In this Fallout 4 lore video, I discuss the unnamed tank design found in the commonwealth. I explore its possible origins and weaknesses in design and briefly ponder how tanks would be used in a world with Power Armor
Hey y'all, thanks so much for watching and for all the likes, comments, and subs. This is the first video I've made that has approached 1k views, let alone surpassed it. Thanks again for making this possible!
Unfortunately, they made the lore book of the fallout universe say that the tank is more way expensive than power armor. Which is why us army switched to power armor. Todd fucked it up.
The tank has machine guns. To be more specific, it has two places where a medium support machine gun would have been mounted. Now, true that it's missing a co axle machine gun for the turret, but give that it can swivel 360, a coaxle might not be that important. You can see the metal ring at 6:50 pretty well. Thats where they would have attached a medium machine gun and if I had to guess, the reason it isn't there is because some raiders probably came along, saw it, and thought it was a nice big gun they could use to better raid places. Probably undid a few screws and ran off with it.
With regards to the traverse of the turret, it appears that the radiators can fold away. This not only allows the turret to do a full rotation, but also helps protect the radiators themselves in combat. It would also make combat more interesting as you would have to consider heat build up vs getting blown up by the enemy aiming at the glowing bits.
I'm sure that's what a tanker wants, combat to be more interesting lol. I think it would make more sense to put the radiator in the rear Valkyria Chronicles style, that way its protected from the most important angles, and if the enemy is behind you, well, its a bad day anyways.
@@spydingo To be fair, the designers thought to use rivets, which while they increase the ease of changing armour pieces, can fly around the inside like bullets if the tank is hit wrong. So maybe the people who came up with the idea thought it was necessary to liven up a tankers day, the shiftless bastards.
@@spydingo not necessarly you could be able to operate for a while without having to use radiators. Most likely reactor was used to provide electric energy to power engines. This means you could have batteries and/or heatsinks to extend combat capability without need to deploy radiators. Fallout has frequently techs that require power transmision, storage and capacity more advance than our current tech. This means that thing could potentialy only operate with extended radiators in cruise mode.
On your point about power armor, a certain mysterious storyteller once said that power armor can't replace tanks and can be pierced by anti-tank/anti-materiel weapons. I can confirm this is true after blasting a bunch of Gunners in X-01 power armor with RPGs, missiles, and .50 caliber rounds.
To be fair, the RPGs and missiles would probably be a problem for the tank too, but your right. I mean pretty much anything can break power armor, a point that bothers me, just like the vertibirds that can be shoot down with a light breeze! I'm sure though, that the tank would still serve a purpose on the battlefield during the great war even with power armor, I'm just not sure how that purpose changes with Power Armor existing. That being said, not a huge thing to worry about I suppose, given a 40ft commie slaying robot exists in universe as well. You know, that actually makes me think of a question, if one was to pilot Liberty Prime, does Liberty Prime become a Mech?
@@spydingo dunno, though its possible the tank was designed to work in concert with power armor equipped troops, providing heavy fire support as the the PA troops protect the tank from enemy infantry. Surprisingly not too dissimilar to modern doctrine for using tanks in urban combat environments: infantry screens the tanks while the tanks themselves provide fire support.
@@spydingo rpgs and missiles would have trouble with the frontal armor. it takes firing at the top or potentially rear and maybe the sides to penetrate it
Power armor cant, but robots might be able to. Liberty prime was just short of being made functional when the bombs fell, and once they had a functioning model of such a powerful robot, odds are they would work on making it mass producable. Sure they shelved it over a few hangups nobody in pre war america could solve, but clearly they were overreacting if they could be solved post war
I think it is also possible that these tanks were in use prior to the introduction of power armor, and thus hadnt been fully phased out by the time of the great war, hell it was mentioned that power armor itself was still in fairly limited use. you also have to consider that much like the t-60 armors, the ones we see in game were likely deployed in the area to quell civil unrest, a role that they probably would still be fairly good at even without any sort of anti-personel weapons like coaxial or hull mg's.
Considering that in the FO universe the military already had energy weapons as standard for infantry, there could be a possibility that the Chryslus Patton used some sort of coaxial or heavy energy weapon. These MGs could be fired with the same energy provided by the tank's Nuclear Reactor without the need to carry additional ammunition for them reducing the total weight of the ammunition compared to current tanks that still require ammunition for these weapons (this considering that the Minigun laser uses Fusion Cores as ammunition even though these are primarily fuel for Power Armors) the "ports" for these secondary armaments could potentially be in the front and middle of the hull and on the top of the turret above the guns 140mm twins (that second could be the targeting system, though), also on the right cupola in the grilles there is an apparently unnecessary notch, maybe there was some other secondary armament here for infantry or air defense that could have been And as for the role of these, thanks probably the US Army saw some potential for these tanks to advance an offensive by providing heavy firepower (while perhaps being followed by Power Armor units) and subsequently being used as mobile artillery emplacements or for defense using perhaps some kind of nuclear ammunition (something similar to the Fatman) I love your content and I would like to know what you think of this and if you could make a continuation video to see points like these in other comments
I think the energy weapon angle is a very good and creative way to fix this tank's model and the lack of having to carry ammo to reduce weight would be a huge boon given its weight of 60 tons and its propensity to get stuck on small dunes on Boston beaches. That being said though, its hard for me to see any of this tanks heavily rusted surfaces and believe that any of them could have allowed for something as awesome as a laser to shoot through them. I'm not super convinced that this tank would be any good at assaults myself, I still see it more as a SPG, as another commenter pointed out, this explains the lack of MGs. Also now that the lack of sloping armor, and frontal armor in general, along with the numerous shot traps, have been pointed out to me in the comments. I have a hard time seeing the Chryslus Patton being survivable enough to spearhead anything. I suppose though, if this is the only tank the US army has for the job, it would probably be used as the spearhead regardless since other weapon systems are even less suited for the role. I love the idea of the 140mm rounds being nuclear in nature, that is the kind of absurdity I could get behind in a fallout tank. Thanks I appreciate the kind words and support! This is the first video I've made that has even approached 1k views, let alone surpassed it, I'm blown away by the engagement. I'm certainly open to making a continuation video in the future, like you said, there have been incredibly informative and enlightening comments that would be fun to elucidate on. I figure I really should learn how to put out a community poll and let you all help me decide what video concept I work on next.
@@spydingo or what i thought of immediately when you mentioned it... they were probably taken by wastelanders since all we can see are the wrecks of these and that the machineguns usually can be repurposed for use with infantry aka raiders or whatever
Also, maybe the crew has an Energy machine gun of some sort inside the tank. Many WW2 heavy armoured vehicles such as German tank Hunters did not have a coaxial machine gun but they had One inside the tank that the crew could mount on the cupola to shoot both infantry and aircrafts.
If I had any complaint with this idea it's only that energy weapons of fallout seem to have the opposite problems of real life where in fallout the heavy energy weapons like gatling lasers and plasma casters were spoken of being the bleeding edge before the war meanwhile the far more portable laser pistols and the like were around long enough to make the civilian and police markets. So while very possible that those could be plasma cannons they were much more likely typical cannons. Though that is a really cool idea ngl.
The side view of the patton you showed was actually an m41 bulldog. Also looks to me like the tank has coaxial machine gun ports and the rails around the cupolas could have been intended to have machine gun mounts, similar to what you would see on a lot of german tanks in ww2. It would be highly likely that these exposed machine guns would have gotten looted a long time ago
@@spydingo also you said that the f4 phantom was relying solely on rockers but even in the photos them selves it has a rotating machinegun under its nose.
@@jurkoskvarka2154 Early variants of the Phantom were built without the rotary cannon in the nose because they were designed to solely rely on their air to air missiles to shoot down other aircraft (Missile busses as they were nicknamed). However it was soon discovered that a cannon on the aircraft was actually necessary for closer engagements against other aircraft and to strafe ground targets if available. While the design work on a phantom that could carry a cannon was in place, they started attaching gun pods to the bellies of the phantoms and, depending on the branch, these ranged from the M61 Vulcan to the Mk12 colt 20mm autocannons.
@@bb-152ussmeta9 The cannon necessity thing is only partially true and dependent on training since _Air Force_ F4s with cannons were nearly useless when it came to gun kills while the Navy variants got more but still outnumbered by the number of successful missile kills they had.
Also, there is a fourth advantage tanks have over power armor that you didn't mention! The US Army features tanks that can elevate their guns higher than most because in a pinch, they can serve as artillery pieces. It's likely these tanks, with their two 140mm guns that can elevate independently, are actually intended to be used more as Artillery than Front-Line units. They follow the Power Armor Infantry, lay down the boom on anything the Power Armor can't handle from a safe distance, and just generally don't fight on the front line. Heck, even the gun caliber supports this - Once you start getting above 127mm guns, you're usually using the gun as field artillery, not anti-tank.
If you're a tank enthusiast, there's a place out near Uvalde (in Texas) where you can drive & shoot a tank. Prices vary, ranging from $500 to $3000 depending on which tank you choose & what you want to do (ride along, drive, shoot a round, etc.), but heck - that's about a weekend at Comic-Con so why not? As for the one in-game, I really really REALLY hope Fallout 5 lets us drive one of these around & use it. There's been a lot of speculation online that it will include driveable vehicles, so here's hoping!
Yo, I love that business model. They get to sell things like "The Sherman Package", that's awesome. Given Fallout 5 won't be out for like a decade, it better! At the very least, I'm confident modders will find a way.
Their gun design isn't any better either. It all boils down to no one at Bethesda understanding how weapons or tanks work. Their APC is top heavy as hell and has ludicrously small wheel base.
@@Mirthful_Midori The thing is, I don't see that as Bethesda having bad design, it's them designing bulky and unweildy weapons for a bulky and unweildy military. Firearms are only as nonsensical as the doctrine that calls for them.
@@tylerp.5004 This is a bit of a cop out answer honestly. Historically, the series never concerned itself much over impracticalities, but there was a believability to it with the original entries to the series. Bethesda never considered believability, assuming that it needed to look wacky and 50s "unique"
It fits in with the "Corporations are BAD" motif. With all the different lore bits talking about cost overruns and scheduling delays, this could just be an in-universe example of the corruption that exists within the military-industrial complex.
3:34 fun fact: all british tanks come equipped with a boiling vessel (a kettle for boiling water for tea) as standard, could be the tank comes standard with a small personal water purifier on board. 3:56 tank may be riveted in spots that don't need as much maintenance as other parts to save materials, welding tank hulls uses a lot of welding filler, and depending on the type of welding, also uses acetylene gas, argon in the case of mig welding, also paying for the skilled labor to fit rivets makes sense from an ideological standpoint, Fallout US was intensely anti-communist, so chances are there'd be political push to keep riveters in good paying work over outmoding them. From a resource standpoint, the US may have lacked the materials or fuels needed to weld as the standard, such as the gases for welding, and the electrical power needed for arc welding may not have been available. It may also depend on the availability of the metals and elements the tanks hull is made of, there may have been enough to make the hull but not to weld it together, or it may be comprised of a metal or a composite material that either can't be welded, or simply requires too much heat and power to weld effectively for combat. 4:47 the weight may not be all that important depending on the tanks overall intended battlefield role, the sherman was badly outgunned by german panther and tiger tanks, but it wasn't designed to kill other tanks, it was designed for infantry support, in a role like this combined with a tank killer role, it makes sense for armor and gun size to be the priority over the weight and the speed, no need to make a sports car if its only ever meant to be working along side sprinting infantry. 5:05 this same weakness affects tanks with welded hulls as well, its called spalling and its typically countered by fitting a spall liner, a protective layer on the internal side of the hull meant to diffuse and absorb most metal fragments blasted loose from the hull. Spalling is an accepted and accounted for fact of life in tank design. 5:12 from the overall look of the tanks turret I'm gonna make a few guesses, each gun is gyroscopically stabilized, either separately or together as one unit, allowing for more accurate firing and aiming while on the move, the small hatch centered above the two guns may be a shell ejection hatch, if so, this suggests the guns have to be reloaded one at a time, ejecting the shell into the compartment above the gun then out of the hull. Though its position means shells would get caught on the gun barrels, and pile on the hull at a stopped firing position, of course this assumes the rounds it fires have a leftover shell at all. The abrams uses ammunition that discards parts of itself as it flies through the air, enabling it to travel much faster towards its target, and with more accuracy, something similar might be the case here. 5:44 based on the caliber size and the design of the tanks turret i think its a safe assumption this thing is autoloaded 6:04 this makes sense, but I think its a safe bet to assume that centuries left sitting abandoned will have resulted in alot of the sights, and targeting systems having either degraded to the point of uselessness, or having been scavenged and salvaged for parts and components by survivors. 6:20 If you look closely at the radiators you'll notice they're mounted on a hinge, I'd be willing to bet these radiators are a part of an active cooling system which can be switched on and off by the crew as needed. when shut off, the radiators rotate themselves flat against the hull, or retract into it enabling the hatch they're poking out of to close, giving the turret a greater range of rotation than when its deployed. 6:38 again, centuries in the wasteland, if they had any machine guns, someone nabbed 'em. And depending on its intended battlefield role, it may not have needed them. 8:40 My guess is this tank would be used for mobile infantry support and anti-tank roles, likely from the rear behind a screen of infantry and lighter armored vehicles, as its big and slow, not well equipped for fighting up close, uses riveting in its hull plate joining suggesting surviving hits was an afterthought, and seems to use its systems and components as shields for the crew rather than heavy armor, so this thing is not designed for frontline spearhead use. its design suggests it can be used as stop gap artillery support to some extent, a 2-3 man crewed design suggests its mostly automated, probably relatively simple to maintain in comparison to power armor, but still quite complex and requiring detailed and in depth maintenance, a sherman, this thing is not. The braces in front of the tracks suggest this thing can be equipped with pushing/pulling attachments, so it can be used for logistics to some extent, and be used to create crude defenses, they could also be tow points, suggesting this thing gets stuck ALOT. Its track design suggests its intended for specific terrain conditions rather than equipped to handle whatever it comes across. In a nutshell its a badly thrown together dog's breakfast of a tank, and its no wonder its nothing but an old rusted wreck now.
Wow, thanks for this well thought out comment, I really appreciate it! That's amazing, I hope if tank's make it into Fallout London they include that feature and way over emphasize it. Solid points about the welding and I like your point about the US government and the Red Menace, I could see such a scenario occurring although I think it would likely depend on if the government was manufacturing the tanks, or a private corporation. I don't get the sense that many of the known Fallout corporations would do anything that would hurt their profit margins. Also, thanks for pointing out Spall liners, looks like they weren't introduced until the early 80's which would explain why I never heard of em' in all those WW2 docs I've watched. Having gone back and taken another look, I agree that it certainly seems like that's an ejection hatch between the two barrels suggesting the two cannons are not linked which is cool. Similarly, after looking over the radiator design following helpful comments like this , I see what I thought was a protective back plate, was actually the roof to the radiators armored compartment, and it looks pretty clear that they could be retracted. Really solid ideas on what this tank would be used for too, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say those braces are tow points since every one of these things I remember seeing in the wild has been stuck lol.
