This tank has a superior level of protection - of the headlights. Company brochure: *Our tank has a superior level of protection, according to U.S. Army testing.*
This tank has a satisfactory level of performance in sand. (1TBI) Company brochure: Our tank has satisfactory maneuverability according to US Army testing! Bogey faceplate broke, required entire bogey assembly to fix. Company brochure: Bogey faceplate repairs come with entirely new bogey!
"... and we will conclude our report with a note to the builder: when we said that the best way to kill a tank is using a tank, we didn't mean using and killing the same tank. It was intended to be different tanks. Please review Your design to accommodate this distinction."
Some of these tanks were deployed to Aleutian Islands in Alaska to contend with Japanese forces. They were awful, but the only armor spared to fight in the Alaskan Campaign. One of them sank in a swamp on one of the islands, lost. I wonder...is it still there, intact, awaiting a determined person to come dig it out?
"One of them sank in a swamp on one of the islands . . . ." So they sent in another tank. That one sank into the swamp. So they sent in a third. That one caught fire, fell apart, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one . . . never got to the swamp in the first place because the steering differential failed.
How is this thing six tons heavier, more poorly protected, and more cramped than M3 stuart?! Not to mention a main gun that only operated correctly ONCE. Tanks, but no tanks
the use of bolted construction means that there is a frame to which the armour plates are bolted, with the addition of the bolts, will add a non insignificant amount of weight when compared to a similarly sized tank of welded construction the glacis being made of several steps also adds to the weight, compared to sloped glacis or a simpler design as used in the M3, as the additional steps adds armour volume and additional framing to hold all of it the MTLS is also slightly larger than the M3 in all dimensions (MTLS: 4.9x2.64x2.81m; M3:4.5x2.24x2.64m) which, again adds weight the marmon also has wider tracks compared to the M3 (380mm vs 295mm), meaning that while the tank is wider, the main volume does not augment as much, and they also weigh more an automatic gun will always be heavier and larger than a semi automatic one of the same calibre, adding to the weight and bulkyness, having two of them sure doesn't help the size or weight problem
Frame and bolt construction. The frame eats up space and the need for bolts and flanges adds weight. Plus, you have to make everything flat so you can't get extra space by bulging the walls.
@@Observer31 at least the M3 worked. It could at least drive somewhere and shoot at things, with a reasonable expectation of both getting to the destination and the armament successfully firing when you got there.
"The -finest- latest light tanks produced by Marmot-Herringbone, intended for service in the Dutch East Indies, now available at a reduced price due to current circumstances!"
@@andrewryan4417 There is a running joke about a country named Elbonia where the goal is to equip a full militarily with the worse military equipment possible without being caught purposefully trying to sabotage them. Forgotten Weapons as well the Chieftain have both done some pretty good and funny videos on the joke.
This "offering" of a tank by Marmon-Herrington is amusing, because they did make some rather good armored cars, and were known for offering some of the first really practical 4WD conversions of civil and commercial vehicles. Including the M22, M-H seemingly never really got ("grokked", to borrow from R.A.H.,) the concept of the light tank, regardless of their other really superb products.
A lot of the 'Marmon-Herrington' armoured cars just used the 4wd conversion on a Ford truck chassis, especially those manufactured in South Africa. As far as I know, the Marmon-Herringtons used in North Africa all came from South Africa.
"In 1938 the South African government emitted a specification for two armored cars models, to be built locally by South African industries with various shipped parts. Marmon-Herrington (USA) presented its own design in 1939, which was accepted for production. The four-wheel drive train and transmission was its own product, but chassis elements and engine came from the Ford 3-ton lorry built in Canada, and the armament was British. All these parts converged to South Africa by ship and rail, to be assembled at the Dorman Long structural steel company, with steel armored plates from the South African Iron & Steel Industrial Corporation, and the chassis assembly by Ford Motor Company of South Africa." tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_MkII.php tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_MkIII.php and eventually, a purpose built vehicle - used by British, Indian, New Zealand, Greek, Free French, Polish, Dutch and Belgian armies and the Israelis and Jordanians against each other. Some Greek vehicles served into the 1990's tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_Mk4.php So MH armored vehicles weren't total trash. The basic problems with the vehicles in this video were 1) They were designed to be cheap for militaries that couldn't afford anything else during the depression 2) They were designed to strict weight limits for what would now be called the Third World roads and bridges and the USMC's need to have something a ship's launch (there were no landing craft) could carry www.oocities.org/marmonherrington/usmc.html MH is still around today and doing quite nicely, thank you - Berkshire Hathaway owns them and anybody who knows anything about BH knows how they are regarded in awe by the Street en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington
M-H saw an opportunity to make a fast buck so didn't bother with the usual lengthy testing of initial models to find and correct design flaws. They didn't even run the tanks over a test course after rolling off the production line to see if it was assembled properly.
The MTLS is actually already in the game, I believe as a tier 3 prem. They've been in for a very long time, and are also very rare. It was never up for sale on pc, and only a few alpha testers on the NA server have one. It is on sale on console though.
DESIGNER 1: So we basically have a tank with obsolete armor, a useless headlight, an engine impossible to access and repair, with a cramped interior, the steering levers are pain-inducing, the tracks fall off, it's vulnerable to a cold environment and we might need superstrong glue to keep it intact, what shall we do sir? DESIGNER 2: Build another one with more guns!
This is literally like someone slapped a tank together, skipping the design and prototype phases altogether. You have to be talented to fail as hard and as completely as these schmucks.
@@mtpender69 To note, the Bob Semple tank was designed by two men (Minister of Works Robert Semple, and Christchurch District Works Engineer T G Beck) who had no idea about tanks or other vehicles. In addition it had the issue of being a shell to be bolted to the chassis (a Caterpillar D8 tractor), rather than being an integrated vehicle. It was also designed by a company with pretty much no armaments industry whatsoever. Yes it's a worse tank, but it at least has the advantage in that regard of starting from a scrap-heap anyway.
@@slothenthusiast5422 I missed the "heavy" in the comment. But there wasn't a reliable heavy tank in WW2 or later, not until the late 70's with the introduction of the M1 and Leopard 2.
Chill out. In 1939 Poland had Vickers 6t tank - 24x TP7 and TP9 heavier design based on this Vickers (few dozens each) and some 200x tenkettes called TK and TKS which best feature was that they were CUTE :3 That makes the fleet of light, lighter and lightest tanks :)
@@HanSolo__ i mean there was a polish tank group that never actually lost a battle in the battle for Poland. They then escaped to France fought in France and had to escape to spain when France gave up. (they all so had to let go the Germans they captured) so not sure if there Survival is based on there tanks or than they where all just reicantated winged husaris.
and those tanks were meant for use in the tropics... I think the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army escaped one disaster (delivery of these lemons) by encountering another (the Japanese invasion). One redeeming detail for these tanks is that they're well enough armoured and armed to operate against the intended most likely opponents: local rebels and revolutionaries armed only with rifles and pistols.
That is, if the guns actually work. Even the MGs don't fit so I reckon even against local rebels and revolutionaries they'd be pretty useless except perhaps as an intimidation weapon.
I am 30 Years in the military and still serving (enlisted). I am a WOT gamer. Your an officer, and a historian, and a gamer and community contributor. But the fact you are doing a dork level deep dive into these (and others) tanks... while your wife is ZOOMING a gender reveal party... makes me like you even more. Never stop sir, you are just about at the top of the list of who I would want to have a beer with every night deployed... just to listen to you talk. Salute. And yes... I love the dork level deep dives...
