Some time after WWIII: “The British Fletcher tank was not a terribly fast tank but was loved by its crew because of its pleasant nature. It can easily be identified by its large broom or “mustache” which was used to sweep away enemy troops”
Another excellent video by the only man to truly embody a British Churchill MkIV in human form: Prof. David Fletcher, PhD in Tankology of Bovington University.
I'm always amazed at how much he looks like the quintessential English boffin. I imagine legions of him wandering around Bletchley Park and other places like that.
There was one engagement, Bogheim 9th December 1944 part of the Battle of the Bulge where Stuart crews hit one of the larger German Self propelled guns over 100 times without doing any significant damage. This was used as an example to build the case for replacing the Stuart with a better armed tank, but also demonstrates how aggressive light tankers could be even when greatly outmatched by heavily armoured and armed opposition. Undoubtedly the Stuart was useful for scouting, but it could also be a threat to Axis Infantry if they lacked Anti tank weapons.
Theirs also the a story during the battle of the bulge where a m8 greyhound aggressively charged the rear of king tiger taking out the engine and starting a fire inside the tank
" This was used as an example to build the case for replacing the Stuart with a better armed tank, but also demonstrates how aggressive light tankers could be even when greatly outmatched by heavily armoured and armed opposition. " It also demonstrates that a partially disabled SPG can't rotate to put your light tank in it's sights, and that you want to pin that sucker down even if your fire is ineffective, while you wait for something bigger to arrive. If you're lucky, your 37mm does manage to fully disable it, and they weren't lucky. You're safe from the SPG's fire, but you haven't killed it, maybe can't kill it, but you're keeping the crew buttoned up inside so they can't do anything else...
I'd love to see David speak his mind/opinion on Soviet + Warsaw Pact Tanks from the Cold War Period (T-55's, T-72's etc..) Unless he's done something like that already, in which case could someone point it out to me please! :D Many thanks in advance
I’m 28 and I just inherited a 1939 LaSalle ( Cadillac sub-division of General Motors ‘27-1940 ) and it has the engine that was used for this tank. I can say it’s one of simplicity and extremely reliable even today in a passenger car. I find it fascinating that Cadillac-LaSalle could just stop making cars and pluck a V8 off the assembly line, adapt it to 24Volt power and put it in a tank no problem...I really don’t see that ever happening again. thank you so much, I love this series!
It pivots directly backwards so it ends up upside down behind the cover. If you imagine pointing the barrel backwards and then swivelling the whole lot including post backwards and under you can see how it fits.👍
The Stewart is my favorite tank as it was the first tank I ever saw up close. THanks for this summary of the Stewarts, I will watch it again, both to better remember the various versions, and to listen to Mr. Fletcher over again.
@Ray I saw a documentary showing how the US WW2 tank destroyer could out pace a ww2 jeep, both from a standing start. The hydromatic system made a huge difference, providing masses of torque! Clever stuff.
I'm (slowly) building a 1/6 scale RC Stuart M5 A1 using the 21st Century Stuart version as the base vehicle. Lots of folks have done this and it is a lot of fun. Very nice to see the tank featured in a current video from the Tank Museum. ;o)
I wonder how David feels if he ever reads the comments about the cult of personality around him and his mustche. Edit: Wait i got a heart from the tank museum dies that mean David actaully read my comment or some one from the crew laughed at it?
Ask the brazilians. The Bernardini X1A2 tank was the last tank to be developed from a Stuart. (90 mm gun, extra sloping, Scania diesel engines, extra bogie due to elongated chassis)
Would it be cheeky to recommend professor Fletcher’s glorious mustache get it’s own channel? I thoroughly enjoy the series sir! Keep up the excellent effort.
