I imagine someone very immersed in gaming would think so. The 2 guns make it very good in Warthunder and I remember as back as Steel Panthers a small squad of them could easily cut through a 1939 Panzer division. Those game systems aren't very good at dealing with multi-gun vehicles. They also don't model how awful French turrets were. The Soviet T-35 is also awesome in Warthunder and, in reality, it is a clown car.
If ever the U.S. decides to have a national tank museum, than Nicolas Moran should be its director. He is a living encyclopedia of Armor history. Great talk.
@@brealistic3542 did you think before you made your contact because DUH Mr. Doyle has been doing it longer than Mr. Moran AND more Importantly they are GOOD FRIENDS Please show SOME maturity
Actually it's you that shows your immaturity here. What has the length of HD time in this topic have anything to do with it ? So HD are friends. I was once friends with a Luftwaffe pilot. That doesn't make me an expert on the Luftwaffe. HD has done vast research into the topic of armor far more then your hero Moran. That's why I would pick HD over him. This is not to say Moran isn't pretty knowledgeable on the topic but even he knows HD is the gold standard on this topic and frequently quote him. I like both individuals but HD is certainly more knowledgeable I hope you understand.
My favourite thing about the Char B1 is actually how weird and archaic it is. It's truly a landship and not a tank as we think of it. Also, worth noting that the image on screen at 30:34 isn't the capitaine chef d'équipage Pierre Billotte, but his father, général d'armée Gaston Billotte.
I'm watching from Cleveland, Ohio. BUT i just moved here from North Adams. It was always one of those places I would get to eventually, but never made it. Perhaps I'll have to make a return trip.
Will be visiting your museum in a couple of days from now (and meeting up with old friends). Looking forward to see (parts of) the Littlefield collection again - visited it in California when the auction was already planned, but the original place was still open for visitors.
The most likely explanation for calling the M-10 "Wolverine" is that they were built in Michigan, which is widely known as the Wolverine state. The irony of that is that wolverines were never very common in Michigan, even when the state was first being settled. The occasional wolverine wanders in from Canada from time to time when the Great Lakes are frozen over, but that's about it. The nickname actually came from Ohioans when they were looking for a pejorative term for Michiganders during the dispute between Michigan and Ohio over which state owned the city of Toledo. Ohioans thought calling Michiganders "wolverines" was a great insult. But, since wolverines are fearless and feisty, Michiganders embraced the nickname. It's a way better nickname than the one Ohioans use to describe themselves.. After all, a "Buckeye" is just some sort of nut.
"Best tank" changed frequently in early WW2 on a very short timeline for many different reasons. The best British "anti tank gun" early on was even superior to the "88". The fact it was an antiaircraft item, solely "owned" by the RAF Regiment, and nobody was making armour piercing projectiles for it was somewhat unhelpful.
Maybe it’s more accurate to say “Blitzkrieg” is like quoting “Play it again Sam” as an iconic line from Casablanca. It’s a famous quote, but it’s never said in that film.
And any farmboy or gearhead could keep a Sherman running. Especially the Multibank- that was just five 6 cylinder Chrysler truck engines driving the same crankshaft. You needed a team of specialized techs to keep a Panther in the field (or rather, attempt to do so.) And of course the fledgling nation of Israel bought up as many surplus EZ8 Shermans as they could get, fitted them out with Cummins VT-8-460 diesels and a French copy of the Panther gun, and voila! The Super Sherman. Why reinvent the wheel?
Not sure if it's his enthusiasm, knowledge, down to earth presentation, humour or a combination but the cheiftain could talk to you about paint drying and draw you and and capture your attention
Funny that you should mention it. He actually did a (joke) video about him sitting in a freshly painted room and passing the time by talking about random stuff.
I am Australian of Irish descent (together with Viking, Anzac, Convict, Rum and Roman). Nicholas has my families sense of humour so I enjoy his vidieos
The Tank Museum have held some very long livestreams leading up to Tankfest in the past, including 2020 when they painted a Jagdpanther and watched it dry. The stream lasted 4 hours.
Nice to see that we have the exact same opinion regarding the drones. Too many people arguing they made the tank obsolete, it gives massive headaches...
With regard to the second myth, the one about the Pershing, the actual combat effectiveness of the Pershing can be summed in two sentences. In Korea, the Army decided the Pershing wasn't doing the job and replaced them. They replaced them with Shermans. Those two sentences should tell you which tank was more effective.
The Sherman was a better thank than a Pershing *in Korea.* That is important to remember. 1) mountainous terrain, demanding on power/weight, and 2) against them there were T-34/85's. No heavies, no T-54's. There could have been situations where the Pershing totally was the better choice. But overall, the Sherman was at the top of its development, all the kinks were ironed out and it was just a great tank overall, suitable to more conditions than the Pershing. Admittedly, the Pershing didn't need much - mostly "just" the engine upgrade - but it was crucial.
