As an old man, retired Army Officer, history and tank enthusiast, I love your videos. I just have to keep it hidden from my fellow 11 Bush comrades. A behind closed doors “tread head” is an infantryman’s apostasy.
Me too! This dovetails neatly into Steve Zaloga's book about the development of the M4 Medium. It too was bounced about between the various players: Devers was head of Armored Force (before they sent him to Europe), McNair was head of Army Ground Forces, and Barnes, head of Technical Division of Ordnance. They were all brilliant people but with slightly different viewpoints. But it was a pity that so much time was lost on Dever's pet project, the M7 - although I sometimes wonder if it can be blamed as much as people do for the late appearance of the M26. It did interfere with the mid-life development of the M4, I think. The book is called Armored Thunderbolt - The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Published by Stackpole Books (who else?). I couldn't put it down.
The interesting thing to note about the 3rd and 9th Armored getting trained on the 90mm is the stress that the civilian contractor, I believe his name was Price, put on proper boresighting and aiming for certain spots on enemy tanks. When met with incredulity from the tankers in the 11th Armored Division (what does this civvie puke know about hitting anything in specific on a tank with a 90mm gun) Mr. Price set up a row of German helmets across a lake about 625 yards away (I may be a few yards off here but it was definitely around 600 yards) and proceeded to snipe each and every helmet with the 90mm. No complaints about Mr. Price after that, and as things often happen, the gunners set to work to improve upon Price's shooting. Which they did to great effect! In my searches for researching the T26E3/M26, this gentleman's thesis paper really takes the cake and hits all the points I'm looking for when reading about a certain type of tank from development through combat and beyond, I highly suggest anyone interested in the Pershing to give it a read! digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=masters
@@kreuzrittergottes9336 If you fuck up, fuck up spectacularly so that the boys at USAHEC can marvel over your stupidity for decades and try to find some way for the army to learn from it.
Lol! My tank M1 in 1983/4 Was named "Deguello" It is a song meaning No Quarter It was played by the Mexican Army to the defenders of the Alamo. D 1/67 2AD
I recall that when attempts were made to assign veteran Sherman crews to Pershing, experienced crews said No. They were comfortable with what they knew (the M4) and had safety in numbers to avoid Special Taskings, i.e., we need your Pershing to do this or do that, 24 hours a day.
OnTheSpectrum the FCS concept was pretty hilarous. It basically it was taking the Bradley’s development process and applying it to a whole family of vehicles.
This video was 4 years ago but I keep coming back to rewatch it along with all of the other vids the chieftain had, since I can't wait for another one.
It was meant to tie down german resources, by trying to move and get away with 20 extra 45 tons tanks, that they couldn't use anyway because they broke down all the time and had no ammunition for it. Clever plan !
Nick’s commentary has one great advantage over many of the sources available on the subject matter. Look up entries on tank books and you’ll just get a few snippets and a ton of technical detail. But what this article gives you is context and perspective. Great stuff, Nick is right up there with David Fletcher, from Bovington Tank Museum. He needs to be writing, really - the content is great, both in depth and breadth of knowledge, narrative of timeline, major players and major events. Recommend the presentations Nick gave on M4 design and Tank Destroyers to anybody who liked this video; you’re guaranteed to learn something new even if you’ve studied history for years.
They usually end up going back and having to change the initial versions or make them less than fully combat rated even when they test the shit out of them. If the first bunch are going to be not as good anyway you might as well get the production lines going and work out the bugs in that at the same time. They aren't idiots.
Love this. In the War Thunder computer game I really enjoy its T25 incarnation, which seems to the the (one-off?) version that included semi-stabilisation of the turret. They way the game has it modeled (accurately?) it is sluggish speed-wise but has great reverse and turning and is generally brilliant at peeking out and shooting its 90mm gun. Good fun. I pair it with the M36 Jackson.
11:24 "Why build production lines of two vehicles when one of them will do?" Apparently the US Navy didn't learn this lesson even 75 years later. *cough* Littoral Combat Ship *cough*
It's not the Navy, it's called Congress. The military doesnt get to decide what they buy, its Congress. There's a reason why the US has something like 10,000 stockpiled Abrams or 8 pounds of government stockpiled cheese per person.
The thing is....once adapted 5" versions of the HVAP gets distributed they will most likely make a different saboted version for the 6" guns of the Zumwalt....in the end the guns will be functional. They will probably remove one gun for more VLS for more area defense ESSM or VL-RAM and some NSM. The focus seems to be surface warfare now.
To shorten the video Ordnance: “Y’all need bigger tank.” Army Ground Forces:”No.” Ordnance: “ We didn’t ask” AGF: “WTF this thing is too heavy and breaks down to much!?” Ordnance: “Yeah but it’s better than a lot of the German tanks so shut up” AGF: “Fuck.”
Actually, it did. He points that out at the start of his video about interwar British tank development. This was merely filmed in front of a calming white background.
Did the demand for more Pershing tanks ratchet up by the ground troops during the early phase of the Battle Of The Bulge as more German Tanks in quantity started breaking thru the Ardennnes Front and more Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, JagdPanther and Stug IV tanks started to arrive in quantities which might have cause some issues with the Sherman tanks whose medium 75mm cannons were having difficulties penetrating the newly arriving Panzers at range or that the German Panzers were themselves penetrating their own armor at longer range until combat range drop under a mile??
By late 44, 76mm Shermans had been filing in and even Easy 8s were reaching the frontlines, they had enough save for long distance head on engagements with Tiger II and Jagdpanthers. The problems of Panther had been realized and matched by stopgap measures and tactics when they swept central and southern France
Edit: I'm not sure the exact video I'm referring to is still on youtube but the footage is still out there, just my timestamp might be wrong. I encourage anybody who hasn't already seen it to search youtube for 'Battle for Cologne - tank duel' & see the footage from the T26 knocking out a Panther. Theres a clip that seems to begin at the exact moment the panther took a hit, and you see the crew bailing out and the tank catching fire - you can even see flames through the hole the pershing put in the side of it. Also at 7:45 you can see the commander of the M4 that was knocked out has had his left leg blown off at the knee, yet still climbed out of the tank unassisted, the remainder of his leg still smoking. Puts things in perspective.
@John Cornell I was looking at it purely as a tank engagement. You just prompted me to watch 'Battle of Cologne 1945 - A young woman between the frontlines - The original source'. Not sure it was the exact same tank engagement but definitely part of the larger battle. Wow, a car drove right through the crossfire, the driver was killed and she was shot. US medics treated her but then the tanks were re-engaged & backed up & apparently ran her over (its not 100% certain it was the same woman but her surviving sister said its her in the footage). The tankers probably didn't even know she was there.
@John Cornell no you made me look into the human side of it when I usually look at tanks as exciting machines, don't be sorry. Hopefully she was already unconscious when it happened. Cheers
Tanks have always fascination me as I'm sure it does many others. Having served in the Aviation branch of the US Army in the 70's I probably didn't miss the frozen experience most tankers enjoyed during Reforger exercises on the frozen tundra of southern Germany in and around the Fulda Gap. Romantic but not practical. I am an avid watcher however and very much enjoy the history you provide. Thank you!
So, McNair wasn't, "That Guy", and they really could have used that tungsten penetrator much sooner. EZ with the negative waves, baby. Speaking of which, how about some more on that tank from, "Kelly's Heroes?" And the Tiger's maintenance for that matter.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Nice one! I guess that shows how many of your audience are *proper* nerds! Thanks for reading my comment! (Dammit, I'm going to have to go looking for Easter Eggs now!)
Interestingly, in Steven Zaloga's book Perkshing vs Tiger (Osprey series) he notes that Fireball was repaired and returned to service about a week after it was knocked out in Elsdorf. As noted, the Tiger I was immobilized in building rubble and was abandoned by its crew. Therein lies an important point about the vulnerability of the German heavy tanks - the ability to recover them and perform maintenance was practically nil at that stage of the war. Has anyone published an assessment of German armor lost to malfunction versus losses to hits by allied opposition?