My Grandad started his service in WWII driving a tank transporter that carried what he called a "Honey tank"; always wondered what that was and now I know! Just wish he was still around to show this to him... But, thank you anyway Mr Fletcher for enlightening me 🙂
Always great to see Mr. Fletcher. This video series is very enjoyable. I always learn from them, and the facts, period footage, and humor are great. I sometimes wonder how effective the 37 mm gun is. Certainly it would be fine against unarmored truck convoys or light armored vehicles. Probably ok against pillboxes and such too. If they carried some rounds of case shot, it would be good against infantry as well. I know Chesty Puller thought well of the USMC crew served 37mm guns with case shot in the island campaigns. That is a good endorsement. Anyway, i wonder what the armor penetration abilty of the 37mm was.
The 37mm by 1943/44 was totally inadequate for anti-tank use. It was there to give recon crews some sense of security incase they ran into lightly armored vehicles like trucks and half-tracks, but was useless against most tanks being used by the Germans. The 37 could penetrate about 35mm-55mm of armor at 500 yards depending on the angle of armor and ammunition type. A Panzer IV had 50mm of frontal armor and 30mm of side armor, later ones were up armored to 80mm of frontal armor so 37mm guns were nearly useless. If you ran into a Panther or Tiger, you were even more hopeless. The M24 light tank got a 75mm, it was a lot better.
American Legion near my childhood home had one, back in the days you could just climb all over it, and play war. Decades later, the Legion next to the first house I owned had a Pak 38. Two old enemies.
I just have to add this. Go to Postmodern Jukebox channel here on YT. All About That Bass specifically was written by a big beautiful girl. Would be fun to play that and watch some period footage of a big beautiful beast.
@@chrisneedham5803 Let me know if you enjoy it. The careful laid back choreography is my favorite of the production,but all parties were having a ball. Terrific little video.
At 6:03 - that picture of it next to the Cromwell is an interesting one. Cromwell being better armed and armoured with a lower profile also faster and more mobile despite being heavier with an also small volumetric size. Both reliable tanks.
I don't mean to be disagreeable, but the Cromwell was not very reliable. Many issues with cooling, clutch, and steering, for a start. Chieftan did a piece on British documentation of the flaws VS the M4. Cheers!
@@TwirlyheadAs I recall, the problems were not so much the engine, but ancillary items like the drive for the cooling fan. I do not wish to start any uncivil back and forth, if I had a link to Chieftains lecture on the subject I would put it here. You may want to dig it up, it was actually very interesting and informative, using original source material from the British army. Again, cheers. EDIT, the following link refers to the documentation of "exercise "Dracula" where the British extensively tested various tanks. This is the document to which Chieftan refers, and goes into much detail over. I still cannot find his presentation. ;( ruclips.net/video/mJrKMqGFtZ0/видео.html
Wait, wasn't this the bloke who was in that movie..about that flying car? Or the chocolate factory? Never mind not important. Wonderful talk as always good Sir..
There used to be two M5 Stuarts sitting in front of the court house in Richmond Indiana. A few years back they removed them. I've always wondered where they went. They were in dire need of refurbishment as they were really starting to show the rust and damage from vandals.
@@thetankmuseum It's everything I hoped for and more! It's like having my own personal tank chat that I can enjoy outside with my several cups of coffee every morning. All the details one could hope for and delivered with the wit and humour that only Mr Fletcher can provide. If there's such a thing as "the Churchill Disease" then I'm sure I have it, and this book is a must-have for any Churchill fan (the tank not the person). My only criticism is that a few of the pages are faded but I'm sure that's just a publishing glitch.
i just want you guys to know i really enjoy these vids there great get to learn about the monsters of the old wars keep up the awsome content i know yall dont really get alot of views or subs so i just wanna say thanks alot 😃
The M3 used a Continental R-670 engine. I was curious to why there was a huge demand for these for aircraft use - it's rather small for a WW2 aircraft engine, the only sizeable use for it was in the PT-17/N2S Stearman biplane trainer, and there were only about 5,400 built using this engine (there were many others using other engines), compared to almost 9000 M3s. I suppose 5.400 is a sizeable number, there were "only" 20,000 Spitfires ever built..
