Estonian man reacts to Evolution of American Tanks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ธ.ค. 2021
- Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3otPh3f
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code FIRE to get for free:
200 Doubloons
1M Credits
Tier 5 - USS Texas
20x Restless Fire Camouflage
7 Days Premium Account
The promo code is only for new players during the registration.
Armchair Historian:
/ thearmchairhistorian
Become a patron of the channel
/ arturrehi
Estonian Soldier Hat, Estonian TH-camr Cup, Fish Documentary Shirt:
artur-rehi.myshopify.com/
NEW CHANNEL:
/ @arturrehipodcast
My Tiktok:
/ arturrehi
My instagram:
/ arturrehi
My facebook page:
/ arturehi
You can send me stuff to:
Öö tn 4-2, Tartu, Estonia 50103
Videos I have done about Estonia:
• Estonian culture
Check out my music:
• Video
Until my next video
Stay cool my friends!
Bye bye!
Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3otPh3f
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code FIRE to get for free:
200 Doubloons
1M Credits
Tier 5 - USS Texas
20x Restless Fire Camouflage
7 Days Premium Account
The promo code is only for new players during the registration.
greetings from Las Vegas, Nevada....okay so i have 2 ask why were u surprised (2:40ish time mark) when the guy said "Americans involvement in the first World War"??
oh by the way. im glad i rediscovered ur channel Artur. and am glad that u got ur channel back(i k ow thats kinda old news,but still glad never less) later man, have fun and b.safe
how much did they pay or is that confidential, also are you gonna make a discord
Since you are back into the history of military equipment, I think it would be cool if you watched some of the videos by RedEffect. He makes videos about tanks (especially Soviet and Russian tanks) talking in great detail about their advantages and disadvantages.
around the 6 minute mark......lol lol ha ha ha. that..." if u feel bad, well u should" ha ha ha
OLD(ER) TANKST sell them /scrap them/moth ball them..use as target practice
I genuinely love how Arthur is brutally honest about his opinions and can care less how it’s received. It adds a lot of humanity to the channel.
That’s what makes his videos so good, because even when the audience disagrees with him they still like him
He also seems to not care if his opinions have the slightest grounding in reality. Much of what he thinks he knows is wrong, but he is very opinionated about it.
"I like Toyota, it's boring but it's reliable"
-Artur Rehi
Do be like that tho
I love his honesty, it’s what everyone thinks but don’t say. I’d love for him to drive a Cadillac, Hellcat, Mustang or any HD truck and see his reaction after he feels raw power
Wet ammo storage basically means there is water around the ammo storage so if a round gets into the tank it hits the water first which gets the ammo wet and makes the ammo less likely to catch fire or explode.
Typically glycol was used instead, though you could use water in a pinch. But yeah, the idea was to douse a spark before it got out of control and detonated the entire tank.
@@pyronuke4768 give me a break, I know 90% more than 90% of people. But I know 90% of what I know has something wrong with it.
Edit: my brain is an omelette made of like 2000 books.
@@A_Name_ I hear you, I have the exact same problem.
@@pyronuke4768 same here! Big history buff but don’t really like books that much so I have to take TH-cam and other platforms as truth.
Water or Glycol, and A rust inhibitor.
A couple of things happens to the old tank 1.) They're sold to nations that can't produce there own tank 2.) They're made into tank/bombing range targets 3.) Used as platforms for new tech 4.) Sold for scrap 5.) Sold to local collectors/museums.
Depends on couple of things. One is how useful it was in combat. Second is how reliable it is to see further use to anyone? Third is how significant historically anyone could buy to preserve or how much a collector/museum is willing to pay to get one. If its none of the above, it is either a range target or to the smelters.
@@BHuang92 Yeah more often then not tho they're smelted, range targets, sold or given to other countries. Kinda sad tho
So far as my own personal knowledge goes, you're only leaving out one action: leave it in place & let the locals decide what to do. The US did what many nations did by choosing this route & that's why there are lots of leftovers in Europe. Otoh, you are probably mostly covering this with #5 collectors/museums, whether they were sold or not.
The Abrams goes much faster, we just don't want our enemies to plan on a speed, so it's always a surprise when we get there earlier than expected....
Yes but now I’m not so sure, weighted down versus when it was first introduced. I doubt it can actually go much past what it’s advertised to do.. now around 76 metric tons? Lmao
Good equipment but at what cost?
@@calebwhite1454 you may be right, didn't think about max weight...
@@calebwhite1454 I'm an mechanic and was an operator for the Abrams line of tanks. The newest V3 Abrams tanks weigh in at 81 tons full combat load and are limited to 40mph. The turbine can go significantly faster (i've had a turretless tank go 106 mph) but it starts to destroy the tracks and turning is out of the question.