Believe it was about 50/50 in Normandy, primarily due to fuel shortages during retreats. Tho to be fair whoever is on the defensive will have a harder time recovering equipment in general.
1Morrel, such a study would be interesting, because the Anglo-American ability to recover/repair battle-damaged tanks and other vehicles was one of the great underappreciated Allied technological triumphs of the war. Trained crews proved tougher to replace than the tanks, in fact. One reason why U.S. armored formations were reduced to "drafting" guys from other jobs to be tank crew. and then training them more-or-less at the front, without them returning to the 'States to attend armor school at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.
The Germans were just as adept at recovery and repair as the allies were when not losing ground. Not a single Tiger was lost in June and July 1944 in Normandy due to not being able to recover them. That changed in August when they lost ground quickly. All armies abandoned tanks when having to retreat quickly. The French in France 1940, the British in North Africa 1941/1942, the Soviets in Barbarossa 1941 and summer 1942. The Germans were increasingly losing the ability to do much of much from 1944, due to the overall strategic situation of the war.
The problem with thinking "the 76 is good enough" is that the enemy is probably not thinking that and developing better tanks. That kind of thinking inevitably gets you to a place where you may frantically have to play catch up.
'A concealed Tiger tank fired three shots from about 100 yd (91 m). The first penetrated the turret through the machine gun port in the mantlet, killing both the gunner and the loader.' Ouch. An 88 at 91 meters through the MG port is not going to tickle. :/
IMHO, it didn't help when all but one batch of Pershing's were scattered among M4's instead of keeping them together as a group in order to better mutually support each other with any common problems as they arose, as the Marines successfully did in Korea. Add that to the tendency when placed among M4's to "prove their worth" against the Tigers as the Sherman's "big brother", to be shoved out into harm's way ahead of the pack, and of course, to get killed as a sacrifice to the rest of the group to decide what to do next.
When he started talking about getting rid of the wet shell stowage in order to carry more rounds, I immediately started thinking: 'Isn't this the British at Jutland all over again?'
Having read Spearhead, I have to question the other main engagement involving the Panther at the Airfield. It's an even more extraordinary story than the Cologne engagement. I understand that Clarence never spoke till recently,but why has nobody ever spoke of this before? I am a big Pershing fan, and don't doubt Clarence, I'm just curious. Any thoughts from those who have read the book?
Still think the US Armoured branch should’ve taken up the offer of the 17pdr and equiped at least a small number of M4s for use where heavy German cats were known to be stationed. I mean would one in every five M4s being a Firefly been a problem?
I read about the politics involving the production and fielding of the M26. From what I read General Jacob Devers (commander of the 7th Army) bypassed AGF (General Lesley McNair) and went directly to General Marshall. Marshall approved it but what I read McNair was still in opposition to it. Unfortunately, McNair was killed during an inspection tour in Normandy when U.S. troops were bombed accidentally by 8th Air Force bombers.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the conspiracy theory surrounding the cologne duel. I'm not one for those usually but the documentary on Amazon connecting the photographer with Chrysler was a well made argument. It's called "March 1945 - Duel at the Cathedral".
I only heard about it this morning. Other than that there is a conspiracy theory about it, I know nothing. I also have absolutely no reason to give a conspiracy theory on the matter any credence whatsoever.
This came up due to a DVD one person (Hermann Rheindorf) made some years ago. As usual conspiracy theories spread further than articles checking the facts. There is an in depth analysis available here (it's in German with Google translate links on the page, if something is not clear in the translation feel free to ask, I was born less than 3km away from that place 😉 ): anicursor.com/battled2.html Here is an overview of what happened where (this page is available in Englich and German): panzerduell.de/
@@Imbeachedwhale Rheindorf's theory is that the US propaganda wanted to show the capture of Cologne as being easy while it wasn't in his opinion. But why should they do this when on other occasions they showed the resistance when it existed. And as far as I know the Wehrmacht never claimed that they even tried to defend Cologne. It makes no sense at all when you have a natural border (the Rhine) behind you. The bridges in Cologne were all destroyed and one day after the tank battle the bridge at Remagen was captured. So if Cologne was not captured on March 6th (like Rheindorf says) the US would have simply ignored and / or bombed it like they did with several other cities that were defended.
Great video. Would there be enough content to do an in depth video on Australian Tank Design/Production/Doctrine/Anything tank related? Same thing with Canada and other Commonwealth Countries. Love to see you read first hand accounts/stories/diary entries/letters from real tank crews as well
There is info on line and several books on the topic. The Australian effort showed what could be done on a shoe string but once the Japanese became involved in WW2 the need for a anti German tank faded, plus the US would not supply components like air cooled MG's and pushed the Sherman which was not the best tank available to fight the Japanese.
I never knew they sent pershings to the pacific. Even if they never saw combat. That would have sucked. You’re sitting in your chi-he with a tiny 37 made in like 1935 then a freakin Pershing comes onto the beach. Like what are you gonna do?
Excellent presentation as always, sir. I was curious about the drivetrain issues Pershing had. Were the engine/transmission chosen as a matter of convenience/availability or did the designer simply underestimate the power requirement of such a heavy vehicle?
The issues were the result of not running the initial batch thru rigorous testing to find and correct any problems. Ordnance wanted to do that but was overruled by members of Congress who had been agitating for a heavy tank after the M4's first encountered the Tiger 1 in North Africa. Ordnance decided that some testing was required so took the first three produced and ran those non-stop around a track for 500 miles. Two made it and one lost a road wheel after traveling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so declared that the T26 was good to go.
I think US Army thought with M4 (better the devil you know then the devil you don't) with M26. The German Generals knew they where going to lose the war due to the numbers game with tanks because the pumping out of T-34 & M4 that's why the German's last hope was handing out the panzerfaust
Only the US could make designing and fielding an effective tank in WW2 so complicated and protracted, compared with both Germany and Russia. I had a fair idea how bad this was but this video helps get by providing detail, incredible. Keeping very much in mind that Germany was fighting for it's life and had material and manufacturing problems which forced design compramises eg Panther rear drives, they were still able to get private companies to design and manufacture what turned out to be basically superior tanks without the messing around that slowed and complicated the US effort. The Russians too managed to get effective tanks onto the battlefield despite their disadvantages, including the minor detail of being invaded with it's accompanying production disruption. In contrast the US did not have the significant disadvantages that both Germany and Russia had yet the US managed to be a sound last in getting something comparable onto the battle field which says it all really. For the rare few who actually would like to know more without the rah rah a good start is The Business of Tanks by G.MacLeod Ross.
We had the luxury of the home country not being threatened. But, from the beginning, we also had no idea on how to go about designing a tank. What is the primary requirement? Gun or Engine? Heinz Guderian stated the engine. Others will say the gun. Soon as you have the primary consideration, the other is a compromise as to what is available, and can fit. Also what would you regard as "effective" tanks. We get that a Sherman vs. Panther encounter will run poorly for the Sherman, but how about reliability? An American battalion of 65 Shermans is likely to be running 60 vehicles in the morning. A Battalion of Panthers, not as many. After 10 days of operations, 50% of the T-34's in an operation is inoperative due to mechanical failure. Where Sherman treads had a longer life expectancy than a T-34 engine. When the Soviet 1st Guards Mech Corps were issued brand new T-34/85's to replace their Shermans, they raided the depot and took their Shermans back.
Phil Gardocki I agree and also think about where the USA is, it’s between the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean meaning they have to carry everything by Boat. Because of this, The US Forces can’t be sending over heavy tanks without severely reducing the amount of tanks over in the field. Since the Pz.lV is the common German Tank, what’s the point in trying to make a tank that matches the Panther or Tiger in strength when the lighter Tank can have more produced and be upgraded to fight these heavier tanks. Despite America not having a fucking clue on how to make a tank at first. They managed to make at least a decent tank that can out produce the Germans.
