"However, the welds on this turret couldn't take the incredible force of this _devastating_ weapon" is one of the finest deliveries of sarcasm I've seen in quite some time.
(Relatively) devastating (to enemy tanks). You have to feel sorry for the poor French tankers who ended up in a tank battle armed with a gun designed solely for throwing (small) high explosive projectiles at enemy infantry. Even if many German tanks of the time only had 1.5 cm of armour.
this story was fake, and made up by Renault to keep their infantry monopoly. the FCM could handle the SA38, but the army rejected it because FCM was already needed in the naval production scene and its perceived inability to be upgunned made Renaults inferior project succeed.
From the diary of the French tanker: 13:22 Oh my god, the tank is on fire... 13:35 Oh my god, i got my fingers sheared off by that damned hatch... 13:48 Oh my god, i just knocked myself unconscious back into burning tank... True story.
@@druisteen Yes a tank who began it's design in 1933 is arguably better than one in 1928. It is good to know that NO ONE other than the french ever fielded this thing while the Vickers 6ton saw service and production the world over until 1959.
I like your channel because you give an often forgotten perspective: that of a tanker. Some others who talk about tanks only mention the stuff that can be found on Wikipedia: How much armour, what gun, how many produced. But you talk about each crew member, where they sit, how much room they had, what buttons they could push, what levers they could lift. You have made me realize just how important it was to have enough room for the crew. I also liked your lecture videos about American Armour myths and Tank Destroyers.
The usability of the tank is important. If the design of the tank is in the way of operating it or maintaining it..it doesn't really matter how thick the armor is or how good the gun is. It can not preform as the specs would suggest. Good design makes, what in terms of specs would be an inferior tank, a useful pice of equipment.
Absolutely. The practical experience with using fighting vehicles brings up so many interesting points. I'd never otherwise have known that a large, flat, plain engine deck is the tanker's favourite (because that's where he'll be sleeping a lot of the time).
A lot of cars, too. My ex- had a Datsun 200SSS with a gearbox like that. I always had problems, as my Hilux had 1st at the top left. She called it a "Sports gearbox". I had other terms.
Dog-leg shifter. First is right below reverse so when you are doing a lot of back-and-forth while parking you only have to shift forward and backward in a straight line. It also sets 1st and Reverse off to one side of the normal shift pattern because those are the two gears you don't need while driving, you only need to shift into those after coming to a stop, to start out or back up. It also puts the next two gears that you _do_ use frequently while driving, 2 and 3 in a straight line so you don't need to go over at the same time. It also puts 4 and 5 in a straight line so the only time you need to go sideways is going between 3 and 4. Makes perfect sense and they ought to make all shifters like that. No idea why American cars stopped doing that in the first place. No one has any issue with Reverse being at the _front_ end of the PRNDL stack on an automatic.
On today's program about tanks: we see an engine with the heads removed. There's a tiny gun. And Nick tries to get out of a tank he's almost taller than.
French tank procurement is something else. While they’re taking deliveries of these two man death traps the Czechs are building the 35t and 38t for the commercial market. The British were obviously aware of these vehicles and were at least scouting them for good ideas, while the French seem to have been oblivious. The end result was that in 1940 Peru had a more advanced tank than France. The 38t wasn’t a world beater, but it would’ve been a competitive design in that year.
Is it weird, that I'm experiencing an significant emotional event everytime I see some new stuff from this guy? Seriously - great in-depth research, invaluable tips concerning track tensioning ( :D ) and some witty humor. If You like this You need to check out: - operation think tank (David Fletcher & Nick Moran are pure legends), - Myths about american armor, - Nicks prelection about tank destroyers. And in case Nick is actually reading some of this stuff I have a question: Pick one to visit: Bovington, Kubinka, Dorset, Arsenalen.
What I love about this tank is how unlike the R-35 and H-35 which simply tried to fill the shoes of the Renault FT. The FCM 36 actually innovated, creating a tank equally as quirky and adored
I feel like he likes to exaggerate the bad points for the amusement of the viewers in some cases. This doesn't seem that bad to me. An 19 year old with plenty of practice would have no issue swinging themselves out of that thing, especially if the tank was actually on fire. I remember seeing him struggling to get out of the T-34 drivers hatch. Very amusing, but there are plenty of videos of guys in the war who just grab the hatch and swing themselves out without issues. There is a trick to most things like that, and I could do a lot of things when I was 20 that seem much more difficult now that I'm 40. I'm also not 6' +.