@@vaclav_fejt The Pershing needed a lot more than just an engine upgrade. The suspension for the bogey wheels was poorly designed. The recoil system on the gun had problems. The list goes on and on.
@@wesleyjarboe9571 Pershing was the beginning of a long line of vehicles which culminated in the M60. A diamond in the rough. Sherman was the end of a long line of vehicles which started with the T2 Light Tank in 1933. One can question just how effective the Pershing was, but it was a necessary development given that it had substantially more development potential than the Sherman.
@@chaipup7045 "interesting tank, until it gets flanked..." If you've seen a 103 move, you would know that it doesn't get flanked until it gets destroyed. It is extremely fast and almost absurdly agile. And with the radio operator acting as the backwards driver, it drives same speed backwards as forwards. See if you can find a video of when a skilled driver goes from full speed movement to a snap turn/spin/skid(greater than 90 degrees turn, sometimes outright 180s) to precision accurate firing in less than 2 seconds. The only reason it lost out as badly as it did in the 90s when a nextgen tank was needed, was due to how because the gun and autoloader is literally part of the hull, upgrading the gun becomes a HUGE affair. Which is why someone came up with the idea of seeing if they could get the extra firepower by making the existing gun capable of burstfiring(the autoloader was already almost capable of rapid autofire). Which worked, but still wasn't quite enough to compete with a modern 120mm, although it would utterly tear apart anything that wasn't heavily armored. And even 3-shot bursts degraded the gun much faster than normal firing.
@@DIREWOLFx75The inability to fire on the move didn't do it any favors either. In the 1970s it was fine, pretty much no tank could fire on the move no matter what their advertising brochure said. I'm the late 1990s, that didn't really apply any more.
Advanced Squad Leader had rules for mechanical reliability, one or two man turrets and slow traverse. Playing the Char B loses some of its appeal when you factor in the one man turret, no radio, mechanical unreliability ... not to mention the large size making it easier to hit. And the greater chance of immobilizing it with a shot to the radiators on the left flank.
Although the claim about the radiators being a weal spot is commonly made, apparently the grille was armour plate and shaped in such a way that it was no more of a weak spot than anywhere else.
Great little chat, thanks. It might have been worth clarifying that the thought that the B1 was the best tank, was very much time-specific. ie. at the time of the German charge across France, it WAS superior to the small, light, early Panzers that it encountered, in terms of main gun & armour, but was still fundamentally an old design concept, that was created just after WW1. Most of them broke down, or ran out of fuel, and were quickly abandoned by their crews, I believe? I think the one in the story, had also run out of petrol?
it was not superior though. its guns were not actually better. and while its armour was better that does not make it a superior tank. its inferior in litterally every other way, which are way more important factors. we should not tolerate the idea that thicker armour means superior tank since that plays such a small % of the effectiveness of a tank.
It's hard to say because a lot of that gets decided by things that have nothing to do with the vehicle it self and everything to do with the training, commander, doctrine, terrain, support element and general situation on the ground.
S35 was at least a bit more contemporary in its design so perhaps, but given the very defensive nature of the battle of France given the same situations and commanders I think the B1 might be better overall
@@cassu6 However, the S35 was used effectively at Hannut and the Gembloux gap. Its mission was to halt the Germans until they could set up their artillery later back, and they did indeed fullfill that mission. As a fact, the French were the first nation that did not just collapse the first time they met a German armoured attack!
32:30 The Char B1 armor and weapons were impressive, but it is a little suspicious that there are only a couple of examples of it doing well. Seems a much more likely explanation is exceptional crew in exceptional circumstances.
The 1944 Sherman with the high velocity 76mm gun was a match for the Panther. Lafayette Poole preferred to hunt Panthers. He had 12 tank kills and 258 armored vehicle kills in a 81 day period in 1944. It must be admitted that he was finally wounded in an engagement with a Panther and that ended his combat tour.
Are those claims cross-checked against German records? The number of AFV kills seems extremely high on a kills-per-day basis and Googling shows no evidence that the claims were checked against German records.
Only just discovered this - it's awesome. James Hanson I gotta say you have a voice for radio, have good knowledge of the subject and you allow your guests to speak. A great listen.
Why do people love the Char B1? I think the same reason people love the “tiger”. People love something “glorious” that nevrr had a chance to meet its potential.
An old boss of mine drove a British tank in the western desert,he did tell me but I’ve forgotten which, the constant fumes and sand dust heat etc completely destroyed his sense of smell. Could only taste smells on his tongue.
My Dad served for a year in the Egyptian and Libyan desert in the early fifties as part of his National Service. In that time he lost all of his hair due to the sun 😳
Agreed on Patton. For a sober analysis, the first thing that must be taken off are fanboi blinders. Colonel Nick has gone a long way in that direction; removing classic biases with the sandblaster of truth. Some of my most cherished narratives have been ablated by this process . . . some of them.