ETO thought as much. On the M26, it would have been the only weapon capable of being fired when on the move, but I doubt ETO knew that at the time. Ordnance were as happy to delete it. Then again, note that some vehicles like M18 and M10 did not have a bow machinegun, but kept the crewman.
How would you have deployed M26 in Normandy? One per troop like firefly or heavy battalion? Since 88s saved Rommel at Arras assume development started in 1940 and logistics were in place to trade 2 Shermans for 1 Pershing before DDay.
If the Pershing was introduced earlier in WW2 would the mechanical issues found in Korea come up? Then armchair Generals would be saying "Why did you deploy an unproven tank?" If there were the funds after the war instead of all the cut backs, then an improved Pershing would have been developed before late 1948. That is when some of the Pershings were upgraded with a bigger engine and better, more reliable transmission (i.e. M46 Patton.)
The US Army had the M6 heavy tank available for use in 1943. It dwarfed a M4 in size, weighed 52 tons and had armor that would defeat an 88. The US armor commanders in North Africa and Italy didn't want because it was too damn slow, too heavy for field bridging and typical road bridges plus would require its own parts and repair depots plus crews and mechanics trained to operate and work on them. The commanders were perfectly happy with the M3's/M4's and their variants since they were getting the job done and less of a logistical problem by sharing the same components. Ordnance plowed ahead developing heavier turrets and hulls to eventually produce a smaller heavy tank than the M6 but wasn't in a rush due to the lack of overseas demand for one. They were forced to come up with something by members of Congress who were getting an earful from their constituents over US tanks getting blown to bits by the big German tanks. It was Congress that ordered the T-26 prototypes into production and then sent overseas into battle without undergoing field testing and without trained crews. Congress wanted a huge number produced but Ordnance managed to get that number dramatically lowered once the war in Europe ended. The Pershing had problems traveling up the steep roads and hills in Korea so were tow assisted by the lowly M4's.
@@billwilson3609 I believe it was actually General Marshall who gave the go ahead in early 1944 to put the T26 into production. The earliest time to get the production started was Nov. 1944 at the Grand Blanc, MI tank arsenal that was run by General Motors. I guess it could have been done earlier if there was an emergency need for it. That really didn't happen until after the Battle of the Bulge due to earlier issues with German armor in Normandy had lessened due to the lack of a sufficient numbers by Sept. 1944. My earlier post was only limited to the question IF the Pershing was (somehow) introduced earlier, would its limitations with a poor transmission and underpowered engine have been found in the testing phase at Aberdeen or Fort Knox. I'm not sure what the M6 has anything to do with my post? It had a different engine and transmission.
Does anyone know when the Ford GAC V-12 engine was installed in the T-29 super heavy tank prototype? I ask due to whether or not it was available for any T-26 prototype before the end of 1944. Did anyone developing the T-26 think, "33% heavier tank, I might need a 50% more powerful engine" during the development stage? On the same thought, when was the Allison cross-drive transmission developed? Could a quasi-M-46 tank been available at the end of WW2 or was R&D not ready yet?
I would not call myself a Tanker but I was in an M109A2 Pally .... But I love armor and Chief keep these great videos coming. Maybe at some p[point you can talk about the M109 and it's history as it will do direct fire and is now being trained to do so more then it was in Desert Storm. After desert storm this was being trained funny you sight down the open bore but now the computer does it ... But it works in a pinch.
@@Duke_of_Petchington Unless you had to drive anywhere on your internal tanks. Then every other gen 1 mbt > centurion. The centurion was a great tank in nearly every way other than they forgot that tanks need fuel to get anywhere, and the fact that later centurions had external tanks added just to reach half the range of a patton is telling.
I still think, knowing how long our development cycles last, we should have desinged our equipment with that time lag in mind. Future proofing in a way, with the intention to go against what germany would have produced in 2 years time, not what they currently fielded. I feel we should have been a little more forward thinking in that regard. If we knew it was gonna take a long time, then we should have made sure it would be a generational leap forward, something that would be able to outclass everything on the battlefield when it came into serivce and be more than a match for anything the enemy could field. Im just saying, we shouldn't have had to play catch up as long as we did, even if it did take a long time to put something in the field, we should have accounted and designed for that. We had a great Industrial and logistical advantage over the Germans, we should not have lagged behind as much as we did. And look maybe there is merit to saying 'we want to make sure whatever we send out there in the field is 100% reliable' or whatever but the truth is, if you're not there when its needed, then it doesnt matter. The Pershings would have been fantastic to have in the early stages of d-day and the breakout of normandy and the drive across france. But the fact of the matter is by feb, 1945, it was already too late to really affect the war any meaningful way. Trying to create the perfect tank doesnt mean anything if you delay it so much that the war is over by the time it reaches the field.
The Chieftain is very good in holding your attention, excellent delivery. Tankies talking tech are normally the military's answer to Mogadon so a Bravo Zulu to the Chieftain.
Wear blue blockers with clip-on shades. I actually do this. You'll find while shopping that if they don't tell you what percentage of blue light they block, avoid them. Very few block all the blue light. They also sell fit-over glasses that block blue light. My strongest blue blocker set-up is the fit-over blue blocker, worn over another blue blocker glasses, with a dark sunglass clip-on...so it's 3 glasses at the same time. It leaves deep impressions on my nose because it's heavy, but I'm sleeping better. "Cyrex" is a good brand to browse for blue blockers. I use "Eyekepper 100% Blue Light Reduction,Fitover Anti-Blue Blocking Computer Glasses". "Gamma Ray" may be a good brand to peruse. ""Uvex" makes strong blue blockers for reasonable prices.
What are the differences between the 3 rounds ,, 75mm the 76 mm and the 3 inch ? More or larger propellant ? longer casing or powder was more powerful ?
M26's can't have been sent to Amsterdam, as it was still occupied but still I find Chieftain's video's just great! Wonder what tank transporter could take those beasts, anybody knows?
I know this doesn't have anything to do with the T26 but can someone explain to me why they just didn't increase the length of the Sherman's 75mm barrel to increase its velocity since you could still use the same ammo and even revert back to a shorter barrel if need be?
We'll they're replacing it already with 76mm which is much better, and lengthening the barrel would offset it's balance with it's breach so there's a lot more that needs fixing.
Cheiftain I gotta idea that might be a bit of a stretch, but if you ever got time, why not take a trip down to Ft, Benning Georgia and take a inside the hatch of the monster “super heavy tank t28”. That would be absolutely awesome.
In his last Q&A, he mentioned that he was putting off going down to Ft. Benning, because they had the T28 under restoration, and if he waited until they finished, he might be able to do a full outside & inside video on it.
McNair is often included among the list of controversial American commanders in WWII, such as Fredendall, Clark, and Lucas. Despite not being a combat commander, he was killed by friendly fire (aerial bombing) while observing the opening phase of Operation Cobra.
@@torbai The US Army in WWII was, conceptually, really two armies. The first one organized, trained, and equipped the forces at home, while the other one employed those forces in combat operations across the globe. In this sense, the combatant commanders (predominantly Eisenhower and MacArthur) were the customers who identified their requirements to McNair, who was their force provider. A key point to remember is that McNair was neither subordinate nor answerable to these combatant commanders. He worked for the Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall. As the Chieftain pointed out, the requirements of each commander varied. Had McNair worked for them, I doubt he could have gotten much done, so he needed a degree of independence. I know this is a gross oversimplification of what was really going on, but this forum limits a broader description. There is much to both admire and admonish about McNair. Nobody had ever been given such a monumental task as he received - turn a million man Army into an eight million man army, and train and equip it to fight an ever evolving modern war. He was a great organizer and excelled in this task. Those who criticize his armor decisions may be right, but I think they pale in comparison with what I consider to have been the Army's worst mistake - the individual replacement system (in lieu of whole unit replacements). McNair advocated this approach to deploying causality replacements, and he had Marshall's support. Far from ideal, it had the advantage of greatly limiting troop space requirements on supply ships. It also reduced the demands on Army recruitment, which made the captains of industry happy. But from a tip-of-the-spear viewpoint, it was a tragic fiasco. When criticizing the decisions of commanders, one must consider not just their successes and failures, but the reasons for the decisions that led to these successes and failures. We will never know for certain, but their shortcomings may have been the result of the best possible courses of action available at the time, abysmal as they may appear in hindsight.