Mrs. Chieftain: "I've been invited to a virtual gender reveal party. Do you want to join in?" Chieftain(thinking fast): "Sorry, I have to make a video about a very important tank project that I promised my viewers. I would have loved to come, but bills must be paid."
Oh, controversy about the Valiant being bad! There is only one way to settle this, Inside the Hatch: Valiant! Although, to give Valiant its due, at least it was a good tank done badly; unlike these things, which were bad tanks done badly.
If cuteness could be effective in a war , i pray Asia never attacks. Just imagine an army made of cute tanks and hello kitty camouflaged (tiny)soldiers. We'd be fucked
Yes, although that might have been a very sly concept of camouflage: Tank gunner: "Sir, with all due respect, that tank is just too cute so it would be quite rude to take it out. So would you agree that we let it go for once?" Tank commander: "Jolly good point, private, so let's crack on and look for some targets worthy to being attacked, shall we?" **sips tea with extended pinkie**
i love how he says the words VIRTUAL GENDER REVEAL with the excitement of going to get your taxes done. but you are correct, i haven't heard of this tank. its so bad i hardly wanna say it qualifys as a vehicle.
Excellent timing. I've just finished reading - Tanks in Hell A Marine Corps Tank Company on Tarawa by Oscar E. Gilbert & Romain Cansiere. They mention the Marmon - Harrington tanks quite frequently, and I had never heard of them before - thanks!
"Battery had to be replaced at 400 miles, magneto had to be replaced at 402 miles." That is so funny. Its litteraly them repairing the tank, driving 2 miles only for the thing to break again.
Not really weird for early tanks. They considered making it a couple miles without requiring maintenance a pretty big deal. It was a bit better by 1940 still not great. I remember reading recently a bit where the French were very proud of the fact that they drove their Char B1s forty miles to the battlefield, and more than half of them made it without breaking down. That and that sort of thing is just common on vehicles, especially with electrical stuff. You break down once, it seems to greatly increase the odds of something else failing soon. The initial breakdown is often the direct cause of the second, by putting excess strain on other parts. Although in this specific case, the bad magneto is probably what caused the battery to fail. I assume that the magneto is what is used to charge the battery, although it's kind of weird to have both, a magneto is usually used to make sure that the engine doesn't need a battery to run, which is why they still use them in aircraft. If the battery failed, they were stuck for that reason, and had to replace it. Then they drove two miles to a convenient place on the battery and replaced the magneto. Like when your alternator in your car dies and discharges your battery, you don't usually change the alternator beside the road, but you can get a fresh battery and use it to drive to a place where you can stop and fix the alternator.
I still love your light hearted presentation and the fact that you and Ian are always chatting/collaborating. Hope I can catch you some day in London or at the Tank Museum maybe.
They originally ordered Vickers Light tanks in 1936 after trialling 4 (73 machine gun armed made in the UK and 45 Command cannon tanks made in Belgium to be delivered from April 1940 onwards) but with the outbreak of the war only 20 machine gun tanks had been delivered and another 4 were sunk in Rotterdam harbour by the Germans. they had to turn to the only supplier left on the market for cannon tanks, the Americans. The Americans offered them a turretless design, Dutch said no, then they came back with what would be the CTLS and MTLS. As they were the only tanks available they had to be ordered.
@chris younts Sure, or even surplus Stuarts. But the timing doesn't work at all: Grants _first_ went into action (with the British in North Africa) in late May 1942, by which time the DEI Army was no longer a going concern (and hadn't been for a little while).
@chris younts Seriously, the 1936 vickers light tanks would have been better. Point is nothing was available, these were ordered before even the first m3s were out. 1941 is not a good time to be looking to procure tanks.
@@watcherzero5256 I was hoping to hear from Chieftain if the small number of CTLS-A's the DEI army supposedly hurriedly equipped w/ M1919 .30 's and deployed as an emergency response to the Japanese attack accomplished anything whatsoever. As the crudest Japanese tank would outclass them wildly, doubt it. Would figure most were simply abandoned. Guess I could not be lazy and research myself. :)
@@muttmankc There seems to be very little information out there about these tanks in American service or their predecessors that were with the US Marines, its all about their Dutch life.
It was also used in Alaska by the Americans, presumably so senators could say they had tanks there to the hysterical people convinced the Japanese would somehow launch an invasion there. Besides, they could probably use it for ..something, if it was modified. Maybe a tractor?
Someone at the company must have told the foreman of the factory "everyone's desperate at the moment, build them quickly and cheap as possible, someone will pay us" This many bugs had to be deliberate. The design itself looks like someone took an OK design and cheap skated it. A stupid business model as everyone was desperate and even mediocre tanks were selling like hotcakes. I wonder how many government orders this company got after pulling this stunt?
My company quickly came up with a cheap face visor for thease pandemic times. We made a lot in a short time but it stopped since then but then we do need our machinery for other production as well.
M-H never bothered to build a few dozen first for rigorous testing to find the design flaws and if the improvements fixed the problems. They didn't bother to run the tanks over a test course after assembly to see if everything worked correctly. I grew up near a Pullman-Standard RR car plant that assembled the M3 and M4 tanks for the British Army. Us kids rode our bicycles on the plant's tank testing course which was an oval with very uneven surfaces, soft sand and paved surfaces for getting up to speed to take the tank airborne off a ramp to give the suspension a good jolt before being driven up and down a hill with a 40 degree slope. The tank would stop halfway up, set the parking brake before turning off the engine to test the parking brake. Then they restarted the engine and repeated the test when going downhill. Each tank was inspected after testing where any damaged or defective components were replaced with the tank running the course again.
I remember seeing this ages ago on the Tank Encyclopedia and just assumed it was essentially an inter-war, armored car assuming it had twin .50 caliber machine guns I guess that was giving them too much credit...
That's the thing, When looking at it I assumed the same thing "oh yeah it's like an interwar tank..." nope, 1943, this thing was obsolete before it even hit the design stage, let alone the production stage!
@@luketfer It made me find new appreciation for the M3/M5 Stuarts, for sure. When you had them around, and compare them to this, this thing just makes you go, "Okay, but why, though?"
It's a miracle the designers weren't accused of treason. You wouldn't even want your enemies to have this tank, since it would take the honor out of winning 😝
They were an American company building for the Dutch, what grounds for treason would that give? Disloyalty to the Dutch Royal Family? And the exact terms of the contract would determine any grounds to sue. They accepted an emergency order to be fulfilled on very short notice, I doubt they gave any ironclad guarantees about performance, other than that the Dutch had the option to refuse to accept them if they didn't meet the contract specifications. They would not be liable for any sort of financial penalty for not fulfilling the contract, unless that was written into the contract. And since we don't know exactly what the contract specified, it could easily be the Dutch who were in the wrong for not accepting them and paying for the work that was done. Thats why you have people who make a living just writing contracts. What they say matters.
“First and second gear were so far apart that the vehicle would stop before being physically able to shift into second” has to be one of the biggest engineering facepalms of all time
Marmon Herrington's boss: I need you to design a tank by the end of the week. The engineer: But... it's 14h00 on a friday afternoon... are you sure... Marmon Herrington's boss: DO IT!
11:00 - "It was also not possible to order a new faceplate without ordering an entire new bogey assembly." - Man, Marmon-Herrington truly was ahead of their times, huh.