For maneuver warfare you only need to look at Sherman's approach to Atlanta, Napoleon, and Eugene of Savoy to see example of maneuver warfare. They were good at it.
On paper (specs)the Char B-1 bis, was a good looking tank, but the 1 man turret made it a cripple in an actual fight. I never heard the Char called the "best" tank either, so it must be a new thing invented by gamers.
Not the best of WW2, that is simply absurd. But it used to be a very common thing to hear that it was the best tank of 1940 / at the start of WW2. Mostly based on people looking through a book with tables listing gun sizes, armour thickness, etc.
I have to admit that I am a little surprised that on the discussion of the Char B1 the Chieftain didn't mention how bad the one man turrets were in terms of the commander having to do the work of 3 men in a normal tank (commander, gunner and loader).
34:51 And the few jobs that the Aircraft Carrier can't do, or just are easier with another ship, can be done with smaller warships, like Destroyers, Frigates or Cruisers. Those ships have the advantage over a full blown Battleship in that because they're individually cheaper to build you can build more of them for the same budget, and use them in more locations. Still would love to see what a modern Battleship would look like, presumably some sort of combination of big guns, multiple missile batteries and sizeable complement of helicopters, as well as a lot of anti-missile systems. That said some of our modern Destroyers are already the length of the early Dreadnoughts, though no where near the same displacement as they lack the same level of armour.
yeah since there aren't any radios installed can't operate successfully in the battle space it was being expected to be a panacea for supporting infantry operations
34:55 Ryan Szimanski (of Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial fame) will argue until he's blue in the face that an aircraft carrier cannot, in fact, do everything that a battleship can do, and that accordingly, the battleship concept is not actually obsolete. Not sure if I agree with him, but he's certainly qualified enough to be taken seriously on this topic.
Mmm... Whilst I do think that the obsolescence did not actually occur until the later 20th century with the advent of all-weather aircraft and munitions, I think it has actually arrived.
can't wrap my head around the thought that there should be something like "the best". that's social media behaviour being trained to google the best product within a range. when it comes to army equipment it doesn't work like that.
Well there’s always the Best But there’s never the best and thus every other than this thing is Absolutely Null and Void without any evidence to even attempt to justify why I think this way Too much Absolutionism in Culture
Everything on the battlefield is vulnerable. The only difference is teh degree of vulnerabilty and under what circumstances. As such, something does not become obsolete when it becomes "Vulnerable". It becomes obsolete when something (or somethings) fullfills the mission better.
The "Human" as military equipment, so to speak, has been obsolete for hundreds of years yet it hasn't been removed from the battlefield because there is no equivalent replacement.
I collect swords. I also like to be informed about tanks. These interests are related. Some of the best and most uncompromisingly purpose built items of human technology are weapons. Morals aside., and as an army veteran, I can affirm, I hate war, but there is nothing, so purpose built and uncompromisingly designed as a weapon.
Not in the European theatre, where there were far more battleship actions than in the Pacific, where long winter nights and bad weather meant that carrier aircraft could often not fly or fight, and where the Axis often had a vast numerical advantage in aircraft over the battle area. The Battle of North Cape, for example, was preceded by and fought in a mid-winter gale and darkness in which battleships, cruisers and destroyers could operate but carrier aircraft could not, or not well. And what's also often ignored is that even in peacetime when each aircraft was expected to last five years, a 23,000 ton carrier with just 36 aircraft cost 125% as much to run as a battleship. The logistical tail and replacement problems of a carrier in wartime, when aircraft had a very short life, were vastly greater. So no-one was going to replace carriers with battleships unless they were prepared to have far fewer carriers than battleships, or find millions of dollars under a couch.
No one has ever said, in any history book, that the Char B1 was the best tank of WW2. There wasn't any such tank. The Somua S35 was the best tank in the Battle for France, but let down by tactics. No artillery, no infantry, no anti-tank gun support, but it still stopped the German advance.
Some were better or worse kinda objectively. But I think everything has a niche, and even if that niche was "this is cheap and fast to make" it's fulfilled that goal. It all comes down to what you prioritize.
If Char B is best tank in the WW2, if I want to face it 1 vs 1 against King Tiger and IS-2. Let me tell you one shot from IS-2 will completely kill it and you won't even find a full Skelton inside it.
I am surprised you didn't mention Percy Hobart, Guderian was very well known for copying the work of Percy Hobart for the Germans new version of warfare
If we define blitzkrieg as being maneuver warfare then Hannibal Barca invented blitzkrieg over two thousand years ago. While the battle units he used are hardly relevant today his genius of planning, using the terrain and even anticipating his enemy's actions to outmaneuver them are taught even to this day!
