A Reading from the Book of Armaments, North African Equipment Reports, 1943.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2020
- A change of style: I dig into the archives and read out commentary from fact-finding tours by officers from the US who went to North Africa to see how the equipment they were sending overseas was performing. Added to, of course, by my unique commentary. Turns out this was longer than I thought, so I've split it in two.
Somehow when I was flipping through Hunnicutt I skipped the page on T64. Oh well.
Part 2: • The Continued Reading ...
Articles referenced.
Rotatrailer: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie...
David Fletcher on the Rotatrailer. Timestamped: • Inside the Chieftain's...
Armored Force and Gyrostabilisers: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie...
Two hour chat with Harry Yeide: • Chieftain's Armoured V...
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Improved-Computer-And-Scout Car Fund:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thechieftainshat
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the_chi...
![THE TOYS x NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pPa1d5cC8M4/mqdefault.jpg)
"sight that can see through smoke"
man really wanted his thermal sight for his M4 Sherman, that's great lol
Well if they are asking may as well say what you want
I guess you hear about radar and sound-ranging and whatnot and think, hey, why can't we see through smoke if they can try to find a airplane from miles away or perform counter-battery fire with only sound.
Can see where this is going. Well.
In summary -
USA - 'We have a new...'
UK - 'We'll take it!'
Desperate times call for desperate measures
If they could fuel it, give it ammunition, watch it depart beyond visual range of the starting line and then reasonably expect men to come back from operating them; British army's official stance was GIB IT HERE
@@Redlin5in 1940, sure. This was 1943. The UK was perfectly ready to turn down equipment that didn't meet certain standards and requirements by this time. Not to the same degree as the US but they themselves were prepared to have factories built hundreds of planes that they never used or only used for training, etc, same with tanks. Their biggest limitation by this point was lack of manpower and it doesn't make sense to throw them away in hopelessly obsolete equipment. They didn't just take all the surplus stuff the US didn't want, they modified the M3 Medium for their own purposes. They retired most of their twin engine bombers as fast as they could replace them with Halifaxes and Lancasters or Mosquitos, they didn't just use them all until they were all shot down. Same with early Spitfires and Hurricanes and the Defiant. All of those generally had a reasonable chance of getting the crew home most of the time, but they weren't combat effective enough, so they parked them or trained with them. They took US tanks because they were available and because they were better than any of the tanks they were producing at the time.
Even the Soviets didn't just keep using the LaGG-3 and the like any longer than they needed to, no matter how desperate they were. And in all cases production usually was a lot easier than training the crews to use them effectively, and transporting them in the case of the US. The US was taking modern bombers and converting them to trainers because they were useless parked waiting for crews.
Listening to an Irishman ramble for a little while is usually fun and sometimes even informative.
But videos like this are like the mortar/glue in building knowledge.
They aren't flashy but essential.
Irishmen or videos?
@@Chiller01 both???
I loved this episode! More Primaries plz tnx n adbanz
Aren't flashy? Heck watching paint dry is flashy enough if you can listen to Chieftain or someone like the Davids from the tank museum. Just adding images onto the video is flashy enough. I know how much time it takes to edit videos adding images etc etc. So I take a black screen if we get more stories/history/snarky comments XD.
Like I would never read Equipment Reports. I would not expect it be interesting or any good knowledge coming from myself reading it. But knowing that Chieftain is going to read and talk about it? Well then I know it is worth the time as it is dam interesting.
He adds on top of that more info and knowledge on the subject. He even go into current day/modern day and makes something so boring useful. Just getting a general overlooking idea about something that sticks with you in the stupid brain is grate! Not everything but it is more things to make a better picture about something.
You have to ask about something to have it exist. (Being able to see into smoke sounds unreal = heat signatures?)
You might not be allowed to know something, yet need to know that thing. And that is even true being a soldier/commander? What about being a heart sergine then? Might it be times WE is not getting to know something when WE should?
Etc ect. Get the point already.
And 200 hours engine life? 100h before rebuild? Yeeez. Car engines going 300.000km and still not burning oil for it to be noticeable between oil changes.