@@cortefurlong2452 well you would know from experience, I’m just a 24 year old kid in Montana who tinkers on old cars XD
but that’s cool :)
And thank you for your service. Anything counts and makes all the difference and I appreciate it
@@calebwhite1454 No problem, I just like to talk about them and give people correct information since videos aren't always up to date or correct. Not trying to rag on you! And we're the same age anywho :D
The Sherman tank had an air cooled airplane engine in it. And remember, it's how to make a buck. Some U.S. officers denounced the Sherman. The Tiger was meant to smash everything it encountered but it came too late in the war. It had the 88mm. Germany had no fuel thanks to Hitler's hatred of Stalin and Stalingrad. Wet for the cook off. The longer the barrel, the longer the propellant burning time, the faster the projectile.
the tiger wasnt 2 late to say... the main issue fr Germany has always been manufacturing capabilities. they could never match the U.S.A. and blah....the Russian reds.
The Tiger 1 was actually a contemporary to the Sherman and did a number on allied armor. However, it was a metal cube with a very long gun on it. It was an improvised solution to the problem of not having a big tank. As the war went on, they refined the designs with slopes and other useful features, but by that point their economy was in ruin and the US and USSR both had equal or better technology. The Russians and the USA both had some very good heavy tanks ready to hit the field by the time Berlin came under siege.
Early in the war the Sherman had an airplane engine because it was the only thing powerful enough. However, by the end of the war the engine was swapped out multiple time for a traditional square block engine of increasingly smaller size, adding to the internal space available for other things.
Stalingrad was an important military objective, Hitler didnt want to capture it because he just hated Stalin so much
Mitsubishi continues to produce vehicles for the JSDF to this day. One of the vehicles they've produced for the JGSDF for nearly a decade now is the type 10 tank. It's a beautiful 4th generation main battle tank and I highly recommend reacting to it at some point.
Yeah, Germany was the only country to have its companies banned from weapons manufacturing. Its kinda dumb that Germany was blamed entirely for WW2 and suffered virtually all the consequences while Japan escaped without lasting consequences. Before you shout about nukes - the imperial palace was intentionally left alone (never targeted) and the emperor was left in power, with the imperial flag of Japan allowed to remain in place. This is EXACTLY the same as leaving Hitler in power and the NAZI party, along with their flag. Japan got off extremely easy, and the US even paid an enormous amount of money to help rebuild.
@@gunmnky Well, first of all, under the Marshall Plan, the US gave money to European countries to rebuild. Second of all, yes, he stayed in power, but Japan was held under a military occupation by America for at least 10 years, so the emperor wouldn't be able to do anything. Additionally, the US rewrote Japan's constitution, limiting itself to only a national defense force, nothing strong enough to attack another country.
@@gunmnky Also, are you going to try and tell me that H&K is not German, and doesn't manufature weapons?
@@OpRaven-62 I never said the US didn't help rebuild Europe. But it was EUROPE. Not specifically Germany, half of which was owned by the USSR. There is a significant difference between small arms manufacturing and strategic bomber manufacturing. If you aren't aware of why a strategic bomber might be a bigger deal than a rifle, you might want to go look them up. The allied powers stopped short of completely crippling Germany's military industry because of the Soviet Union and threat it posed to Western Europe. Like Japan, Germany is unable to produce weapons to project power. How many bombers do they have? How many carriers?
Article 7 only mitigates carriers, strategic bombers and landing craft. Japan could still wage a 5th generation war against one of its neighbors without any of those, so its a moot point. The US has been trying to convince Japan to amend the constitution to allow carrier and first strike forces, but Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world and producing a military capable of standing in for just the US Pacific forces would bankrupt the entire nation.
The point is, Japan got off EXTREMELY easy compared to Germany and their war crimes would make Himmler blush.
@@gunmnky First, you made it sound like the US SOLELY helped Japan, which is untrue. Also, you didn’t specify what military infrastructure you were talking about.
The reason these companies were used to build military tech was because they already had factories, equipment, and machining to do so. They were all private sector factories that were essentially ordered to produce military tech by their governments
My Dad was in WW2, in Europe, 5 major battles, he said he only saw one big German tank moving under it's own power. Shermans were everywhere.
Also, the Wright engines were made by the company started by the Wright Brothers. Yes, those Wright Brothers.
tanks needed a lot of power so most used aircraft engines to run, not surprising the company from the boys that invented airplanes got in on that action
14:40 The US had the most reliable tanks of the war and Cadillac made (and still makes) some of the best engines in the world. The corvette engine is hand made with each builder's name plate attached to it. One of the reasons the British loved the US tanks is their low maintenance and high reliability.
