5:12 note how the gunner rams the shell home and continues his movement forward to touch the gunner on the shoulder. No doubt that is to signal that he is clear of the breech and ready to fire, a safety measure. If the gunner is touching his shoulder, he cannot easily also be behind the gun.
So an Israeli modification of a British modification of an American vehicle that has once again been painted with the markings of an American vehicle... Interesting.
+XXRedarmyofoneX I honestly feel like they started planning to do this video, then climbed up in the turret and were like "wth happened here" with the changes
An inch and a half of armor really isn't too bad. A lot of pre and early war vehicles that were officially classified as 'tanks' didnt even have that much, and its only 'thin armor' if you insist on thinking of it as a tank. Compared to most light armored vehicles like armored cars, halftracks, etc, 1.5 inches is fairly thick, and will stop anything short of direct hits with actual artillery. It is much thicker than the gun shield that serves to protect most towed artillery crew members, and the M10 is more mobile to boot.
Love how thorough you are. When you were talking about the clutches, I started thinking "huh, I bet this thing can perform it's own push start if one of the starters fails". I'm not sure a lot of people would even think about that. So, if they mixed self propelled with towed guns, did they ever just have the SPG's tow the towed guns (I guess you'd have the crew ride on the engine deck)? Seems unlikely, but I like the mental image. Also, it seems like this pairing would remove all the advantages of making the guns self propelled in the first place, so I am wondering if there is a reason for that?
Is it possible that another factor into why they artificially limited the gun depression to -5 degrees is because it was so front heavy already? Having such a massive weight on the internal section of the gun with the counterweights and breach, so much so that they had an external counterweight, as you said right behind the muzzle brake, might have created a very high amount of mechanical stress on the gun itself should it actually be fired below -5 degrees. Another reason could be that, also due to the excessive weights on the gun, aim could not be guaranteed accurate below -5 degrees. Just some thoughts, and thanks for another great tour!
Sir, what's the large metal loop or collar just to the left of your left hand there at 3:34? It looks like it was meant to hold something but I can't imagine what would be right there on the breach like that.
Speaking of all the various modifications the Israelis made, when are you going to go the Israeli tank museum at Latrun? It would be interesting to hear about how all the various modifications they made affected the fightability of the various AFVs.
So are the valve covers missing on both engines or are the rockers exposed normally? Are these the Cadillac v8 motors like the Chafee? Could not see well enough.
That's an easy question to answer, it's the Sherman! Not only was it extremely reliable, easy to produce, comfortable and it was very effective! The Sherman fought in Europe, Pacific, Russia and North Africa!
According to the Danish armor museum, we had the M1Achilles in service from 1955 to 1989. 1989?! And no where do they mention using it for anything else than as a tankdestroyer. pansermuseet.com/index.php/udstilling/kampvogne/m-10-achilles
+TheChieftainWoT If you ment on the Allied side, I could agree with you, but can you explain why is this better than a Jagdpanther except for that slow rotating, hand cranked turret?
+Akula971 we're not all americans....us asians only use inches for TV sizes and such. regularly we use metric since it actually makes sense that 10mm = 1cm
I am so so sorry for this, but I just can’t... simplistic doesn’t mean simple. I know words are whatever we want them to be, but this particular usage, common amongst seppos, loses us a perfectly good word for which there is no easy equivalent. As I said, I’m really sorry. I hate people like me.
+Hristo Aleksandrov tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/suisu-152-vs-german-big-cats.html is disagree the SU-152 had the better gun. It's HE would blow off half the turret of a panther.
Chris Ofelt 152 was used becouse they didnt have better alternative.152 is bad at long range and reloading is nightmare.Hiting moving target is out of the question.the 100 is more acured can pen every german tank at medium range faster and easy to reload very mobile on the t34 frame and can use antitank shells.
152 was a heavy assault gun. Wasn't really made to hit tanks more to obliterate fortifications. I will agree the 100mm had a good balance of reload and pen.
5:12 note how the gunner rams the shell home and continues his movement forward to touch the gunner on the shoulder. No doubt that is to signal that he is clear of the breech and ready to fire, a safety measure. If the gunner is touching his shoulder, he cannot easily also be behind the gun.
So an Israeli modification of a British modification of an American vehicle that has once again been painted with the markings of an American vehicle... Interesting.
+XXRedarmyofoneX I honestly feel like they started planning to do this video, then climbed up in the turret and were like "wth happened here" with the changes
Well we know what to get the Chieftain for Christmas. A 17pnd Firefly Sounds good.
TrueCanad1an or a Hetzer
As opposed to some other type of Firefly, perhaps? A 17lber is what makes a Firefly.
An inch and a half of armor really isn't too bad. A lot of pre and early war vehicles that were officially classified as 'tanks' didnt even have that much, and its only 'thin armor' if you insist on thinking of it as a tank. Compared to most light armored vehicles like armored cars, halftracks, etc, 1.5 inches is fairly thick, and will stop anything short of direct hits with actual artillery. It is much thicker than the gun shield that serves to protect most towed artillery crew members, and the M10 is more mobile to boot.
Love how thorough you are. When you were talking about the clutches, I started thinking "huh, I bet this thing can perform it's own push start if one of the starters fails". I'm not sure a lot of people would even think about that.
