A CONVERSATION BETWEEN FRANCIS AND THE CHIEFTAIN JUST BEFORE THE VIDEO GOES LIVE. Francis: Chieftain, would like to write the pinned comment for this or leave it to us? Chieftain: I'm happy to leave it to you. If I strenuously object to what you come up with, I'll be sure to let you know. Francis: Looking forward to it. THE END. Please read our rules of conduct before you comment: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518
Didodand is Russian, does mil hist is closely associated with the Russian military, likely speaks more English than he admits. Why do I say this? Well, he goes into all kinds of topics about the war, especially of course the war in the east. I constantly see this: things being discussed in Russian and really only in Russian, which would likely interest anglophones. Ok maybe it has nothing to do with splitting Peking from Moscow. Old skool bold skool.
that reminds me of a pratchett line from the hogfather, 'Lord Downey : The doors are locked. The windows are barred. The dog does not appear to have woken up. The squeaky floorboards haven't.'
Agreed, he’s wonderful. I’ve rewatched his Battle of Jutland series three times since it came out. He’s so thorough and I love his deadpan description of humorously tragic events.
I really appreciate that Chieftain, even though his focus is on armor, is very up front that armor alone is not the sole determining factor in a conflict. So many times, whatever a person's area of interest suddenly becomes the ONLY important factor in determining who wins battles, campaigns, or even wars (i.e. COMMANDOS WON WWII! YARR!).
Yeah. Every possible arm of service or type of weapon probably played a crucial role in some crucial battle at some point. Still doesnt mean they won the damned war all by themselves. But movies like to overglorify one single thing as the thing that tipped the balance and everything around that one thing is just the homogenized soup of "infantry"...probably.
he has over a decade of real-world experience in how effective armour is, including one battle here he spent the entire time looking around and never even saw anyone, let alone fired a shot
and he also stresses in other videos that stats alone (armor thickness, speed, firepower) are not the ultimate arbiters of what makes a successful vehicle.
Nice collaboration. Thanks for reaching out to Chieftain on this one. Reading up on it a bit, the T-50 seems to be a casualty of the complexity of the engine, the shift in focus to T-34 production, and more speculatively, perhaps the need to focus on putting radio sets in the latter. But man, what a beautiful vehicle, especially for an early-war light tank.
To be fair Pz I and T-26 are 1930s designs, so it's more like a decade of R&D plus battle experience. Still impressive though. Especially considering that the USSR put IS-3 into active duty right after the war ended, and that was a space age tank compared to anything else in 1945.
@@biscuit715 I'd argue we would actually be ahead. While weapons technology certainly advanced as a result of the war, its civilian applications would take much longer to come about. And it is technological development in the civilian world that realy improves economic growth which in turn drives technological development. The incredible losses of people and personnel caused by the two world wars hampered the global economy and therefore set us back technologically by decades.
Indeed. And it quite clearly goes against the common western myth of "all tech in the USSR was shit and sticks before they stole German engineers". Soviet scientists actually did some stellar jobs in the pre war era.
Exept that armor didn't float, their engine cooling didn't work and vehicules suffered constant reliability issues. They did their best with what they had, but most of the soviet vehicules were trash.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me sure you aren't describing the Germans? The only relatively reliable tanks in the war came from the US, and only after the ear was a few years old (the Sherman). The Soviets could have made their tanks more reliable, and reliability improved over time, but the military high command determined that there was no reason for a T-34 to be able to reliably work for 8 months if its was unlikely to survive 3. What does it matter that a tank is not bery effective in some particular role if you just need more tanks. Arguably the Germans are the worst on this front, low reliability was a strategic choice for saving resources by the Soviets, the Germans have no excuse for their issues.
7:30 The image presented clearly lacks the sponsons and sloped armor mentioned regarding the model 1940. That image is the earlier model 1938 mentioned just before 14:36 typo on the infocard, should say T-38 not T-36
I hope you guys start doing episodes on the small arms of WW2 by country like you did for the Great War channel soon. Using the guys at Forgotten Weapons/InRange and C&Arsenal again would work great I think.
This one looks like a good one! A collaboration between two of my favourite TH-cam channels :D I can't watch it at the moment, but I'll be sure to stop by later 👍 PS - I've liked the video anyway, because of course it'll be good!
