Let us know which faults you have spotted in those tanks! ✌️ Do you want to hear Ed's rant about the issues in those tanks as a follow-up video? Please vote on whether we should make that vid. www.strawpoll.me/20967894
Without making too long a list, it seems like the YOH design team had generally acquainted themselves with the design principles of tanks, but that they didn't have knowledge or appreciation for certain design elements that had already been tried and failed, or those few that were found useful, but had since become outdated. Some of the elements (such as the mine flails and the walking feet) seem to be ideas from people with absolutely no military experience whatsoever. They were also guilty of the classic engineer's blunder, developing interesting systems that added complexity and cost out of all proportion to the claimed benefit. It's amazing to me that they tried so many things to shuffle weight and ammunition around, with sensible goals like balancing the gun, increasing the ready rounds, and protecting the crew, but rather than settling on putting the ammo in the turret bustle in even one of their designs.... they decided to put the entire engine up there instead. ಠ_ಠ
Ikr, why would you try and make something so complicated for absolutely no reason, if you need counter balance on the turret, add armor or give it turret ammo storage....
I guess they got payed to fool around in a then current brainstorm session. With the Russian Armata tank you have a okay unmannend auto turret. An idea they shied away from. All ammo in the auto turret. Two crew in turret. And the Swedish S tank idea. These guys knew full well it was impossible. Yet that was just the very good idea of the ? Programme. What you think is a bad or even impossible idea might be possible in the eyes of other engineers who contray to you know of new technologies. Jet engines. Lighter stronger materials or production techniques. So getting payed to goof around it is then unfair to point to mistakes asif they didn't know that.
@@Sveta7 That actually was a good one so no idea why OP said it wasn't. As it would be pretty cheap and could give some decent improvements to survival against mine threats. I don't know about you but between a 2k piece of rotation steel and its assembly or a 300k tank and crew I think I am gonna sacrifice the 2k piece of steel. Mind you it wouldn't be a amazing flail but it definitely would not be a horrible idea.
Putting an engine in the turret presents a whole host of problems, especially if mechanical coupling is used to transmit the power, as opposed to electro-motive drive. Even if electro-motive drive was selected, it would represent a significant rotating mass and the turret would necessarily be able to turn faster in one direction than the other. It would eliminate the degree of isolation from a source of vibration that the gun and its attendant optics enjoy by being mounted to a separate structure, just like an ordinary pick-up truck will ride better than even modern luxury cars because it enjoys body-on-frame construction which has been abandoned for cars entirely. Putting the engine in the turret would also probably render manual traverse either impossible or unreasonably difficult, or slow, or both. It just seems a stupid way to balance the turret compared to putting literally every other piece of possible equipment into that space to balance out the gun, everything from the radios to the coffee pot, and letting the engine be in its proper place in the hull. Let us not even say anything about the difficulties that would arise from transmitting the power mechanically to the drive...
Not to mention that they have now placed the fuel tank much higher in the vehicle in a rotating platform where it is EXTREMELY exposed compared to being nestled in the rear of the tank chassis. I also didn’t see any exhaust or intake vents on that turret. Adding them, as would be necessary in order to have an engine that functions, would probably compromise the armor integrity of the turret and would poentially blow exhaust into the face of the commander whenever he pops out of his cupola. Not to mention that it would be miserably hot and loud inside the turret, making communications even harder if the comms system ever breaks down. Having exhaust ports located so high in the vehicle would also make any exhaust plume that much taller and more visible.
I love the old 1950s-60s style of these tanks, while some ideas were super bizarre, not all their ideas went to waste. The ammunition fire funnel system lives on with our blowout panels.
I know that I'm probably being effected by my upbringing in the US during the 1950s-60s, but it looks like the Yoh company was doing designs for Matel, HASBRO, and several other toy companies for the toy tanks we played with.
by 1953 the M103 and M48 were the 2 newest tanks in the US, I assume there was some "propaganda" about them and toy companies were simply copying the new normal also, I cannot say for sure but I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the Ordenance Departmant did hire toy companies to make models for them
Smaller scales models are basically toys cause of their size and the nature. It makes sense doing this way cause the companies probably want to see how it's design in model form, problems and how will it scale up. Many wind tunnels use this concept nowadays. Saves time, allows them to see any mistakes, and money. Before doing the project.
The wierdest tank is the m-v-yoh, its like a ww2 rover or a noodle with a long metal rod on it, the loader and the gunner and the commander have to fit and sit inside the tank, while the gun rack must be in below the gun.
The ingenous idea of engine in the turret should be augmented by putting main gun in the body of the tank. When tank would need to pivot fast to acquire target, small legs would come out on sides, rotating whole tanks fast.
AMX 13 in Dutch use. Yet wasn't used as a light tank but tank hunter next to AMX TOW. Taking over so the TOW could reposition or reload missiles. AMX 13 105 was nicknamed the revolver on roller skates.
You've got yourself a new subscriber here, this was fascinating. I imagine the 'drawing board' consisted of a few pencils, 1/5 of a Reem of paper and every known drug available at the time. No.7 is hilarious 🤣, just ...why?...
10:53 : this hull is too tall (wasted space below the turret basket), this won't help to save weight. 12:15 : this design allows a better protection of the turret ring. How the gunner is supposed to operate the main gun ?
I think the M-II-Y is an example of an idea way before its time. Given that this was the 50s, they had no possible way for the gunner to get a sight picture from the turret down to the hull, although control itself may have been possible, as demonstrated by the turrets on the B-29. Nowadays, the idea would be much more feasible. The gunner of an Abrams has entirely non-optical means to get a sight picture if he so chooses. A tank designed with this in mind from the start could do a lot more. Really, you could move the commander to the hull as well, and should probably replace the loader with an autoloader too, unless you're an American tank designer and feel incredibly attached to your loader. Somebody'll field an MBT with an entirely unmanned turret someday, I'm telling you.
What I really appreciate about one particular feature is the consideration of ammo storage in a protective basket layered with spall. I do not know of any other influences but I feel like those ergonomics have transferred into the Abrahams of today with their electric sliding door and blast hatch.
Although none of those designs became reality (for obvious reasons), it is still important that someone made the design and thought about it. Improvement is only made by questioning the established.
Very peculiar designs. Seems most of the lot would have trouble with gun balance, and the pintle-mounted turret concept does not seem like it would survive impacts of incoming rounds. That turret concept also seems liable to deflect conventional rounds downward right into your ammo storage and driver.
