Re: The number of rounds needed to kill an enemy tank... I’ve been reading the personal diary of a British Tanker of the 9th RTR (Trevor Goodwood), and whats striking is that his experiences very much confirm the assertion that it took a lot of shots to kill an enemy tank. As an example: The closest he got to dying inside his Churchill in Normandy was when the squadron came under fire from unspotted German guns (whether from towed pieces or AFVs they never figured out). Indeed, whats striking is how he wasn’t even aware that they were under fire for the most part - at first he heard the Major speaking in a very distressed tone over the radio and requesting the attack be called off. Then, after a short interval, he noticed that the tank beside him was on fire. Then, after hearing three rounds whistle close to his Churchill, the Major finally got permission to fall back. Not one round actually struck his Churchill despite this relatively long interval, and the squadron overall lost only a handful of tanks that day. Interestingly, prior to that engagement Greenwood was engaged mainly in infantry support, and he says flat out that they almost never saw their enemy; and instead simply fired at any source of fire until it stopped firing back. I find his diary particularly informative because unlike most tanker biographies, Trevor’s diary was mostly written in “real time” and his thoughts were mostly recorded within a few days or even hours of the actual engagement. This is in stark contrast with a lot of memoirs published years after the war; most of whom are also ghost written. Better yet, 9th RTR’s own combat history is well-recorded (thanks largely to Peter Beale, who wrote the unit’s history), so a lot of Greenwood’s experiences can be traced and verified. Two other notes that I find particularly informative. First, is that the squadron took most of their personnel losses from mortars. Second is the fact that they did a lot of their own indirect fire missions as well, similar to US TD units. This leads me to suspect that indirect fire may in fact be far more common in WW2 than usually depicted - and these indirect missions might have been often nonetheless directed at enemy tank units. Even if the chances of a direct hit / kill were low, they still inflict personnel losses and damage enemy vehicles which causes the other side to call it a day.
Thomas Ellyson you are great at doing your homework! Good points, and yeah...mortars were really an underrated killer in WW II, and most sides involved were decent with it, well especially the Germans...and the Russians too...and sometimes the Muricans...and maybe Brits-well they prefered heavy Arty over smaller mortars...i think maybe...but statistics are sketchy. Gg!
The German optics industry is truly impressive. I have an old binoculars made by Zeiss in 1984 and it is still in near mint condition. There is absolutely no yellowing in the lens or distortion in the image. Considering I've taken it to many a camping and hunting trips, it is amazing that it is in the state it's in today.
Two of My Uncles were Infantry NCO’s in the ETO. In North Africa one of them was a platoon Sgt and he liberated a pair of Zeiss binoculars from a German officer was able to keep them by giving his Company commander a Luger that he also liberated.
It isn't often that mistakes creep in to a hatch video, and here we are blessed with at least two; one slight audio over-laying during the end of talking about the gunners forward vision port, and the lack of WG WoT advert visuals before the ending section; the latter of which doesn't matter at all in any reality, except maybe to WG staff. But those could be more thought of fan-service 'bonus gaffs' I think.
Was it taken down and reuploaded or did you just happen to see the same video twice on two different channels? This series is hosted on the Wargaming channel and then hosted on the chieftain's channel 24 hours later, but it's the same edit both times.
They were both talking at same time and from different camera angles but they cut the one angle and i noticed that too and was like thinking maybe i smoked too much weed or something....LOL
In Panzer Gunner: From My Native Canada to the German Ostfront and Back: In Action with 25th Panzer Regiment, 7th Panzer Division 1944-45 by Bruno Friesen, Bruno Friesen mentions that there was a demolition charge underneath the gunners position in the event the tank had to be destroyed to avoid being captured.
I love these video with Mr. Doyle! He has an encyclopedic knowledge of these tanks. It's truly amazing to hear him be able to just rattle off details like it's nothing and I love when he just says I wasn't in that meeting. Both of you are very informative and entertaining.
Thank you Mr. Doyle, Mr. Moran & The Camera & Lighting Operator, and also Die Panzer Museum Munster & WG for this informatively insightful look at Vier G - 'Veirgy' the Vier Gustav.
Your videos about real tanks are fascinating and one of the reasons I’m a WoT player for over seven years. Your videos bring these steel monsters to life. You make them real and let me to imagine what it was like to be a tanker in this era. Thanks! Good work. I’ve watched a lot of Tank videos and yours are by far the best.
One minor correction. The foot pedal on the gunners side is the trigger for the coaxial machine gun, not the main gun. The main gun trigger is on the traversing handle.
My grandfather, who was in the US Air Corps, noted that captured German prisoners of war from the Afrika Korps, were shorter than most. He claimed that they were "sized" for armored vehicles. That's why I'm not surprised that Hillary looks right at home in the cuppola, as opposed to the Chieftain. My grandfather also said that the Germans always sang together during their work details. The singing was later forbidden by the Americans guarding the Germans. 😔
@@6038am Oh I will be rewatching it soon. In a sense, not wishing for a remake, rather new territory not talked about in that one. Surely there is more to discuss :)
Old man said you’ve been eating a lot of groceries that’s why you see this as being small spaced but the people from the depression era were different 😂
I never met a man from that generation that was bigger than my grandfather and he was 5'10 but grew up on a farm so they always food if not much else. Most of the men I met from that era were no more than 5'6 and many quite a bit smaller. Strong from a lot of physical labor but wiry. Not getting good nutrition during your growing years makes a huge difference. Selecting the smaller men for tanks would've been common I think. I found figures for the USSR for ex: The average height of men born in 1920, around the start of the USSR, was 167 cm so just shy of 5'5" In the US it was 5'6. And that means many were quite a bit smaller. Michael Wittmann was just under 5'8" Would be nice if The_Chieftain could take Sofilein along all the time to give a better sense of how much room various positions had. Or anyone 5'5" or less.
Years ago I remember seeing a photo of company of WW-II US servicemen lined up in columns according to their height- it made a perfect bell curve. I was shocked that the median size was something like 5'7" and at the very tallest end were a couple of guys 6 feet in height. So someone as tall as Nick would literally be a circus freak in those days.
That's not funny, it is literally true. People were very small in that generation, due to growing up with not much food. The US had to reject more than half the candidates because of poor physical health (kind of silly, really). Others were not so picky, especially by the end of the war (the US relaxed their high standards as well when it became obvious that they were having to turn away more than half the men who volunteered). People in the 19th century were noticeably shorter than we are today. A 6 foot tall man was an unusually large and tall specimen, instead of being kind of average as today. Most men were about 5'10" or less. They didn't have the abundance of cheap food that we have today, in spite of all we complain about GMOs and farming and non-local harvesting.
The 3 triangle scope/gunsight/range finder is a good part of the reason German tanks of the period tended to hit with high accuracy-especially at moving targets at long ranges. 33 sec for a full 360 degrees of rotation is OK for the time, but not nearly as quick as an M4!
That sight was another overengineered component that had to be sent to the factory for repairs. The M4's sight could be quickly repaired by a mechanic using parts kept in his recovery tank and at their repair shop near the front lines. The Germans kept spare sights on hand until their optics factory got bombed.
What a difference in ergonomics, clever thinking and quality, compared to most Allied tanks. All parties had the clever thinking, but the people who put these together really took pride in what they made. If that’s a good thing is food for another discussion. Anyways, I could see myself actually be in there for some time. Without getting a limb torn off or otherwise seriously hurt or injured.