Ricky Tang Indy. I as in: I can't believe it’s Indy. N as in: No way! That`s Indy. D as in: Dayum, that’s Indy! Y as in: You’re not gonna believe it, but that’s Indy!
I'd love to see a Chieftain video explaining what reconnaissance units actually did. I know it should seem obvious, but the actual day-to-day details of where they went and what they were looking for would be fascinating to me, as well as the chance to find out the difference between reconnaissance and "heavy reconnassance".
I would honestly love a whole series about some of the most important recon missions of WWII. Both Infantry recon and especially armored recon. Lots of people don't really know what armored recon actually looks like, or about the concept of "recon by fire" too.
From another Chieftain video: "Heavy reconnaissance" is a European term for what Americans would call "recon by fire" - essentially, advancing to contact using assets that are NOT designed to create a breakthrough in order to identify enemy strength in a given area through direct observation. Conceptually very similar to historical Light Cavalry.
I've long suscribed to World War Two (previously One), Ghost Time History, but also Military History /(not) Visualized; The Chieftain; Military aviation History; Drachinifel (plus kings and Generals, Invicta, and asome others). And I am very pleased to see that it seems they got to know each other and made some collaboration. When passion and quality are putted in someone's effort, I think in the end it will always reach the people that are looking for it.
So anyone about wondering Finnish T-50, it was not the only T-50 that was known to roam in Karelia but it was the sole example that was taken when Finns captured the city of Petroskoi (Äänislinna to us Finns) in October. But it was not until February next year that Finnish repair depots somehow managed to get it running (probably involved some voodoo magic) and as it was more spacious then T-26, it was employed as command tank. The crew would name the tank "Niki" although everyone else would call it "Pikku-Sotka", after the similar looking but bigger T-34 "Sotka". But unlike in this video, T-50 was not in Finnish inventory into the 1950s, mainly because the tank had suffered from catastrophic engine failure after leading a counter-attack in summer 1944 (quite famous counter-attack actually) and for very good reason the tank was never repaired. And if you wonder with that one picture with grenade hanging above the hatch, it was self-made imrovement to counter any sneaking infantry that tried to get too close. Unknown if it was used agaisnt anyone (friend or foe).
Soviet tanks frequently carried a box of grenades inside, presumably for if the crew had to bail out and fight infantry, but perhaps they also used them to deal with enemy infantry nearby by opening a hatch, throwing a grenade and closing up again. Which seems awkward.
Excellent Episode Indeed Most informative and Enjoyable. The vast fleet of early War Soviet light tanks and armoured cars are often overlooked. We have two T-34 / 85's here in London one is in the Imperial War Museum and the other is in some ones back garden in East London which is Uber Cool!
"Basically, Sherri's idea had to do with bringing Fat's mind down from the cosmic and the abstract to the particular. She had hatched out the practical notion that nothing is more real than a large World War Two Soviet Tank. "
Damn you Indy! I already had five great history channel's to which I'm addicted and now you just had to introduce me to Chieftain as my sixth. When the hell am I supposed to sleep? I hope you're happy!
9:50 "Had periscopes, but lacked cupola for all-around vision" Well, those PT-series periscope could be used for 360-degree observation (user's end remains stationary), as well as a gunsight, linked with the gun elevation mechanism. Thats a really advanced piece of gear for the time, and I don't know any other country using anything like it.
Funny how the Soviets were busy catching up, the Germans were also noobs still... the US was missing out, the French are still cloning landwhale offshoots with single man turrets and the British... less said the better. It's _almost_ like no one knew how to design tanks back then. :P
@@jkilla9934 But for context, no country really developed anti-tank weapons, and anti-tank rifles was a really niche weapon since tanks at the time weren't really seen as vehicles to counter one another. The "Noob" move for Germany was developing tanks specialized to hurting infantry.
What did the US need tanks for....We weren't going to war with Canada or Mexico and were never again going to send an expeditionary force across the Atlantic (and the Philippines wasn't tank country)
9:45 The "model 1932 gun" was officially denominated "19k", and a later, upgraded version was introduced in 1941, the 20k, with same caliber but higher muzzle velocity allowing for more range and accuracy.
finns especially loved those flamevariant T-26:is on mannerheim line :P finns are known for polishing soviet stuff(ak-rk, mosin-m/39) but then we have the unsung hero of finland BT-42(Based on BT-7), vehicle that makes bob semple smile :P. Mentioning this because alot of soviet tank doctrine and tanks were tried in winter war period.