The tank specks are easy to come by as are many pictures of the M5 in Europe after D-Day. My questions are what did they do in late war Europe? The 37mm would only remove paint from most active German tanks after D-Day. I know the 37mm could fire canister rounds, were they just for troops and thin skinned vehicles? In a popular but highly unrealistic tank game the 37mm fires off clips of 5 rounds automatically is that real in any way? The armor though as you say a bit thicker and sloped in 1944 would be good only for small arms protection. What did they do?
I always wonder that the Stuarts kept on in service while vehicles like the M18 Hellcat were available. The M18 weighed about the same, was fast, and had a 76mm gun. The only advantage the Stuart has is heavier armor, with a max of 44mm vs 25mm on the M18. But neither would be much use against any anti-tank weapons by 1944. Maybe the M18 would have been more vulnerable to remaining German 37mm guns if there were any, but in practice they were few and far between. Point being they developed a lot of light tanks and a lot of TD’s when they both have similar requirements and as the TD’s were rarely fully utilized it seems a shame that some couldn’t have been used as Light Tanks.
Automation usually is more unreliable. More moving parts means more potential for failure. Automation can be more effective but it's never more reliable, think a group of 25 men with shovels vs a excavator. The excavator is better in almost every way until it breaks down and needs repaired.
@@EmergencyChannel You're ignoring the fact that people 'break down' too. We get sick, we get hurt, etc. Machines always do simple jobs better than humans, and a human + a tool is usually better than five humans alone. And even ignoring that as you did, that excavator will generally get the job done faster than the group of men even counting the setbacks from any possible maintenance issues, because it works that much faster and more effectively. Not to mention that hiring an equivalent force of guys (try at least 100) to dig a ditch instead of an excavator would actually cost dramatically more than the maintenance and payments on the machinery. Automation is usually only more unreliable until you work the rough edges out. Otherwise most of our products would still be made ENTIRELY by hand, but that's been going the way of the dodo for almost 200 years now, to the point the consumer is often the first human hand that touches a product. And that will only get more common. I could go on and on and on and on, but what I'm saying here is that you are making a neo-Luddite argument, and that it's a complete non-starter and based on very negative wishful thinking with less basis in fact than claims about skull shape meaning anything about our future or worse...
Those tanks served around the world for decades after the war. Today, they stand silent vigil in countless city parks and before veteran's associations halls.
Hi. Yank in Germany here. I have a question. How long was the tow cable on the M5A1 Stuart? According to the TM it is one inch, but does not say what the length is. Thanks!
It should have been equipped in two othervariants: an infantry attack support tank with triple stack .50 HMGs coaxial main gun (3 x .50 guns stacked vertically), and a tank destroying tank with a 57mm anti-tank mantlet main gun.
*only* 13.000 of the Stuart build, as opposed to roughly 40.000 Shermans and 53.000 T34's apparently produced during WW2. I find that kinda odd, surely the Stuart must have been much cheaper to build for the US and even though it likely wasn't as effective against tanks like the Sherman i'd think they could be a very cost/effecient vehicle when produced in really rediculous numbers. I'd think the US could have build more than a 100.000 of these, and then have them supported by airplanes for wherever they might meet a heavier tank. Granted, 40.000 Shermans was usefull on its own too. I guess the range was the issue. In many ways i'd think it's almost always better to put any soldiers into any tank just to have that added firepower and protection if it's cheap, granted that some older tanks would surely be a deathbox due to slow speed and profile. If you have a very cheap light tank that is fast and can be mass produced i'd think you should providing you can also supply them with fuel and enough ammo.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Some time after WWIII: “The British Fletcher tank was not a terribly fast tank but was loved by its crew because of its pleasant nature. It can easily be identified by its large broom or “mustache” which was used to sweep away enemy troops”
Some shitty comments have more likes, unfortunately. You deserve more.
😭😭😭😭 t
#1 tank
But will there be any history recorded after WWIII?