@@spydingo another thought i had on the hatch above the guns is that it could be a fume extractor, modern tanks have those little bulges part way down the gun barrels, i don't know how they work exactly but they direct the exhaust gasses from each fired round out through the end of the gun barrel, this thing clearly doesn't have fume extractors on its gun barrels, so maybe it has a fume extraction system mounted back above the guns in order to redirect and vent exhaust gas from both guns out of the tank and away from the crew, seeing as this thing packs two 140mm guns when it fires it would produce alot of exhaust gas, especially if they're both fired at once or in quick succession, its overall look suggests its less a hatch and more a cap of some kind and the upper part of it on the turret roof has an opening that leads down into it, plus there's another hatch on the back of the turret itself to the right of the commander's hatch that looks pretty well purpose built for opening to throw out shells(4:15), seems my idea of this thing working from behind other elements is holding some water there. On top of all that I've seen abrams in action firing their guns more than once, and the actual part of the shell that remains behind when the round has been fired isn't so much a shell as a back plate for the round, its only about the size of a couple cans of tuna stacked up. I'm also having second thoughts about the gyroscopic stabilization, while I like the idea that they'd have the sense to do this in 2077 or whenever it was the great war broke out, and as far back as ww2 the Sherman had a crude gyro system for gun stabilization, I'm not sure how practical such a system would be in a machine this heavy with guns this large, especially with the overall profile of this machine, not sure where they'd even cram it in along side an autoloading system on one side and a gunner seat on the other, it would be an insanely tight fit, and it'd have to be a pretty damn physically strong stabilizer to handle the weight and bulk of those guns. Something else that's occurred to me here, that pretty much relegates this thing to working from behind the front lines in a fire support role, the sheer size of its guns, coupled with the overall size and profile of the tank itself, there's very little room for ammo stowage, this means the number of shells this thing can carry and hold at any given time would be severely limited, and in a machine with TWO big guns, that's pretty much gonna mean you have to work closely tethered to an ammo supply line at all times basically, so this thing is absolutely not a front line machine just on that aspect alone, to mention nothing of maintenance of a dual gun system, which is pretty much the reason most every main battle tank in existence has ONE main gun rather than two, its unnecessarily complicated and logistically impractical.
Isn't infantry support means the Sherman would have to go against German tanks too ? If your infantry had tanks, who's to say your enemys infantry won't
@@Bernoris infantry support focus means a tank is built primarily for supporting infantry against other infantry and mechanized infantry, meaning with light armored vehicles supporting them, the focus is a combined arms effort rather than an anti-tank focused effort, the Sherman was designed with supporting infantry first in mind so it was given enough armor to survive against most infantry, built to go roughly fast enough to keep up with and outpace infantry, and given a main gun and supporting weaponry best suited to fighting softer targets from relatively close range, the German tanks were not built with support as their main role, they were built with independent battlefield operation in mind, so instead of working as a part of a larger whole, they worked first as self contained units of troops capable of moving much faster as a group than tanks supporting infantry, and capable of alot more damage from much farther range. The doctrines germany and the US used during ww2 were about as different as night and day when it came to tank design.
The thing about the F-4 Phantom II is that it was designed first as an Interceptor that was designed to shoot at bombers at long ranges at high speeds and since the designers weren't worried about it fighting other fighters at the time, they didn't add it. But certain circumstances caused the F-4 to be used by all branches of military in multiple different roles which revealed that the lack of a gun proved to be an issue.
True on first part, less so on second. After this issue was found, Air force added a gunpod, their kill rate actually slightly decreased. The Navy on the other hand started training their ground and maintenance crews on proper storage, handling, and maintenance for the new guided missiles. Their kill rate skyrocketed. Add in the decision to then start a fighter pilot raining school in how to fight and use missiles (Top Gun), and the Navy was way ahead of the air force or anyone else in the world in combat effectiveness for a period, before the air force followed suit. This was less a story about missiles being bad (or gun good), and more about missiles being new tech and the importance of training your people in how to properly use and maintain that new tech. Since awesome as anything may be, if two thirds of them fail to work on launch because they weren't properly stored or set up then of coarse you're going to have a bad day. Since then, the US tries to make a point to invest heavily in training along with any new toys it buys. Results have more or less spoken for themself since then. That said, yes, F-4 was not designed for ideal turning gunfighting with other fighters, so even given a gunpod it wasn't great at that role, but again once it had the proper anti fighter missiles working reliably, it was doing serious work in proving it's viability.
I certainly see how it made sense at the time to design the Phantom without a gun then, and I see how little sense it really makes to include guns in gen 5 fighters like the F-35 and F-22. At the end of the day though, I think it makes a lot of sense that the war fighter wants as many tools in his or her toolbelt as possible no matter how unlikely it is they ever use em'.
@@terricon4 Yeah, I was about to say, tactics are key to making a weapon work. Compared to the A6M Zero in WWII, the P-40 Warhawk came up short in a bunch of places, but tactics and knowing its strengths were what let its pilots help win the air war in the Pacific. In tying that back to the Fallout universe, I can imply a few things myself from looking at the "Chryslus Patton" from a design perspective and thinking about the kind of world it inhabits and how it would likely have been used in the context of a full military operation. *One:* Fallout America most likely loved combined arms _at least_ as much as OTL America does, if not more. You know what's missing on the front of the Chryslus Patton that you see on pretty much any other armored vehicle? A front glacis plate. Upper _or_ lower. If a shot hits the front of this thing, it's going to rip out something important, as those exposed mechanical bits and bobs smack in the middle of the hull's face would seem to suggest - and you're barking mad if you think those stepladders on the front will mount a bigass appliquee plate suitable for frontline combat against peer adversaries if we feel the need to not only have 140mm thumpers on the front. As a matter of fact, even smacking this thing on the face of the turret would be very rude, since the extra gun and corresponding real estate for the second mantlet and systems a second gun would require fitting means striking the turret face-on is more likely to knock one or both guns out rather than hitting plating or otherwise being a shot the armor could withstand. Even hull-down fighting would be a dicey proposition without a lot of preparation and a deep defense. Both of these things would naturally be provided by all the other things that would likely be in a suitable combined arms force following some form of airland battle doctrine: infantry, especially reconnaissance and forward observers for the sake of the Chryslus Patton, and specialty vehicles such as artillery, SPAA, APCs, IFVs, ATGM carriers, armored reconnaissance, and aircraft to include CAS, fighters for air cover (and you _will_ have plenty of air cover if you're America, even Fallout America, unless Fallout America had some wizardry to make an SPAA system bigger and badder than a VADS on an M113 and mastered the mind control to suddenly make sure everyone wanted it over their own, vastly more developed indigenous solutions) and _aerial_ reconnaissance. This allowed the Chryslus Patton to specialize heavily in long-range target engagement and volume of fire, either in two-shell salvos or walking fire. *Two:* Fallout America's organizational structure is likely vastly different to our America's modern organizational structure. Considering how nuke-happy the Fallout timeline has been compared to where we are today, it's likely that Fallout America still operated under the pentomic structure up to the Sino-American War. This was a structure cooked up during the early Cold War in our timeline that was designed to spread out an armed force on an open battlefield and decentralize it so much that nukes would not immediately gut it in the first salvo. We came up with it because in the 1950s and 1960s, we thought war was going to involve lobbing nukes everywhere, and in the Fallout world, it's hard fact. What this means for the Chryslus Patton is that the guns become even more important since it becomes even more crucial that warfighting equipment be able to engage at longer and longer ranges, while everyone is spread out. You want to avoid moving something into a killzone you can't easily replace, and replacing a shell is as easy as ordering a follow-up shot. A tank, especially one designed to be a strong point for force projection over the course of a full battle, is significantly harder to replace when someone opens a can of sunshine next to it, and its loss would be far more heavily felt. This would more heavily specialize the Chryslus Patton as a breakthrough vehicle that is designed to punch through enemy defenses at critical points with direct fire that can get on target way faster than anything farther away, and then hold that terrain through the merit of being direct fire that can stand and deliver from forward positions again and again. She doesn't need to go into bad terrain as often, since she doesn't have to - her shells will. Hills, ridges, ground such as this, are more important, and Chryslus Pattons would be doctrinally focused on using their superior firepower, range and capabilities on flat and less bumpy _sloped_ ground to work in platoons or companies that bound over one another, giving one another covering fire from firing position to firing position, dictating the front lines by moving up and shooting, which allows the rest of the ground forces to move up and deny that ground to the enemy. This, of course, would be after or _while_ the enemy would be softened up considerably by the fighters stripping them of airpower, CAS stripping them of armor which the Patton cannot yet reach, and strike aircraft stripping them of logistics and backliners of all types, from fuel to artillery to the ability to fly, cross rivers or drive on roads. As for what infantry is doing in that open field battle... *Three:* Power armor carries American doctrine, and it shows. If it doesn't, then it sure as hell changed it. To make a long story considerably less long, since this isn't about power armor, this is about the Chryslus Patton, power infantry can go farther, fight longer, hit harder and take hits better than what could now be considered light infantry, which is to say, unpowered infantry. This has an impact on the Chinese armed forces and their likely doctrine which would force them to make the pulse gun on one hand, but has an interesting impact all its own: it forces the Chinese to have to make some hard decisions. That hard decision is that their vaunted stealth technology is only helpful on the offensive, both sides had stealth technology on their side over the war, and once you start shooting, you have to have a useful followup. Without similar individual soldier protection in the Chinese arsenal to American power armor, this means the Chinese would have to move up more conventional armored forces and thin-skinned infantry or APCs. This would put them right in the firing line for American tanks like the Chryslus Patton, which is why they would hyperspecialize further in range. In conclusion, this tank is what you would get if you had exactly the right factors to force a tank to focus as much as possible on firepower and range: you want to stay at arm's length first because you have armor in a new form not seen on a real-world battlefield, because nukes have an even longer range owing to their wide destructive radius, and because the enemy is therefore forced to close to engage you, turning any engagement into a shooting gallery rather than a running firefight.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the Fallout universe once power armor was made. Some politicians probably managed to get funding cut from tank production. Think about it, one soldier in power armor being able to use a variety of weapons from a minigun, rocket launcher, or just regular ol' rifles. Once you manage to point out the "cost effectiveness" of that versus building tanks. Well, cheap out on tank production by reducing it to riveted armor. Plus the fact that America was going through inflation as well, due to the continued war with China and resources getting even scarcer.
A good theory, but welding is cheaper than riveting. Despite it being worse for the crew. But you do bring up a good point about scarcity of resources. One advantage of Riveting is that it can join non ferrous metals a lot easier than welding. So maybe by that point in the war, strategic high strength ferrous metals were all getting diverted to power armor. As you mentioned before. So they started to use lower quality substitute metals in tank armor. And the cost/material saved by switching to these substitutes out weighed the added cost of riveting instead of welding.
Although welding is cheaper, I like the idea here. If you take Robert Keaney's suggestion of riveting being being an easier process to join lower quality non ferrous metals, along with the idea of rivets being less expensive in the fallout universe due to robots existing to take care of that skilled labor issue. If you combine that thought, with the politicians angle, and knowing how messed up corporations are in the fallout universe and then assuming the same is true of the government, I propose the following scenario: Most of the funding that is supposed to go to tank production, instead lines the pockets of the politicians and the manufacturer, while the tanks are built with poor quality materials and the troops on the ground suffer for it. That sounds pretty Fallout like right?
The tank would have evolved into a armoured mist generating gun carrier. The sheer size of big guns would still require a vehicle to move and carry them.
I always figured if the tanks had miniguns installed on the day the bombs fell survivors would have stripped them off as soon as they noticed them. The only crashed veribird in the game with a minigun still attached is the one atop the museum of freedom where it's hidden from sight.
Judging from the wings on the side of the radiators, I'd assume the radiators were retractable and emerge out of the tank for rapid cooling (like sentry bots) or for repairs.
Thanks for your comment! I don't personally see the MG ports, but I do agree that it does look like the radiators are on swivel mounts of some capacity, now that you mention it, and could maybe be adjusted to allow the turret to traverse past them. I'm still not sure it would be able to traverse past the armor piece positioned in front of them however. Either way, certainly not the ideal configuration for fluid combat engagements.
It's clear that considering the lack of coaxial machine gun or any mounted machine gun as well the turret most likely not being made to rotate at all concludes that this tank is more likely a SPG (Self propelled gun) instead of a MBT. I mean come on look at how high those guns would be able to point. Though to be fair these tanks may have never actually seen combat and were only used as propaganda tools or test beds vehicles to see if the concept of a nuclear powered tank would be more cost effective than power armour, It probably wasn't considering power armour was the prewar governments number one commie beating patriot machine that we know and love. Very interesting video, would like to see you talk about the Vertibird if at all possible.
That's a solid point, it really is just a SPG. Not horribly surprising really, I've seen the media refer to almost any heavy military vehicle as a "tank", so such a branding in the fallout universe checks out. I'd love to talk about the Osprey, I mean Vertibird, doesn't get much more iconic than that!
There were a few tanks that held the Patton name - the first being the M46, then the M47, and finally the M48. The M60 MBT also unofficially is associated with this name as well. They all have different armor schemes and turrets. I believe the illustration at 2:39 is of an M41 Walker Bulldog, a light tank with a 76 mm gun.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but at 2:32, there is a diagram shown that claims to be a M46 Patton, but its actually a M41 Walker Bulldog Light Tank
A better nickname for the tank in Fallout is the UUB(Ugly, Useless Bastard). Considering the bonkers amount of corruption at every level in the Fallout universe, it stands to reason that lore reason for this existing is someone in a high position either in the military or the company that makes it throwing money/power around to get their dream tank built over way more practical and useful designs. I can almost guarantee that the majority of crews that had to work on and use these probably hated the shit out of them. As far as not having any kind of machine gun goes, one might assume that, if they had them at all, they were all top mounted and have since been stripped off in the 200 year since the bombs fell. Also, the APCs aren't much better in terms of being designed for form over function.
I don't really know why but UUB immediately made me think of the B-52 BUFF, but that's rude to the Stratofortress. Oh yeah, I have thoughts on the APCs, although I can understand some of the game design constraints they were working with there, seems clear they really wanted the player to be able to walk in them, meaning the profile they were working with had to be absolutely terrible for an actual APC. Its also weird all the guns they put on that thing, making it more of an IFV I guess, but I shudder to see it used like that on an actual battlefield.
It seems to be implied that power armor has filled the tank's role as a breakthrough vehicle, which would make these vehicles more akin to a fire support vehicle like a self propelled gun or a tank destroyer. Power armor deployed from APCs and vertibirds seems to be the preferred order of battle for armored units, presumably tanks would follow shortly behind these strike teams and use their massive cannons to destroy enemy fortifications and/or other tanks that may prove to be a little too tough for armored infantry. In this role it makes more sense why they would have such a comically over the top primary armament.. Two 140mm cannons sounds a lot less stupid when you realize they were most likely only being used to lob high explosive shells into enemy bunkers or occasionally _vaporize_ the Fallout equivalent to a T-55. It also explains the apparent lack of defensive weaponry like a coaxial machine gun, as SPGs typically rely on the support of nearby infantry or other vehicles for virtually all of their defensive needs.
