get much attention. Heck the giant Russian tricycle gets more appraisal.
@@quillmaurer6563 you are absolutely correct, the M1 isn't "better", than the MkV, it is better what that it was designed to do, which is the balance of the "holy Trinity of tanks": firepower, mobility, and armor. The MkV disregarded mobility, because it wouldn't Make sense if it outran the infantry it was meant to protect. Tanks are expensive, so when you Look at something on a tank, it must be important, else why wouldn't they spend millions on it in mass production
Didn't the french already have a tank at this point that did have a gun turret?
As an ex conscripted tank driver, I can say that I'm glad tanks have become waayy more advanced compared to these steel death traps
Conscripted where? Russia?
@@michaelj6392 Finland
@@michaelj6392 you do realize like half of Europe has conscription within their militaries right? And not just Eastern Europe, western and Northern aswell
@@valaskimusic what tanks did you operate?
@@basileusgaming7047 CV9030
I've always wondered what happened inside one of these when they climb out of a trench and the nose immediately drops 15+ feet. we're the crew strapped to anything? or did they just hope their spines would take it?
Pretty much the second, though the tank doesn't 'immediately' drop, still not quite the same comfort as a sunday drive in a Rolls Royce.
When the tanks were first tested, most of the tank crews ended up unconscious due to testing the tanks going over steep drops. The lack of suspension on the early tanks meant crews would often hit their heads on the roof of the tank with such force it knocked them out
At 5km/h?
@@thelastwoltzer it can't be any gentler than falling 15 feet from a ladder, going 0km/h
@ian frogfish can you share the link of the video?
The question of a turret was actually debated during early concept designs of the tank. What ultimately led to the adoption of sponsons was the concern that a turret would make the vehicle too tall and thus an easier target. Bear in mind that neither turrets nor sponsons were by any means new concepts, as both had been drawn from the navy.
While it may have been a death trap, I cannot imagine the feeling that German troops had seeing these in the battlefield for the first time. Most of the small arms wouldn't have been able to do anything with the fear of getting crushed in the trenches.
The early anti tank guns were also just giant bolt action rifles too.
Tank design in WW1 just seems like "let's make as many OSHA violations as possible in a vehicle"
OSHA didn't exist then
pretty sure soldiers safety was the last priority back then, in ww1 a human life wasn't worth a cent
@@phlyphan1083 Still took time to train them and money to equip them. You'd think they'd see some wisdom in at least trying to minimize losses to maximize the return on that investment.
@@foxymetroid i mean it's prob cheaper to lose a couple MG gunners than make the entire tank safer for crew
They were made when you didn't need uncle Sam to tell you what's safe
Being in a ww1 tank is just like being in a hot tub with a lot of dudes and bullets flying over you
It's like being in a metal plated portapotty with a big dirty smoke spewing engine in it
Knowing the British it's surprising they didn't add MULTIPLE tea making/water boiling devices in the tank
How did high command expect those poor tankers to survive without their one cup of goodness per hour????
the tea is what keeps them doing the accent
Don't worry every British tank in WW2 had a water boiler for tea.
Getting pissed off at your tanking breaking down was a good substitute
@@aj1218 : Onboard water boilers were not fitted until 1945, the first being in the Centurion Mk1. Before that the crews had to 'brew-up' outside the vehicle, normally using old 2 gallon cans with the tops cut off and then filled with earth or sand, to which petrol was added as fuel.
very steriotypical.....
0:43
Hey we finally finished building that huge war mechine, what should we cal-
*Landship*
I had a short ride in the most accurate replica and it was an eye-opener. Even with the top hatches open and no gunfire it was hard to breathe. Trying to see anything through the tiny slot the gunner used was almost impossible.
I’d love to see a series of these kinds of videos. To break down how the regular soldier lived during different war periods in different roles/ aspects of wars
I’d like to see some of these for the Ironclad ships of the American Civil War. This was COOL!
