My father-in-law was drafted and sent to a base in Texas for tank destroyer training. The base commander was selling about 1/3 of the base's rations on the black market. My father-in-law lost about 40 pounds while there. When the Army found out what was happening, the undernourished men were released from the service and told they would be re-drafted. My father-in-law did some research and found that the Navy fed its men well, so he enlisted in the Navy. He spent over a year at Chicago's Navy Pier learning electronics and radar repair before being sent on a Liberty ship to the Pacific.
A lot of officers who were either proven incompetent in battle, or else, um, unethical (?), were re-assigned to training command duty. This is absolutely no surprise.
@Michael Smith actually, he didn't. He shot himself in 1970 and went blind from the wound, but actually died 17 years later in the VA hospital from malnutrition.
@Henryk Gödel that's how lots of insurgency get sustained. John Nagl, after writing his excellent book on COIN, went on to command in Iraq. In one of his presentation, he recounted a dilemma: the Iraqi police chief under his area of control was selling supplies, including body armours, sight, weapons, munitions to the insurgents. Partially it was corruption, partially it was threats on the police chief's family. Nagl never had a satisfactory answer of what was the correct answer. Singling out that man means losing what little local support they had, but that man's action was killing Nagl's men. Writing that book comparing the British in Malaya and Americans in Vietnam was a lot harder than commanding an actual COIN.
Kind of reminds me of a story I hear about the French or somebody replacing the warheads in some guided weapons with solid concrete to avoid collateral damage by slamming through the tanks roof
@@connorsullivan7692 If you put one up within ~300m of a tank parking lot...that could actually work, they are fairly accurate, and I could imagine a tank could suffer some damage if you fling pumpkin-sized chunks of granite at it....
Actually I don't believe it was thrown. The idea was to jam it in a tanks tracks to immobilize it. That's also what happened to all the bent rifles on the same slide. Needless to say they weren't too successful.
Regarding use of the 3" naval gun: I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when that junior officer first raised his hand and said, "I know, sir! Why don't we ask the navy to help?"
Chieftain, this type of video is _exactly_ why I'm subscribed to this channel. I don't play tanks anymore, but you know amazing things about tanks and these sorts of talks are great. Can't speak for others, but keep on keepin on as far as these talks are concerned imo.
There was an article a year or so ago, in the Wall Street Journal, about the guy who rebuilt to spec's a 1943 Buick. Takes it to Buick car shows, yes it is an M18.
Anti tank rock? I would love to know what its technical name was. It would probably be funny, something like Projectile,Infantry Anti-Tank, hand thrown, Model-40/Sedimentary
Thanks! I really love this kind of videos, that one about shermans I watched twice and gonna rewatch soon again. But this time you had some mic issues, hope you hear them too and gonna fix it next time. Otherwise great job!
US military looking at tanks: hmmm we need to figure out how to combat these Man 1: we need bigger guns on our tanks Man 2: we should just use anti tank guns Man 3: Mount our heavy AT guns on mechanized carriages Man 4: THROW A ROCK AT IT
Robert Lutece Guy 4 is most likely the only one with combat experience, because a rock is a big morale boost for the soliders around, and it can act as bodyarmour in case a bullet hits The ROCK
I would think they could have asked almost any engineer what happens when you shove a rock in to a large spinning metal thing, or to be hones almost anyone probably.
Love these long format informative talks. Don't believe the lies of the so call TH-cam analytics experts asking for five minute videos. I could listen to you talk about tanks all day.
I spent over 15 years searching and examining archives. I miss finding then putting the pieces together for a clearer picture. You're really good at abstracting info and presenting it to us. I look forward to your next article or video. Thank you.
Attended both talks at FHC and they were fantastic! It's really good for people to hear this stuff and have it backed up by documentation rather than purely anecdotal which is all most people ever get. Please keep coming back to FHC Tankfest!!! :)
Love these videos (the long in depth ones and the inside the chieftain's hatch videos.) Honestly was never really interested in tanks until i started watching them. One thing I'd really love to see, is more videos regarding cold war and modern era vehicles and background info. I think that would be really interesting since that info is not as prevalent as WW2 info (from my experience.)
I listened to you historical account of the Tank Destroyer, with a certain interest in the M-18. My uncle was a gunner with the 803rd Tank Destroyers, Patton 3rd Army. They ran the "tip of the spear" run north to Bastogne. I heard many stories from him when I would take him to a friend that was the driver on the same M-18. They actually were in the 5th Rangers but after the cliff climb and busted up, with old MOS in tank destroyer, thrown back into one. They had a M-10 early on but got the first M-18 and loved it! I also had another friend, old HS girl friends Dad, in going threw his stuff they found his daily diary from the time they landed in Ireland, down to load up, through Normandy to the end. He must of been in HQ as his log reflected all the rounds spent be day, score card on hit, ect. I can get a copy for you and other mechanical ect stories I have if you would want them for your records, studies. Those logs indicated lots of firing missions artillery wise, which your presentation somewhat reflects..
Thank you cheftain. This was a very informative and wonderful video. Please do more of these - I appreciate that they are time consuming and lengthy to put together, but you've taught me more about armour and ww2 vehicles than anyone or anything else! Thank you! :)
"Why not get a slightly bigger audience than a few hundred people".. You have nearly 300-thousand already, "Chieftain"! I saw that talk and it was very well done, you are a great self-taught scholar! And that is the best kind.
Don't feel down. Talking to a computer when recording dialog for some of my friend's videos is easily the weirdest feeling I've ever had. Especially when I'm doing the recording solo... just sittin in my house, By myself late at nite.. talkin to myself. I don't know how the popular youtubers do it. I think most of them have a pet that they talk to the whole time or something. Maybe I should get one. If you ever wish to do something like this again. Might you consider doing the initial recording as a livestream? At least then you'd have an audience that van respond and ask questions.
Thank you battle! That was most certainly not a waste of my last hour and five min. I really enjoy the videos you post. The depth of knowledge you possess and the willingness to go find the answer if you do not have it is beyond belief. I hope to be able to take more breaks from World of Tanks when the crazies are out (any day it is more than x2) and get informed. AIRBORNE out!
It was 106mm, not 105mm It's nomenclature is the M40 and they were used all over the World, some still are. I saw I pic not too long ago of one in Syria.
@@cvr527 are correct, you stirred 4 brains cells and I remember the recoiless was 106 and howitzers 105. do you remember the M202 multishot? Arnold used one in a movie. it's a four shot flame weapon.
@@TheDutchRanger I had not heard that. I know for certain the rounds are marked 106mm, but didnt measure them with calipers, lol. Would not surprise me if that were true. Either way the correct and only designation for the M40 is 106mm. Interestingly, I just spotted one mounted on the back of Toyota Hilux in a video taken in Libya two days ago.
The Myths of American Armour was great. It changed how I looked at the Sherman for one, and the others. I love how you tell us about the Good, the Bad and The Ugly parts of tanks. Very entertaining.
It's like Hans-Ulrich Rudel's kill record, which included a battleship, the Oktobrskaya Revolutiya, among his kills, described in Soviet records as "lightly damaged, and later raised" ('raising' being the act of refloating a ship after it was sunk).
Chieftan, just got your book "Can Openers" and have thoroughly enjoyed it! Just wish I could have gotten it signed... one of the drawbacks of being stationed in Japan. Regardless, excellent research and a well-written historical narrative describing the development of tank destroyers. I was really glad to be able to add this to my personal research library. Looking forward to more of "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch."
I feel so proud of recognizing wich M10 was the TD because of noticing the one crew was wearing berets while the others wore helmets. I think the Chieftain mentioned that difference in his talk about the supposed "deathtraps".
Thank you, sir, that's a very informative look at something I'd always made the mistake of believing the "Common Knowledge" about. I appreciate being corrected in such a highly entertaining manner. My requests for followups? Well as a M-60A3 tanker in the early 80's, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that final version of the post WWII paton lineage.preferably. The other thought would be an "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch" view of the M-18 Hellcat since it was the "Ideal" TD that the branch had looked for during it's time in the sun. Thanks again.