I agree this certainly seems to be the case the few times we get a glimpse into the great war during the Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 intros. Infantry and Power armor tend to be front and center while only a few frames of tank track are seen. Also I'd like to think if tanks still reigned supreme, I wonder why there hasn't been more of an effort by the brotherhood of steel and the like to get some up and running, I mean they could build the Prydwen and maintain vertibirds so it doesn't seem like to much of a stretch that they could fix some tanks if they put their minds to it. I'm quite partial to the SPG theory now that it has been suggested to me, since like you said it explains the lack of secondary armaments. Also, it kind of makes me think of the vehicle less like a tank and more like a tank chassis that happened to have a battleship turret mounted on top of it.
@@spydingo it's also worth noting that power armor had only been in service a few years when the great war happened. The T-51b had only been in service for a year and T-45 upgrade project the T-60 was implied to still be in the final prototype stages when the bombs dropped. It's likely the tanks are much older, probably seeing their roles change and adapt as more and more technology was developed. Casual reminder that for the majority of the Sino-American War, AFVs like these tanks and their APC counterparts were almost certainly front line vehicles, at least until the T-45 and T-51 equipped cavalry broke the stalemate sometime in 2076. Also reminding you that the M4 Sherman is canonically a vehicle that exists in the Fallout universe, and it's possible that the Sherman was actually the primary MBT of the US military, with this nuclear Patton being an equivalent heavy tank or bunker buster... With the introduction of power armor the Sherman would've been quickly made obsolete and phased out hence why we only see them once in the series, however as a bunker buster the Patton would still have a role for now as virtually nothing the T-51 could do filled exactly that niche. Its also entirely possible that the Sherman was actually just a 130 year old WW2 tank that someone restored, but it seems unlikely that after nearly 350 years it would even still run, regardless of how much you fixed it.
Your assumption of two crewmembers is fairly sound, given that it has only two hatches- One for the gunner, one for the commander, and seemingly none for a driver. Considering even 120mm ammo is approaching the limits of what a single human loader can handle, 140mm ammunition certainly requires an autoloader, and there simply isnt enough room for the four loaders needed to feed both cannons at a reasonable speed. Considering the advances in robotics and AI, i'm guessing the tank is either remotely controlled or has a Mr Gutsy-esque AI built into it that controls where its going, with the armament being controlled by a human. As for the lack of machine guns, i'm guessing they were simply detached and/or stolen by soldiers or scavangers over the years. You cant really steal the cannon, its too heavy, but the machine gun you just unbolt and run away with to use it from the shoulder or prone. Ukrainians do the very same thing with russian tanks currently.
I love the idea of having a Robobrain control the turret, what a nice and sassy turret that would be! That's true, the external machine guns could have certainly been removed, I still find it odd though that if this is supposed to be a MBT that it doesn't have a coax gun though.
I think it used to have machineguns but people scavenged them over the 200 years they sat idle , people can't just carry the cannons away so they where left
i imagine that the chryslus patton is more so designed to stay farther back and potentially use its guns for indirect fire, considering we don't know exactly what ammo the guns are built to fire (either APFSDS if that exists or HE/HESH are ammunitions it could fire) and there is no way that the dual 140mm doesn't have an autoloader, because imagine loading a heavy shell with a 14cm radius into a breech that could potentially take your arm with the shell, twice. now do that in a crampt metal can with no air conditioning. doesn't sound like a pretty image, so most likely there is an autoloader on both cannons, and the lack of machineguns and seemingly limited turret traverse could reinforce this idea. just my take on what this tank does
Thanks for your take! I agree, I really like the idea of the Chryslus Patton being an absurd SPG rather than a MBT. Based on the comments I've read, the consensus seems to agree that it's gotta have an autoloader so you are in good company!
In regards to the machine gun after all the years this tank has been sitting out, it’s likely that it was taken. Either during the opening days following the bombs dropping or at some point. The radiators seemed to be position next to what look like hatches. My own best guess is that they could be exposed to the elements in cold climates to help with heat. But closed If going into battle. Hidden within the tank. Id need to get a better look at it. Actually. Do we know if this tank was made before or after the mass implementation of power armor? Cause that could vastly change the overall application since PA was butchering Chinese tanks.
@@user_name_redacted seems likely alltough i still dont really get why they stuck with an lewis gun look alike that was antiqated some 150 years before the great war
even though power armor basically carries you everywhere, youre still moving your legs, requires highly specialized training to use, and doesnt have nearly the range (firing or walking) as a vehicle, its also important to note that the Chinese did not have any power armor, and while a power armor equipped American could use a rocket launcher, or a Fat Man, they still do not retain the range, capacity, or accuracy of the main gun (s) of a tank
Solid points on the range, capacity, and accuracy advantages a vehicle system would have over something like Power Armor. You couldn't reasonably expect a soldier in power armor to go 30 mph that's for sure, they are more like infantry than tanks in that regard no doubt.
To me the little "guard rails" around the hatches look like WW1 era mountain points for machine guns. See the M18 in war thunder for what I'm talking about. That being said we do find 50 cals in 76 which makes me assume said guns would be mounted on those rails, they were likely just cut from 4 for one reason or another
Given its design and everything you pointed out here, I'm guessing that (speaking from a practical/realistic POV), the most probable use for a "tank" like this would be like what Hitler wanted the Ratte for, which is a mobile bunker replacement. These things have heavy armor, can get into position fairly quickly, and only really need to face one direction at a time. From what I can see both barrels are not independent meaning they are always pointing at the same target. If I had to guess this would either be to do specific penetrating shots (I.E. something like A.P. out of one with H.E. quickly following), either that or to more or less have a rapid fire tank and put as much lead down range as possible, seeing the exposed radiators like that also makes me think this thing isn't meant to move around a whole lot and is much better suited to staying in an entrenchment.
A good example for the lack of machine guns flaw would be the Ferdinand tank destroyer, which in some cases out of desperation the Germans resorted to firing smg's through the gun barrel.
2:05 That's actually the m48 Patton, not the m46 Patton used in Korea. Though they both confusingly share the same names the major difference being the m46 has a steeper (And flatter) hull and a turret that gives its resemblance to the earlier m26 Pershing, the m48 patton has a stronger version of the prior tanks 90mm, as well as a more rounded hull (and a commander's cupola that can rotate and operate as a turret of it's own for a machine gun). There's also the m47 patton and m60 patton but well... that's a whole different can of worms.
On the subject of Machine Guns - There's a reason the trend in WWII was for American tanks to have more and more machine guns. Each additional machine gun improved a tank's survivability significantly. That is why even today you sometimes see the M1 Abrams with as many as 3 machine guns - Two on the roof and one next to the big gun in the turret.
machine guns being stuck on the roof of tanks was to counter close air support primarily, sending a bunch of tracers at a dive bomber made them have to focus on not dying as well as landing a bomb, other countries produced more specialized anti-air vehicles the US could just mass produce the M2 at an insane rate and could afford to stick them on everything.
4:11 as a welder we use cutting torches using acetylene and oxygen not straight up blowtorches although I'm sure its done, just not sure if the one in game is directly linked to welding
Also if you think welding is that much more of a simple process compared to riveting metal together then I def recommend you give it a go, specifically SMAW like those in the 40s and 50s would've like my grandfather
7:16 a tidbit on the F4 Phantom, the machine gun wasn’t something that magically changed the F4’s performance. Gun kills were still pretty low compared to missiles, and once missiles were fixed for the naval Phantoms they would be dangerous to attack as an NVA pilot.
oh for sure, I don't think I made it clear in the video, but it was more of a psychological thing in my opinion, at least so far as in why modern day jets have guns. Prefer to have a tool in your toolbelt even if logically you know you should never have to use it. Though, I must admit the comparison to tanks is limited at best, I just wanted to talk about the Phantom lol
Machineguns or other anti-personnel weapons were likely removed br scavengers. The rails around the commander's hatch is likely a mount point. Some version of a minigun would be useful. The main enemy was either Canadians during the annexation. The Chinese who did not have power armor and tended to exploit stealth tech more. Putting down a lot of HE and withering minigun fire seems like the best option. Using the tank as suggested like mobile artillary.
I know this vehicle is modeled to be a tank, but when I look at it, and its missing features you point out, I see a twin cannon self-propelled howitzer, which does have real world parallels in Scandinavia. It explains why both barrels are on the same turret but have potential for different firing angles. Rudimentary simultaneous fire with better grid coverage? Tasked failed successfully?
Hmmm. To answer that at the end of the video. Think not of power armour as a tank. But as classical heavy infantry. As one main bonus of a tank is it's speed. Power armour, even when the user is sprinting, is no faster than a normal infantryman. And also remembering the commies didn't have power armour of their own, the corvega patton is probably better served as an anti vehicle tank destroyer. rather than mbt. Fast, low profile, no machine guns. And in an ambush, a single tank could take out two enemy targets in quick succession before needing to reload and relocate? Pretty damn useful, and the added bonus of being used like this, not having a fully traversable turret is not as big a detriment if wwII designs are anything to go by. And if not as a tank destroyer, use it as a breakthrough tank. 2 140mm shells into a bunker will make damn sure that particularly annoying bunker/gun position is out of action, allowing smaller, lighter vehicles like the APC to move through the breach, and disgorge their deadly, power armoured cargo into whatever defensive line you want broken Also the smaller factor that pintle machine guns could be mounted onto the patton with ease, given the curved rails around the hatches in the turret if need be.
That is true. Also, since the commies have to launch an naval invasion to take over US territory. The tank could be used in shoot and scoot manner. To bombard communist landing craft as they are coming ashore. Then fall back once the communists establish a beach head, only to bombard them again the second they regroup and try to push inland. Conducting an continuous mobile defense so long as ammunition supplies last. As the nuclear engine means that the tank doesn't have to worry about refueling. Like the Tiger I, this tank might have been envisioned as a break through heavy tank. But it would show its real teeth on the defensive. Just like how the Tiger I shredded through a lot of Sherman's during WW2. And the M26 Pershing decimated attacking T-34-85's during the Korean war.
A common use for tanks even as far back as the world wars, is SPG's, or Self Propelled Guns. In a world where something like the Fatman exists, meaning that nuclear devastation is capable even at low-range artillery scale with relative safety, scaling that technology up to a heavy tank chassis would just be beautiful. The purpose of an SPG is similar to that of a standard tank, but as opposed to being primarily a means of fighting enemy tanks and providing close support to the siege of hardpoints, the SPG acts as a mobile artillery piece, while also being capable of any other tank's supporting roles provided that its lunch money isn't being stolen by another tank. So while the normal roles a tank would fulfill in our world is absolutely more suited to power armor units given the tech levels of Fallout, the potential of a heabily-armored, fully mobile, potentially autonomous, nuclear-shell-lobbing artillery piece equipped with a highly advanced targetting software would make MacArthur pop his top, rivets or not.
Interesting video and well thought out. I suspect the ‘designer’ is maybe not such a tank fan as could have been. No machine guns, restricted turret traverse, riveted armor, exposed radiators(what happens to a nuclear reactor when it’s coolant capacity is disabled?), and dual cannon seems like a nightmare that leads to many problems. Would love to see more FO content. .
Thanks for your comment! Its interesting how separated the two guns are in the VT, stands in stark contrast to the design of the Chryslus Patton, 'spose that's what happens when your design is governed by reality eh?
@@spydingo yeah, I agree, my best guess is that if a round misses a target, the tank computer quickly correct the trajectory and shoot a 2nd, more accurate shoot without giving the enemy time to react. Maybe they wanted it to have a turret instead of a self propelled gun and this forced them to put the 2 guns in that position to have a narrower turret. How much this is better than having/investing on a more accurate gun i have no idea.
For rivets it could be a case like in the Halo series, common use of energy weapons against your armor tends to result in expensive replacements of said armor panels. Rivets were used to be able to simply pop off the damages panel and bolt on the new Panel. Granted this is most prevalent on UNSC ships and the scorpion chassies compared to post war vehicles like the mantis or mamoth. Similar is seen in 40k where marine will have "bonding studs" on their armor which are just magnetic rivets which allow quick swapping of damaged armor or attachment of magnetic metals as temporary armor.
Like a weak sister to the Mammoth Tanks of Command and Conquer. But perhaps considering that they had energy weapons and definitely the ability to make very small, nuclear munitions, in FO, maybe the dual 140 cannons were nuclear-shells with a heavy anti-air laser battery. The only thing I find absurd about it is the rivets. A weld is indeed cheaper and more secure. Honestly as for not being able to traverse its turret 360°, those radiators look exposed as if they're meant to slide down and into the tank's chassis; meaning they're undergoing maintenance as there is a hatch covering open behind them. I don't pretend to know nor is there a way to interpret what their armor is composed of. There needs to be a way to shield the crew from the reactors radiation.
Quick note, but the fact about the crazy inflation in Fallout is that for the most part the percentage of inflation is actually not that far off from the current rate of inflation. The US on average has its inflation around 2-3% per 10 years. The prices listed in the Fallout universe are only slightly higher at around 2.5-4% inflation. Meaning the high prices we see are actually not that far off from what they would be assuming the US had a consistent inflation rate. The crazy inflation is mostly towards things involving oil since there was a scarcity at the time. And imports from other countries since Europe had basically gone to shit even before the Great War.
I imagine that given the existence of power armor, "tanks" would more likely be self-propelled artillery or assault gun. And the Fallout 4 tank definitely looks insufficiently armored to be a true tank. But I could see those two cannons being useful to provide fire support to advancing infantry.
If memory serves this is not actually a tank, but a Self Propelled gun or artillery piece. That would partially explain the lack of a machine gun. As for power armor, it is not meant to replace a tank, as the armor on it would be much much weaker. The goal of Power Armor was to allow for a single soldier to carry heavier weaponry, as for why its not shown in the games? Anyones guess TLDR it’s not really a tank it’s a self propelled gun, and power armor isn’t for protection it’s for carrying heavy weapons.
We always regard this vehicle as a "tank" but considering the lack of a machine gun, 360 turret traverses, and the presence of 2 cannons ide say it's more possible that the vehicle Is actually a self propelled howitzer.
Here’s something. Maybe tanks were at all times supposed to be accompanied by 1-2 power armor units which is why they didn’t have built in mgs. Also while the power armor may cost more, it likely cost less for maintenance. And considering the Great War and all, the tanks were likely designed to target ground installations and forts, thus allowing regular combat armor units to follow behind while sustaining minimal casualties.
The turret wouldn't be able to turn much at all, due to it smacking into the angled hull at the back. The hull is angled in such a way that the back of the turret is almost touching while it's facing forward. Turning it more than a few inches in either direction would be impossible. The front also has a severe lack of angled armor and it would eat shots like a starved pig. 1:29 Did you really say the tank's manufacturer could be Chryslus or Corvega? That's like saying it would be cool if a car manufacturer was Ford or Mustang.
I would love to see The Chieftain do an April Fool's satirical review of this thing. I can hear it now, "Let's take a minute to talk about track tension, shall we?"