Yeah the KRV project is so fascinating and even if it never was completed i am really happy that the swedes atleast got the Bkan out of it as it is such a cool tank too
The problem that these engineers seem not to get is that these vehicles are too complex. The crew space is not economical and it will be a pain to maintain the vehicle. Also accessibility would be a inconvenience trying to get into battle stations or trying to escape the vehicle if their is a fire.
So I know they mentioned the shock absorbers for "Christie" (read: Torsion bar) suspension, but do ANY of them show a false floor/space for the bars to run across the tank?
Great video loving your stuff. Not sure if possible and I know I'm asking a lot but for a future video can you discuss the diffrences in armor quality between the different countries during ww2. Or a comparison between early, mid, and late war armor quality in german service vehicles. I know a lot of metallurgy changed from 38-45 and I've always wondered how that played into the performance of the various armor packages.
Really original and interesting concepts, some of them looks useful, another ones are just strange. But cool ideas!!! The M-V-Y and the M-VI-Y have a really cool desing!!!
Given that the true aim of this project was to look at unconventional ideas, I would argue that trying to find the flaws in the designs is to literally ignore the point. It might be a fun academic exercise, but it goes completely against the grain. Better would be to ask people, "What did these designs inspire you to imagine?" & "What do you think stood out as the single most unconventional idea shown? (regardless of feasibility)" Personally for the latter of my questions, my answer would be the turret mounted engine. I have heard talk of engines mounted outside of the hull before, but it was always a separate trailing unit, basically a towed generator. It would have never occurred to me in a thousand years to put the engine in the bustle of a turret. addendum: These kinds of "think outside the box" things, are really nothing more than throwing shit at a wall and seeing if anything sticks. They are to the design of actual things what an aperitif is to eating, something to get the creative juices flowing and you don't get creativity from pointing at flaws left and right. You get creativity by positive reinforcement, looking at what is striking, unique, unconventional. This is much more akin to scientific research for research sake than designing an actual product. And just like with that kind of research, you have absolutely no clue what might come of it in a year or in 50 years, maybe nothing, maybe a gamechanger..... but you wont get the latter by focusing on flaws.... leave that to the people who are tasked to bring a concept into reality, not the people creating the concept itself.
My very first thought was that they were trying to solve problem (a) while just creating another, different problem (b): for instance, they keep trying to shorten the tank but ignore how tall it is... It looks like a brainstorming session where you get all the ideas, throw them in a bucket and see which ones float- but done by guys who have never been in a tank. The best of intentions, but...
Great video! Well, I have spotted some issues. The Engine mounted in the turret is definitely an issue!. I can understand why they did it for balance reason but when you have crew that are also in there that's just an all around recipe for disaster! The heat, noise, if it does get hit in that area and there is penetration! There is also possibility for shot traps, etc....
Not only that, but by using the engine in the turret to shorten the hull, you've essentially got the same weight on a shorter track area, thereby increasing the ground pressure, making the tank less able to handle poor ground.
I don't think so either, quite often with such projects they have set of parameters and modules, which will create an engine of size/output etc. for the teams to use. we did similar in the UK with a given volume/hp etc and a made-up name. so they could focus on building a vehicle around a given shape/capability
From a basic operational & maintenance standpoint, putting the engine above everything else almost ensures that everything will have oil on it eventually. Like, everything. Or fuel. Or both. Probably both. And water. basically, the crew would be swimming in filth after a hundred hours of operation. From a safety standpoint....a rollover would be cataclysmic for most of these tanks. There's no way to get the crew out of the oscillating turret should their hatch get jammed up. They would literally have to cut them out. These things all look like deathtraps for at least half the crew, frankly. I love that the loader in that one abominable tank is handing shells up to the gunner blindly and hoping he doesn't drop it back down on his foot. Don't think it wouldn't happen, it would absolutely happen. From an ergonomic standpoint...none of those look even slightly comfortable. And boy would it suck to be sitting in front of the engine up in the one turret--boiling while the driver freezes down below--or vice versa. "Sir, can I turn on the heat?" / "Fuck no." / "I can't feel my toes anymore." / "Stop bitching."
I came across a design of 1945 for a superheavy tracked tractor-trailer combination but no further info on a design bureau/studio name. Found in the archives of the AGFE (Army Ground Forces Equipment) Review board dated June 20th '45. Intresting as the trailer-turret could be dropped to be used as a static defense point but would it really work tankwise ?
Judging by the concept art of the M-V-Y (and the fact that the empty shell is ejected downwards out of the tank), i can safely assume that the 105mm gun was to be fitted with a swing-breach, a design featured exclusively (from what i can tell) the HSTV-L, but the HSTV-L had a 75mm gun and not a 105..
tank crews aren't engineers, so unless by highly trained you mean engineers that had time serveing as tankcrewmen then it doesn't end well, the russians ha crewmen (without engineer training) design tanks and it ended up being a rather bad design.
So, if I get this right, the YOH company created the first Imperial Walker (@ walking tank). Oddness aside, the M-7-YOH was extremely strange, with the engine in the back of the turret. Makes you wonder about weight distribution and, of course, the concern of having the engine blown on a shot to the turret. But, I always keep in mind that, in situations like this, it is more about innovative ideas than it is applicable tech. My main area of concern is the concept of "designer" vs. "user". As a long time IT person and avid video gamer, nothing tickles me more than watching blueprint champions try to design something, probably around combat reports and emotional anecdotes, without the input (I don't know this to be true, btw) of people that would actually use the vehicle. Putting the Commander, in a MG turret, probably doesn't do a lot for vision. Engine in the turret is strange. *MGS EVERWHERE* is just odd, especially since it doesn't take into account venting or casing flying everywhere on top of taking away from primary crew functions. Have to give credit where it is due, though. If it weren't for such bonkers ideas, we would never have been to the moon, have cell phones, etc.
MGs everywhere makes sense as enemy infantry can and there's lots of examples destroy tanks without them being support well. Especially in CQB as the tanks main advantages against infantry can be negated without anything like proper support from stuff like mgs or their own infantry. The main gun can't reload fast enough, turret too slow to maneuver, etc. It makes sense to have a lot of MGs on it to keep infantry at bay especially at CQB.