Thanks Chieftain! In addition to providing amusement, you've made me feel a bit better about the much-bemoaned reliability problems of my favourite tank (the British Crusader)! I must say I believe the Mark 3 version of the Crusader is often underrated as it falls under the shadow of its lesser Mk1/Mk2 variants. Yes it still had flaws but it also had some positive attributes: Its speed and lower profile (both of which made it harder to hit than the contemporaneous Grant), and most importantly the 6 pounder was FINALLY an effective weapon against the panzers of the day. And lastly, it was incomparably sexy- which I realise makes no sense whatsoever.
@@michaelpettersson4919 Sorry for the late response, but the tank you are talking about was the Ha-Go in War Thunder. When the game moved to a mathematical penetration calculation system instead of a statistical one, some older tanks (notably the Ha-Go and short 37mm-armed French tanks) ended up with APHE rounds that would not actually fuse, resulting in them effectively turning into hollowpoint rounds. These tanks were temporarily removed while Gaijin looked around for Sekret Dokumints that would allow them to add more effective rounds for those tanks. These tanks ended up getting APCR and were reintroduced as Tier 1 unlockables.
@@looinrims Resources or not some of their designs were either rushed or mechanically doomed from the start. Someone there should've taken Ferdinand Porsche outside and shot him after seeing his Tiger's test trials.
22:58 "So far, the tracks fall off, the wheels fall off, the engine is not powered enough, the armor is useless considering the time." But hey, the engine compartment is watertight!
Well done as always, good research from source material, plus great delivery, the look at the camera regarding bolted armour (priceless). I am retired RCN, taught at University, and was Director of a military museum, just to give some context to my praise. BZ
One Russian tank used in early WWII had three turrets and four machine gun cupolas. Two 45mm turrets fore and aft, a 76mm turret on a tall barbette between them, and MG cupolas at the corners.
Bolted construction.... Sigh. I think I felt a shudder in the force at that statement, like millions screamed out at once and were scilenced by one horrible statement......
So basically someone was finding out what gender the baby inside them was? I’ve been slammed with so much sjw stuff that I thought it might be some west person deciding they’re a different gender
Not a glowing testament for the private sector. From the description of the vehicles they would have been obsolete in 1940 let alone 1942. Did the designers and management of Marmon - Harrington really believe these vehicles were fit for purpose and how much testing had they carried out on them. It would interesting to hear the company's evaluation report.
I could swear the Chief had something else on mind to say at 0:55 "...not sure I agree with him, but you know, go watch his sh... uhh... go watch his video..."
Sounds like it would be a good tank for a Boy Scout parade...as long as the parade route is less than a mile and the Girl Scouts don’t attack them with sticks larger than 1/4” diameter.
The dedication of this man, to spend so much time with this piece of garbage tank without saying fuck it and sending it to the scrapper or ironically donating it to a museum.
On the contrary my good sir. These rubbish piles of canine excrement do have one redeemable value. Making satisfactory hard targets of such nature that when struck by a projectile of sufficient size, (to quote Drachinifel on this) would be reduced to Confetti and Bad memories... Your saying at the beginning that Marmon Herrington had the capability of producing an armored vehicle shows great charity on your part Sir Chieftain.
Well, Marmon-Herrington did get their act together after this debacle and produced the M22 Locust. Marmon Herrington was a car manufacturer turned truck modifier. They delivered enormous numbers of 4x4 trucks to the Army and produced a small number of acceptable armoured cars in the 1930s.
@@PSPaaskynen yes, eventually.. But it buggers the mind that any auto company by 1942 was not following "Production Standards" like Chrysler and Ford. Were in all parts strictly followed the blue-prints and all parts were interchangeable between manufactures making the same item. Little lone non-interchangeability with it's own production parts on the same model.
I giggled throughout the entire video. This is one of the best, most entertaining, videos I have seen. I've been aware of the MTLS for a bit, but never imagined how bad it must have actually been until now. Thanks...
"listen to the dulcet tones of my voice while you drift off to sleep" - The_Chieftain. I am not going to argue that your voice does not have dulcet tones. But, if I'm listening to something while sleeping, it's going to be Drach. He's got 5 hours long Q&A's with NO commercials. Kinda hard to argue with that.
"As you drift off to sleep from the sound of my voice". At least it wasn't "Death by PowerPoint"! Which I understand has been incorporated into the newly revised Geneva Convention under the topic of torture. I maybe off slightly on that, I've been out since 88', I can't remember if it was an A1 or A2.
The cynic in me wonders if the original intent of this tank was to be something cheap that could be shipped off to the colonies - the Dutch East Indies in this case - then be used to put on an imposing display of lots of parked up tanks, with a few that could be persuaded to run for a few miles used for ceremonial parade purposes when the governor general took the salute, or sent to tour villages that weren’t paying their taxes on time. The idea being not to have an effective fighting machine but something that looked enough like one to be intimidating to the locals and give any potential national liberation guerilla movements the idea that they’d have to fight a well equipped colonial power which had a brand new armoured force ready and waiting.. And if intimidation failed and the shooting did start they could always be dragged to suitable locations and used as lightly protected badly designed over-priced pillboxes...
That strikes me as likely, still they could have gotten superior vehicles at the same price from Either Vickers, Landsverk, Škoda, or hell, even Ansaldo.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Let’s face it, for colonial policing purposes buying a bunch of World War One surplus Rolls Royce armoured cars would have been not only cheaper but done the job better. Or some Renault FTs. Or even Carden Lloyd based tankettes. In fact, pretty much anything but these things (though maybe the Valiant might have been a worse choice, but it’s a close call).
I feel like the worst thing a tank can be is unreliable, since an unteliable tank can end up costing you more than it costs the enemy. If a tank doesn’t have enough armor, has a gun that’s too small (or too big, for that matter) at least that implies the tank is functional and reliable but ineffective in certain roles. Even a reliable but ineffective tank can still produce net positive value in the right situation, but a tank that is unreliable can cause catastrophe breaking down or being in maintanence at inopportune moments. A fleet of unreliable tanks can also eat up resources and man-hours fixing and maintaining and replacing parts. If enough parts aren’t available, the tanks will simply be inoperable.
It was great hearing some of the early APG reports on tanks. It reminded me of reports produced while I worked there since there was the same basic structure to the reports. Newer technology and better function (sometimes) but the same standardized report structure. Thanks for the blast from the past.
Yeah it is genuinely impressive at just how shit these vehicles are...like just the absolute litany of errors with them...almost makes you feel like someone set out to design the worst tank ever on purpose.
That got meta quickly for myself, I'm watching this almost asleep, then right as Chief said pardon the background noise, we had a mild earthquake. So I'm now awake from sudden confusion of trying to figure out how he predicted it. 5 min later the 2nd half of his sentence slowly sunk in.
Indonesian here. The fact that lately, I've known marmon-herrington CTMS and MTLS were used by KNIL and Indonesia Armed Forces during revolutionary war, I wonder what's the reception of Indonesian forces of this tank since the only thing they got left was some japanese tank and KNIL leftover
I seem to distinctly remember John Moses Browning building a 37mm auto canon for use on planes some time around 1923 that worked great and got mounted on various vehicles. How are there so many tanks with automatic 37mm canons that don't work when a small arms designer from the prairie can do his right the first time?
The report doesn't even mention the costs of development for a catapult large enough to throw a CTMS through the front window of Marmon-Herrington's office
The breakage report brings back memories of one of the M1015s (electronic warfare carrier variant of the M548 arty ammo carrier) that was in my company in the 90s. I swear that thing was deadlined three times as often than it ran.
@Jim Rinkenberger Was it the chassis that was failing, or the EW package? Dunno why, but I never considered the idea of mobile, ground-based electronic warfare before, although it sure makes sense.