At 10:54 infared for night driving and I thought the Germans where the first to use infared on there Vampire system but for shooting the enemy at night late in the war. First Ive heard of this was it common place and only used by the Soviets. I had to pinch my self I've never read about or seen this.
In 1942, the US trialed a system with infra-red lights and a location tracking system (Hard to navigate in the desert) on M4. worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_hatch_Desert_M4/ Like the Soviets, and later the Germans after them, they figured it just wasn't worth the effort. Technically worked, but unreliable and not really tank-proof. It's worth noting that after fielding two test units, the Germans (who are more willing to use line units as testing agencies, generally speaking, as they are more desperate) also figured it was pretty useless and a lot of the panthers had the systems removed and replaced with the stowage boxes that had been taken away in the first place. See Hilary Doyle's commentary here. th-cam.com/video/wOpU7ENcZvY/w-d-xo.html The Germans were sure to only use it on the Eastern Front as they realised that the Western Allies had plenty of gear which could see infra-red, like Tabby.
Question for OOTF (I also put this on the forum but I figured I might as well also leave it here): It's interesting to see how different tank models would be given radios at higher or lower rates to each other. How did the Soviet Union decide which units received radios and which did not? Was it by model (e.g. BT-7s get priority), by unit (e.g. border units get priority), or something entirely different? Love the channel BTW.
I have to say, it's a question I don't know the answer to for sure, but my shallow understanding is it was in large part just a matter of availability at the time the vehicle was issued out.
@@TheChieftainsHatch My own limited information is that available radios tended to be installed in the tanks of unit commanders, and subordinate tanks who lacked radios would just watch to see what the unit commander's tank did. This did not work out very well. There was also some signalling with flags although this involved a tank commander putting his head out a hatch. Not a good idea, although German tank commanders sometimes scanned terrain by putting their heads out of a hatch (not necessarily the most conspicuous one on top) to watch for enemy infantry tank-killer teams. US lend-lease aid to the USSR later included a large number of radios, which improved their radio net.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Yeah the radio situation was not AS BAD as the myth goes but the red army relied more on telephones but still lendlease covered a lot in terms of communication equipment and more
You guys need to do an episode about Schwerer gustav heavy german gun they used in the invasion and bombardment of many countries in the begging of the war. Not many people know about this gun!!
What is going on with the German grenade on a rope over the turret, apparently active as handle cap has been removed and activator string pulled, at about the 17 minute mark in the video??
5:57 The official number of stock storage by June 22, 1941 was of 19000, not 23000. Still about two and a half times the amount of tanks Germany had overall, though.
C&Arsenal is still doing WWI small arms, I would guess they would eventually get around to WW2 weapons afterwards. That's a few more years away though, I think.
Arty - Queen of Battle, not King (that's infantry, I believe). At least I remember they called it that in a class I had to sit thru in Basic. It was shot (no pun intended) at Ft Sill, Oklahoma, home of the US Artillery school. Sorry to nitpick. Everybody's an expert, right? Great Video! You have an excellent speaking voice. Bol'shoe vam spasibo (Thanks large). Wrong about this. Chieftain is right. See below. My bad.
an underexamined aspect of this war is the use of armed and armored trains especially on the eastern front. often they would have tank turrets mounted on them for protection armor plate added howitzers etc. its a warhammer gamers dream in fact.
I haven't looked up the specifications on the T-50 though I had the impression it was not as effective as the T-34 (narrower tracks smaller cannon possibly less reliable). I shall reexamine it I just presumed it was another also-ran till now.
Hey World War Two gang! I was a fan of the videos/crossover that was done with the C&Rsenal guys back on The Great War channel. Any plans to bring some that back?
They were well made. Possibly too well made: The problem was that the factories assigned to produce the majority of them were incapable of actually building it, particularly the gearbox.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for the timely response. After watching this video and World War Two's on the T-26, I've been genuinely surprised twice now with Soviet armor development. Especially after hearing about the horrendous quality controls on the earliest T-34's and the Battleship Sovetsky Soyuz - specifically how the Soviets botched the forging of her armor plating. Thank you for dispelling some of my prejudice.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN FRANCIS AND THE CHIEFTAIN JUST BEFORE THE VIDEO GOES LIVE.