Like this engines have a rough life it seems? Not sure why but ok.
Excellent comment, @@TheDiner50 , and I largely agree, but for "Like this engines have a rough life it seems? Not sure why but ok.
"
...it literally has to drive A TANK around. Needs improvement, but sheeesh, A TANK. In the Forties! In a sandy desert!
So, this is what my google-fu brought up 155mm on M5 light platform:
"The howitzer was experimentally mounted on a *lengthened* chassis of the M5 light tank. The resulting vehicle received the designation _155 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage T64._ A *single prototype was built before the T64 project was abandoned* in favor of T64E1, based on the M24 Chaffee light tank chassis. This was eventually adopted as the M41 Howitzer Motor Carriage and saw action in the Korean War." - Hunnicutt - Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, p 337-339, 502. was provided as the source of this is information
So, it was the one and only prototype, no wonder even people who know the subject may not have heard of it.
Yep. Somehow I missed that page when I was flicking through the book.
So what you are saying is that WG is going to release a tier 6 premium of a Stuart with a 155mm short barrel howitzer for Christmas?
@@Ie_Shima And charge $60 for it...
R Anthony Rupp IV it was actually a long barrel howitzer with a range up to 16,000yds so I don’t think it would fit well in world of tanks game balance because it could shell an entire map from spawn. it might make its way to Warthunder as a useless event vehicle that would be fun for a match or two.
@@collinfrye9555
Well, reality is not their thing, there is no artillery shooting up to 5-6 rounds per minute and obliterating even heavy tanks in a single shot (likely with an HE round). It's a game, not a simulator.
Yeah brethren, today’s lesson shall be from the book of armaments, chapter 1, verses 1-20,
Get to the part about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch smiting down the Enemies!
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition! HOT DAMN! Got one of the bastids!
@@markfryer9880 That would be the Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21. "And Saint Attila raised the Hand Grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy Hand Grenade, that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large ... And the Lord spake, saying "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Next, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foes, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Amen.'
HAIL THE OMNISAH! BLESS THY HOLY ARMAMENTS AND AID US TO SMITE THE HUN.
@@seanmalloy7249 and He saw that it was loud. Amen
I wouldn't have thought that listening to you read 75-year old ordnance reports could be as interesting as it turned out to be. I particularly enjoyed your commentary.
Interesting that the British first knew about the Tiger as the "mark 6 tank" with "88mm gun". Since they had experience of marks 1 through 4, they must have been awfully interested to know what the mark 5 might be.
I believe the Germans first deployed the Tiger in late December 1942 and it was first knocked out by the British in January about 2-3 weeks later. The Panther was first operationally deployed at Kursk July 1st 1943 with several being lost to mechanical breakdown before the battle even started and the first units being wiped out in combat only a week later. The Soviets quickly provided a full intelligence breakdown of it to their allies. So yeah theres a gap of 6-7 months, though its quite possible the British would have been well aware of the Panther through intelligence intercepts and spies such as seeing it being moved around on trains, and the Intelligence officers and theatre commanders may well have already been briefed on its existence.
Chieftain actually wrote an article about "Panterras" on the WOT Inside the Chieftain's Hatch blog. It covers the US intelligence guys in Moscow discovering the Panther and some of the other heavies the Soviets encountered that Summer. It's a good read. Check it out.
I think the OP still makes an important observation because the Tiger captured in January of 1943 had Mk VI written on it, but because it did deploy before the Mk V did, there would have been some many months where the Allies would have not known if Mk V was an actual vehicle of relevance or not. For all the Allies knew, it might have been a failed prototype that was skipped over or something like that.
@@watcherzero5256 The first Tiger was captured in January and is now in Bovington Tank Museum. Knocked out bt an Anti tank gun
@@benwilson6145 actually it was knocked out by a churchill
Every elbonian tank an TD needs a rotor trailer 😂😂
Dangit. I should have thought of that.
@@TheChieftainsHatch you should really 😂😂
Even the Elbonians would have seen how bad an idea the rotor trailer was.