The turret layout may be nice as far as space for the crew, but it also seriously limits the size of the gun you can put in a given turret ring. It helps that the commander is kind of stuck out over the back of the turret, with only his legs inside the ring. but it still takes up some of the available space for the breech. And why is Moran confused by the use of a voice tube? What difference does it make if the turret is turned? The tube is a hose and/or pipe with a little funnel on either end, with one end right next to the commander, and one right by the gunner's head. Since the turret rotates, obviously the tube has a flexible section. When you speak into the turret, your voice is piped through the tube and comes out right by the gunner. Doesn't matter which way you are facing. They used to use them in ships and airplanes all the time, and they work quite well, especially for short and easy to hear statements like orders. "Left! Right! Stop! Advance!".
Yup. And the second clip is played in reverse with sound and everything. You'd think the Wargaming editor would look through the video at least one before sending it off for publishing.
The important question is "Can the Commander from that position still kick the gunner if he misses?" Also how similar to Vickers 13 tonner is the turret layout?
I always wondered if Panzer IVs used there PzGr. 38 HL HEAT rounds as a multi purpose ammunition. Seems like an ideal first round to have loaded in the tube being able to deal with either an armoured target or a soft target.
Most likely, even the current regulations of the Bundeswehr calls the HEAT rounds of Leopard1 and 2 Multi-Purpose. You use it against everything that is not an MBT.
In theory it would be, however that was probably varied based upon the expected threat. When I was a company commander my SOP stated the HEAT round was the default first round but occasionally we would change that depending upon the situation. In WWII, some companies had a WP round as the first round so that it could easily mark the enemy as well as provide instant smoke to keep the enemy from being able to lay on target.
PanzerDave well I don’t see APFSDS being particularly effective towards anything besides an armored vehicle or heavy cover, though I imagine if it managed to fragment it could be similar to the effects of a grenade. In contrast, HEAT is a shaped charge designed to puncture armor using the high temperatures, creating a flame tunnel as I’d call it. I don’t think HEAT would be as effective as APFSDS against segmented infantry, but I’ve also never shot a tank gun before so arms are in the air here.
@@ICCUWANSIUT there's still a good bit of explosive in a HEAT round. And technically, the liner is not plasma, not molten. It's just going so fast that the steel armor behaves more like plastic than steel. Very strange, seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.
@@ICCUWANSIUT APFSDS does not fragment at all against soft targets so ineffective against infantry. HEAT does not only explode forwards and will be effective against infantry although HE Frag best.
Apparently they had a later hollow charge round that could punch through 100mm of armor, And, well, guess how thick the front plate on most IS tanks was, angling aside.
It's actually surprising to me that these Panzer IV carried hollow charge rounds, and that it could destroy a JS from the front using this round. Good piece of information.
Hello, excellent job again but I'm surprised that the commander and crew communicated via voice tube when I always understood that Pz.Kpfw IV, together with the Pz.Kpfw III had an intercom system to communicate with each other or the radio via a throat mike and ear cuffs unless it is broken or notoriously unreliable!
You really wonder why they build the Pz.IV which such a huge turret ring, when it was designed to only hold the small 75mm L24 howitzer... It seems to make sense to just make a different version of the Pz.III for that, like the British were doing with all their Close Support 3" howitzer versions of Matilda and Cruisers.
AHBdV maybe they wanted two different vihicles dedicated to their specific purpose. Like torsion bar suspension for the rapid expanding tank killing Pz3 and boogies for the more slowly moving infantry support tank with benefits to maintenance. But this is more guesstimating than actual knowledge.
"Pz.IV with such a huge turret ring" Just from my gut feeling I think they planned to go for bigger short barreled guns for better infantry support, think 100 to 120mm HE guns which would need that huge turret ring.
"Encyclopedia" has photos of a Panzer IV and a Panzer III test fitted with the "cone bore" 7.5cm/5.5cm KwK41. The idea of having "antitank tanks" (as the Brits did) in a platoon dropped by the wayside early on, though, later, Panzerdivs with 2 Abteilungen usually had one Abt/Batt each of Panzer IV and Panther.
So how did Irish guys get so smart about armor? Is this just an Irish enterprise and that’s why? Also, cheiftan, do you ever answer how you came to operate an American tank or go over your road to the military? Your story? I love this stuff. Great channel. Great videos.
What better way to end the series of vidocs than with the most advanced and beloved tank ever made, the flying and invincible Panzer IV. The only tank with enough firepower to level a large downtown city block.
The biggest problem of the Panzer IV was its thin side armor, together with the leaf spring suspension. Since conceived as a support tank, they never thought of upgrading it and it was also rushed into action as early as 39. The Panzer III took longer to be finished and delived. This allowed the tank to be better polished perhaps. Which one do you think was better conceived, Chieftain? Panzer III or IV? Well, at least the IV got the longer 75mm, otherwise the Germans would have had many problems from 42 on. I like most the Panzer III, but I'm no expert and never got inside of one.
The sidearmour of the Pz.IV was actually upgraded from the early 15mm to 30mm, either with the Ausf. E or F if I am not mistaken. The second step to improove the side protection were ofcause the sideskirts, even though the tankers did not like them as they regulary were caught on something and thereby hindered mobility.
Just two days after the latest Girls und Panzer episode, lovely. :D If the main gun trigger is that foot pedal, what's the little trigger on the hand crank for?
Might be the electrical trigger. Foot pedal is the manual, pretty standard for tanks and AA guns, where your hands are busy with traverse and elevation controls.
@@Panzermeister36 That's exactly what I thought. GuP does their research very well, and that's exactly how both are depicted in the show, glad to know that's correct.
Two questions. 1: The swivel Cupolla hatch on the later Panzer 4’s, was that like the hatch on the Panther? 2: is that a 4x4 being used as a travel lock above the gun?
wow Hilary really knowable, I find he adds a lot to your videos, as well he’s the approved size for a tank crew man and well,, you are in fact far too tall to be a tanker at 6 foot 5 inches. Maybe 🤔 this is something you could discuss with Hilary in a future video “The height restrictions for tank crews, minimum and maximum height for tank crewmen”. I would find this very interesting 🧐.
At around 8:45 Hilary says that a hollow charge round is carried in the later 4’s with the L/48 was carried for use against heavy armour such as the JS (IS) series tanks. I don’t own any books that cover this subject but from looking into the ammunition and it’s capability’s online with as reputable sources as I can, the hollow charge that would have been carried was very unlikely to be able to take out a JS series tank from the front. reports seem to indicate the tungsten round outperforms it out past 1000m. Was it specifically for long range engagement of heavy armour? And the relatively low penetration values I have so far found give the hollow charge usually no more than 90mm of penetration. Would that have been effective against a JS in the first place? At least frontally which is what is said during the video.
Hello Mr. Chieftain Moran. Hope you're alright these days! I've a question that is going around in my head for a while now. The German Heer was in need for a Close Infantry Support vehicle, Sturm-Artillerie. The STUG III was this simple vehicle in the beginning. At the Same time the Heer was in need for a more heavy Fire Support Vehicle, like the Sturmpanzer I and II. What i don't understand is the the development of these to vehicles. The Panzer III Chassis was chosen to carry the lighter KWK 37, while the Panzer I and II became Sturmpanzer with the way heavier SIG33. And both Vehicles struggled with this decision. Through the whole war the Infantrie was in need for a simple Fire Support Vehicle, later the KWK 37 was also mounted in the Halftracks. Why the hell weren't the obsolete Chassis of the Panzer I and II chosen to carry the much lighter KWK 37. The Panzer III Chassis was a much better Carrier for the heavy Artillery, like the Sturmhaubitze 42. Or the Sturmpanzer IV. But i've never heared about a STUG I or II Trial. I'm sure you know more about that topic. I wish you the best in these times and stay save!
