I'll probably make another video like this in the future, so if there are any other myths you want me to cover, let me know. Also, check out the community post about the 100k video.
Im curious about the Sherman comments, personally i think the sherman line was awful for specifically fighting German tanks, both the short 75 and long 76.2 From what i know, the sherman was built more as an all purpose infantry support vehicle rather than being designed for tank on tank combat like a lot of the German tanks seemed to have been.
@@apollojenkins4046 From what I hear, Shermans were still quite good when fighting tanks. And the german late war tanks had some issues that made them not so formidable oponents as they might seem on the paper.
The biggest thing in the ronson myth that makes absolutely no sense, The extreme majority of American and British servicemen wouldn't have had a Ronson, they'd have a Zippo
BMP-1 autoloader maybe won't RIP your arm off, but you can easily hurt yourself in gunner postion- its cramped as hell. There are legends, that breech of T-55 could smash loader arm, if he wasnt awear enough
If I'm not mistaken, HEAT rounds aren't as effective when fired from rifled barrels because the centrifugal force on the round takes away from the effect of the round
If that was true all HEAT shells from WWII to the 60' would've been underperforming, but it's not it, HEAT rounds just tended to weigh more which explains the loss of velocity, don't know where that claim came from
@@RyukaXV HESH and HEAT have to be stabilized by a centrifugal force. all the round that are fin-stabilized (HEAT-FS is not the same as HEAT) will be destabilized by a centrifugal force.
@@RyukaXV both are sensitive to centrifugal forces, HESH far more than HEAT. That's why French developped the Obus G, having some bearing to counteract the rotation inside the barrel so there wasn't this issue and allowed the HEAT round to be fired at higher velocity.
Britain uses rifled barrels because they have 🅱️esh that is not FS (fin stabilized). Other countries use smoothbore because less maintenance and more durable, and all their rounds are FS ( APFSDS, HEAT-FS) except Fragmentation rounds, that don't need so much range, and obviously soviet rockets (Kornet?) that don't need stabilization
Someone's likely already mentioned this, but I figured I'd post about it anyway: the likely cause of the British reporting such high burn rates for their Shermans (thus feeding into the myth), was actually due to improper ammunition storage. In North Africa, British tank crews would often stuff as much ammunition into their tanks as possible, probably due to the fact that the desert supply lines were extremely long which meant getting resupplied during a campaign might take a while. Having more ammunition laying about the tank would create a higher risk of ammunition fires, even if the main stowage racks were not hit, this being the likely answer as to why the burn rate on British Shermans was so high.
@@BluntofHwicce would it surprise you to learn that the reason Hood exploded was that a shell hit an overstocked 4 inch magazine which in turn ignited the magazines of the aft 15 inch guns
Worth a mention some Sherman Fireflies had the Hull machine Gunner position removed to make room for more ammunition. Seems to be an awful habit of the British to bring too much ammunition
It was common by all sides to overstock ammunition. The Stugs crews commonly did so for example and it was overlooked because the Stugs having to withdraw to resupply ammunition in a battle was a big negative impact on the infantry morale and the Stug commanders knew this (Stug commanders were often so experienced that infantry commanders would defer to them in battle). Part of what drastically reduced the burn rate with wet racks is that at the same time all but a few ready round sponson racks were removed and crews where trained and forbidden overstocking the ammunition and it was inspected and enforced.
I can tell you that what injured the crew in soviet tanks wasnt the autoloader IT was the canon breach. When my grandpa was in compulsary military service as a tanker they have been warned several times about the cannon breach. And one tank crew was drunk as fuck and they dropped few amo shels into muddy swamp. They pulled them out and load one into gun and tried to shoot it. Nothing happened . So one of them tried to inspect it (it was the comander i think which was shame because he was employed as a tank comander and others was there for compulsary military service ) and put his head behind the breach. And then the gunman shoot. Well the shell worked this time. And the cannon breach completly crushed his head to the back of the turret. And this was happening kinda often. Especialy in Hungary for some reason. So maybe this is how the myth has been created. (Sorry for the grammar im not from english speaking country and im tired)
I remmeber arguing with someone dissing the Sherman, calling it terrible for it's high burn rate following penetration whilst praising various panzers. They shut up after realising the similar burn rates in various panzers and learning about wet ammoracks. Turns out they'd just watched some clip about how it took 5 Shermans to knock out a cat (another myth)
the statement itself isn't wrong actually, it's just not a relevant thing to say because in the same way it took 5 shermans to kill a cat, it took 5 shermans to kill a truck or to do anything
@@harveyknguyen Because that's how many made up a tank squadron (or was it platoon) in the U.S Army. squad and platoon vary among different countries so I always get confused
@@riv4lm4n its almost like getting heavy tanks through deserts and mountains in africa or through the supply,guerilla and terrain hell of chinas interior wouldnt be effective
@@riv4lm4n simple, the navy said "no" when the army asked "will you deliver our big stronk tonk to China?" so the army was forced to make smol wekk tank. (this is a joke)
@@elkrumb9159 if you're talking about the French, i humbly state that you're wrong. France had better AND more tanks than Germany at the time of fall gelb. The entire invasion advantage of the Germans was based on paratroopers, well arranged and concentrated panzer divisions and the superior Luftwaffe numbers.....even though the French +British had 4500 tanks and the Germans only 2500, the Germans deployed 3 panzer corps along a thrust on a 40 mile frontier, whereas the French wasted the numerical superiority by deploying tanks piecemeal.
I once read that part of the whole myth regarding M4s burning up actually comes from German anti-tank doctrine during WWII, where they were expected to keep shooting at an enemy vehicle until it either caught fire or changed shape, i.e. the ammo rack got hit and the turret was blown clean off in the explosion. As such, when guys like Belton Cooper went out with their recovery crews to find disabled M4s, what they mostly found were burnt-out hulks that had been shot until they started cooking, thus giving a false impression regarding the tank's durability.
Great vid! I'm italian, and all of my friends are convinced about that Sherman myth. It's great that somebody took the effort to do some research about it! :)
But I really want to know if Germany built UFOs to send Tigers to the moon along with Hitler. It all explains why the Tiger was the best tank in modern times
@@oskary2833 Yeah... we all might laugh at History Channel now for being useless reality TV trash, but a lot of its documentaries prior to its mass reality TV era weren't so great themselves. Still a lot of pop-culture entertainment, just packaged as documentaries. Not to say there wasn't proper historical content in them, but they were also littered with infactual stuff to make things interesting. Honestly, the age of documentaries has never been better ever since TH-cam channels dedicated to actual history have started up and frequently cite primary and/or secondary sources openly.
that would be a monster in videogames. Talked to veteran crew of AMX13/75. They could reach a point and start firing to a new target in less than 10s from the stop to detection, targeting and firing tungsten carbide PCOT shell. They were designated to be first strike assassins. They come at the place, shoot most of their shells while enemy is wondering what happens and leave before they found out.