I enjoyed the video but you need to get a real mic or some sort of audio level software editing . As you blew out my ears a couple dozen times with red sound levels. :(
Hey Chieftain, I was wondering why the US and lots of the allied used gas engines rather than diesel? Was it power or fire issues? It seems like logistically diesel makes more sense.
It would appear that for the volume/weight, at the time the gasoline/petrol engines were more powerful. See discussion starting here, 9:47. th-cam.com/video/jgcM2uLUrxA/w-d-xo.html
TheChieftainWoT Thanks a ton for the reply! I will check it out. Appreciate all the information you share, your content is some of the, if not the best out there!
I would add one extra note to the Chieftains comment. Hunnicutt (This book was just recently republished, but otherwise you can take a look at it via interlibrary loan) looks at the diesel version of the M4 that could actually be deployed in WWII, the M4A2, which basically used 2 heavy truck diesels to run. In 1942-43 these were tested and found to be automotively superior to the R975, the Chrysler multi-bank and at least competitive with the Ford GAA in the M4A3. The caveats were that they were very dependent on quality of its air filter, but more importantly since most everything else ran on gas, for logistic purposes it was best to keep the tanks on gas. (Page 147-148) So since it was impossible to replace every engine with diesel, the gas engines had a advantage. Note however despite this, the diesel M4A2 was used extensively by the UK, and the USA used diesel M10's, honestly considering that the US used diesel M10 I believe that using M4A2's would not have been that big a problem, but the logistical concerns were valid enough.
And I just noticed that the decision to limit US vehicles (Somehow the M10 was ignored here.) to gas engines was a March 1942 order from the War Department, while the testing on final M4A2's was done in February of 1943 (Page 148 and 152.) So the M4A2 was also somewhat the victim of bad timing.
My great-grandfather's baby brother, Sterling "Jack" Denney aka Uncle Jack, was apart of the 614th Tank Destroyer Battalion Second Reconnaissance Platoon. He did his tour in WWII & volunteered to fight in the Korean War as well. Uncle Jack & my great-grandfather were two OUTSTANDING men & my heroes!
Good stuff! It is interesting to hear your synthesis of how "decisions" were made over time based on your research. Something that too many historians fall short on in written works.
Excellent presentation and very informative. I was previously aware of the basics but this video went far and beyond to really get into the nuts and bolts of the RD process - and the inclusion of so many photographs was a big plus. I most likely would have listened to the program even had it not had the visual aids, but their addition was very welcome, particularly given how similar many of the name designations were. Great stuff and definitely on par with the high quality of your other content that I have also watched.
But why did the Americans never even consider building a turret-less tank destroyer resembling the configuration of a Stug? The Stugs were a tested and effective weapon system and a similar vehicle would have probably fit the tank destroyer doctrine very well.
We did use some captured StuGs. www.ww2incolor.com/d/766332-2/image_007 The Tank Destroyer branch wanted something with a turret, they never liked the idea of a fixed gun with limited traverse. Most felt that design was more suited for an assault gun, which the Sturmgeschutz was. We used a turret-less assault gun in the form of the 105mm GMC T95
Tank Destroyer Battalion Doctrine foresaw the TD being used in concentrated formation reacting to an enemy armoured column breaching the front. Speed and manoeuvrability was more important; thus they gave all TDs a turret. The turret was also of open-top design, emphasising situational awareness and shoot-first capability. In reality, by the time the Americans joined the fight, they were on the offensive and TDs saw use as infantry support tanks. Turret-less TDs were excellent on the offensive: taking an overwatch position and provide direct fire support. Turret-less design means they can potentially have better frontal armour than the tank and carry a larger gun. The downside is if a track is knocked out, the turret-less TD is useless. Normal, dumb, point detonated artillery rounds can destroy and damage tank tracks and roadwheels.
Probably because they produced so many M4 chassis it's probably cheaper to use those for TD designs and fail than to re-design a hull that'll fit the turret-less gun. Like the US is already confused what a TD is and what it should do, I don't think anyone convinced someone to design a turret-less TD.
It has already been tried, the Finns did that during the winter war, jamming a log in the track and throwning molotovs/charges on the engine deck, i have never read about them using smoke though, but that might simply have been because they did not have any smoke granades...or very much of anything.
Of course the Finns had several things in their favor. They were operating in forested terrain where it was possible to get close to the tanks, and they were facing relatively light, under powered tanks like the T-26, where a log in the tracks would stop it.
The KV:s where tried out during the winter war aswell. And there where forrests on the ithmus before the artillery barrages, after that not as much, have a look at the numbers in that war.
Let's be fair any high calibre cannon that can point forward and down would in reality make a half decent anti tank gun. I mean that's how the Nazi's realised their 88 flak guns were actually better anti tank weapons then aa guns. The 88 got used as an aa gun, an artillery piece, anti tank gun, and even found itself slapped into actual tanks.
yup, and thus the S-tank is definitely a fixed gun turret-less mbt and not a TD as it was designed and used as an mbt XD And it also makes the A-10 Thunderbolt2 a fixed wing aircraft TD along with the AT attack helicopters :P
not necessarily, depends on the type of gun, in a technical sense "gun" refers to a high velocity cannon in the old sense, while "Howitzer" refers to low velocity cannon, these days the distintion is generally forgotten but low velocity Howitzerr are in effective against tanks when firing AP since they lack the energy to penetrate armor, firing HE has mixed effect. the 88 was technically not an "artillery gun" since it was not used by the Artillery branch but by the anti-air branch
MR.Chickennuget 360 Technically is a term for the history books and useless ivory tower types. The 88 flak gun was a far more effective ground support piece and anti-tank gun then it was ever a an anti-aircraft piece. Considering it's max ceiling was only 9000 feet or so. Below the high flying bombers of the allied forces. On the off side though being able to punch through 84 cm of armour at 2 kilometres makes the Flak gun more less better suited in the hands of the likes of Rommel then Goring. But I guess them Luftwaffe boys preferred the blue over the gray ya know.
Mate the highest a 88 could throw a shell was 9000 feet. The B-17 could cruise at 35,000 feet and typically could do daylight precision drops at 10,000 feet. Tell me mate where in all that time does a B17 even come close to being threatened by a 88 flak gun?
Seek, Strike, Destroy! One of my Uncles was a Tech Sergeant with 704 TD Btn. They were the first to be issued the M18 Hellcat. The 704 Landed on Utah beach on July 13 and fought all the way through Germany via Bastogne.
Thank You, very informative! Also being an Ex tank commander in the 2AD Fort Hood Texas was in "C" Troop 15 Cav, back in the 60's. The first tank I ever drove was the Bull Dog. It was on the way to the Depot and was being sent to So. America I believe. Was replaced with the M48A1. Sure wish all the information you have assembled for this game could be put into a BOOK!! Almost all games that have millions playing usually have a BOOK or a Manual....something for reference for the players
Chief this was what we needed! I am always impressed with the cultural differences between leaders in the United States within the armed services and other allied nations. Your references to the establishment of a tank destroyer unit is a great example of this. Internally, the quiet jockeying for empire could be viewed as a negative, but the culture of adversity produced some interesting results. Curious where you would place Patton in this story given the existing tension between resource allocation in the Pacific on the one hand, and Europe on the other. My own armchair reading is based upon Richard Franks work on Guadalcanal, Richard Overy (Why the Allies Won the War), and road trips spent listening to the newbooks network in military history. Cheers to you and I look forward to your next upload.
A bit of popping on the mic/audio. However, loved this talk. Fascinating and not a waste of my hour and 5 minutes. Knowledge is never a waste. :) Also, have you ever seen/been in a M1128 Stryker, and if so what are your thoughts on it as a modern-ish TD? (I know it isn't a TD but it is a close approximation for today)
self propelled anti tank, it's a tank destroyer. as for its effectiveness as a modern TD it seems to fill specific roles quite exceptionally, being faster and easier to transport (at least without the cage) means it can respond to armoured infantry threats much quicker and cleaner. though it would work best against lighter vehicles, APCs IFVs and SPGs, it can take out a few MBTs as well, in an open environment at least.