Colonel K Well, I already know that... I am sorry that it must cost you a long time to write a long article but the only reader already knows what you said... My apologies.
@@torbai When I respond to anyone I assume others are reading these comments and may chime in. If not, I don't mind. A lot of the folks here are pretty knowledgeable, and any polite and intelligent discourse is always appreciated. It helps keep my mind sharp.
I disagree with Chieftains' recurring defense of Gen. McNair. McNair was the main foot dragger in reference to fielding a heavy/heavier tank. Why? I think, given McNair's quotes, he felt he was "doing what the boss would want". The boss, of course, was Gen Marshall, whose prewar doctrine declared that tanks were NOT to fight other tanks, that was a job for tank destroyers. It's no coincidence that things began to move forward AFTER McNair's tragic death in August, 1944.
Hi Chieftain. Wondering if you consider doing some more vids on Cold War era tanks. Leo’s, chieftain, Soviets t62/72 etc. a vid on MBT70 would be awesome
It is somewhat surprising that they didn't try to license the Rolls Royce Meteor engine. As far as deploying something largely untested : They didn't know if there was any surprises from the Germans in the pipeline. So even if they didn't send it to the front line, having a somewhat heavy tank in the area seems to be prudent. Especially when we know about the ergonomics of the 17 pounder in a Sherman. And soon after, the Tiger II showed up. I suspect that the Firefly might not have been as successful as the British implies. Keeping it in the rear and only bringing it forward when needed sort of makes me suspicious about its ability to survive.
Learned, researched, good. Perhaps add something to embellish and richen it beyond the gent's sitting and talking. More photos, at least, perhaps something running as he speaks, perhaps films of tests, show some of his researching--him here or there, some of the documents--give us an idea of the work going into such production. AND contrast, perhaps in detail, our struggling development practices with the Germans'.
Well done Sir. I cringe at the parts that you describe the tanks being divided up. Every time I was attached to the Infantry it was a nightmare. In Division Cavalry there were comparatively no issues. But the infantry were always a lot of pain. One time I will never forget my Tank Company (B Trp 1-12 Cavalry but was really a Tank Company as everyone in 1st Cav falsely carries the name) was attached to an infantry battalion for an NTC rotation. I will not bore you with all the stories of how we were tactically miss used but, the last day when the HETS arrived to load us up the BN CDR and XO were standing there screaming like mad men, to get on the F-ing HETS and that once we were on them we were not their F-ing problem! They did not stop screaming and cursing us until all 14 tanks were loaded up. I could not believer their behavior and obvious hate of us from beginning to end of the rotation. It was as if we were the enemy and not fellow US Soldiers.
As far as I know the forward transmission helps with maintenance as you can access it directly and the engine is more free to be accessed directly from the rear and not only the top, but it makes the tank taller thus making hiding and covering it harder, rear transmission tanks are usually shorter but maintenance is harder
Chief Nicholas I appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge of tank designing, WW2 battles and armored theory. You are very good at conveying the big picture on why things were made as they were on these famous historical WW2 tanks. The various tank statistics you provide + the opinions of the combat experienced armored crewmen; really gives us a well rounded understanding of WW2 armored evolution. TANK YOU Sir!!!
3:21 LMAO you take more then ten rounds you will be a fireball matching the name Just take 10 come back to get more think about it I won't live to shoot ten anyways because Those T34 American T31 T 20something and centerions Bassstards
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
As an old man, retired Army Officer, history and tank enthusiast, I love your videos. I just have to keep it hidden from my fellow 11 Bush comrades. A behind closed doors “tread head” is an infantryman’s apostasy.
Ha! Oh well, keep enjoying.
Even the Infantry needs a hero. There are two kinds of people in the world and A Tanker isn’t either one of them.
I absolutely love these historical dives into behind the scenes tank history. Really adds perspective as to why things were the way they were.
Me too! This dovetails neatly into Steve Zaloga's book about the development of the M4 Medium. It too was bounced about between the various players: Devers was head of Armored Force (before they sent him to Europe), McNair was head of Army Ground Forces, and Barnes, head of Technical Division of Ordnance. They were all brilliant people but with slightly different viewpoints. But it was a pity that so much time was lost on Dever's pet project, the M7 - although I sometimes wonder if it can be blamed as much as people do for the late appearance of the M26. It did interfere with the mid-life development of the M4, I think.
The book is called Armored Thunderbolt - The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Published by Stackpole Books (who else?). I couldn't put it down.
I love reading, but listening to Mr Moran talking about the subject is even better
Agree with the latter
Especially when he talks about paint drieing.
nikirki25 true! 😂
@@nikirki25 drying
Exactly lol
The interesting thing to note about the 3rd and 9th Armored getting trained on the 90mm is the stress that the civilian contractor, I believe his name was Price, put on proper boresighting and aiming for certain spots on enemy tanks. When met with incredulity from the tankers in the 11th Armored Division (what does this civvie puke know about hitting anything in specific on a tank with a 90mm gun) Mr. Price set up a row of German helmets across a lake about 625 yards away (I may be a few yards off here but it was definitely around 600 yards) and proceeded to snipe each and every helmet with the 90mm. No complaints about Mr. Price after that, and as things often happen, the gunners set to work to improve upon Price's shooting. Which they did to great effect!
In my searches for researching the T26E3/M26, this gentleman's thesis paper really takes the cake and hits all the points I'm looking for when reading about a certain type of tank from development through combat and beyond, I highly suggest anyone interested in the Pershing to give it a read!
digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=masters
VERY interesting story!
Thanks Owen
T33 was APBC-T (for tracer, not tungsten).
Thank you!!🙂
Wonderful comment.
Everybody: "this is bad and nobody should ever do it"
And so it was done
ah.... the Army way!
@@kreuzrittergottes9336 If you fuck up, fuck up spectacularly so that the boys at USAHEC can marvel over your stupidity for decades and try to find some way for the army to learn from it.
Note to self. Never name my tank "FireBall".
@Baron Von Grijffenbourg That made me laugh. Thanks. :-)
tbh if i get into the wessex yeomanry i hope i can name the tank i operate, i wanna call it "Bert the avenger" just because why not
Lol! My tank M1 in 1983/4
Was named "Deguello"
It is a song meaning
No Quarter
It was played by the Mexican Army to the defenders of the Alamo.
D 1/67 2AD
@@wargamingrefugee9065 ?
@@ws2228 The literal translation is "slit throat". Look this up here on TH-cam: The Alamo - Degüello (Slit throat ). You can verify it on Wikipedia.
I recall that when attempts were made to assign veteran Sherman crews to Pershing, experienced crews said No. They were comfortable with what they knew (the M4) and had safety in numbers to avoid Special Taskings, i.e., we need your Pershing to do this or do that, 24 hours a day.
Talks about bad requirements, basically lists the requirements for the failed "Future Combat System Ground Combat Vehicle"...
Yeah that gave me quite a chuckle myself.
OnTheSpectrum the FCS concept was pretty hilarous. It basically it was taking the Bradley’s development process and applying it to a whole family of vehicles.
@@redenginner I know I've read up on it
Combat
As a tanker from the 1960's, I think that this video should be mandatory for all the armchair tank fan boys!