A Sherman with the Meteor engine would have been the ultimate meme machine.
"A war of guns" is maybe said in opposition to an emphasis on other things such as bombing or information technology. It reminds me of the infantry sentiment that "boots on the ground" is what real control/victory resides in. It's like a self-assertion of necessity and importance, to themselves and those responsible for their resources.
Yep the way I took it, the heavy guns and CAS was the decisive factor.
Yeah, in the end infantry have to take and hold the ground, but their ability to do so is dependent on guns (and CAS which fulfills a similar role).
Always fascinating to hear contemporary accounts, and even more interesting if they're pretty well informed.
"Oh Bugger, North Arfica is on fire".....
Consult the Book of Armaments!
Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one.
And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy."
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu..
Skip a bit, Brother
Armaments, chapter 24, verse six to thirty eight: Beware the 88, thrust not your light forces too close, else they may go into the hands of the Lord too quickly to help you know what is in the heart of your enemy. All things may fall before this fell weapon that does not have a brother of the same cloth on the side of righteousness. Throw instead thine own agents against him from farther back, landing all around him at the same time, in the holy saturation pattern, that he may know the Lord does fight on your side, and that he may snuff it.
And the Lord spake, saying:
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.
Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
Five is right out.
Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
If only Chapel Service at school had been this interesting.
Can't wait for the rest. As a tabletop wargamer this is nice info to have regarding equipment performance. Something to talk about with fellow players, etc... Thanx so much for your work.
9:11 Great out of context moment: "They get lost, their plane crashes, and everyone on board gets captured... another example of how casual this is."
The airfield in Liberia was owned by the Firestones. My dad's co pilot was a Firestone. When they landed there the base CO ran out and told them to park their B25 way out from the Ops shack. Lt Firestone looked at the base CO and told him to shove it, his family owned the damn airfield. Parking problem solved.
I love stories like that.
Because he didn't agree to submit to orders like any other solider when he joined and his rich uncle gives him special status when he's on his uncles property, right. Let the peons walk all that way, my privilege is more important, and my influential family will destroy you if you try to treat me like any normal soldier. _Sir_ .
Sounds like a great guy.
Great video.
Interesting point on the air consumption of the diesel Shermans. They had left and right Detroit Diesels geared together. Detroit's are a 2-cycle engine that is incredibly powerful because ever downstroke is a power stroke and every upstroke is a compression stroke. There are no intake or exhaust strokes like in a normal engine. The only valves are exhaust valves It has a supercharger which literally blows out the exhaust out when the piston goes down past ports in the cylinder at the bottom of the stroke. It moves more air to do that, this the need for larger filters.
As an aside, if you listen to the engine of the Sherman at Drive Tanks, it sounds the same as an M113A2 and the LCVP as they are both essentially the same engine.
The Detroit diesels have a very discintive sound, music to somes ears mine included! 😁
My ears are still ringing from that big ol 6V53 in my track.
The HEMETT I drove on Active Duty had a Detroit V8, it was able to move the tractor out much faster than you would think. I also like the fact that the US Army let me drive a mid engine turbo V8 vehicle.
We had a fire engine with a 6-71 turbo and a 5 speed manual. It would move if you could shift it.
@@jcastle614Interestingly, it's basically the same engine used in EMD diesel locomotives, only that's on a much larger scale.
Mccreery is the man who threatened to fire Montgomery if he didn't concentrate his tanks at El Alamein. He was a tank expert.
He also encircled the German 5th army in Northern Italy in April, 1945. That was after suffering under Mark Clark for a long time.
Working with Mark Clark and not exploding from sheer frustration probably warrants a medal all on its own.
Marcus Aurelius Clarkus, apparently a nickname
He may have threatened it, but he was a lower rank than Montgomery. Monty was also supported by Alanbrooke so was untouchable by anyone at Mid-East Command.
McCreery was there as THE tank expert. If he refused to approve the plan, Montgomery was finished. Churchill and Alan Brooke needed a victory. Desperately.