BTW, he's being sarcastic about the longer-barrel 37mm SA38 being a "devastating weapon". The armor-piercing performance was considerably less than the German or US 37 mm guns, and the fact that this tank's weld's could not tolerate the recoil of a marginally more powerful gun shows how limited French experience in welding hard plate was at the time. To be fair, everybody dealt with this and the problem of welding sections of armor plate were not completely solved until 1957.
My favorite French tank of WW-II - very futuristic looking for its day with its well sloped armor. The independent traversing main armament is a pretty cool feature too.
In all fairness, the average French soldier of the 1930s was several inches shorter and quite a few pounds/kilograms lighter than Mr Moran. That said, ergonomics is generally something that most all tank designers put a low priority on. Even today, you will find more than a few "modern" designs that offer little in the way of crew comfort or accessibility.
@@genericpersonx333 "generally something that most all tank designers put a low priority on" All the good tanks of the war have good ergos though. Shermans, panzers, the big cats are pretty good.
@@genericpersonx333 I think the two nations we consider ergonomic are Soviets and French. The Japanese tanks where OKish when you consider the average Japanese soldier was even smaller than the average everyone else. Potential history went into a Ha Go and he doesn't look TOO uncomfortable. I think soviet and french tanks where uncomfortable for the same reasons which was an attitude of "good enough" and importance of production and numbers. I think both the french and Soviet upperclass where out of touch or just didn't care with what the average soldier would have liked.
Watching you exit that tank had me in tears, That was funny. I'm thinking that there might have been a height requirement for the driver, that being a maximum height. I think your 6ft plus frame pushes the requirements just a little bit. lol. Another quality video dude. Keep them coming. GenFUBAR.
That last section of the video with you in that open fronted and cramped driving position. You should print that and mount it in a frame, wonderful shorthand for your profession. That is, fitting into tanks that really didn't have you in mind as a typical crewman.
I seem to recall something about Napoleon taking six inches off the height of the French males, but looking at you in that tank I'm more inclined to wonder if maybe he took about two feet off their height.
Hello Chieftain love your Tank Reviews including the reviews on the M4 Sherman and Sherman Firefly. If you're aiming to do a review on the Sherman Easy Eight, there is one at the "American Armored Foundation Museum" in Danville, Virginia that you should have a look at. I myself went to this Tank Museum and what a collection of armor this place has. The AAF's Easy Eight Sherman is a beautiful vehicle and she is the only Sherman equipped with a dozer blade in any museum exhibit so you could make mention of the engineering/utility usage of the Sherman. Also, the AAF Tank Museum should be given a mention and some love. The museum possess an impressive collection that all the armored vehicles were collected by the museum's owner throughout most of his years and it is struggling to keep the roof of their building intact. If Wargaming can give their support, it can keep the AAF Tank Museum from bogging down in the mud. So, if you happen to be in Virginia near Danville, give the American Armored Foundation Tank Museum a go.
An M4A3E8 Sherman with the M1A2 76mm gun. This particular tank's muzzle brake is missing, but there are grooves on the end of the barrel suggesting it probably had one before she was abandoned. Also, as I said in my comment, she is equipped with a dozer blade.
"Significantly better. still bad". And to that item factors (lack of coordination and inferior tactics), and no wonder then, they didn't fare all so well.
I wonder how many times the Chieftain "died" trying to get out of those "burning" tanks... my guess is - more times than he actually got out! Which is why a tank is called a deathtrap... youre cramped, vulnerable to outside and inside threats and, in a hurry, cant really get out. If its not your position thats shit, your ability to escape is hampered by everything. Tightness of space, turret hanging over your hatch, the enemies hosing down the vehicle as youre trying to crawl out and, finally, a fire inside the vehicle, which you need to escape whilst trying to negotiate your pathing with the splattered remains of your comrades. Lovely.
Yeah, not sure why people aren't more aware of the T-34 being an upsized T-3/BT-1 the Christie design that was by that American hero. With its sloped armor even heavily influencing most early British tank designs as well. I can't remember if you did a BT get around but it might be worth it to do a development series on the t-34 so more people are aware. Nice video Nicholas!