Fun fact, the Ronson "Lights first time, every time" slogan that the Sherman was supposedly nicknamed because of, was a post war slogan. The only thing even close was an ad in 1927 that said "A Ronson lights every time", but I don't think tankers in WWII were nicknaming their tanks because of a slogan from 15 years earlier, when most of them would have been
The best tank ever built was the Bob semple, that thing made the most hardened tankers empty their bowels at the thought of coming close to coming head to head with its sheer destructive power.
@@pablosturm6640 we should give the Brits credits for Germany's defeat too, sure America fed them with supplies but Great Britain appeared on practically every battlefield the Germans came to. In short the Brits get knocked around a whole lot longer than the US yet they don't get as much credit.
Can confirm the Australian Abrams have retained their turbines I’ve seen them in person. The initial idea was to procure them with diesels but the idea was later dropped.
It didn’t help the guy who wrote “Deathtraps” was a complete clown. Of course he’s gonna think Sherman’s sucked because all he did was work on destroyed tanks
@@typehyuga607 you mean the _fallible_ humans who have their own _opinions,_ different _experiences,_ and have been on a high stress situation in a metal box with explosives? Yeah, I don't blame them for having an opinion about the Shermans, but some of this opinions are not true
When people say "this tank is better than this other tank" they always talk about pen and armor but they never talk about the ergonomic of the tank and what that army needed in that moment.
@@ushikiii Even American TDs, which were designed with the express purpose of fighting tanks, found themselves engaging infantry or providing indirect fire most of the time. However, let's not assume that tanks like the Sherman were not built with tank engagements in mind simply because their primary purpose with infantry support. I have seen many people make that mistake.
Well America touted for decades how "revolutionary" the abrams was...when in reality it wasnt. And was worse than even soviet counterparts during the 80s
When asking "What nation has the best tank?" One needs to be aware that this is an irrelevant question. There is no one right answer to this, because every nation has different priorities. Germany went for quality over quantity, because they knew they couldnt build their version of the T-34, they simply lacked the numbers to go quantity over quality against someone like the Soviets or hell, even france (Though france did have tanks that could keep up with the german designs when under a commander who understands how tanks work). They also expected to fight short wars, which is why they didnt prioritize ease of maintainance, the idea being that, by the time that becomes a problem, the war has probably dragged on for too long. Towards the end of the war, things like the Tiger still reflected this mentality, even though it was appearant by that point that that didnt work. The Soviets also didnt have the technological ability to build their version of the Panzer 4, at least not in amounts useful for something as big as the Red Army, so they prioritized tanks that were good enough, and lots and lots of them, since they could afford to actually lose the tanks. Plus, the average soviet tank could be much more easily repaired, simply because it was a basic design. This was also done with the fact in mind that the Soviet Union is huge, and has very poor infrastructure. Thus, building a hard to maintain tank is not a bright idea.
You may have also forgotten the intended operational use of heavy german tanks. They werent supposed to do the famous pincering movements, they were breakthrough tanks, supposed to break through heavily fortified/defended parts of the front to allow other mechanized units to advance and they did their job really well if used properly. You dont need a reliable tank if that tank is going to drive 100-200kms at most during operations and otherwise be transported by rail.
German tanks weren't quality though. They broke down often and they were often too heavy for their transmissions and engines. They were overly-complex, difficult to repair, heavy and the German manufacturing process was inefficient. German tanks were considered scary because they had lots of armor and long range guns. I find it difficult to argue that they were high quality. Many didn't even have interchangeable parts or many spare parts.
My deepest respect for mentioning my beloved IS2 heavy tank. As much as people fantesise about heavy tanks, the IS2 is not nearly as well known as it should be, instead Tigers get the atention. Here it is a heavy tank that was reliable enough and build in large numbers that made a difference on the front, where the rest did not. Churchill was ok as a heavy too. But when it comes to heavy tanks in WW2 the IS2 is the best there is.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes, he praised it, but he said it was " too slow ". Hell the IS2 had more or less the same mobility as the Panther when off road. They both had heavy tank weight.
@@nickdanger3802 nope, it was a medium tank, a tank meant to be in the middle of the Light tanks and Heavies thus being in middle of the tank triangle.
@@nickdanger3802 but it wasn't, the MBT concept was only really conceived when the MBT project of American and West Germany. And if you're gonna say that, the Centurion is the more fit for it.
I myself am Bri’ish and would like to clarify some stuff about the rifled weapons. The reason the uk still uses rifled guns is because they use hesh (🅱️ESH if you’re cultured) and it helps the hesh round do damage. The longest kill was luck, even the commander of the tank admitted that. They took, and missed, two shots and then took another just to see if they could hit it, and they did! Finally, the way British tanks use apfsds accurate with a rifled cannon is that they specifically designed the shell to negate the rifling effect and keep the fin stability instead.
I have 3 questions. 1. Why do Israeli tanks have so many machine guns? The Merkava’s have at least 3 machine guns on the roof. Why do they have so much compared to other MBTS? 2. Why did the ADATS fail? Like, you don’t hear of ADATS in the Middle East or Vietnam so what happened to them? 3. Why isn’t the use of ERA universal? Russian tanks are covered in it while American, German, and British vehicles have some but not to the same level as Russian vehicles. Why is that?
Actually Isareli tanks have a number of machine guns in line with other nations (where the average number is 2 per turret) to give a good protection against personnel mostly due intifada and urban combat. ADATS did not fail but simply was cut down by the end of Cold War. ERA is not universal due being very dangerous even for allies and the fact that HEAT are always not the best solutions against modern amours.
for 1, look at any urban package for MBTs they tend to give every turret crewman an MG, the extra MG that Merkavas then have in adition to that is supposedly for counter sniper operations (usieng a 50cal with the firecontrols of the maingun) for 2, ADATS was considered too expansive for the canadians to keep useing (from what i have read), and i seem to remember readint the US didn't adopt it due to it underpreforming compaired to what they wanted in an SAM system.
I've found another source for the "Ronson" nickname being used during the war. I'd encourage anyone interested to check out "Tank" by Ken Tout. He was, among other things, a Sherman gunner and referred to the tank as a Ronson several times throughout this book. I'd also like to say that the Germans could could have called them Tommy Cookers or what have you. It doesn't make it true.