@@loadeddice4696 Eisenhower about Mark Clark: We need a man of his caliber, 22.
Holy cow that was an interesting listen. I would love to hear more of these.
Ahhh that's the stuff. There's nothing quite like going back to actual reports and seeing what people were saying at the time.
That is primary source material. Which really makes for good resource materials.
I enjoyed this very much , come on part 2 ! The tone of your voice is calming to be honest and your accent is like a lot of people here In Newfoundland , Canada .
Maybe another reason why I like to listen to him. What I would imagine an old Boston accent would be as well...
Who knew this material would provide comic relief, e.g. " . . . at 300 yards" -- Yeah, just wait
I'm sure some one has pointed this out, but on pg.s 336-337 of Honeycutt's "Stuart", there are pictures and a discussion of the extended light tank chassis for self-propelled guns based on the M3/M5 light tanks. Two of the artillery pieces tested were the 4.5" (114mm) gun M1 and 155mm Howitzer M1. The chassis was also tested with a quad 20mm and the twin 40mm mounts, along with a cargo carrier. By the time these programs reached an acceptable level of performance, the M5 was being replaced by the M24, so the 155mm Howitzer became the M41 and the twin 40mm the M19.
Thanks Nick. It's fascinating to hear these voices from the past, speaking in their own words.
.
This is really interesting stuff. Really appreciate you sharing it
Honestly, this sort of video is fantastic! Please do these more often. It's straight up primary source material that shatters so many people's "expected views" of equipment. Honestly, the love of the 37mm surprised me.
When the Red Chinese invaded Quemoy Islands….or tried to…It was some Nationalist Chinese M5 light tanks that beat the snot out of the landing force. One of the tanks became known as “The Bear of Guningtou”. Against landing Craft carrying infantry, an M5 can inflict a lot of hurt.
Thank you for this. It has been fascinating so far. And thanks for the break at the hour mark too.
Brilliant video thank you, I have always been interested in how the men in the fields felt about their equipment, this video is fascinating.
Thank you again
Hey Drach. I received my FAA poster and would like to say thank you. It is superb quality and i can't wait for the USN and IJN
Good to know, but I’m Chieftain, the tank guy, not Drach, the Naval guy... :p
@@TheChieftainsHatch yep this is true i do apologise. The auto play started your video as i was typing said comment on drachs video but also thank you for the great content chieftain
Yes, looking forward to part two. This is the real deal and very intriguing.
You should get yourself a second monitor that can swivel to a portrait orientation. It makes viewing documents vastly easier.
When you mentioned gumbo mud, we who are in agriculture do not go in fields with gumbo soil when wet. There is no good outcome
montana here..... gumbo is the worst
.
turns "super swamper" tires into smooth, slick, tires that cant be slung off with RPM
"This tank was shite"...."That would be an ecumenical matter" 🤣😂
Drink!
Armoured vehicles made by feckarse industries
Very interesting the criteria for depot level repairs for a modern AAVp7a1 RAMRS was 1500 miles and 500 hours on the engine and tranny at this point the vehicle.was completely worn out.
In my experience a vehicle that has been well used but well maitained was better than a refurbished unit. In that all of the bugs have been worked out of the older unit. In combat I felt our tracks worked well due to having the dog sh%t ran out of them on good Iraqi roads. A lot of our repairs were related to vibration such as loose mounting hardware worn out fan belts, fan drive bearings Coolant leaks and clogged air packs ect. In training back in conus suspension was our biggest issue with worn out shocks, wear on Trunion bearings, wheel seals and road wheel rubber delamination worn out out sprockets sprocket carriers and worn out track.
Needs more JagdSherman.
General: *accidentally says NATO*
Other General: Sir, we haven't been fighting in north Africa for years
General, about to invent the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Oh, haven't you heard?
It's interesting to hear that WP was essential IN NORTH AFRICA when the 75 could still deal with most armor at range. I'd really like to hear all about Willy Pete's use in anti-tank warfare.
From what I remember it did a good job at starting fires that were very difficult to put out.
