Outstanding job explaining this perfect restoration. The M-24 Chaffee filled in for M4 Shermans in 1960’s war movies. Civilian restorations would come later.
Very Advanced Design With Excellent Improvements Over Earlier Light Tanks The Chaffee was an advanced design when it first came out in late 1943 versus the M3 or M5 Stuart Light Tanks which were introduced just several years earlier. The Chaffee with about the same 15-17 tons of weight had a 75 MM versus a 37 MM dual purpose gun, very similar to the one occasionally mounted on the Mitchell B25 Medium bombers. The armor was slightly better designed in terms of slope, especially against the earlier M3 Stuart, which was angular. The Stuart's had a lower minimum, but higher maximum armor thickness than the Chaffee because they were originally designed to confront Panzer 2's Czech 38T's, and earlier and more lightly armored and armed Panzer 3's which originally were installed with just a 37 MM main gun with less frontal armor than the Stuart's until late in the North African campaign. The only 'fatal' deficiency of the 75 mm turret mounted main gun was its very low velocity, slightly higher than 2000' per second, muzzle velocity. So the AP shells were thoroughly useless against either the T34/76 or 85 mm Russian medium tanks it was forced to face in Korea, in 1950-52, until sufficient M46-47s were available, (90 MM 'Pershing' M26 'MBT' upgrade). During its deployment in the European theatre, 1944-45, the Chaffee faced Panzer 3s and 4s with about twice as much armor as the earlier German variants that the British faced in North Africa using Stuart M3s, (without the sloped armor of the later M5 Stuart). Those Stuart's were able to penetrate the Panzer 3's earlier variant's armor, with their 37 MM, turret mounted, main gun. Yet unlike their British contemporaries, whose 2 pounder only came in an Anti-Tank, 'Armor Piercing' variety, the Stuart's had a much needed, high-explosive round, like the larger Chaffee's 75 MM. The only drawback to the Chaffee's 75 MM main gun was it low muzzle velocity which combined with a maximum of 38 MM of frontal armor required the Chaffee to be within 800 yards to knock out a late variant Panzer 3 or 'Stug' turretless design, ('Stug' only vulnerable from rear or sides). The 'Stug' having a much more powerful, high velocity, 76 mm, 'hull mounted' gun, which was also mounted on later WW2 designed Panzer 4s, which were more than a match for the Sherman and at least the equal of the 'Sherman Firefly' - 17 pounder - 'AP variant'. So the 'Chaffee' was, like the Sherman, the equal or superior to its 'Axis' counterparts when first introduced, but by war's end was frequently outclassed by the very resourceful German industry's frequently upgraded existing models. U.S. tanks made up for their lack of handy German updates with mass production which overwhelmed the German Panzers with huge numbers of American tanks which were well laid out and more standardized without the German Panzers tendency to run half way up the alphabet with upgrades and variants like the Panzer 3H, which was an infinitely more formidable adversary introduced in 1943 than its earlier 1939 variants which fought in Poland and were retrofitted and upgraded prior to the Invasion of France in May of 1940. Specifically, tbe Germans, at General Guderian insistence replaced the original 37 MM main gun with a high velocity 50 MM, and they up-armored the Panzer 3 above the Stuart's standards. The process was an evolutionary doctrine favored by Guderian, ('Acthung Panzer' - 1937) and utilized very effectively within the Panzer Corp throughout WW2.
The M24 is a beauty, but what most fail to understand was the real reason for the twin Cadillac motors is that they were the same as in the M5 Stuart, so there was no new train of spares, or need to retrain the crews who transitioned over from the M5 to the M24. No truthfully the Chaffee would have been better served by using a single Ford GAA gasoline engine which was smaller, far lighter than the two iron Cadillacs, and produced 450 hp at 2600 rpm as apposed to the total output of 220 for both Cadillacs. The problem was availability of engine types. The Ford GAA was a priority engine in the M4A3 Sherman's. And shortages of engines through out the war would see numerous different power pants used in the Sherman's from radial air cooled to diesels and gasoline types.
I’m a little unclear about hp output. He said”2 cadillac flathead V8 engines 110 hp.” Is that each engine or total for both? That seems anemic for both.
That "car salesman" was the #1 skilled restoration artisan on that "beautiful tank". Really. Thanks for your 20 minutes, please don't forget to like and follow. www.tankshop.com
@@teller1290Thanks for that. The 75 mm gun on a light tank back then. Huge. No wonder the French loved it post WW2. They dismantled one, transported it to Dien Bien Phu, and reassembled it.
This Chaffee is so damned advanced looking and so pleasing to the eye. thanks for the impassioned enthusiastic narration.
Uruguay is still using them I think.
I love how excited he is to walk-through this piece of history. Please keep up the great videos!
This restoration is amazing! Well done IMT.
Bet The_Chieftain was nerding out over this :)
kloppanator to bad he didnt goit was awesome
Outstanding job explaining this perfect restoration. The M-24 Chaffee filled in for M4 Shermans in 1960’s war movies. Civilian restorations would come later.
Love the horsepower.
Cadillac flathead's never die.
Thumbs Up...
Motivation to get mine done! Like the white engines. I was thinking about doing the same thing. Absolutely fabulous detailed restoration.
Nice work, this tank looks brand new!
Fantastic talk and walk round, great engineering, brilliant restoration.
I young person and happy that keeping history alive.