+Simon Meyer He wasn't hated by the USA. The USA tested a number of his designs, but the USA wasn't really producing tanks at the time due to budgetary issues, and when it did, it was conservative, basically deriving the M1/M2/M3/M5 series from Vickers 6 ton, which was a proven design, but changing out to vertical volute suspension in field replaceable units that were felt to offer acceptable performance, but with ease of maintenance. In that sense, the USA did well, as its tanks were reliable. British tanks (e.g the Christie-inspired Crusader) did much less well on reliability, although most of that was with respect to engine and transmission issues. By the end of WW2 just about everyone was moving away from Christie suspension to torsion bar or Horstmann.
Those are direct vision slits, so it occurs to me that some bright boy shooting at them, with a view to shooting the occupants nessesitates them being narrow. Narrow being less than 7mm Mauser size.
That was not at all uncommon. That's how a gear naturally works unless you add a second gear into the train to "correct" the rotation. It's much easier to just train the users to be used to it. They aren't just jumping in the tank and taking it out to fight on their first day. If humans can learn to play the violin they can learn which way to turn the crank to rotate the turret.
The point of the Maginot line was to limit German options more than to stop them. Knowing where the Germans will attack makes stopping them easier. But you still need dudes and tanks and the French were well aware of that. They just didn't quite realize how fast a couple armoured divisions could pass through thick forest with a bit of determination.
@@MisdirectedSasha "They just didn't quite realize how fast a couple armoured divisions could pass through thick forest with a bit of determination." This right here is why europe got a nice shock. They thought the germans would see the line, and start bringing in heavy armaments to destroy it and dig in with trenches, like ww1. They didn't expect the krauts to drive through with excellent combined arms and shock tactics.
You would be amazed at how much difference a foot of height and several decades of age can make in how easy it is to access a tight spot. Ever tried to get into the drivers seat after a small woman was using the car and left the seat forward? And that's a matter of the seat being a few inches to close to the wheel. Youth and practice make the rest of the difference. I guarantee the guys who used these things every day didn't have that much trouble getting in and out. I would like to see Mr Moran try to get into some of the crew positions on WWII aircraft wearing full flight gear. I suspect the audience will declare that they are terrible designs and are simply impossible to access, even though many thousands of young men managed it
It had an overpressure system, but did it actually have filters for the intake air that could remove chemicals from the air? Somehow i doubt it. Seems like that would be more likely to be for evacuating fumes from firing the guns. Although it's possible, they had gas mask filters, it wouldn't be impossible to install larger versions of those on the intakes.
British and French men were shorter, but still very strong in the 1930s and 1940s. Modern boiss are either tall, slim and awkward, or tallish, tubby and awkward. Thanks to the soda and burger industries. Now our tanks are 70 tons.
It seems like the SA18 would have been better used in open-topped tankettes. A slightly enlarged turret ring would have allowed this tank to mount the S35's 47mm gun.
We as humans are about 6-8 inches taller than our WW2 veterans on average. My grandfather a WW2 vet was 5 foot 7 inches tall and he was tall for his era. My father was 5'9 I'm 6'5 so we are taller now than they were then.
Engineers had never heard of ergonomics back then…seriously how is it almost every tank back then was “once you get in, good luck getting out again” or were so careless with all the hard metal protrusions in a vehicle that would do a fair bit of jostling when moving across anything other than a flat surface? Did none of them get in this thing and say “yeah, this doesn’t actually work.”
Instruments of torture comes to mind. I'm thinking the crews must've been selected from the shortest youngest toughest little bastards in the French army?
LoL The funny thing is, with every bodily difficulty he has in that tank, i fit in it just fine. Half of france must have been 5 feet tall in 1936/40 i guess?
why the french not rotating the turret to 180° degrees and shooting out with the de-attached MG. Way more effektive... RIP driver when the tank is on fire. Chieftain make the AMX ELC bis please!
Maybe the French drivers were picked out of a really short Corp of men. I could see a [rather] small guy getting out head first through the hydraulic supported hatch. Wouldn't matter, if that tankette gets hit it's going up in flames, unless it goes up against panzer 3s with the machine guns. Even the infantry support model panzer 4s short gun could massacre this ride!