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
I have never ever heard someone claiming that the CharB was the best tank of ww2. 😮
I imagine someone very immersed in gaming would think so. The 2 guns make it very good in Warthunder and I remember as back as Steel Panthers a small squad of them could easily cut through a 1939 Panzer division.
Those game systems aren't very good at dealing with multi-gun vehicles. They also don't model how awful French turrets were.
The Soviet T-35 is also awesome in Warthunder and, in reality, it is a clown car.
I have a French cousin. Yes, he is that stupid. 🙂
I see a lot of people claim it was the best tank of 1940 as a way to big up the Germans, especially those who follow a lot of the older history books.
The CharB was the second best tank of WW2. The Italian tankette was BY FAR the best.
Like saying the Valentine was not the best tank in WW2
If ever the U.S. decides to have a national tank museum, than Nicolas Moran should be its director. He is a living encyclopedia of Armor history. Great talk.
I would Much prefer Hillary Doyle. He actually is a living encyclopedia on armor. The Chieftain not so much.😁
@@brealistic3542 did you think before you made your contact because DUH Mr. Doyle has been doing it longer than Mr. Moran AND more Importantly they are GOOD FRIENDS Please show SOME maturity
@@brealistic3542 I wouldn't discount LTC Moran's first-hand (and current) experience with armored warfare, though.
@@mustangmanmustangman4596 Tell that to your fellow Moran tank fans, a lot of them have a lot to learn about maturity
Actually it's you that shows your immaturity here. What has the length of HD time in this topic have anything to do with it ? So HD are friends. I was once friends with a Luftwaffe pilot. That doesn't make me an expert on the Luftwaffe. HD has done vast research into the topic of armor far more then your hero Moran. That's why I would pick HD over him. This is not to say Moran isn't pretty knowledgeable on the topic but even he knows HD is the gold standard on this topic and frequently quote him. I like both individuals but HD is certainly more knowledgeable I hope you understand.
My favourite thing about the Char B1 is actually how weird and archaic it is. It's truly a landship and not a tank as we think of it.
Also, worth noting that the image on screen at 30:34 isn't the capitaine chef d'équipage Pierre Billotte, but his father, général d'armée Gaston Billotte.
However it pales into insignificance beside the wonder that is TOG2🧐🧐🧐
@Lowlandlord I think it was designed by committee with each person getting one idea onto the final design.
Char B1 is at that same level of steampunky coolness as the M3 Grant/Lee.
Love listening to The Chieftain go on about armored vehicles. You can so easily tell how much he loves digging up bits of info on them.
I am watching this from my home in Stow, MA, about 3 miles from the Collings Foundation museum. Thanks for the shout out!
I'm watching from Cleveland, Ohio. BUT i just moved here from North Adams. It was always one of those places I would get to eventually, but never made it. Perhaps I'll have to make a return trip.
Will be visiting your museum in a couple of days from now (and meeting up with old friends). Looking forward to see (parts of) the Littlefield collection again - visited it in California when the auction was already planned, but the original place was still open for visitors.
The most likely explanation for calling the M-10 "Wolverine" is that they were built in Michigan, which is widely known as the Wolverine state.
The irony of that is that wolverines were never very common in Michigan, even when the state was first being settled. The occasional wolverine wanders in from Canada from time to time when the Great Lakes are frozen over, but that's about it.
The nickname actually came from Ohioans when they were looking for a pejorative term for Michiganders during the dispute between Michigan and Ohio over which state owned the city of Toledo. Ohioans thought calling Michiganders "wolverines" was a great insult. But, since wolverines are fearless and feisty, Michiganders embraced the nickname.
It's a way better nickname than the one Ohioans use to describe themselves.. After all, a "Buckeye" is just some sort of nut.
I'm inclined to go with that theory as well, but as I say, no actual evidence to support it has as yet been published.
And to think, Ohio “won” Toledo. Congrats.
@@MrDubyadee1 And Michigan got the Upper Peninsula in exchange. :)
@@TheChieftainsHatchHey, Nick! Mark McCall from Elberton, GA! Thanks for all your help when we were in Afghanistan, in ‘09!
@lynnallen1585 Hey, Hooligan! You still in?
Very good Video. The Chieftain has been destroying tank myths for many year now and the tank world is better for it
"Best tank" changed frequently in early WW2 on a very short timeline for many different reasons. The best British "anti tank gun" early on was even superior to the "88". The fact it was an antiaircraft item, solely "owned" by the RAF Regiment, and nobody was making armour piercing projectiles for it was somewhat unhelpful.
Love Mr. Moran! He knows what he is talking about, he has done it himself, and he can communicate all of it!
Colonel Moran you mean
@@samrodian919 Both are terms of respect.
Bonus appearance by Chieftan's Emotional Support Missile.