Well you never know, if this video does well enough The Chieftain just might. As an aspiring content creator myself, one of the things I keep seeing suggested is the lift and twist, take something hot and trendy and make it your own lol
1:01 My running theory is that yes while this would result in more complex maintaining by repair staff, We need to remember that the Mister Handy model of robot had been adapted for military use via the "Mister Gutsy" line, My guess is that due to it's multiple attachments/appendages this would compensate for repair time in hand with human mechanics.
I remember that the corvega major selling points is the whole systems is mechanic and not electric. Meaning probably they choose this design of a tank for looking extremely American. Or to give jobs to riveters or to increase time or whatever dumd plan of a head director had in mind. Case in point the whole Big Mt
Actually I would see this tank serving in the second Vietnam war that went on in the Fallout universe by the time of operation Anchorage it would have already been obsolet and I wouldn't see them going into the Battle of Anchorage anyways due to the treads and I would more so see the Americans having their own version of the Crimea tank normally for traversing the snowy terrains.
It's more than likely that the tank is not actually a tank it is more likely an artillery piece as the role of tank in the fallout universe was replaced by power armour in its entirety at least in the US army. If you where to look at this from a in universe and logical sense it is far more likely that it's actually an artillery system.
I think the armor is riveted because the main threat to the tank would be energy weapons and armor would need to be exchanged regularly due to melting. Lasers also wouldn't make rivets a threat to the crew since they'd melt.
That is fair, and tracks with the Chimera being the only known opposition tank, and it's energy based. Although calling the Chimera a tank is being a bit generous.
There are speculations that this specific tank, is a reference to the Mammoth tank from Command & Conquer, and every other quad-track dual-cannon heavy tank, that came out afterwards.
As a 19K, Tanker in the U.S Army I can go ahead and say the Abrams tank is capable of a top speed of 60 mph. Though I've personally managed mine at 64 mph on a downhill. The Abrams out of factory is governed at 45 mph limiting it to just that. The governor is a physical component and can be removed during services. Thus was the reason I was able to achieve such speed.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm certainly new to the whole audio thing. I used a blue yeti for this video and I think that's part of the problem as well. I'm having to run it through not only logitech's noise reduction, but also Nvidias noise reduction software to cut out the AC I have going on right behind me. I actually got a Dynamic microphone this week in an attempt to combat that and improve audio quality. So hopefully that will help too, in addition to following your advice.
My head cannon is that this is not an MBT but a dedicated tank destroyer, I feel with the advent of power armor as an intermediate step between infentry and AFVs the need for a true MBT might not be as high, in essence combined arms in their universe would be infentry to screen for power armor or air mobility, power armor for breakthrough/shock style formations, the APC/IFV to move infentry quickly, possibly some kind of niche specialized APC/IFV for power armor units (the one in game can apparently do this), some kind of dedicated fire support AFV, possibly with autocannons to deal with both light AFVs, power armor and soft targets, specialized stuff like SPAA and SPH, then some kind of more generalist tank as an intermediate step between this and the anti power armor AFVs, this would be more geared towards modern MBT docturn but not used in as large numbers as the mass use of power armor would leave them for more specialized use, this massive tank destroyer would be used like the traditional TDs of our world, possibly augmented with some kind of lighter anti tank systems employing ATGMs in addition to power armor/standard infentry units with AT weaponry in the form of the rocket and missile launchers we see, possibly with some kind of specialized large caliber recoilless rifles duel purposed as both power armor man portable and tripod mounted for infentry use
You sir, have great head cannon. Please continue to share! The Self Propelled artillery theory is currently my favorite given the lack of known formidable enemy tanks in world. I mean there is the Chimera, but a modified mining rig isn't much of a tank. That being said though, there certainly could be better adversary tanks out there that we just don't know about yet making a tank destroyer a good thing to have.
I hate this tank. Aside from the impracticalities covered in this video, I disagree with it looking cool, and think it looks stupid as hell, it's too small, meaning there's bugger all room for the massive 140mm shells and the crew compartment must be incredibly cramped, worse than WW1 and 2 era vehicles, and the lack of angled plating means it isn't armoured anywhere near as well as it could or should be. Best use I can think of for it is as a distraction for real tanks, or as artillery magnets/cannon fodder.
Very fair! Its certainly not a look for everyone. I just like the absurdity of taking a tank chassis and then trying to mount something akin to a battleship turret on it
Been to a couple of Tank Fests. The first one I went to had American Armour as its theme, and there were so many American tanks and vehicles that had been brought down for the festival. Never seen so many Sherman's, of different mark, in one place before.
I prefer to think of this "tank" as more akin to an armored self-propelled gun that just looks like a bad tank. It would make the dual cannons more practical and explain the limited traverse of the turret imo.
6:32 you simply think that in the future when nuclear holocaust happen and no one is gonna salvage a random machine gun that attached to a malfunction tank? Also the game is a whole new concept so maybe the way and where they mount those LMG is different, i think.
I think there's one use for a tank that was left out of the video - heavy firepower against fixed positions, IE bunkers. The tank's main gun would be far more effective against concrete emplacements than the smaller Power Armor-portable weapons, and more stable due to a higher-mass firing platform. It would also likely out-range the Power Armor weaponry, and possibly be less susceptible to EMP weaponry, as we saw that the Operation Anchorage EMP field stopped power armor effectively. The tanks would likely be supported by Power Armor anyway, due to combined arms theory of military action. Tanks are supported by infantry and vice versa, with Power Armor acting as a middle-ground that can be used like a light tank or IFV in tighter spaces. It's like "rock, paper, scissors", but "infantry, PA, tank." Also, I thought lore stated that Power Armor was a far more limited supply of equipment and higher training requirements than traditional armor. At least, until Fallout 4 with the entire US Army inventory scattered around Boston in silly little cages.
Solid point about the hardened positions. I do think this tank does make some decent sense as a SPG. Also your right, Power Armor should have a far more limited supply with Fusion cores being developed rather late into the great war, and those cores being what allowed West Tek to manufacture the t-45 and t-51. So the tank should be more prevalent I agree, yet it is only found in Boston, at least so far, a fact I find quite strange. Then again though, the APC only showed up in Boston as well, and I'm hoping against hope that thing was designed in tandem with Power Armor to justify its insane height profile Also agreed, it is a shame they made power armor so prevalent in 4, although I do like the design change to differentiate it from armor and make it more of a vehicle, though at the same time, that makes the lack of a training requirement even more mystifying. So I guess one step forward two back lol.
I enjoyed the video. I would imagine the tanks may have _had_ guns, but they have since been scavenged and removed (I mean, the very first thing you do after the vault is rip the gun off of a vertibird).
How exactly do you kill a tank with a hand grenade? (6:48) No, rolling it down the barrel doesn't work. The breech-block would prevent anything from getting into the turret. The rest of the tank is armored enough that the grenade wouldn't do any damage. And my main question is, what the heck is on the tank in front of the tracks?
Well what I was thinking was you would open the hatch, but game limitations made that less than doable. My favorite theory so far is they are recovery/towing points to tow the tank out whenever it gets stuck, like say on a Boston beach.
@@spydingo If a tank's hatch is shut from the inside, you can't open it from the outside (for precisely this reason). Sometimes tanks will go into combat unbuttoned for greater visibility, like for tank-on-tank combat; but when there's an infantry threat, an exposed tank commander will be quickly killed, so they will likely button up. As for those things being tow points, since I don't recognize them at all, I guess that's possible. It looks more like something designed to protect the tracks to me, but who knows. My tank (former M60A3 Tank Platoon Leader here) had a tow pintle in the back center of the tank that looked nothing like these.
I agree wholeheartedly about this tank being an artillery support it reminds me of so many German artillery pieces during World War II and I don’t see any use for it in the front lines of the war of Alaska or even in the war and The invasion of Communist China not as a front line vehicle I agree the only way I can see this in any use in prewar Boston in a testing ground for that tank seeing how it does in the environment they’re testing it on the same location they made the fat man trial by error I’m assuming(PS awesome video keep up the awesome work buddy)
Thank you! It is certainly a possibility, Halo's scorpion tank comes to mind, but I'm going to start with analyzing other Fallout vehicles with the hope I can branch out to general lore and maybe continue that momentum into Starfield, but it really depends on what kind of feedback I get.
I truely dislike the design of the assault rifle in FO4, thing looks like a damn machine gun from WW1, imagine the weight of that clunky hunk of garbage.
Honestly, they could've taken the M60 Patton, fitted Lasers and a Rail Cannon onto it, added a few futuristic range finders and perhaps a Fuel Cell driven engine and they would've had a much better looking tank than this piece of over engineered wunderwaffe crap.
Tanks take heavy firepower to kill than power armored troopers, they require less training to operate, they can move faster, fewer specialized parts and training to repair, can carry more firepower, and lastly; can give a display of battlefield dominance/presence that power armor troops cannot. For instance, you really notice there is a tank there barreling towards you, you might not notice the power armored guy or be scared of him; you're definitely scared of that tank. Tanks great at Open Plains, Grassland, or hilly areas Power Armor good for forests, cities, and dense close range engagements Those are some pretty good differences to keep in mind.
I don't think a powerarmor can carry 100+mm guns into battle. One of the main reasons for tanks is to bring a mobile cannon. Another note is that a machinegun was probably mounted on the railing in front of the commanders hatch, but has been removed through early years of looting.
This tank is pointless, but a modern light tank with some uparmor, tow missiles and a autocannon would work wonderfully in fallout. Because yeah, the power armor itself might fare well against anti armor weaponry, there's still a man in there with not a lot of wiggle room to dodge any incoming shrapnel.
Superb video - you just got a new Subscriber! If you want to follow up on it, I'd love to see a video on the APC that exists at the Military Checkpoints across Boston in Fallout 4, as well as in Fallout 76.
So regarding the MGs on the tank - and I agree the thing is entirely ridiculous - but maybe they were pintle mounted and as the centuries wore on after the war, scavengers pulled them all off.
Dude I've thought about the feasibility of the MBT and IFV from fallout and to be honest they don't make sense. The fallout MBT doesn't have enough space for a crew of four. The dual barrels in the turret takes up far too much room. The crew would have the be seated behind the breach which is a pretty big no no. Unless the had the crew in the haul like the Russian T14 or the new Abrams experimental tank.
I think you hit it with the last point, seeing the vertical rise angle of the main cannons: The probability of ever facing an enemy tank or a civilian vehicle capable of stopping one was next to zero, but having unruly civilians to run over or some cheeky chinese bombers nearing the coast? Almost a guarantee. Apart from the tacky rivets, another fatal flaw of the tanks is their abundance of flat sides and lack of angled plates of armor suggest they never were meant so much for warfare but civil protection and "pacification". Those quad tracks would make short work of flattening any civilian vehicle short of a bus or a rig. Oh, and about the machineguns, if FO4's intro mission is any indication, they were probably there, and automated, before stranded power armor units yanked them off stranded tanks to defend themselves, or crafty civilians eventually removed them when the war cooled down in the years after. In any case, it is a cool-looking tank, _until you really go to town into role-playing_ as a budding and rising nation leader, and your engineers realize that they're too rusted and badly designed to even bother, and instead scrap them for parts to build lighter, faster and maneuverable medium armored fleet of vehicles to _blitzkrieg any burlap sack-masked town of punks that just yee'd their last haw when they touched one of your supply routes, hahah._
In a world where man portable nuclear weapons are a thing, having a dual barrel 140mm cannon does not sound too far fetched for conventional direct fire against bunkers (HE) and defensive structures, infantry (cannister shot) or tanks. Meanwhile, dudes in power armor and GIs would account for the short range tank defence
Hey y'all, thanks so much for watching and for all the likes, comments, and subs. This is the first video I've made that has approached 1k views, let alone surpassed it. Thanks again for making this possible!
Unfortunately, they made the lore book of the fallout universe say that the tank is more way expensive than power armor. Which is why us army switched to power armor. Todd fucked it up.
Earned a sub
The tank has machine guns. To be more specific, it has two places where a medium support machine gun would have been mounted. Now, true that it's missing a co axle machine gun for the turret, but give that it can swivel 360, a coaxle might not be that important. You can see the metal ring at 6:50 pretty well. Thats where they would have attached a medium machine gun and if I had to guess, the reason it isn't there is because some raiders probably came along, saw it, and thought it was a nice big gun they could use to better raid places. Probably undid a few screws and ran off with it.
Yo. Do the apc next.
Also, you missed the fact that this tank doesn't have 1 camera, cuppola, periscope, or vision slit. There's nothing
Nice video man, liked it allot.
With regards to the traverse of the turret, it appears that the radiators can fold away. This not only allows the turret to do a full rotation, but also helps protect the radiators themselves in combat. It would also make combat more interesting as you would have to consider heat build up vs getting blown up by the enemy aiming at the glowing bits.
I'm sure that's what a tanker wants, combat to be more interesting lol. I think it would make more sense to put the radiator in the rear Valkyria Chronicles style, that way its protected from the most important angles, and if the enemy is behind you, well, its a bad day anyways.
@@spydingo To be fair, the designers thought to use rivets, which while they increase the ease of changing armour pieces, can fly around the inside like bullets if the tank is hit wrong. So maybe the people who came up with the idea thought it was necessary to liven up a tankers day, the shiftless bastards.
@@spydingo not necessarly you could be able to operate for a while without having to use radiators. Most likely reactor was used to provide electric energy to power engines. This means you could have batteries and/or heatsinks to extend combat capability without need to deploy radiators. Fallout has frequently techs that require power transmision, storage and capacity more advance than our current tech. This means that thing could potentialy only operate with extended radiators in cruise mode.
I've had the same thought, regarding the flaps over those radiators.
You are overthinking a small detail. All of these channels are. The devs gave this far less thought than everyone else did.
On your point about power armor, a certain mysterious storyteller once said that power armor can't replace tanks and can be pierced by anti-tank/anti-materiel weapons. I can confirm this is true after blasting a bunch of Gunners in X-01 power armor with RPGs, missiles, and .50 caliber rounds.
To be fair, the RPGs and missiles would probably be a problem for the tank too, but your right. I mean pretty much anything can break power armor, a point that bothers me, just like the vertibirds that can be shoot down with a light breeze!
I'm sure though, that the tank would still serve a purpose on the battlefield during the great war even with power armor, I'm just not sure how that purpose changes with Power Armor existing. That being said, not a huge thing to worry about I suppose, given a 40ft commie slaying robot exists in universe as well.
You know, that actually makes me think of a question, if one was to pilot Liberty Prime, does Liberty Prime become a Mech?
@@spydingo dunno, though its possible the tank was designed to work in concert with power armor equipped troops, providing heavy fire support as the the PA troops protect the tank from enemy infantry. Surprisingly not too dissimilar to modern doctrine for using tanks in urban combat environments: infantry screens the tanks while the tanks themselves provide fire support.
@@spydingo rpgs and missiles would have trouble with the frontal armor. it takes firing at the top or potentially rear and maybe the sides to penetrate it
Power armor cant, but robots might be able to. Liberty prime was just short of being made functional when the bombs fell, and once they had a functioning model of such a powerful robot, odds are they would work on making it mass producable.