This video was 4 years ago but I keep coming back to rewatch it along with all of the other vids the chieftain had, since I can't wait for another one.
The first batch of 20 Pershings sent to Amsterdam.... I assume you meant to say Antwerp? Wouldn't want to to ship them directly to the Germans, right?
Give that decision a red light.
The people of Amsterdam were starving to death at that moment. They would have eaten the tanks...
your right I think (20:05) Amsterdam got free when the germans surrendert in germany. The allies never liberated them.
Maybe a chance for the germans to test the new tank??
It was meant to tie down german resources, by trying to move and get away with 20 extra 45 tons tanks, that they couldn't use anyway because they broke down all the time and had no ammunition for it. Clever plan !
Nick’s commentary has one great advantage over many of the sources available on the subject matter. Look up entries on tank books and you’ll just get a few snippets and a ton of technical detail. But what this article gives you is context and perspective.
Great stuff, Nick is right up there with David Fletcher, from Bovington Tank Museum. He needs to be writing, really - the content is great, both in depth and breadth of knowledge, narrative of timeline, major players and major events.
Recommend the presentations Nick gave on M4 design and Tank Destroyers to anybody who liked this video; you’re guaranteed to learn something new even if you’ve studied history for years.
"Don't you think we should test it before we build more?"
F35: "No"
*Osprey would like to know your location*
David Bessey strange AFVs you pair are muttering about 🤔
JN: low rate production while testing aircraft has been practiced in the US since 1953.
They usually end up going back and having to change the initial versions or make them less than fully combat rated even when they test the shit out of them. If the first bunch are going to be not as good anyway you might as well get the production lines going and work out the bugs in that at the same time. They aren't idiots.
The ghost of logistics that is the failure in most situations and plans. You cannot and must not skip planning. Thanks for a good show. ,😀
Fireball is a terrible name for a tank.
Love this. In the War Thunder computer game I really enjoy its T25 incarnation, which seems to the the (one-off?) version that included semi-stabilisation of the turret. They way the game has it modeled (accurately?) it is sluggish speed-wise but has great reverse and turning and is generally brilliant at peeking out and shooting its 90mm gun. Good fun. I pair it with the M36 Jackson.
11:24 "Why build production lines of two vehicles when one of them will do?"
Apparently the US Navy didn't learn this lesson even 75 years later. *cough* Littoral Combat Ship *cough*
It's not the Navy, it's called Congress. The military doesnt get to decide what they buy, its Congress. There's a reason why the US has something like 10,000 stockpiled Abrams or 8 pounds of government stockpiled cheese per person.
And also dont even bother to google the Zumwalt, your head will explode.
The thing is....once adapted 5" versions of the HVAP gets distributed they will most likely make a different saboted version for the 6" guns of the Zumwalt....in the end the guns will be functional.
They will probably remove one gun for more VLS for more area defense ESSM or VL-RAM and some NSM.
The focus seems to be surface warfare now.
@@dwwolf4636they’re taking off the guns from the Zumwalt and replacing them with larger missile tubes for future hypersonic missiles.
To shorten the video
Ordnance: “Y’all need bigger tank.”
Army Ground Forces:”No.”
Ordnance: “ We didn’t ask”
AGF: “WTF this thing is too heavy and breaks down to much!?”
Ordnance: “Yeah but it’s better than a lot of the German tanks so shut up”
AGF: “Fuck.”
Oh man. your furniture still hasn´t arrived?
Actually, it did. He points that out at the start of his video about interwar British tank development. This was merely filmed in front of a calming white background.
hehe
I prefer the void.
It's camouflaged
My dad commanded the Pershing that took out a Tiger in Cologne.
Did the demand for more Pershing tanks ratchet up by the ground troops during the early phase of the Battle Of The Bulge as more German Tanks in quantity started breaking thru the Ardennnes Front and more Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, JagdPanther and Stug IV tanks started to arrive in quantities which might have cause some issues with the Sherman tanks whose medium 75mm cannons were having difficulties penetrating the newly arriving Panzers at range or that the German Panzers were themselves penetrating their own armor at longer range until combat range drop under a mile??
By late 44, 76mm Shermans had been filing in and even Easy 8s were reaching the frontlines, they had enough save for long distance head on engagements with Tiger II and Jagdpanthers. The problems of Panther had been realized and matched by stopgap measures and tactics when they swept central and southern France
Edit: I'm not sure the exact video I'm referring to is still on youtube but the footage is still out there, just my timestamp might be wrong.
I encourage anybody who hasn't already seen it to search youtube for 'Battle for Cologne - tank duel' & see the footage from the T26 knocking out a Panther. Theres a clip that seems to begin at the exact moment the panther took a hit, and you see the crew bailing out and the tank catching fire - you can even see flames through the hole the pershing put in the side of it.
Also at 7:45 you can see the commander of the M4 that was knocked out has had his left leg blown off at the knee, yet still climbed out of the tank unassisted, the remainder of his leg still smoking.
Puts things in perspective.
@John Cornell I was looking at it purely as a tank engagement. You just prompted me to watch 'Battle of Cologne 1945 - A young woman between the frontlines - The original source'. Not sure it was the exact same tank engagement but definitely part of the larger battle.
Wow, a car drove right through the crossfire, the driver was killed and she was shot. US medics treated her but then the tanks were re-engaged & backed up & apparently ran her over (its not 100% certain it was the same woman but her surviving sister said its her in the footage). The tankers probably didn't even know she was there.
@John Cornell no you made me look into the human side of it when I usually look at tanks as exciting machines, don't be sorry. Hopefully she was already unconscious when it happened. Cheers
That m4 commander did die a bit later though from the wound
Tanks have always fascination me as I'm sure it does many others. Having served in the Aviation branch of the US Army in the 70's I probably didn't miss the frozen experience most tankers enjoyed during Reforger exercises on the frozen tundra of southern Germany in and around the Fulda Gap. Romantic but not practical. I am an avid watcher however and very much enjoy the history you provide. Thank you!
So, McNair wasn't, "That Guy", and they really could have used that tungsten penetrator much sooner. EZ with the negative waves, baby. Speaking of which, how about some more on that tank from, "Kelly's Heroes?" And the Tiger's maintenance for that matter.
A bit late to this, but did I just spot a Hitchhiker's Guide reference at 9.35? Chieftain, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
You did, and believe it or not, you're the first to comment on it, all these years later
@@TheChieftainsHatch Nice one! I guess that shows how many of your audience are *proper* nerds! Thanks for reading my comment! (Dammit, I'm going to have to go looking for Easter Eggs now!)
Interestingly, in Steven Zaloga's book Perkshing vs Tiger (Osprey series) he notes that Fireball was repaired and returned to service about a week after it was knocked out in Elsdorf. As noted, the Tiger I was immobilized in building rubble and was abandoned by its crew. Therein lies an important point about the vulnerability of the German heavy tanks - the ability to recover them and perform maintenance was practically nil at that stage of the war. Has anyone published an assessment of German armor lost to malfunction versus losses to hits by allied opposition?
Believe it was about 50/50 in Normandy, primarily due to fuel shortages during retreats. Tho to be fair whoever is on the defensive will have a harder time recovering equipment in general.
1Morrel, such a study would be interesting, because the Anglo-American ability to recover/repair battle-damaged tanks and other vehicles was one of the great underappreciated Allied technological triumphs of the war. Trained crews proved tougher to replace than the tanks, in fact. One reason why U.S. armored formations were reduced to "drafting" guys from other jobs to be tank crew. and then training them more-or-less at the front, without them returning to the 'States to attend armor school at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.
The Germans were just as adept at recovery and repair as the allies were when not losing ground. Not a single Tiger was lost in June and July 1944 in Normandy due to not being able to recover them. That changed in August when they lost ground quickly. All armies abandoned tanks when having to retreat quickly. The French in France 1940, the British in North Africa 1941/1942, the Soviets in Barbarossa 1941 and summer 1942.