"However, the welds on this turret couldn't take the incredible force of this _devastating_ weapon" is one of the finest deliveries of sarcasm I've seen in quite some time.
Yea, liked that one.
Nicholas does have a way with words, and his bone dry humour is just so great.
(Relatively) devastating (to enemy tanks).
You have to feel sorry for the poor French tankers who ended up in a tank battle armed with a gun designed solely for throwing (small) high explosive projectiles at enemy infantry. Even if many German tanks of the time only had 1.5 cm of armour.
@Maximillian Wylde a shell hole in a tank can be repaired in a few hours or days
BUT emotional damage from a barbed word lasts years
this story was fake, and made up by Renault to keep their infantry monopoly.
the FCM could handle the SA38, but the army rejected it because FCM was already needed in the naval production scene and its perceived inability to be upgunned made Renaults inferior project succeed.
@@maximillianwylde5163 But they would curse you in French. Even a friendly greeting in German would sound harsher then that.
"Oh my god, the tank is on fire!"
*TWO HOURS LATER*
And that was with the upper hatch already open!
TWO HOURS LATER and with AN INJURED HAND
HE DID IT AGAIN! :D I absolutely love this guy :D
two hours, a pinched finger, pinched nerve, and head bump later!!
At least he got out of it. The M2 [stuart?] Wouldn't even let him out of the bloody thing without a camera crewman to help lift a hatch!
In this episode: How to origami-fold a 6 foot tall tank operator into a 4 foot tall tank.
Hahaha, well put!
In this case, 6'6" with a size 12(US) shoe. :)
Never hire a tanker who’s taller than your tank.
From the diary of the French tanker:
13:22 Oh my god, the tank is on fire...
13:35 Oh my god, i got my fingers sheared off by that damned hatch...
13:48 Oh my god, i just knocked myself unconscious back into burning tank...
True story.
it's a diesel engine
When you expose diesel to high-explosives it will still ignite. Or just ignite other thing is the tank that can catch fire, like ammo or oil.
Disel need heat for burn & it burn slowly that anyother gas
@@VekhGaming anyway ! beter than the vickers 6tons
@@druisteen Yes a tank who began it's design in 1933 is arguably better than one in 1928. It is good to know that NO ONE other than the french ever fielded this thing while the Vickers 6ton saw service and production the world over until 1959.
I like your channel because you give an often forgotten perspective: that of a tanker. Some others who talk about tanks only mention the stuff that can be found on Wikipedia: How much armour, what gun, how many produced. But you talk about each crew member, where they sit, how much room they had, what buttons they could push, what levers they could lift. You have made me realize just how important it was to have enough room for the crew. I also liked your lecture videos about American Armour myths and Tank Destroyers.
Indeed, that's an all to often overlooked feature of tank design.
i agree. that other guy "the challenger" sucks.
this guy is a legend, one of the few good things about wargaming
The usability of the tank is important. If the design of the tank is in the way of operating it or maintaining it..it doesn't really matter how thick the armor is or how good the gun is. It can not preform as the specs would suggest. Good design makes, what in terms of specs would be an inferior tank, a useful pice of equipment.
Absolutely. The practical experience with using fighting vehicles brings up so many interesting points. I'd never otherwise have known that a large, flat, plain engine deck is the tanker's favourite (because that's where he'll be sleeping a lot of the time).
13:21 i love how he said "oh my god,the tank is on fire" with such uncertainty xD
it's a diesel engine
Agree, that was one of the best situational deliveries I've seen this far.
@@druisteen ...driver sits next to the ammo rack. Main source of fire for diesel tanks, also reference early Sherman's....
as if he wasn't sure if *staying inside the tank* was more preferrable to attempting egress XD
12:31 "it's pretty conventional so reverse is forward" haha nicely said
Eh, big trucks usually have reverse at the forward left too
A lot of cars, too. My ex- had a Datsun 200SSS with a gearbox like that. I always had problems, as my Hilux had 1st at the top left. She called it a "Sports gearbox". I had other terms.