Ford built a ton of b24 bombers in the second world war. I think the reason auto manufacturers make military equipment is they already have a lot of the manufacturing capability, just a change in tooling a bit
There is a good quote about American tanks in WW2. It was from a German tank ace and went something like "A German Tiger could easily take on 10 Sherman's but the problem was you always had 11."
It was actually a tiger could take on 4 Sherman’s but the fifth one kills you. And it was based on the fact American armor doctrine is 5 tanks as a he smallest grouping. Sherman’s were more than capable of killing tigers but tigers could also easily kill Sherman’s. It was a literal first to be seen dies
@@derrickmeade4891 Depends on range and where they are shooting A 75mm Sherman would need to be within 300 yards of a Tiger to pen it from the front. The Tiger scene in the movie "Fury" was stupid because EVERY Sherman in that platoon had the ability to penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor from that range. Fury's 76mm gun most certainly could, but they still set up the battle that they had to hit the Tiger in the side or rear, which is just BS.
@@tsdobbi that’s true
Artur - some (very few) American Abrams have been lost to enemy fire, usually from fires but in one case a 23mm antiaircraft cannon got behind an Abrams and pierced her rear armor. None have been frontally penetrated by enemy fire.
Don't see how that's possible because in desert storm they had a abrams break down and they couldn't repair it do that had another Abrams come up behind it and shoot it in the read with a heat round to destroy it and the heat shell just bounced off also other countries that use abrams like suadie Arabia have lost abrams to enemy fire but the us has not we have only ever lost them to mechanical problems
@@freedomefighterbrony9053 It all comes down to support and training .
also I think the statistic he was trying to quote was something like "no US Abrams tank has been lost in combat to the enemy". Which would be true as the Abrams that were lost in combat were from US allies using the exported tanks, supposedly inferior models and crews but that could just be good ol' propaganda for it.
This is a very strange statistic. Not because you are wrong, or because you are right. There is a context most people don't tell you about.
The Abrams was never destroyed by enemy actions. Ever. HOWEVER, many were hit by landmines and direct fire and made immobile.
The full armor has never been penetrated in the Abrams, but sections of its outer armor have been penetrated to damage the engine, fuel tank, and other essential, but not as essential as the people inside parts. They have also been attacked with the hatches open, killing members of the crew even though no armor was penetrated.
This, of course, leads to the weird part of how many were destroyed.
During the Invasion of Iraq in particular, the US Marines and Army in particular were using fast attack strategies. These strategies mean that if you stop, get stuck, or otherwise stop moving, you are left behind. A number of Abrams broke down, had their tracks destroyed by enemy fire and mines, or got stuck in the mud. These Abrams were functional by definition, but were, at that moment, a liability. The crews were commanded to evacuate the tanks, and they were scuttled.
100% of all Abrams lost were scuttled in the field for one reason or another. Since then, the US military changed its strategy from fast attack to occupation, where the need to scuttle Abrams no longer existed.
Since then we have had Abrams which have been flipped upside down, rolled down hills, had their turrets fall off because they took a turn too fast and went off a cliff, but these were simply recovered and sent back to the factory for reassembly.
Now, in today's world the USA is looking to replace the Abrams with a new tank. The current line of tanks in competition are three super strange tanks going against a newly manufactured Abrams variant. The current Abrams is at the end of its lifespan, so if we are going to choose to keep the Abrams for the future, it will be alot like the "F-15 EX" in that the old tanks will be thrown away and replaced completely with newly manufactured tanks out of the factory with only the basic outer shape and name being shared with the previous generation. New chassis, new suspension, new gun, fire control, turret, armor, etc. Everything will be brand spanking new. All of the upgrades that were tacked onto the Abrams today will be fully integrated with even more new things.
@@cheeseninja1115 The armor plate in most tanks is not shared outside of very trusted allies. Iraq is home to a lot of equipment with the one thing that makes them good missing. The tanks in Iraq do not have composite armor, and most modern produced weapons are designed to defeat all the old armor. Tanks are only good when used correctly, and most people don't use tanks correctly. They send them into cities with no infantry support, and then send them out into open fields alone with no objective. Tanks are only good for two things. Supporting infantry, or mass armored assaults over open ground.
I personally drove m1a1 abrams tanks for three years in the army.
3ID,2BN,1-64AR was my unit.i was based out of Ft.Stewart,Ga.