Maybe it’s more accurate to say “Blitzkrieg” is like quoting “Play it again Sam” as an iconic line from Casablanca. It’s a famous quote, but it’s never said in that film.
The Sherman was made with logistic in mind. Rail cars, port cranes, ships and field repair. It was an amazing feet of engineering
Yep from the iron , to the steel to the battleground . All about logistics..
a true amarican hero here in the comments, you can tell since we cant spell feat.
@@stepansvabenicky1638No, I think he meant feet. I believe it's a metaphor for base of engineering.
@@Mr_Dopey that had better be a joke my good sir
And any farmboy or gearhead could keep a Sherman running. Especially the Multibank- that was just five 6 cylinder Chrysler truck engines driving the same crankshaft. You needed a team of specialized techs to keep a Panther in the field (or rather, attempt to do so.)
And of course the fledgling nation of Israel bought up as many surplus EZ8 Shermans as they could get, fitted them out with Cummins VT-8-460 diesels and a French copy of the Panther gun, and voila! The Super Sherman. Why reinvent the wheel?
Not sure if it's his enthusiasm, knowledge, down to earth presentation, humour or a combination but the cheiftain could talk to you about paint drying and draw you and and capture your attention
Funny that you should mention it. He actually did a (joke) video about him sitting in a freshly painted room and passing the time by talking about random stuff.
That video was a lot of fun and worth watching heh
I am Australian of Irish descent (together with Viking, Anzac, Convict, Rum and Roman). Nicholas has my families sense of humour so I enjoy his vidieos
The Tank Museum have held some very long livestreams leading up to Tankfest in the past, including 2020 when they painted a Jagdpanther and watched it dry. The stream lasted 4 hours.
finally real history, stop with stupid myths!
I'm a simple man, i see The Chieftain, I click!
Now get Drahinefel and naval myth busting!
Great call. And Matt from scholagladiatoria, for the sharp, pointy stuff.
That is why Drach started his channel. He found the existing podcasts to have errors.
Swiftly followed by Gun-Jesus™️
Amusingly, I'm watching this one two weeks later after watching the one with Drachinifel.
@@jmurray886 I'd prefer Othias, but Jonathan of the Royal Armoury in Leeds is more likely.
Nice to see that we have the exact same opinion regarding the drones. Too many people arguing they made the tank obsolete, it gives massive headaches...
Colonel Nicholas Moran is my favourite American Paddy. I love listening to this man!
Well I can vouch for the Train bit.
This was another excellent analysis of the subject of warfare in the 20th century. Keep up the good work!
With regard to the second myth, the one about the Pershing, the actual combat effectiveness of the Pershing can be summed in two sentences.
In Korea, the Army decided the Pershing wasn't doing the job and replaced them. They replaced them with Shermans.
Those two sentences should tell you which tank was more effective.
Mountain terrain, Korea is not tank friendly
The Sherman was a better thank than a Pershing *in Korea.* That is important to remember. 1) mountainous terrain, demanding on power/weight, and 2) against them there were T-34/85's. No heavies, no T-54's.
There could have been situations where the Pershing totally was the better choice. But overall, the Sherman was at the top of its development, all the kinks were ironed out and it was just a great tank overall, suitable to more conditions than the Pershing.
Admittedly, the Pershing didn't need much - mostly "just" the engine upgrade - but it was crucial.
@@vaclav_fejt
The Pershing needed a lot more than just an engine upgrade. The suspension for the bogey wheels was poorly designed. The recoil system on the gun had problems. The list goes on and on.
@@wesleyjarboe9571 Pershing was the beginning of a long line of vehicles which culminated in the M60. A diamond in the rough. Sherman was the end of a long line of vehicles which started with the T2 Light Tank in 1933. One can question just how effective the Pershing was, but it was a necessary development given that it had substantially more development potential than the Sherman.
@@classifiedad1
Even if that's true, I have to agree with the US Army that combat is NOT a valid testing environment for new or experimental weapons.
So nice to see the Chieftan...great video. Thanks.
Is that a Strv 103 in Swedish colors I spot on the shelf? The Chieftain has impeccable taste
interesting tank, until it gets flanked...
It is
yes. designed for defensive battles against soviet b tank formations and bmds.
@@chaipup7045 "interesting tank, until it gets flanked..."
If you've seen a 103 move, you would know that it doesn't get flanked until it gets destroyed.
It is extremely fast and almost absurdly agile. And with the radio operator acting as the backwards driver, it drives same speed backwards as forwards.
See if you can find a video of when a skilled driver goes from full speed movement to a snap turn/spin/skid(greater than 90 degrees turn, sometimes outright 180s) to precision accurate firing in less than 2 seconds.
The only reason it lost out as badly as it did in the 90s when a nextgen tank was needed, was due to how because the gun and autoloader is literally part of the hull, upgrading the gun becomes a HUGE affair.