The Germans were increasingly losing the ability to do much of much from 1944, due to the overall strategic situation of the war.
The problem with thinking "the 76 is good enough" is that the enemy is probably not thinking that and developing better tanks. That kind of thinking inevitably gets you to a place where you may frantically have to play catch up.
Well it’s a good thing that they made the 90mm already then
Cheiftan reviews tank girls tank, both live action and comic book.
I bet he would do this as an *April fools* as well
'A concealed Tiger tank fired three shots from about 100 yd (91 m). The first penetrated the turret through the machine gun port in the mantlet, killing both the gunner and the loader.'
Ouch. An 88 at 91 meters through the MG port is not going to tickle. :/
IMHO, it didn't help when all but one batch of Pershing's were scattered among M4's instead of keeping them together as a group in order to better mutually support each other with any common problems as they arose, as the Marines successfully did in Korea.
Add that to the tendency when placed among M4's to "prove their worth" against the Tigers as the Sherman's "big brother", to be shoved out into harm's way ahead of the pack, and of course, to get killed as a sacrifice to the rest of the group to decide what to do next.
More on Super Pershing please🤗
Happy St. Patricks Day!
Love these down to Earth, direct to the point historical videos. Always good material to be found on this channel.
Fireball seems like an unlucky name for a tank.
I absolutely love these videos. I don my headphones, turn on these educational gems and start doing chores or work out.
Thanks for T26 history, the devil is in the details, and you get those little devils out.
Thank Nicolas
fireball, a unfortunate name for a unfortunate tank
When he started talking about getting rid of the wet shell stowage in order to carry more rounds, I immediately started thinking: 'Isn't this the British at Jutland all over again?'
Sir Moran talking about my favorite tank? Am I in heaven?
Finally someone who loves The Pershing as much as me!
Having read Spearhead, I have to question the other main engagement involving the Panther at the Airfield. It's an even more extraordinary story than the Cologne engagement. I understand that Clarence never spoke till recently,but why has nobody ever spoke of this before? I am a big Pershing fan, and don't doubt Clarence, I'm just curious. Any thoughts from those who have read the book?
Maybe the engagement wasn’t documented very well. Or it was overshadowed by the more popular Cologne duel. (I’ve read the book btw)
Still think the US Armoured branch should’ve taken up the offer of the 17pdr and equiped at least a small number of M4s for use where heavy German cats were known to be stationed. I mean would one in every five M4s being a Firefly been a problem?
No it wouldn't have been much of a problem. The Americans were too overconfident.
The request for the flying tank was filled.
They called it the A-10 Warthog.
I believe you mean the A-10 BBBRRRRRRTTTTTTTTT
and at 23tons fully loaded, it meets the 30ton weight requirement :)
I read about the politics involving the production and fielding of the M26. From what I read General Jacob Devers (commander of the 7th Army) bypassed AGF (General Lesley McNair) and went directly to General Marshall. Marshall approved it but what I read McNair was still in opposition to it. Unfortunately, McNair was killed during an inspection tour in Normandy when U.S. troops were bombed accidentally by 8th Air Force bombers.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the conspiracy theory surrounding the cologne duel. I'm not one for those usually but the documentary on Amazon connecting the photographer with Chrysler was a well made argument. It's called "March 1945 - Duel at the Cathedral".
I only heard about it this morning. Other than that there is a conspiracy theory about it, I know nothing. I also have absolutely no reason to give a conspiracy theory on the matter any credence whatsoever.
This came up due to a DVD one person (Hermann Rheindorf) made some years ago.
As usual conspiracy theories spread further than articles checking the facts.
There is an in depth analysis available here (it's in German with Google translate links on the page, if something is not clear in the translation feel free to ask, I was born less than 3km away from that place 😉 ):
anicursor.com/battled2.html
Here is an overview of what happened where (this page is available in Englich and German):
panzerduell.de/
@@General_Cartman_Lee Thank you!
Apparently this theory claims the entire battle was a hoax. Smells like BS to me.
@@Imbeachedwhale Rheindorf's theory is that the US propaganda wanted to show the capture of Cologne as being easy while it wasn't in his opinion.
But why should they do this when on other occasions they showed the resistance when it existed.
And as far as I know the Wehrmacht never claimed that they even tried to defend Cologne. It makes no sense at all when you have a natural border (the Rhine) behind you.
The bridges in Cologne were all destroyed and one day after the tank battle the bridge at Remagen was captured.
So if Cologne was not captured on March 6th (like Rheindorf says) the US would have simply ignored and / or bombed it like they did with several other cities that were defended.
Maj. Moran, I read your "book”（not really, articles on your blog） Wish you good luck wherever you are now.
I think the Pershing and the A34 Comet were the two best-looking tanks of the war, low-slung and dangerous-looking.
They are cute little guys ❤
Undoubtedly the best place for entertaining tank vidoes!
Great video.
Would there be enough content to do an in depth video on Australian Tank Design/Production/Doctrine/Anything tank related? Same thing with Canada and other Commonwealth Countries.
Love to see you read first hand accounts/stories/diary entries/letters from real tank crews as well
There is info on line and several books on the topic. The Australian effort showed what could be done on a shoe string but once the Japanese became involved in WW2 the need for a anti German tank faded, plus the US would not supply components like air cooled MG's and pushed the Sherman which was not the best tank available to fight the Japanese.
Something like this about Soviet post WWII designs would be amazing: obj 252, 252u, 705, 257, etc etc. Those vehicles are fascinating
I never knew they sent pershings to the pacific. Even if they never saw combat. That would have sucked. You’re sitting in your chi-he with a tiny 37 made in like 1935 then a freakin Pershing comes onto the beach. Like what are you gonna do?
Excellent presentation as always, sir. I was curious about the drivetrain issues Pershing had. Were the engine/transmission chosen as a matter of convenience/availability or did the designer simply underestimate the power requirement of such a heavy vehicle?
The issues were the result of not running the initial batch thru rigorous testing to find and correct any problems. Ordnance wanted to do that but was overruled by members of Congress who had been agitating for a heavy tank after the M4's first encountered the Tiger 1 in North Africa. Ordnance decided that some testing was required so took the first three produced and ran those non-stop around a track for 500 miles. Two made it and one lost a road wheel after traveling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so declared that the T26 was good to go.
I think US Army thought with M4 (better the devil you know then the devil you don't) with M26. The German Generals knew they where going to lose the war due to the numbers game with tanks because the pumping out of T-34 & M4 that's why the German's last hope was handing out the panzerfaust
Only the US could make designing and fielding an effective tank in WW2 so complicated and protracted, compared with both Germany and Russia. I had a fair idea how bad this was but this video helps get by providing detail, incredible. Keeping very much in mind that Germany was fighting for it's life and had material and manufacturing problems which forced design compramises eg Panther rear drives, they were still able to get private companies to design and manufacture what turned out to be basically superior tanks without the messing around that slowed and complicated the US effort. The Russians too managed to get effective tanks onto the battlefield despite their disadvantages, including the minor detail of being invaded with it's accompanying production disruption. In contrast the US did not have the significant disadvantages that both Germany and Russia had yet the US managed to be a sound last in getting something comparable onto the battle field which says it all really. For the rare few who actually would like to know more without the rah rah a good start is The Business of Tanks by G.MacLeod Ross.
We had the luxury of the home country not being threatened. But, from the beginning, we also had no idea on how to go about designing a tank. What is the primary requirement? Gun or Engine? Heinz Guderian stated the engine. Others will say the gun. Soon as you have the primary consideration, the other is a compromise as to what is available, and can fit. Also what would you regard as "effective" tanks. We get that a Sherman vs. Panther encounter will run poorly for the Sherman, but how about reliability? An American battalion of 65 Shermans is likely to be running 60 vehicles in the morning. A Battalion of Panthers, not as many. After 10 days of operations, 50% of the T-34's in an operation is inoperative due to mechanical failure. Where Sherman treads had a longer life expectancy than a T-34 engine. When the Soviet 1st Guards Mech Corps were issued brand new T-34/85's to replace their Shermans, they raided the depot and took their Shermans back.