@@perrylocke6037in some small nations yes. Not in Europe, china, middle east, European Russia, USA etc
Another excellent video by the only man to truly embody a British Churchill MkIV in human form: Prof. David Fletcher, PhD in Tankology of Bovington University.
Who knew the Church MkIV had such a dry sense of humor??
Don't forget the MBE.
He is NOT overrated and worthless, don't compare him to a British tank!
@@Pugiron You must be a very sad person.
Silence please. The moustache is talking!
Everyone likes the moustache! He is my hero! :)
With great mustache comes great responsibility!
Mr Fletcher is a national treasure.
He's the armoured vehicle equivalent of Sir David Attenborough.
@@Calum_S i think he would be a better wildlife journalist too
An international treasure! 😀
@@JohnyG29 no we will not share.
Boris S So true, he deserves a knighthood ...... Period
Mr. Fletcher is a national treasure, you Brits are lucky to have him.
Guy has more knowledge in his mustache than Watson the IBM supercomputer. Also he probably never forgets what he had for supper from the night before
RUclips's mustache of knowledge 1000% garanteed fake facts/news free 😁
Because it is always bangers, mash and turnips...
@@Ralphieboyoh yeah, Cumberland Sausage mashed potatoes turnip's and thick black gravy, now that's a good meal especially in the winter months! 😋😁
I'm always amazed at how much he looks like the quintessential English boffin. I imagine legions of him wandering around Bletchley Park and other places like that.
I'm not even sure what this means but I laughed.
There was one engagement, Bogheim 9th December 1944 part of the Battle of the Bulge where Stuart crews hit one of the larger German Self propelled guns over 100 times without doing any significant damage. This was used as an example to build the case for replacing the Stuart with a better armed tank, but also demonstrates how aggressive light tankers could be even when greatly outmatched by heavily armoured and armed opposition. Undoubtedly the Stuart was useful for scouting, but it could also be a threat to Axis Infantry if they lacked Anti tank weapons.
light tanks arent designed to get into fights
@@EthanThomson Err they kinda are and they kinda did.
Theirs also the a story during the battle of the bulge where a m8 greyhound aggressively charged the rear of king tiger taking out the engine and starting a fire inside the tank
" This was used as an example to build the case for replacing the Stuart with a better armed tank, but also demonstrates how aggressive light tankers could be even when greatly outmatched by heavily armoured and armed opposition. "
It also demonstrates that a partially disabled SPG can't rotate to put your light tank in it's sights, and that you want to pin that sucker down even if your fire is ineffective, while you wait for something bigger to arrive. If you're lucky, your 37mm does manage to fully disable it, and they weren't lucky.
You're safe from the SPG's fire, but you haven't killed it, maybe can't kill it, but you're keeping the crew buttoned up inside so they can't do anything else...
Yeah, but while you're sitting there shooting that SPG, you're risking an enemy shell from another vehicle coming at you
Stumbled on this Fletcher narrated piece as of August 2024. God bless David! Truly miss your voice of the solidier.
I'd love to see David speak his mind/opinion on Soviet + Warsaw Pact Tanks from the Cold War Period (T-55's, T-72's etc..) Unless he's done something like that already, in which case could someone point it out to me please! :D Many thanks in advance
I’m 28 and I just inherited a 1939 LaSalle ( Cadillac sub-division of General Motors ‘27-1940 ) and it has the engine that was used for this tank. I can say it’s one of simplicity and extremely reliable even today in a passenger car. I find it fascinating that Cadillac-LaSalle could just stop making cars and pluck a V8 off the assembly line, adapt it to 24Volt power and put it in a tank no problem...I really don’t see that ever happening again. thank you so much, I love this series!
Outstanding little tank and as always great talk by mr. Fletcher !
Keep up the good work
I'd refer to him as Sir David. An MBE ain't nothing. QEII chose a good one.
Excellent! David Fletcher and his dry whit, a great pick me up as I start my Friday work day.
Would be interested to see how that MG folds down into that shield.