Little known fact Jackie Robinson was a tank commander in the 761st and 758th armored regiments.the 758th after WW2 became 1-64AR.also my grandfather's brother also pitched with Jackie Robinson for the brooklyn dodgers
I'm pretty sure Tiger's were rare to go against until later war, the first tanks you see shouldn't be compared to Tigers. The first few tanks you see mainly fought against Panzer III's and Panzer IV's which had around the same armament as them, and not much better armor.
The Panzer IV with the Long Barrel could take out a Sherman at 1000 meters.
Because that and they look like a Tiger at that range the US tank crews saw Tigers everywhere.
Nope. Made since 1942
Proton Neutron
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but Tigers were relatively rare. For scale, around 1300 Tiger I’s were built, and a small 500 Tiger II’s were built.
A grand total of 8,000 PZ IV’s were built, and they made up most of the German Wehrmacht, around 6000 PZ III were built aswell. Only to make the Tigers even more rare, 6000 Panther Tanks were built. I won’t even go into all the light tanks, tank destroyers, and other AFV’s the Germans had.
@@KatyushaWarThunder 👍
Car companies had the the tools, the engineers, and man power to build the tanks. It’s really shouldn’t be a surprise.
Someone mentioned we lost “tons” of M1 in the Middle Waste… they must have been calculating at “70 tons per tank” 😅😂🤣
Wet ammunition storage was when the ammunition rack was made out of a strange shaped water tank. You store ammunition in it, and when it gets hit by an enemy shell, the water tank explodes, extinguishing any fire. The water also leaks into the ammunition when hit, destroying the propellant, making it so it cannot burn or explode. The ammunition itself is kept dry because of the geometry of the tank. I am having difficulty describing it correctly because this is text only.
Speed is rather important in tanks, especially nowadays. You need to be able to get into good positions faster than your enemy, be able to flank them or exploit gaps, or have the option to pull out if things get nasty.
Exactly. This says all the basics. See my post for the gross details lol.
The M1A2 Abrams is an MBT, not a heavy tank, and its top speed is around 70km/h, not 35.
Yes, but it's in the same weight range as what would be considered a "heavy tank." In fact, the only thing that really makes it a main battle track instead of a heavy tank is it's stored and maneuverability; it's armament and crew survivability very much match the profile of a heavy tank.
It's sort of like how the only real difference between a medium machine gun and a general purpose machine gun is that the latter can be efficiently picked up, moved, and operated by a single person, while the former cannot really do any of those things efficiently without at least one assistant to the gunner.
The M1 abrams can actually go 60mph on road. The tracks don’t last long though
Wet storage means the ammo is stored in a wet compartment which helps reduce the risk of the ammo exploding if it gets hit by a shell
I have a 1966 Dodge Charger made by Chrysler, now 56 years old and it is still my main car, 383 4bbl carb. runs great, still looks new inside and out,
Artur: This is a very big and heavy tank.
Me: Dude, that thing was tiny enough and light enough that it could be released out the back of a transport plane like the c5, and parachute to the ground alongside it's crew in the 82nd Airborne Division.
Wet stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as Ammudamp if the integrity was compromised the fluid would spill out and put out the fire keeping it from setting off all the stowed rounds.
Superchargers do the same thing as turbos in that they force more air into the engine increasing performance
Superchargers typically use a belt drive by the engine itself and produce alot more power than the exhaust driven turbos.
Mark Felton has a video on his channel that goes into how they salvage tanks and other infrastructure since you asked it’s mind boggling how complex it is.
The old tanks get normally scrapped or sold to other countries, if they’re scrapped, the parts get reused into another use
I do enjoy that video a lot, but they do skip over quite a few things for time sake. For example the M46 was further developed with a new turret into the M47 and later had a complete redesign around the chassis becoming the M48 that saw widespread service not only in the US but also Germany, Turkey, Spain, and a few others during the Cold War. Similarly they skip over a LOT of variants most of those vehicles had and how those variants changed further tank development. And they did also skip over a few tanks for some reason, like the M103 Heavy Tank, M22 Locust, M24 Chaffee, M41 Bulldog, M8 Buford, Commando Stingray (which was primarily an export vehicle the US sent to Thailand), and a lot of prototype tanks that didn't get accepted into service but branched off into other vehicles that are in use today.
14:00 It depends. Some are definitely scrapped in order to use the materials elsewhere. Some are sold off or given to other countries. Some are modified to either a new standard to continue service or as a testbed to test new things. Some are kept in service but moved to a different branch of service, sent to the reserve forces, or used as a training unit until they too are eventually replaced by something else.
18:00 Being far it wasn't completely pulled from service. It was then used as a testbed to field heavier and heavier armaments on a mobile chassis. One of the first to be tested on it was the 90mm that was later put on the Pershing, and later it was fit with a 105mm gun that ended up on the T29 Heavy Tank and the T95 "Doom Turtle" Tank Destroyer.