Francis: Chieftain, would like to write the pinned comment for this or leave it to us?
Chieftain: I'm happy to leave it to you. If I strenuously object to what you come up with, I'll be sure to let you know.
Francis: Looking forward to it.
THE END.
Please read our rules of conduct before you comment: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518
Lol
Brutal, savage, rekt.
Sounds like him alright XD
Rekt.
Didodand is Russian, does mil hist is closely associated with the Russian military, likely speaks more English than he admits. Why do I say this? Well, he goes into all kinds of topics about the war, especially of course the war in the east. I constantly see this: things being discussed in Russian and really only in Russian, which would likely interest anglophones.
Ok maybe it has nothing to do with splitting Peking from Moscow. Old skool bold skool.
"The engine cooling system DIDNT."
Lmao
around october no longer a problem at least until june
almost as scathing a comment as David Fletcher from the Tank Museum, Bovington might have made
that reminds me of a pratchett line from the hogfather,
'Lord Downey : The doors are locked. The windows are barred. The dog does not appear to have woken up. The squeaky floorboards haven't.'
You just wait until he gets onto the track tensioning.... .
Chieftain has a great way with words.
For discussion on warships you should get Drachinifel. He’s good.
They should get him for pearl harbor or something
I love his channel
Hes not good, he is god
Agreed, he’s wonderful. I’ve rewatched his Battle of Jutland series three times since it came out. He’s so thorough and I love his deadpan description of humorously tragic events.
Agree 100%
I think you guys should do a collab with Drachinifel on anything related to ships!
Either him or Dr Alexander Clarke. Best would be both of them. sm
@@mattwoodard2535 Certainly! I discovered Dr. Clarke through Drachinifel and he's also great.
I think they should do that as a special episode when the Pacific War starts up. The Japanese vs American Naval combat is fascinating.
Ideally I'd like it researched by Drach and narrated by JIngles
Anders Karlsson Jingles has an amazing voice. And he has some experience in that field.
"Something of a failure to meet design specifications..." True lol!
I really appreciate that Chieftain, even though his focus is on armor, is very up front that armor alone is not the sole determining factor in a conflict. So many times, whatever a person's area of interest suddenly becomes the ONLY important factor in determining who wins battles, campaigns, or even wars (i.e. COMMANDOS WON WWII! YARR!).
Yeah. Every possible arm of service or type of weapon probably played a crucial role in some crucial battle at some point. Still doesnt mean they won the damned war all by themselves. But movies like to overglorify one single thing as the thing that tipped the balance and everything around that one thing is just the homogenized soup of "infantry"...probably.
he has over a decade of real-world experience in how effective armour is, including one battle here he spent the entire time looking around and never even saw anyone, let alone fired a shot
and he also stresses in other videos that stats alone (armor thickness, speed, firepower) are not the ultimate arbiters of what makes a successful vehicle.
Last time I was this early, von Moltke was still trying to capture Paris so he could swing east to meet the Russians in Silesia.
..... best comment ever?
I like chieftan's doctrine videos, but this kind of editing is also something I really wanted out of them, thanks guys!
Nice collaboration. Thanks for reaching out to Chieftain on this one.
Reading up on it a bit, the T-50 seems to be a casualty of the complexity of the engine, the shift in focus to T-34 production, and more speculatively, perhaps the need to focus on putting radio sets in the latter. But man, what a beautiful vehicle, especially for an early-war light tank.
It's fascinating to me how we end up from the shitty panzer 1 and t-26 to the king tigers and the is-2 just in 4 years
War causes fast development. There were still quite a few biplanes kicking around in 1939. By 1945 it was the jet age.
To be fair Pz I and T-26 are 1930s designs, so it's more like a decade of R&D plus battle experience. Still impressive though. Especially considering that the USSR put IS-3 into active duty right after the war ended, and that was a space age tank compared to anything else in 1945.
in WWI the 1st aircraft were less advanced than modern ultra lights. They developed in WWI too
Without the two world wars we would be so far behind on technology compared to now.