Wasnt that MG folded because it operated in the jungle? I think it wasnt bullets that this armor was protecting that MG from. It was tree branches.
It pivots directly backwards so it ends up upside down behind the cover. If you imagine pointing the barrel backwards and then swivelling the whole lot including post backwards and under you can see how it fits.👍
I 'spect you disengage a lock and it just pivots back and down. Not going to mention what likely happens to the ammo box or belt.
@@johnallison820 That is literally what I already said. You detach ammo can first.
Especially as the bottom of the shield is not there and the turret is separate from that space completely
The Stewart is my favorite tank as it was the first tank I ever saw up close. THanks for this summary of the Stewarts, I will watch it again, both to better remember the various versions, and to listen to Mr. Fletcher over again.
Why this tank is automatic! *dun*
It's systematic! *dun*
It's hydromatic! *dun*
Why it's greased lightning!
@Ray I saw a documentary showing how the US WW2 tank destroyer could out pace a ww2 jeep, both from a standing start. The hydromatic system made a huge difference, providing masses of torque! Clever stuff.
LOL it was stranded at the drive-in branded a fool what will they say Monday at school
You’d want all that speed and torque. If any any Sort of German cannon got a good shot at that tin can you would be toast.
@@drizler But sloped armor is magical and impervious! T-34 fans told me!
How this site does not have 1 million subscribers is sad. This site is brilliant.
they're over a 5th of the way there, and 200K plus is fantastic by any means
For once there is an emphasis or presumption of education and erudition and not themepark gratification and mindless excitement.
I love these videoes! Thank you for making them.
Glad you enjoy the content Hallvard! You may wish to consider supporting us on patreon; www.patreon.com/tankmuseum Thanks!
I'm (slowly) building a 1/6 scale RC Stuart M5 A1 using the 21st Century Stuart version as the base vehicle. Lots of folks have done this and it is a lot of fun. Very nice to see the tank featured in a current video from the Tank Museum. ;o)
Compact little truck this....the Indian army used these to great effect in the kyber pass post WW2. Great video as ever!
I’m a simple man. I see David Fletcher - i’m clicking LIKE.
Another lovely chat from Mr Fletcher. Loving all the wartime photographs and footage of Stuarts in action.
Yet another enjoyable and educational video from my favourite tank historian who explains the who, what, where, and when like no other!
I'd love to see Sir David team up with the Mighty Jingles for a TOG*II video. That would be epic.
I wonder how David feels if he ever reads the comments about the cult of personality around him and his mustche.
Edit: Wait i got a heart from the tank museum dies that mean David actaully read my comment or some one from the crew laughed at it?
He looks like Mr Pastry (Google the name )
He doesn't need to read them. He just knows...
The 'stache abides.
It’s cringe. 90% of the comments are made by pseudointellectuals that sip wine and use the words ‘thus’ and ‘ergo’.
@@KC-bg1th You seem quite sad. Or angry.
SUSH! All sit in a circle and watch Mister Fletcher in awe!
Thank you Mr. Fletcher.
It always surprised me how late the turret basket was introduced. You'd think it would've been there from the start of turrets. And love the Stuart.
One of my favorite tanks.
Always liked the Stuarts. Thanks for another great vid.
A real pleasure to listen to these chats. Many thanks.
Brilliant video and so much interesting information, especially about the design.
Thank you David.
Thanks Ritchie, your feedback is much appreciated.
Can you folks build another M3/M5 Stuart variant so David Fletcher can talk about it?
Ask the brazilians. The Bernardini X1A2 tank was the last tank to be developed from a Stuart. (90 mm gun, extra sloping, Scania diesel engines, extra bogie due to elongated chassis)
Need to find an M8 or an M8A1
Great stuff folks, really enjoying this channel!
Always wanted a Cadillac, this would make a great vehicle for my commute.
I love this man!!!! Glory to his mustache!!!!!
I love to ear Mr. Panzer talk about tanks!!