The most bizarre claim I ever heard was that a Tiger's gun was so powerful and that the Sherman was so flammable that even if a Sherman deflected a round, it would still spark a fire inside the tank. I'll let you guys work out the physics there yourself.
@@vandansonkar7819 ammo need penetration of it's powder compartiment to ignite, concussive force of an incoming shell in metal plates won't ignite an safely stored gunpowder inside an tank shell
its 8-cylinder 500-horsepower Ford GAF engine and powertrain were not powerful enough for a tank of its weight. The engine was similar to the one used in the Sherman even though the Pershing was 26,000 pounds heavier. The result was that the machine’s powerplant was not always reliable, and its maximum speed only 20 miles per hour.
To be fair, they didnt have 76 Shermans right on D-Day like the Brits had their Firefly, so for a time that was sort of true. But only if you take out the M10, as its not a tank but a tank destroyer.
@@odethious5639 As I said, they had Firefly, plus the 6-pounder had a marginally better armor penetration than the 75 on the Sherman, so at very close range it could theoretically be dangerous to a Tiger......but they heavily relied on Mahlzeit positions, as in positioning their hull diagonally to prevent unangled shots onto the armor.
The Tiger has it's "unstoppable killing machine" fame because of 2 reasons, D-day and the date of launch of the tank, the tank was "launched" in 1943, where most of the tanks had 76/75 mm low speed howitzers, that, as effective against infantry and fortifications, don't had a remarkable penetration, most of the tanks penetrating from 60 to 90 mm of armor, so the germans made an tank that had 100 mm of frontal armor, equipped with the feared 88 flak, and in D-day, the americans landed mostly the 75 mm M4, because they were destroying bunkers in the beach and taking cities, tank battles was not common, only after the unsuccessful attachment of the Sword and Juno Beach because of an panzer division, they sended the powerful Sherman Firefly and the americans sent the mobile M18 motor gun carriage, that were very effective at dealing with the german tanks, the M18 and Firefly could penetrate easily the 100 mm of the tigers front armor by distance.
@@drinkyourwater1039 Youre completely missing how much of its fame it aquired at the Eastern Front, and that it was specifically armored to protect against Soviet 76mm Zis-5, F-34s and so forth.
This isn't necessarily wrong but the Sherman had good survivability and interchangeability. With the Sherman and T-34 it was primarily a numbers game that made them succesful.
The weirdest part about this myth is the heavier German tanks were organized in platoons too. The tigers used 2 tank platoons instead of 4-5 but I doubt they were just left alone
@@nightshiftrider819 The biggest problem is that the myth is used to point out why the Sherman was inferior. It completely ignores the circumstances the tanks are in. From the Shermans introduction in North Africa to the German surrender, allied forces using the Sherman were almost always on the offensive. Standard military thinking suggest that an attacking force needs to have 3 to 5 times the numbers of the defending force to be successful. This is reinforced by the fact that the few times we see German armored forces attacking allied positions, it is the Sherman that is achieving the 5 to 1 kill to death ratio.
You forgot another bit about the Sherman having ammo cook-offs. The reason it was more common for British Shermans was because British tankers liked to carry as much extra ammo into battle as they could, and would generally shove it wherever it would fit. This wasn’t that big of an issue with their own native-built tanks in the middle of the war that used 2-lber and 6-lber guns and primarily used solid shot with no AP (artillery units hogged all the HE for themselves, which annoyed the tankers to no end), but when they did this in a tank that actually had a gun with HE filler for its AP shells, the result was predictable. Once the higher-ups figured out what was going on and cracked down on it, the ignition rate for British Shermans dropped down to around the same as that of American ones.
One of my neighbors lost his thumb to a T-72 autoloader. Hand injuries were common thing, although most of them were caused when clearing a malfunction of the autoloader. If you kept your unit in good condition, there was no reason to stick your hand in there
The M1 used a Honeywell AGT1500. The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel. So yes. The Ausies could be using diesel and you will still hear the turbine whine. Its the blades, not the fuel, that make the whine.
About rifling ; it's all about what you use as ammo most of times (APFSDS vs HEP) HEP works better when spinned through rifling and Munroe effect is increased with a petaling squash on target. For APFSDS, they still spin even if they use "forcing belts" around the sabots. It's a choice made by engineers. The angular momentum is still a form of energy carried by the projectile, if not kinetci per se, it helps to get a more predictible dispersion pattern even if the environnement changes during the flight of the projectile, the angular momentum "prevents" erratic dispersion. On the other hand, you get greater muzzel velocity thus kinetic potential out of a smoothbore but a more erratic dispersion pattern (grouping) at same distance through same environemental variations. It's a choice, like i said, and a different approach to ballistics. About "flammability" of some tanks, it's also tied to what make a tank, a mobile, viable, moveable piece of metal rather than ammo and fuel it carries. Electrics, and mostly oil, gearing oil, turret drive oils and the way they can be "sprayed" or vaporized (in more scientific terms) can easily be set on fire ! Turret drive oil was highly flammable and corrosive on our Leopard 1's and remained a major concern during maintenances and was "solved" very late, only few years before we sell them abroad ! Maybe M4's oils were easily "spilled" or vaporized through the hull and turret in the even of a hit ! This should be studied with this approach !
Another great video, my friend! I believe David C Isby in his Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army has a reference to tanks eating bits of loaders. There is also a famous reference to the United States military attributing Soviet Auto loaders as the means by which the Red Army Chorus got their sopranos. (Not sure if this was in Isby.) Unfortunately, we just moved and I can't get at my copy to confirm this. Thanks again!
My grandfather drove a Firefly during the second world war. He told me they would cram as many extra shells as they could anywhere there was a little extra space. It wouldn't matter if you had wet storage or not having all those extra shells just stacked up inside if a shot came through and hit the stack. I can't say if that was something that was common everywhere else but in his unit ( South Alberta Light Horse, Canada 4th Armoured ) it was.
Yup. A burned tank cannot be repaired and returned to service. The armor qualities of the steel become compromised from the high heat of a fire. On top of the fact that all the wiring, hoses, etc are destroyed.
I think the rifling misconception might also stem from people knowing that rifling made muskets and cannon and later automatic small arms more stable and assume that it's an overall improvement in all regards, then they further assume that rifled tank guns are better overall than smoothbore tank guns because of this.
Crew training is at the top. They have to work as a team as the game videos you show demonstrate. The gunner has to know that his sights and round impact are the same. Missing by 20 yards gives your enemy the chance to kill you. I was a tanker in 1968-71 with M48 and M60 tanks. We had split image rangefinders. Someone had said that you should range to the target from the low end to get your shots consistent. You can still move the ranging wheel and the images will still look good. You will shoot under or over then. Here is a hint I learned in combat. There is a button that you press to bleed pressure from the turret hydraulic system so you can remove a dip stick and check the oil. If the tank loses turret power, the gunner can press that button and move the turret for a short while.