Unsure, but I would remind you of the 15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B, which was basically a 150mm assault gun on an old Pz I chassis. My guess, and that's all it is since I haven't seen anything on the non-existance of a project, is that it was decided to focus on what was currently in production and to issue PzIII based chassis simply because they were better as the new-production systems. After all, the production lines could produce either the Pz I or II chassis, or the III and IV chassis. Probably better to focus on the more modern stuff, which was still simple enough.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for your quick answer. But i'm not going to stop Here, sorry:) Only one post If this is ok? I know the 15cm auf Panzer 1, that is the Sturmpanzer 1 i mentioned (at least i know it under this Name.). As far as i know where the production capacities for the Panzer II not shut down. The Chassis was also produced for the Panzerhaubitze Wespe and the Marder II if i remember correctly. Also where maybe some Chassis available for a modification after the ordinary Panzer II wasn't used as a Fighting Vehicle anymore. I just don't understand the Idea to put a heavy Infantrie Gun onto a underpowered vehicle (Sturmpanzer I and II), while you put a much lighter and smaller gun like the KWK 37 into a much more powerful Chassis Like the Panzer III. It seems that the early Sturmpanzer where more of a fail. It is interesting that the Wehrmacht never tried to use the Panzer II Chassis in a STUG role with a closed Casemate and a small KWK 37. Thanks for your respond, don't get sick, still much out there you have to teach us!
Chief: Hilary please tell us about the Panzerkampfwagen IV. Hilary: Well the German Panzerkampfwagen IV is the tank that was used by the Angler Fish Team at the Oarai all girl School.
I think it's just standard music that one can purchase the ability to use. I'm certain I heard this on the Discovery Channel like 8 years ago on some show like Cash Cab or something.
This is a German panzer 4 ausf G an upgraded panzer ausf F2 with additional armored plating the panzer 4 G was used in Africa by the Africa korps and by the Germans in the east and used in Kursk till 1944 when the panzer 4 was upgraded to the panzer 4 ausf H
Totally not for any gore reasons, i am just really really curious what it looked inside of a 'taken out' tank in WW2. Most of the photographs show tank crews killed next to their tank or on top of it or the tank had been burned out or set on fire. But i am just curious to see the type of damage that happens inside of a tank, how the shrapnel bounced, holes etc. Doesn't need to show a headless man or guts everywhere......could be a video clip taken within a modern tank with nobody inside......like RPG damage.........
‘Depression era krauts don’t have the problems you have, ya ate too much groceries over the years’ I’ve never seen someone flex growing up in the worst time ever so hard
Were the HEAT rounds really that common in the long-barreled variants? I'd only ever heard the short-barreled having HEAT, and VERY limited counts of them at that.
Zeiss makes the best lenses on earth period. It's because of the sand they use in the manufacturing process. The only place you can find that sand is where the factory is located
Why didn't the german tanks of WW2 have a periscope for the gunner and loader? It'd be an enormous help to have it i'd imagine when laying your gun when commander tells.
Both commander and gunner had an azimuth indicator. So the commander could shout out a very precise direction to the gunner. With the good German sights, which offer a very wide field of view, this was still very effective for wwii standards.
@D L The fixed loaders periscope for the loader is in the exact same position on panther and leopard 2. M26,m46,m47,m41,m48 all had fixed periscopes for the loader like on panthers and tigers.
As Havoc117X mentions, both the gunner and commander had azimuth indicators, so the initial train of the gun would be straightforward. Having the gunsight where it is, and not a periscopic sight, avoids the situation that the Chieftain mentions in other videos, in that having the gunsight at the same level as the gun means that when you're moving up from turret-down to hull-down to shoot, when the gunsight clears the ridge, the gun has cleared the ridge, too; with a periscopic sight, when you have target view, the firling line may still be blocked. Of course, having both a periscopic sight to be able to lay the gun while hull-down, and the inline sight to see when your gun is clear, is the best of both worlds, but you usually don't get what you want.
@Fus Ro Dah it's a running gag about how Hilary seems to know so much, but when he doesn't know something off the top of his head the quip is, "you must not has been invited to that meeting."
What were the differences between th III and IV? Did the IV's start with bolt on armor on III's? Basically III's were upgraded until the betters caught on and made official IV's Was told that the US M4's ruled the desert at first. Which was better the Pz-IV or US M4?
Robert Brooks So the Panzer 3 and the Panzer 4 look similar but are two different designs. The Panzer 4 was originally the infantry support where as the Panzer 3 was the combat tank for breakthroughs. Although the Panzer 4 was forces into the MBT role after they failed to put better guns into the Panzer 3. And the Panzer 4s didn’t get the bolted on front plates until later on, late 42 I think. And the Sherman’s were over all a better tank by the end of the war, but during Africa it’s debatable. Both are pretty equal
@@stuglife5514 Yeah I thought the Mark 4 was was a infantry support tank but from what I have been able to ascertain it was meant to support other tanks
Great cover. The IV was the unsung ''Hawker Hurricane'' of the armoured war. I'll never comprehend why they didn't just slope her out.... In my non expert opinion... I would have terminated all Tiger and Panther production in early 43', and have Krupp, Henschel, MNH,MBA factories go full hog out with simpler,upgraded Stug III's,with a 30 Ton sloped IV with an improved turret, that could take the 7.5 KwK L42...which would culminate in literally thousands more of badly needed numbers in the field, reducing production costs at between 2 & 4 times.......Then there is just realisation of the necessity to streamline the logistics & battlefield maintenance tail for and army fighting for it's very life. Slain'te.🍻
Conversation between two german engineers in 1943 Engineer 1: Dude i have a great idea. We dont have to build Panthers, we can simple upgrade the Panzer IV. We should slope the 80mm frontal armor plate and enlarge the hull a bit, so we can put on a bigger turret for the Kwk 42. We can counter the extra weight by adding torsion bar suspension, bigger road wheels and wider tracks. And we should add the Maybach HL 230, because the HL 120 is to weak now. Engineer 2: WTF dude, you just told me, that we should produce Panthers instead of Panthers?????????? To assume that panzer III and IV in 1944/45 were that much more reliable than the panther is a misconception. They started to suffer from the same late war limitations. "From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100. General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation. (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger). Since spring 1944 the Panther and the Panzer IV achieved almost the same combar ready rates (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz). The Battle at Kursk shows that germany was in fact lacking the resources and the manpower to supply the tank force they already had. Every additional tank needs a crew, fuel, ammunition, spares and the logistics to provide all that. Just screaming for more tanks does not help. Nevertheless germany produced more tanks in 1944 than in all the years before. The panther was streamlined for mass production. The panzer iv was not. Only 8500 panzer iv were built from 1939 till wars end. But they built over 6000 panthers in less than two years. 4500 in 1944. In comparison the Russians built 11000 t34 85 in 1944. Given the average tank exchange ratio of 1/4 in favor for the Germans, the panther was a reasonable option. Tanks like the Tiger, Tiger 2 and Jagdtiger were never meant to be produced in large numbers. They should serve a special purpose. Only 90 Jagdtigers were ordered. The Henschel factory in Kassel, in which these tanks were built, was in fact too small to produce the simpler panther in large numbers. They were missing the tools and the space. They tryed it with a batch of 200 panthers, it did not work.