Phil Gardocki I agree and also think about where the USA is, it’s between the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean meaning they have to carry everything by Boat. Because of this, The US Forces can’t be sending over heavy tanks without severely reducing the amount of tanks over in the field. Since the Pz.lV is the common German Tank, what’s the point in trying to make a tank that matches the Panther or Tiger in strength when the lighter Tank can have more produced and be upgraded to fight these heavier tanks. Despite America not having a fucking clue on how to make a tank at first. They managed to make at least a decent tank that can out produce the Germans.
Was the bow machine gunner essential though? Or should that position have been left out right from the start of production?
ETO thought as much. On the M26, it would have been the only weapon capable of being fired when on the move, but I doubt ETO knew that at the time. Ordnance were as happy to delete it. Then again, note that some vehicles like M18 and M10 did not have a bow machinegun, but kept the crewman.
Can we get a continuation onto M46/M47/M48?
Regularly posting links to Chieftain's channel on my channel. Enjoy these videos.
How would you have deployed M26 in Normandy? One per troop like firefly or heavy battalion? Since 88s saved Rommel at Arras assume development started in 1940 and logistics were in place to trade 2 Shermans for 1 Pershing before DDay.
If the Pershing was introduced earlier in WW2 would the mechanical issues found in Korea come up? Then armchair Generals would be saying "Why did you deploy an unproven tank?" If there were the funds after the war instead of all the cut backs, then an improved Pershing would have been developed before late 1948. That is when some of the Pershings were upgraded with a bigger engine and better, more reliable transmission (i.e. M46 Patton.)
The US Army had the M6 heavy tank available for use in 1943. It dwarfed a M4 in size, weighed 52 tons and had armor that would defeat an 88. The US armor commanders in North Africa and Italy didn't want because it was too damn slow, too heavy for field bridging and typical road bridges plus would require its own parts and repair depots plus crews and mechanics trained to operate and work on them. The commanders were perfectly happy with the M3's/M4's and their variants since they were getting the job done and less of a logistical problem by sharing the same components. Ordnance plowed ahead developing heavier turrets and hulls to eventually produce a smaller heavy tank than the M6 but wasn't in a rush due to the lack of overseas demand for one. They were forced to come up with something by members of Congress who were getting an earful from their constituents over US tanks getting blown to bits by the big German tanks. It was Congress that ordered the T-26 prototypes into production and then sent overseas into battle without undergoing field testing and without trained crews. Congress wanted a huge number produced but Ordnance managed to get that number dramatically lowered once the war in Europe ended. The Pershing had problems traveling up the steep roads and hills in Korea so were tow assisted by the lowly M4's.
@@billwilson3609 I believe it was actually General Marshall who gave the go ahead in early 1944 to put the T26 into production. The earliest time to get the production started was Nov. 1944 at the Grand Blanc, MI tank arsenal that was run by General Motors. I guess it could have been done earlier if there was an emergency need for it. That really didn't happen until after the Battle of the Bulge due to earlier issues with German armor in Normandy had lessened due to the lack of a sufficient numbers by Sept. 1944.
My earlier post was only limited to the question IF the Pershing was (somehow) introduced earlier, would its limitations with a poor transmission and underpowered engine have been found in the testing phase at Aberdeen or Fort Knox. I'm not sure what the M6 has anything to do with my post? It had a different engine and transmission.
Does anyone know when the Ford GAC V-12 engine was installed in the T-29 super heavy tank prototype? I ask due to whether or not it was available for any T-26 prototype before the end of 1944. Did anyone developing the T-26 think, "33% heavier tank, I might need a 50% more powerful engine" during the development stage? On the same thought, when was the Allison cross-drive transmission developed? Could a quasi-M-46 tank been available at the end of WW2 or was R&D not ready yet?
They should never have named M46 and M47 tanks Pattons. I feel this would not have happened had John Pershing not died in 1948.
You really should upload these kind of videos on your own channel first
Jussi Raitoniemi While I agree it must be pointed out that these videos are organized by his employer, hence their channel gets dibs.
I would not call myself a Tanker but I was in an M109A2 Pally .... But I love armor and Chief keep these great videos coming. Maybe at some p[point you can talk about the M109 and it's history as it will do direct fire and is now being trained to do so more then it was in Desert Storm. After desert storm this was being trained funny you sight down the open bore but now the computer does it ... But it works in a pinch.
Absolutely staggering.
Please do an audio book. Don't care what been just an audiobook.
He has a voice like a velvet blanket
How would you compare the Centurion and the M46
Centurion > rest of 1st gen MBTs
Filthy Weaboo and some second xD
@@Duke_of_Petchington yeah
@@Duke_of_Petchington Unless you had to drive anywhere on your internal tanks. Then every other gen 1 mbt > centurion. The centurion was a great tank in nearly every way other than they forgot that tanks need fuel to get anywhere, and the fact that later centurions had external tanks added just to reach half the range of a patton is telling.
SCComega Israel modded the Cents, with the same Diesel engine
Amsterdam? Don’t you mean antwerp?
I still think, knowing how long our development cycles last, we should have desinged our equipment with that time lag in mind. Future proofing in a way, with the intention to go against what germany would have produced in 2 years time, not what they currently fielded.
I feel we should have been a little more forward thinking in that regard.
If we knew it was gonna take a long time, then we should have made sure it would be a generational leap forward, something that would be able to outclass everything on the battlefield when it came into serivce and be more than a match for anything the enemy could field.
Im just saying, we shouldn't have had to play catch up as long as we did, even if it did take a long time to put something in the field, we should have accounted and designed for that.
We had a great Industrial and logistical advantage over the Germans, we should not have lagged behind as much as we did.
And look maybe there is merit to saying 'we want to make sure whatever we send out there in the field is 100% reliable' or whatever but the truth is, if you're not there when its needed, then it doesnt matter.
The Pershings would have been fantastic to have in the early stages of d-day and the breakout of normandy and the drive across france.
But the fact of the matter is by feb, 1945, it was already too late to really affect the war any meaningful way.
Trying to create the perfect tank doesnt mean anything if you delay it so much that the war is over by the time it reaches the field.
The Chieftain is very good in holding your attention, excellent delivery. Tankies talking tech are normally the military's answer to Mogadon so a Bravo Zulu to the Chieftain.
Chieftain makes great videos. He has so much hands on experience
The Chieftain as always puts the proper perspective on combat- Logistics, Logistics,Logistics.
the back is too white ! Im watched your video at night and it's hurted my eyes, i only hear your saying :( please change it to something not white.
A nice green maybe?
Wear blue blockers with clip-on shades. I actually do this. You'll find while shopping that if they don't tell you what percentage of blue light they block, avoid them.
Very few block all the blue light. They also sell fit-over glasses that block blue light. My strongest blue blocker set-up is the fit-over blue blocker, worn over another
blue blocker glasses, with a dark sunglass clip-on...so it's 3 glasses at the same time. It leaves deep impressions on my nose because it's heavy, but I'm sleeping
better. "Cyrex" is a good brand to browse for blue blockers. I use "Eyekepper 100% Blue Light Reduction,Fitover Anti-Blue Blocking Computer Glasses". "Gamma Ray"
may be a good brand to peruse. ""Uvex" makes strong blue blockers for reasonable prices.
Man I really thought for a like 2 secs that the vid was gonna be about T 26.
3:21 Where have I heard that concept before? 🤔🤔 God, it's just the Elephante in the room of my mind.