The high burn rates can also be attributed to tanks being knocked out and then continuing to be fired into until they "cooked off" to make sure they were definitely dead and to prevent their recovery. So when the observers come along and mark a tank as "Burned" the tank may have been knocked out days before it was eventually set on fire
As a kid I genuinely believed that tank were invincible and the only way to kill them was to open the hatch and kill everyone inside. While at the same time believing it took 1 person to crew a tank but didnt think about the 2 competing ideas
I remember an old History Channel documentary said early Shermans would burn easily because they used aircraft radial engines and needed highly flammable aircraft fuel but the later models that used diesel didn't burn as easily
I'd say the rifled vs smooth-bore accuracy myth has more root in the small arms world, as that is where most people will have their understanding of barrel rifling, so they just assume it scales up.
Another thing about smoothbore vs rifled barrel, forces genarated by spin of projectile are negatively affecting the formation of cumulative jet. So you need bigger spin stabilized warhead to be same effective as fin stabilzed one.
I'll probably make another video like this in the future, so if there are any other myths you want me to cover, let me know.
Also, check out the community post about the 100k video.
What do you think of M109 Paladin? Do you think it should be added in war thunder?
Im curious about the Sherman comments, personally i think the sherman line was awful for specifically fighting German tanks, both the short 75 and long 76.2
From what i know, the sherman was built more as an all purpose infantry support vehicle rather than being designed for tank on tank combat like a lot of the German tanks seemed to have been.
@@apollojenkins4046 you have forgot about the short 7,5 cm gun from the early pz4 that was for infanterie support
@@apollojenkins4046 From what I hear, Shermans were still quite good when fighting tanks. And the german late war tanks had some issues that made them not so formidable oponents as they might seem on the paper.
Hey @Spookston what happened to the Armored Legacy Series
The biggest thing in the ronson myth that makes absolutely no sense, The extreme majority of American and British servicemen wouldn't have had a Ronson, they'd have a Zippo
If I recall correctly Ronson didn't even use the lights up everytime slogan until post ww2
@@kaisaeskola6245 They even had a Sherman tank on their posters to advertise and emphasize how dependable their lighters were.
The myth states it's a British used Nickname
@@coyote47713 my great grandpappy had a ronson, that's probably why he never made it out of the war, hit by an 88 and cooked off in his pocket.
We get it, yall saw the cheiftain video
spooky, shooting a flipped tank was just outright rude.
I thought it was absolutely disgusting that I cried, so sad. 😔
I mean he had to put him out of his misery.
@@blankblank8424 he could have helped him get back on his tracks.
You can show mercy in the war but not in war thunder
I would have asked him to put him out of his misery
Never even heard about Soviet tanks chomping arms. But my first reaction was: "It's heavy machinery. Of course it could take a limb off."
Reminds me of people who says stuff about how T-34s could rip off a limb when firing for some reason they don't seem to be able to explain.
Maybe it wasn't about tanks, but russian antipanzer rifles ptk, which can knock out the shoulder when uncorrect shooting.
@@MM-zg4wu I mean, if you have a heavy calibre rifle and you don't use it properly then I don't doubt that something bad is bound to happen.
BMP-1 autoloader maybe won't RIP your arm off, but you can easily hurt yourself in gunner postion- its cramped as hell. There are legends, that breech of T-55 could smash loader arm, if he wasnt awear enough
@@bartomiejrezmer7193 there were protection plates for such things, if they were removed then thats more on the crew than the tank
grats on 100k! :)
Hold up, you watch Spookston? I swear you watch every TH-camr I watch, while being one of the ones I watch.
Hello mr A10 gasmask man
Who are you nad why are you verified
@@generallyjimming thats operator drewski, he post videos :v
Excuse the fuck outta me. Since when did you watch this.
If I'm not mistaken, HEAT rounds aren't as effective when fired from rifled barrels because the centrifugal force on the round takes away from the effect of the round
If that was true all HEAT shells from WWII to the 60' would've been underperforming, but it's not it, HEAT rounds just tended to weigh more which explains the loss of velocity, don't know where that claim came from
@@CaptainGrief66 i heard that, but insted of HEAT, was the HESH rounds
@@RyukaXV HESH and HEAT have to be stabilized by a centrifugal force. all the round that are fin-stabilized (HEAT-FS is not the same as HEAT) will be destabilized by a centrifugal force.
@@RyukaXV both are sensitive to centrifugal forces, HESH far more than HEAT. That's why French developped the Obus G, having some bearing to counteract the rotation inside the barrel so there wasn't this issue and allowed the HEAT round to be fired at higher velocity.
Britain uses rifled barrels because they have 🅱️esh that is not FS (fin stabilized).
Other countries use smoothbore because less maintenance and more durable, and all their rounds are FS ( APFSDS, HEAT-FS) except Fragmentation rounds, that don't need so much range, and obviously soviet rockets (Kornet?) that don't need stabilization
Someone's likely already mentioned this, but I figured I'd post about it anyway: the likely cause of the British reporting such high burn rates for their Shermans (thus feeding into the myth), was actually due to improper ammunition storage. In North Africa, British tank crews would often stuff as much ammunition into their tanks as possible, probably due to the fact that the desert supply lines were extremely long which meant getting resupplied during a campaign might take a while. Having more ammunition laying about the tank would create a higher risk of ammunition fires, even if the main stowage racks were not hit, this being the likely answer as to why the burn rate on British Shermans was so high.
@@BluntofHwicce would it surprise you to learn that the reason Hood exploded was that a shell hit an overstocked 4 inch magazine which in turn ignited the magazines of the aft 15 inch guns
Worth a mention some Sherman Fireflies had the Hull machine Gunner position removed to make room for more ammunition. Seems to be an awful habit of the British to bring too much ammunition
It was common by all sides to overstock ammunition. The Stugs crews commonly did so for example and it was overlooked because the Stugs having to withdraw to resupply ammunition in a battle was a big negative impact on the infantry morale and the Stug commanders knew this (Stug commanders were often so experienced that infantry commanders would defer to them in battle). Part of what drastically reduced the burn rate with wet racks is that at the same time all but a few ready round sponson racks were removed and crews where trained and forbidden overstocking the ammunition and it was inspected and enforced.
@@Cragified And yet when a StuG IV was discovered in Poland, it had ammo even in the engine compartment.