Which is why someone came up with the idea of seeing if they could get the extra firepower by making the existing gun capable of burstfiring(the autoloader was already almost capable of rapid autofire). Which worked, but still wasn't quite enough to compete with a modern 120mm, although it would utterly tear apart anything that wasn't heavily armored. And even 3-shot bursts degraded the gun much faster than normal firing.
@@DIREWOLFx75The inability to fire on the move didn't do it any favors either. In the 1970s it was fine, pretty much no tank could fire on the move no matter what their advertising brochure said. I'm the late 1990s, that didn't really apply any more.
I liked that you guys talked for a bit before getting to the list.
About blitzkrieg maneuver warfare in practice it feels like Percy Hobart doesn’t get enough credit
You are right, he doesn't.
Hobarth was great, and a great personality. But how much impact did he have on history?
@@PalleRasmusseni would say just his impact alone on the succes of D-day is historical enough but he did so much more for the Britsh Armored Forces.
The fat electrician did a very good video on this topic.
Advanced Squad Leader had rules for mechanical reliability, one or two man turrets and slow traverse. Playing the Char B loses some of its appeal when you factor in the one man turret, no radio, mechanical unreliability ... not to mention the large size making it easier to hit. And the greater chance of immobilizing it with a shot to the radiators on the left flank.
Although the claim about the radiators being a weal spot is commonly made, apparently the grille was armour plate and shaped in such a way that it was no more of a weak spot than anywhere else.
Sounds like not a game I want to play
@@donaldhysa4836 It's very popular. Maybe you should give it a try.
@@donaldhysa4836 but it's the best though.
Great little chat, thanks. It might have been worth clarifying that the thought that the B1 was the best tank, was very much time-specific. ie. at the time of the German charge across France, it WAS superior to the small, light, early Panzers that it encountered, in terms of main gun & armour, but was still fundamentally an old design concept, that was created just after WW1. Most of them broke down, or ran out of fuel, and were quickly abandoned by their crews, I believe? I think the one in the story, had also run out of petrol?
it was not superior though. its guns were not actually better. and while its armour was better that does not make it a superior tank. its inferior in litterally every other way, which are way more important factors.
we should not tolerate the idea that thicker armour means superior tank since that plays such a small % of the effectiveness of a tank.
From what I have seen, it seems that the S-35 SOMUA was actually more effective in fighting the Germans than the Char-b1?
It's hard to say because a lot of that gets decided by things that have nothing to do with the vehicle it self and everything to do with the training, commander, doctrine, terrain, support element and general situation on the ground.
S35 was at least a bit more contemporary in its design so perhaps, but given the very defensive nature of the battle of France given the same situations and commanders I think the B1 might be better overall
@@cassu6 However, the S35 was used effectively at Hannut and the Gembloux gap. Its mission was to halt the Germans until they could set up their artillery later back, and they did indeed fullfill that mission. As a fact, the French were the first nation that did not just collapse the first time they met a German armoured attack!
32:30 The Char B1 armor and weapons were impressive, but it is a little suspicious that there are only a couple of examples of it doing well. Seems a much more likely explanation is exceptional crew in exceptional circumstances.
Great choice in guest commentator.
If only you could aritculate a little bit better
@@reinach77 Fair enough. Cheers, Brah. 🍻👍🏻
The 1944 Sherman with the high velocity 76mm gun was a match for the Panther. Lafayette Poole preferred to hunt Panthers. He had 12 tank kills and 258 armored vehicle kills in a 81 day period in 1944. It must be admitted that he was finally wounded in an engagement with a Panther and that ended his combat tour.
Are those claims cross-checked against German records? The number of AFV kills seems extremely high on a kills-per-day basis and Googling shows no evidence that the claims were checked against German records.
"You get promoted enough times and they take your tank away from you and give you a desk" 😆
Brilliant, The Chieftain. Looking forward to part 2 (and 3 and 4) "hint, hint"
I think people love the Char Bis because it has a retro sci-fi/ alternative history vibe to it.
It’s like something from an Indiana Jones film.
Or a Miyazaki anime. All those protruding guns and hulking, rounded lines....
It's literally the russ from warhammer with slightly different proportions.
@@flatheadgg2443 Didn't that have side-sponson guns like a WW1 Mk.1, too?
@@MM22966 The yeah, the Leman Russ is a mix of the German tank of WW1 and the B1 Bis.
@@alkazarjkdghjd I was actually thinking of the British Mk.1 (Male), but the German A7V counts too.
I could listen to Col. Moran talk about... well, anything he wants to... all day...
Nicholas well said thank you as always.
Absolutely outstanding I love your program
It’s been a while since I had the opportunity, but Nick Moran is just a fun guy to hang out and wargame with.