Wow, this is some wild stuff! The oscillating turret ideas remind me of a Rand study - look up "An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions" 1991, page 103. A Google search gave me a PDF link for the whole thing. Page 103 is a picture of "3 man crew, one behind turret". The Rand study assumes a fully autoloading mechanism, though. Actually, I think the entire document may be generally interesting to you all. It has some interesting ideas for thick top protection, and how to accomplish this while also making it possible to actually open the now VERY heavy crew hatches. The studies for the heavy tank and light vehicle are perhaps worth 2 or 3 videos.
alas no, other than some basic pictures, neithe rof which are great and a few lines of text, not much to go on at all, and no archive docs so even then it would be a gamble :(
Well, people came some months ago when they added this aberrations to WoT Blitz. Aaaaaand now you'll see people coming again after the annoucement for WoT PC. Having so many reasonable and interesting vehicles with prototypes or mock-ups built... Why this THINGS?!
in my opinion I can't understand why they did not think about a electric drive for the 7th design, having the mechanical system inside the crew compartment is way too dangerous, and it is not like it was a new idea since electric drives had been used on the T1 heavy tank and later one of the T20/22/23 series prototypes
What most people haven’t realized about these “designs” is they are preliminary brainstorming by a company not normally designing tanks. These are not meant to be workable plans, just possible concept paths to further explore. One problem in engineering is when you are in a specific industry their is a tendency for design to become somewhat “inbred” engineers will go down certain paths that end up being suboptimal or determine it is too hard to fix, while another industry has an elegant solution already developed, sort of like horse blinders. Bringing in fresh eyes to look at a problem helps to break the “we do it this way because this is the way we do it” problem.
indeed, we cover it a bit and in the next one on the chick & hen, where they are askign for new ideas, that beign said, there is a boundry line between new ideas that could work, and those that would never ever work. and so while im all for new thinking there is a level to which it can be applied
Not being too familiar with some engineering principles, I think they miscalculated the impact capacity from other tanks, the smaller turret ring for instance would most likely bend upon impact as there’s just not enough metal to hold form, other obvious issue is manufacture, modern tanks the turrets are dropped in place, these appear to be built in situ, and as I think about it, air quality is pretty bad, lubricants and also fuel would be in the personnel chambers, the engineering processes in the past were not what we have now.
Not sure why they thought a hull mounted machinegun was necessary on the second one, also I feel conflicted about the mounting of the return rolers on all of them, seems like a bad idea.
Why tho if the "arms" aren't part of the casting it's actually good idea the track touches the ground in front of the hull of the tank resulting in potential mine detonation to do less demage to the hull of the tank saving the crew
@@Miazger this loose part of track wont detonate any AT mine as they need a certain weight to be placed over them, not like infantry mines activating after anything stomps on it.
Seems to me that all of these vehicles have similar problems, they are all incredibly cramped, some to such an extent I doubt you could actually fit all crew members... Also, if you have those double tracks, if the rear gets hit by a mine, now you have twice the tracks to repair, also, how do you tension the backup track? Also, I'm not sure the designer understands how hard it would be to develop a safe reliable revolver cannon for something as large as a 105, not to mention if the mag is mounted DIRECTLY to the breach, you have an insane amount of weight on your gun and would need insane counter balance, not to mention if your not using an oscillating turret, your depression and elevation are probably gonna be absolute trash, and if it is an oscillating turret, well those have their own separate issues. Also I may have personally missed it, but do any of these have coax machine guns? On the topic of machine guns, how were you supposed to aim the side mounted mg? Let's not forget just the general lack of view ports for gunner and loader and don't forget the lack of loader hatch either... These things look great on paper but I have a feeling in reality they would have been more cramped and uncomfortable than a t54... Can't imagine how long it would take to fully restock ammo... Specifically for the m III, what is the point of those hull mg's? if your driver is supposed to use them he doesnt have very good optics to, not to mention they will be taking up insane amounts of space and cramping the driver even more (if that's even possible) also, from the looks of it, that MIII's turret lower is a massive shot trap and would probably be incredibly easy to jam... Also after looking at it, how the fuck do you tension the tracks?
There's no problem with putting sights for the gunner to use, except for the fact that in order for the gunner to be able to see over a ridge in front of the tank, it has to stick the entire turret down to the turret ring up over the ridge until the gunner's optics clear the ridge. With modern technology, it would be possible to put optics on the top of the turret and remote them down to the gunner, but that wasn't available at the time, and doing that would mean that if the remote optics were damaged, you'd have to revert to sights on the top of the hull, reinstating the original problem.
OMG now I see where the fallout 4 art team got their ideas for the tanks in the commonwealth. I always wondered where they got those ideas from or what inspired them
With modern batteries you could make that turret engine work - smallish turbine for cruise and a battery for "combat boost," assuming you use an electric drive in the hull, like a normal human. Nope, the mad lads wanted a spinning metal drive connecting to a bog standard transmission. Because nothing adds to the fun, when a tank is hit, like a spinning cog of death flying around the crew space. Not so much a "turret monster" as a "turret kaiju."
The classic PlayStation game Panzerfront had a series of somewhat feasible, imagined WW2 tank designs. I imagine the team behind Panzerfront would've designed these exactly if it had been set in the 50s
Engine in the turret, fuel tank in the hull. So presumably a very flexible hose pipe going up to the turret.. and if it keeps rotating in the same direction, it eventually breaks and sprays the fuel over everything but the engine.
Oh my, +1 point for 'glacis', -1 point for 'cupola'. It's queue-poll-uh. For a brief moment, I thought the fault with the tanks of Yoh was the cupholder on the turret roof. :-)
Its rather tragic that the armored combat vehicles are designed by guys who are given a design parameter by other guys who have seemingly never had someone shhot at them in anger. Typical case is the M113 APC in Vietam and the Bradly in in Desert Storm. The designers required a vehicle that is amphibious which meant aluminum armor,if aluminum can be classed as armor. Because the first time in combat,one learns very quickly that APC's that can fly and float are vulnerable to anything bigger than an AK47. Let alone an RPG - 7 or greater. The first thing they do is start piling on add on armor ,because the poor guys inside these tin cans start getting killed. Then they dont float anymore. Which should never have been a design requirement -in the first place. Nothing in the armor business changed until the Brits developed Chobham and Dorchester armor to defeat shaped charged weapons. The Abrams was built around it and with the additional use of depleted uranium that killed any more silly nonsense of cast steel hulls and turrets.