@@biscuit715 I'd argue we would actually be ahead. While weapons technology certainly advanced as a result of the war, its civilian applications would take much longer to come about. And it is technological development in the civilian world that realy improves economic growth which in turn drives technological development. The incredible losses of people and personnel caused by the two world wars hampered the global economy and therefore set us back technologically by decades.
When the time comes for warships, go to Drachinifel!
It is surprising how creative the Soviets were in the manufacture of armored vehicles. Clearly the Soviet engineers were very good at their job.
Indeed. And it quite clearly goes against the common western myth of "all tech in the USSR was shit and sticks before they stole German engineers".
Soviet scientists actually did some stellar jobs in the pre war era.
@@bbcmotd Exactly.
Exept that armor didn't float, their engine cooling didn't work and vehicules suffered constant reliability issues. They did their best with what they had, but most of the soviet vehicules were trash.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me sure you aren't describing the Germans? The only relatively reliable tanks in the war came from the US, and only after the ear was a few years old (the Sherman). The Soviets could have made their tanks more reliable, and reliability improved over time, but the military high command determined that there was no reason for a T-34 to be able to reliably work for 8 months if its was unlikely to survive 3. What does it matter that a tank is not bery effective in some particular role if you just need more tanks. Arguably the Germans are the worst on this front, low reliability was a strategic choice for saving resources by the Soviets, the Germans have no excuse for their issues.
gragoșstanciu...they're either creative or they have an accident, oops, he was found dead 😱.
7:30 The image presented clearly lacks the sponsons and sloped armor mentioned regarding the model 1940. That image is the earlier model 1938 mentioned just before
14:36 typo on the infocard, should say T-38 not T-36
Trying to watch this episode of WW2 and an advertise from The Great War start.....I’ve seen everything now ;)))
Dude Same!
Same here
At 6:52 you can see soviet Daniel Craig on the left hand side of the picture
That's Бонд - Джеймс Бонд to you.
Like Daniel Craig but with a better Anti tank capability.
"The name's 'Army. Red Army.'"
Lol
@@kaiserjoe2316 HA!
Typo at 14:34. At the top of the side bar it reads “T-37A and T-36 fleet” when it should be “T-38” instead of “T-36”.
Okay, this is interesting. I just had an ad from The Grest War Channel for their new project (Rhineland 45) when I clicked to watch this video.
Same, on this video, pretty cool, I did like the great war when Indy was doing it.
I hope you guys start doing episodes on the small arms of WW2 by country like you did for the Great War channel soon. Using the guys at Forgotten Weapons/InRange and C&Arsenal again would work great I think.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Best article on Soviet Light AFVs in WWII I've seen in a while. Keep up the good work guys.
This one looks like a good one! A collaboration between two of my favourite TH-cam channels :D I can't watch it at the moment, but I'll be sure to stop by later 👍
PS - I've liked the video anyway, because of course it'll be good!
Wow, I never knew Indy has a brother named of course Indy
Ricky Tang Indy.
I as in: I can't believe it’s Indy.
N as in: No way! That`s Indy.
D as in: Dayum, that’s Indy!
Y as in: You’re not gonna believe it, but that’s Indy!
I love that Conrad makes an appearance (painting anyways).
looks like a Kurt Russel clone ( in Stargate) with beard
I'd love to see a Chieftain video explaining what reconnaissance units actually did. I know it should seem obvious, but the actual day-to-day details of where they went and what they were looking for would be fascinating to me, as well as the chance to find out the difference between reconnaissance and "heavy reconnassance".
I would honestly love a whole series about some of the most important recon missions of WWII. Both Infantry recon and especially armored recon. Lots of people don't really know what armored recon actually looks like, or about the concept of "recon by fire" too.
From another Chieftain video: "Heavy reconnaissance" is a European term for what Americans would call "recon by fire" - essentially, advancing to contact using assets that are NOT designed to create a breakthrough in order to identify enemy strength in a given area through direct observation. Conceptually very similar to historical Light Cavalry.
"The engine cooling system didn't" lol
I've long suscribed to World War Two (previously One), Ghost Time History, but also Military History /(not) Visualized; The Chieftain; Military aviation History; Drachinifel (plus kings and Generals, Invicta, and asome others). And I am very pleased to see that it seems they got to know each other and made some collaboration. When passion and quality are putted in someone's effort, I think in the end it will always reach the people that are looking for it.