Only just discovered this - it's awesome. James Hanson I gotta say you have a voice for radio, have good knowledge of the subject and you allow your guests to speak. A great listen.
The char B is the only real tank you can sneak in a game of 40k without anyone noticing.
Therefore bestest tonk ever for all times, Q.E.D.
I see you never met my friend TOG.
24:34 yes Sir John Monash combined arms in the 100 days
Why do people love the Char B1? I think the same reason people love the “tiger”. People love something “glorious” that nevrr had a chance to meet its potential.
Great armour, great guns. Problems were; needed refueling often, lousy communications, low reliability and single man turret.
I never heard any fanfare for the Char B1
@@donaldhysa4836
Because it was obsolete very early
Great show! Great guest!
An old boss of mine drove a British tank in the western desert,he did tell me but I’ve forgotten which, the constant fumes and sand dust heat etc completely destroyed his sense of smell. Could only taste smells on his tongue.
My Dad served for a year in the Egyptian and Libyan desert in the early fifties as part of his National Service.
In that time he lost all of his hair due to the sun 😳
Always interesting to listen to the Chieftan - great video.
The Char B was awful in many ways. The one-man turret was idiotic.
Monash for maneuver warfare in WW1
Agreed on Patton. For a sober analysis, the first thing that must be taken off are fanboi blinders. Colonel Nick has gone a long way in that direction; removing classic biases with the sandblaster of truth. Some of my most cherished narratives have been ablated by this process . . . some of them.
NOONE EVER CLAIMED CHAR B1 IS THE BEST TANK OF WW2!!! If someone ever seriously did they laughed out of the room
The Chieftain says the strangest thing
Yeah, I think it was a bit of a misspeak, it has been a common claim that it was the best tank of 1939/1940 (or variations thereof)
For maneuver warfare you only need to look at Sherman's approach to Atlanta, Napoleon, and Eugene of Savoy to see example of maneuver warfare. They were good at it.
On paper (specs)the Char B-1 bis, was a good looking tank, but the 1 man turret made it a cripple in an actual fight. I never heard the Char called the "best" tank either, so it must be a new thing invented by gamers.
I have literally never heard anyone say the Char B1 was the best tank of WW2. Not once.
@@R0d_1984Clearly
Not the best of WW2, that is simply absurd. But it used to be a very common thing to hear that it was the best tank of 1940 / at the start of WW2.
Mostly based on people looking through a book with tables listing gun sizes, armour thickness, etc.
37:50 I am cracking up here, even though I knew what he meant!
I have to admit that I am a little surprised that on the discussion of the Char B1 the Chieftain didn't mention how bad the one man turrets were in terms of the commander having to do the work of 3 men in a normal tank (commander, gunner and loader).
Chieftain, '56 tons of rumbling dermatitis'; truth or fiction? 😂
on the nicknames part: it's the same as the A-10 being officially named the Thunderbolt II but nobody calls it such. It's the Warthog.
34:51 And the few jobs that the Aircraft Carrier can't do, or just are easier with another ship, can be done with smaller warships, like Destroyers, Frigates or Cruisers. Those ships have the advantage over a full blown Battleship in that because they're individually cheaper to build you can build more of them for the same budget, and use them in more locations.
Still would love to see what a modern Battleship would look like, presumably some sort of combination of big guns, multiple missile batteries and sizeable complement of helicopters, as well as a lot of anti-missile systems. That said some of our modern Destroyers are already the length of the early Dreadnoughts, though no where near the same displacement as they lack the same level of armour.
The myth being that anyone much ever claimed or believed that the Char B was the best tank.
yeah since there aren't any radios installed can't operate successfully in the battle space it was being expected to be a panacea for supporting infantry operations
Can confirm the tank museum in Stow mass is awesome. Have been there couple times.
US army still had problems with the m26 in Korea, nevermind ww2
I wasn't even aware that this was a myth.
34:55 Ryan Szimanski (of Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial fame) will argue until he's blue in the face that an aircraft carrier cannot, in fact, do everything that a battleship can do, and that accordingly, the battleship concept is not actually obsolete. Not sure if I agree with him, but he's certainly qualified enough to be taken seriously on this topic.
Mmm... Whilst I do think that the obsolescence did not actually occur until the later 20th century with the advent of all-weather aircraft and munitions, I think it has actually arrived.
I love videos where The Chieftain gets to flex his tank brain muscle
u guys keep on inviting my favorite Tubers ... and I lve frontline on the other channel
can't wrap my head around the thought that there should be something like "the best". that's social media behaviour being trained to google the best product within a range. when it comes to army equipment it doesn't work like that.