21:20 It was nicknamed the "Easy Eight" because the designation of the upgrade package was 'E8', for example the M4A1E8, M4A2E8, and M4A3E8 were all that same upgrade done to different variants of the M4.
21:40 Wet Storage is basically a container that surrounds the ammo in a non-volatile fluid like water or diesel. That way if the ammo is hit by an incoming shell the fluid would flood compromised ammo and prevent them from detonating inside the tank.
27:00 Eh... not quite. Again they skip over a lot of 'in between' and prototype vehicles in this video. One such tank was the T30 Heavy Tank at the end of WWII which featured a 155mm "Long Tom" that was normally used as a long range Artillery gun. And there were a number of Soviet Tanks and TDs that featured 152mm guns of varying lengths themselves. Plus they skip over a lot of variants of vehicles they do mention, one variant of the M60 for example already had the same gun used in the Sheridan.
My grandfather was a tanker under Patton in WW2, and he received his mechanical training in Michigan at the Cadillac factory. All the car companies, and indeed most companies in the US, were thrown completely into the war effort.
As for what happens to them: many are salvaged/scrapped for materials, some are sold as surplus to private collectors or foreign allies with lesser demands/budgets, and many are used to train general skills at tanker school. A lot just sit around in storage pools.
The Abrams is capable of going well above 60mph. State side they have governors to limit how fast they can go but as soon as there deployed and in country pretty much every tank crew will remove it
And we’ve already adopted the M1A3, that news is from early this year…also, the M1A2 could and did go way faster than what they said, that speed was cross country, in any terrain, with guaranteed hits out to 2-3km…they seriously need to do research, as the M1A1 had the 120mm on them, the M1’s original had the 105mm.
A whole bunch of car companies made planes too, like the rolls Royce. Their engines were in the RAF’s spitfires and or hurricanes.
14:16
Its called military surplus. Its basically where they can be bought on the civilian market. And yes, a civilian can own a tank in the US.
This is an alright video, a ton of mistakes and wrong assumptions, if you want good info on what was made and why, how it was made. Go watch The Chieftans channel. He covers our tank program, and others, in amazing detail. And covers all the whys and hows.
@13:05 Minor bit of clarity: you actually *are* going to drive top speed most of the time and max MIL speed is therefore important: most of the time these vehicles were used, it was during maneuvers: to get around the enemy or at any rate *toward* them on the front lines many km away. If anyone fears I'm speaking Patton-esque, please be comforted that it's a simple statistic that after DAYS of driving at high speeds towards the front, the battles normally lasted HOURS (or less) where the vehicles' travel was at such a slow pace of combat techniques: many days of driving at or near max speed vs. hours of methodical movement based on a battle. I think I'm merely saying the speed of "getting to the battle" in time to take the fight to the enemy was just as important as what speed the tanks accomplished did "in the battle" simply by virtue of them being able to be there in the first place.
PS: no, I don't mean "actual" top speed; that would just prematurely wear the machine out; rather, I merely mean to say "most" of the time, the tanks would move closer to top speed than puttering around @ 5 kmh, even though that was the speed frequently met during the time the tanks were engaged in combat.
EDIT: @28:50 it's not that M1s haven't been lost to enemy fire because they certainly have: either deadlined for months or completely scrapped. I think the accurate quote is "no M1 has been lost to another tank". Because 155mm IEDs have caused absolute havoc on the frame, to the point of total damage. But then again, that's not tank v. tank combat.
I had my M1 balls to the wall on the autobahn for about a mile. Top speed is closer to 50 but at top speed the tracks start a "swimming" motion and I was scared I'd throw one or both.
Exactly. This says all the basics. See my post for the gross details lol. I was 11 series, but spent a lot of time @ Knox with the 19 series and they seem to say "everyone knows we don't touch MIL speed in *any* tank, let alone the one you're riding in."
@@soarabove337 thanks brother. Sliding out of control down some German mountain roads on black ice riding a 68 ton sled has a pucker factor too. :)
My first wife's brother helped design the 3rd generation internal communications system and squelchers. It was so loud at the time nothing they had could block the noise and allow ANY kind of communication between the crew members.
Most tanks that are decommissioned are either kept in storage or auctioned off at decent prices some are the price of a nice car or truck but if the cannon works it gets into the rich car ranges
World of warships has done two videos on the USS Texas and they are both good
Wet storage is a double walled ammo locker where the shells are stored in individual metal cylinders surrounded by water. The shells stay dry and the idea is if the tank is hit in the ammo rack, the the metal cylinders in the wet locker will be pierced and flood the ammo casings with water preventing fire.