So anyone about wondering Finnish T-50, it was not the only T-50 that was known to roam in Karelia but it was the sole example that was taken when Finns captured the city of Petroskoi (Äänislinna to us Finns) in October. But it was not until February next year that Finnish repair depots somehow managed to get it running (probably involved some voodoo magic) and as it was more spacious then T-26, it was employed as command tank. The crew would name the tank "Niki" although everyone else would call it "Pikku-Sotka", after the similar looking but bigger T-34 "Sotka".
But unlike in this video, T-50 was not in Finnish inventory into the 1950s, mainly because the tank had suffered from catastrophic engine failure after leading a counter-attack in summer 1944 (quite famous counter-attack actually) and for very good reason the tank was never repaired.
And if you wonder with that one picture with grenade hanging above the hatch, it was self-made imrovement to counter any sneaking infantry that tried to get too close. Unknown if it was used agaisnt anyone (friend or foe).
Oh yeah, I instantly noticed FA markings and recalled that we used to have one. I wonder if they still have it at Parola Tank Museum.
It is still there. There's one in Kubinka as well.
Soviet tanks frequently carried a box of grenades inside, presumably for if the crew had to bail out and fight infantry, but perhaps they also used them to deal with enemy infantry nearby by opening a hatch, throwing a grenade and closing up again. Which seems awkward.
Can you imagine Indy, the chieftain, drachinifel, lindybeige and gun jesus all in the same collaboration?... that'd be magical...
I love your videos...avid fanatic from the philippines
Did anyone else get a pre-video ad for the Great War channel's Reinland documentary? Looks like a lot of fun, and a lot of work.
Fantastic video, would love to see features for small arms with Ian from Forgotten Weapons, or Karl and also Ian from In-range TV.
Excellent Episode Indeed Most informative and Enjoyable. The vast fleet of early War Soviet light tanks and armoured cars are often overlooked. We have two T-34 / 85's here in London one is in the Imperial War Museum and the other is in some ones back garden in East London which is Uber Cool!
"Basically, Sherri's idea had to do with bringing Fat's mind down from the cosmic and the abstract to the particular. She had hatched out the practical notion that nothing is more real than a large World War Two Soviet Tank. "
T50: *exists*
Chieftain:" This puts a smile on my face"
Damn you Indy! I already had five great history channel's to which I'm addicted and now you just had to introduce me to Chieftain as my sixth. When the hell am I supposed to sleep? I hope you're happy!
9:50 "Had periscopes, but lacked cupola for all-around vision"
Well, those PT-series periscope could be used for 360-degree observation (user's end remains stationary), as well as a gunsight, linked with the gun elevation mechanism. Thats a really advanced piece of gear for the time, and I don't know any other country using anything like it.
Correct, and it's better than not having a rotating periscope, but there is no substitute for a cupola.
At 14:30 there's a mispell
The T-36 is supposed to be T-38
Funny how the Soviets were busy catching up, the Germans were also noobs still... the US was missing out, the French are still cloning landwhale offshoots with single man turrets and the British... less said the better. It's _almost_ like no one knew how to design tanks back then. :P
Ironic as the Soviets ended up helping the Germans develop tanks by giving them a place to develop them in secrecy.
Germans tanks lacked armor but what else was "noobish"?
@@jkilla9934 But for context, no country really developed anti-tank weapons, and anti-tank rifles was a really niche weapon since tanks at the time weren't really seen as vehicles to counter one another.
The "Noob" move for Germany was developing tanks specialized to hurting infantry.
The soviets weren't catching up. Ever.
What did the US need tanks for....We weren't going to war with Canada or Mexico and were never again going to send an expeditionary force across the Atlantic (and the Philippines wasn't tank country)
9:45 The "model 1932 gun" was officially denominated "19k", and a later, upgraded version was introduced in 1941, the 20k, with same caliber but higher muzzle velocity allowing for more range and accuracy.
They also got a longer barrel, didn't they?
@@letoubib21 Indeed.
12:22 That's why in 1937 the Soviet tank designers started the A-20 proyect, which would lead to the heavier, better armored and more reliable T-34.
It’s so delightful to see those two military history giants in one video.
6:38 That's T-26A, with T-26B (45mm cannon) and T-26M (45mm cannon, upgraded armor and turret, ability to be fitted with radio) being more common.