Dog-leg shifter. First is right below reverse so when you are doing a lot of back-and-forth while parking you only have to shift forward and backward in a straight line. It also sets 1st and Reverse off to one side of the normal shift pattern because those are the two gears you don't need while driving, you only need to shift into those after coming to a stop, to start out or back up. It also puts the next two gears that you _do_ use frequently while driving, 2 and 3 in a straight line so you don't need to go over at the same time. It also puts 4 and 5 in a straight line so the only time you need to go sideways is going between 3 and 4. Makes perfect sense and they ought to make all shifters like that. No idea why American cars stopped doing that in the first place. No one has any issue with Reverse being at the _front_ end of the PRNDL stack on an automatic.
"Oh my god the tank is on fire".......you look nicely crisped there because you are never getting out in time XD
“Oh my God, the tank is on fire?” Priceless!
On today's program about tanks: we see an engine with the heads removed. There's a tiny gun. And Nick tries to get out of a tank he's almost taller than.
Given how hard it is to get out of, I presume that drivers were drawn from the ranks of gymnasts, circus performers and escapologists.
French tank procurement is something else. While they’re taking deliveries of these two man death traps the Czechs are building the 35t and 38t for the commercial market. The British were obviously aware of these vehicles and were at least scouting them for good ideas, while the French seem to have been oblivious.
The end result was that in 1940 Peru had a more advanced tank than France. The 38t wasn’t a world beater, but it would’ve been a competitive design in that year.
Thank you, sir. I don't play WOT, but I love your vids about tanks.
"oh my god the tank is on fire?"
and
"oh well I have another nine" lol
it's a diesel engine
@@druisteen Diesel isn't immune from burning. And there's a lot of stuff inside the tank that can burn, ammo, oils, whatever.
Is it weird, that I'm experiencing an significant emotional event everytime I see some new stuff from this guy?
Seriously - great in-depth research, invaluable tips concerning track tensioning ( :D ) and some witty humor.
If You like this You need to check out:
- operation think tank (David Fletcher & Nick Moran are pure legends),
- Myths about american armor,
- Nicks prelection about tank destroyers.
And in case Nick is actually reading some of this stuff I have a question:
Pick one to visit:
Bovington,
Kubinka,
Dorset,
Arsenalen.
What I love about this tank is how unlike the R-35 and H-35 which simply tried to fill the shoes of the Renault FT. The FCM 36 actually innovated, creating a tank equally as quirky and adored
I feel like he likes to exaggerate the bad points for the amusement of the viewers in some cases. This doesn't seem that bad to me. An 19 year old with plenty of practice would have no issue swinging themselves out of that thing, especially if the tank was actually on fire. I remember seeing him struggling to get out of the T-34 drivers hatch. Very amusing, but there are plenty of videos of guys in the war who just grab the hatch and swing themselves out without issues. There is a trick to most things like that, and I could do a lot of things when I was 20 that seem much more difficult now that I'm 40. I'm also not 6' +.
BTW, he's being sarcastic about the longer-barrel 37mm SA38 being a "devastating weapon". The armor-piercing performance was considerably less than the German or US 37 mm guns, and the fact that this tank's weld's could not tolerate the recoil of a marginally more powerful gun shows how limited French experience in welding hard plate was at the time. To be fair, everybody dealt with this and the problem of welding sections of armor plate were not completely solved until 1957.
"OMG the tank is on fire!!! hell with it, i was cold anyway.........."
Awwww. It's got a cute little horn.
Probably sounds like the road runner in the cartoon. Beep Beep.
This thing could literally kill you ezily
My favorite French tank of WW-II - very futuristic looking for its day with its well sloped armor. The independent traversing main armament is a pretty cool feature too.
Glad you're back! Funny AND informative.
Major, Excellent as always. Thank you for highlighting many of these exceptional historic vehicles for us.
Your pain, sorry to say, is our gain ! :D
Enjoyed it greatly, as always :)
The poor finger, poor head, poor back and... what's the point of having armour if you can't even survive operating the tank itself?
Maybe that was the plan? The enemies capture the tank and then break their fingers, bump their heads and break their spines trying to operate them
In all fairness, the average French soldier of the 1930s was several inches shorter and quite a few pounds/kilograms lighter than Mr Moran. That said, ergonomics is generally something that most all tank designers put a low priority on. Even today, you will find more than a few "modern" designs that offer little in the way of crew comfort or accessibility.