+that brit vamp chick Stryker MGS is quite decent as an all-round infantry support vehicle, but it is not very good as a tank destroyer. Its reduced-power underpowered 105mm gun makes it nearly useless against anything newer than T-55s and T-62s. A lightly armoured missile carrier would make for a much more useful tank destroyer. See the Tigr-based double quad Kornet tank destroyer. Or even the older BRDM-2-based quintuple Konkurs tank destroyer. Stryker MGS can carry more ammo, but the ammo is proprietary, so there is a high logistics burden just to employ the substandard gun.
Tiles Murphy substandard cannon that is still in standard use with most countries. It isn't a 120 or 140 but it is still a capable anti tank gun in the same sense that the 75mm M4 was. It will kill everything but the heaviest of armour.
While I no longer play they game (world of tanks) the you work with/for. I do still enjoy and find your videos vary informative and entertaining. Thank you vary much.
They definitely taught soldiers how to make them. The British actually built and issued them, mostly for 1941. Just because you have a reserve force that can deal with massed enemy armor attacks doesn't mean the infantry in the front lines don't need some way of dealing with armor. Just telling them "so if the enemy attacks with tanks you're pretty much screwed, and don't stand a chance, but it's okay, we have reserves that will stop them after they overrun you" isn't really great for morale. They need to feel like they have some chance of fighting back. And they still have cases where they only have a few enemy tanks on a local engagement, you need to deal with them. Of course bazooka and rifle grenades were a much better solution, but magnetic or adhesive charges were one solution, and they were taught how to make them for emergencies. You can't always get a bazooka or AT gun, and you need something that can stop a tank. But it definitely wasn't a thing that was used often. Pretty much a desperate last ditch thing, and extremely dangerous to use, since any properly employed armor has infantry support exactly so you can't use stuff like this on the tanks. Because what most people don't realize is that tanks are extremely vulnerable to infantry when they aren't supported. It's to easy to go to and blow them up or set them on fire, they can't see what's going on, and they can't shoot in all directions at the same time. With proper support, you can't get close to them to destroy them and they can stand back and hammer you where you can't touch them.
The microphone is literally trying to break my speakers. I recomend a proper sennheiser, would fix all those loud windbangs and poofs going on. Good video otherwise, cant wait for the next one.
Grandfather was in the 635th TD Bn., they were towed throughout the war, coming ashore at Omaha on June 8th. I have the unit's AAR's from June '44 to May '45, and they were often used as (relatively) precise direct fire support to engage suspected FO positions in church steeples and other positions of advantage. Very little mention of armor engaged, not surprisingly.
I'm glad they at least tried to get the 57mm to work at range... Navies nowadays are claiming miles in range for a 57mm with muzzle velocities around 3,400 fps. Thankfully the navies of the world have cooperated by de-armoring their combat ships.
ya no. its name is T28/T95 GMC. because when they first made the T28 it had problems, they added on tracks and renamed it to the T28/T95 GMC. which allowed the artillery men to crew the thing. because those guys already worked with those size shells.
There are only two doom turtles remaining. One is on a display outside and I think it's off limits and the other one is somewhere idk. So he can't do a inside the hatch on that one
Great video. As an old, tired, wore out, former tanker/platoon sergeant, and the nephew of a WWII TD crewman (guess who my role model was) I was a rapt audience to my uncle's occasional "war stories" when it came to TDs he served on during WWII. He started out, on TDs of course, on the halftrack model and deployed to North Africa as a crewman on just such a vehicle. He had one major complaint about the vehicle(s), as I recall, lack of gun depression. Uncle George recounted occasions where he and his fellow crew members had to depress the entire vehicle to get shots off at German vehicles/tanks and then had to hurriedly back up to avoid return fire from those self same vehicles/tanks. Later, in Italy George found himself and many of his fellow halftrack trained TD crewman assigned to "Wolverines" and he LOVED that TD. It was only much later in the war that he found another TD that he loved even more and that was the "Jackson" (he was not real crazy about the "Hellcat" despite it's speed and preferred the "Wolverine" for reasons that I, as a teenager at the time never fully understood, and still, at almost 62 years old, have only a foggy idea why he had that opinion). I for one, STILL think speed, concealability, and rapid, well aimed, effective fire is a good thing when engaging enemy MBTs/AFVs. I would appreciate an opinion from you if you have the time. Do you think that on the modern battlefield there is a place for a Light Tank/Tank Destroyer that could serve as a "flanker", ahead of main line MBTs and AFVs that had a, let's say, 105mm main gun, that could also serve as "scout" for modern MBT-AFV formations? But then I was and always will be....Cav!....Ready and Forward, Sir!....Scouts Out!....Tankers Forward!....All Others Follow As Best You Can! Thanks again for an interesting and educational video. I hope to see many more like it in the near future.
I don't think it's much of a question, given that vehicles such as AMX-10RC, Centauro, etc all exist, and perform such a role: Either tank destroyer with a secondary recon capability, or vice versa. The US has chosen not to take such a route, but a number of other militaries have.
TheChieftainWoT, thank you for responding. Frankly, until I looked them up, I'm not real sure I had ever seen or heard of the AMX-10RC or Centauro. I guess I just got use to the way Cav worked or was utilized back in the 1980s and always felt that we had the right idea and excellent leadership but at the same time I felt our "tools of the trade" were kind of messed up what with massive MBTs and AFVs. I always envisioned, for Cav/Recon work a light tank or six wheeled armored car no taller than a stock M113 and packing 90mm to 105mm main gun. This "dream" AFV would have been designed from the ground up to be faster than any tracked vehicle (then) in inventory and stealthy too. I know this is going to sound kind of old fashioned to you as a officer and Veteran of modern combat but, again this "dream vehicle", would have a place in the scheme of things that would specifically include seeking out, locating, targeting and destroying/disrupting enemy tanks and other vehicles and/or their formations, and rear area stores. Think the old Cav practice of flanking an enemy early on in a conflict and striking from the rear causing as much confusion, and destruction as was possible for a "light unit" while gathering intel for the "heavy hitters" before withdrawing and/or starting all over again. I'm sure there are many vehicles belonging to many nations out there today, or on the drawing boards, that would fill most if not all of my "dream" requirements. I just always felt there was something we were missing with the "Bigger Makes Better" mind set when it came to kicking in an opponents front door and punching him face when sneaking in that same opponents back door and kicking him in the butt over, and over again would give the Big Boys a chance to move up in good order and do their front door thing. Thank you sir for listening to an old tanker's ideas, such as they may be. I'm aware that doctrines have changed dramatically over the last thirty years or so and will continue to change, as they should, with changing times and battlefields... And it's not like DOA, the Armor Branch or DARPA have me on speed dial or anything. Take care and keep up the excellent work you do.
So whats your opinion of the M1128 MGS? as a former 19D who served on M3A3 in a unit where the MTOE (3dACR) was replaced with the stryker family, I'm not sure how I feel about the system and don't quite understand where the M1128 MGS fits in for the army other than the light tank/tank destroyer role?
Dustin dees...I like the idea of a fast, low profile AFV for Cav Scouts. If the vehicle could have six to eight wheels and real multi-wheel steering (like certain WWII and post WWII armored cars have/had) and modern 6X6 or 8X8 drive that actually provided some real "grunt" during off road driving I would start to be impressed with it. If that vehicle also had a turret mounting at least 90ish to 105mm main gun, a 7.62 coax for pot shotting enemy tanks, AFVs and supply/maintence vehicles I would REALLY start to pay attention! The closet existing scuh vehicles (that I'm aware of and then only from photos) are field by the French and Germans or HAVE been fielded by those same counties. I'm not trying to turn Scouts into tankers with my "vision" but in fact want to make them more mobile than they seem to be in currently produced/provided vehicles. Scouts should be, by definition "way out ahead of everybody else". When you add "Cavalry" to Scout such a vehicle would alow them to sneek, peek and whenever possible keep enemy awake at night wondering when and from what direction they were going to be hit next. Choppers are great but they have such a limited flight time due to their fuel consumption and MBTs, most current AFVs seem, to me at least, to be too big, and hard to hide for the job that Cav Scouts are need for. While I know the vehicle itself was pretty much obsolete before it ever saw combat, the M8 Greyhound, the old French Panards, and a couple of German (WWII era) "armoed cars" is sorta-kinda what I keep seeing in my head but including the most modern and and actually useful technologies. As a tanker I would have felt deaf and basically blind on any (1980s) battlefield without the 19D types out there playing: Sneeky, sneeky, peaky, peaky, with a little dose of "here...Hold this TOW missle while we go screw with your little buddies on the other side of that hill.". I wish I could draw worth a damn or I would have long ago produced my "dream" Scout vehicle. I just have had the idea bouncing around in my head for such a vehicle since I first laid eyes on the M2/M3 Bradley AFVs and realized just how tall they actually were/are. Oh well I blattered on about this subject way to long. Take care and always know that "Scouts Out! Tankers Forward!" still rings true and clearly with this old Cav tanker and for all the right reasons.