I really hope there's a reference to a holy hand grenade in the second part or I'll have to complain the to management of this establishment.
On a more serious note was there any review after the war by the army or in later books to review German, Italian, and/or Japanese perceptions of what US weapons were the most effective? I've seen a Rommel quote regarding the M3 Medium as a vehicle superior to anything the Germans were fielding at the time. The M3 has obviously been widely derided in many circles and it's interesting to see a comment from a professional that says something different.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Also a comparison of M4 vs T34 in Korea would be fantastic, while I'm making demands.
Enjoy all the content. Thanks
This is great!
Chieftain military scopes for infantry that could see through smoke had been around for around five years at this point, the technology did exist, the downside was it was an active illumination system so the enemy could see you emitting infrared in order to increase the return. The British had been using them on AA guns since the start of the 30's and the Germans would start fitting them to Panthers in 1943 with about 60 ultimately fitted across all theatres. The US in WW2 and Korea tended to only use the technology for sniper rifles.
Nope. WWII night vision technology used image intensifiers, not thermal imagers. An image intensifier (which is still the standard type of night vision for small arms optics and night vision goggles) simply makes the picture brighter and shows basically what you would see with your eyes if it wasn't dark. A thermal imager (usually only found on vehicles and crew served weapons) sees heat, which allows it to detect heat sources even through smoke and other concealment.
@@ARCNA442 Actually the technology was to throw out a lot of infra red from a lamp to enhance the light return. Upto 50% of the infra red would be absorbed by the smoke so you had to saturate the environment to get a decent return from non infra red absorbing objects. So for example some Tank Follow lights used Infra red so they couldnt be seen by the naked eye at night.
@@watcherzero5256 The infrared light was needed because of the low quality of early image intensifiers - infrared lights are actually still used with modern night vision to see better in extremely dark conditions.
While it's invisible to the naked eye, infrared light is still light and won't let you see through concealment the way thermal does.
I like the rambling videos
This is so fascinating hearing about how people thought at the time.
We'll spoken Brother Maynard !
Glory to you, Oh Chieftain
Very interesting content.
I like the very Swedish stridsvagn in the background
Great information Thank you
Great video. Your home office looks like mine, except I have to be careful that my clients and management can't see my tank model, Star Wars figure, and military book laden shelves.
Thats a shame you cant be who you are in front of clients. Such is todays world.
@@999torino Well, after Covid we've gotten used to kid noises and dogs barking in the background, so there is some leeway. Unfortunately, I'm not the Chieftain and my hobbies aren't exactly professional.
The business of making anti-tank towed gun formations organic to armored brigades and divisions is probably something they picked up from Rommel's use of towed 88mm guns in his formations in offense. He totally mechanized his force to ensure that the 88mm guns could keep up with the tanks.
And yet he still got bogged down and ran out of supplies (loser)
@@jackbrunton9833 Rommel was a TACTICAL genius, but not a very apt pupil of logistics.
The German's failed to take Malta, which allowed the British to ramp up the supply chain to the British 8th Army, while making the German supply lines of communication vulnerable to attack. Much of what was sent towards Rommel never got there, so he was always scrabbling about for gas, tanks and ammo.
The Brits were better supplied, to the extent that they were able to nullify the towed 88s because they could achieve regional air superiority. They could take out gun emplacements and mechanized columns from the air, which made Rommel's famous ability to make rapid movements difficult at best.
Commenting about the British 25 pounder (approx 30:45), I've been to Canadian Forces Base Shilo where they had a museum that included all of the shrapnel produced by one round from that gun. It's rather amazing not how large some pieces were, but rather how small many were, and that they managed to collect them.
Boggles the mind just how they went about collecting it all?
@@markfryer9880 Large magnets?
@@markfryer9880 someone on jankers.
@@markfryer9880 Metal detector?
Simple, multiple warm bodies trotting back and forth line abreast... equipped with the mark one eyeball.
Anybody else notice how flowery the language gets, when they're patting themselves on the back?
Or how everything American made is perfect.