I can tell you that what injured the crew in soviet tanks wasnt the autoloader IT was the canon breach. When my grandpa was in compulsary military service as a tanker they have been warned several times about the cannon breach. And one tank crew was drunk as fuck and they dropped few amo shels into muddy swamp. They pulled them out and load one into gun and tried to shoot it. Nothing happened . So one of them tried to inspect it (it was the comander i think which was shame because he was employed as a tank comander and others was there for compulsary military service ) and put his head behind the breach. And then the gunman shoot. Well the shell worked this time. And the cannon breach completly crushed his head to the back of the turret. And this was happening kinda often. Especialy in Hungary for some reason. So maybe this is how the myth has been created. (Sorry for the grammar im not from english speaking country and im tired)
so youre hungarian, or youre from other country and your grandpa operated in hungary?
@@doctorTF_2 no im from Slovakia and my grandfather operated in Slovakia too but they were stories from Hungary about this
I would want to get in the recoil path either, yikes
And your english is excellent!!
Is that commander still alive
@@trannkhaiminh9997 yeah he is living happy life with his family but his head is in 2d now
I remmeber arguing with someone dissing the Sherman, calling it terrible for it's high burn rate following penetration whilst praising various panzers. They shut up after realising the similar burn rates in various panzers and learning about wet ammoracks. Turns out they'd just watched some clip about how it took 5 Shermans to knock out a cat (another myth)
the statement itself isn't wrong actually, it's just not a relevant thing to say because in the same way it took 5 shermans to kill a cat, it took 5 shermans to kill a truck or to do anything
@@harveyknguyen Because that's how many made up a tank squadron (or was it platoon) in the U.S Army. squad and platoon vary among different countries so I always get confused
@@MrHFam-st4ni yes exactly
"There's no nation better than others about building tanks"
Italy and Japan having no decent tanks at all in WWII: **looks away**
wow why are those nations living in mountainous and/or jungle environments make different tanks, they are bad haha lmao
@@riv4lm4n its almost like getting heavy tanks through deserts and mountains in africa or through the supply,guerilla and terrain hell of chinas interior wouldnt be effective
@@riv4lm4n simple, the navy said "no" when the army asked "will you deliver our big stronk tonk to China?" so the army was forced to make smol wekk tank. (this is a joke)
@@BeurreBretondemisel Im pretty sure that they had better tanks, however they had very little amount of tanks
@@elkrumb9159 if you're talking about the French, i humbly state that you're wrong. France had better AND more tanks than Germany at the time of fall gelb. The entire invasion advantage of the Germans was based on paratroopers, well arranged and concentrated panzer divisions and the superior Luftwaffe numbers.....even though the French +British had 4500 tanks and the Germans only 2500, the Germans deployed 3 panzer corps along a thrust on a 40 mile frontier, whereas the French wasted the numerical superiority by deploying tanks piecemeal.
I once read that part of the whole myth regarding M4s burning up actually comes from German anti-tank doctrine during WWII, where they were expected to keep shooting at an enemy vehicle until it either caught fire or changed shape, i.e. the ammo rack got hit and the turret was blown clean off in the explosion. As such, when guys like Belton Cooper went out with their recovery crews to find disabled M4s, what they mostly found were burnt-out hulks that had been shot until they started cooking, thus giving a false impression regarding the tank's durability.
3:38 THANK YOU
*tank you
"I heard this tank can be dangerous to operate" They aren't luxury cars guys lol.
4:20 was just a sad kill
Spook is a monster
It mercy kill
Great vid! I'm italian, and all of my friends are convinced about that Sherman myth. It's great that somebody took the effort to do some research about it! :)
2:20 what were you trying to do with the waffenträger spookston? :D
I was waiting for him to respond before I shot, but I accidentally MG'd him to death
@@Spookston oh ok but still why wait? :D
To see his look before death? :D
"accidentally"
*aims for driver and kills driver
*aims for gunner and kills gunner
@@Spookston his turret was destroyed before you come for him (someone has just bad aim and Waffen try to sneak out of sights)
@@Spookston Lol
"...good tanks like the M24 Chaffee"
shit, my heart skipped a bit
I love how my rounds just rio through the Chaffee
@@king_of_dairy_queen9588 hmmmm yes a light tank having thin armor what a surprise
@@bones-fe3gy Yes, I realize that you sarcastic piece of junk
Factual as usual, Spooky.
Moral:
Never look at myths as fact.
History channel is the catalyst for most of these... how sad 😪
Ice road truckers is the best show on earth
I used to love the history Channel until I grew up and learned how bad the information was
Now it's all just pawnshops and aliens lmao
But I really want to know if Germany built UFOs to send Tigers to the moon along with Hitler. It all explains why the Tiger was the best tank in modern times
@@oskary2833 Yeah... we all might laugh at History Channel now for being useless reality TV trash, but a lot of its documentaries prior to its mass reality TV era weren't so great themselves. Still a lot of pop-culture entertainment, just packaged as documentaries. Not to say there wasn't proper historical content in them, but they were also littered with infactual stuff to make things interesting.
Honestly, the age of documentaries has never been better ever since TH-cam channels dedicated to actual history have started up and frequently cite primary and/or secondary sources openly.
If the amx-13 was historically accurate
that would be a monster in videogames. Talked to veteran crew of AMX13/75. They could reach a point and start firing to a new target in less than 10s from the stop to detection, targeting and firing tungsten carbide PCOT shell. They were designated to be first strike assassins. They come at the place, shoot most of their shells while enemy is wondering what happens and leave before they found out.
2:25, spookston being toxic to a waffentrager, nice.
The closest to toxic would be pinging the flipped tank. Screw the waffentrager.
Fun fact, the Ronson "Lights first time, every time" slogan that the Sherman was supposedly nicknamed because of, was a post war slogan. The only thing even close was an ad in 1927 that said "A Ronson lights every time", but I don't think tankers in WWII were nicknaming their tanks because of a slogan from 15 years earlier, when most of them would have been
It's always been a pleasure to be commissioned by the tank guy
Other myth: Australia Fielded some T34-85s during the war.
Confirmed at 4:22
Its actually a Tiger I so...
@@GentjanWittman haha so funny.
@@GentjanWittman That looks nothing like a Tiger
@@theswaws
I know its a T34-85 but...
It WAS A JOKE
I'm happy to watch your videos, along with being a subscriber. Keep up the great work!
"Which country is inherently best at building tanks?"
America, obviously.
"When it comes to developing tanks-"
Oh. *Sad mass production noises*
The best tank ever built was the Bob semple, that thing made the most hardened tankers empty their bowels at the thought of coming close to coming head to head with its sheer destructive power.