@@HaVoC117X Brilliant............ Conversation between same two German engineers at, Rheinfall, Scaffhausen, Schweiz, Summer, 1946. Engineer #2 to Engineer #1.....''Remember our kids with the 21st Pz in Normandie''?.....''They were good eh?🌴..but they had nothing....They only had two Pz battalions equipped with dozens of old relic 'short IV's' and captured French Chars,.... ''and not one Ficken Panther!!''.... ''Because we couldn't make enough''....''Just think'', ''Wenn archlocher gehirne wushen konnten''....''If arse holes could grow brains''.....' The Quote is from:....Herman Leopold August Von Opplen Bronikowski'', Oberst, Pz Rgt. 22.' 21 Pz Div, Normandie, 1944....in reference to the critical Panzer shortages during the single most crucial moment in the war. Prost... Kaffee Ludtz!.🍹🍹🍀 -ENDE-
@@rpm1796 Yeah 21st Panzer Division in Normandy didn't have enough tanks.... but Panzer Lehr, 2nd Panzer, 116th Panzer, 9th Panzer, 1st SS Panzer, 2nd SS Panzer, 9th SS Panzer and 12th SS Panzer more or less all had their full compliment of Panzer IVs and Panthers. And the three Tiger battalions had their full compliment of Tigers too. 😁
It's not so much bullshit face as a disappointing surprise face, I presume. No intercom was absolutely normal in most tanks around the world at that point, touching/kicking other crewmen was the way to go about things. I guess Chieftain expected better from German engineering.
believe he is taller than the average German tank crew . Every time i hire modern people complaining about the rom in ww2 tanks they complain most about German PKW Tigers JagdPanters Panther .But they don't understand if you are 190 Cm long you wasn't selected for Panzer duty. Looks like modern war buffs don't understand that if you are too long or big tanks wasent duty wasn't your mission. It's better whit strong and not too tall to operate Panzer, if you're 190cm you are first MG42 shooter. or Pak40 crew or a member of a Flak crew as a loader on a 30mm autocanon . Not everyone can bee in a tank .Or operating a 150mm heavy canon. That was too bee my job before i was discarded from the army. 1993 because of too many kids in my year .
These videos must be a pain to make. All the preparations and research together with all the travelling. Not to mention that the camera man has to fit somewhere with all the recording gear. Then you have to travel all the way back home and edit it all. No wonder you split these videos into pieces i must take hours maby days to finish them. If there is any way i could help you please let me know. It's not worth you or your team to going through such time and effort to share such much wanted information. I really wish i could help. (Was that dramatic enough)
Indy Neidell: _eat your vegetables!_
Hilary Doyle: Not if you want to drive a tank you don't
"Ate too much groceries over the years "
"You'll eat what you're given and be greatful."
@@markfryer9880 Said every Mess Sergeant ever
7:33
beautiful diction and cadence, bravo!
Re: The number of rounds needed to kill an enemy tank...
I’ve been reading the personal diary of a British Tanker of the 9th RTR (Trevor Goodwood), and whats striking is that his experiences very much confirm the assertion that it took a lot of shots to kill an enemy tank.
As an example: The closest he got to dying inside his Churchill in Normandy was when the squadron came under fire from unspotted German guns (whether from towed pieces or AFVs they never figured out). Indeed, whats striking is how he wasn’t even aware that they were under fire for the most part - at first he heard the Major speaking in a very distressed tone over the radio and requesting the attack be called off. Then, after a short interval, he noticed that the tank beside him was on fire. Then, after hearing three rounds whistle close to his Churchill, the Major finally got permission to fall back.
Not one round actually struck his Churchill despite this relatively long interval, and the squadron overall lost only a handful of tanks that day.
Interestingly, prior to that engagement Greenwood was engaged mainly in infantry support, and he says flat out that they almost never saw their enemy; and instead simply fired at any source of fire until it stopped firing back.
I find his diary particularly informative because unlike most tanker biographies, Trevor’s diary was mostly written in “real time” and his thoughts were mostly recorded within a few days or even hours of the actual engagement. This is in stark contrast with a lot of memoirs published years after the war; most of whom are also ghost written. Better yet, 9th RTR’s own combat history is well-recorded (thanks largely to Peter Beale, who wrote the unit’s history), so a lot of Greenwood’s experiences can be traced and verified.
Two other notes that I find particularly informative. First, is that the squadron took most of their personnel losses from mortars. Second is the fact that they did a lot of their own indirect fire missions as well, similar to US TD units. This leads me to suspect that indirect fire may in fact be far more common in WW2 than usually depicted - and these indirect missions might have been often nonetheless directed at enemy tank units. Even if the chances of a direct hit / kill were low, they still inflict personnel losses and damage enemy vehicles which causes the other side to call it a day.
Very interesting...Cheers🍻
thanks for the read.
I think they say hit a target, not hit a tank.
llib Hillary referred to 18 shots being needed to kill a target. Thats from a study of 88 units trying to kill tanks at 2500m or so range.
Thomas Ellyson you are great at doing your homework! Good points, and yeah...mortars were really an underrated killer in WW II, and most sides involved were decent with it, well especially the Germans...and the Russians too...and sometimes the Muricans...and maybe Brits-well they prefered heavy Arty over smaller mortars...i think maybe...but statistics are sketchy. Gg!
Even with the guard I still would be nervous sitting behind the gun.
Maybe their equipment was a little smaller so they didn't have to worry about it xD
I'm guessing your mind would be in other things though, like the Russian guns pointed towards you instead.
@@codemy666 LMFAO
🎵hitler has only got 1 ball, Goering has 2 but very small, Himmler has something similar, and poor Goebels has no balls at all..🎵
AceCustomz Out of context it would be hilarious though.
The tank commander is a extra buffer to protect the rear of the turret.
The German optics industry is truly impressive. I have an old binoculars made by Zeiss in 1984 and it is still in near mint condition. There is absolutely no yellowing in the lens or distortion in the image. Considering I've taken it to many a camping and hunting trips, it is amazing that it is in the state it's in today.
I still have my grandpas binoculars, 1 from the war and one from east german times. both are perfect.
Two of My Uncles were Infantry NCO’s in the ETO. In North Africa one of them was a platoon Sgt and he liberated a pair of Zeiss binoculars from a German officer was able to keep them by giving his Company commander a Luger that he also liberated.
Zeiss glass is some of the best you can get. Their Cinema camera lenses, even if they are decades old, are very desirable.
I love that expectant schoolboy look Chieftain gives Doyle at 12:36 after he asks “You can kill it?”
Did I just read Part 2 of 3 on the description ? I did just read Part 2 of 3. This makes me happy.
Ramash440 very sad, that the parts are just way to short🙄
between the two of you, an insane amount of tank knowledge....also Yay, The Panzer IV.
I'm surprised the editing mistakes in this weren't fixed before being uploaded again.
13:00 I guess being shot at tends to put you off your aim a little...