The civil war ironclads have been covered to death. It'd be nice to see people actually have some intrest in other ironclads; but due to the over saturation of USS Monitor and CSS Virginia, and the under covering of all other ironclads (with the exception of the HMS Warrier) its discouraging to many to try to research them
@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic either way ironclads are such a huge leap in technology especially for the time period and sort of an enigma to layman students of history. I think Simple History should do some civil war vids overall.
@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic Well like Trevor said, its a technological leap. In less than 40 years we go from the Wood bound frigates and Man-o-War's like the USS Constitution or the HMS Victoria, to the Pre-Dreadnoughts like HMS Royal Sovereign. And the Sovereign looks a lot like what we would see in the 20th century warships none-the-less. The era that connects the two is the age of the Ironclads. The CSS Virginia didn't end up becoming the type we see universally after the US Civil war, but it was an excellent first step into the concept of plated ships. And the Monitor would ultimately be one of the founding ships to establish what modern vessels would look like in the ages to come. Its a very important connection point in Naval history, so it's fair that is is discussed to regularly. There are really only a small handful of notable engagements involving the Ironclads, like the Battle of Lissa, but beyond that the fighting after the Battle of Hampton Roads is really our only other major example.
Life inside a WWI Mk. V Tank must have _explosive_ moments.
It was moving ship back in the day, it is still amazing how the crew managed to live inside of it.
don't get caught with your pants down get gigamon🤣🤣🤣
Those of us who played Battlefield 1 know the carrier pigeon was the true unsung hero of early tank warfare.
Not just tank warfare - it was a common mean of communication by both sides. You gotta use something in times when radio wasn't invented yet.
this feels worst than life in the trenches
Yeah your practically inside a bullet magnet
These tanks sound like a truly awful place to be - but I'd imagine it was still in many ways better than infantry at the time, certainly way more effective. Compared with modern tanks they're terrible, compared with what came before - no tank - they were truly game-changing.
Yes I think I would of prefared to be inside one of these instead of running towards German machine guns.
Much better than charging in the no man’s land
YES. The jackasses who pretentiously call these "death traps." I'd rather be in a WWI tank than standing in a trench filled with blood and feces.
@@HERETOHELPPEOPLE121 having every cannon pointed at you is only marginally better
@@MaticTheProto NO it's not.!!! I don't think you quite understand the term 'over the top' where our men literally came out of the trenches and ordered in a calm manner to slowly Walk towards the German machine guns, ( lots of reports of Germans having huge trouble killing men slowly walking and some refused to)
I would absolutely prefer to be inside w tank neither is a good position to be in but in my opinion a tank is a bit better.
My great grandfather was a machine gunner in a MK5 female version.
I'll bet your great-grandpa used to insist that meant he was in at least 2 more females than other people in his town.
“RELEASE THE PIGEON!”
"Release the hounds."
8:12 that one soldier shoveling the tank is a madlad
I loved the “through mud and blood” reference in the thumbnail
"If the Tank succeeds, victory follows."
-Heinz Guderian
"Take care of each other and Big Bess will take care of you."
- Townsend 1918, Battlefield 1 - Through Mud and Blood
Wow! 😲 The video hasn't even started yet and I'm just amazed at the thumbnail showing just how many men there were on the inside manning these magnificent iron war machines!
"magnificent"
This brings me memories from good old Bessie from Battlefield 1
When zombies and panzers are chasing you, there is no place for living in a tank
Dude these videos are so good imagine the effort and he gives us them every couple of days
Thank you
probably has people working on the animations and gathering information. Not a one man team.
Haha imagine thinking 1 single person makes these videos
4:51 It's absolutely shocking that it took 30 years of tank designing, until they got the ability to make tea inside of it, and instead having to go outside of the vehicle to make tea. 😞
It wasn't even though of until an armoured devision got wiped out because they were making tea outside of their vehicles.
Imagine tanks in the future with a toilet, hot shower, gas stoves, coffee machine, fridge and... monthly rent payment 🤣
and to this very day they still have no toilets.
@@billyb4790 t-14?