The Sherman had the highest crew survival rates.(At least from the M4A2 and onwards.)
Building new tanks and keeping old ones in service? Maybe Russia.
But building actual good tanks? America is closer.
@@mikkel066h Facing the tattered remains of the wehrmacht of course
@@pablosturm6640 we should give the Brits credits for Germany's defeat too, sure America fed them with supplies but Great Britain appeared on practically every battlefield the Germans came to. In short the Brits get knocked around a whole lot longer than the US yet they don't get as much credit.
Can confirm the Australian Abrams have retained their turbines I’ve seen them in person.
The initial idea was to procure them with diesels but the idea was later dropped.
It didn’t help the guy who wrote “Deathtraps” was a complete clown. Of course he’s gonna think Sherman’s sucked because all he did was work on destroyed tanks
You talk as if you could do half of what he did
@@typehyuga607But what did he do?
The Sherman burn rate myth also probably comes from survivor bias.
Dude,go argue with the sherman crews who said this themselves
@@typehyuga607 you mean the _fallible_ humans who have their own _opinions,_ different _experiences,_ and have been on a high stress situation in a metal box with explosives? Yeah, I don't blame them for having an opinion about the Shermans, but some of this opinions are not true
Video was so good it felt shoter than it actually is.
Poor tank at the end was really like a turned turtle :(
When people say "this tank is better than this other tank" they always talk about pen and armor but they never talk about the ergonomic of the tank and what that army needed in that moment.
*cue people saying French tanks were undeniably superior because muh armour*
Yeah always forgetting that Tonks also kill infantry too.
@@ushikiii Even American TDs, which were designed with the express purpose of fighting tanks, found themselves engaging infantry or providing indirect fire most of the time. However, let's not assume that tanks like the Sherman were not built with tank engagements in mind simply because their primary purpose with infantry support. I have seen many people make that mistake.
The British, why is it always the British starting some of these tank rumors?
They're VERY stuck in their ways
Because we're cunts and start rumours about countries we dislike
And not just countries! Vehicles and specific people too!
I mean every country has their own tank rumours. It's only natural the nation that literally invented them would have some too.
Well America touted for decades how "revolutionary" the abrams was...when in reality it wasnt. And was worse than even soviet counterparts during the 80s
When asking "What nation has the best tank?" One needs to be aware that this is an irrelevant question. There is no one right answer to this, because every nation has different priorities. Germany went for quality over quantity, because they knew they couldnt build their version of the T-34, they simply lacked the numbers to go quantity over quality against someone like the Soviets or hell, even france (Though france did have tanks that could keep up with the german designs when under a commander who understands how tanks work). They also expected to fight short wars, which is why they didnt prioritize ease of maintainance, the idea being that, by the time that becomes a problem, the war has probably dragged on for too long. Towards the end of the war, things like the Tiger still reflected this mentality, even though it was appearant by that point that that didnt work. The Soviets also didnt have the technological ability to build their version of the Panzer 4, at least not in amounts useful for something as big as the Red Army, so they prioritized tanks that were good enough, and lots and lots of them, since they could afford to actually lose the tanks. Plus, the average soviet tank could be much more easily repaired, simply because it was a basic design. This was also done with the fact in mind that the Soviet Union is huge, and has very poor infrastructure. Thus, building a hard to maintain tank is not a bright idea.
You may have also forgotten the intended operational use of heavy german tanks. They werent supposed to do the famous pincering movements, they were breakthrough tanks, supposed to break through heavily fortified/defended parts of the front to allow other mechanized units to advance and they did their job really well if used properly. You dont need a reliable tank if that tank is going to drive 100-200kms at most during operations and otherwise be transported by rail.
@@pablosturm6640 True that. Though, the Tigers transmission was famously bad.
@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs also panther final drives. Big oof
German tanks weren't quality though. They broke down often and they were often too heavy for their transmissions and engines. They were overly-complex, difficult to repair, heavy and the German manufacturing process was inefficient. German tanks were considered scary because they had lots of armor and long range guns. I find it difficult to argue that they were high quality. Many didn't even have interchangeable parts or many spare parts.
@@chaosXP3RT
Heavy tanks in general broke down often (though some of the German big cats like the Panther were bad even by heavy tank standards).
spook talking about russian tanks reliability while russian game be like: SERVER NOT REPONDING
Congrats on 100k, mate. Love your content
My deepest respect for mentioning my beloved IS2 heavy tank. As much as people fantesise about heavy tanks, the IS2 is not nearly as well known as it should be, instead Tigers get the atention. Here it is a heavy tank that was reliable enough and build in large numbers that made a difference on the front, where the rest did not. Churchill was ok as a heavy too. But when it comes to heavy tanks in WW2 the IS2 is the best there is.
IS-2 is kinda terrifying honestly, unlike the Tiger since I can barely tell which ones the Tiger and which one is a panther mid battle.
Maus tho...
Shut, you have the T-34 in mass recognition, we dont need another soviet meme to be well known
i find it strange as even Guderian (whose opinion is usually taken more seriously than it probably should) said the IS-2 was the best tank of the war.
@buffalo wt Early IS2's yes, but they fixed that soon enough, the rate of fire and size of the shells were also weaknesses, but that was expected.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes, he praised it, but he said it was " too slow ". Hell the IS2 had more or less the same mobility as the Panther when off road. They both had heavy tank weight.
hecks yeah dude! You're a very understandable source of info, it'd be awesome to see more of this stuff!
"The panther was the first MBT."
Fake
The Panther as conceived (balance of cannon, armor and mobility) was the model for almost all post war MBT's, as I understand it.
@@nickdanger3802 nope, it was a medium tank, a tank meant to be in the middle of the Light tanks and Heavies thus being in middle of the tank triangle.
@@agentkaos1768 " the model for"
@@nickdanger3802 but it wasn't, the MBT concept was only really conceived when the MBT project of American and West Germany. And if you're gonna say that, the Centurion is the more fit for it.
Congrats on 100k spookston!
2:20 *waffentrager.exe has stopped responding*
Yoooo Congrats on 100k my guy
Merry late Christmas and happy early New Years!
I myself am Bri’ish and would like to clarify some stuff about the rifled weapons. The reason the uk still uses rifled guns is because they use hesh (🅱️ESH if you’re cultured) and it helps the hesh round do damage. The longest kill was luck, even the commander of the tank admitted that. They took, and missed, two shots and then took another just to see if they could hit it, and they did! Finally, the way British tanks use apfsds accurate with a rifled cannon is that they specifically designed the shell to negate the rifling effect and keep the fin stability instead.