Sure they shelved it over a few hangups nobody in pre war america could solve, but clearly they were overreacting if they could be solved post war
I think it is also possible that these tanks were in use prior to the introduction of power armor, and thus hadnt been fully phased out by the time of the great war, hell it was mentioned that power armor itself was still in fairly limited use. you also have to consider that much like the t-60 armors, the ones we see in game were likely deployed in the area to quell civil unrest, a role that they probably would still be fairly good at even without any sort of anti-personel weapons like coaxial or hull mg's.
Considering that in the FO universe the military already had energy weapons as standard for infantry, there could be a possibility that the Chryslus Patton used some sort of coaxial or heavy energy weapon. These MGs could be fired with the same energy provided by the tank's Nuclear Reactor without the need to carry additional ammunition for them reducing the total weight of the ammunition compared to current tanks that still require ammunition for these weapons (this considering that the Minigun laser uses Fusion Cores as ammunition even though these are primarily fuel for Power Armors) the "ports" for these secondary armaments could potentially be in the front and middle of the hull and on the top of the turret above the guns 140mm twins (that second could be the targeting system, though), also on the right cupola in the grilles there is an apparently unnecessary notch, maybe there was some other secondary armament here for infantry or air defense that could have been
And as for the role of these, thanks probably the US Army saw some potential for these tanks to advance an offensive by providing heavy firepower (while perhaps being followed by Power Armor units) and subsequently being used as mobile artillery emplacements or for defense using perhaps some kind of nuclear ammunition (something similar to the Fatman)
I love your content and I would like to know what you think of this and if you could make a continuation video to see points like these in other comments
I think the energy weapon angle is a very good and creative way to fix this tank's model and the lack of having to carry ammo to reduce weight would be a huge boon given its weight of 60 tons and its propensity to get stuck on small dunes on Boston beaches. That being said though, its hard for me to see any of this tanks heavily rusted surfaces and believe that any of them could have allowed for something as awesome as a laser to shoot through them.
I'm not super convinced that this tank would be any good at assaults myself, I still see it more as a SPG, as another commenter pointed out, this explains the lack of MGs. Also now that the lack of sloping armor, and frontal armor in general, along with the numerous shot traps, have been pointed out to me in the comments. I have a hard time seeing the Chryslus Patton being survivable enough to spearhead anything. I suppose though, if this is the only tank the US army has for the job, it would probably be used as the spearhead regardless since other weapon systems are even less suited for the role.
I love the idea of the 140mm rounds being nuclear in nature, that is the kind of absurdity I could get behind in a fallout tank.
Thanks I appreciate the kind words and support! This is the first video I've made that has even approached 1k views, let alone surpassed it, I'm blown away by the engagement. I'm certainly open to making a continuation video in the future, like you said, there have been incredibly informative and enlightening comments that would be fun to elucidate on. I figure I really should learn how to put out a community poll and let you all help me decide what video concept I work on next.
@@spydingo or what i thought of immediately when you mentioned it... they were probably taken by wastelanders since all we can see are the wrecks of these and that the machineguns usually can be repurposed for use with infantry aka raiders or whatever
Also, maybe the crew has an Energy machine gun of some sort inside the tank. Many WW2 heavy armoured vehicles such as German tank Hunters did not have a coaxial machine gun but they had One inside the tank that the crew could mount on the cupola to shoot both infantry and aircrafts.
If I had any complaint with this idea it's only that energy weapons of fallout seem to have the opposite problems of real life where in fallout the heavy energy weapons like gatling lasers and plasma casters were spoken of being the bleeding edge before the war meanwhile the far more portable laser pistols and the like were around long enough to make the civilian and police markets.
So while very possible that those could be plasma cannons they were much more likely typical cannons.
Though that is a really cool idea ngl.
It seems to literally have power armor docks too.
The side view of the patton you showed was actually an m41 bulldog.
Also looks to me like the tank has coaxial machine gun ports and the rails around the cupolas could have been intended to have machine gun mounts, similar to what you would see on a lot of german tanks in ww2. It would be highly likely that these exposed machine guns would have gotten looted a long time ago
Correct you are, thanks for pointing that out!
Solid points on the possibilities for mounted machine guns as well.
@@spydingo also you said that the f4 phantom was relying solely on rockers but even in the photos them selves it has a rotating machinegun under its nose.
@@jurkoskvarka2154
Early variants of the Phantom were built without the rotary cannon in the nose because they were designed to solely rely on their air to air missiles to shoot down other aircraft (Missile busses as they were nicknamed). However it was soon discovered that a cannon on the aircraft was actually necessary for closer engagements against other aircraft and to strafe ground targets if available. While the design work on a phantom that could carry a cannon was in place, they started attaching gun pods to the bellies of the phantoms and, depending on the branch, these ranged from the M61 Vulcan to the Mk12 colt 20mm autocannons.
@@bb-152ussmeta9 ok.
Thank you for corecting me
@@bb-152ussmeta9 The cannon necessity thing is only partially true and dependent on training since _Air Force_ F4s with cannons were nearly useless when it came to gun kills while the Navy variants got more but still outnumbered by the number of successful missile kills they had.
Also, there is a fourth advantage tanks have over power armor that you didn't mention! The US Army features tanks that can elevate their guns higher than most because in a pinch, they can serve as artillery pieces. It's likely these tanks, with their two 140mm guns that can elevate independently, are actually intended to be used more as Artillery than Front-Line units. They follow the Power Armor Infantry, lay down the boom on anything the Power Armor can't handle from a safe distance, and just generally don't fight on the front line. Heck, even the gun caliber supports this - Once you start getting above 127mm guns, you're usually using the gun as field artillery, not anti-tank.
If you're a tank enthusiast, there's a place out near Uvalde (in Texas) where you can drive & shoot a tank. Prices vary, ranging from $500 to $3000 depending on which tank you choose & what you want to do (ride along, drive, shoot a round, etc.), but heck - that's about a weekend at Comic-Con so why not?
As for the one in-game, I really really REALLY hope Fallout 5 lets us drive one of these around & use it. There's been a lot of speculation online that it will include driveable vehicles, so here's hoping!
Yo, I love that business model. They get to sell things like "The Sherman Package", that's awesome.
Given Fallout 5 won't be out for like a decade, it better! At the very least, I'm confident modders will find a way.
@@spydingo There's already a mod that puts driveable Humvees into the game, but sadly no tanks yet that I know of.
in the uk you can drive one legaly there is a loophole
@@spydingo modders have already done it in new Vegas, say what you want about The Frontier, but it had drivable vehicles
Holy fuck thank you for telling me this!
This tank is pretty much the result of Bethesda asking "what is every horrible decision that can be made in designing a tank"
Their gun design isn't any better either. It all boils down to no one at Bethesda understanding how weapons or tanks work. Their APC is top heavy as hell and has ludicrously small wheel base.
@@Mirthful_Midori The thing is, I don't see that as Bethesda having bad design, it's them designing bulky and unweildy weapons for a bulky and unweildy military. Firearms are only as nonsensical as the doctrine that calls for them.
@@tylerp.5004 This is a bit of a cop out answer honestly. Historically, the series never concerned itself much over impracticalities, but there was a believability to it with the original entries to the series. Bethesda never considered believability, assuming that it needed to look wacky and 50s "unique"
It fits in with the "Corporations are BAD" motif. With all the different lore bits talking about cost overruns and scheduling delays, this could just be an in-universe example of the corruption that exists within the military-industrial complex.
I think it's just part of the retrofuturism really
artstyles like this usually take a Design Over Logic approach
3:34 fun fact: all british tanks come equipped with a boiling vessel (a kettle for boiling water for tea) as standard, could be the tank comes standard with a small personal water purifier on board.
3:56 tank may be riveted in spots that don't need as much maintenance as other parts to save materials, welding tank hulls uses a lot of welding filler, and depending on the type of welding, also uses acetylene gas, argon in the case of mig welding, also paying for the skilled labor to fit rivets makes sense from an ideological standpoint, Fallout US was intensely anti-communist, so chances are there'd be political push to keep riveters in good paying work over outmoding them. From a resource standpoint, the US may have lacked the materials or fuels needed to weld as the standard, such as the gases for welding, and the electrical power needed for arc welding may not have been available. It may also depend on the availability of the metals and elements the tanks hull is made of, there may have been enough to make the hull but not to weld it together, or it may be comprised of a metal or a composite material that either can't be welded, or simply requires too much heat and power to weld effectively for combat.
4:47 the weight may not be all that important depending on the tanks overall intended battlefield role, the sherman was badly outgunned by german panther and tiger tanks, but it wasn't designed to kill other tanks, it was designed for infantry support, in a role like this combined with a tank killer role, it makes sense for armor and gun size to be the priority over the weight and the speed, no need to make a sports car if its only ever meant to be working along side sprinting infantry.
5:05 this same weakness affects tanks with welded hulls as well, its called spalling and its typically countered by fitting a spall liner, a protective layer on the internal side of the hull meant to diffuse and absorb most metal fragments blasted loose from the hull. Spalling is an accepted and accounted for fact of life in tank design.
5:12 from the overall look of the tanks turret I'm gonna make a few guesses, each gun is gyroscopically stabilized, either separately or together as one unit, allowing for more accurate firing and aiming while on the move, the small hatch centered above the two guns may be a shell ejection hatch, if so, this suggests the guns have to be reloaded one at a time, ejecting the shell into the compartment above the gun then out of the hull. Though its position means shells would get caught on the gun barrels, and pile on the hull at a stopped firing position, of course this assumes the rounds it fires have a leftover shell at all. The abrams uses ammunition that discards parts of itself as it flies through the air, enabling it to travel much faster towards its target, and with more accuracy, something similar might be the case here.
5:44 based on the caliber size and the design of the tanks turret i think its a safe assumption this thing is autoloaded
6:04 this makes sense, but I think its a safe bet to assume that centuries left sitting abandoned will have resulted in alot of the sights, and targeting systems having either degraded to the point of uselessness, or having been scavenged and salvaged for parts and components by survivors.
6:20 If you look closely at the radiators you'll notice they're mounted on a hinge, I'd be willing to bet these radiators are a part of an active cooling system which can be switched on and off by the crew as needed. when shut off, the radiators rotate themselves flat against the hull, or retract into it enabling the hatch they're poking out of to close, giving the turret a greater range of rotation than when its deployed.
6:38 again, centuries in the wasteland, if they had any machine guns, someone nabbed 'em. And depending on its intended battlefield role, it may not have needed them.
8:40 My guess is this tank would be used for mobile infantry support and anti-tank roles, likely from the rear behind a screen of infantry and lighter armored vehicles, as its big and slow, not well equipped for fighting up close, uses riveting in its hull plate joining suggesting surviving hits was an afterthought, and seems to use its systems and components as shields for the crew rather than heavy armor, so this thing is not designed for frontline spearhead use. its design suggests it can be used as stop gap artillery support to some extent, a 2-3 man crewed design suggests its mostly automated, probably relatively simple to maintain in comparison to power armor, but still quite complex and requiring detailed and in depth maintenance, a sherman, this thing is not. The braces in front of the tracks suggest this thing can be equipped with pushing/pulling attachments, so it can be used for logistics to some extent, and be used to create crude defenses, they could also be tow points, suggesting this thing gets stuck ALOT. Its track design suggests its intended for specific terrain conditions rather than equipped to handle whatever it comes across.
In a nutshell its a badly thrown together dog's breakfast of a tank, and its no wonder its nothing but an old rusted wreck now.
Wow, thanks for this well thought out comment, I really appreciate it!
That's amazing, I hope if tank's make it into Fallout London they include that feature and way over emphasize it. Solid points about the welding and I like your point about the US government and the Red Menace, I could see such a scenario occurring although I think it would likely depend on if the government was manufacturing the tanks, or a private corporation. I don't get the sense that many of the known Fallout corporations would do anything that would hurt their profit margins. Also, thanks for pointing out Spall liners, looks like they weren't introduced until the early 80's which would explain why I never heard of em' in all those WW2 docs I've watched.
Having gone back and taken another look, I agree that it certainly seems like that's an ejection hatch between the two barrels suggesting the two cannons are not linked which is cool. Similarly, after looking over the radiator design following helpful comments like this , I see what I thought was a protective back plate, was actually the roof to the radiators armored compartment, and it looks pretty clear that they could be retracted. Really solid ideas on what this tank would be used for too, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say those braces are tow points since every one of these things I remember seeing in the wild has been stuck lol.
@@spydingo another thought i had on the hatch above the guns is that it could be a fume extractor, modern tanks have those little bulges part way down the gun barrels, i don't know how they work exactly but they direct the exhaust gasses from each fired round out through the end of the gun barrel, this thing clearly doesn't have fume extractors on its gun barrels, so maybe it has a fume extraction system mounted back above the guns in order to redirect and vent exhaust gas from both guns out of the tank and away from the crew, seeing as this thing packs two 140mm guns when it fires it would produce alot of exhaust gas, especially if they're both fired at once or in quick succession, its overall look suggests its less a hatch and more a cap of some kind and the upper part of it on the turret roof has an opening that leads down into it, plus there's another hatch on the back of the turret itself to the right of the commander's hatch that looks pretty well purpose built for opening to throw out shells(4:15), seems my idea of this thing working from behind other elements is holding some water there. On top of all that I've seen abrams in action firing their guns more than once, and the actual part of the shell that remains behind when the round has been fired isn't so much a shell as a back plate for the round, its only about the size of a couple cans of tuna stacked up.
I'm also having second thoughts about the gyroscopic stabilization, while I like the idea that they'd have the sense to do this in 2077 or whenever it was the great war broke out, and as far back as ww2 the Sherman had a crude gyro system for gun stabilization, I'm not sure how practical such a system would be in a machine this heavy with guns this large, especially with the overall profile of this machine, not sure where they'd even cram it in along side an autoloading system on one side and a gunner seat on the other, it would be an insanely tight fit, and it'd have to be a pretty damn physically strong stabilizer to handle the weight and bulk of those guns.
Something else that's occurred to me here, that pretty much relegates this thing to working from behind the front lines in a fire support role, the sheer size of its guns, coupled with the overall size and profile of the tank itself, there's very little room for ammo stowage, this means the number of shells this thing can carry and hold at any given time would be severely limited, and in a machine with TWO big guns, that's pretty much gonna mean you have to work closely tethered to an ammo supply line at all times basically, so this thing is absolutely not a front line machine just on that aspect alone, to mention nothing of maintenance of a dual gun system, which is pretty much the reason most every main battle tank in existence has ONE main gun rather than two, its unnecessarily complicated and logistically impractical.
Isn't infantry support means the Sherman would have to go against German tanks too ?
If your infantry had tanks, who's to say your enemys infantry won't
@@Bernoris infantry support focus means a tank is built primarily for supporting infantry against other infantry and mechanized infantry, meaning with light armored vehicles supporting them, the focus is a combined arms effort rather than an anti-tank focused effort, the Sherman was designed with supporting infantry first in mind so it was given enough armor to survive against most infantry, built to go roughly fast enough to keep up with and outpace infantry, and given a main gun and supporting weaponry best suited to fighting softer targets from relatively close range, the German tanks were not built with support as their main role, they were built with independent battlefield operation in mind, so instead of working as a part of a larger whole, they worked first as self contained units of troops capable of moving much faster as a group than tanks supporting infantry, and capable of alot more damage from much farther range.