Great series. Keep it up
These vídeos are always here to greet me when I come back from a Friday night out. Thanks got making them so good.
I love playing this tank
Thank you , Mr Fletcher .
Love the pic of a M5 driving past a dead Panther at the end. Its like the M5 is doing a road runner 'Meep Meep' before zooming off.
Tank Einstein speaks. You listen.
M5A1 is one of my favourite US tanks in War Thunder, it means a lot that Mr. Fletcher approves of it.
Would it be cheeky to recommend professor Fletcher’s glorious mustache get it’s own channel? I thoroughly enjoy the series sir! Keep up the excellent effort.
Albert Einstein talking about tanks, apparently.
Underrated tank imo
My Grandad started his service in WWII driving a tank transporter that carried what he called a "Honey tank"; always wondered what that was and now I know! Just wish he was still around to show this to him... But, thank you anyway Mr Fletcher for enlightening me 🙂
Always great to see Mr. Fletcher. This video series is very enjoyable. I always learn from them, and the facts, period footage, and humor are great. I sometimes wonder how effective the 37 mm gun is. Certainly it would be fine against unarmored truck convoys or light armored vehicles. Probably ok against pillboxes and such too. If they carried some rounds of case shot, it would be good against infantry as well. I know Chesty Puller thought well of the USMC crew served 37mm guns with case shot in the island campaigns. That is a good endorsement. Anyway, i wonder what the armor penetration abilty of the 37mm was.
The 37mm by 1943/44 was totally inadequate for anti-tank use. It was there to give recon crews some sense of security incase they ran into lightly armored vehicles like trucks and half-tracks, but was useless against most tanks being used by the Germans. The 37 could penetrate about 35mm-55mm of armor at 500 yards depending on the angle of armor and ammunition type. A Panzer IV had 50mm of frontal armor and 30mm of side armor, later ones were up armored to 80mm of frontal armor so 37mm guns were nearly useless. If you ran into a Panther or Tiger, you were even more hopeless. The M24 light tank got a 75mm, it was a lot better.
Thank you sir. You are an asset to bovington and the UK. I hope that the government will give you an appropriate baronetcy.
American Legion near my childhood home had one, back in the days you could just climb all over it, and play war. Decades later, the Legion next to the first house I owned had a Pak 38. Two old enemies.
I find your videos extremely interesting and entertaining sir, I wish you good luck and good health. Regards, Adam
Jolly good show old chap..
Thank you for your great work and your team for the great information on the tanks
Mr fletcher really is a great man!
I'm delighted with this gentleman videos, good job, sir :)
The best part of waking up is David Fletcher on the laptop and Dunkin Donuts coffee in my cup (with acknowledgment to Folgers).
Thanks.
That is a big tank and a beautiful tank
I bet you say that to all the girls
@@chrisneedham5803 haha
I just have to add this. Go to Postmodern Jukebox channel here on YT. All About That Bass specifically was written by a big beautiful girl. Would be fun to play that and watch some period footage of a big beautiful beast.
@@paulmanson253 .......👍🍺🍷👍 will do
@@chrisneedham5803 Let me know if you enjoy it. The careful laid back choreography is my favorite of the production,but all parties were having a ball. Terrific little video.
Thanks for your videos
あなたは素晴らしいプレゼンターです, Sir Fletcher MBE
At 6:03 - that picture of it next to the Cromwell is an interesting one. Cromwell being better armed and armoured with a lower profile also faster and more mobile despite being heavier with an also small volumetric size. Both reliable tanks.
I don't mean to be disagreeable, but the Cromwell was not very reliable. Many issues with cooling, clutch, and steering, for a start. Chieftan did a piece on British documentation of the flaws VS the M4. Cheers!
@@999torino The Cromwell's Rolls Royce Meteor engine was highly reliable.
@@TwirlyheadAs I recall, the problems were not so much the engine, but ancillary items like the drive for the cooling fan. I do not wish to start any uncivil back and forth, if I had a link to Chieftains lecture on the subject I would put it here. You may want to dig it up, it was actually very interesting and informative, using original source material from the British army. Again, cheers.