@@gurkengamingpvz21 who knows itll be a medium tank that you can't pen the turret at all lol and the t57 has weak spots in the turret but its a pretty good tank if played right
I have no idea why, of all positions to put an extra machine gun, they thought the left side of the turret was the place. The turret is the only part of a tank that - ideally - *always faces forwards towards the enemy.*
I say the Swedish S tank is the most radical thinking so far, and it made it into production and actual military deployment. One question I often wondered, why tanks need a 105 /120 mm gun when the A10 just make do with 30mm. So far, the biggest gun on most APCs are 25 mm guns.
while the 30 mm Gau on the old A10 was effective in its day, it was still only effective against the tops and rear plate of tanks and will strafe those areas or preferably just use missiles. It will have 0 effect against the frontal armour of anything post 1970, for that you need the big guns.
As noted, the A10 had the option of shooting downward at the thin top armor of a tank. So here's an "outside the box" thinking challenge - how can we mount a 30mm auto-cannon on a tank, so it can shoot downward at the thin top armor of a tank? Well, what goes up must come down. Unfortunately, gravity is not very strong so it takes a long time for even a slow mortar round to come back down. But hypersonic glide vehicles can reportedly pull something like 100 gees. If we shape APDS bullets like lifting bodies, and the gun is elevated 60 degrees, then the bullets will pull back down to the ground in 2 seconds, covering about 1.5km. Depending on how many gees it pulls, we're talking a useful range perhaps between 1.5km and 20km. If an enemy is too close, you get a buddy further away to shoot at it. I imagine some sort of guidance is the most practical way to actually get this to hit a target - maybe a mini version of 76mm DART. The bullet looks like APFSDS, but with rotating canards in front for maneuvering. A magnetic clutch brakes the slightly asymmetric canards so they stop rotating where desired. (This guidance principle is used by Starstreak and DART.) Obviously it would be a big technological challenge to make this all work. But the benefit is that you have a true turret-less tank, with just a fixed chain gun barrel poking out the top, and hundreds of rounds of ammo, and able to hit targets out to maybe 20km. Rate of fire is up to four rounds per second, so the real rate of fire depends on how quickly you run out of targets to shoot at.
Mine flails? The Yoh company may have caught WWII syndrome. All the funny Sherman designs... In the end it was suprisingly the British who made the firefly, capable of hitting a Tiger 1. Oddly enough the same country that thought the TOGII was a good idea (but that was because of the particular dev team so)
![OhGeesy x Lefty Gunplay - What It Iz [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0yzW9t2ixk/mqdefault.jpg)
Let us know which faults you have spotted in those tanks! ✌️
Do you want to hear Ed's rant about the issues in those tanks as a follow-up video? Please vote on whether we should make that vid.
www.strawpoll.me/20967894
haha so far, it's 100% in favour ;)
Would love a follow up video. Great video, I am enjoying your channel, great information. Keep up the good work.
So, the M2 with the gunner in the hull. What if the enemy decides to be most inconsiderate, and not stand quietly in front of the tank?
WG gives the Y-oh's on blitz this june for update 8.0
WG
Without making too long a list, it seems like the YOH design team had generally acquainted themselves with the design principles of tanks, but that they didn't have knowledge or appreciation for certain design elements that had already been tried and failed, or those few that were found useful, but had since become outdated. Some of the elements (such as the mine flails and the walking feet) seem to be ideas from people with absolutely no military experience whatsoever.
They were also guilty of the classic engineer's blunder, developing interesting systems that added complexity and cost out of all proportion to the claimed benefit.
It's amazing to me that they tried so many things to shuffle weight and ammunition around, with sensible goals like balancing the gun, increasing the ready rounds, and protecting the crew, but rather than settling on putting the ammo in the turret bustle in even one of their designs.... they decided to put the entire engine up there instead. ಠ_ಠ
Ikr, why would you try and make something so complicated for absolutely no reason, if you need counter balance on the turret, add armor or give it turret ammo storage....
I guess they got payed to fool around in a then current brainstorm session. With the Russian Armata tank you have a okay unmannend auto turret. An idea they shied away from. All ammo in the auto turret. Two crew in turret.
And the Swedish S tank idea.
These guys knew full well it was impossible. Yet that was just the very good idea of the ? Programme. What you think is a bad or even impossible idea might be possible in the eyes of other engineers who contray to you know of new technologies.
Jet engines. Lighter stronger materials or production techniques.
So getting payed to goof around it is then unfair to point to mistakes asif they didn't know that.
Walking feet were stupid, but what was bad about the flails specifically?
@@Zorro9129 Yea flails seem like a decent proposal
@@Sveta7 That actually was a good one so no idea why OP said it wasn't. As it would be pretty cheap and could give some decent improvements to survival against mine threats. I don't know about you but between a 2k piece of rotation steel and its assembly or a 300k tank and crew I think I am gonna sacrifice the 2k piece of steel. Mind you it wouldn't be a amazing flail but it definitely would not be a horrible idea.
Putting an engine in the turret presents a whole host of problems, especially if mechanical coupling is used to transmit the power, as opposed to electro-motive drive. Even if electro-motive drive was selected, it would represent a significant rotating mass and the turret would necessarily be able to turn faster in one direction than the other. It would eliminate the degree of isolation from a source of vibration that the gun and its attendant optics enjoy by being mounted to a separate structure, just like an ordinary pick-up truck will ride better than even modern luxury cars because it enjoys body-on-frame construction which has been abandoned for cars entirely. Putting the engine in the turret would also probably render manual traverse either impossible or unreasonably difficult, or slow, or both. It just seems a stupid way to balance the turret compared to putting literally every other piece of possible equipment into that space to balance out the gun, everything from the radios to the coffee pot, and letting the engine be in its proper place in the hull. Let us not even say anything about the difficulties that would arise from transmitting the power mechanically to the drive...
Not to mention that they have now placed the fuel tank much higher in the vehicle in a rotating platform where it is EXTREMELY exposed compared to being nestled in the rear of the tank chassis.
I also didn’t see any exhaust or intake vents on that turret. Adding them, as would be necessary in order to have an engine that functions, would probably compromise the armor integrity of the turret and would poentially blow exhaust into the face of the commander whenever he pops out of his cupola. Not to mention that it would be miserably hot and loud inside the turret, making communications even harder if the comms system ever breaks down.