I never understood how the whole "the coastal gun is better than the navy gun" crap got to be actually believed. The whole problem of naval artillery is to actually hit the thing, meaning precisely know where the damn thing is and how fast is moving and were will be were you shells land. You have to measure distances, speed, direction and assume that they are not going to change (they are). This things are not trivial with modern radar, laser rangefinders and electronic computers. They are a practical nightmare with ww2 assets. On the other hand, a coastal gun is fixed. It's there and will be there. If you had any kind of aerial reconnaissance and/or intelligence, you have a nice handy point on a map. If you know where you are - and this is considerably easier - you know how to shoot it. Also they don't know that you are coming and you know precisely where they are. Chances are that if you are on an attacking battleship, you will blow the coastal gun battery to kingdom come while they are still trying to figure your range.
With Coastal guns, you can mount very heavy armor and earthworks to protect the gun, as well as mounting the heaviest gun your nation can produce without having to worry about the affecting the balance of a ship or fitting it into a 360% rotating turret. Also since you will usually mount a CD gun into a hillside, your powder storage and ammo storage rooms can be deep below ground, making them impossible to be hit. And while you mention the location of the Gun being fixed is a negative being a bad thing, that's not correct. by having your location fixed you can presight ranges years in advance and likely have multiple rangefinders located in your gun battery allowing for much faster target acquisition than a shipboard rangefinder
That all might be well and good, but when four battleships comes into range and you have 40+ 400+mm rounds coming to your head when you are just starting to compute position, direction and velocity of the enemy, this won't help you very much.
They had devices called stadimeters for rangefinding and bearing was simple enough(the two functions of radar)... speed was done from a reticle in the stadimeter based on range and time. Same stuff on submarines but using MUCH slower projectiles, and they worked just fine... especially after the US fixed their torpedoes.
Yeah but the amount of errors you have on these measurements is staggering. Even today it's not easy to have relatively accurate, fast and reliable rangefinding.
Think of it this way; would you rather be on the sidewalk shooting at a moving car, or in a moving car shooting at someone on the sidewalk? Drive bys are notorious for hitting everyone but who they are shooting at.
Hey Chieftain, great vid. As a US army veteran that has also severed in Iraq (twice) and in Afghanistan, it cool to see that WG hired someone with real combat and military experience. I wasn't a 19K (armored crewmen for the civilians lol) because my recruiter talked me out of it when I enlisted and talked me into becoming an 95B (military police). I served in combat MP units for most of my career and it was pretty cool but you know better than me that staying in the field gets old after a while and its a young man's game lol.
My father-in-law was drafted and sent to a base in Texas for tank destroyer training. The base commander was selling about 1/3 of the base's rations on the black market. My father-in-law lost about 40 pounds while there. When the Army found out what was happening, the undernourished men were released from the service and told they would be re-drafted. My father-in-law did some research and found that the Navy fed its men well, so he enlisted in the Navy. He spent over a year at Chicago's Navy Pier learning electronics and radar repair before being sent on a Liberty ship to the Pacific.
A lot of officers who were either proven incompetent in battle, or else, um, unethical (?), were re-assigned to training command duty. This is absolutely no surprise.
He was a “Band of Homies”
@Michael Smith seriously? I didnt know that he killed himself. Do you know if it was after the movie came out?
@Michael Smith actually, he didn't. He shot himself in 1970 and went blind from the wound, but actually died 17 years later in the VA hospital from malnutrition.
@Henryk Gödel that's how lots of insurgency get sustained. John Nagl, after writing his excellent book on COIN, went on to command in Iraq. In one of his presentation, he recounted a dilemma: the Iraqi police chief under his area of control was selling supplies, including body armours, sight, weapons, munitions to the insurgents. Partially it was corruption, partially it was threats on the police chief's family. Nagl never had a satisfactory answer of what was the correct answer. Singling out that man means losing what little local support they had, but that man's action was killing Nagl's men.
Writing that book comparing the British in Malaya and Americans in Vietnam was a lot harder than commanding an actual COIN.
When they scaled up the anti tank rock to 100 tons it worked rather well. Delivery was... iffy
Trebuchet vs tanks??
Logistics was a problem...
Kind of reminds me of a story I hear about the French or somebody replacing the warheads in some guided weapons with solid concrete to avoid collateral damage by slamming through the tanks roof
@@CS-zn6pp you can procure rocks anywhere
@@connorsullivan7692 If you put one up within ~300m of a tank parking lot...that could actually work, they are fairly accurate, and I could imagine a tank could suffer some damage if you fling pumpkin-sized chunks of granite at it....
Did that anti-tank rock actually have a designation? Like 'Rock, Thrown, Anti-Tank M1'?
That would be cool
Actually I don't believe it was thrown. The idea was to jam it in a tanks tracks to immobilize it. That's also what happened to all the bent rifles on the same slide. Needless to say they weren't too successful.
So 'Rock, Jammed, Anti-Tank M1?'
+Wesley23 'M4' everything is 'M4'
William Magoffin If it's a British rock, would it breaking in the tracks make in a mkII rock, or a mkI* ?
Regarding use of the 3" naval gun: I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when that junior officer first raised his hand and said, "I know, sir! Why don't we ask the navy to help?"
This was great, thanks for this and for making all of these videos. Learning something new (read: many new things) with each one of them.
Acthung! Ist Jabo!
+Daniel Taylor Das ist die mächtig königstiger
Bismarck hello
Bismarck sup Bismarck
Gutan tag, Bismarck
Chieftain, this type of video is _exactly_ why I'm subscribed to this channel. I don't play tanks anymore, but you know amazing things about tanks and these sorts of talks are great.
Can't speak for others, but keep on keepin on as far as these talks are concerned imo.
There was an article a year or so ago, in the Wall Street Journal, about the guy who rebuilt to spec's a 1943 Buick. Takes it to Buick car shows, yes it is an M18.
Anti tank rock? I would love to know what its technical name was. It would probably be funny, something like Projectile,Infantry Anti-Tank, hand thrown, Model-40/Sedimentary
The Article in the description says "Stone, 5-Inch, Undesignated".
Probably made up though
It is the L.M.P. model of 1889. A french weapon, designed prior to ww1
M1
for football mad countries, a foot-grenade-goes further
first reaction when i saw the tumbnail:
why the long shirt?
oh my god thank you for saying this
haha hahaha lol
sharmagames same LmAo
HAHAHA I see it now!
Nicholas Moran is kinda tall
Thanks! I really love this kind of videos, that one about shermans I watched twice and gonna rewatch soon again.
But this time you had some mic issues, hope you hear them too and gonna fix it next time.
Otherwise great job!
US military looking at tanks: hmmm we need to figure out how to combat these
Man 1: we need bigger guns on our tanks
Man 2: we should just use anti tank guns
Man 3: Mount our heavy AT guns on mechanized carriages
Man 4: THROW A ROCK AT IT
To be fair to man 4, that is my solution to most problems.
@@Devin_Stromgren If that isn't your solution to most problems that is a bad thing.
Robert Lutece
Guy 4 is most likely the only one with combat experience, because a rock is a big morale boost for the soliders around, and it can act as bodyarmour in case a bullet hits The ROCK
Meeting moderator points at Man 4 and asks "who invited the Marines?"