The doctrines germany and the US used during ww2 were about as different as night and day when it came to tank design.
@@rhino2960 in my opinion however, is that it might have had an ammo rack on the hull
The thing about the F-4 Phantom II is that it was designed first as an Interceptor that was designed to shoot at bombers at long ranges at high speeds and since the designers weren't worried about it fighting other fighters at the time, they didn't add it. But certain circumstances caused the F-4 to be used by all branches of military in multiple different roles which revealed that the lack of a gun proved to be an issue.
True on first part, less so on second. After this issue was found, Air force added a gunpod, their kill rate actually slightly decreased. The Navy on the other hand started training their ground and maintenance crews on proper storage, handling, and maintenance for the new guided missiles. Their kill rate skyrocketed. Add in the decision to then start a fighter pilot raining school in how to fight and use missiles (Top Gun), and the Navy was way ahead of the air force or anyone else in the world in combat effectiveness for a period, before the air force followed suit.
This was less a story about missiles being bad (or gun good), and more about missiles being new tech and the importance of training your people in how to properly use and maintain that new tech. Since awesome as anything may be, if two thirds of them fail to work on launch because they weren't properly stored or set up then of coarse you're going to have a bad day. Since then, the US tries to make a point to invest heavily in training along with any new toys it buys. Results have more or less spoken for themself since then.
That said, yes, F-4 was not designed for ideal turning gunfighting with other fighters, so even given a gunpod it wasn't great at that role, but again once it had the proper anti fighter missiles working reliably, it was doing serious work in proving it's viability.
I certainly see how it made sense at the time to design the Phantom without a gun then, and I see how little sense it really makes to include guns in gen 5 fighters like the F-35 and F-22. At the end of the day though, I think it makes a lot of sense that the war fighter wants as many tools in his or her toolbelt as possible no matter how unlikely it is they ever use em'.
Also, the earliest air-to-air missiles were designed by the same mindset behind the Mk14 torpedo of WW2...
@@terricon4 Yeah, I was about to say, tactics are key to making a weapon work. Compared to the A6M Zero in WWII, the P-40 Warhawk came up short in a bunch of places, but tactics and knowing its strengths were what let its pilots help win the air war in the Pacific.
In tying that back to the Fallout universe, I can imply a few things myself from looking at the "Chryslus Patton" from a design perspective and thinking about the kind of world it inhabits and how it would likely have been used in the context of a full military operation.
*One:* Fallout America most likely loved combined arms _at least_ as much as OTL America does, if not more. You know what's missing on the front of the Chryslus Patton that you see on pretty much any other armored vehicle? A front glacis plate. Upper _or_ lower. If a shot hits the front of this thing, it's going to rip out something important, as those exposed mechanical bits and bobs smack in the middle of the hull's face would seem to suggest - and you're barking mad if you think those stepladders on the front will mount a bigass appliquee plate suitable for frontline combat against peer adversaries if we feel the need to not only have 140mm thumpers on the front.
As a matter of fact, even smacking this thing on the face of the turret would be very rude, since the extra gun and corresponding real estate for the second mantlet and systems a second gun would require fitting means striking the turret face-on is more likely to knock one or both guns out rather than hitting plating or otherwise being a shot the armor could withstand. Even hull-down fighting would be a dicey proposition without a lot of preparation and a deep defense.
Both of these things would naturally be provided by all the other things that would likely be in a suitable combined arms force following some form of airland battle doctrine: infantry, especially reconnaissance and forward observers for the sake of the Chryslus Patton, and specialty vehicles such as artillery, SPAA, APCs, IFVs, ATGM carriers, armored reconnaissance, and aircraft to include CAS, fighters for air cover (and you _will_ have plenty of air cover if you're America, even Fallout America, unless Fallout America had some wizardry to make an SPAA system bigger and badder than a VADS on an M113 and mastered the mind control to suddenly make sure everyone wanted it over their own, vastly more developed indigenous solutions) and _aerial_ reconnaissance. This allowed the Chryslus Patton to specialize heavily in long-range target engagement and volume of fire, either in two-shell salvos or walking fire.
*Two:* Fallout America's organizational structure is likely vastly different to our America's modern organizational structure. Considering how nuke-happy the Fallout timeline has been compared to where we are today, it's likely that Fallout America still operated under the pentomic structure up to the Sino-American War. This was a structure cooked up during the early Cold War in our timeline that was designed to spread out an armed force on an open battlefield and decentralize it so much that nukes would not immediately gut it in the first salvo. We came up with it because in the 1950s and 1960s, we thought war was going to involve lobbing nukes everywhere, and in the Fallout world, it's hard fact.
What this means for the Chryslus Patton is that the guns become even more important since it becomes even more crucial that warfighting equipment be able to engage at longer and longer ranges, while everyone is spread out. You want to avoid moving something into a killzone you can't easily replace, and replacing a shell is as easy as ordering a follow-up shot. A tank, especially one designed to be a strong point for force projection over the course of a full battle, is significantly harder to replace when someone opens a can of sunshine next to it, and its loss would be far more heavily felt.
This would more heavily specialize the Chryslus Patton as a breakthrough vehicle that is designed to punch through enemy defenses at critical points with direct fire that can get on target way faster than anything farther away, and then hold that terrain through the merit of being direct fire that can stand and deliver from forward positions again and again. She doesn't need to go into bad terrain as often, since she doesn't have to - her shells will. Hills, ridges, ground such as this, are more important, and Chryslus Pattons would be doctrinally focused on using their superior firepower, range and capabilities on flat and less bumpy _sloped_ ground to work in platoons or companies that bound over one another, giving one another covering fire from firing position to firing position, dictating the front lines by moving up and shooting, which allows the rest of the ground forces to move up and deny that ground to the enemy. This, of course, would be after or _while_ the enemy would be softened up considerably by the fighters stripping them of airpower, CAS stripping them of armor which the Patton cannot yet reach, and strike aircraft stripping them of logistics and backliners of all types, from fuel to artillery to the ability to fly, cross rivers or drive on roads. As for what infantry is doing in that open field battle...
*Three:* Power armor carries American doctrine, and it shows. If it doesn't, then it sure as hell changed it. To make a long story considerably less long, since this isn't about power armor, this is about the Chryslus Patton, power infantry can go farther, fight longer, hit harder and take hits better than what could now be considered light infantry, which is to say, unpowered infantry. This has an impact on the Chinese armed forces and their likely doctrine which would force them to make the pulse gun on one hand, but has an interesting impact all its own: it forces the Chinese to have to make some hard decisions.
That hard decision is that their vaunted stealth technology is only helpful on the offensive, both sides had stealth technology on their side over the war, and once you start shooting, you have to have a useful followup. Without similar individual soldier protection in the Chinese arsenal to American power armor, this means the Chinese would have to move up more conventional armored forces and thin-skinned infantry or APCs. This would put them right in the firing line for American tanks like the Chryslus Patton, which is why they would hyperspecialize further in range.
In conclusion, this tank is what you would get if you had exactly the right factors to force a tank to focus as much as possible on firepower and range: you want to stay at arm's length first because you have armor in a new form not seen on a real-world battlefield, because nukes have an even longer range owing to their wide destructive radius, and because the enemy is therefore forced to close to engage you, turning any engagement into a shooting gallery rather than a running firefight.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the Fallout universe once power armor was made. Some politicians probably managed to get funding cut from tank production. Think about it, one soldier in power armor being able to use a variety of weapons from a minigun, rocket launcher, or just regular ol' rifles. Once you manage to point out the "cost effectiveness" of that versus building tanks. Well, cheap out on tank production by reducing it to riveted armor. Plus the fact that America was going through inflation as well, due to the continued war with China and resources getting even scarcer.
A good theory, but welding is cheaper than riveting. Despite it being worse for the crew.
But you do bring up a good point about scarcity of resources. One advantage of Riveting is that it can join non ferrous metals a lot easier than welding. So maybe by that point in the war, strategic high strength ferrous metals were all getting diverted to power armor. As you mentioned before.
So they started to use lower quality substitute metals in tank armor. And the cost/material saved by switching to these substitutes out weighed the added cost of riveting instead of welding.
Although welding is cheaper, I like the idea here. If you take Robert Keaney's suggestion of riveting being being an easier process to join lower quality non ferrous metals, along with the idea of rivets being less expensive in the fallout universe due to robots existing to take care of that skilled labor issue. If you combine that thought, with the politicians angle, and knowing how messed up corporations are in the fallout universe and then assuming the same is true of the government, I propose the following scenario: Most of the funding that is supposed to go to tank production, instead lines the pockets of the politicians and the manufacturer, while the tanks are built with poor quality materials and the troops on the ground suffer for it. That sounds pretty Fallout like right?
The tank would have evolved into a armoured mist generating gun carrier. The sheer size of big guns would still require a vehicle to move and carry them.
I always figured if the tanks had miniguns installed on the day the bombs fell survivors would have stripped them off as soon as they noticed them. The only crashed veribird in the game with a minigun still attached is the one atop the museum of freedom where it's hidden from sight.
Judging from the wings on the side of the radiators, I'd assume the radiators were retractable and emerge out of the tank for rapid cooling (like sentry bots) or for repairs.
I noticed that too,.. 😅
It looks like it has MG ports over the guns and a targeting system between them also it looks like the radiator can be adjusted and stowed
Thanks for your comment! I don't personally see the MG ports, but I do agree that it does look like the radiators are on swivel mounts of some capacity, now that you mention it, and could maybe be adjusted to allow the turret to traverse past them. I'm still not sure it would be able to traverse past the armor piece positioned in front of them however. Either way, certainly not the ideal configuration for fluid combat engagements.
It's clear that considering the lack of coaxial machine gun or any mounted machine gun as well the turret most likely not being made to rotate at all concludes that this tank is more likely a SPG (Self propelled gun) instead of a MBT. I mean come on look at how high those guns would be able to point. Though to be fair these tanks may have never actually seen combat and were only used as propaganda tools or test beds vehicles to see if the concept of a nuclear powered tank would be more cost effective than power armour, It probably wasn't considering power armour was the prewar governments number one commie beating patriot machine that we know and love.
Very interesting video, would like to see you talk about the Vertibird if at all possible.
That's a solid point, it really is just a SPG. Not horribly surprising really, I've seen the media refer to almost any heavy military vehicle as a "tank", so such a branding in the fallout universe checks out.
I'd love to talk about the Osprey, I mean Vertibird, doesn't get much more iconic than that!
There were a few tanks that held the Patton name - the first being the M46, then the M47, and finally the M48. The M60 MBT also unofficially is associated with this name as well. They all have different armor schemes and turrets. I believe the illustration at 2:39 is of an M41 Walker Bulldog, a light tank with a 76 mm gun.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but at 2:32, there is a diagram shown that claims to be a M46 Patton, but its actually a M41 Walker Bulldog Light Tank
Good eye, that is indeed a walker bulldog, a m46 would look more like the ? M26 rather than a m41
I'm currently writing fanfiction for the Minutemen the tank I choose is the M51 Super Sherman it screams fallout while being practical.
On a related note, the minuteman logo would look amazing on any tank, and super amazing on a Sherman.
Sauce?
I'm into reading fanfictions. I might check it out when it's ready.
So, you got any Sauce?
Can i have a link to this story please?
@@brandonhughes4571 Well to put it short youtube won't let me saying it was spam.
@@davidjones341 youtube is cringe then, also massive oof
A better nickname for the tank in Fallout is the UUB(Ugly, Useless Bastard). Considering the bonkers amount of corruption at every level in the Fallout universe, it stands to reason that lore reason for this existing is someone in a high position either in the military or the company that makes it throwing money/power around to get their dream tank built over way more practical and useful designs. I can almost guarantee that the majority of crews that had to work on and use these probably hated the shit out of them. As far as not having any kind of machine gun goes, one might assume that, if they had them at all, they were all top mounted and have since been stripped off in the 200 year since the bombs fell.
Also, the APCs aren't much better in terms of being designed for form over function.
I don't really know why but UUB immediately made me think of the B-52 BUFF, but that's rude to the Stratofortress.
Oh yeah, I have thoughts on the APCs, although I can understand some of the game design constraints they were working with there, seems clear they really wanted the player to be able to walk in them, meaning the profile they were working with had to be absolutely terrible for an actual APC. Its also weird all the guns they put on that thing, making it more of an IFV I guess, but I shudder to see it used like that on an actual battlefield.
It seems to be implied that power armor has filled the tank's role as a breakthrough vehicle, which would make these vehicles more akin to a fire support vehicle like a self propelled gun or a tank destroyer.
Power armor deployed from APCs and vertibirds seems to be the preferred order of battle for armored units, presumably tanks would follow shortly behind these strike teams and use their massive cannons to destroy enemy fortifications and/or other tanks that may prove to be a little too tough for armored infantry.
In this role it makes more sense why they would have such a comically over the top primary armament.. Two 140mm cannons sounds a lot less stupid when you realize they were most likely only being used to lob high explosive shells into enemy bunkers or occasionally _vaporize_ the Fallout equivalent to a T-55.
It also explains the apparent lack of defensive weaponry like a coaxial machine gun, as SPGs typically rely on the support of nearby infantry or other vehicles for virtually all of their defensive needs.
I agree this certainly seems to be the case the few times we get a glimpse into the great war during the Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 intros. Infantry and Power armor tend to be front and center while only a few frames of tank track are seen.
Also I'd like to think if tanks still reigned supreme, I wonder why there hasn't been more of an effort by the brotherhood of steel and the like to get some up and running, I mean they could build the Prydwen and maintain vertibirds so it doesn't seem like to much of a stretch that they could fix some tanks if they put their minds to it.
I'm quite partial to the SPG theory now that it has been suggested to me, since like you said it explains the lack of secondary armaments. Also, it kind of makes me think of the vehicle less like a tank and more like a tank chassis that happened to have a battleship turret mounted on top of it.
@@spydingo it's also worth noting that power armor had only been in service a few years when the great war happened. The T-51b had only been in service for a year and T-45 upgrade project the T-60 was implied to still be in the final prototype stages when the bombs dropped.
It's likely the tanks are much older, probably seeing their roles change and adapt as more and more technology was developed.
Casual reminder that for the majority of the Sino-American War, AFVs like these tanks and their APC counterparts were almost certainly front line vehicles, at least until the T-45 and T-51 equipped cavalry broke the stalemate sometime in 2076.
Also reminding you that the M4 Sherman is canonically a vehicle that exists in the Fallout universe, and it's possible that the Sherman was actually the primary MBT of the US military, with this nuclear Patton being an equivalent heavy tank or bunker buster...
With the introduction of power armor the Sherman would've been quickly made obsolete and phased out hence why we only see them once in the series, however as a bunker buster the Patton would still have a role for now as virtually nothing the T-51 could do filled exactly that niche.