@@canuck600A Of course it is. Haven't you been paying attention!?
IWM "From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents."
www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-struggle-to-build-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war
Fascinating to see what the initial reactions were to various pieces of equipment. re: SP 155 - it would have been a helpful addition to the armored divisions. In the ETOUSA the armored units could have a battalion of towed 155 howitzers attached, but SP would probably have been better. It was interesting to note that although the 105mm howitzer was placed on a medium tank chassis as an expedient (M& 105mm HMC) most future divisional artillery was usually prototyped or issued based on light tank chassis. By the way, in the fighting in NATOUSA many (all??) 155 howitzers were still the M1917 - M1918 French design. The low-profile, lightweight 76mm might have been helpful. Less for the unfortunate towed TD units but for the infantry's battalion antitank platoon and the regimental AT company. The 57mm (licensed 6 pounder) was issued to replaced the 37mm but the 76mm might have been more useful in northwest Europe. Even the TD units might have liked the lighter gun. The towed 3" (M5/M6) was a fine gun but beastly heavy - the Ardennes was littered with abandoned 3" guns because they were too heavy to displace rapidly. Apparently there was some issue of captured PAK 40s to a couple towed TD units to fill their TOE until the guns could be replaced or the units converted to SP.
Reading from the book of Armaments?
Does that mean a review of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is in the works?
We can hope
Sorry, but those sections of the Book of Armaments are still classified.
It's effectiveness would depend on the fur thickness of the targeted rabbit.
Then followed by the lethality of a thrown sword pommel... sorry Skallagrim...
@@mikereger1186 "first thou shalt unscrew thy holy pommel..."
outstanding!
Fascinating!
(comment about the video below this first bit) I don't know why, but that title about "a reading from the book of armaments" makes me think of Monty Python and Quest for the Holy Grail," when brother Maynard is reading about the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch." They were going to use it to kill the vicious rabbit guarding the cave - that previously had bitten one guys head off hehe. If I'm remembering right - I think he says something like he's reading from the "book of armaments" - again, I could be mistaken as I haven't seen it in a long time, but that's what popped into my head with the title :-)
Now, regarding the video (lol) - it was quite good. Really interesting to hear the first hand accounts in that manner - helps you get an improved and more detailed "big picture" view of what the situation was like on the ground there by way of what they were attempting to requisition and why, what they had problems with, what was and wasn't effective. Likewise, that last section that contained the cover letter part was interesting in showing the differences of/conflicting opinions about a number of items. I think it turned out to be a great choice for an on the fly video, excellent.
Colonel waters was general Patton's son in law.
Chieftain; Even when he "phones it in" fascinating.
Can you publish a list of books on your shelf? It’s hard reading some of the titles, plus there are the ones behind you.
Ok the starting at 17:00 is hilarious case of "I am just happy I have any tanks at all". "Ah yes this can destroy an enemy tank at even 300 yards, I don't need my lads to run up with AT grenades, it's great!". It's kind of funni.
Nice topic.
Wonderful presentation! Spontaneity suits you. At about 56 and a half minutes: Is it reasonable to assume that HEAT rounds at longer ranges may have had enhanced performance not only because of their downward trajectory against slooped armor, as you mentioned, but also because of their reduced velocity which could optimize the standoff distance. Thanks again, Oh Mighty Chieftain!
My Grandfather's unit, Big Red 1, fought in that battle. He was sick at the HQ during the fight. I'll be sure to watch.
awesome stuff
Were any of the Generals going on these trips intercepted, killed or captured? Is that how General Leslie McNair wound up being near the Operation Cobra area when he died to friendly fire?
Hey Chieftain, the 155 on the M5 is a T64 Gun Motor Carriage, on a lengthened M5 chassis. It was part of the T41 Gun Motor Carriage development process.
155mm on an M5 is referanced in M41 HMC development as the T64, before they quickly decided to use the new M24 Chaffee hull
Hauling trailers behind M113 APCs was a pain in the ass.