One correction, the last use of the British land ships was actually the battle of Berlin. Two land ships were used as ammunition carriers by the German defenders.
Love the video as always and looking forward to more videos like it in the future. Also is there any chance you could make a cross section of the ft-17
That would be cool!
Reminds me of one of Battlefield 1’s war stories : Through Mud and Blood
It is reference too that
Even thumbnail
That was probably my favorite war story. It just gave me so much of a power trip
Very good video! It was surely brutal being on a mission in a tank like these, the feeling of them is truly like some dark steampunk enviroment
But very interesting
Watch all quiet on the western front, greatest depiction of this ever
Excellent vid, thanks! There was a “double shrink” model shown on one of the stills. We need some Costanza style rulers to help plead our case to the women in cold climates.
I know it was just a stop-gap, but the M3 Lee is my favorite WWII tank that actually saw combat.
Japanese Typ-89, hands down. The M3 is just a French design slightly reworked.
Im glad that there's still WW1 content being made 😊 thanks Simple History!
Gotta love Simple History
Edwards.... release the piegon! Thats an order son, do you understand me?
Just a minor criticism. The Mark IV tank didn't use 4 gears man. But it DID require 4 crew to drive it which I think is probably a typo. It had a driver who couldn't actually steer the vehicle. The steering was down to the two gearsmen who'd be positioned to the rear of the tank.
Also in Male tanks, crews would sometimes use expended shell casings as toilets. That way they could simply throw them out one of the view ports.
Also the engine power is more comparable to a family car. I haven't heard of any modern, production HD bikes producing 150bhp. Sportsbikes however, yes.
Keep the videos coming! Love Simple History!
Fun fact: the name 'tank' came from British attempts to classify their new weapon under the name of water tank because it resembles water carrier.
Yeah and trying to hide what it actually was from spies
Amazing how it got stuck with it forever
Another fun fact: Germans actually didn't have a name for the tank for the entirety of WW1 so they just called it tank.
"water tanks destined for Russia" too.. and the Russian word for tank today is ... *drumroll ... TANK.
@@attempt5074 They call it tank today. Every post WW1 tank is called "panzer". But WW1 tank is "tank".
Tanks for the memories
Even though they weren't so great he tastes like you even sweeter
Still one of my personal Favorite tanks too this day and not too mention great vehicle to use in Bf1 😊
I prefer the German box of doom
@@MaticTheProto I prefer French baguette with guns (Saint-Chamond)
On top of the engine they were cooking? Just like we do today, with CPU and video cards xD I guess some things never change!
I've literally always wanted a video like this, thanks simple history!
Gotta love how much Simple history has improved in Animation over the years
Great video. I love war history now keep up the good work
I have one question:
Did those tanks literrary had a lifespan of 2-3 days before they broke ?
It seems too extreme for me to waste such materials to build a tank with such short use,but on the other hand,it could break the steelmate,saving many lives!So,is this true or not? Does it only last 3 days?
machines can be repaired. They broke down, like the era’s cars break down.
So,the engine broke down in about 2-3 days,then they'd repair and use them in another battle?
@@c15a Because I know in a battle,the army had all it's tanks opperational the first day,50% of them in day 2 , 25% in day 3 and by day 4 they were all broken or gone
@@moldovanbeniamin1578 that would make sense.
I think that must be the answer.
imagine standing there with your riffle and those behemoths are approaching.. scary
Imagine being a Roman soldier seeing elephants with Persians riding on top for the first time
@@Cinemaphile7783 omg that would be terrifying too. huge monsters with people riding them coming at you
I'd love to see a video like this, but for airships during WW1. Those things had a lot more going on inside then I think most realize
Dispite how obsolete they are, these have always been my favorite tanks, that and the much smaller Renault tank.
This video made me appreciate the Battlefield 1 campaign so much more, just another reason why Battlefield is better than Call of Duty in terms of realism.