No one ever mentions the Finnish BT-42. A Dr. Frankenstein's monster which combines a BT-7 and a 4,5" British howitzer. 18 built, 2 battles, 0 kills and 25 hits on a single T-34 without effect. After that mess we switched to Stug III Ausf. G. which were a tad more effective.
That sounds to me like it was being used for completely the wrong purpose. Why would you be using a howitzer as an antitank weapon? And how many enemy tanks it managed to kill is not the only metric of whether an AFV is good or not. If they were using the howitzer on soft targets like it was designed for, it would be a lot more successful. Although I don't see why a 4.5in howitzer shell couldnt do significant harm to lighter enemy tanks. The Germans found that even HE shells from the early Pz IV did a fairly good job of messing up T-34s, and a 4.5in howitzer shell ought to be significantly more powerful.
Thanks for the great video and never worry about the sounds in the background, My Principal commented about the Mess in the back of my online staff meeting so I made her speechless the next week when I was in 100% Canadian Combat :-)
“...and listen to the dulcet tones of my voice as you drift off to sleep.” You say that as though you are not in possession of one of the most calming voices on TH-cam. In all honesty, I’d say you’re up there with Drachinifel and Oculus Imperia for my preferred “channels to listen to while I try to relax after 6 hours of working at FedEx” list.
The only thing, in which these tanks were better at than Valiant, might be that you at least could disassemble it in case the driver got his foot stuck.
Hey chieftain, for your next q&a i would like to know the reason why the ram 2 was never used in combat even though it had a very capable 57mm gun and was it based on the m3 lee or mr sherman tank. Thank you!
Probably because the 57mm was only good for killing tanks. The 75mm on a Sherman was much more useful for shooting everything else on the battlefield, in addition to being decent against tanks.
I did indeed fall asleep during this video. Taking into account that I'd just spent the day working in a blazing hot Home Depot parking lot, this is not surprising. Great video as always, thank you.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
"Oh thank god the tank is on fire"
not if you're inside it.
Still...more serviceable than the F35.
"...I set the tank on fire."
Elephant Crews:
"We can finally climb out the hatch to escape this awful hell."
"It was also not possible to order a new faceplate without ordering an entirely new bogie assembly."
*Apple:* "Write that down!"
Hits too hard fr fr
But you have to send it back to them to do and it costs half the amount of the entire tank
This tank has a superior level of protection - of the headlights.
Company brochure: *Our tank has a superior level of protection, according to U.S. Army testing.*
Lol.
The tank version of movie critic quotes.
Turns out mechanical failures list 1/1 matches the mechanical features list
This tank has a satisfactory level of performance in sand. (1TBI)
Company brochure: Our tank has satisfactory maneuverability according to US Army testing!
Bogey faceplate broke, required entire bogey assembly to fix.
Company brochure: Bogey faceplate repairs come with entirely new bogey!
Noah Rollins You can spin anything to make it sound like a plus.
"... and we will conclude our report with a note to the builder: when we said that the best way to kill a tank is using a tank, we didn't mean using and killing the same tank. It was intended to be different tanks. Please review Your design to accommodate this distinction."
"Tanks are designed to hurt people, and they don't care who."
_yeah, but, like, not itself..._
🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
TANK hurt itself in its confusion.
Breaks down in confusion
Some of these tanks were deployed to Aleutian Islands in Alaska to contend with Japanese forces. They were awful, but the only armor spared to fight in the Alaskan Campaign. One of them sank in a swamp on one of the islands, lost. I wonder...is it still there, intact, awaiting a determined person to come dig it out?
Some things are better left buried...
"One of them sank in a swamp on one of the islands . . . ." So they sent in another tank. That one sank into the swamp. So they sent in a third. That one caught fire, fell apart, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one . . . never got to the swamp in the first place because the steering differential failed.
@@michaelmorley9363 Marmon-Herrington built this because they heard the Dutch East Indies owned huge tracts of land...
@@michaelmorley9363 You beat me to it.
@@michaelmorley9363 That sounds like a Monty Python tank.
How is this thing six tons heavier, more poorly protected, and more cramped than M3 stuart?! Not to mention a main gun that only operated correctly ONCE. Tanks, but no tanks
Did you get that phrase from the WW2 channel's episode from yesterday? :P
the use of bolted construction means that there is a frame to which the armour plates are bolted, with the addition of the bolts, will add a non insignificant amount of weight when compared to a similarly sized tank of welded construction
the glacis being made of several steps also adds to the weight, compared to sloped glacis or a simpler design as used in the M3, as the additional steps adds armour volume and additional framing to hold all of it
the MTLS is also slightly larger than the M3 in all dimensions (MTLS: 4.9x2.64x2.81m; M3:4.5x2.24x2.64m) which, again adds weight
the marmon also has wider tracks compared to the M3 (380mm vs 295mm), meaning that while the tank is wider, the main volume does not augment as much, and they also weigh more
an automatic gun will always be heavier and larger than a semi automatic one of the same calibre, adding to the weight and bulkyness, having two of them sure doesn't help the size or weight problem
Frame and bolt construction. The frame eats up space and the need for bolts and flanges adds weight. Plus, you have to make everything flat so you can't get extra space by bulging the walls.
The M3 wasn't great, but compared to *this* - the M3's mediocrity seems like an incredible achievement.
@@Observer31 at least the M3 worked. It could at least drive somewhere and shoot at things, with a reasonable expectation of both getting to the destination and the armament successfully firing when you got there.
Quick, someone export these to Elbonia.
"The -finest- latest light tanks produced by Marmot-Herringbone, intended for service in the Dutch East Indies, now available at a reduced price due to current circumstances!"
And expose our infiltrator?Are you crazy?
Did they test it to see how well it operates imersed in 4 feet of water?
I don't get the joke but I still find it funny.
@@andrewryan4417 There is a running joke about a country named Elbonia where the goal is to equip a full militarily with the worse military equipment possible without being caught purposefully trying to sabotage them. Forgotten Weapons as well the Chieftain have both done some pretty good and funny videos on the joke.
Fun Fact: The report has a hand-written annotation that reads as follows: "Get Rid of this Tank! It's an Endless Money-Pit! BUY JAPANESE! -- Kilmer"
My sister in law bought a Type 95 Ha-Go 24 years ago and it's still GOing. HA! (insert picture of braying donkey)
I love that the Maus is the smallest AFV on the desk!
@@Groovy_Bruce armored fighting vehicle
It shrank in the wash...
Size of the desktop models is based on overall combat effectiveness. I would would have made the Maus roughly the size of, well, a mouse.
Its adorable!
It's only a mouse after all.
"The gun needs a special Kit of tools" yeah that Kit Is called a Trashcan
A new, better gun is just a very specific tool.
I think that special kit is tank (for gases) of oxygen, tank of acetylene, hoses, nozzle and igniter. Also known as oxy-acetylene cutter.
This "offering" of a tank by Marmon-Herrington is amusing, because they did make some rather good armored cars, and were known for offering some of the first really practical 4WD conversions of civil and commercial vehicles.
Including the M22, M-H seemingly never really got ("grokked", to borrow from R.A.H.,) the concept of the light tank, regardless of their other really superb products.
A lot of the 'Marmon-Herrington' armoured cars just used the 4wd conversion on a Ford truck chassis, especially those manufactured in South Africa. As far as I know, the Marmon-Herringtons used in North Africa all came from South Africa.