I would think they could have asked almost any engineer what happens when you shove a rock in to a large spinning metal thing, or to be hones almost anyone probably.
A 1 hour video of chieftain talking about TDs yes :)
Love these long format informative talks. Don't believe the lies of the so call TH-cam analytics experts asking for five minute videos.
I could listen to you talk about tanks all day.
I spent over 15 years searching and examining archives. I miss finding then putting the pieces together for a clearer picture. You're really good at abstracting info and presenting it to us. I look forward to your next article or video. Thank you.
Ive heard archives in general are a dysfunctional mess. I greatly respect anyone willing to wade into that mess in the name of history
Nick, at least you're honest and open, and that's why I like you. But don't bring yourself down, you're an awesome dude and we love you :)
I agree. I love how he admits being a tank crewman, doesn't mean two fucks to being a historian.
Even the A-10 aircraft was a purpose built tank destroyer later used for many other rolls. Like CAS, and low level bombing.
Attended both talks at FHC and they were fantastic! It's really good for people to hear this stuff and have it backed up by documentation rather than purely anecdotal which is all most people ever get. Please keep coming back to FHC Tankfest!!! :)
Excellent! Hour long Chieftain Lectures are definitely a worthwhile thing to catch.
Love these videos (the long in depth ones and the inside the chieftain's hatch videos.) Honestly was never really interested in tanks until i started watching them.
One thing I'd really love to see, is more videos regarding cold war and modern era vehicles and background info. I think that would be really interesting since that info is not as prevalent as WW2 info (from my experience.)
I loved this Chieftain. I hope you do this more, I'm sure more people would love to listen and learn some of the vast knowledge you keep around!
I listened to you historical account of the Tank Destroyer, with a certain interest in the M-18. My uncle was a gunner with the 803rd Tank Destroyers, Patton 3rd Army. They ran the "tip of the spear" run north to Bastogne. I heard many stories from him when I would take him to a friend that was the driver on the same M-18. They actually were in the 5th Rangers but after the cliff climb and busted up, with old MOS in tank destroyer, thrown back into one. They had a M-10 early on but got the first M-18 and loved it! I also had another friend, old HS girl friends Dad, in going threw his stuff they found his daily diary from the time they landed in Ireland, down to load up, through Normandy to the end. He must of been in HQ as his log reflected all the rounds spent be day, score card on hit, ect. I can get a copy for you and other mechanical ect stories I have if you would want them for your records, studies. Those logs indicated lots of firing missions artillery wise, which your presentation somewhat reflects..
I would!
I love the m18 and it's my go-to vehicle in WOT. Grinded to get the fast sniper and couldn't be happier.
MY UNCLE PVT. LAWRENCE BICKFORD -601ST TANK BATTALION. MIA, THEN KIA IN 02/1944.
My grandpa “Bud” Dick Nelson was in the 803d.
Thank you cheftain. This was a very informative and wonderful video. Please do more of these - I appreciate that they are time consuming and lengthy to put together, but you've taught me more about armour and ww2 vehicles than anyone or anything else! Thank you! :)
Anti tank rock eh?
I sense a new meme the likes the world has never seen before outside of Skallagrim.
they suggested it in old videos of how to fight the japanese tanks in an emergency
Anti tank pommel.
Tetemovies4 Indeed sir. When thrown it destroys the entire universe.
You mean Anti-tank Nokia, which destroys the fabric of reality when thrown.
Declassified picture of an anti-tank rock. The anti-tank rock was at one point classified.
"Why not get a slightly bigger audience than a few hundred people".. You have nearly 300-thousand already, "Chieftain"! I saw that talk and it was very well done, you are a great self-taught scholar! And that is the best kind.
Don't feel down. Talking to a computer when recording dialog for some of my friend's videos is easily the weirdest feeling I've ever had. Especially when I'm doing the recording solo... just sittin in my house, By myself late at nite.. talkin to myself.
I don't know how the popular youtubers do it. I think most of them have a pet that they talk to the whole time or something. Maybe I should get one.
If you ever wish to do something like this again. Might you consider doing the initial recording as a livestream? At least then you'd have an audience that van respond and ask questions.
I saw both of these talks -- they were awesome, thanks for doing them.
Exceptional presentation of information that is difficult to find in other places.
Thank you battle! That was most certainly not a waste of my last hour and five min. I really enjoy the videos you post. The depth of knowledge you possess and the willingness to go find the answer if you do not have it is beyond belief. I hope to be able to take more breaks from World of Tanks when the crazies are out (any day it is more than x2) and get informed. AIRBORNE out!
When I was in the Marines we had Jeep mounted 105 MM recoil less rifle, as an anti tank weapon. sounds like a tank destroyer on the the cheap.
It was 106mm, not 105mm It's nomenclature is the M40 and they were used all over the World, some still are. I saw I pic not too long ago of one in Syria.
@@cvr527 are correct, you stirred 4 brains cells and I remember the recoiless was 106 and howitzers 105. do you remember the M202 multishot? Arnold used one in a movie. it's a four shot flame weapon.
@@imjusttoodissgusted5620 Yeah, I have fired them both. The M202A1 Flash is a 4 round 66mm incendiary rocket launcher.
@@cvr527 As I recall, they were actually 105mm but were called 106 in order to not cause confusion with rounds ending up in the wrong places.
@@TheDutchRanger I had not heard that. I know for certain the rounds are marked 106mm, but didnt measure them with calipers, lol.
Would not surprise me if that were true.
Either way the correct and only designation for the M40 is 106mm.
Interestingly, I just spotted one mounted on the back of Toyota Hilux in a video taken in Libya two days ago.
Have rewatched this several times now. Thanks Chieftain for your amazing work as usual.
"On the right you can see a declassified photo of an anti-tank rock"
LMFAO
They later upgraded it to the antitank rock m1a1, which had laser optics.
I was at the talk you gave at the Flying heritage museum in 2016 Chieftain. Very informative and interesting. Glad you could make it up here for that.
didnt seem like an hour. was very interesting. would definitely like to see another. maybe on the evolution of MBT`s?
The Myths of American Armour was great. It changed how I looked at the Sherman for one, and the others. I love how you tell us about the Good, the Bad and The Ugly parts of tanks. Very entertaining.
Topic idea: history of the air mobile light tank
Wow! Filled up the old noodle with armored goodness. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Thank you.
00:09 am right now
*clicks 1hour Video anyway*
hey, it's fridaay !
SAME ITS FRIDAY FINALLY!
+aboomination picks up gun and shoots himself*
absolutely fascinating Chieftain...thank you for the hour of your time :)
and to this day, the fearsome anti-tank rock evolved into the mighty MRE Rock-Or-Something.
Thank you for taking the time to speak on this topic!
I want to know more about the 1 Me-109 and the 1 "Barge, River" on that score sheet.
It's like Hans-Ulrich Rudel's kill record, which included a battleship, the Oktobrskaya Revolutiya, among his kills, described in Soviet records as "lightly damaged, and later raised" ('raising' being the act of refloating a ship after it was sunk).
Chieftan, just got your book "Can Openers" and have thoroughly enjoyed it! Just wish I could have gotten it signed... one of the drawbacks of being stationed in Japan. Regardless, excellent research and a well-written historical narrative describing the development of tank destroyers. I was really glad to be able to add this to my personal research library. Looking forward to more of "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch."
More of things like this, please. I loved it!
I feel so proud of recognizing wich M10 was the TD because of noticing the one crew was wearing berets while the others wore helmets. I think the Chieftain mentioned that difference in his talk about the supposed "deathtraps".
Hahaha I did the same thing, don't look at the vehicle, look at the uniforms! :P
Thank you, sir, that's a very informative look at something I'd always made the mistake of believing the "Common Knowledge" about. I appreciate being corrected in such a highly entertaining manner.
My requests for followups? Well as a M-60A3 tanker in the early 80's, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that final version of the post WWII paton lineage.preferably.
The other thought would be an "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch" view of the M-18 Hellcat since it was the "Ideal" TD that the branch had looked for during it's time in the sun.