Having exhaust ports located so high in the vehicle would also make any exhaust plume that much taller and more visible.
Imagine a turret being set on engine fire
@@aaroncruz9181 its easy to extinguish the fire, and easy to blow if the fire is stubborn
i am not smart enough to understand
Why the heck aren't you working for a defense contractor dude?
I love the old 1950s-60s style of these tanks, while some ideas were super bizarre, not all their ideas went to waste. The ammunition fire funnel system lives on with our blowout panels.
I know that I'm probably being effected by my upbringing in the US during the 1950s-60s, but it looks like the Yoh company was doing designs for Matel, HASBRO, and several other toy companies for the toy tanks we played with.
by 1953 the M103 and M48 were the 2 newest tanks in the US, I assume there was some "propaganda" about them and toy companies were simply copying the new normal
also, I cannot say for sure but I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the Ordenance Departmant did hire toy companies to make models for them
Smaller scales models are basically toys cause of their size and the nature. It makes sense doing this way cause the companies probably want to see how it's design in model form, problems and how will it scale up. Many wind tunnels use this concept nowadays. Saves time, allows them to see any mistakes, and money. Before doing the project.
My main question about these designs (particularly 5-7) is what the *actual* hell was going on in this design process
drugs...
@@armouredarchives8867 lots of drugs...
The wierdest tank is the m-v-yoh, its like a ww2 rover or a noodle with a long metal rod on it, the loader and the gunner and the commander have to fit and sit inside the tank, while the gun rack must be in below the gun.
The ingenous idea of engine in the turret should be augmented by putting main gun in the body of the tank. When tank would need to pivot fast to acquire target, small legs would come out on sides, rotating whole tanks fast.
When all the world of tanks blitz ppl are watching this video
:D
So true xd
True
It's funny how this randomly came across my recommendations just a couple hours after seeing the new update
So fun, it was a recomendation of youtube lmao
I once worked for HL Yoh. I had no idea they had done this.
A 105mm revolver cannon? I'd love to see somebody actually make one.
T54E1: Done.
T57: 120mm is the way.
T58: I stole the T30's gun.
@@hanhphuc166 T57 and T58 never really happened, but yeah T54e1
@@hanhphuc166 T30 be like 'he stole me nose'
French tanks: 🙃
AMX 13 in Dutch use. Yet wasn't used as a light tank but tank hunter next to AMX TOW. Taking over so the TOW could reposition or reload missiles. AMX 13 105 was nicknamed the revolver on roller skates.
You've got yourself a new subscriber here, this was fascinating.
I imagine the 'drawing board' consisted of a few pencils, 1/5 of a Reem of paper and every known drug available at the time. No.7 is hilarious 🤣, just ...why?...
10:53 : this hull is too tall (wasted space below the turret basket), this won't help to save weight.
12:15 : this design allows a better protection of the turret ring. How the gunner is supposed to operate the main gun ?
>this hull is too tall
Basically every single tank has that and is usually where ammo is stored.
I think the M-II-Y is an example of an idea way before its time. Given that this was the 50s, they had no possible way for the gunner to get a sight picture from the turret down to the hull, although control itself may have been possible, as demonstrated by the turrets on the B-29. Nowadays, the idea would be much more feasible. The gunner of an Abrams has entirely non-optical means to get a sight picture if he so chooses. A tank designed with this in mind from the start could do a lot more. Really, you could move the commander to the hull as well, and should probably replace the loader with an autoloader too, unless you're an American tank designer and feel incredibly attached to your loader. Somebody'll field an MBT with an entirely unmanned turret someday, I'm telling you.
There's really no one who knows Flawed Tank design like the British, Its in their DNA..
What I really appreciate about one particular feature is the consideration of ammo storage in a protective basket layered with spall. I do not know of any other influences but I feel like those ergonomics have transferred into the Abrahams of today with their electric sliding door and blast hatch.
Although none of those designs became reality (for obvious reasons), it is still important that someone made the design and thought about it. Improvement is only made by questioning the established.
Very peculiar designs. Seems most of the lot would have trouble with gun balance, and the pintle-mounted turret concept does not seem like it would survive impacts of incoming rounds. That turret concept also seems liable to deflect conventional rounds downward right into your ammo storage and driver.
yup! glad somebody spotted that!
Leading to SEE. "Significant Emotional Events".
Short hulls and long guns . . . a recipe for the WoT pole vault event.
The yohs are some of my favourite tanks in wot blitz,its brilliant how they brought them to life in the game
WoT Blitz gonna add this to the game. So, get ready for new views!
+++
Смешно будет, если в этом видео и есть вся ветка.
just waiting to see somebody copy paste my work then claim it as there own stuff :p
yess true
@@armouredarchives8867 Вот бы сюда кто нибудь сделал субтитры. Видео подняло бы просмотров.
I think I had an aneurysm on the last one.... Engine in the turret and without an electric drive so mechanical power transfer to gearbox... X_X
As a Swede I would love to hear your opinion on the Strv 103.
Man if only the kranvagn was completed by the swedes. Its a very nice design.
S-tanks & merkavas were some of the best.
Yeah the KRV project is so fascinating and even if it never was completed i am really happy that the swedes atleast got the Bkan out of it as it is such a cool tank too
the fundamental issue is that the designers drank on the job, as the first photo reveals - it's no wonder their designs were troublesome :D
The problem that these engineers seem not to get is that these vehicles are too complex. The crew space is not economical and it will be a pain to maintain the vehicle. Also accessibility would be a inconvenience trying to get into battle stations or trying to escape the vehicle if their is a fire.
"Oh bugger! The tank is on fire!", then "Owwwww!" as they hit things on the way out.
Wait... WHERE ARE THE HATCHES?!
They soldered them in - no retreat!
Brings new meaning to death before dismount.
Makes the "Oh bugger, the tank's on fire" test interesting...
Hatches? We ain't got no hatches! We don't need no hatches! I don't have to show you any stinking hatches!
So I know they mentioned the shock absorbers for "Christie" (read: Torsion bar) suspension, but do ANY of them show a false floor/space for the bars to run across the tank?
nope non drawn in :)
10:55 and 17:50 seem to have small circles to represent torsion bars. (And arms in latter case)
I didn't even know these tanks existed until just a few months ago, thank you for this great information!
They didn’t exist. They were just on paper.