The thing to remember about American Trucks and Tanks is that it had a lot of 'off the shelf' advantages, some of the SHerman tanks used Chrysler engines that were essentially five heavy truck engines arranged in a circle around the Tank's drive shaft. Incidentally the Wright engine company was founded by the Wright Brothers. US Tanks turned out to be very reliable, test showed that 5% of Shermans would suffer a Breakdown in their suspension after 2000 miles, and they were very easy to fix, to get at the engine they only needed to loosen 12 large bolts, while a Panther or Tiger would require nearly the total disassembly of the tank's drive system to fix minor problems with the engine.
To get at the engine just required opening the rear doors..... to replace the transmission was 12 bolts, all right in your face as the trans case doubled as the hull front.
I don't think that speed for the Abrams is correct... I've seen numbers that suggested it was able to push 100kph on the roads but that got scaled back to 80 or so because it would ruin the transmission. The Abrams is a fast machine.
“Whispering death”
It is mechanically capable of hitting 60 MPH, but it wasn't the transmission that made them govern it to 42 MPH. The treads couldn't handle the speed. It created an inordinate amount of stress on the links to be supporting that much weight at such high speeds, and they would have to be replaced after 15 miles of 60MPH. The links connecting the treads were rated for 45 MPH, due to the high stress caused by G's and weight, same as car tires are rated for a certain max speed. Example, a Bugatti Veyron uses specially made tires to handle its extreme speeds, but even then, at max speed, they would fly apart after 15 minutes. But you're fine, cuz you'll drain your gas tank in 9 minutes. :P
@@DarthVader-lt4zw thanks for the clarification!
HEY ARTUR,
Just FYI: Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, Fisher, Pontiac, LaSalle, Oldsmobile, and even Opel are all subsidiaries of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. Baldwin was, and may still be, America's biggest manufacturer of railroad locomotives.
The M1's first variant actually had a top speed of >= 60 mph. For some reason they decided to put speed limiters on them. The newest version has internal combustion engine instead of turbine.
True, in laboratory enivirons. As in, "manufacturer claim". In reality, my 19K friends have a fun saying: the M1 can only go 60 mph when dropped from the air under canopy and in fact can go faster than 60 mph... when the canopy fails." SMH lol
@@soarabove337 Oh it did go 60 mph and a limiter was definitely installed. Possible reasons: safety, wear and tear, wear and tear on other systems.
Artur M1 Abrahams wasn’t the first tank to use a multi fuel engine, the British did this decades earlier with the Chieftain Mark 1.
Ford F-250 XLT 1999 (last few years using International Diesel) 460,550 and still going STRONG!!!
Old tanks are usually used for training, sold off, or scraped. And wet ammo storage is exactly what you think it is wet ammo because wet ammo is less likely to catch on fire if hit. The Abraham’s can also run off cooking oil
Wet ammuntion storage is designed to prevent ammo rack damage and explosions. A wet ammo rack is a method of storing flammable and/or explosive munitions in such a way that if they are exposed to a a possible source of ignition, usually under the floor of the tank.
The biggest obstacle to American heavy tank use in WWII was getting the things from The U.S. to Europe. The types of cranes commonly used to lift cargo from ships of the time could not handled the weight of a heavy tank. The Germans and Russians of course did not have this problem of transport.
The narrator is mistaken about the "easy eight". The E8 Shermans ONLY refers to the change over to the HVSS suspension from the earlier VVSS. E8 Shermans came in 75mm, 76mm and 105mm versions.
I just wanted to point out some misconceptions you might have (I hope you don't find this rude as I am not trying to put you down or be rude at all) 1) The Sherman's 75 millimeter cannon could penatrate the tigers frontal amour from a pretty close range. 2) The tiger was only made and fielded in 1942 and wasn't necessarily the most effective German tank or the one with the most armour with the German panther having 88 millimeters of armour sloped at 55 degrees making more thick armour than the tiger and could also ricochet some shots. 3) The Maus tank you mentioned was never completed being 188 tons and not effective at all but two prototypes were started with one turret made and one hull made. I am sorry if this comment seemed like it was putting you down for that was not its purpose it was just to clear some misconceptions. I love your videos keep up the good work!
The Tiger (P) (Porsche Tiger) also known as the VK 45.01 was a tank made by Porsche
Chrysler bought AMC and later was acquired by Dalmier-Benz. It became independent again and is now a division of Fiat. Allison was separated by GM. Allison is currently a company that makes transmissions. The other Allison was an engine company that now has been absorbed into Rolls Royce and makes turbines, both jets and power producing turbines.
I got myself a Ford F-150 Crew Cab brand spanking new in 2014. I really like my truck! (Still less than 74k miles, as I am retired.)