Thanks again.
Nicholas, you're too modest. You're one of the most entertaining people to listen to about everything that rolls around and goes bang!
A better microphone would be awesome- still great video! :)
Yes. A better microphone and hence better audio would have improved the video by a lot. Or a pop filter.
agreed- the plosives are driving me mad.interesting TD info though.
The foam cover on most mikes will deal with the problem. Other than that, a great video.
should have scrolled down, i just made the same comment. I'd suggest a blue yeti.
I enjoyed the video but you need to get a real mic or some sort of audio level software editing . As you blew out my ears a couple dozen times with red sound levels. :(
More of these Sir, please! Everything you put out has interest and keeps me playing/supporting the game!
1 hour long video?
YAY!
Outstanding sir! Would love to see more of these. This was surely NOT a waste of my time by any stretch of the word.
Ive always found the idea of tank destroyers pretty interesting. Perhaps you could do a video on german tank destroyer doctrine?
Listening to Chieftain is the best documentary you can ever watch.
Hey Chieftain, I was wondering why the US and lots of the allied used gas engines rather than diesel? Was it power or fire issues? It seems like logistically diesel makes more sense.
It would appear that for the volume/weight, at the time the gasoline/petrol engines were more powerful. See discussion starting here, 9:47. th-cam.com/video/jgcM2uLUrxA/w-d-xo.html
TheChieftainWoT Thanks a ton for the reply! I will check it out. Appreciate all the information you share, your content is some of the, if not the best out there!
I would add one extra note to the Chieftains comment. Hunnicutt (This book was just recently republished, but otherwise you can take a look at it via interlibrary loan) looks at the diesel version of the M4 that could actually be deployed in WWII, the M4A2, which basically used 2 heavy truck diesels to run. In 1942-43 these were tested and found to be automotively superior to the R975, the Chrysler multi-bank and at least competitive with the Ford GAA in the M4A3. The caveats were that they were very dependent on quality of its air filter, but more importantly since most everything else ran on gas, for logistic purposes it was best to keep the tanks on gas. (Page 147-148) So since it was impossible to replace every engine with diesel, the gas engines had a advantage. Note however despite this, the diesel M4A2 was used extensively by the UK, and the USA used diesel M10's, honestly considering that the US used diesel M10 I believe that using M4A2's would not have been that big a problem, but the logistical concerns were valid enough.
And I just noticed that the decision to limit US vehicles (Somehow the M10 was ignored here.) to gas engines was a March 1942 order from the War Department, while the testing on final M4A2's was done in February of 1943 (Page 148 and 152.) So the M4A2 was also somewhat the victim of bad timing.
***** Oh I was wondering why they used it, and when you said that it made perfect sense.
It was an excellent use of my time, thanks Nick
Interesting video. I had no idea there was so much to do over "tank destroyers"
My great-grandfather's baby brother, Sterling "Jack" Denney aka Uncle Jack, was apart of the 614th Tank Destroyer Battalion Second Reconnaissance Platoon. He did his tour in WWII & volunteered to fight in the Korean War as well. Uncle Jack & my great-grandfather were two OUTSTANDING men & my heroes!
more of this please
That was awesome. Thank you for taking the time, and sharing the knowledge. Cheers!
these are perhaps the best analysis videos (the amercain armor myth and this) love watching them
Good stuff! It is interesting to hear your synthesis of how "decisions" were made over time based on your research. Something that too many historians fall short on in written works.
Best video guy on WOT.
This was awesome. Thank you so much for sharing this rare gem!
Thoroughly enjoyable & comprehensive. Thank you. I'm a War Thunder player, but sure glad WOT had sense to retain you & support your research.
Excellent presentation and very informative. I was previously aware of the basics but this video went far and beyond to really get into the nuts and bolts of the RD process - and the inclusion of so many photographs was a big plus. I most likely would have listened to the program even had it not had the visual aids, but their addition was very welcome, particularly given how similar many of the name designations were. Great stuff and definitely on par with the high quality of your other content that I have also watched.
But why did the Americans never even consider building a turret-less tank destroyer resembling the configuration of a Stug?
The Stugs were a tested and effective weapon system and a similar vehicle would have probably fit the tank destroyer doctrine very well.
We did use some captured StuGs. www.ww2incolor.com/d/766332-2/image_007
The Tank Destroyer branch wanted something with a turret, they never liked the idea of a fixed gun with limited traverse. Most felt that design was more suited for an assault gun, which the Sturmgeschutz was. We used a turret-less assault gun in the form of the 105mm GMC T95
CPTANT The main thing the TD needed was speed. The Stug was great if you were defending, but the Americans were attacking.
Tank Destroyer Battalion Doctrine foresaw the TD being used in concentrated formation reacting to an enemy armoured column breaching the front. Speed and manoeuvrability was more important; thus they gave all TDs a turret. The turret was also of open-top design, emphasising situational awareness and shoot-first capability.
In reality, by the time the Americans joined the fight, they were on the offensive and TDs saw use as infantry support tanks. Turret-less TDs were excellent on the offensive: taking an overwatch position and provide direct fire support. Turret-less design means they can potentially have better frontal armour than the tank and carry a larger gun. The downside is if a track is knocked out, the turret-less TD is useless. Normal, dumb, point detonated artillery rounds can destroy and damage tank tracks and roadwheels.
Probably because they produced so many M4 chassis it's probably cheaper to use those for TD designs and fail than to re-design a hull that'll fit the turret-less gun.
Like the US is already confused what a TD is and what it should do, I don't think anyone convinced someone to design a turret-less TD.
absolutely love this kind of video. thanks chieftain
What about Finnish anti tank logs?
It has already been tried, the Finns did that during the winter war, jamming a log in the track and throwning molotovs/charges on the engine deck, i have never read about them using smoke though, but that might simply have been because they did not have any smoke granades...or very much of anything.
Of course the Finns had several things in their favor. They were operating in forested terrain where it was possible to get close to the tanks, and they were facing relatively light, under powered tanks like the T-26, where a log in the tracks would stop it.
The KV:s where tried out during the winter war aswell. And there where forrests on the ithmus before the artillery barrages, after that not as much, have a look at the numbers in that war.
I've seen Marine trainees at Fort Benning break an Abrams track on a tree so that may be a possibility.
Sheered the idler wheel clean off.
i hope you can take the time to make another one of these. I love these type of videos
5:51 actual start of presentation.
Really enjoyed this video and your Chieftain's Hatch articles - please keep them coming!
9:03 TD is a mode. So, all the Artillery players in WoT, who go "TD mode", they are actually doing it right?
Let's be fair any high calibre cannon that can point forward and down would in reality make a half decent anti tank gun. I mean that's how the Nazi's realised their 88 flak guns were actually better anti tank weapons then aa guns. The 88 got used as an aa gun, an artillery piece, anti tank gun, and even found itself slapped into actual tanks.
yup, and thus the S-tank is definitely a fixed gun turret-less mbt and not a TD as it was designed and used as an mbt XD
And it also makes the A-10 Thunderbolt2 a fixed wing aircraft TD along with the AT attack helicopters :P
not necessarily, depends on the type of gun, in a technical sense "gun" refers to a high velocity cannon in the old sense, while "Howitzer" refers to low velocity cannon, these days the distintion is generally forgotten but low velocity Howitzerr are in effective against tanks when firing AP since they lack the energy to penetrate armor, firing HE has mixed effect. the 88 was technically not an "artillery gun" since it was not used by the Artillery branch but by the anti-air branch
MR.Chickennuget 360 Technically is a term for the history books and useless ivory tower types. The 88 flak gun was a far more effective ground support piece and anti-tank gun then it was ever a an anti-aircraft piece. Considering it's max ceiling was only 9000 feet or so. Below the high flying bombers of the allied forces.
On the off side though being able to punch through 84 cm of armour at 2 kilometres makes the Flak gun more less better suited in the hands of the likes of Rommel then Goring. But I guess them Luftwaffe boys preferred the blue over the gray ya know.