@@genericpersonx333 "generally something that most all tank designers put a low priority on" All the good tanks of the war have good ergos though. Shermans, panzers, the big cats are pretty good.
@@SPAZTICCYTOPLASM Yeah, the USA and Germany were really the ones who figured out that good ergonomics was a big combat multiplier.
@@genericpersonx333 I think the two nations we consider ergonomic are Soviets and French. The Japanese tanks where OKish when you consider the average Japanese soldier was even smaller than the average everyone else. Potential history went into a Ha Go and he doesn't look TOO uncomfortable. I think soviet and french tanks where uncomfortable for the same reasons which was an attitude of "good enough" and importance of production and numbers. I think both the french and Soviet upperclass where out of touch or just didn't care with what the average soldier would have liked.
Love your work Chieftan!
Watching you exit that tank had me in tears, That was funny. I'm thinking that there might have been a height requirement for the driver, that being a maximum height. I think your 6ft plus frame pushes the requirements just a little bit. lol.
Another quality video dude. Keep them coming.
GenFUBAR.
I get the feeling that tank's spirit insisted on a small blood sacrifice before she would let you leave.
Nice to see you, major!
Sir- Given your stupendous use of charming Irish whitsisms and sayings, I sincerely wish you could write one of my OERs.
I was honestly expecting the Chieftain to have an ice pack on his head during the wrap-up, lol.
Wow that independent gun traverse is awesome :D
"Oh look at all the space we got from placing the driving mechanizm in the back"
French engineers: No, you get fetal pose.
Ouch! I felt that bang to the forehead
No kidding! I flinched when he hit his head, that looked painful!
That last section of the video with you in that open fronted and cramped driving position. You should print that and mount it in a frame, wonderful shorthand for your profession. That is, fitting into tanks that really didn't have you in mind as a typical crewman.
Great info
I'd really like for you to show us the Char B1 Bis! I think it is a very cool looking tank (I am aware it had its shortcomings as a war machine).
15:14 I see, a sideways reference to Dali’s “Birth of the new man.” Jolly good.
I love this tank its really fun
I seem to recall something about Napoleon taking six inches off the height of the French males, but looking at you in that tank I'm more inclined to wonder if maybe he took about two feet off their height.
Hello Chieftain love your Tank Reviews including the reviews on the M4 Sherman and Sherman Firefly. If you're aiming to do a review on the Sherman Easy Eight, there is one at the "American Armored Foundation Museum" in Danville, Virginia that you should have a look at. I myself went to this Tank Museum and what a collection of armor this place has. The AAF's Easy Eight Sherman is a beautiful vehicle and she is the only Sherman equipped with a dozer blade in any museum exhibit so you could make mention of the engineering/utility usage of the Sherman.
Also, the AAF Tank Museum should be given a mention and some love. The museum possess an impressive collection that all the armored vehicles were collected by the museum's owner throughout most of his years and it is struggling to keep the roof of their building intact. If Wargaming can give their support, it can keep the AAF Tank Museum from bogging down in the mud.
So, if you happen to be in Virginia near Danville, give the American Armored Foundation Tank Museum a go.
+The Armored Bugger
What kind of "Easy Eight"?
An M4A3E8 Sherman with the M1A2 76mm gun. This particular tank's muzzle brake is missing, but there are grooves on the end of the barrel suggesting it probably had one before she was abandoned. Also, as I said in my comment, she is equipped with a dozer blade.
"Significantly better. still bad".
And to that item factors (lack of coordination and inferior tactics), and no wonder then, they didn't fare all so well.
I wonder how many times the Chieftain "died" trying to get out of those "burning" tanks... my guess is - more times than he actually got out! Which is why a tank is called a deathtrap... youre cramped, vulnerable to outside and inside threats and, in a hurry, cant really get out. If its not your position thats shit, your ability to escape is hampered by everything. Tightness of space, turret hanging over your hatch, the enemies hosing down the vehicle as youre trying to crawl out and, finally, a fire inside the vehicle, which you need to escape whilst trying to negotiate your pathing with the splattered remains of your comrades. Lovely.
I've always had a soft spot for these.
There is something about hurting yourself on armour that is a special kind of 'experience'.