My mum bought a toyota rush 13 years ago, and we have been using it ever since, very reliable indeed.
Wet ammunition storage is when the sells are stored in water, or some other liquid, so that they don’t catch fire and explode in side the tank
Arthur. The Sheridan tanks were used frequently with what was called Vis Mods. Visually Modified. Bolt on fiberglass shells and a longer non shooting barrel. They had a forward turret compared to most center mounted US. They were used toimick T60 and T72s as aggressor forces for laser tag like combat. Miles can't remember what MILES was a acronym for. At Ft Irwin CA they had a Soviet Motorized aggressor Battalion. Soviet Generals who visited were impressed with how proficient the Soviet tactics were. They battled 21 days. Got 10 days of then 21 days simulated battle.
Artur Rehi - Ford Yes on Trucks very Durable and Dont FORGET the "Ford Mustang" good quality car.
I can't wait to see who wins the competition to replace the Abram tank.
The difference between the 75mm and 76mm guns used by the Shermans is in the velocity of the shells. The 75 fired at around 575m/s, compared to the 76 firing at 792m/s. So while the shells aren't that much different in size, the 76 is moving a fair bit faster which results in far better penetration.
The reason they kept building the 75 was because they were reliable, were generally better when used against soft targets, and they already had large production lines set up that could churn them out fairly quickly.
Artur your fantastic love watching every video you do keep up your great work.
Maybe Chryslers are lousy in Europe but the top models like the Hellcat Challenger and Jeep Trailhawk are amazing. 90% of US police forces use the Hemi equipped Dodge Charger and they effectively track down all the top German cars when speeding. Tens of thousands (maybe more) American officers depend on their Dodges to stay alive and fight crime. The former President of Fiat Sergio Marchionne used to drive a modified Chrysler 300C. Why? "Because they don't make bullet proof Ferraris and Maserati" he replied. Their Board of Directors said he needed that kind of protection and it was the best Fiat-Chrysler for being a protected limo.
There's actually a story of a jumbo surviving 3 direct hits from a tiger with minimal damage, and only being destroyed because the 4th round went through the gunner's sight.
That automatic transmission really was a luxury. Russian T34 drivers kept hammers handy to bang the gearshift with.
Nah you right, Artur. You summed up Ford and Chrysler pretty well lol
Finally it’s here thank you
"I like Toyota, is boring but it's reliable"
-Artur Rehi
Great video, thanks
Arthur, some of the old tanks in the US end up in parks in small towns. Unused, but I'm sure the kids like climbing on them. I like that personally.
old tanks or any military hardware very few are for museums but most are sold for scrap metal or recycled and some are sold to other countries and the rest target practice
There was a big difference between the 75 and 76 mm guns...Yes its only 1 mm but the 76 had much more powder behind the shell and it was a higher velocity round.
They neglected to mention the most interesting thing about the Sheridan. Technically a light tank, the Sheridan was officially classified as an "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle." It could be rigged for low-velocity airdrop from C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter, or C-5 Galaxy transport planes, and was therefore a member of the very exclusive fraternity of airborne tanks. It was also amphibious.
The fact that it's armor was made out of aluminum meant that it could barely survive small arms fire; so, I think the category change was more to try and help set survivability expectations.
In 1909, General Motors bought Cadillac, so they had owned them. Chrysler is now part of Chrysler-Fiat Motors, it was never a part of GM.
BMW's logo is a white propeller spinning against a blue sky because they made airplane engines. Porsche made turrets for Tiger tanks, if not the whole tank. So, the brands you probably know made more war equipment than you might think.
@Artur, old tanks go to reserve units, then to training units, then to foreign ally sale.
Honestly Early American car companies were very good! But now I agree Chrysler Ford and GM which is Cadillac Chevrolet and GMC are not what they are now for reliability!
Been watching your videos for a long time now. I don’t really have much time anymore. I just wanted to swing by and mention that I just graduated boot camp and became a US Marine last week
To quote a buddy, "Any sufficiently advanced company will practice war and peace in equal measure".
Thanks Tex.
You are right about Chrysler except for this. The 90's Chrusler Toen Car was awesome. My daughter called it the comfy car.
My 2005 Chrysler sedan has never broken down,just flat tires and stuff so decent car. You are right about fords though, our two ford sedans got constant troubles
You might like this from years ago, Artur. FORD means "Fix Or Repair Daily." FIAT means "Fix It Again, Tony."