What do u think about BF5 being "realistic"
**Your a German soldier trying to break into a bogged down Mark V Tank but can hear the crew singing its a long way to Tipperary to keep their spirits up whilst defending themselves in the hot box of smoke and stench.**
4:52 Wow didn't know tea was that important to the brits
oh my god these animations have come so far, brings a tear to my eye 🥲
Can we all take a moment to appreciate the video? man, it's very amazingly well done Thank you very much for this video it tells a lot about working in a WW1 tank.
Cool video about the Mark tanks in ww1 but there were only 50 built and only 20 working and they had a very negligible impact unlike the thousands of Renault FT and hundreds of Saint-Chamond and Schneider tanks that won ww1. These tanks ones deserve a video too 👍
Did you ever play battlefield 1
Saint chamond was crap
@@Chanka_Main ''historical source? i play bf1''
400 Mark V tanks where built. 1,220 Mark IV tanks, 50 MK II, 150 MK I.
"The engine had 150 hp, about the same as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. This gave the tank a top speed of 5 miles per hour, ALSO the same as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. '
It's very loud inside armored military vehicles but luckily we now have helmets with headphones and mic sewn into the lining and then you wear a hard shell on top. In armored hmmwvs there are headsets that fit under your combat helmet and can be used inside and outside the vehicle as there is a switch that lets you hear outside noise if you step out of the vehicle for security purposes and they're great hearing protection and also voice activated so you can talk to your driver and gunner without screaming which is what the soldiers who didn't have working headsets had to do. Headsets were especially crucial for talking to your gunner who is half exposed to the elements (although new gunner hatches have the gunner completely enclosed in armor and bullet proof glass so they can see
-Edwards! Send that pigeon to the artillery section!
-But sir, these are our coordintes…
-SEND THAT PIGEON!
0:36 roblox has a familiar game but modern wars the name is ‘rise of nations’
3:33 Who knew the Brits had so many Italians in their military.
British requirement in their tanks: to have an ability to prepare tea for the crews 😂
Best channel on RUclips, glad to see it growing so fast lately. Keep it up! 👍👍👍
In the Red Army, the captured tank Mk.5 was mistakenly called "Ricardo" - after the name of the engine.
skip ads @1:04
Godsend
One glaring issue: you called it a "main battle tank". It was an infantry support or heavy tank. The concept of an "MBT" wouldn't arise until the late WW2/early Cold War era. In the period it existed [WW1/Interwar] there were 2 main tank theories:
1: Heavy/Infantry support: basically a slow moving bunker [like the WW1 designs] with an artillery piece as its main weapon, designed to clear trenches and support infantry [a self-propelled gun or IFV in modern parlance]
2: Light/Cavalry Tank or Tankette: designed to augment/replace horse cavalry, these were fast scouting vehicles.
A Main battle Tank is a blend of the 2 and something different entirely. Designed to either work in armored only detachments, or more successfully, with mechanized/motorized support [make the infantry fast enough to protect the tank, not the tank slow enough to stay with the infantry]. The primary targets of MBTs are other armored units and fortifications, not Infantry. They evolved out of the medium tank like the Panther, Sherman and T-34.
4:10 I didnt knew modern tanks have toilets
I was on two M48 tanks destroyed in Vietnam. Love juice was taken out by an rpg near Khe Sanh, Cheap Thrills was by a huge mine near Con Thien. I can't imagine being in one of these death traps.
tea in other nation: +relax buff
tea in england:
+1000 fighting spirit
+1000 reload speed
+ 1000 damage boost
+99999 durability
+ 100 god save the queen intensifies
+ 1000 to health & speed
8:09 lol
MOST modern day Harleys don't even make 150hp
4:23 why is it white 😳
;)
other bodily functions
Cool video!
-What are they signaling now corporal?
-Two gentleman sausages horizontally aligned captain
-We have lost them
1:25
-Soldier, how many grenades you have?
-Yes
Imagine if your just a German and your fighting in ww1 1916 and then you hear tractor noises
4:16 wait.... Why is it white?
Want to get a true answer or keep your sanity?
Black Bess.
‘Fun’ fact: Turkey and the Republic of Ireland consume more tea per person that the United Kingdom.