"In 1938 the South African government emitted a specification for two armored cars models, to be built locally by South African industries with various shipped parts. Marmon-Herrington (USA) presented its own design in 1939, which was accepted for production. The four-wheel drive train and transmission was its own product, but chassis elements and engine came from the Ford 3-ton lorry built in Canada, and the armament was British. All these parts converged to South Africa by ship and rail, to be assembled at the Dorman Long structural steel company, with steel armored plates from the South African Iron & Steel Industrial Corporation, and the chassis assembly by Ford Motor Company of South Africa."
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_MkII.php
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_MkIII.php
and eventually, a purpose built vehicle - used by British, Indian, New Zealand, Greek, Free French, Polish, Dutch and Belgian armies and the Israelis and Jordanians against each other. Some Greek vehicles served into the 1990's
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/south_africa/Marmon-Herrington_Mk4.php
So MH armored vehicles weren't total trash. The basic problems with the vehicles in this video were 1) They were designed to be cheap for militaries that couldn't afford anything else during the depression 2) They were designed to strict weight limits for what would now be called the Third World roads and bridges and the USMC's need to have something a ship's launch (there were no landing craft) could carry
www.oocities.org/marmonherrington/usmc.html
MH is still around today and doing quite nicely, thank you - Berkshire Hathaway owns them and anybody who knows anything about BH knows how they are regarded in awe by the Street
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington
M-H saw an opportunity to make a fast buck so didn't bother with the usual lengthy testing of initial models to find and correct design flaws. They didn't even run the tanks over a test course after rolling off the production line to see if it was assembled properly.
Sounds like WoT just found their new tier 3 premium.
Been in the game for years
albino Was literally one of the first tanks you could buy for actual money.
MTLS is already in the game for quite some time. But CTMS isnt so it might actualy be one of the tier 3 gift tanks at some point.
The MTLS is actually already in the game, I believe as a tier 3 prem. They've been in for a very long time, and are also very rare. It was never up for sale on pc, and only a few alpha testers on the NA server have one. It is on sale on console though.
console.worldoftanks.com/en/encyclopedia/vehicles/usa/A33_MTLS-1G14_Blitzen/
DESIGNER 1: So we basically have a tank with obsolete armor, a useless headlight, an engine impossible to access and repair, with a cramped interior, the steering levers are pain-inducing, the tracks fall off, it's vulnerable to a cold environment and we might need superstrong glue to keep it intact, what shall we do sir?
DESIGNER 2: Build another one with more guns!
Um excuse me, the headlights were well protected!
Murka!!
It does beg the question, did the jokers test their product? At all? Ever?
@@luisnunes2010 Even if they did, it was easy money on a desperate customer. Who exactly could control them?
@@isaiahcampbell488 that doesn't mean they worked very well to begin with.
This is literally like someone slapped a tank together, skipping the design and prototype phases altogether. You have to be talented to fail as hard and as completely as these schmucks.
Bob Semple: "Challenge accepted."
Or a corporation. Because none of us is as dumb as all of us
Ikr. Some of the details mentioned, like the holes in the armour for the MGs being too small to acomodate the MG barrels. It just boggles the mind.
@@mtpender69 To note, the Bob Semple tank was designed by two men (Minister of Works Robert Semple, and Christchurch District Works Engineer T G Beck) who had no idea about tanks or other vehicles. In addition it had the issue of being a shell to be bolted to the chassis (a Caterpillar D8 tractor), rather than being an integrated vehicle. It was also designed by a company with pretty much no armaments industry whatsoever. Yes it's a worse tank, but it at least has the advantage in that regard of starting from a scrap-heap anyway.
@@bertholdvonzahringen6799 Agreed.
I feel like even if the Dutch didn't get to pay for these, they should still get a refund.
My God listening to its mechanical problems makes the late war German heavies look like Sherman's in terms of reliability
I love the constant switching and jumping of the engine timing. This always asks for such a magnificent disaster :D
What do you mean? The reliability of Panzer IV, Panther G, StuG III, etc was not worse than american tanks.
Or the KV-1 in 1941.
23GreyFox which of those tanks is as stated a "late war German heavy"?
@@slothenthusiast5422 I missed the "heavy" in the comment. But there wasn't a reliable heavy tank in WW2 or later, not until the late 70's with the introduction of the M1 and Leopard 2.
As a Dutchman, I'm really disheartened... Because this is the only """modern""" WW2 tank we had at the time...
It's a bit like bringing a fancy cane to a sword fight, right? 😅
More like a cane-shaped object made from cardboard paper-towel tubes and wood veneer tape.
Gotta keep a careful eye on salesmen with a product to push ....
Chill out. In 1939 Poland had Vickers 6t tank - 24x TP7 and TP9 heavier design based on this Vickers (few dozens each) and some 200x tenkettes called TK and TKS which best feature was that they were CUTE :3
That makes the fleet of light, lighter and lightest tanks :)
@@HanSolo__ i mean there was a polish tank group that never actually lost a battle in the battle for Poland. They then escaped to France fought in France and had to escape to spain when France gave up. (they all so had to let go the Germans they captured) so not sure if there Survival is based on there tanks or than they where all just reicantated winged husaris.
and those tanks were meant for use in the tropics...
I think the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army escaped one disaster (delivery of these lemons) by encountering another (the Japanese invasion).
One redeeming detail for these tanks is that they're well enough armoured and armed to operate against the intended most likely opponents: local rebels and revolutionaries armed only with rifles and pistols.
That would be a frying pan into the fire situation.
That is, if the guns actually work. Even the MGs don't fit so I reckon even against local rebels and revolutionaries they'd be pretty useless except perhaps as an intimidation weapon.
until you have to remove the vision glass to be able to breathe inside
Maxim Gun drive over them. Ez
I also suspect that a lot of local modifications have been done to them, especially those that picked them up on the secon hand market.
I am 30 Years in the military and still serving (enlisted). I am a WOT gamer. Your an officer, and a historian, and a gamer and community contributor. But the fact you are doing a dork level deep dive into these (and others) tanks... while your wife is ZOOMING a gender reveal party... makes me like you even more. Never stop sir, you are just about at the top of the list of who I would want to have a beer with every night deployed... just to listen to you talk. Salute. And yes... I love the dork level deep dives...
Mrs. Chieftain: "I've been invited to a virtual gender reveal party. Do you want to join in?"
Chieftain(thinking fast): "Sorry, I have to make a video about a very important tank project that I promised my viewers. I would have loved to come, but bills must be paid."
Experienced tankers learn to dodge bullets
Bills must be paid! Always a good excuse for getting out of something.
It took me a minute to realize he meant a baby's gender and not someone revealing they're trans on VR Chat.
russetwolf13 I know you're being legit but that is the single funniest thing I've ever read
@@LmgWarThunder I'm a furry, it's usually the other thing where I come from.
Oh, controversy about the Valiant being bad! There is only one way to settle this, Inside the Hatch: Valiant! Although, to give Valiant its due, at least it was a good tank done badly; unlike these things, which were bad tanks done badly.
He would probably like to keep his feet
He could just use a camera mounted on a narcissism stick for the interior shots.
I think they took the interior out for spares
Oh bugger, my foot is stuck under the accelerator pedal!
A bad tank done badly would actually be a good tank. Double negative, dude.
The Chieftain: *reads a list of faults*
my brain: *starts humming perilous journey*
"bolted plates" lol that glare...it's my spirit animal
Imagine intentionally building shrapnel into your tank.
The tank may be terrible at being a tank, but at least it's kinda cute.