Sick guitar man
Keep in mind the 76mm round is much longer with a lot more powder and penetration capability than the 75mm.
it's like comparing 7.62x39 vs 7.62X51
Ok so a wet storage is when explosive shells or ammunition is stored in a way so that if it is ignited by enemy fire it will not explode
Porsche made tank engines just like Daimler-Benz of Mercedes-Benz, and Audi did exist back then they were called Automotive Union and they made really luxurious cars, like Rolls-Royce type cars, the head of the Luftwaffe in WWII had one and its really rare.
Chrysler had a missile division in the Cold War, in fact one of the engineers from that division helped the Dodge division to inprove aerodynamics for there the racecars.
im proud that he made a ad and got sponsered by world at warship
As to Cadillac, we in America have never seen it as a performance item but a luxury item.
Abrams can run multifuel because it's a turbine. Instead of injecting a precise amount into a cylinder, it's spraying a constant stream into a continuous flow burner that just makes (really) hot air. Almost anything that can burn and won't ruin the fuel system can work, but quite a few of those substitutes will reduce performance either for being too hot (gasoline), not hot enough (alcohol), or too dirty (heavy marine diesel, which may also be too thick if cold).
Turbine engines spin a compressor section to pack air into a restriction, where fuel is injected and burned as a constant stream, which expands and spins a turbine wheel that's also geared back to run that compressor (either axial that looks like a fan, or centrifugal that looks like a turbocharger's compressor wheel). You get a lot of power, but burn a lot of fuel, and make a hell of a lot of noise while spewing out a hell of a lot of very hot exhaust gasses.
the main winning points of the USSR T-34 tank were designed by US engineer J. Walter Christie. The id10t generals in charge of US tank design at the time rejected his designs so the Soviets bought them.
Rolls-Royce, Chrysler, Cadillac, and Buick made tanks for the US and Britain, too, and Ford made armored transports. Tons of automotive companies made combat vehicles in the 30s.
most major companies have somehow participated in world war 2 (if they were around obviously)
1. Ford made vehicles (and i believe tanks), also made vehicles for Nazi Germany thanks to Ford Germany existing
2. GM made vehicles of many sorts, i believe they also helped the Nazi either voluntarily or involuntarily the same way Ford did
3. Chevrolet and pretty much all other US car companies made military vehicles of one kind of another
4. Porsche made vehicles AND at least tried to make the Porsche Tiger 1 (not sure if they made any other)
5. Opel made the OpelBlitz AKA the infamous German transport truck and they also made the iconic German Opel half-track
6. Mercedes-Benz made vehicles of all sorts (even tanks if i recall)
7. Volkswagen was created by Adolf Hitler himself as a means to give "the people a car" hense "People's car" or Volkswagen
8. BMW made vehicles of some sort (couldnt tell you)
9. Mitsubishi made everything from cars to boat engines to planes
10. Honda made vehicles and engines of all sorts (and even some firearms if i remember correctly)
11. Subaru made everything from cars to boat engines to planes
12. Toyota made engines (possibly vehicles too, couldnt tell you)
13. Renault made cars and tanks (and i believe plane engines)
14. Citroën made cars (and i believe artillery/tanks)
15. Fiat made tanks and cars
16. Rolls-Royce made plane engines and some vehicles
17. Bentley made mostly Merlin plane engines
18. Aston Martin produced mainly plane components of all sorts
and theres many more companies not mentioned here that made stuff for war but would require deeper research
some of these have also made stuff in world war 1 so its no strange thing to know that GM made both the M551 Sheridan and the M1 Abrams
The Singer sewing machine company made guns in WWII.
I know I'm late to this party but the main thing the US learned very quick in WW2 was armor was worthless without infantry support and that's why they kinda stopped putting like 7 machine guns on them.
As an 11 series, I appreciate this comment; very true. Then again, when me & my buddies were holed up and just trying to walk *one more dang block* , we appreciated when the tanks showed up. It was my own personal realization of "Infantry supports the tanks & tanks support the Infantry".
Old tanks are usually sold off or used as target practice. Not too many are stored.
They used the old left over tanks from previous designs as training vehicles, they sold off some of the tanks to Canada and some were sent into battle and the rest were scrapped or melted down to make new things.
Daimler Chrysler owns Mercedes Benz and dodge here in the US my friend. Ty for all your informative videos!
@Artur Rehi Chrysler, an American car company, made ICBMs during the Cold War
Almost all early car companies go back to tanks because car production was shut down during war and all companies put their efforts into tanks and planes trucks shells and bombs.
funny how Rheinmetall who built the panther gun(75mm kwk42 aka L/70), which was considered to be the best canon on avg and placed in jagdpanzer IV as well(unsure if they made the kwk 40 l/48 that was in the panzer IV and Sturmgeschütz IV) Karl Gerät and other things now today build the barrel for USA tanks