Yeah, this video really seems unfinished :o
@@TNX255 So it wasn't just me that felt that way.
It isn't often that mistakes creep in to a hatch video, and here we are blessed with at least two;
one slight audio over-laying during the end of talking about the gunners forward vision port,
and the lack of WG WoT advert visuals before the ending section; the latter of which doesn't matter at all in any reality, except maybe to WG staff.
But those could be more thought of fan-service 'bonus gaffs' I think.
Was it taken down and reuploaded or did you just happen to see the same video twice on two different channels? This series is hosted on the Wargaming channel and then hosted on the chieftain's channel 24 hours later, but it's the same edit both times.
around 7:33 there is audio miss-edit
Inkb0y no just the ghosts of the former crew haunting the tank
They didn't delete the audio of the overlay shots, you can hear the pan out shot of the sight has the audio running backwards
They were both talking at same time and from different camera angles but they cut the one angle and i noticed that too and was like thinking maybe i smoked too much weed or something....LOL
I checked my other tabs to see if something had started playing in the background
Spooky
In Panzer Gunner: From My Native Canada to the German Ostfront and Back: In Action with 25th Panzer Regiment, 7th Panzer Division 1944-45 by Bruno Friesen, Bruno Friesen mentions that there was a demolition charge underneath the gunners position in the event the tank had to be destroyed to avoid being captured.
I love these video with Mr. Doyle! He has an encyclopedic knowledge of these tanks. It's truly amazing to hear him be able to just rattle off details like it's nothing and I love when he just says I wasn't in that meeting. Both of you are very informative and entertaining.
Listening to Mr. Doyle feels a bit like there is a dam of vast knowledge, and he just opens up for 10-15 seconds to reveal some of it to us.
Thank you Mr. Doyle, Mr. Moran & The Camera & Lighting Operator, and also Die Panzer Museum Munster & WG for this informatively insightful look at Vier G - 'Veirgy' the Vier Gustav.
Your videos about real tanks are fascinating and one of the reasons I’m a WoT player for over seven years. Your videos bring these steel monsters to life. You make them real and let me to imagine what it was like to be a tanker in this era.
Thanks! Good work. I’ve watched a lot of Tank videos and yours are by far the best.
One minor correction. The foot pedal on the gunners side is the trigger for the coaxial machine gun, not the main gun. The main gun trigger is on the traversing handle.
Yes
Your Right
I demand more of the Tank Adventures of Sarcastic Irishman and Taciturn Irishman.
My grandfather, who was in the US Air Corps, noted that captured German prisoners of war from the Afrika Korps, were shorter than most. He claimed that they were "sized" for armored vehicles. That's why I'm not surprised that Hillary looks right at home in the cuppola, as opposed to the Chieftain. My grandfather also said that the Germans always sang together during their work details. The singing was later forbidden by the Americans guarding the Germans. 😔
Why would they forbid the poor guys sining? That can actually help improve work productivity, and plus, what harm did it make?
Seeing Doyle again makes me think of the Think Tank, will there ever be another? :)
Doyle, Zaloga, Fletcher, M103 grand-dad... Great stuff!
Need another Think Tank, i am still rewatching it. Doing one at Tankfest seems like it could be a good choice.
@@6038am Oh I will be rewatching it soon.
In a sense, not wishing for a remake, rather new territory not talked about in that one. Surely there is more to discuss :)
Old man said you’ve been eating a lot of groceries that’s why you see this as being small spaced but the people from the depression era were different 😂
I never met a man from that generation that was bigger than my grandfather and he was 5'10 but grew up on a farm so they always food if not much else. Most of the men I met from that era were no more than 5'6 and many quite a bit smaller. Strong from a lot of physical labor but wiry. Not getting good nutrition during your growing years makes a huge difference. Selecting the smaller men for tanks would've been common I think.
I found figures for the USSR for ex: The average height of men born in 1920, around the start of the USSR, was 167 cm so just shy of 5'5" In the US it was 5'6. And that means many were quite a bit smaller.
Michael Wittmann was just under 5'8"
Would be nice if The_Chieftain could take Sofilein along all the time to give a better sense of how much room various positions had. Or anyone 5'5" or less.
@@Bochi42 You just want more opportunities to perve at SofiLien.
Years ago I remember seeing a photo of company of WW-II US servicemen lined up in columns according to their height- it made a perfect bell curve. I was shocked that the median size was something like 5'7" and at the very tallest end were a couple of guys 6 feet in height. So someone as tall as Nick would literally be a circus freak in those days.
Mark Fryer Moi aussi. 😁
That's not funny, it is literally true. People were very small in that generation, due to growing up with not much food. The US had to reject more than half the candidates because of poor physical health (kind of silly, really). Others were not so picky, especially by the end of the war (the US relaxed their high standards as well when it became obvious that they were having to turn away more than half the men who volunteered). People in the 19th century were noticeably shorter than we are today. A 6 foot tall man was an unusually large and tall specimen, instead of being kind of average as today. Most men were about 5'10" or less. They didn't have the abundance of cheap food that we have today, in spite of all we complain about GMOs and farming and non-local harvesting.
Been playing Blitz for 4 years now! And loving it and your TH-cam Channel!
Again, really nice and detailed video about the Panzer IV. Really enjoying it. I hope you will do more off this in the future.
Thank You for the video presentation, Sir. It seems more spacious than the Panther.
The dichotomy of these two is great, Doyle knows everything and doesn't take any ......stuff....and The Chieftain ask weird questions. Please do more!
I'm beginning to think Mr. Doyle missed a lot of meetings. Just kidding, I love these walkthroughs and I really need to look up more of his work.
Great video. I've been waiting for the Panzer IV since i discovered your channel over two years ago.
The 3 triangle scope/gunsight/range finder is a good part of the reason German tanks of the period tended to hit with high accuracy-especially at moving targets at long ranges. 33 sec for a full 360 degrees of rotation is OK for the time, but not nearly as quick as an M4!
That sight was another overengineered component that had to be sent to the factory for repairs. The M4's sight could be quickly repaired by a mechanic using parts kept in his recovery tank and at their repair shop near the front lines. The Germans kept spare sights on hand until their optics factory got bombed.
What a difference in ergonomics, clever thinking and quality, compared to most Allied tanks. All parties had the clever thinking, but the people who put these together really took pride in what they made. If that’s a good thing is food for another discussion. Anyways, I could see myself actually be in there for some time. Without getting a limb torn off or otherwise seriously hurt or injured.
The turret layout may be nice as far as space for the crew, but it also seriously limits the size of the gun you can put in a given turret ring. It helps that the commander is kind of stuck out over the back of the turret, with only his legs inside the ring. but it still takes up some of the available space for the breech.
And why is Moran confused by the use of a voice tube? What difference does it make if the turret is turned? The tube is a hose and/or pipe with a little funnel on either end, with one end right next to the commander, and one right by the gunner's head. Since the turret rotates, obviously the tube has a flexible section. When you speak into the turret, your voice is piped through the tube and comes out right by the gunner. Doesn't matter which way you are facing. They used to use them in ships and airplanes all the time, and they work quite well, especially for short and easy to hear statements like orders. "Left! Right! Stop! Advance!".
Is it just me or is Hilary talking in the background, at 7:40??
Oooh I see what happened
Yup. And the second clip is played in reverse with sound and everything. You'd think the Wargaming editor would look through the video at least one before sending it off for publishing.