Kinda cute do, not gonna lie.
It has the silhouette of a Doberman Pinscher and the combat ability of a '73 Ford Pinto.
If cuteness could be effective in a war , i pray Asia never attacks. Just imagine an army made of cute tanks and hello kitty camouflaged (tiny)soldiers. We'd be fucked
Yes, although that might have been a very sly concept of camouflage:
Tank gunner: "Sir, with all due respect, that tank is just too cute so it would be quite rude to take it out. So would you agree that we let it go for once?"
Tank commander: "Jolly good point, private, so let's crack on and look for some targets worthy to being attacked, shall we?" **sips tea with extended pinkie**
Better than the Bob Semple tank
i love how he says the words VIRTUAL GENDER REVEAL with the excitement of going to get your taxes done.
but you are correct, i haven't heard of this tank. its so bad i hardly wanna say it qualifys as a vehicle.
Excellent timing. I've just finished reading - Tanks in Hell A Marine Corps Tank Company on Tarawa by Oscar E. Gilbert & Romain Cansiere. They mention the Marmon - Harrington tanks quite frequently, and I had never heard of them before - thanks!
"Battery had to be replaced at 400 miles, magneto had to be replaced at 402 miles."
That is so funny. Its litteraly them repairing the tank, driving 2 miles only for the thing to break again.
Not really weird for early tanks. They considered making it a couple miles without requiring maintenance a pretty big deal. It was a bit better by 1940 still not great. I remember reading recently a bit where the French were very proud of the fact that they drove their Char B1s forty miles to the battlefield, and more than half of them made it without breaking down.
That and that sort of thing is just common on vehicles, especially with electrical stuff. You break down once, it seems to greatly increase the odds of something else failing soon. The initial breakdown is often the direct cause of the second, by putting excess strain on other parts.
Although in this specific case, the bad magneto is probably what caused the battery to fail. I assume that the magneto is what is used to charge the battery, although it's kind of weird to have both, a magneto is usually used to make sure that the engine doesn't need a battery to run, which is why they still use them in aircraft. If the battery failed, they were stuck for that reason, and had to replace it. Then they drove two miles to a convenient place on the battery and replaced the magneto. Like when your alternator in your car dies and discharges your battery, you don't usually change the alternator beside the road, but you can get a fresh battery and use it to drive to a place where you can stop and fix the alternator.
I still love your light hearted presentation and the fact that you and Ian are always chatting/collaborating. Hope I can catch you some day in London or at the Tank Museum maybe.
Look. We needed something to secure our S P I C E S and we don’t like spending money
They originally ordered Vickers Light tanks in 1936 after trialling 4 (73 machine gun armed made in the UK and 45 Command cannon tanks made in Belgium to be delivered from April 1940 onwards) but with the outbreak of the war only 20 machine gun tanks had been delivered and another 4 were sunk in Rotterdam harbour by the Germans. they had to turn to the only supplier left on the market for cannon tanks, the Americans. The Americans offered them a turretless design, Dutch said no, then they came back with what would be the CTLS and MTLS. As they were the only tanks available they had to be ordered.
@chris younts Sure, or even surplus Stuarts. But the timing doesn't work at all: Grants _first_ went into action (with the British in North Africa) in late May 1942, by which time the DEI Army was no longer a going concern (and hadn't been for a little while).
@chris younts Seriously, the 1936 vickers light tanks would have been better. Point is nothing was available, these were ordered before even the first m3s were out. 1941 is not a good time to be looking to procure tanks.
@@watcherzero5256 I was hoping to hear from Chieftain if the small number of CTLS-A's the DEI army supposedly hurriedly equipped w/ M1919 .30 's and deployed as an emergency response to the Japanese attack accomplished anything whatsoever. As the crudest Japanese tank would outclass them wildly, doubt it. Would figure most were simply abandoned. Guess I could not be lazy and research myself. :)
@@muttmankc There seems to be very little information out there about these tanks in American service or their predecessors that were with the US Marines, its all about their Dutch life.
The Dutch: Can we stop and get tanks?
Marmon-Herrington: We have tanks at home.
Tanks at home:
I dont think Ice was a problem the American designers particularly thought about when designing a tank for the Dutch East Indies.
Yeah, the chieftain was just being a little bit too hard on it. Overall it's a very good tank... XD
@@JericoLionhearth no it isn't. Even the most merciful analysis would find it to be mediocre
It was also used in Alaska by the Americans, presumably so senators could say they had tanks there to the hysterical people convinced the Japanese would somehow launch an invasion there.
Besides, they could probably use it for
..something, if it was modified. Maybe a tractor?
@@matiastorres1510 I was joking. I watched the same video as you buddy (buddy as a friendly term, because people somehow get offended by it.)
@@bubbasbigblast8563 Sounds like they would have been excellent for maintenance, recovery, and repair training!
Someone at the company must have told the foreman of the factory "everyone's desperate at the moment, build them quickly and cheap as possible, someone will pay us" This many bugs had to be deliberate. The design itself looks like someone took an OK design and cheap skated it. A stupid business model as everyone was desperate and even mediocre tanks were selling like hotcakes. I wonder how many government orders this company got after pulling this stunt?
My company quickly came up with a cheap face visor for thease pandemic times. We made a lot in a short time but it stopped since then but then we do need our machinery for other production as well.
M-H never bothered to build a few dozen first for rigorous testing to find the design flaws and if the improvements fixed the problems. They didn't bother to run the tanks over a test course after assembly to see if everything worked correctly. I grew up near a Pullman-Standard RR car plant that assembled the M3 and M4 tanks for the British Army. Us kids rode our bicycles on the plant's tank testing course which was an oval with very uneven surfaces, soft sand and paved surfaces for getting up to speed to take the tank airborne off a ramp to give the suspension a good jolt before being driven up and down a hill with a 40 degree slope. The tank would stop halfway up, set the parking brake before turning off the engine to test the parking brake. Then they restarted the engine and repeated the test when going downhill. Each tank was inspected after testing where any damaged or defective components were replaced with the tank running the course again.
Yep, cynical war profiteering.
I remember seeing this ages ago on the Tank Encyclopedia and just assumed it was essentially an inter-war, armored car assuming it had twin .50 caliber machine guns
I guess that was giving them too much credit...
That's the thing, When looking at it I assumed the same thing "oh yeah it's like an interwar tank..." nope, 1943, this thing was obsolete before it even hit the design stage, let alone the production stage!
@@luketfer It made me find new appreciation for the M3/M5 Stuarts, for sure.
When you had them around, and compare them to this, this thing just makes you go, "Okay, but why, though?"
It's a miracle the designers weren't accused of treason.
You wouldn't even want your enemies to have this tank, since it would take the honor out of winning 😝
would be interesting to know: the Dutch sued them, I hope.
If you read carefully, the bottom page of the report on this tank says "PS: Do we happen to have any gulags here in the US?" ;-)
They were an American company building for the Dutch, what grounds for treason would that give? Disloyalty to the Dutch Royal Family? And the exact terms of the contract would determine any grounds to sue. They accepted an emergency order to be fulfilled on very short notice, I doubt they gave any ironclad guarantees about performance, other than that the Dutch had the option to refuse to accept them if they didn't meet the contract specifications. They would not be liable for any sort of financial penalty for not fulfilling the contract, unless that was written into the contract. And since we don't know exactly what the contract specified, it could easily be the Dutch who were in the wrong for not accepting them and paying for the work that was done. Thats why you have people who make a living just writing contracts. What they say matters.