So, if they mixed self propelled with towed guns, did they ever just have the SPG's tow the towed guns (I guess you'd have the crew ride on the engine deck)? Seems unlikely, but I like the mental image. Also, it seems like this pairing would remove all the advantages of making the guns self propelled in the first place, so I am wondering if there is a reason for that?
As usual a detailed and interesting video.
Hat doffed to you.
Is it possible that another factor into why they artificially limited the gun depression to -5 degrees is because it was so front heavy already? Having such a massive weight on the internal section of the gun with the counterweights and breach, so much so that they had an external counterweight, as you said right behind the muzzle brake, might have created a very high amount of mechanical stress on the gun itself should it actually be fired below -5 degrees. Another reason could be that, also due to the excessive weights on the gun, aim could not be guaranteed accurate below -5 degrees.
Just some thoughts, and thanks for another great tour!
+Squeesher Also the jarring motion upwards on the turret ring would be reeeally bad for it
Sir, what's the large metal loop or collar just to the left of your left hand there at 3:34? It looks like it was meant to hold something but I can't imagine what would be right there on the breach like that.
Great tour! I like your TD Branch pin!
Speaking of all the various modifications the Israelis made, when are you going to go the Israeli tank museum at Latrun? It would be interesting to hear about how all the various modifications they made affected the fightability of the various AFVs.
So are the valve covers missing on both engines or are the rockers exposed normally? Are these the Cadillac v8 motors like the Chafee? Could not see well enough.
Does anyone else find the backing track for all these videos slightly irritating?
There's allways that one guy
its very repetitive
James Pusey YES
Yes, annoying.
Probably wrong but didn't the British fit a power traverse?
IIR it was adapted from armoured car power steering system.
I see a Panther in the hall.
I would be quite happy if you would do a video about him some time in the future :)
Is this part of the Littlefield collection?
would it be possible they were smart enough to have those rekommendations about the fuel tanks in order to have a lesser risk of fire upon being hit?
You should do more history of tech tree man I miss them😢
i love this series what is the music please tell me
oh and you should probably put it in the description
mr Chieftain, in your opinion, what is the best all around tank in ww2?
I'm a huge fan :) more power to ya!
That's an easy question to answer, it's the Sherman! Not only was it extremely reliable, easy to produce, comfortable and it was very effective! The Sherman fought in Europe, Pacific, Russia and North Africa!
I wish you would give us a hint at the end of the video on what vehicle we can expect next. My patients is crap.
what happens if it rains
I see you're still wearing your combat boots chief
Can you do the Panther Tank!
Was I the only one who was waiting for the joke about Achilles' heel?
Ares noname yes
Skip the MUSIC!!!!!
can we see some of the most common German vehicles of WWII? Panzer IV and Panther for example. don't think i saw them on the channel yet. Thanks ;)
Can you even fit in the M3 lee?
According to the Danish armor museum, we had the M1Achilles in service from 1955 to 1989. 1989?! And no where do they mention using it for anything else than as a tankdestroyer. pansermuseet.com/index.php/udstilling/kampvogne/m-10-achilles
retired from reserve in 1982, finally scrapped and removed in 1989...thry hadn’t actually been in service since 1962
Why not tigers or panthers?
How small would the crew have been? 5 feet? I got a back cramp just watching you crawl in to the driver seat.
+Nasty McJackass Well Chief is a good amount over 6 feet...
stubbk3 about 5’6
best td until the jackson? what about the M-18 then?
it used the 76 so not as punchy as the 90mm Jackson I guess is his logic
+matydrum what about it? :p
+TheChieftainWoT If you ment on the Allied side, I could agree with you, but can you explain why is this better than a Jagdpanther except for that slow rotating, hand cranked turret?
what if it was raining?
There was a canvas that crew can extend over the turret, but I guess that the crew and everything inside got completely wet many times.
m36 next plz
I wish he would review some of the soft skinned wheeled vehicles, too.
I've done the M151, Chevy 1503, MC-51 and M561 so far
Hey can we chill out with the theme music please
I love your videos, but i wish you didn't use music.
mr Chieftain.. Please... Can we stick to metric? :< Most of the world have to google 7.5 inches
+VonGrav When I do a vehicle which is built and tested to metric specifications (eg German or Russian) I do give figures in metric.
+Akula971 we're not all americans....us asians only use inches for TV sizes and such. regularly we use metric since it actually makes sense that 10mm = 1cm
+TheChieftainWoT fair enough ^^,
+Akula971 we havent used imperial system since the early 1900s here :/
+Akula971 Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis..
I am so so sorry for this, but I just can’t...
simplistic doesn’t mean simple.
I know words are whatever we want them to be, but this particular usage, common amongst seppos, loses us a perfectly good word for which there is no easy equivalent.
As I said, I’m really sorry. I hate people like me.
the best anti tank gun of the war is the russian 100mm gun on SU100 used to blow up king tigers panthers and everything the germans had.
+Hristo Aleksandrov tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/suisu-152-vs-german-big-cats.html is disagree the SU-152 had the better gun. It's HE would blow off half the turret of a panther.
Chris Ofelt 152 was used becouse they didnt have better alternative.152 is bad at long range and reloading is nightmare.Hiting moving target is out of the question.the 100 is more acured can pen every german tank at medium range faster and easy to reload very mobile on the t34 frame and can use antitank shells.
152 was a heavy assault gun. Wasn't really made to hit tanks more to obliterate fortifications. I will agree the 100mm had a good balance of reload and pen.
+Hristo Aleksandrov yeah, sure it was.