For the GAA being made in the UK over the Meteor, the only major advantage I can think of is it being 18L instead of 27, and so taking up less space.
Possibly the GAA could be more readily built by other motor manufacturers, the Meteor being built first by RR then by Rover
T64 was the 155mm on the M5 Light Chassis, it was a single prototype, the production model was M41 a 155 on the M24 Chaffee chassis
Can you cover the experience or report of the performance of the M36 GMC? I quite like that vehicle so would love to know ehat the troops thought of it!
I loled at the title!
God bless thy holy hand grenade!
@The_Chietfain: what are the procedures in a case of a missfire (tank) ? Is there a diffences between gun and shell missfires? yes i posted this already, i ll give it another try, thank you .
dizzyer th-cam.com/video/USpg88J1tJU/w-d-xo.html
55:30 I find thinking about baseball helps alleviate that
ETO needs to be delivered by the prescribed ETA... 0~o I came, I saw, I smiled. ^~^
7:00 that little smile as the chieftain sees some common sense out of 1943
You noted the M48 and M54 fuzes. These are HE shell point-detonating fuzes for large artillery shells. The M54 can only be set to "SUPER-QUICK" or instantaneous impact, where the delay in the fire train is so short that only the very tip of the shell will push into the target before detonation and even if hitting an armor plate that will destroy the fuze, the explosive train (firing pin to detonator to booster to main filler) moving backward into the shell is so fast that the impact will not affect the shell function. The M48 fuze is similar to the M54 fuze (I am not sure of the minor differences, perhaps for different ammo), but a variant was created called M48A2 that had an internal 0.05-second delay -- in this case the firing pin hit a small explosive primer, which set off a very thin pellet of compressed black powder, which burned rapidly and its explosion set off a larger detonator (about the size of the original detonator on the M48 fuze) that set off the booster and the main charge. This delay was long enough to allow the shell to penetrate maybe 50-100 feet before exploding in air, with a proportionately much shorter run in earth or thick concrete. These delay-action nose fuzes were usually of hardened steel to allow them to remain intact against anything short of steel armor plate (which would destroy the fuze and usually cause the shell to either not explode or only undergo a low-grade explosion on the plate face), so that these HE shells could be used against unarmored, but heavily dug-in, emplacements that an instantaneous fuze would merely make a shallow pit in.
Chieftain what do you think about the World War 2 Bazooka or Anti Tank Rifle Grenades and others Hand-held weapons.
I did not see the cliffhanger coming
I have read is that anyone going to a theater of operations for work would get a medal for being there.
We built a heck of a lot of stuff in WW2, but "only" 2571 tank recovery vehicles. Calling for 200 is a big ask, especially since their production only started in Dec 1942.
42:46 the italians had 30 of the autocannone da 90/53 lancia 3Ro by the end of 1941 delivered (the prototype being presented in February 6, 1941), 133rd armoured division 'Littorio' got sent theirs first (geting them by 25 of october 1941), followed by 132nd Ariete. [Italian truck-mounted artillery in action, Ralph Riccio e Nicola Pignato, 2010.)
they most certainly saw combat throughout 1942. I presume some must have also served into 1943 in Tunisia (but i am not sure, the Breda 52 version fought in Tunisia and sicily though according to the same book)
edit: the italains also used 102mm coastal defense gun trucks against british tanks during operation crusader in 1941.
This was good, filled in other WW2 channels
The 155 on an M5 chassis is probably HMC T64, which actually is closer to a stretched M24 hull with a stretched M5 Stuart running gear.
More likely a typo for the 105 on the M3/M5 as the next article was for the 155 on the M12.
Nick, I have a couple questions for your next Q&A:
Since we are now seeing precision guided artillery rounds do you think in the future we will see smoothbore artillery (for the longer range and reduce stress on electronics vs spin rifled) and guided tank main gun rounds (to improve long range accuracy with faster flight times than missiles).
Second, Do you think AFV's would benefit from having an indirect fire weapon such as a mortar or PGM like Switchblade for engaging masked targets? Yes, I know Switchblade only has a small warhead but it could easily be scaled up to carry a BLU-108 skeet.