Its also entirely possible that the Sherman was actually just a 130 year old WW2 tank that someone restored, but it seems unlikely that after nearly 350 years it would even still run, regardless of how much you fixed it.
Can't destroy buildings or bunkers though
Your assumption of two crewmembers is fairly sound, given that it has only two hatches- One for the gunner, one for the commander, and seemingly none for a driver.
Considering even 120mm ammo is approaching the limits of what a single human loader can handle, 140mm ammunition certainly requires an autoloader, and there simply isnt enough room for the four loaders needed to feed both cannons at a reasonable speed.
Considering the advances in robotics and AI, i'm guessing the tank is either remotely controlled or has a Mr Gutsy-esque AI built into it that controls where its going, with the armament being controlled by a human.
As for the lack of machine guns, i'm guessing they were simply detached and/or stolen by soldiers or scavangers over the years. You cant really steal the cannon, its too heavy, but the machine gun you just unbolt and run away with to use it from the shoulder or prone. Ukrainians do the very same thing with russian tanks currently.
I love the idea of having a Robobrain control the turret, what a nice and sassy turret that would be!
That's true, the external machine guns could have certainly been removed, I still find it odd though that if this is supposed to be a MBT that it doesn't have a coax gun though.
I think it used to have machineguns but people scavenged them over the 200 years they sat idle , people can't just carry the cannons away so they where left
Good point, very possible.
i imagine that the chryslus patton is more so designed to stay farther back and potentially use its guns for indirect fire, considering we don't know exactly what ammo the guns are built to fire (either APFSDS if that exists or HE/HESH are ammunitions it could fire) and there is no way that the dual 140mm doesn't have an autoloader, because imagine loading a heavy shell with a 14cm radius into a breech that could potentially take your arm with the shell, twice. now do that in a crampt metal can with no air conditioning. doesn't sound like a pretty image, so most likely there is an autoloader on both cannons, and the lack of machineguns and seemingly limited turret traverse could reinforce this idea. just my take on what this tank does
Thanks for your take! I agree, I really like the idea of the Chryslus Patton being an absurd SPG rather than a MBT. Based on the comments I've read, the consensus seems to agree that it's gotta have an autoloader so you are in good company!
In regards to the machine gun after all the years this tank has been sitting out, it’s likely that it was taken. Either during the opening days following the bombs dropping or at some point.
The radiators seemed to be position next to what look like hatches. My own best guess is that they could be exposed to the elements in cold climates to help with heat. But closed If going into battle. Hidden within the tank. Id need to get a better look at it.
Actually. Do we know if this tank was made before or after the mass implementation of power armor? Cause that could vastly change the overall application since PA was butchering Chinese tanks.
For the machine gun aspect: the rails on the hatches suggest that there used to be mounted some but were looted long ago
@@user_name_redacted seems likely alltough i still dont really get why they stuck with an lewis gun look alike that was antiqated some 150 years before the great war
even though power armor basically carries you everywhere, youre still moving your legs, requires highly specialized training to use, and doesnt have nearly the range (firing or walking) as a vehicle, its also important to note that the Chinese did not have any power armor, and while a power armor equipped American could use a rocket launcher, or a Fat Man, they still do not retain the range, capacity, or accuracy of the main gun (s) of a tank
Solid points on the range, capacity, and accuracy advantages a vehicle system would have over something like Power Armor. You couldn't reasonably expect a soldier in power armor to go 30 mph that's for sure, they are more like infantry than tanks in that regard no doubt.
A mix of T95, the British "turtle" and a dash of Patton thrown in
I can see it. Wonder why more tanks arn't named Turtle, it just makes sense.
To me the little "guard rails" around the hatches look like WW1 era mountain points for machine guns. See the M18 in war thunder for what I'm talking about.
That being said we do find 50 cals in 76 which makes me assume said guns would be mounted on those rails, they were likely just cut from 4 for one reason or another
A fantastic technical analysis! I'm amazed at how many of my personal gripes with this hunk of misengineering you managed to hit on!
Thanks! I'm glad, although I'm not sure how technical it is lol, I pretty much just used this video as an excuse to rant about rivets.
Given its design and everything you pointed out here, I'm guessing that (speaking from a practical/realistic POV), the most probable use for a "tank" like this would be like what Hitler wanted the Ratte for, which is a mobile bunker replacement. These things have heavy armor, can get into position fairly quickly, and only really need to face one direction at a time. From what I can see both barrels are not independent meaning they are always pointing at the same target. If I had to guess this would either be to do specific penetrating shots (I.E. something like A.P. out of one with H.E. quickly following), either that or to more or less have a rapid fire tank and put as much lead down range as possible, seeing the exposed radiators like that also makes me think this thing isn't meant to move around a whole lot and is much better suited to staying in an entrenchment.
A good example for the lack of machine guns flaw would be the Ferdinand tank destroyer, which in some cases out of desperation the Germans resorted to firing smg's through the gun barrel.
2:05 That's actually the m48 Patton, not the m46 Patton used in Korea. Though they both confusingly share the same names the major difference being the m46 has a steeper (And flatter) hull and a turret that gives its resemblance to the earlier m26 Pershing, the m48 patton has a stronger version of the prior tanks 90mm, as well as a more rounded hull (and a commander's cupola that can rotate and operate as a turret of it's own for a machine gun). There's also the m47 patton and m60 patton but well... that's a whole different can of worms.
And he confuses things more by showing a few different images of what I I think is the M41 Walker Bulldog, which had a 76mm main gun.
@@Viewfromtheturret That too, I honestly saw it at first after the comment was dropped but was too lazy to ammend it.
You speak the truth, thank you!
This is true.
On the subject of Machine Guns - There's a reason the trend in WWII was for American tanks to have more and more machine guns. Each additional machine gun improved a tank's survivability significantly. That is why even today you sometimes see the M1 Abrams with as many as 3 machine guns - Two on the roof and one next to the big gun in the turret.
machine guns being stuck on the roof of tanks was to counter close air support primarily, sending a bunch of tracers at a dive bomber made them have to focus on not dying as well as landing a bomb, other countries produced more specialized anti-air vehicles the US could just mass produce the M2 at an insane rate and could afford to stick them on everything.
4:11 as a welder we use cutting torches using acetylene and oxygen not straight up blowtorches although I'm sure its done, just not sure if the one in game is directly linked to welding
Also if you think welding is that much more of a simple process compared to riveting metal together then I def recommend you give it a go, specifically SMAW like those in the 40s and 50s would've like my grandfather
7:16 a tidbit on the F4 Phantom, the machine gun wasn’t something that magically changed the F4’s performance. Gun kills were still pretty low compared to missiles, and once missiles were fixed for the naval Phantoms they would be dangerous to attack as an NVA pilot.
oh for sure, I don't think I made it clear in the video, but it was more of a psychological thing in my opinion, at least so far as in why modern day jets have guns. Prefer to have a tool in your toolbelt even if logically you know you should never have to use it. Though, I must admit the comparison to tanks is limited at best, I just wanted to talk about the Phantom lol
A tank that would fit perfectly in the Fallout universe would be the M60A2 Starship or at least something based off of the Patton Series.
Oh wow, I see what you mean, they could have pretty much just slapped the "starship" right in. That machine has a wild silhouette. Thanks for sharing!
Machineguns or other anti-personnel weapons were likely removed br scavengers. The rails around the commander's hatch is likely a mount point. Some version of a minigun would be useful. The main enemy was either Canadians during the annexation. The Chinese who did not have power armor and tended to exploit stealth tech more. Putting down a lot of HE and withering minigun fire seems like the best option. Using the tank as suggested like mobile artillary.
Solid points. Hopefully if a vehicle system like this turns up in the next games we can loot a 50 Cal heavy machine gun or the like
I know this vehicle is modeled to be a tank, but when I look at it, and its missing features you point out, I see a twin cannon self-propelled howitzer, which does have real world parallels in Scandinavia. It explains why both barrels are on the same turret but have potential for different firing angles. Rudimentary simultaneous fire with better grid coverage?
Tasked failed successfully?
Hmmm. To answer that at the end of the video. Think not of power armour as a tank. But as classical heavy infantry. As one main bonus of a tank is it's speed. Power armour, even when the user is sprinting, is no faster than a normal infantryman. And also remembering the commies didn't have power armour of their own, the corvega patton is probably better served as an anti vehicle tank destroyer. rather than mbt. Fast, low profile, no machine guns. And in an ambush, a single tank could take out two enemy targets in quick succession before needing to reload and relocate? Pretty damn useful, and the added bonus of being used like this, not having a fully traversable turret is not as big a detriment if wwII designs are anything to go by. And if not as a tank destroyer, use it as a breakthrough tank. 2 140mm shells into a bunker will make damn sure that particularly annoying bunker/gun position is out of action, allowing smaller, lighter vehicles like the APC to move through the breach, and disgorge their deadly, power armoured cargo into whatever defensive line you want broken
Also the smaller factor that pintle machine guns could be mounted onto the patton with ease, given the curved rails around the hatches in the turret if need be.
That is true. Also, since the commies have to launch an naval invasion to take over US territory. The tank could be used in shoot and scoot manner. To bombard communist landing craft as they are coming ashore.
Then fall back once the communists establish a beach head, only to bombard them again the second they regroup and try to push inland.
Conducting an continuous mobile defense so long as ammunition supplies last. As the nuclear engine means that the tank doesn't have to worry about refueling.
Like the Tiger I, this tank might have been envisioned as a break through heavy tank. But it would show its real teeth on the defensive. Just like how the Tiger I shredded through a lot of Sherman's during WW2. And the M26 Pershing decimated attacking T-34-85's during the Korean war.
Wow, well said. And also thanks to you I learned what a "pintle" was!
A common use for tanks even as far back as the world wars, is SPG's, or Self Propelled Guns. In a world where something like the Fatman exists, meaning that nuclear devastation is capable even at low-range artillery scale with relative safety, scaling that technology up to a heavy tank chassis would just be beautiful.
The purpose of an SPG is similar to that of a standard tank, but as opposed to being primarily a means of fighting enemy tanks and providing close support to the siege of hardpoints, the SPG acts as a mobile artillery piece, while also being capable of any other tank's supporting roles provided that its lunch money isn't being stolen by another tank.
So while the normal roles a tank would fulfill in our world is absolutely more suited to power armor units given the tech levels of Fallout, the potential of a heabily-armored, fully mobile, potentially autonomous, nuclear-shell-lobbing artillery piece equipped with a highly advanced targetting software would make MacArthur pop his top, rivets or not.
my guess would be one gun fires HE, HESH, HEAC, or energy projectiles while the other fires APFSDS, HEAT, or ATGM
Interesting video and well thought out.
I suspect the ‘designer’ is maybe not such a tank fan as could have been.
No machine guns, restricted turret traverse, riveted armor, exposed radiators(what happens to a nuclear reactor when it’s coolant capacity is disabled?), and dual cannon seems like a nightmare that leads to many problems.
Would love to see more FO content.
.
Agreed, probably just an artist out to make a cool looking thing, understandable. Thanks! I'm currently working on more, I hope I don't disappoint!
5:30 it exist a tank with two guns, the Leopard 1 VT Tank... It allows to quickly shot a second round if the first misses.
Thanks for your comment! Its interesting how separated the two guns are in the VT, stands in stark contrast to the design of the Chryslus Patton, 'spose that's what happens when your design is governed by reality eh?
@@spydingo yeah, I agree, my best guess is that if a round misses a target, the tank computer quickly correct the trajectory and shoot a 2nd, more accurate shoot without giving the enemy time to react. Maybe they wanted it to have a turret instead of a self propelled gun and this forced them to put the 2 guns in that position to have a narrower turret.
How much this is better than having/investing on a more accurate gun i have no idea.
For rivets it could be a case like in the Halo series, common use of energy weapons against your armor tends to result in expensive replacements of said armor panels. Rivets were used to be able to simply pop off the damages panel and bolt on the new Panel. Granted this is most prevalent on UNSC ships and the scorpion chassies compared to post war vehicles like the mantis or mamoth.
Similar is seen in 40k where marine will have "bonding studs" on their armor which are just magnetic rivets which allow quick swapping of damaged armor or attachment of magnetic metals as temporary armor.
Like a weak sister to the Mammoth Tanks of Command and Conquer.
But perhaps considering that they had energy weapons and definitely the ability to make very small, nuclear munitions, in FO,
maybe the dual 140 cannons were nuclear-shells with a heavy anti-air laser battery. The only thing I find absurd about it is the rivets.
A weld is indeed cheaper and more secure.
Honestly as for not being able to traverse its turret 360°, those radiators look exposed as if they're meant to slide down and into the tank's chassis; meaning they're undergoing maintenance as there is a hatch covering open behind them. I don't pretend to know nor is there a way to interpret what their armor is composed of. There needs to be a way to shield the crew from the reactors radiation.
Quick note, but the fact about the crazy inflation in Fallout is that for the most part the percentage of inflation is actually not that far off from the current rate of inflation.
The US on average has its inflation around 2-3% per 10 years.
The prices listed in the Fallout universe are only slightly higher at around 2.5-4% inflation.
Meaning the high prices we see are actually not that far off from what they would be assuming the US had a consistent inflation rate.
The crazy inflation is mostly towards things involving oil since there was a scarcity at the time. And imports from other countries since Europe had basically gone to shit even before the Great War.
I imagine that given the existence of power armor, "tanks" would more likely be self-propelled artillery or assault gun. And the Fallout 4 tank definitely looks insufficiently armored to be a true tank. But I could see those two cannons being useful to provide fire support to advancing infantry.
If memory serves this is not actually a tank, but a Self Propelled gun or artillery piece. That would partially explain the lack of a machine gun. As for power armor, it is not meant to replace a tank, as the armor on it would be much much weaker.
The goal of Power Armor was to allow for a single soldier to carry heavier weaponry, as for why its not shown in the games? Anyones guess
TLDR it’s not really a tank it’s a self propelled gun, and power armor isn’t for protection it’s for carrying heavy weapons.
We always regard this vehicle as a "tank" but considering the lack of a machine gun, 360 turret traverses, and the presence of 2 cannons ide say it's more possible that the vehicle Is actually a self propelled howitzer.
Here’s something. Maybe tanks were at all times supposed to be accompanied by 1-2 power armor units which is why they didn’t have built in mgs. Also while the power armor may cost more, it likely cost less for maintenance. And considering the Great War and all, the tanks were likely designed to target ground installations and forts, thus allowing regular combat armor units to follow behind while sustaining minimal casualties.
The Fallout 4 IFV/APV thing would make an interesting topic for one of these type of videos
I like to call it an IFVan lol. I'm actually working on that now!
The turret wouldn't be able to turn much at all, due to it smacking into the angled hull at the back. The hull is angled in such a way that the back of the turret is almost touching while it's facing forward. Turning it more than a few inches in either direction would be impossible. The front also has a severe lack of angled armor and it would eat shots like a starved pig.
1:29 Did you really say the tank's manufacturer could be Chryslus or Corvega? That's like saying it would be cool if a car manufacturer was Ford or Mustang.