I have 3 questions.
1. Why do Israeli tanks have so many machine guns? The Merkava’s have at least 3 machine guns on the roof. Why do they have so much compared to other MBTS?
2. Why did the ADATS fail? Like, you don’t hear of ADATS in the Middle East or Vietnam so what happened to them?
3. Why isn’t the use of ERA universal? Russian tanks are covered in it while American, German, and British vehicles have some but not to the same level as Russian vehicles. Why is that?
The end of the cold war caused interest in the ADATS to fizzle.
Actually Isareli tanks have a number of machine guns in line with other nations (where the average number is 2 per turret) to give a good protection against personnel mostly due intifada and urban combat.
ADATS did not fail but simply was cut down by the end of Cold War.
ERA is not universal due being very dangerous even for allies and the fact that HEAT are always not the best solutions against modern amours.
Bro you've seen is7?
It had like 8 machine guns if I'm not wrong
Israeli tanks have the same number of mgs as a m1a2 Abrams with tusk 2
for 1, look at any urban package for MBTs they tend to give every turret crewman an MG, the extra MG that Merkavas then have in adition to that is supposedly for counter sniper operations (usieng a 50cal with the firecontrols of the maingun)
for 2, ADATS was considered too expansive for the canadians to keep useing (from what i have read), and i seem to remember readint the US didn't adopt it due to it underpreforming compaired to what they wanted in an SAM system.
Congrats for 100k subs bro
And wishing everyone a happy new year
Can you do "Chinese or Japanese tanks was historically accurate"....and have a good day spookston
Thanks for the likes then
Congratulations on 100k subs!
SERVER NOT RESPONDING, love this game
Nice Video ! Also happy 100k subs !
I wanna know how the hell that T-34-85 got flipped upside down like that
You could see some cliff behind it, so..
He's still a monster
shikochan It was showing mercy
Great video, Spookston! I love that you featured game footage of the Jumbo, the T20 and T25 - awesome, fun tanks! Happy New Year!
I've found another source for the "Ronson" nickname being used during the war. I'd encourage anyone interested to check out "Tank" by Ken Tout. He was, among other things, a Sherman gunner and referred to the tank as a Ronson several times throughout this book. I'd also like to say that the Germans could could have called them Tommy Cookers or what have you. It doesn't make it true.
Remember, it's entirely possible that Tout picked up the Ronson name after the war like everyone else did, and then started using it himself.
i wouldn't be suprised if german anti-tank gunners called them tommy-cookers without realiseing their tanks burnt up about the same.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 If I recall correctly, the Germans called any tank the British used a Tommy Cooker.
@@XanderTuron why would Germans use an english name for anything?
@@bobmcbob49 Have you ever heard of a little something called translation?
The most bizarre claim I ever heard was that a Tiger's gun was so powerful and that the Sherman was so flammable that even if a Sherman deflected a round, it would still spark a fire inside the tank.
I'll let you guys work out the physics there yourself.
Technically it can't bounce and even if it did some spalling can make something catch fire tho
@@vandansonkar7819 ammo need penetration of it's powder compartiment to ignite, concussive force of an incoming shell in metal plates won't ignite an safely stored gunpowder inside an tank shell
Wait so Germans developed 🅱️ESH shells during WWII for their Tigers, no wonder why everybody claims Tiger is best tank
bUt mUh tIgEr!1!1!1
Finally someone talks about the Sherman being the same like every other tank at fire burning rate
What was wrong with the Pershing?
its 8-cylinder 500-horsepower Ford GAF engine and powertrain were not powerful enough for a tank of its weight. The engine was similar to the one used in the Sherman even though the Pershing was 26,000 pounds heavier.
The result was that the machine’s powerplant was not always reliable, and its maximum speed only 20 miles per hour.
In a nutshell: it’s engine was underpowered for a vehicle of its weight
Relyability.
Slow and unreliable
The Americans gave into peer pressure and designed a big heavy tank with a tiny little engine.
"The tiger was an impenetrable tank to American tanks of the time"
To be fair, they didnt have 76 Shermans right on D-Day like the Brits had their Firefly, so for a time that was sort of true. But only if you take out the M10, as its not a tank but a tank destroyer.
@@builder396
The other myth is that it was impenetrable to British tanks of the time too.
@@odethious5639 As I said, they had Firefly, plus the 6-pounder had a marginally better armor penetration than the 75 on the Sherman, so at very close range it could theoretically be dangerous to a Tiger......but they heavily relied on Mahlzeit positions, as in positioning their hull diagonally to prevent unangled shots onto the armor.
The Tiger has it's "unstoppable killing machine" fame because of 2 reasons, D-day and the date of launch of the tank, the tank was "launched" in 1943, where most of the tanks had 76/75 mm low speed howitzers, that, as effective against infantry and fortifications, don't had a remarkable penetration, most of the tanks penetrating from 60 to 90 mm of armor, so the germans made an tank that had 100 mm of frontal armor, equipped with the feared 88 flak, and in D-day, the americans landed mostly the 75 mm M4, because they were destroying bunkers in the beach and taking cities, tank battles was not common, only after the unsuccessful attachment of the Sword and Juno Beach because of an panzer division, they sended the powerful Sherman Firefly and the americans sent the mobile M18 motor gun carriage, that were very effective at dealing with the german tanks, the M18 and Firefly could penetrate easily the 100 mm of the tigers front armor by distance.
@@drinkyourwater1039 Youre completely missing how much of its fame it aquired at the Eastern Front, and that it was specifically armored to protect against Soviet 76mm Zis-5, F-34s and so forth.
great video as always
also congrats on 100k!
4:21 How? Just how?
Fall or probably bomb, either way he's a monster
@@hazelhaley Monster?
Congrats on 100k subs u deserve it
Here`s one:
It took 5 Sherman's to kill 1 German tank
*Laughs in US tank platoon organization*
This isn't necessarily wrong but the Sherman had good survivability and interchangeability. With the Sherman and T-34 it was primarily a numbers game that made them succesful.
The weirdest part about this myth is the heavier German tanks were organized in platoons too. The tigers used 2 tank platoons instead of 4-5 but I doubt they were just left alone
@@nightshiftrider819 The biggest problem is that the myth is used to point out why the Sherman was inferior. It completely ignores the circumstances the tanks are in. From the Shermans introduction in North Africa to the German surrender, allied forces using the Sherman were almost always on the offensive. Standard military thinking suggest that an attacking force needs to have 3 to 5 times the numbers of the defending force to be successful. This is reinforced by the fact that the few times we see German armored forces attacking allied positions, it is the Sherman that is achieving the 5 to 1 kill to death ratio.