@@Musicwurx that's what I meant
Great video loving your stuff. Not sure if possible and I know I'm asking a lot but for a future video can you discuss the diffrences in armor quality between the different countries during ww2. Or a comparison between early, mid, and late war armor quality in german service vehicles. I know a lot of metallurgy changed from 38-45 and I've always wondered how that played into the performance of the various armor packages.
we have one vid on the german armour already up, and there will be a second part and so on :)
Really original and interesting concepts, some of them looks useful, another ones are just strange. But cool ideas!!! The M-V-Y and the M-VI-Y have a really cool desing!!!
Given that the true aim of this project was to look at unconventional ideas, I would argue that trying to find the flaws in the designs is to literally ignore the point. It might be a fun academic exercise, but it goes completely against the grain.
Better would be to ask people, "What did these designs inspire you to imagine?" & "What do you think stood out as the single most unconventional idea shown? (regardless of feasibility)"
Personally for the latter of my questions, my answer would be the turret mounted engine. I have heard talk of engines mounted outside of the hull before, but it was always a separate trailing unit, basically a towed generator. It would have never occurred to me in a thousand years to put the engine in the bustle of a turret.
addendum: These kinds of "think outside the box" things, are really nothing more than throwing shit at a wall and seeing if anything sticks. They are to the design of actual things what an aperitif is to eating, something to get the creative juices flowing and you don't get creativity from pointing at flaws left and right. You get creativity by positive reinforcement, looking at what is striking, unique, unconventional. This is much more akin to scientific research for research sake than designing an actual product. And just like with that kind of research, you have absolutely no clue what might come of it in a year or in 50 years, maybe nothing, maybe a gamechanger..... but you wont get the latter by focusing on flaws.... leave that to the people who are tasked to bring a concept into reality, not the people creating the concept itself.
welcome, PC players. here lies our intrest for the Yph series from Blitz players, 6 months ago.... now, itd your turn!
They never knew what was comming.
My very first thought was that they were trying to solve problem (a) while just creating another, different problem (b): for instance, they keep trying to shorten the tank but ignore how tall it is...
It looks like a brainstorming session where you get all the ideas, throw them in a bucket and see which ones float- but done by guys who have never been in a tank. The best of intentions, but...
Great video! Well, I have spotted some issues. The Engine mounted in the turret is definitely an issue!.
I can understand why they did it for balance reason but when you have crew that are also in there that's just an all around recipe for disaster! The heat, noise, if it does get hit in that area and there is penetration!
There is also possibility for shot traps, etc....
Not only that, but by using the engine in the turret to shorten the hull, you've essentially got the same weight on a shorter track area, thereby increasing the ground pressure, making the tank less able to handle poor ground.
They all had the crazy inner track design (!) Damn, what were these guys on!
Well some believe me views are archaic but that gun really sticks out
Where did you get the color pictures of tanks? I've only been able to find like two of those pictures.
in the archives, at bovington :P
As far as I can tell, the AOSI-1195 engine design never went anywhere.
I don't think so either, quite often with such projects they have set of parameters and modules, which will create an engine of size/output etc. for the teams to use. we did similar in the UK with a given volume/hp etc and a made-up name. so they could focus on building a vehicle around a given shape/capability
the concepts are so funky
Very nice video, interesting content! Thanks!
From a basic operational & maintenance standpoint, putting the engine above everything else almost ensures that everything will have oil on it eventually. Like, everything. Or fuel. Or both. Probably both. And water. basically, the crew would be swimming in filth after a hundred hours of operation. From a safety standpoint....a rollover would be cataclysmic for most of these tanks. There's no way to get the crew out of the oscillating turret should their hatch get jammed up. They would literally have to cut them out. These things all look like deathtraps for at least half the crew, frankly. I love that the loader in that one abominable tank is handing shells up to the gunner blindly and hoping he doesn't drop it back down on his foot. Don't think it wouldn't happen, it would absolutely happen. From an ergonomic standpoint...none of those look even slightly comfortable. And boy would it suck to be sitting in front of the engine up in the one turret--boiling while the driver freezes down below--or vice versa. "Sir, can I turn on the heat?" / "Fuck no." / "I can't feel my toes anymore." / "Stop bitching."
exactly! they overcame some problems and created many more
I came across a design of 1945 for a superheavy tracked tractor-trailer combination but no further info on a design bureau/studio name. Found in the archives of the AGFE (Army Ground Forces Equipment) Review board dated June 20th '45. Intresting as the trailer-turret could be dropped to be used as a static defense point but would it really work tankwise ?
Fun fact:Every world of tank blitz player got this on their recommendation
jokes on you i actually searched for it
@@goomba0072 searched for it gang
guilty!!!
@@freda8586 objection!
i searched it 😂😂😂
Judging by the concept art of the M-V-Y (and the fact that the empty shell is ejected downwards out of the tank), i can safely assume that the 105mm gun was to be fitted with a swing-breach, a design featured exclusively (from what i can tell) the HSTV-L, but the HSTV-L had a 75mm gun and not a 105..
Men in expensive suits designing tanks, here's a thought why not get a group of highly trained tank crews to design one instead! Good video!
tank crews aren't engineers, so unless by highly trained you mean engineers that had time serveing as tankcrewmen then it doesn't end well, the russians ha crewmen (without engineer training) design tanks and it ended up being a rather bad design.
I'm wondering where you get all those pictures, could you please show us the Cites?
bovington tank musuem archives
So, if I get this right, the YOH company created the first Imperial Walker (@ walking tank). Oddness aside, the M-7-YOH was extremely strange, with the engine in the back of the turret. Makes you wonder about weight distribution and, of course, the concern of having the engine blown on a shot to the turret. But, I always keep in mind that, in situations like this, it is more about innovative ideas than it is applicable tech.
My main area of concern is the concept of "designer" vs. "user". As a long time IT person and avid video gamer, nothing tickles me more than watching blueprint champions try to design something, probably around combat reports and emotional anecdotes, without the input (I don't know this to be true, btw) of people that would actually use the vehicle. Putting the Commander, in a MG turret, probably doesn't do a lot for vision. Engine in the turret is strange. *MGS EVERWHERE* is just odd, especially since it doesn't take into account venting or casing flying everywhere on top of taking away from primary crew functions.
Have to give credit where it is due, though. If it weren't for such bonkers ideas, we would never have been to the moon, have cell phones, etc.