Always love the details you guys get into!!
Thanks!
17:57 I see that picture of Conrad Von Hotzendorf. Least he didn’t design any tanks.
It took me way too long to realize Chieftan had a haircut. He looked off, but I couldn't place it.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GLORIOUS HELMET CUSHION?
14:14 - "The engine cooling system didn't," HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you guys going to do a gun special with C&Rsenal? I really enjoyed that from the Great War.
finns especially loved those flamevariant T-26:is on mannerheim line :P
finns are known for polishing soviet stuff(ak-rk, mosin-m/39)
but then we have the unsung hero of finland BT-42(Based on BT-7), vehicle that makes bob semple smile :P.
Mentioning this because alot of soviet tank doctrine and tanks were tried in winter war period.
Great video!
I used to follow the great war channel a lot and I just found this channel yaay!
Googly eyes on the round to the right.
Well spotted!
A very good and interesting video, thanks for the upload!
Thx, both.
I noticed on the shelf behind Chieftain is the most ferocious enemy known to man -- the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog!
The guy that does Dark Seas is good for warship special as well
I like the stetson to his left. IF YOU AIN'T CAV, YOU AIN'T!
Very underrated!
Good one, thanks.
Good one, tanks*.
I like Chieftain's presentation persona.
At 10:54 infared for night driving and I thought the Germans where the first to use infared on there Vampire system but for shooting the enemy at night late in the war. First Ive heard of this was it common place and only used by the Soviets. I had to pinch my self I've never read about or seen this.
In 1942, the US trialed a system with infra-red lights and a location tracking system (Hard to navigate in the desert) on M4. worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_hatch_Desert_M4/ Like the Soviets, and later the Germans after them, they figured it just wasn't worth the effort. Technically worked, but unreliable and not really tank-proof. It's worth noting that after fielding two test units, the Germans (who are more willing to use line units as testing agencies, generally speaking, as they are more desperate) also figured it was pretty useless and a lot of the panthers had the systems removed and replaced with the stowage boxes that had been taken away in the first place. See Hilary Doyle's commentary here. th-cam.com/video/wOpU7ENcZvY/w-d-xo.html The Germans were sure to only use it on the Eastern Front as they realised that the Western Allies had plenty of gear which could see infra-red, like Tabby.
Indy this is fantastic - thanks!, and thanks Chieftain!
Very nice quarantine haircut there, Chieftain.
A fun and informative video. I liked it. Hey Indy is that Conrad von Hotzendorf's picture next to your chair? Great video.
Chieftain, I enjoy your videos and was curious as to whether you ever did a modern tank design. You could give a preview of what's coming.
Tanks a lot, Indie!
" Armoured cars, and tanks and guns, they came to take away ours sons...", oh, wait, wrong war, wrong region.
"But Britannia's Huns with their long-range guns, sailed in through the foggy dew."
am i the only one who thinks that shell looks like a kerbal astronaut? XD
if this is what he's going for, hats down to you sir!
What shell?
@@nesa1126 for example @ 3:00
@@91plm That's a Shillelagh anti-tank missile. Every self-respecting Irishman should have one.
@@HerrGausF wait isnt that a HESH shell?
MGM-51C
Question for OOTF (I also put this on the forum but I figured I might as well also leave it here):
It's interesting to see how different tank models would be given radios at higher or lower rates to each other. How did the Soviet Union decide which units received radios and which did not? Was it by model (e.g. BT-7s get priority), by unit (e.g. border units get priority), or something entirely different? Love the channel BTW.
I have to say, it's a question I don't know the answer to for sure, but my shallow understanding is it was in large part just a matter of availability at the time the vehicle was issued out.
@@TheChieftainsHatch My own limited information is that available radios tended to be installed in the tanks of unit commanders, and subordinate tanks who lacked radios would just watch to see what the unit commander's tank did. This did not work out very well. There was also some signalling with flags although this involved a tank commander putting his head out a hatch. Not a good idea, although German tank commanders sometimes scanned terrain by putting their heads out of a hatch (not necessarily the most conspicuous one on top) to watch for enemy infantry tank-killer teams.
US lend-lease aid to the USSR later included a large number of radios, which improved their radio net.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Yeah the radio situation was not AS BAD as the myth goes but the red army relied more on telephones but still lendlease covered a lot in terms of communication equipment and more
Thanks for this.