You make me want to go back to WOT. But i have come to enjoy the suffercycle of WT.
As far as sloped armor goes the CSS Virginia would also like to have a word.
USS Zumwalt but it’s a tank.
Yeah, not sure why people aren't more aware of the T-34 being an upsized T-3/BT-1 the Christie design that was by that American hero. With its sloped armor even heavily influencing most early British tank designs as well. I can't remember if you did a BT get around but it might be worth it to do a development series on the t-34 so more people are aware.
Nice video Nicholas!
+Simon Meyer He wasn't hated by the USA. The USA tested a number of his designs, but the USA wasn't really producing tanks at the time due to budgetary issues, and when it did, it was conservative, basically deriving the M1/M2/M3/M5 series from Vickers 6 ton, which was a proven design, but changing out to vertical volute suspension in field replaceable units that were felt to offer acceptable performance, but with ease of maintenance. In that sense, the USA did well, as its tanks were reliable. British tanks (e.g the Christie-inspired Crusader) did much less well on reliability, although most of that was with respect to engine and transmission issues.
By the end of WW2 just about everyone was moving away from Christie suspension to torsion bar or Horstmann.
Funky Cold Medina!
When are you going to do one one the panzer 1,2 and tiger 2? And as usual great vid
Thank goodness for the Abram's driver's seat.
Those are direct vision slits, so it occurs to me that some bright boy shooting at them, with a view to shooting the occupants nessesitates them being narrow. Narrow being less than 7mm Mauser size.
" the tank is on fire !" seems like staying in is safer than trying getting out..
That traverse mechanism defies belief. Completely counter intuitive. One feels for the individuals needing to use it.
That was not at all uncommon. That's how a gear naturally works unless you add a second gear into the train to "correct" the rotation. It's much easier to just train the users to be used to it. They aren't just jumping in the tank and taking it out to fight on their first day. If humans can learn to play the violin they can learn which way to turn the crank to rotate the turret.
SIR, THE 17 POUNDER WONT FIT.
me: trying to take the french tanks seriously...
french tank driver: *FIDDLE POSITION*
You see, leave the front hatch open and there is plenty of space... ;)
Regarding vision, weren't the slots supposed to have optics mounted behind them?
I thought that was what those hooks around them were for?
More guts than glory. Pep were smaller, but then a T34 driver was required to be short.
Really good video of another poorly designed French two man tank. Thanks for the video.
We don't need tanks we have the Maginot line. Volia!
That did come to mind.
The point of the Maginot line was to limit German options more than to stop them. Knowing where the Germans will attack makes stopping them easier. But you still need dudes and tanks and the French were well aware of that.
They just didn't quite realize how fast a couple armoured divisions could pass through thick forest with a bit of determination.
@@MisdirectedSasha "They just didn't quite realize how fast a couple armoured divisions could pass through thick forest with a bit of determination." This right here is why europe got a nice shock. They thought the germans would see the line, and start bringing in heavy armaments to destroy it and dig in with trenches, like ww1. They didn't expect the krauts to drive through with excellent combined arms and shock tactics.
Yes. One of the great joys of studying history is knowing that you don't have to do the things they did ...
.
Driving that at high speed you'd be breaking your knees again the hatch lip
You would be amazed at how much difference a foot of height and several decades of age can make in how easy it is to access a tight spot. Ever tried to get into the drivers seat after a small woman was using the car and left the seat forward? And that's a matter of the seat being a few inches to close to the wheel. Youth and practice make the rest of the difference. I guarantee the guys who used these things every day didn't have that much trouble getting in and out. I would like to see Mr Moran try to get into some of the crew positions on WWII aircraft wearing full flight gear. I suspect the audience will declare that they are terrible designs and are simply impossible to access, even though many thousands of young men managed it
I had never heard of this tank.
Tank bites!
It had an overpressure system, but did it actually have filters for the intake air that could remove chemicals from the air? Somehow i doubt it. Seems like that would be more likely to be for evacuating fumes from firing the guns. Although it's possible, they had gas mask filters, it wouldn't be impossible to install larger versions of those on the intakes.
Looks like a two man coffin even if it did acquit itself well.