I dont know why but I love that piano at the ending, such a perfect way to end any video
pog
You forgot another bit about the Sherman having ammo cook-offs. The reason it was more common for British Shermans was because British tankers liked to carry as much extra ammo into battle as they could, and would generally shove it wherever it would fit. This wasn’t that big of an issue with their own native-built tanks in the middle of the war that used 2-lber and 6-lber guns and primarily used solid shot with no AP (artillery units hogged all the HE for themselves, which annoyed the tankers to no end), but when they did this in a tank that actually had a gun with HE filler for its AP shells, the result was predictable. Once the higher-ups figured out what was going on and cracked down on it, the ignition rate for British Shermans dropped down to around the same as that of American ones.
It did say in one of the historically accurate vids that crews take ALOT more ammo than needed.
@@davidty2006 Yes though in this video it didn't explain that this was why the British Shermans were more likely to suffer ammo fires.
4:16 was rude af, shame on you
Happy 100K Spook! ^^
Dislike because you killed the flipped tank instead of turning it upside up again😥
Spookston, thankyou for making such awesome videos i love your content!
Phirst
i see what you did there
Congratulations on 100k!
One of my neighbors lost his thumb to a T-72 autoloader. Hand injuries were common thing, although most of them were caused when clearing a malfunction of the autoloader. If you kept your unit in good condition, there was no reason to stick your hand in there
The M1 used a Honeywell AGT1500. The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel. So yes. The Ausies could be using diesel and you will still hear the turbine whine. Its the blades, not the fuel, that make the whine.
About rifling ; it's all about what you use as ammo most of times (APFSDS vs HEP) HEP works better when spinned through rifling and Munroe effect is increased with a petaling squash on target. For APFSDS, they still spin even if they use "forcing belts" around the sabots. It's a choice made by engineers. The angular momentum is still a form of energy carried by the projectile, if not kinetci per se, it helps to get a more predictible dispersion pattern even if the environnement changes during the flight of the projectile, the angular momentum "prevents" erratic dispersion. On the other hand, you get greater muzzel velocity thus kinetic potential out of a smoothbore but a more erratic dispersion pattern (grouping) at same distance through same environemental variations. It's a choice, like i said, and a different approach to ballistics.
About "flammability" of some tanks, it's also tied to what make a tank, a mobile, viable, moveable piece of metal rather than ammo and fuel it carries. Electrics, and mostly oil, gearing oil, turret drive oils and the way they can be "sprayed" or vaporized (in more scientific terms) can easily be set on fire ! Turret drive oil was highly flammable and corrosive on our Leopard 1's and remained a major concern during maintenances and was "solved" very late, only few years before we sell them abroad ! Maybe M4's oils were easily "spilled" or vaporized through the hull and turret in the even of a hit ! This should be studied with this approach !
Congrats on 100k!!!❤️❤️
I honestly have no idea the schedule your videos release on, if there even is one, but whenever I see a new vid from you I immediately watch it.
Congrats on 100k, spookston.
Another great video, my friend! I believe David C Isby in his Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army has a reference to tanks eating bits of loaders. There is also a famous reference to the United States military attributing Soviet Auto loaders as the means by which the Red Army Chorus got their sopranos. (Not sure if this was in Isby.) Unfortunately, we just moved and I can't get at my copy to confirm this. Thanks again!
Tanks aren’t as invincible as they may seem
Rifling also decreases efficiency of shaped charges because the centrifugal forces disperse the armor penetrating core of the charge
U bullied that tank at 1:30. Live the content
CONGRATULATIONS ON 100K
Congrats on 100k!
I was not expecting that odst music man i started crying man tears
My grandfather drove a Firefly during the second world war.
He told me they would cram as many extra shells as they could anywhere there was a little extra space.
It wouldn't matter if you had wet storage or not having all those extra shells just stacked up inside if a shot came through and hit the stack.
I can't say if that was something that was common everywhere else but in his unit ( South Alberta Light Horse, Canada 4th Armoured ) it was.
To add to the Ronson nickname, German tankers were advised to continue shooting at tanks until they started burning
Yup. A burned tank cannot be repaired and returned to service. The armor qualities of the steel become compromised from the high heat of a fire. On top of the fact that all the wiring, hoses, etc are destroyed.
@@Crosshair84 Aye, reducing the tank to scrap metal at best
I think the rifling misconception might also stem from people knowing that rifling made muskets and cannon and later automatic small arms more stable and assume that it's an overall improvement in all regards, then they further assume that rifled tank guns are better overall than smoothbore tank guns because of this.
Crew training is at the top. They have to work as a team as the game videos you show demonstrate. The gunner has to know that his sights and round impact are the same. Missing by 20 yards gives your enemy the chance to kill you.
I was a tanker in 1968-71 with M48 and M60 tanks. We had split image rangefinders. Someone had said that you should range to the target from the low end to get your shots consistent. You can still move the ranging wheel and the images will still look good. You will shoot under or over then.
Here is a hint I learned in combat. There is a button that you press to bleed pressure from the turret hydraulic system so you can remove a dip stick and check the oil. If the tank loses turret power, the gunner can press that button and move the turret for a short while.
The high burn rates can also be attributed to tanks being knocked out and then continuing to be fired into until they "cooked off" to make sure they were definitely dead and to prevent their recovery. So when the observers come along and mark a tank as "Burned" the tank may have been knocked out days before it was eventually set on fire
Liked for the Mechanicus soundtrack in the background.
You go hunting in the woods and all you see is this coming towards you.
As a kid I genuinely believed that tank were invincible and the only way to kill them was to open the hatch and kill everyone inside. While at the same time believing it took 1 person to crew a tank but didnt think about the 2 competing ideas
2:13 I love you spookston
I remember an old History Channel documentary said early Shermans would burn easily because they used aircraft radial engines and needed highly flammable aircraft fuel but the later models that used diesel didn't burn as easily
I'd say the rifled vs smooth-bore accuracy myth has more root in the small arms world, as that is where most people will have their understanding of barrel rifling, so they just assume it scales up.
Another thing about smoothbore vs rifled barrel, forces genarated by spin of projectile are negatively affecting the formation of cumulative jet. So you need bigger spin stabilized warhead to be same effective as fin stabilzed one.
0:40 shot him so hard he vanished
Watching spookston get a kill in the backround footage is odly satisfying..
Might be because i struggle getting kills in War Thunder
great job on 100k subs bro i wish u a gud future
07 Spookston, I was the EBR/ARL44 from the game at 2:48, epic hard fought game (Not the ARL killed on camera though)