Very Advanced Design With Excellent Improvements Over Earlier Light Tanks
The Chaffee was an advanced design when it first came out in late 1943 versus the M3 or M5 Stuart Light Tanks which were introduced just several years earlier. The Chaffee with about the same 15-17 tons of weight had a 75 MM versus a 37 MM dual purpose gun, very similar to the one occasionally mounted on the Mitchell B25 Medium bombers. The armor was slightly better designed in terms of slope, especially against the earlier M3 Stuart, which was angular. The Stuart's had a lower minimum, but higher maximum armor thickness than the Chaffee because they were originally designed to confront Panzer 2's Czech 38T's, and earlier and more lightly armored and armed Panzer 3's which originally were installed with just a 37 MM main gun with less frontal armor than the Stuart's until late in the North African campaign.
The only 'fatal' deficiency of the 75 mm turret mounted main gun was its very low velocity, slightly higher than 2000' per second, muzzle velocity. So the AP shells were thoroughly useless against either the T34/76 or 85 mm Russian medium tanks it was forced to face in Korea, in 1950-52, until sufficient M46-47s were available, (90 MM 'Pershing' M26 'MBT' upgrade).
During its deployment in the European theatre, 1944-45, the Chaffee faced Panzer 3s and 4s with about twice as much armor as the earlier German variants that the British faced in North Africa using Stuart M3s, (without the sloped armor of the later M5 Stuart). Those Stuart's were able to penetrate the Panzer 3's earlier variant's armor, with their 37 MM, turret mounted, main gun. Yet unlike their British contemporaries, whose 2 pounder only came in an Anti-Tank, 'Armor Piercing' variety, the Stuart's had a much needed, high-explosive round, like the larger Chaffee's 75 MM. The only drawback to the Chaffee's 75 MM main gun was it low muzzle velocity which combined with a maximum of 38 MM of frontal armor required the Chaffee to be within 800 yards to knock out a late variant Panzer 3 or 'Stug' turretless design, ('Stug' only vulnerable from rear or sides). The 'Stug' having a much more powerful, high velocity, 76 mm, 'hull mounted' gun, which was also mounted on later WW2 designed Panzer 4s, which were more than a match for the Sherman and at least the equal of the 'Sherman Firefly' - 17 pounder - 'AP variant'.
So the 'Chaffee' was, like the Sherman, the equal or superior to its 'Axis' counterparts when first introduced, but by war's end was frequently outclassed by the very resourceful German industry's frequently upgraded existing models. U.S. tanks made up for their lack of handy German updates with mass production which overwhelmed the German Panzers with huge numbers of American tanks which were well laid out and more standardized without the German Panzers tendency to run half way up the alphabet with upgrades and variants like the Panzer 3H, which was an infinitely more formidable adversary introduced in 1943 than its earlier 1939 variants which fought in Poland and were retrofitted and upgraded prior to the Invasion of France in May of 1940. Specifically, tbe Germans, at General Guderian insistence replaced the original 37 MM main gun with a high velocity 50 MM, and they up-armored the Panzer 3 above the Stuart's standards. The process was an evolutionary doctrine favored by Guderian, ('Acthung Panzer' - 1937) and utilized very effectively within the Panzer Corp throughout WW2.
Thank you for the insight !
My favourite tank for style , just looks amazing ❤
Outstanding job! She's a beauty!
Great looking light tank.
Wow, fantastic restoration. That's how it's done! Great looking tank.
Absolutely beautiful restoration. You did an excellent job. Is this tank in a public museum or a private collection?
The M24 is a beauty, but what most fail to understand was the real reason for the twin Cadillac motors is that they were the same as in the M5 Stuart, so there was no new train of spares, or need to retrain the crews who transitioned over from the M5 to the M24.
No truthfully the Chaffee would have been better served by using a single Ford GAA gasoline engine which was smaller, far lighter than the two iron Cadillacs, and produced 450 hp at 2600 rpm as apposed to the total output of 220 for both Cadillacs.
The problem was availability of engine types. The Ford GAA was a priority engine in the M4A3 Sherman's. And shortages of engines through out the war would see numerous different power pants used in the Sherman's from radial air cooled to diesels and gasoline types.
what a great presentation ! I gave it a like.
Thank you Andrew
Damn that is one fine resto
great job this guy looks like a kid in a candy store, nice that he knows all the in,s and outs of it!!!!!
I wonder where the came up with a Chaffee to restore?
Where is this museum??
I’m a little unclear about hp output. He said”2 cadillac flathead V8 engines 110 hp.”
Is that each engine or total for both? That seems anemic for both.
Yes! Its nuts compared to todays' engines.
got that beautiful tank there with all its history, and we get a 20 minute presentation from a car salesman. Really?
That "car salesman" was the #1 skilled restoration artisan on that "beautiful tank". Really.
Thanks for your 20 minutes, please don't forget to like and follow. www.tankshop.com
Cool design but was impractical in combat in later WW II and the Korean War.
The helicopter took over the recon role.
Good for recon roll, infantry support. I doubt it was deliberately employed in Korea vs T-34.
I will ALWAYS wonder why it wasn’t armed with a 76.2 mm rifle...
A 76.2 mm rifle is a cannon. HE in the 76.2 cannon was inferior compared to the HE in the 75 mm cannon in the case of the Sherman.
Takes a bigger turret to contain breech, which would require a bigger hull to balance bigger turret. Pretty soon you have another medium tank.
@@teller1290Thanks for that. The 75 mm gun on a light tank back then. Huge.
No wonder the French loved it post WW2. They dismantled one, transported it to Dien Bien Phu, and reassembled it.