EDIT, the following link refers to the documentation of "exercise "Dracula" where the British extensively tested various tanks. This is the document to which Chieftan refers, and goes into much detail over. I still cannot find his presentation. ;(
ruclips.net/video/mJrKMqGFtZ0/видео.html
Wait, wasn't this the bloke who was in that movie..about that flying car? Or the chocolate factory? Never mind not important. Wonderful talk as always good Sir..
There used to be two M5 Stuarts sitting in front of the court house in Richmond Indiana. A few years back they removed them. I've always wondered where they went. They were in dire need of refurbishment as they were really starting to show the rust and damage from vandals.
The both of them are now located at the Wayne County Indiana Veterans Memorial Park, Richmond, Indiana. www.veteransmemorialpark.org/photos.html
Excellent.
I just bought Mr Fletcher's book on Churchill tanks. Pure treasure.
How's the read?
@@thetankmuseum It's everything I hoped for and more! It's like having my own personal tank chat that I can enjoy outside with my several cups of coffee every morning. All the details one could hope for and delivered with the wit and humour that only Mr Fletcher can provide. If there's such a thing as "the Churchill Disease" then I'm sure I have it, and this book is a must-have for any Churchill fan (the tank not the person). My only criticism is that a few of the pages are faded but I'm sure that's just a publishing glitch.
@@rickcheyne Glad to hear it!
DIDDYdave is still the bestist geeza on these tank chatz yessum diddy dave the rave !
The moustache is back! Hooray!
Also, right now: 1k likes, _zero_ dislikes! Record?
At 1.2k, no Germans dislike this.
1.4k still no dislikes
1.7k !
1.8k and 0 currently!
2k and still 0 dislikes.
I love him 3000.
Love the Stuarts!
Interesting modifications.
i just want you guys to know i really enjoy these vids there great get to learn about the monsters of the old wars keep up the awsome content i know yall dont really get alot of views or subs so i just wanna say thanks alot 😃
Great video
First rate as usual.
Many thanks and regards
God I love this man
The M3 used a Continental R-670 engine. I was curious to why there was a huge demand for these for aircraft use - it's rather small for a WW2 aircraft engine, the only sizeable use for it was in the PT-17/N2S Stearman biplane trainer, and there were only about 5,400 built using this engine (there were many others using other engines), compared to almost 9000 M3s. I suppose 5.400 is a sizeable number, there were "only" 20,000 Spitfires ever built..
Really nice with this kind of "show's"
The tank specks are easy to come by as are many pictures of the M5 in Europe after D-Day.
My questions are what did they do in late war Europe? The 37mm would only remove paint from most active German tanks after D-Day. I know the 37mm could fire canister rounds, were they just for troops and thin skinned vehicles? In a popular but highly unrealistic tank game the 37mm fires off clips of 5 rounds automatically is that real in any way? The armor though as you say a bit thicker and sloped in 1944 would be good only for small arms protection. What did they do?
I always wonder that the Stuarts kept on in service while vehicles like the M18 Hellcat were available. The M18 weighed about the same, was fast, and had a 76mm gun.
The only advantage the Stuart has is heavier armor, with a max of 44mm vs 25mm on the M18. But neither would be much use against any anti-tank weapons by 1944. Maybe the M18 would have been more vulnerable to remaining German 37mm guns if there were any, but in practice they were few and far between.
Point being they developed a lot of light tanks and a lot of TD’s when they both have similar requirements and as the TD’s were rarely fully utilized it seems a shame that some couldn’t have been used as Light Tanks.
I think this is one of the only times I've seen a video with 1.4k likes and *literally no dislikes*
1.7k now lol 😂
Saw an M3 (might have been an M5) in a country machinery display in Australia. They were sold after the war for 5 pounds and used as farm vehicles....
That's a strange photo at 4.01 mins in of the m3 sloppy Joe it looks like a witch pushing a buggy in the background with a witches like hat haha!