@@Joelsfilmer It's wacky bro
Freaked the hell out of me
Joel mistakes happen, could be they were having a really bad day at work and didn’t care as much about what they were doing when they uploaded it.
This is the best ever part 2. Really, really good stuff.
The important question is "Can the Commander from that position still kick the gunner if he misses?" Also how similar to Vickers 13 tonner is the turret layout?
I always wondered if Panzer IVs used there PzGr. 38 HL HEAT rounds as a multi purpose ammunition. Seems like an ideal first round to have loaded in the tube being able to deal with either an armoured target or a soft target.
Most likely, even the current regulations of the Bundeswehr calls the HEAT rounds of Leopard1 and 2 Multi-Purpose. You use it against everything that is not an MBT.
In theory it would be, however that was probably varied based upon the expected threat. When I was a company commander my SOP stated the HEAT round was the default first round but occasionally we would change that depending upon the situation. In WWII, some companies had a WP round as the first round so that it could easily mark the enemy as well as provide instant smoke to keep the enemy from being able to lay on target.
PanzerDave well I don’t see APFSDS being particularly effective towards anything besides an armored vehicle or heavy cover, though I imagine if it managed to fragment it could be similar to the effects of a grenade. In contrast, HEAT is a shaped charge designed to puncture armor using the high temperatures, creating a flame tunnel as I’d call it. I don’t think HEAT would be as effective as APFSDS against segmented infantry, but I’ve also never shot a tank gun before so arms are in the air here.
@@ICCUWANSIUT there's still a good bit of explosive in a HEAT round.
And technically, the liner is not plasma, not molten. It's just going so fast that the steel armor behaves more like plastic than steel. Very strange, seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.
@@ICCUWANSIUT APFSDS does not fragment at all against soft targets so ineffective against infantry. HEAT does not only explode forwards and will be effective against infantry although HE Frag best.
Lowly Panzer IV with HEAT could blow up an IS2? Damn.
Apparently they had a later hollow charge round that could punch through 100mm of armor, And, well, guess how thick the front plate on most IS tanks was, angling aside.
I think he was talkinh oh the f and G with long 75.
Latewar they had some possibly used HEAT-FS shells that could pen 130mm IIRC.
Does anyone else think Hilary looks like he could be Sofilein's grandfather?
Mr. Doyle again pronounces the German terms correctly and almost without any accent. You find this very rarely with English native speakers.
Two of the best tank divulges around.
It wasn't easy to wait and watch this on Chieftain's channel cand not Wargaming, but I did it!
FYI Chief, you got me to sign up for WoT back in the day. Quit by now, but sticking around for you & the occasional QB stream
Outstanding video and presentation.
It's actually surprising to me that these Panzer IV carried hollow charge rounds, and that it could destroy a JS from the front using this round. Good piece of information.
The Panzer MK4 H was the best tank of WW2. The combination of firepower, mobility, and protection was as well balanced as any tank of that era.
Hello, excellent job again but I'm surprised that the commander and crew communicated via voice tube when I always understood that Pz.Kpfw IV, together with the Pz.Kpfw III had an intercom system to communicate with each other or the radio via a throat mike and ear cuffs unless it is broken or notoriously unreliable!
You really wonder why they build the Pz.IV which such a huge turret ring, when it was designed to only hold the small 75mm L24 howitzer...
It seems to make sense to just make a different version of the Pz.III for that, like the British were doing with all their Close Support 3" howitzer versions of Matilda and Cruisers.
AHBdV maybe they wanted two different vihicles dedicated to their specific purpose. Like torsion bar suspension for the rapid expanding tank killing Pz3 and boogies for the more slowly moving infantry support tank with benefits to maintenance. But this is more guesstimating than actual knowledge.
"Pz.IV with such a huge turret ring" Just from my gut feeling I think they planned to go for bigger short barreled guns for better infantry support, think 100 to 120mm HE guns which would need that huge turret ring.
"Encyclopedia" has photos of a Panzer IV and a Panzer III test fitted with the "cone bore" 7.5cm/5.5cm KwK41. The idea of having "antitank tanks" (as the Brits did) in a platoon dropped by the wayside early on, though, later, Panzerdivs with 2 Abteilungen usually had one Abt/Batt each of Panzer IV and Panther.
A Panzer IV "Lang" with HEAT? That was a new one for me.
Espectacular tanke, y precioso 😍 lo admiro de mis favoritos... gracias por compartir experiencia y tu trabajo
Shoutout do the demonic chanting in the background at 7:36
So how did Irish guys get so smart about armor? Is this just an Irish enterprise and that’s why? Also, cheiftan, do you ever answer how you came to operate an American tank or go over your road to the military? Your story? I love this stuff. Great channel. Great videos.
Well... I look in parallel on Tankmechanic Sim in a panzer 4 G. Interesting to look inside myself
The Chieftain talks about optics and targeting with German tanks.
Me, an intellectual who's watched Girls Und Panzer....
The favourite tank of Francis Ford Cupola ... couldn't resist.
"How were they able to make it so wide?"
Something something something *PONTIAC WIDETRACK*
"Pontiac is wide tracking, Pontiac . . ." facebook.com/watch/?v=879354005859710
What better way to end the series of vidocs than with the most advanced and beloved tank ever made, the flying and invincible Panzer IV. The only tank with enough firepower to level a large downtown city block.
There are other tanks with way more firepower.
@@sam8404 I think that's the joke.
Well, if it's anything, the Chieftain has been filming his own inside the hatch videos on his own dime thanks to his Patron account
@@RedShocktrooperRST doesn't seem like a joke to me. And this video was sponsored by War Gaming.
The biggest problem of the Panzer IV was its thin side armor, together with the leaf spring suspension. Since conceived as a support tank, they never thought of upgrading it and it was also rushed into action as early as 39. The Panzer III took longer to be finished and delived. This allowed the tank to be better polished perhaps. Which one do you think was better conceived, Chieftain? Panzer III or IV? Well, at least the IV got the longer 75mm, otherwise the Germans would have had many problems from 42 on. I like most the Panzer III, but I'm no expert and never got inside of one.
The sidearmour of the Pz.IV was actually upgraded from the early 15mm to 30mm, either with the Ausf. E or F if I am not mistaken. The second step to improove the side protection were ofcause the sideskirts, even though the tankers did not like them as they regulary were caught on something and thereby hindered mobility.
Just two days after the latest Girls und Panzer episode, lovely. :D
If the main gun trigger is that foot pedal, what's the little trigger on the hand crank for?
Traverse lock maybe? For when you're sure you don't want the turret to move?
Might be the electrical trigger. Foot pedal is the manual, pretty standard for tanks and AA guns, where your hands are busy with traverse and elevation controls.
Power traverse, without pulling that trigger you get manual traverse.
No, that foot pedal is actually the co-ax trigger. Main gun firing is controlled by the button on the hand crank. This was an error in the video.
@@Panzermeister36 That's exactly what I thought. GuP does their research very well, and that's exactly how both are depicted in the show, glad to know that's correct.
Two questions. 1: The swivel Cupolla hatch on the later Panzer 4’s, was that like the hatch on the Panther? 2: is that a 4x4 being used as a travel lock above the gun?