Mate the highest a 88 could throw a shell was 9000 feet. The B-17 could cruise at 35,000 feet and typically could do daylight precision drops at 10,000 feet. Tell me mate where in all that time does a B17 even come close to being threatened by a 88 flak gun?
Seek, Strike, Destroy! One of my Uncles was a Tech Sergeant with 704 TD Btn. They were the first to be issued the M18 Hellcat. The 704 Landed on Utah beach on July 13 and fought all the way through Germany via Bastogne.
Nice talk here. Was hoping for a more worldwide view.
Thank You, very informative! Also being an Ex tank commander in the 2AD Fort Hood Texas was in "C" Troop 15 Cav, back in the 60's. The first tank I ever drove was the Bull Dog. It was on the way to the Depot and was being sent to So. America I believe. Was replaced with the M48A1. Sure wish all the information you have assembled for this game could be put into a BOOK!! Almost all games that have millions playing usually have a BOOK or a Manual....something for reference for the players
Great video
btw you may want to decrease mic sensitivity or move it further from your mouth, lots of air blown into it when you are talking.
Thanks for making this! Always thought to myself I could listen to you talk for hours about tanks, and now I can. Ha.
I was here hoping for German, Russian and British Tank destroyers but worth watching video anyway.
Wish we weren't hearing a bunch of background noise during a very impressive lecture and history lesson. PLEASE keep up the good work.
anti tank rock is coming to wot
as a new consumable
Ted Piasecki that would be perfect
Daniel Dildine i would buy it
Please do more of these if possible. I am a huge fan of this kind of material.
Great video, but a pop-filter would be super..
A tip to listeners, turn down the bass to minimise the poping.
DROP THE BASS if I do say so myself eh?
Thank you so much for compiling and sharing this research and going to the effort of doing these presentations in such a way as to make people think.
Anti-Tank-Rocks were their kind of Premium Ammo xD
no the anti-tank bricks were the premium ammo.
Still not better than soviet Anti-Tank dogs ;p
FYI the trained them by using t-34 as targets so...... yeah
Yeah the Soviet AT dogs was a story that is tragicomedy at it´s "best". :/
better than the frogs and there maginot line?
Chief this was what we needed! I am always impressed with the cultural differences between leaders in the United States within the armed services and other allied nations. Your references to the establishment of a tank destroyer unit is a great example of this. Internally, the quiet jockeying for empire could be viewed as a negative, but the culture of adversity produced some interesting results. Curious where you would place Patton in this story given the existing tension between resource allocation in the Pacific on the one hand, and Europe on the other. My own armchair reading is based upon Richard Franks work on Guadalcanal, Richard Overy (Why the Allies Won the War), and road trips spent listening to the newbooks network in military history. Cheers to you and I look forward to your next upload.
A bit of popping on the mic/audio. However, loved this talk. Fascinating and not a waste of my hour and 5 minutes. Knowledge is never a waste. :)
Also, have you ever seen/been in a M1128 Stryker, and if so what are your thoughts on it as a modern-ish TD? (I know it isn't a TD but it is a close approximation for today)
self propelled anti tank, it's a tank destroyer. as for its effectiveness as a modern TD it seems to fill specific roles quite exceptionally, being faster and easier to transport (at least without the cage) means it can respond to armoured infantry threats much quicker and cleaner. though it would work best against lighter vehicles, APCs IFVs and SPGs, it can take out a few MBTs as well, in an open environment at least.
+that brit vamp chick Stryker MGS is quite decent as an all-round infantry support vehicle, but it is not very good as a tank destroyer. Its reduced-power underpowered 105mm gun makes it nearly useless against anything newer than T-55s and T-62s. A lightly armoured missile carrier would make for a much more useful tank destroyer. See the Tigr-based double quad Kornet tank destroyer. Or even the older BRDM-2-based quintuple Konkurs tank destroyer. Stryker MGS can carry more ammo, but the ammo is proprietary, so there is a high logistics burden just to employ the substandard gun.
Tiles Murphy substandard cannon that is still in standard use with most countries. It isn't a 120 or 140 but it is still a capable anti tank gun in the same sense that the 75mm M4 was. It will kill everything but the heaviest of armour.
that brit vamp chick Stryker cannot use full power 105mm ammo due to excessive recoil. Ammunition for it is proprietary.
You sure about that? A look at ATK's website (The ammunition manufacturer) seems to lump the same round in all variants of the M68.
While I no longer play they game (world of tanks) the you work with/for. I do still enjoy and find your videos vary informative and entertaining. Thank you vary much.
oh, how historically accurate is the sticky bomb from saving private ryan?
I was taught how to make one in Infantry School in the 80's.
They definitely taught soldiers how to make them. The British actually built and issued them, mostly for 1941. Just because you have a reserve force that can deal with massed enemy armor attacks doesn't mean the infantry in the front lines don't need some way of dealing with armor. Just telling them "so if the enemy attacks with tanks you're pretty much screwed, and don't stand a chance, but it's okay, we have reserves that will stop them after they overrun you" isn't really great for morale. They need to feel like they have some chance of fighting back. And they still have cases where they only have a few enemy tanks on a local engagement, you need to deal with them.
Of course bazooka and rifle grenades were a much better solution, but magnetic or adhesive charges were one solution, and they were taught how to make them for emergencies. You can't always get a bazooka or AT gun, and you need something that can stop a tank. But it definitely wasn't a thing that was used often. Pretty much a desperate last ditch thing, and extremely dangerous to use, since any properly employed armor has infantry support exactly so you can't use stuff like this on the tanks. Because what most people don't realize is that tanks are extremely vulnerable to infantry when they aren't supported. It's to easy to go to and blow them up or set them on fire, they can't see what's going on, and they can't shoot in all directions at the same time. With proper support, you can't get close to them to destroy them and they can stand back and hammer you where you can't touch them.
its nice too hear a person talk about someting they actual know a lot of, and even shows the documents, really top notch!
The microphone is literally trying to break my speakers. I recomend a proper sennheiser, would fix all those loud windbangs and poofs going on. Good video otherwise, cant wait for the next one.
Grandfather was in the 635th TD Bn., they were towed throughout the war, coming ashore at Omaha on June 8th. I have the unit's AAR's from June '44 to May '45, and they were often used as (relatively) precise direct fire support to engage suspected FO positions in church steeples and other positions of advantage. Very little mention of armor engaged, not surprisingly.
I love the info but I had to stop using my headset and go speakers, before the popping and thumping from his mic blew my ears out.
I'm glad they at least tried to get the 57mm to work at range... Navies nowadays are claiming miles in range for a 57mm with muzzle velocities around 3,400 fps. Thankfully the navies of the world have cooperated by de-armoring their combat ships.
can you do an inside the Hatch on the T28/T95 super heavy tank
T28 Super heavy tank
T95 GMC
Two different designations
+Valentine T95 105mm gmc
ya no. its name is T28/T95 GMC. because when they first made the T28 it had problems, they added on tracks and renamed it to the T28/T95 GMC. which allowed the artillery men to crew the thing. because those guys already worked with those size shells.
There are only two doom turtles remaining. One is on a display outside and I think it's off limits and the other one is somewhere idk. So he can't do a inside the hatch on that one
Hi blaster.
Many thanks. Most informative, and I really appreciate your clear no nonsense from the heart tuition. looking forward to your next one.
In 1956 when the Soviets invaded Budapest, freedom fighters put cobble stones on the road because the tanks would slip on them.