What are the differences between the 3 rounds ,, 75mm the 76 mm and the 3 inch ? More or larger propellant ? longer casing or powder was more powerful ?
Oh damn I heard what you did there...Douglas Adams smiles from the ether..."You're not going to like it"...42.
Your explanations show the human virtues and human failings that go into military procurement.
Inside the hatch Abrams or we riot
He's gotta get back up here first ;) Patience, young padawan.
He has done one. It was a video that was about 30 minutes long and he talked quite a bit about his own time in the tank.
Jeremiah90526 I’ve watched that. It wasn’t a true inside the hatch though.
If someone could help figure this hour but is the 90mm t23 just a t25
A tankers dream could be an engineers nightmare
M26's can't have been sent to Amsterdam, as it was still occupied but still I find Chieftain's video's just great! Wonder what tank transporter could take those beasts, anybody knows?
Objective, accurate, and good voice.
This was way too short. Like a tease. C'mon, man! =)
I know this doesn't have anything to do with the T26 but can someone explain to me why they just didn't increase the length of the Sherman's 75mm barrel to increase its velocity since you could still use the same ammo and even revert back to a shorter barrel if need be?
We'll they're replacing it already with 76mm which is much better, and lengthening the barrel would offset it's balance with it's breach so there's a lot more that needs fixing.
inisipisTV thanks!
Thanks Chieftain as I am one of those who would rather listen. Lol
Cheiftain I gotta idea that might be a bit of a stretch, but if you ever got time, why not take a trip down to Ft, Benning Georgia and take a inside the hatch of the monster “super heavy tank t28”. That would be absolutely awesome.
The inside of it is probably rusted to hell though
In his last Q&A, he mentioned that he was putting off going down to Ft. Benning, because they had the T28 under restoration, and if he waited until they finished, he might be able to do a full outside & inside video on it.
McNair is often included among the list of controversial American commanders in WWII, such as Fredendall, Clark, and Lucas. Despite not being a combat commander, he was killed by friendly fire (aerial bombing) while observing the opening phase of Operation Cobra.
He is controversial because no one knows what GHQ and AGF are.
@@torbai The US Army in WWII was, conceptually, really two armies. The first one organized, trained, and equipped the forces at home, while the other one employed those forces in combat operations across the globe. In this sense, the combatant commanders (predominantly Eisenhower and MacArthur) were the customers who identified their requirements to McNair, who was their force provider. A key point to remember is that McNair was neither subordinate nor answerable to these combatant commanders. He worked for the Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall. As the Chieftain pointed out, the requirements of each commander varied. Had McNair worked for them, I doubt he could have gotten much done, so he needed a degree of independence. I know this is a gross oversimplification of what was really going on, but this forum limits a broader description. There is much to both admire and admonish about McNair. Nobody had ever been given such a monumental task as he received - turn a million man Army into an eight million man army, and train and equip it to fight an ever evolving modern war. He was a great organizer and excelled in this task. Those who criticize his armor decisions may be right, but I think they pale in comparison with what I consider to have been the Army's worst mistake - the individual replacement system (in lieu of whole unit replacements). McNair advocated this approach to deploying causality replacements, and he had Marshall's support. Far from ideal, it had the advantage of greatly limiting troop space requirements on supply ships. It also reduced the demands on Army recruitment, which made the captains of industry happy. But from a tip-of-the-spear viewpoint, it was a tragic fiasco.
When criticizing the decisions of commanders, one must consider not just their successes and failures, but the reasons for the decisions that led to these successes and failures. We will never know for certain, but their shortcomings may have been the result of the best possible courses of action available at the time, abysmal as they may appear in hindsight.
Colonel K Well, I already know that... I am sorry that it must cost you a long time to write a long article but the only reader already knows what you said... My apologies.
@@torbai When I respond to anyone I assume others are reading these comments and may chime in. If not, I don't mind. A lot of the folks here are pretty knowledgeable, and any polite and intelligent discourse is always appreciated. It helps keep my mind sharp.
22:28 Japanese Army: Terrified screaming ensues
Good book so far. I'm about halfway through it.
I disagree with Chieftains' recurring defense of Gen. McNair. McNair was the main foot dragger in reference to fielding a heavy/heavier tank. Why? I think, given McNair's quotes, he felt he was "doing what the boss would want". The boss, of course, was Gen Marshall, whose prewar doctrine declared that tanks were NOT to fight other tanks, that was a job for tank destroyers. It's no coincidence that things began to move forward AFTER McNair's tragic death in August, 1944.
t-23 looks a lot like a T-34
It absolutely does. Like a T-34 85
Hi Chieftain. Wondering if you consider doing some more vids on Cold War era tanks. Leo’s, chieftain, Soviets t62/72 etc. a vid on MBT70 would be awesome
Didn't Porsche and Henschel build ninety each prototype Tiger tanks to see which one was better? Or am I experiencing the Mandela Effect again?
It is somewhat surprising that they didn't try to license the Rolls Royce Meteor engine.
As far as deploying something largely untested : They didn't know if there was any surprises from the Germans in the pipeline. So even if they didn't send it to the front line, having a somewhat heavy tank in the area seems to be prudent. Especially when we know about the ergonomics of the 17 pounder in a Sherman. And soon after, the Tiger II showed up.
I suspect that the Firefly might not have been as successful as the British implies. Keeping it in the rear and only bringing it forward when needed sort of makes me suspicious about its ability to survive.
great video - thanks
Learned, researched, good. Perhaps add something to embellish and richen it beyond the gent's sitting and talking. More photos, at least, perhaps something running as he speaks, perhaps films of tests, show some of his researching--him here or there, some of the documents--give us an idea of the work going into such production. AND contrast, perhaps in detail, our struggling development practices with the Germans'.
Well done Sir. I cringe at the parts that you describe the tanks being divided up. Every time I was attached to the Infantry it was a nightmare. In Division Cavalry there were comparatively no issues. But the infantry were always a lot of pain. One time I will never forget my Tank Company (B Trp 1-12 Cavalry but was really a Tank Company as everyone in 1st Cav falsely carries the name) was attached to an infantry battalion for an NTC rotation. I will not bore you with all the stories of how we were tactically miss used but, the last day when the HETS arrived to load us up the BN CDR and XO were standing there screaming like mad men, to get on the F-ing HETS and that once we were on them we were not their F-ing problem! They did not stop screaming and cursing us until all 14 tanks were loaded up. I could not believer their behavior and obvious hate of us from beginning to end of the rotation. It was as if we were the enemy and not fellow US Soldiers.
@ 21:39 Please don't say "Nashhorn" like "Nashville". Say Nascar and replace the car with horn and you will have a perfect pronunciation of "Nashorn".
Has this been posted twice? Watched this this morning yet it says posted half an hour ago.
It was posted on Wargaming America's channel I think
@@tigara1290 Yeah that's probably it. Thought it was Chieftain's channel but I guess not.
What is the advantages vs disadvantages with having the transmission in the front vs the back?
As far as I know the forward transmission helps with maintenance as you can access it directly and the engine is more free to be accessed directly from the rear and not only the top, but it makes the tank taller thus making hiding and covering it harder, rear transmission tanks are usually shorter but maintenance is harder
Now a days it doesn't matter since you have an all in one power pack that houses both your engine and transmission.
Chief Nicholas I appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge of tank designing, WW2 battles and armored theory. You are very good at conveying the big picture on why things were made as they were on these famous historical WW2 tanks. The various tank statistics you provide + the opinions of the combat experienced armored crewmen; really gives us a well rounded understanding of WW2 armored evolution.
TANK YOU Sir!!!
3:21 LMAO you take more then ten rounds you will be a fireball matching the name
Just take 10 come back to get more think about it I won't live to shoot ten anyways because
Those T34 American T31 T 20something and centerions Bassstards
Upvote for the Hitchhikers Guide reference. "You aren't going to like this..."