MGs everywhere makes sense as enemy infantry can and there's lots of examples destroy tanks without them being support well. Especially in CQB as the tanks main advantages against infantry can be negated without anything like proper support from stuff like mgs or their own infantry. The main gun can't reload fast enough, turret too slow to maneuver, etc. It makes sense to have a lot of MGs on it to keep infantry at bay especially at CQB.
"*MGS EVERYWHERE* is just odd"
US Millitary in late 1930s: wha-
I've got to try some of this in Sprocket
I already know where WG takes tank ideas into the game from: D
Wow, this is some wild stuff! The oscillating turret ideas remind me of a Rand study - look up "An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions" 1991, page 103. A Google search gave me a PDF link for the whole thing.
Page 103 is a picture of "3 man crew, one behind turret". The Rand study assumes a fully autoloading mechanism, though.
Actually, I think the entire document may be generally interesting to you all. It has some interesting ideas for thick top protection, and how to accomplish this while also making it possible to actually open the now VERY heavy crew hatches. The studies for the heavy tank and light vehicle are perhaps worth 2 or 3 videos.
I’m surprised these haven’t shown up on WOT.
they are gonna release one of them on wot blitz lol
Yes next update lol
Some ideas have their place. Inner tracks would be great today for example.
*Thanks for posting this informative video. Liked & subcribed!!!*
Thanks for the sub!
Those quad-track designs look super cool lol.
In adding these to World of Tanks they are starting the line with the Pawlack tank. Do you have any information on that particular design project?
alas no, other than some basic pictures, neithe rof which are great and a few lines of text, not much to go on at all, and no archive docs so even then it would be a gamble :(
What the heck where they using at that conference?!
That last one is a riot
Well, people came some months ago when they added this aberrations to WoT Blitz. Aaaaaand now you'll see people coming again after the annoucement for WoT PC.
Having so many reasonable and interesting vehicles with prototypes or mock-ups built... Why this THINGS?!
The Tanks of Yoh sounds like a science fantasy novel.
Don't forget the designs on the Tanks of Yoh as well ol
in my opinion I can't understand why they did not think about a electric drive for the 7th design, having the mechanical system inside the crew compartment is way too dangerous, and it is not like it was a new idea since electric drives had been used on the T1 heavy tank and later one of the T20/22/23 series prototypes
considering a EMP threat perhaps?
@@RFi731
If the engine is gasoline it doesn't matter.
Most of those ideas where decent to great. But not used on a battlefield, inside a cramped tank that needs to be mentained and mass produced.
What most people haven’t realized about these “designs” is they are preliminary brainstorming by a company not normally designing tanks. These are not meant to be workable plans, just possible concept paths to further explore. One problem in engineering is when you are in a specific industry their is a tendency for design to become somewhat “inbred” engineers will go down certain paths that end up being suboptimal or determine it is too hard to fix, while another industry has an elegant solution already developed, sort of like horse blinders. Bringing in fresh eyes to look at a problem helps to break the “we do it this way because this is the way we do it” problem.
indeed, we cover it a bit and in the next one on the chick & hen, where they are askign for new ideas, that beign said, there is a boundry line between new ideas that could work, and those that would never ever work. and so while im all for new thinking there is a level to which it can be applied
A scale model in front of a watercolor painting 👍
Not being too familiar with some engineering principles, I think they miscalculated the impact capacity from other tanks, the smaller turret ring for instance would most likely bend upon impact as there’s just not enough metal to hold form, other obvious issue is manufacture, modern tanks the turrets are dropped in place, these appear to be built in situ, and as I think about it, air quality is pretty bad, lubricants and also fuel would be in the personnel chambers, the engineering processes in the past were not what we have now.
I would dare to say the M-IV-Y, M-V-Y, and the M-VI-Y would be great tanks to see in a fallout game.
And now the YOH tanks are coming to WOT PC
Imagine being the guy driving at 13:35! Hull down or I'm hittin the pavement
Not sure why they thought a hull mounted machinegun was necessary on the second one, also I feel conflicted about the mounting of the return rolers on all of them, seems like a bad idea.
Why tho if the "arms" aren't part of the casting it's actually good idea the track touches the ground in front of the hull of the tank resulting in potential mine detonation to do less demage to the hull of the tank saving the crew
@@Miazger this loose part of track wont detonate any AT mine as they need a certain weight to be placed over them, not like infantry mines activating after anything stomps on it.
The M-V-Y has such an unusual design it looks like something out of a Sci-Fi series.
Seems to me that all of these vehicles have similar problems, they are all incredibly cramped, some to such an extent I doubt you could actually fit all crew members... Also, if you have those double tracks, if the rear gets hit by a mine, now you have twice the tracks to repair, also, how do you tension the backup track? Also, I'm not sure the designer understands how hard it would be to develop a safe reliable revolver cannon for something as large as a 105, not to mention if the mag is mounted DIRECTLY to the breach, you have an insane amount of weight on your gun and would need insane counter balance, not to mention if your not using an oscillating turret, your depression and elevation are probably gonna be absolute trash, and if it is an oscillating turret, well those have their own separate issues. Also I may have personally missed it, but do any of these have coax machine guns? On the topic of machine guns, how were you supposed to aim the side mounted mg? Let's not forget just the general lack of view ports for gunner and loader and don't forget the lack of loader hatch either... These things look great on paper but I have a feeling in reality they would have been more cramped and uncomfortable than a t54... Can't imagine how long it would take to fully restock ammo... Specifically for the m III, what is the point of those hull mg's? if your driver is supposed to use them he doesnt have very good optics to, not to mention they will be taking up insane amounts of space and cramping the driver even more (if that's even possible) also, from the looks of it, that MIII's turret lower is a massive shot trap and would probably be incredibly easy to jam... Also after looking at it, how the fuck do you tension the tracks?
One year latter. Arriving Yoh tank into WoT....
Very good channel with so few response 🙁
Tell me about it
Haha the YOH II gunner won't be able to properly aim. I also like the re-introduction of MOAR MACHINE GUNS.
MOAR
@@cryohellinc MOAR!
There's no problem with putting sights for the gunner to use, except for the fact that in order for the gunner to be able to see over a ridge in front of the tank, it has to stick the entire turret down to the turret ring up over the ridge until the gunner's optics clear the ridge. With modern technology, it would be possible to put optics on the top of the turret and remote them down to the gunner, but that wasn't available at the time, and doing that would mean that if the remote optics were damaged, you'd have to revert to sights on the top of the hull, reinstating the original problem.