The Koreans have added what is basically a 120mm mortar shell for the K2, the KSTAM. And it's not quite a BLU108 skeet for payload.
How do you think the Sherman would have done with the Meteor Engine in it?
42:00 Elbonian army mud is proved successful and exceeds USA mud performance. Huzzah for Elbonia.........
It could be a drinking game, every time Gladeon Barns is mentioned, you have to shout 'Mad Scientist' and drink a pint. :) Merch request: Chieftain related Pint glass.
Oddly, I was talking about that with the wife today. That, or a whiskey or shot glass. I need to look into who could do it.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Slogans: Oh crap my pints on fire... What calibre was that shot?... That really tentioned my tracks!.... Maybe involve your subscriber to suggest merch/slogans etc like a kind of contest?
@@TheChieftainsHatch www.etsy.com/ie/market/logo_pint_glasses
155 mm on Stuart Page 337 in Hunnicutts book
10.23 Late 42 early 43 "the M4 tank is the best tank in this war" "M3 light tank ...outstanding value and has remarkable speed and reliability"
Regarding the naming of the M3 Stuart as a "Honey", Major Robert Crisp in his book Brazen Chariots details quite clearly how the name originated and that it was in fact a British driver named Whaley who first called them that. If you've not yet read the book I'd be happy to loan you one of my copies, just let me know where to mail it.
I believe he blames the fact that Whaley was hanging out with a Texan representative from the manufacturer who came along with the tanks.
@@TheChieftainsHatch This is true, but Maj. Crisp is clear that Whaley himself is who came up with the name and was only "influenced" by having spent time with the Americans, making it a British nickname, not an American one.
12:00 -- I expect the McCreery in question was Alexander's Chief of Staff, Richard McCreery, who shared the beach at Salerno with Clark and Lucas and eventually got command of 8th Army. A tough, saavy customer, per Rick Atkinson. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McCreery
The Italian 90mm truck was already in use in Africa before Tunisia, so yes, it wasn't the German one.
Chieftain, On the M3 light tank Did the Besa machine guns ? And did the births ever try and replace the US 37mm main gun with the British 2 pounder (just to see what it would take to do the swop) ?
A massive number of self-contradictions with regard to tank destroyer effectiveness vs effectiveness of tank destroyer 75 mm on M3 half-track.
You're not reading between the lines. They're thinking TD doctrine vs AT doctrine and assuming the AT on a half track is simply a more mobile AT gun and to be used as an AT gun, not a TD
?
Well this is a compilation of different peoples experiences, so of course opinions will differ.
@Chris_Wooden_Eye the 75mm pak97/38 (they mounted the guns on pak38 gun mounts and added a mussel brake), they were issued to the wehrmackt to a greater extent then the Italians, hungarians or romanians. with 145 still being in service by march 1 1945.
Bird, Lorrin; Lingston, Robert (2001). World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Albany, NY USA: Overmatch Press. (on p. 61) states that it's HEAT shell could penetrate 90mm at 90degrees and 75mm at 60 degrees. meaning it could deal with the frontal hull armour of the KV-1. it must be noted that it was not considered accurate enough against tanks to be used outside of 500m (german use of pak40s was to start shooting at 1000m, so it effectively had 1/2 the range of a pak40). AP performance was 82mm at 500m at 90degrees according to the same source, the US gun presumably had similar statistics to this
I'd like to hear more at this detail if possible?
Wondered what you thought of the Daimler mk3 armoured car a machine ahead of its time
.50 bmg to defend oneself? RIGHTS!
This works well, is interesting & attention holding.
Excited for the m5 Stuart with the 155mm as the next tier 8 prem in WoT
Because derpguns are hilarious.
Will they have an animation where the vehicle flips onto it's back every time the howitzer is fired?
@@jimwegerer5988 that would be cool
Discussion in other threads reveals its just an M41 HMC built in a Stuart instead of a Chaffee
The 75mm guns on German tank hunters were often mistaken for 88mm guns in NA.