British and French men were shorter, but still very strong in the 1930s and 1940s. Modern boiss are either tall, slim and awkward, or tallish, tubby and awkward. Thanks to the soda and burger industries. Now our tanks are 70 tons.
I forget have you done the B1? If not think we can look forward to an episode of it?
So as I am watching you exit the tank I notice the ad above the comments for injury attorney's.
If that tank was on fire you would go headfirst through that hatch
It seems like the SA18 would have been better used in open-topped tankettes. A slightly enlarged turret ring would have allowed this tank to mount the S35's 47mm gun.
I want to see him get into a B-17 Ball Turret
Here's hoping he did a vid on the Bandkannon 1 when he was in Sweden , a fantastic vehicle.
I've never heard about this vehicle. Where can I see it?
At Arsenalen if you want it in the flesh, or TH-cam , Google or Books :) Try serching for videos of Bandkannon 1 or look at its wikipedia.
Why would you need a cannon that fires bands? Even a death metal band is going to have pretty lousy armor penetration.
FCM 36: I am not very well rounded.
Poor man. Being so big in such little vehicles.
Armoured Citroen 2CV.
Citroen did build a tank the
citroen amr p103! Google it!
We as humans are about 6-8 inches taller than our WW2 veterans on average. My grandfather a WW2 vet was 5 foot 7 inches tall and he was tall for his era. My father was 5'9 I'm 6'5 so we are taller now than they were then.
Steadier supply of meat in our diet as far as I know is why that is. More protein, bigger bodies.
That, and of the people they had available, they'd obviously pick out the shortest ones to stick into tanks.
@MrGeorocks This would explain why ussr designed their tanks so tiny
Dondolini94 That's because the USSR did pick the shorter people to be tank crewmen.
Hey chieftain, are you planning on attending the collings foundation event this year? Please respond if you can
Actually the driver's position is perfect. He's already in the fetal position when he spots a German tank.
Watching him get out was so painful to watch
I know what you were thinking about the way the turret moved "that's French" and that's another mic gone lol
Engineers had never heard of ergonomics back then…seriously how is it almost every tank back then was “once you get in, good luck getting out again” or were so careless with all the hard metal protrusions in a vehicle that would do a fair bit of jostling when moving across anything other than a flat surface? Did none of them get in this thing and say “yeah, this doesn’t actually work.”
Looks like trying to evacuate the tank could injure you worse than just staying in the tank might!
Instruments of torture comes to mind. I'm thinking the crews must've been selected from the shortest youngest toughest little bastards in the French army?
14:08 Take the microphone with me.
FCM 36 says NON!
Funny a GM alternator on that tank
Lol the tank was out to get him
Why didnt tanks slope outward? more room more armor.
The Germans actually converted some to SPG using a WWI 10.5cm and the Pak 40 (!!!!!).
Jay Felsberg literally a terrible idea
I'll ask again but, does the AMX ELC bis in that museum still have an interior that a Inside the Hatch could do? Or is it empty on the inside?
he has said, that he might do an elc vid if they an get it out of the spot they have parked it in. next time he gose there
Oh really? I guess that implies the tank is intact on the inside. Interesting.
Hey Nick (is it alright if i call u Nick?) King Tiger with Porscha turret
LoL
The funny thing is, with every bodily difficulty he has in that tank, i fit in it just fine.
Half of france must have been 5 feet tall in 1936/40 i guess?
Chieftain, what has the worst drivers position, this or the cromwell?
Can i ask is your Cross Of Lorraine pin a reference to the 79th Infantry Division?
It is not. Was only pin in the museum's shop.
The peeps were younger and smaller back in the day
why the french not rotating the turret to 180° degrees and shooting out with the de-attached MG. Way more effektive...
RIP driver when the tank is on fire.
Chieftain make the AMX ELC bis please!
I mean you could at that point yea
Maybe the French drivers were picked out of a really short Corp of men. I could see a [rather] small guy getting out head first through the hydraulic supported hatch. Wouldn't matter, if that tankette gets hit it's going up in flames, unless it goes up against panzer 3s with the machine guns. Even the infantry support model panzer 4s short gun could massacre this ride!
Isnt that a Chevrolet alternator?
Will you do any early war german tanks? I would really like to see one for a Panzer I or II.
I am not sure he'll fit in a Pz I