Well there’s always the Best
But there’s never the best and thus every other than this thing is Absolutely Null and Void without any evidence to even attempt to justify why I think this way
Too much Absolutionism in Culture
Everything on the battlefield is vulnerable. The only difference is teh degree of vulnerabilty and under what circumstances. As such, something does not become obsolete when it becomes "Vulnerable". It becomes obsolete when something (or somethings) fullfills the mission better.
One thing is not a myth tho, the Char B1 was the most Warhammer-tank operational in WWII!
crews must have been big napoleon fans ... you know, the emperor ^^
The "Human" as military equipment, so to speak, has been obsolete for hundreds of years yet it hasn't been removed from the battlefield because there is no equivalent replacement.
something by defintion cannot be obsolete without a superior replacement.
I collect swords. I also like to be informed about tanks. These interests are related. Some of the best and most uncompromisingly purpose built items of human technology are weapons. Morals aside., and as an army veteran, I can affirm, I hate war, but there is nothing, so purpose built and uncompromisingly designed as a weapon.
its easy to say after introduction of a tool and before countermeasures that the tool is unstoppable. You have to wait a bit to see the counter.
The tank replacement will be the T1000 Terminator, skynet
The Chieftain is waaay overqualified to be on this channel
The aircraft carrier of WW2 caused significant emotional events the enemy at greater distance than the battleship of the period could ever do.
Not in the European theatre, where there were far more battleship actions than in the Pacific, where long winter nights and bad weather meant that carrier aircraft could often not fly or fight, and where the Axis often had a vast numerical advantage in aircraft over the battle area. The Battle of North Cape, for example, was preceded by and fought in a mid-winter gale and darkness in which battleships, cruisers and destroyers could operate but carrier aircraft could not, or not well. And what's also often ignored is that even in peacetime when each aircraft was expected to last five years, a 23,000 ton carrier with just 36 aircraft cost 125% as much to run as a battleship. The logistical tail and replacement problems of a carrier in wartime, when aircraft had a very short life, were vastly greater. So no-one was going to replace carriers with battleships unless they were prepared to have far fewer carriers than battleships, or find millions of dollars under a couch.
No one has ever said, in any history book, that the Char B1 was the best tank of WW2. There wasn't any such tank. The Somua S35 was the best tank in the Battle for France, but let down by tactics. No artillery, no infantry, no anti-tank gun support, but it still stopped the German advance.
Its a internate myth that gotten popular the last few months for some reason
Not even 2 minutes in and im being personally attacked
I find myself interested in how a Irish national winds up being an officer in the U.S. Army. I'd love to hear how that story happened.
Char B1? I have heard repeatedly about T-34s. I was barely aware that there was a Char-B.
the castor oil part did it for me
Some were better or worse kinda objectively. But I think everything has a niche, and even if that niche was "this is cheap and fast to make" it's fulfilled that goal. It all comes down to what you prioritize.
Makes me want a Tayto sandwich and watch reruns of Father Ted
I never heard anybody say it was.
I think they did a number on the Großdeutschland regiment.
in the opening segment, you forget the title "best dad ever"
THAT's why TH-cam keeps suggesting all those goddam trainspotting videos.
If Char B is best tank in the WW2, if I want to face it 1 vs 1 against King Tiger and IS-2. Let me tell you one shot from IS-2 will completely kill it and you won't even find a full Skelton inside it.
Chieftain is the best
I am surprised you didn't mention Percy Hobart, Guderian was very well known for copying the work of Percy Hobart for the Germans new version of warfare
If we define blitzkrieg as being maneuver warfare then Hannibal Barca invented blitzkrieg over two thousand years ago.
While the battle units he used are hardly relevant today his genius of planning, using the terrain and even anticipating his enemy's actions to outmaneuver them are taught even to this day!
Man was interviewed by the most realistic looking bobblehead I've ever seen.... Jesus Christ, it's uncanny
I guess nobody ever really thought that I hope 😅
Who, literally, ever said the Char B1 was even a merely good tank, nevermind the best?
I would be very interested to hear who Cheiftan thinks the top WW1-modern general is?
trying to find Data on the PvLvv FM/42 swedish 20mm , need to know the ammo count for this Vehicle
Who is it that claims the Char B1 was a good tank? Not even best, just good?
Are there people that really think that?
The tiny kernel comes up against the not-so-tiny colonel.😉
Somebody need to make a meme of "Cool. Fundamentally. Cool."
I’d prefer to see Tank Bunks Demythed.
This channel would be great if it werent so short and BBC like. relax a bit, get with the times guys.
It's the TH-cam channel of the radio station of a broadsheet newspaper, it's not a huge surprise they've ended up like this.
We all know that the best tank of WW2 was the Bob Semple tank.
The French Tank Corps was a disaster. No training, a mix of unreliable vehicles that can’t move or communicate. The Char B bis was a paper weight.
To be fair, the German advance into Poland was a mess, they got the opportunity to learn from that. The French did not have the time to learn.