The engine upgrade possibilities with todays tech has me curious how it would perform with say a pair of Holley sniper EFI setups and better cooling.
Damn I thought it was a stuart with a 75mm gun...
Couldnt believe I had never heard of it.
The M8A1 had the 75mm howitzer. It was based on the M5, which is why they look somewhat similar
Ah, WoT and their silly "upgrades."
Always enjoyable. Information you never knew you needed, but thankful to have.
Geiler Schnorres. Hat der nicht früher mal beim NDR gearbeitet, als Pausenfüller-Dauerschleife?
Of course everyone thought the triple automatics would be unreliable.
People always doubt automation will be trustworthy.
Automation usually is more unreliable. More moving parts means more potential for failure. Automation can be more effective but it's never more reliable, think a group of 25 men with shovels vs a excavator. The excavator is better in almost every way until it breaks down and needs repaired.
@@EmergencyChannel You're ignoring the fact that people 'break down' too. We get sick, we get hurt, etc. Machines always do simple jobs better than humans, and a human + a tool is usually better than five humans alone. And even ignoring that as you did, that excavator will generally get the job done faster than the group of men even counting the setbacks from any possible maintenance issues, because it works that much faster and more effectively. Not to mention that hiring an equivalent force of guys (try at least 100) to dig a ditch instead of an excavator would actually cost dramatically more than the maintenance and payments on the machinery.
Automation is usually only more unreliable until you work the rough edges out. Otherwise most of our products would still be made ENTIRELY by hand, but that's been going the way of the dodo for almost 200 years now, to the point the consumer is often the first human hand that touches a product. And that will only get more common.
I could go on and on and on and on, but what I'm saying here is that you are making a neo-Luddite argument, and that it's a complete non-starter and based on very negative wishful thinking with less basis in fact than claims about skull shape meaning anything about our future or worse...
Good info
I want an ASMR from this gentleman voice
Those tanks served around the world for decades after the war. Today, they stand silent vigil in countless city parks and before veteran's associations halls.
Hi. Yank in Germany here. I have a question. How long was the tow cable on the M5A1 Stuart? According to the TM it is one inch, but does not say what the length is. Thanks!
very interesting video
Something something tank. Moustache.
The only problem with this vid is it is a little too short. The more this man speaks the more I learn.
It should have been equipped in two othervariants: an infantry attack support tank with triple stack .50 HMGs coaxial main gun (3 x .50 guns stacked vertically), and
a tank destroying tank with a 57mm anti-tank mantlet main gun.
I want to adopt this man as my uncle.
No mention of welded hull and sloped armor!
Hmmmmm.... Those hair curls...
Could sir David fletcher be imitating the British Parliament wig?
Well he IS the Authority on tanks 👌
I do believe that it is the Parliament that is imitating Sir David Fletcher~
He is the Einstein of armour.
Late, but I see Edgar Allen Poe the most.
That left ear attack.
*only* 13.000 of the Stuart build, as opposed to roughly 40.000 Shermans and 53.000 T34's apparently produced during WW2. I find that kinda odd, surely the Stuart must have been much cheaper to build for the US and even though it likely wasn't as effective against tanks like the Sherman i'd think they could be a very cost/effecient vehicle when produced in really rediculous numbers. I'd think the US could have build more than a 100.000 of these, and then have them supported by airplanes for wherever they might meet a heavier tank. Granted, 40.000 Shermans was usefull on its own too.
I guess the range was the issue. In many ways i'd think it's almost always better to put any soldiers into any tank just to have that added firepower and protection if it's cheap, granted that some older tanks would surely be a deathbox due to slow speed and profile. If you have a very cheap light tank that is fast and can be mass produced i'd think you should providing you can also supply them with fuel and enough ammo.
You just want to hug mr fletcher and call him grandad😊
If only the Stuarts had such equipment during the War of the Roses!
Sigh. Only about 120 years too early there