“First and second gear were so far apart that the vehicle would stop before being physically able to shift into second” has to be one of the biggest engineering facepalms of all time
Imagine not beeing able to start in 2nd
:$
Marmon Herrington's boss: I need you to design a tank by the end of the week.
The engineer: But... it's 14h00 on a friday afternoon... are you sure...
Marmon Herrington's boss: DO IT!
I'm surprised there wasn't a "tank caught on fire while tracks were being tensioned" report.
11:00 - "It was also not possible to order a new faceplate without ordering an entire new bogey assembly." - Man, Marmon-Herrington truly was ahead of their times, huh.
'There seems to be absolutely no redeeming quality to this tank whatsoever.' Um, someone has forgotten about the safe headlights!
You must admit it's quite impressive how just about everything seems to be wrong with these.
The missile to the right is a continual reminder that we've yet to get an Inside The Hatch on the M551.
pls Chief I love the aluminium burny boi
"The parts on the bogey were not interchangeable"
That alone is a statement so damning I cannot put my peripheral anguish into words.
that moment where you found a gun so obscure your only hope is Gun Jesus
Thanks Chieftain! In addition to providing amusement, you've made me feel a bit better about the much-bemoaned reliability problems of my favourite tank (the British Crusader)! I must say I believe the Mark 3 version of the Crusader is often underrated as it falls under the shadow of its lesser Mk1/Mk2 variants. Yes it still had flaws but it also had some positive attributes: Its speed and lower profile (both of which made it harder to hit than the contemporaneous Grant), and most importantly the 6 pounder was FINALLY an effective weapon against the panzers of the day. And lastly, it was incomparably sexy- which I realise makes no sense whatsoever.
Is it just me or that Shillelagh in the back has googly eyes
That's the Shillelagh's normal look ;)
@@cirian75 that is drill instructor Shillelagh for you! He is practicing his death stare.
Later in the afternoon he will practice knife hand
It's as if the designer had seen tanks in a Warner Bros cartoon, and said "That looks easy!"
So where most of these sold on to Elbonia?
I also take it that a Ha-Go would have owned these things?
Beat me to it...on a killer deal--hey, a tank's a tank and there's no war going.
One of the tank simulator games actually removed one of those Japanese tanks since it was so bad, as I get it, they ended up with balancing issues.
@@michaelpettersson4919 Sorry for the late response, but the tank you are talking about was the Ha-Go in War Thunder. When the game moved to a mathematical penetration calculation system instead of a statistical one, some older tanks (notably the Ha-Go and short 37mm-armed French tanks) ended up with APHE rounds that would not actually fuse, resulting in them effectively turning into hollowpoint rounds. These tanks were temporarily removed while Gaijin looked around for Sekret Dokumints that would allow them to add more effective rounds for those tanks. These tanks ended up getting APCR and were reintroduced as Tier 1 unlockables.
@@nibs7252 Ok. Good news then for the fans of thease tanks then.
@@michaelpettersson4919 Conehead shall forever live on!
When the maintenace crew wishes for a Panther instead.
or a type 95!
or a Ferdinand lol
Funniest part of German maintenance meme is that 99% of their problems wouldn’t exist if they were made American since *resources*
@@looinrims Resources or not some of their designs were either rushed or mechanically doomed from the start. Someone there should've taken Ferdinand Porsche outside and shot him after seeing his Tiger's test trials.
@@nick0875 because the exception is always the rule
22:58 "So far, the tracks fall off, the wheels fall off, the engine is not powered enough, the armor is useless considering the time." But hey, the engine compartment is watertight!
I read this in Luis's voice from Ant-Man
Fair to them the front's still on, so it didn't need to be towed beyond the environment.
The best use would have been as target vehicles. Once
@@mpetersen6 "We hit it with a Boys and all the bolts shot out. Bill's lost an eye."
"... Do I mean a rivet? No, a bolt. As in, nuts and bolts."
The fuel tank isn’t watertight, though!
Well done as always, good research from source material, plus great delivery, the look at the camera regarding bolted armour (priceless). I am retired RCN, taught at University, and was Director of a military museum, just to give some context to my praise. BZ
24:05 You can tell its an american tank, designers said to themselves, 'needs more guns'. 5 machine guns and two cannons.....
The Army's response to the U.S.S. Second Amendment. (See Drachinifel.)
One Russian tank used in early WWII had three turrets and four machine gun cupolas. Two 45mm turrets fore and aft, a 76mm turret on a tall barbette between them, and MG cupolas at the corners.
@@robdgaming Soviet*
And the T-35 had five turrets, not three.
@@robdgaming Yes the T-28, it was a copy of the British Vickers A1E1 Independent after the plans were obtained by the German spy Baillie-Stewart
This thing sounds like the tank equivalent of the car Homer Simpson designed...
Why are there no tanks with plastic bubble tops and tail fins?
I wonder.
Patton: "I'm ruined!"
The Homer was actually a viable car, though. It wasn't what anyone wanted to buy, but it was a mechanically sound car.
@The_Chieftain i really like your inside the tank videos i have learnt a lot from them thank you
There’s one of these displayed at a small national guard museum that I live rather close to. Mistook it for a Stuart the first time I saw it.
Dicking around for two days to get a maximum rate of fire of 1/16th RPM... amazing.
Bolted construction.... Sigh. I think I felt a shudder in the force at that statement, like millions screamed out at once and were scilenced by one horrible statement......
THE GOOGLY EYES AHAHAHAH, oh thats good
the googly eye shell should now be the host of this show
Under his googly eyes
👀 Greetings all~
New channel mascot
I predict it will acquire an adhesive moustache at some point.
Chad Chieftain reading about bad tanks while his wife socialises
I was actually listening to find out the gender of the baby. 😁
> Chieftain reading about bad tanks while his wife socialises
To each his own, I say.
Oh, so that's what the virtual gender review is...
I somehow have a picture in mind with the Chieftain doing a gender reveal party with British Mark IV.
So basically someone was finding out what gender the baby inside them was? I’ve been slammed with so much sjw stuff that I thought it might be some west person deciding they’re a different gender
Not a glowing testament for the private sector. From the description of the vehicles they would have been obsolete in 1940 let alone 1942. Did the designers and management of Marmon - Harrington really believe these vehicles were fit for purpose and how much testing had they carried out on them. It would interesting to hear the company's evaluation report.
You can always write to them and ask if they still have it.
If Marmon-Herrington got paid for these "tanks"; they were fit for purpose.
WELL?!?! IS IT A TANKETTE OR A TANK??! (the sounds in the background)
I could swear the Chief had something else on mind to say at 0:55
"...not sure I agree with him, but you know, go watch his sh... uhh... go watch his video..."
Sounds like it would be a good tank for a Boy Scout parade...as long as the parade route is less than a mile and the Girl Scouts don’t attack them with sticks larger than 1/4” diameter.
Me- "You underestimate how much I know about obscure ta... what the hell is that?"
The dedication of this man, to spend so much time with this piece of garbage tank without saying fuck it and sending it to the scrapper or ironically donating it to a museum.
On the contrary my good sir. These rubbish piles of canine excrement do have one redeemable value. Making satisfactory hard targets of such nature that when struck by a projectile of sufficient size, (to quote Drachinifel on this) would be reduced to Confetti and Bad memories...
Your saying at the beginning that Marmon Herrington had the capability of producing an armored vehicle shows great charity on your part Sir Chieftain.