I just about shit myself in fear at 7:33.
wow Hilary really knowable, I find he adds a lot to your videos, as well he’s the approved size for a tank crew man and well,, you are in fact far too tall to be a tanker at 6 foot 5 inches. Maybe 🤔 this is something you could discuss with Hilary in a future video “The height restrictions for tank crews, minimum and maximum height for tank crewmen”. I would find this very interesting 🧐.
"It's not ideal, but I've been in worse."
Translation: Soviet-made and the Jagdpanzer 38(t).
At around 8:45 Hilary says that a hollow charge round is carried in the later 4’s with the L/48 was carried for use against heavy armour such as the JS (IS) series tanks. I don’t own any books that cover this subject but from looking into the ammunition and it’s capability’s online with as reputable sources as I can, the hollow charge that would have been carried was very unlikely to be able to take out a JS series tank from the front. reports seem to indicate the tungsten round outperforms it out past 1000m.
Was it specifically for long range engagement of heavy armour? And the relatively low penetration values I have so far found give the hollow charge usually no more than 90mm of penetration. Would that have been effective against a JS in the first place? At least frontally which is what is said during the video.
"The gun recoiling towards the most important part/person in the tank"...-Hmm?....-The DRIVER sits up FRONT though!...;)
Hillary Doyle is Tank yoda!
Hello Mr. Chieftain Moran. Hope you're alright these days!
I've a question that is going around in my head for a while now.
The German Heer was in need for a Close Infantry Support vehicle, Sturm-Artillerie. The STUG III was this simple vehicle in the beginning.
At the Same time the Heer was in need for a more heavy Fire Support Vehicle, like the Sturmpanzer I and II.
What i don't understand is the the development of these to vehicles.
The Panzer III Chassis was chosen to carry the lighter KWK 37, while the Panzer I and II became Sturmpanzer with the way heavier SIG33. And both Vehicles struggled with this decision.
Through the whole war the Infantrie was in need for a simple Fire Support Vehicle, later the KWK 37 was also mounted in the Halftracks.
Why the hell weren't the obsolete Chassis of the Panzer I and II chosen to carry the much lighter KWK 37. The Panzer III Chassis was a much better Carrier for the heavy Artillery, like the Sturmhaubitze 42. Or the Sturmpanzer IV.
But i've never heared about a STUG I or II Trial.
I'm sure you know more about that topic.
I wish you the best in these times and stay save!
Unsure, but I would remind you of the 15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B, which was basically a 150mm assault gun on an old Pz I chassis.
My guess, and that's all it is since I haven't seen anything on the non-existance of a project, is that it was decided to focus on what was currently in production and to issue PzIII based chassis simply because they were better as the new-production systems. After all, the production lines could produce either the Pz I or II chassis, or the III and IV chassis. Probably better to focus on the more modern stuff, which was still simple enough.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for your quick answer. But i'm not going to stop Here, sorry:) Only one post If this is ok?
I know the 15cm auf Panzer 1, that is the Sturmpanzer 1 i mentioned (at least i know it under this Name.).
As far as i know where the production capacities for the Panzer II not shut down.
The Chassis was also produced for the Panzerhaubitze Wespe and the Marder II if i remember correctly.
Also where maybe some Chassis available for a modification after the ordinary Panzer II wasn't used as a Fighting Vehicle anymore.
I just don't understand the Idea to put a heavy Infantrie Gun onto a underpowered vehicle (Sturmpanzer I and II), while you put a much lighter and smaller gun like the KWK 37 into a much more powerful Chassis Like the Panzer III.
It seems that the early Sturmpanzer where more of a fail.
It is interesting that the Wehrmacht never tried to use the Panzer II Chassis in a STUG role with a closed Casemate and a small KWK 37.
Thanks for your respond, don't get sick, still much out there you have to teach us!
Chief: Hilary please tell us about the Panzerkampfwagen IV.
Hilary: Well the German Panzerkampfwagen IV is the tank that was used by the Angler Fish Team
at the Oarai all girl School.
Did tank crews have size and weight limits? Honest question. I'm guessing yes.
7:34 whats that other audio part? i hear two voices in this time stamp
Why is there backwards talking around 7:38?
Hey chieftain! Did you know Richard Hammond and the Discovery channel have your ident music, the swine!
I think it's just standard music that one can purchase the ability to use. I'm certain I heard this on the Discovery Channel like 8 years ago on some show like Cash Cab or something.
I loved the F model in Panzer General 2
Is there a possibility for you to do a inside the hatch on the T-35?
I'm not often found in Moscow these days, seems unlikely.
This is a German panzer 4 ausf G an upgraded panzer ausf F2 with additional armored plating the panzer 4 G was used in Africa by the Africa korps and by the Germans in the east and used in Kursk till 1944 when the panzer 4 was upgraded to the panzer 4 ausf H
Wit how strong was the HEAT shell? In games they are usually around 100mm on 500m or something similar.
Totally not for any gore reasons, i am just really really curious what it looked inside of a 'taken out' tank in WW2. Most of the photographs show tank crews killed next to their tank or on top of it or the tank had been burned out or set on fire. But i am just curious to see the type of damage that happens inside of a tank, how the shrapnel bounced, holes etc. Doesn't need to show a headless man or guts everywhere......could be a video clip taken within a modern tank with nobody inside......like RPG damage.........
‘Depression era krauts don’t have the problems you have, ya ate too much groceries over the years’
I’ve never seen someone flex growing up in the worst time ever so hard
Were the HEAT rounds really that common in the long-barreled variants? I'd only ever heard the short-barreled having HEAT, and VERY limited counts of them at that.
Like with everything German during ww2 it depended heavily on time&place so the only answer is yesno/it depends.
Panzer 4 ausf F1 and E and panzer 3 ausf J could kill T-34s cause some T-34 tanks armor would crack slump down or fling open the drivers hatch
Dang I hope I can still climb on tanks when I'm Mr. Doyle's age. To be honest I don't know if I could even do that now lol.
Zeiss makes the best lenses on earth period. It's because of the sand they use in the manufacturing process. The only place you can find that sand is where the factory is located
That bit about sand, I have to say, I had no idea. I shall now go look it up.
I wonder how many commanders were decapitated by a shell passing through the cupola :-0 and the rest of the crew in combat having to carry on fighting
Why didn't the german tanks of WW2 have a periscope for the gunner and loader? It'd be an enormous help to have it i'd imagine when laying your gun when commander tells.
Both commander and gunner had an azimuth indicator. So the commander could shout out a very precise direction to the gunner. With the good German sights, which offer a very wide field of view, this was still very effective for wwii standards.
@D L
The fixed loaders periscope for the loader is in the exact same position on panther and leopard 2.
M26,m46,m47,m41,m48 all had fixed periscopes for the loader like on panthers and tigers.
As Havoc117X mentions, both the gunner and commander had azimuth indicators, so the initial train of the gun would be straightforward. Having the gunsight where it is, and not a periscopic sight, avoids the situation that the Chieftain mentions in other videos, in that having the gunsight at the same level as the gun means that when you're moving up from turret-down to hull-down to shoot, when the gunsight clears the ridge, the gun has cleared the ridge, too; with a periscopic sight, when you have target view, the firling line may still be blocked. Of course, having both a periscopic sight to be able to lay the gun while hull-down, and the inline sight to see when your gun is clear, is the best of both worlds, but you usually don't get what you want.