Thank you for watching
A great video.
Thanks for watching!
5:55 man that T-28 is zooming
Awesome video
Nicee, chieftain is here
Most of us who play games are here for this
I mean... War Thunder, WOT, HOI4 etc.
You guys need to do an episode about Schwerer gustav heavy german gun they used in the invasion and bombardment of many countries in the begging of the war. Not many people know about this gun!!
Very informative.
What is going on with the German grenade on a rope over the turret, apparently active as handle cap has been removed and activator string pulled, at about the 17 minute mark in the video??
5:57 The official number of stock storage by June 22, 1941 was of 19000, not 23000. Still about two and a half times the amount of tanks Germany had overall, though.
600hp out of a V12 in the late 1930s is very very good!
How I wish Chieftain could cover a breakdown on Indian Arjun 2 !! Wish this happen..
nice video
Very interesting! ❤
Like this intro much better than you faking a conversation on the phone.MPOV.
Cool cowboy at the bottom right!
It actually looks like a kind of hat sometimes worn in Vietnam by US helicopter pilots.
@@stevekaczynski3793 His eyes tell the whole story...
Regarding the T-40S: Shall we assume that the "S" stood for "Sinking"? ;)
Either a series initial or perhaps the s stood for "skoryy" - "fast".
You should work with Forgotten Weapons (Gun Jesus) he could tell us about the firearms used in the war
He has with The Great War series.
During preproduction he was onboard, along with a number of other history TH-camrs. However something went wrong and only Chieftain stuck around.
C&Arsenal is still doing WWI small arms, I would guess they would eventually get around to WW2 weapons afterwards. That's a few more years away though, I think.
@@bakomusha wiat, what went wrong?
@@oaples8790 IDK. No ones talked about why, as far as I know.
The T-50 cost almost as much to produce as the T-34. Hence it was dropped.
Arty - Queen of Battle, not King (that's infantry, I believe). At least I remember they called it that in a class I had to sit thru in Basic. It was shot (no pun intended) at Ft Sill, Oklahoma, home of the US Artillery school. Sorry to nitpick. Everybody's an expert, right? Great Video! You have an excellent speaking voice. Bol'shoe vam spasibo (Thanks large). Wrong about this. Chieftain is right. See below. My bad.
You've got it reversed, field artillery is the king infantry is the queen.
@@larkin54 Ah. Thanks for the correction. I'm old and forgetful.
I really expected the man to pull a Guinness from under the table sometime in the video
an underexamined aspect of this war is the use of armed and armored trains especially on the eastern front. often they would have tank turrets mounted on them for protection armor plate added howitzers etc.
its a warhammer gamers dream in fact.
What's Daniel Craig doing in a picture of Soviet T26s from WWII 6:46
I haven't looked up the specifications on the T-50 though I had the impression it was not as effective as the T-34 (narrower tracks smaller cannon possibly less reliable). I shall reexamine it I just presumed it was another also-ran till now.
The 45mm is no joke and if the RA had supported their tank attacks, some frontier battles might have turned out quite different.
Hey World War Two gang! I was a fan of the videos/crossover that was done with the C&Rsenal guys back on The Great War channel. Any plans to bring some that back?
Who's in the picture frame at Indy's left? Prinz Otto von Neidel?
I got an ad from The Great War Channel. What in the goddamn...?
Design on paper is one thing, look at the early T-34's...How was the quality of the those few T-50's made?
They were well made. Possibly too well made: The problem was that the factories assigned to produce the majority of them were incapable of actually building it, particularly the gearbox.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for the timely response. After watching this video and World War Two's on the T-26, I've been genuinely surprised twice now with Soviet armor development. Especially after hearing about the horrendous quality controls on the earliest T-34's and the Battleship Sovetsky Soyuz - specifically how the Soviets botched the forging of her armor plating. Thank you for dispelling some of my prejudice.
@@BlackBanditXX Don't worry, I haven't gotten to the T34s yet. They really did have issues
I love the Chieftain, drier than the Sahara Desert!
Chieftain sounds just like Plainly Difficult, and I dig it lol
Nice shirt Chieftain. ALLONS"
I drooled a bit while reading your source list. I wish I had more time to read. Stupid job.
Also thanks for your hard work TGA.