Great video. As an old, tired, wore out, former tanker/platoon sergeant, and the nephew of a WWII TD crewman (guess who my role model was) I was a rapt audience to my uncle's occasional "war stories" when it came to TDs he served on during WWII. He started out, on TDs of course, on the halftrack model and deployed to North Africa as a crewman on just such a vehicle. He had one major complaint about the vehicle(s), as I recall, lack of gun depression. Uncle George recounted occasions where he and his fellow crew members had to depress the entire vehicle to get shots off at German vehicles/tanks and then had to hurriedly back up to avoid return fire from those self same vehicles/tanks. Later, in Italy George found himself and many of his fellow halftrack trained TD crewman assigned to "Wolverines" and he LOVED that TD. It was only much later in the war that he found another TD that he loved even more and that was the "Jackson" (he was not real crazy about the "Hellcat" despite it's speed and preferred the "Wolverine" for reasons that I, as a teenager at the time never fully understood, and still, at almost 62 years old, have only a foggy idea why he had that opinion). I for one, STILL think speed, concealability, and rapid, well aimed, effective fire is a good thing when engaging enemy MBTs/AFVs. I would appreciate an opinion from you if you have the time. Do you think that on the modern battlefield there is a place for a Light Tank/Tank Destroyer that could serve as a "flanker", ahead of main line MBTs and AFVs that had a, let's say, 105mm main gun, that could also serve as "scout" for modern MBT-AFV formations? But then I was and always will be....Cav!....Ready and Forward, Sir!....Scouts Out!....Tankers Forward!....All Others Follow As Best You Can! Thanks again for an interesting and educational video. I hope to see many more like it in the near future.
I don't think it's much of a question, given that vehicles such as AMX-10RC, Centauro, etc all exist, and perform such a role: Either tank destroyer with a secondary recon capability, or vice versa. The US has chosen not to take such a route, but a number of other militaries have.
TheChieftainWoT, thank you for responding. Frankly, until I looked them up, I'm not real sure I had ever seen or heard of the AMX-10RC or Centauro. I guess I just got use to the way Cav worked or was utilized back in the 1980s and always felt that we had the right idea and excellent leadership but at the same time I felt our "tools of the trade" were kind of messed up what with massive MBTs and AFVs. I always envisioned, for Cav/Recon work a light tank or six wheeled armored car no taller than a stock M113 and packing 90mm to 105mm main gun. This "dream" AFV would have been designed from the ground up to be faster than any tracked vehicle (then) in inventory and stealthy too. I know this is going to sound kind of old fashioned to you as a officer and Veteran of modern combat but, again this "dream vehicle", would have a place in the scheme of things that would specifically include seeking out, locating, targeting and destroying/disrupting enemy tanks and other vehicles and/or their formations, and rear area stores. Think the old Cav practice of flanking an enemy early on in a conflict and striking from the rear causing as much confusion, and destruction as was possible for a "light unit" while gathering intel for the "heavy hitters" before withdrawing and/or starting all over again. I'm sure there are many vehicles belonging to many nations out there today, or on the drawing boards, that would fill most if not all of my "dream" requirements. I just always felt there was something we were missing with the "Bigger Makes Better" mind set when it came to kicking in an opponents front door and punching him face when sneaking in that same opponents back door and kicking him in the butt over, and over again would give the Big Boys a chance to move up in good order and do their front door thing. Thank you sir for listening to an old tanker's ideas, such as they may be. I'm aware that doctrines have changed dramatically over the last thirty years or so and will continue to change, as they should, with changing times and battlefields... And it's not like DOA, the Armor Branch or DARPA have me on speed dial or anything. Take care and keep up the excellent work you do.
So whats your opinion of the M1128 MGS? as a former 19D who served on M3A3 in a unit where the MTOE (3dACR) was replaced with the stryker family, I'm not sure how I feel about the system and don't quite understand where the M1128 MGS fits in for the army other than the light tank/tank destroyer role?
Dustin dees...I like the idea of a fast, low profile AFV for Cav Scouts. If the vehicle could have six to eight wheels and real multi-wheel steering (like certain WWII and post WWII armored cars have/had) and modern 6X6 or 8X8 drive that actually provided some real "grunt" during off road driving I would start to be impressed with it. If that vehicle also had a turret mounting at least 90ish to 105mm main gun, a 7.62 coax for pot shotting enemy tanks, AFVs and supply/maintence vehicles I would REALLY start to pay attention! The closet existing scuh vehicles (that I'm aware of and then only from photos) are field by the French and Germans or HAVE been fielded by those same counties. I'm not trying to turn Scouts into tankers with my "vision" but in fact want to make them more mobile than they seem to be in currently produced/provided vehicles. Scouts should be, by definition "way out ahead of everybody else". When you add "Cavalry" to Scout such a vehicle would alow them to sneek, peek and whenever possible keep enemy awake at night wondering when and from what direction they were going to be hit next. Choppers are great but they have such a limited flight time due to their fuel consumption and MBTs, most current AFVs seem, to me at least, to be too big, and hard to hide for the job that Cav Scouts are need for. While I know the vehicle itself was pretty much obsolete before it ever saw combat, the M8 Greyhound, the old French Panards, and a couple of German (WWII era) "armoed cars" is sorta-kinda what I keep seeing in my head but including the most modern and and actually useful technologies. As a tanker I would have felt deaf and basically blind on any (1980s) battlefield without the 19D types out there playing: Sneeky, sneeky, peaky, peaky, with a little dose of "here...Hold this TOW missle while we go screw with your little buddies on the other side of that hill.". I wish I could draw worth a damn or I would have long ago produced my "dream" Scout vehicle. I just have had the idea bouncing around in my head for such a vehicle since I first laid eyes on the M2/M3 Bradley AFVs and realized just how tall they actually were/are. Oh well I blattered on about this subject way to long. Take care and always know that "Scouts Out! Tankers Forward!" still rings true and clearly with this old Cav tanker and for all the right reasons.
I never understood how the whole "the coastal gun is better than the navy gun" crap got to be actually believed.
The whole problem of naval artillery is to actually hit the thing, meaning precisely know where the damn thing is and how fast is moving and were will be were you shells land.
You have to measure distances, speed, direction and assume that they are not going to change (they are). This things are not trivial with modern radar, laser rangefinders and electronic computers. They are a practical nightmare with ww2 assets.
On the other hand, a coastal gun is fixed. It's there and will be there. If you had any kind of aerial reconnaissance and/or intelligence, you have a nice handy point on a map. If you know where you are - and this is considerably easier - you know how to shoot it. Also they don't know that you are coming and you know precisely where they are.
Chances are that if you are on an attacking battleship, you will blow the coastal gun battery to kingdom come while they are still trying to figure your range.
With Coastal guns, you can mount very heavy armor and earthworks to protect the gun, as well as mounting the heaviest gun your nation can produce without having to worry about the affecting the balance of a ship or fitting it into a 360% rotating turret. Also since you will usually mount a CD gun into a hillside, your powder storage and ammo storage rooms can be deep below ground, making them impossible to be hit.
And while you mention the location of the Gun being fixed is a negative being a bad thing, that's not correct. by having your location fixed you can presight ranges years in advance and likely have multiple rangefinders located in your gun battery allowing for much faster target acquisition than a shipboard rangefinder
That all might be well and good, but when four battleships comes into range and you have 40+ 400+mm rounds coming to your head when you are just starting to compute position, direction and velocity of the enemy, this won't help you very much.
They had devices called stadimeters for rangefinding and bearing was simple enough(the two functions of radar)... speed was done from a reticle in the stadimeter based on range and time. Same stuff on submarines but using MUCH slower projectiles, and they worked just fine... especially after the US fixed their torpedoes.
Yeah but the amount of errors you have on these measurements is staggering. Even today it's not easy to have relatively accurate, fast and reliable rangefinding.
Think of it this way; would you rather be on the sidewalk shooting at a moving car, or in a moving car shooting at someone on the sidewalk? Drive bys are notorious for hitting everyone but who they are shooting at.
More of these webcasts on other kinds of vehicles plweasse. I really enjoyed it, looking forward to moarr!
Do you play war thunder. I bet you would like it more than wot, given your interest
Tegan Carr you guys are like vegans. Jeez..
Sorry, this has NOTHING to do with gaming. It may be a surprise, but some of us actually enjoy history for its own sake.
Hey Chieftain, great vid. As a US army veteran that has also severed in Iraq (twice) and in Afghanistan, it cool to see that WG hired someone with real combat and military experience. I wasn't a 19K (armored crewmen for the civilians lol) because my recruiter talked me out of it when I enlisted and talked me into becoming an 95B (military police). I served in combat MP units for most of my career and it was pretty cool but you know better than me that staying in the field gets old after a while and its a young man's game lol.