I would love to see The Chieftain do an April Fool's satirical review of this thing.
I can hear it now, "Let's take a minute to talk about track tension, shall we?"
Well you never know, if this video does well enough The Chieftain just might. As an aspiring content creator myself, one of the things I keep seeing suggested is the lift and twist, take something hot and trendy and make it your own lol
1:01 My running theory is that yes while this would result in more complex maintaining by repair staff, We need to remember that the Mister Handy model of robot had been adapted for military use via the "Mister Gutsy" line, My guess is that due to it's multiple attachments/appendages this would compensate for repair time in hand with human mechanics.
I remember that the corvega major selling points is the whole systems is mechanic and not electric. Meaning probably they choose this design of a tank for looking extremely American. Or to give jobs to riveters or to increase time or whatever dumd plan of a head director had in mind. Case in point the whole Big Mt
Actually I would see this tank serving in the second Vietnam war that went on in the Fallout universe by the time of operation Anchorage it would have already been obsolet and I wouldn't see them going into the Battle of Anchorage anyways due to the treads and I would more so see the Americans having their own version of the Crimea tank normally for traversing the snowy terrains.
I will just name this tank: Apocalypse...if you get the ref, your a man of culture
2:56 heavy tanks dont exist anymore. Nor eo light and medium. Theyve been superceded by the main battle tank.
Two tracks, one gun while the driver at the front with the gunner and commander in the turret would be more effective
It's more than likely that the tank is not actually a tank it is more likely an artillery piece as the role of tank in the fallout universe was replaced by power armour in its entirety at least in the US army. If you where to look at this from a in universe and logical sense it is far more likely that it's actually an artillery system.
1:47 hmm, how about the Corvega M67 Pershing?
Wouldn't that be a Corvega M26 Pershing? Looks like the M67 is a flamethrower tank dubbed "Zippo"
@@spydingo you would be correct but i changed the number to match a date for the start of one of the fallout wars, 2067
Welding might not have been very viable, since Oil was the reason for the war.
5:52 I like how he said salvo. like in a salvo of rockets. instead of sabot wich is the the ap round he is referring to.
I think the armor is riveted because the main threat to the tank would be energy weapons and armor would need to be exchanged regularly due to melting.
Lasers also wouldn't make rivets a threat to the crew since they'd melt.
This is the one smart comment I’ve seen on here
That is fair, and tracks with the Chimera being the only known opposition tank, and it's energy based. Although calling the Chimera a tank is being a bit generous.
At 2:45 the tank you're showing is a m41 walker bulldog you can see the differences with the number of "weels" and with the exhaust
You are correct!
There are speculations that this specific tank, is a reference to the Mammoth tank from Command & Conquer, and every other quad-track dual-cannon heavy tank, that came out afterwards.
That certainly seems possible
As a 19K, Tanker in the U.S Army I can go ahead and say the Abrams tank is capable of a top speed of 60 mph. Though I've personally managed mine at 64 mph on a downhill. The Abrams out of factory is governed at 45 mph limiting it to just that. The governor is a physical component and can be removed during services. Thus was the reason I was able to achieve such speed.
In the future, your volume is a little loud.
If you're at 100, you need to bring it to about 65-80.
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm certainly new to the whole audio thing. I used a blue yeti for this video and I think that's part of the problem as well. I'm having to run it through not only logitech's noise reduction, but also Nvidias noise reduction software to cut out the AC I have going on right behind me.
I actually got a Dynamic microphone this week in an attempt to combat that and improve audio quality. So hopefully that will help too, in addition to following your advice.
@@spydingo one thing I can suggest is to get voicemod. Use it for the noise gate feature. I can show you.
My head cannon is that this is not an MBT but a dedicated tank destroyer, I feel with the advent of power armor as an intermediate step between infentry and AFVs the need for a true MBT might not be as high, in essence combined arms in their universe would be infentry to screen for power armor or air mobility, power armor for breakthrough/shock style formations, the APC/IFV to move infentry quickly, possibly some kind of niche specialized APC/IFV for power armor units (the one in game can apparently do this), some kind of dedicated fire support AFV, possibly with autocannons to deal with both light AFVs, power armor and soft targets, specialized stuff like SPAA and SPH, then some kind of more generalist tank as an intermediate step between this and the anti power armor AFVs, this would be more geared towards modern MBT docturn but not used in as large numbers as the mass use of power armor would leave them for more specialized use, this massive tank destroyer would be used like the traditional TDs of our world, possibly augmented with some kind of lighter anti tank systems employing ATGMs in addition to power armor/standard infentry units with AT weaponry in the form of the rocket and missile launchers we see, possibly with some kind of specialized large caliber recoilless rifles duel purposed as both power armor man portable and tripod mounted for infentry use
You sir, have great head cannon. Please continue to share! The Self Propelled artillery theory is currently my favorite given the lack of known formidable enemy tanks in world. I mean there is the Chimera, but a modified mining rig isn't much of a tank. That being said though, there certainly could be better adversary tanks out there that we just don't know about yet making a tank destroyer a good thing to have.
I hate this tank. Aside from the impracticalities covered in this video, I disagree with it looking cool, and think it looks stupid as hell, it's too small, meaning there's bugger all room for the massive 140mm shells and the crew compartment must be incredibly cramped, worse than WW1 and 2 era vehicles, and the lack of angled plating means it isn't armoured anywhere near as well as it could or should be. Best use I can think of for it is as a distraction for real tanks, or as artillery magnets/cannon fodder.
Very fair! Its certainly not a look for everyone. I just like the absurdity of taking a tank chassis and then trying to mount something akin to a battleship turret on it
Been to a couple of Tank Fests. The first one I went to had American Armour as its theme, and there were so many American tanks and vehicles that had been brought down for the festival. Never seen so many Sherman's, of different mark, in one place before.
"It is day of judgement." - Apocalypse Tank
(oh sorry wrong game xD)
Oh wow. There certainly are a lot of similarities their, props to Red alert though the Apocalypse Tank looks far more functional.
I think probably the tank had a machine gun but after 200 years of being expose in the field someone probably just stole the machine gun of the tank
This checks out.
Maybe it’s a self-propelled gun, not a tank? That would resolve the turret traversal & lack of MG issues.
Idk, just a thought.
It is a great thought! I've heard the SPG theory from several commenters now and I really like it.
I prefer to think of this "tank" as more akin to an armored self-propelled gun that just looks like a bad tank. It would make the dual cannons more practical and explain the limited traverse of the turret imo.
Very true, I really like the SPG theory
6:32 you simply think that in the future when nuclear holocaust happen and no one is gonna salvage a random machine gun that attached to a malfunction tank? Also the game is a whole new concept so maybe the way and where they mount those LMG is different, i think.
You right.
I think there's one use for a tank that was left out of the video - heavy firepower against fixed positions, IE bunkers. The tank's main gun would be far more effective against concrete emplacements than the smaller Power Armor-portable weapons, and more stable due to a higher-mass firing platform. It would also likely out-range the Power Armor weaponry, and possibly be less susceptible to EMP weaponry, as we saw that the Operation Anchorage EMP field stopped power armor effectively. The tanks would likely be supported by Power Armor anyway, due to combined arms theory of military action. Tanks are supported by infantry and vice versa, with Power Armor acting as a middle-ground that can be used like a light tank or IFV in tighter spaces. It's like "rock, paper, scissors", but "infantry, PA, tank." Also, I thought lore stated that Power Armor was a far more limited supply of equipment and higher training requirements than traditional armor. At least, until Fallout 4 with the entire US Army inventory scattered around Boston in silly little cages.
Solid point about the hardened positions. I do think this tank does make some decent sense as a SPG. Also your right, Power Armor should have a far more limited supply with Fusion cores being developed rather late into the great war, and those cores being what allowed West Tek to manufacture the t-45 and t-51. So the tank should be more prevalent I agree, yet it is only found in Boston, at least so far, a fact I find quite strange. Then again though, the APC only showed up in Boston as well, and I'm hoping against hope that thing was designed in tandem with Power Armor to justify its insane height profile Also agreed, it is a shame they made power armor so prevalent in 4, although I do like the design change to differentiate it from armor and make it more of a vehicle, though at the same time, that makes the lack of a training requirement even more mystifying. So I guess one step forward two back lol.
I enjoyed the video. I would imagine the tanks may have _had_ guns, but they have since been scavenged and removed (I mean, the very first thing you do after the vault is rip the gun off of a vertibird).
Idk abouth the mgs how ever one gun can be loaded with APFDS and the other with HE
That's a good point, it does give you some flexibility in loading different type of shells that could come in handy
Bruh. Just M26 heavy tank, but with two weapon barrels.
and split tracks, but I get what you are putting down!
I really like watching any video talking about armor, I think an analysis video on the different power armor types would also be fun
Good idea, could even make a video on the evolution of power armor
what r yall on about this is the most ugly goofy aah tank design ive ever seen god damn
That's fair. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Could be worse, it could just be meh and forgettable.
How exactly do you kill a tank with a hand grenade? (6:48) No, rolling it down the barrel doesn't work. The breech-block would prevent anything from getting into the turret. The rest of the tank is armored enough that the grenade wouldn't do any damage. And my main question is, what the heck is on the tank in front of the tracks?
Well what I was thinking was you would open the hatch, but game limitations made that less than doable. My favorite theory so far is they are recovery/towing points to tow the tank out whenever it gets stuck, like say on a Boston beach.
@@spydingo If a tank's hatch is shut from the inside, you can't open it from the outside (for precisely this reason). Sometimes tanks will go into combat unbuttoned for greater visibility, like for tank-on-tank combat; but when there's an infantry threat, an exposed tank commander will be quickly killed, so they will likely button up. As for those things being tow points, since I don't recognize them at all, I guess that's possible. It looks more like something designed to protect the tracks to me, but who knows. My tank (former M60A3 Tank Platoon Leader here) had a tow pintle in the back center of the tank that looked nothing like these.
That's not a tank it's a nightmarish mashup of bad ideas.
It's like what a made scientist circa 1915 thinks a future super weapon looks like..
Fallout design in a nutshell
You right!
4:30
"Welding is low skill"
Lmao, ok. AWS running a real hustle with those certs I guess, got us all convinced it was a real skill and everything.
I'm all for trashing amazon, their recruiters won't leave me alone, but I'm not picking up what your putting down here I'm afraid.
@@spydingo AWS, American Welding Society. One of the major groups that provides welding certifications.
I agree wholeheartedly about this tank being an artillery support it reminds me of so many German artillery pieces during World War II and I don’t see any use for it in the front lines of the war of Alaska or even in the war and The invasion of Communist China not as a front line vehicle I agree the only way I can see this in any use in prewar Boston in a testing ground for that tank seeing how it does in the environment they’re testing it on the same location they made the fat man trial by error I’m assuming(PS awesome video keep up the awesome work buddy)
8:31 intimidation value.
Info about rivet armor? How rivetting.
10 out of 10 would chuckle again
Absolutely amazing video! are you planning to review other tanks from other games?
Thank you! It is certainly a possibility, Halo's scorpion tank comes to mind, but I'm going to start with analyzing other Fallout vehicles with the hope I can branch out to general lore and maybe continue that momentum into Starfield, but it really depends on what kind of feedback I get.
@@spydingo Leave the UNSC tanks alone, please. There's nothing that wrong with them.
What annoys me about fallout 4s designs is it seems Bethesda put more thought into the tanks design than they did with the weapons
I truely dislike the design of the assault rifle in FO4, thing looks like a damn machine gun from WW1, imagine the weight of that clunky hunk of garbage.
I can't disagree here, thank goodness moding exists.
Honestly, they could've taken the M60 Patton, fitted Lasers and a Rail Cannon onto it, added a few futuristic range finders and perhaps a Fuel Cell driven engine and they would've had a much better looking tank than this piece of over engineered wunderwaffe crap.
Tanks take heavy firepower to kill than power armored troopers, they require less training to operate, they can move faster, fewer specialized parts and training to repair, can carry more firepower, and lastly; can give a display of battlefield dominance/presence that power armor troops cannot.
For instance, you really notice there is a tank there barreling towards you, you might not notice the power armored guy or be scared of him; you're definitely scared of that tank.
Tanks great at Open Plains, Grassland, or hilly areas
Power Armor good for forests, cities, and dense close range engagements
Those are some pretty good differences to keep in mind.
I don't think a powerarmor can carry 100+mm guns into battle. One of the main reasons for tanks is to bring a mobile cannon.
Another note is that a machinegun was probably mounted on the railing in front of the commanders hatch, but has been removed through early years of looting.
This tank is pointless, but a modern light tank with some uparmor, tow missiles and a autocannon would work wonderfully in fallout. Because yeah, the power armor itself might fare well against anti armor weaponry, there's still a man in there with not a lot of wiggle room to dodge any incoming shrapnel.
Superb video - you just got a new Subscriber! If you want to follow up on it, I'd love to see a video on the APC that exists at the Military Checkpoints across Boston in Fallout 4, as well as in Fallout 76.
My belated thanks! I did such a thing, I hope you enjoyed it as well!
So regarding the MGs on the tank - and I agree the thing is entirely ridiculous - but maybe they were pintle mounted and as the centuries wore on after the war, scavengers pulled them all off.
Dude I've thought about the feasibility of the MBT and IFV from fallout and to be honest they don't make sense.
The fallout MBT doesn't have enough space for a crew of four. The dual barrels in the turret takes up far too much room. The crew would have the be seated behind the breach which is a pretty big no no. Unless the had the crew in the haul like the Russian T14 or the new Abrams experimental tank.
I think you hit it with the last point, seeing the vertical rise angle of the main cannons: The probability of ever facing an enemy tank or a civilian vehicle capable of stopping one was next to zero, but having unruly civilians to run over or some cheeky chinese bombers nearing the coast? Almost a guarantee. Apart from the tacky rivets, another fatal flaw of the tanks is their abundance of flat sides and lack of angled plates of armor suggest they never were meant so much for warfare but civil protection and "pacification".
Those quad tracks would make short work of flattening any civilian vehicle short of a bus or a rig. Oh, and about the machineguns, if FO4's intro mission is any indication, they were probably there, and automated, before stranded power armor units yanked them off stranded tanks to defend themselves, or crafty civilians eventually removed them when the war cooled down in the years after.
In any case, it is a cool-looking tank, _until you really go to town into role-playing_ as a budding and rising nation leader, and your engineers realize that they're too rusted and badly designed to even bother, and instead scrap them for parts to build lighter, faster and maneuverable medium armored fleet of vehicles to _blitzkrieg any burlap sack-masked town of punks that just yee'd their last haw when they touched one of your supply routes, hahah._
In a world where man portable nuclear weapons are a thing, having a dual barrel 140mm cannon does not sound too far fetched for conventional direct fire against bunkers (HE) and defensive structures, infantry (cannister shot) or tanks.
Meanwhile, dudes in power armor and GIs would account for the short range tank defence
Idea: The twin cannons' for vats only. Because vats is purely probabilistic, firing twice is more likely to hit
That's a really solid in universe theory. I really like it, wish I'd thought of it, could have made a really cool graphic!