Master Hilary seems to have been left out of a great many meetings... o_0 might need to upgrade to his personal secretary at that. >_
@Fus Ro Dah it's a running gag about how Hilary seems to know so much, but when he doesn't know something off the top of his head the quip is, "you must not has been invited to that meeting."
Two paddies in a Panzer IV.....*insert punchline*
The only reason they don't rule the world......
They need three more crew members.
like this tank so much
What were the differences between th III and IV? Did the IV's start with bolt on armor on III's? Basically III's were upgraded until the betters caught on and made official IV's
Was told that the US M4's ruled the desert at first. Which was better the Pz-IV or US M4?
Robert Brooks So the Panzer 3 and the Panzer 4 look similar but are two different designs. The Panzer 4 was originally the infantry support where as the Panzer 3 was the combat tank for breakthroughs. Although the Panzer 4 was forces into the MBT role after they failed to put better guns into the Panzer 3. And the Panzer 4s didn’t get the bolted on front plates until later on, late 42 I think. And the Sherman’s were over all a better tank by the end of the war, but during Africa it’s debatable. Both are pretty equal
@@stuglife5514 Yeah I thought the Mark 4 was was a infantry support tank but from what I have been able to ascertain it was meant to support other tanks
Is there any Ausf B and Cs in Munster?
so the video just ends after "lets talk ammo"?
have you done a Panzer 2 yet
Turns out the ammo section wasn't needed!
Where can I buy one for my museum?
It was the mk.IV that infected me with the tank virus at the time.
Where is bloody Monster ?
All germans were really small back then, about as big as him. I seen the outfits from the texas museum
That was due to malnourishment during and after WW1.
Any chance of getting inside a merkava variant?
There is a Merkava in this very German Panzermuseum. Not shure if it is allowed to film inthere though as Israel gifted it under special conditions.
Great cover.
The IV was the unsung ''Hawker Hurricane'' of the armoured war.
I'll never comprehend why they didn't just slope her out....
In my non expert opinion...
I would have terminated all Tiger and Panther production in early 43', and have Krupp, Henschel, MNH,MBA factories go full hog out with simpler,upgraded Stug III's,with a 30 Ton sloped IV with an improved turret, that could take the 7.5 KwK L42...which would culminate in literally thousands more of badly needed numbers in the field, reducing production costs at between 2 & 4 times.......Then there is just realisation of the necessity to streamline the logistics & battlefield maintenance tail for and army fighting for it's very life.
Slain'te.🍻
Conversation between two german engineers in 1943
Engineer 1: Dude i have a great idea. We dont have to build Panthers, we can simple upgrade the Panzer IV.
We should slope the 80mm frontal armor plate and enlarge the hull a bit, so we can put on a bigger turret for the Kwk 42.
We can counter the extra weight by adding torsion bar suspension, bigger road wheels and wider tracks.
And we should add the Maybach HL 230, because the HL 120 is to weak now.
Engineer 2: WTF dude, you just told me, that we should produce Panthers instead of Panthers??????????
To assume that panzer III and IV in 1944/45 were that much more reliable than the panther is a misconception.
They started to suffer from the same late war limitations.
"From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t).
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100.
General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem.
He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll,
it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation. (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger).
Since spring 1944 the Panther and the Panzer IV achieved almost the same combar ready rates (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz).
The Battle at Kursk shows that germany was in fact lacking the resources and the manpower to supply the tank force they already had.
Every additional tank needs a crew, fuel, ammunition, spares and the logistics to provide all that.
Just screaming for more tanks does not help.
Nevertheless germany produced more tanks in 1944 than in all the years before.
The panther was streamlined for mass production. The panzer iv was not. Only 8500 panzer iv were built from 1939 till wars end. But they built over 6000 panthers in less than two years. 4500 in 1944. In comparison the Russians built 11000 t34 85 in 1944. Given the average tank exchange ratio of 1/4 in favor for the Germans, the panther was a reasonable option.
Tanks like the Tiger, Tiger 2 and Jagdtiger were never meant to be produced in large numbers. They should serve a special purpose. Only 90 Jagdtigers were ordered.
The Henschel factory in Kassel, in which these tanks were built, was in fact too small to produce the simpler panther in large numbers. They were missing the tools and the space. They tryed it with a batch of 200 panthers, it did not work.
@@HaVoC117X
Brilliant............
Conversation between same two German engineers at, Rheinfall, Scaffhausen, Schweiz, Summer, 1946.
Engineer #2 to Engineer #1.....''Remember our kids with the 21st Pz in Normandie''?.....''They were good eh?🌴..but they had nothing....They only had two Pz battalions equipped with dozens of old relic 'short IV's' and captured French Chars,.... ''and not one Ficken Panther!!''.... ''Because we couldn't make enough''....''Just think'', ''Wenn archlocher gehirne wushen konnten''....''If arse holes could grow brains''.....'
The Quote is from:....Herman Leopold August Von Opplen Bronikowski'', Oberst, Pz Rgt. 22.'
21 Pz Div, Normandie, 1944....in reference to the critical Panzer shortages during the single most crucial moment in the war.
Prost... Kaffee Ludtz!.🍹🍹🍀
-ENDE-
@@HaVoC117X Excellent post. Couldn't have put it better myself
@@rpm1796 Yeah 21st Panzer Division in Normandy didn't have enough tanks.... but Panzer Lehr, 2nd Panzer, 116th Panzer, 9th Panzer, 1st SS Panzer, 2nd SS Panzer, 9th SS Panzer and 12th SS Panzer more or less all had their full compliment of Panzer IVs and Panthers. And the three Tiger battalions had their full compliment of Tigers too. 😁
Woohoo, part 2 is out!
Question: was diamond plate floor plates available before WW2? Or are the plates on this tank added much later?
4:19 The face of a man who hears bullshit but doesn't want to die on that hill :^)
It's not so much bullshit face as a disappointing surprise face, I presume. No intercom was absolutely normal in most tanks around the world at that point, touching/kicking other crewmen was the way to go about things. I guess Chieftain expected better from German engineering.
@@SoundAndFuryy afaik late-war German crews all had throat-mics, at least the commanders did.
@@Birdy890 and late war Pz4 means Ausf. F2+
just like me asking questions im expert at to my father just to make him happy😊
I wish he did a video on the killdozer
Is there a reason the interiors are painted white?
It's as good a color as any. Shows up leaks and reflects the limited internal light so the crew can see.
How tall is mister Doyle?
believe he is taller than the average German tank crew . Every time i hire modern people complaining about the rom in ww2 tanks they complain most about German PKW Tigers JagdPanters Panther .But they don't understand if you are 190 Cm long you wasn't selected for Panzer duty. Looks like modern war buffs don't understand that if you are too long or big tanks wasent duty wasn't your mission. It's better whit strong and not too tall to operate Panzer, if you're 190cm you are first MG42 shooter. or Pak40 crew or a member of a Flak crew as a loader on a 30mm autocanon .
Not everyone can bee in a tank .Or operating a 150mm heavy canon.
That was too bee my job before i was discarded from the army. 1993 because of too many kids in my year .
These videos must be a pain to make. All the preparations and research together with all the travelling. Not to mention that the camera man has to fit somewhere with all the recording gear. Then you have to travel all the way back home and edit it all. No wonder you split these videos into pieces i must take hours maby days to finish them. If there is any way i could help you please let me know. It's not worth you or your team to going through such time and effort to share such much wanted information. I really wish i could help. (Was that dramatic enough)