What makes the M VI Yoh different from the AMX 13? 🤔
the VI, well ther eis no fightign basket, which is a pretty big change :p
OMG now I see where the fallout 4 art team got their ideas for the tanks in the commonwealth. I always wondered where they got those ideas from or what inspired them
I like how this popped in my recommended days after the WOT teaser trailer...
What brilliant designs! They should built them!
With modern batteries you could make that turret engine work - smallish turbine for cruise and a battery for "combat boost," assuming you use an electric drive in the hull, like a normal human. Nope, the mad lads wanted a spinning metal drive connecting to a bog standard transmission. Because nothing adds to the fun, when a tank is hit, like a spinning cog of death flying around the crew space. Not so much a "turret monster" as a "turret kaiju."
WoTBlitz bois is coming! 😃
BTW youtube is recommending me lol
Hope you enjoy!
you are a good guy
The classic PlayStation game Panzerfront had a series of somewhat feasible, imagined WW2 tank designs.
I imagine the team behind Panzerfront would've designed these exactly if it had been set in the 50s
The more you go into the past, the higher the people seemed to get in these tank conferences, both American and British.
A lot of ideas ahead of the tech ability
Engine in the turret, fuel tank in the hull. So presumably a very flexible hose pipe going up to the turret.. and if it keeps rotating in the same direction, it eventually breaks and sprays the fuel over everything but the engine.
You would need a very expensive hose pipe for this thing to work lol
Funny how not only in blitz but now on PC the YoH tanks are gonan come and not only that they almost fill all of the branch just missing the YoH 1
I love design of M-V-Y, M-VI-Y and M-VII-Y these boys like a Xenomorph Aliens Family. Haha
Firt half of the video: interestting design
second half of the video: WTF they were smoking?!
how long befor these are prems in wot
Shudders, dont know, they will probly get it wrong :p
@@armouredarchives8867 its in wotblitz now
In the tech tree
Oh my, +1 point for 'glacis', -1 point for 'cupola'. It's queue-poll-uh. For a brief moment, I thought the fault with the tanks of Yoh was the cupholder on the turret roof. :-)
Sehr interessantes Video. Vielen Dank!👍
You actually see some of these concepts in use in modern tanks.
Its rather tragic that the armored combat vehicles are designed by guys who are given a design parameter by other guys who have seemingly never had someone shhot at them in anger.
Typical case is the M113 APC in Vietam and the Bradly in in Desert Storm.
The designers required a vehicle that is amphibious which meant aluminum armor,if aluminum can be classed as armor.
Because the first time in combat,one learns very quickly that APC's that can fly and float are vulnerable to anything bigger than an AK47.
Let alone an RPG - 7 or greater.
The first thing they do is start piling on add on armor ,because the poor guys inside these tin cans start getting killed.
Then they dont float anymore.
Which should never have been a design requirement -in the first place.
Nothing in the armor business changed until the Brits developed Chobham and Dorchester armor to defeat shaped charged weapons.
The Abrams was built around it and with the additional use of depleted uranium that killed any more silly nonsense of cast steel hulls and turrets.
Don't compare mah boi the Gavin to the Bradley.
Audio level is a bit better :-)
Yup it's louder for sure 👍
This tank comes to wot blitz now
I wonder if it'll be good
Probably like the t57 heavy
@@gurkengamingpvz21 who knows itll be a medium tank that you can't pen the turret at all lol and the t57 has weak spots in the turret but its a pretty good tank if played right
Теперь понятно что картоха ничего не курила, а просто ютуб посмотрела…🥳
Ничего себе я думал это опять выдумка картохи, а оказывается такая штука и в реальности могла быть.
I have no idea why, of all positions to put an extra machine gun, they thought the left side of the turret was the place. The turret is the only part of a tank that - ideally - *always faces forwards towards the enemy.*
No track tensioning
I say the Swedish S tank is the most radical thinking so far, and it made it into production and actual military deployment. One question I often wondered, why tanks need a 105 /120 mm gun when the A10 just make do with 30mm. So far, the biggest gun on most APCs are 25 mm guns.
while the 30 mm Gau on the old A10 was effective in its day, it was still only effective against the tops and rear plate of tanks and will strafe those areas or preferably just use missiles. It will have 0 effect against the frontal armour of anything post 1970, for that you need the big guns.
Cannon on a10 is suicidal when used in environment where even manpads are present, its very reliable way to scrap your own cas fleet.
As noted, the A10 had the option of shooting downward at the thin top armor of a tank. So here's an "outside the box" thinking challenge - how can we mount a 30mm auto-cannon on a tank, so it can shoot downward at the thin top armor of a tank?
Well, what goes up must come down. Unfortunately, gravity is not very strong so it takes a long time for even a slow mortar round to come back down. But hypersonic glide vehicles can reportedly pull something like 100 gees. If we shape APDS bullets like lifting bodies, and the gun is elevated 60 degrees, then the bullets will pull back down to the ground in 2 seconds, covering about 1.5km. Depending on how many gees it pulls, we're talking a useful range perhaps between 1.5km and 20km. If an enemy is too close, you get a buddy further away to shoot at it.
I imagine some sort of guidance is the most practical way to actually get this to hit a target - maybe a mini version of 76mm DART. The bullet looks like APFSDS, but with rotating canards in front for maneuvering. A magnetic clutch brakes the slightly asymmetric canards so they stop rotating where desired. (This guidance principle is used by Starstreak and DART.)
Obviously it would be a big technological challenge to make this all work. But the benefit is that you have a true turret-less tank, with just a fixed chain gun barrel poking out the top, and hundreds of rounds of ammo, and able to hit targets out to maybe 20km. Rate of fire is up to four rounds per second, so the real rate of fire depends on how quickly you run out of targets to shoot at.
I worked for H. L. Yoh in the 70's.
Mine flails?
The Yoh company may have caught WWII syndrome. All the funny Sherman designs...
In the end it was suprisingly the British who made the firefly, capable of hitting a Tiger 1. Oddly enough the same country that thought the TOGII was a good idea (but that was because of the particular dev team so)
I like to think that world of tanks just comes to this channel when they are out of ideas of tanks to implement