Well, Marmon-Herrington did get their act together after this debacle and produced the M22 Locust. Marmon Herrington was a car manufacturer turned truck modifier. They delivered enormous numbers of 4x4 trucks to the Army and produced a small number of acceptable armoured cars in the 1930s.
@@PSPaaskynen yes, eventually.. But it buggers the mind that any auto company by 1942 was not following "Production Standards" like Chrysler and Ford. Were in all parts strictly followed the blue-prints and all parts were interchangeable between manufactures making the same item. Little lone non-interchangeability with it's own production parts on the same model.
I giggled throughout the entire video. This is one of the best, most entertaining, videos I have seen. I've been aware of the MTLS for a bit, but never imagined how bad it must have actually been
until now. Thanks...
"listen to the dulcet tones of my voice while you drift off to sleep" - The_Chieftain. I am not going to argue that your voice does not have dulcet tones. But, if I'm listening to something while sleeping, it's going to be Drach. He's got 5 hours long Q&A's with NO commercials. Kinda hard to argue with that.
"As you drift off to sleep from the sound of my voice". At least it wasn't "Death by PowerPoint"! Which I understand has been incorporated into the newly revised Geneva Convention under the topic of torture. I maybe off slightly on that, I've been out since 88', I can't remember if it was an A1 or A2.
Video: ...gender reveal...
Me: British Mark IV?
Pretty much all British tanks from IV to IX.
Good timing, was reading some very limited articles on these tanks recently. Had never even heard of them before that.
I've actually seen one of the CTMS / MTLS in a museum in Fairfield, California
Interesting, I need to make a road trip on over
The crispy dry delivery of humor makes it all the more deliciously hilarious
The cynic in me wonders if the original intent of this tank was to be something cheap that could be shipped off to the colonies - the Dutch East Indies in this case - then be used to put on an imposing display of lots of parked up tanks, with a few that could be persuaded to run for a few miles used for ceremonial parade purposes when the governor general took the salute, or sent to tour villages that weren’t paying their taxes on time.
The idea being not to have an effective fighting machine but something that looked enough like one to be intimidating to the locals and give any potential national liberation guerilla movements the idea that they’d have to fight a well equipped colonial power which had a brand new armoured force ready and waiting..
And if intimidation failed and the shooting did start they could always be dragged to suitable locations and used as lightly protected badly designed over-priced pillboxes...
That strikes me as likely, still they could have gotten superior vehicles at the same price from Either Vickers, Landsverk, Škoda, or hell, even Ansaldo.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 I think those firms were preoccupied with interests closer to home.
At least Landsverk was producing for a noncombatant nation.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Let’s face it, for colonial policing purposes buying a bunch of World War One surplus Rolls Royce armoured cars would have been not only cheaper but done the job better. Or some Renault FTs. Or even Carden Lloyd based tankettes. In fact, pretty much anything but these things (though maybe the Valiant might have been a worse choice, but it’s a close call).
@@tlw4237 That about was my point. Even if you wanted a proper late 30s medium tank you had better alternatives at the same price.
I feel like the worst thing a tank can be is unreliable, since an unteliable tank can end up costing you more than it costs the enemy.
If a tank doesn’t have enough armor, has a gun that’s too small (or too big, for that matter) at least that implies the tank is functional and reliable but ineffective in certain roles. Even a reliable but ineffective tank can still produce net positive value in the right situation, but a tank that is unreliable can cause catastrophe breaking down or being in maintanence at inopportune moments. A fleet of unreliable tanks can also eat up resources and man-hours fixing and maintaining and replacing parts. If enough parts aren’t available, the tanks will simply be inoperable.
So much feeling in the way you said "virtual gender reveal"
That must be one of the dumbest things i have ever heard.
I thought he was joking at first.
It was great hearing some of the early APG reports on tanks. It reminded me of reports produced while I worked there since there was the same basic structure to the reports. Newer technology and better function (sometimes) but the same standardized report structure. Thanks for the blast from the past.
"The wife is attending a virtual gender reveal" is the most american sentence you have ever uttered.
I feel like I needed to be part of this conversation a long time ago. The references are overwhelming.
This is rather impressive how poor that vehicle turned out...
Yeah it is genuinely impressive at just how shit these vehicles are...like just the absolute litany of errors with them...almost makes you feel like someone set out to design the worst tank ever on purpose.
That got meta quickly for myself, I'm watching this almost asleep, then right as Chief said pardon the background noise, we had a mild earthquake. So I'm now awake from sudden confusion of trying to figure out how he predicted it. 5 min later the 2nd half of his sentence slowly sunk in.
There's a long-held concept that if you are the only one with a tank, it doesn't matter what tank you have. This tests the concept.
Think about it, the same country that developed the Bob Semple tank refused to use these. That's some perspective right there.
I feel ashamed for my state that such a monstrosity was even considered a tank.
Indonesian here. The fact that lately, I've known marmon-herrington CTMS and MTLS were used by KNIL and Indonesia Armed Forces during revolutionary war, I wonder what's the reception of Indonesian forces of this tank since the only thing they got left was some japanese tank and KNIL leftover
I seem to distinctly remember John Moses Browning building a 37mm auto canon for use on planes some time around 1923 that worked great and got mounted on various vehicles. How are there so many tanks with automatic 37mm canons that don't work when a small arms designer from the prairie can do his right the first time?
Because John Moses Browning is the patron saint of firepower. Everything he made is touched by the hand of God.
The report doesn't even mention the costs of development for a catapult large enough to throw a CTMS through the front window of Marmon-Herrington's office
Love the googly eyes on the shell.😆
The breakage report brings back memories of one of the M1015s (electronic warfare carrier variant of the M548 arty ammo carrier) that was in my company in the 90s. I swear that thing was deadlined three times as often than it ran.
@Jim Rinkenberger Was it the chassis that was failing, or the EW package? Dunno why, but I never considered the idea of mobile, ground-based electronic warfare before, although it sure makes sense.
I'm so far halfway through and I didn't expect this horror show.
3:47 feel called out but I do this every day to get to sleep. Some listen to rain sounds, some listen to Chieftan
So the Dutch tanks did fight on Java during WW II and the armor plate was so bad that machine gun bullets routinely pierced it.
Thank you for posting and sharing this video. The information is spot on and the sarcasm and facial expressions are priceless!
No one ever mentions the Finnish BT-42. A Dr. Frankenstein's monster which combines a BT-7 and a 4,5" British howitzer. 18 built, 2 battles, 0 kills and 25 hits on a single T-34 without effect.
After that mess we switched to Stug III Ausf. G. which were a tad more effective.
That sounds to me like it was being used for completely the wrong purpose. Why would you be using a howitzer as an antitank weapon? And how many enemy tanks it managed to kill is not the only metric of whether an AFV is good or not. If they were using the howitzer on soft targets like it was designed for, it would be a lot more successful.
Although I don't see why a 4.5in howitzer shell couldnt do significant harm to lighter enemy tanks. The Germans found that even HE shells from the early Pz IV did a fairly good job of messing up T-34s, and a 4.5in howitzer shell ought to be significantly more powerful.
Thanks for the great video and never worry about the sounds in the background, My Principal commented about the Mess in the back of my online staff meeting so I made her speechless the next week when I was in 100% Canadian Combat :-)
This thing looks like if the FCM 36 and the Pz35(t) got busy....
Both of which are greatly superior tanks. A misbegotten child to be sure.
@@jameswade6641 When you can say the FCM 36 (or any 1940 french tank) was superior you know something is wrong
@@85blutch it was good for it's infantry support role. It wasn't meant to face tank to tank combat
“...and listen to the dulcet tones of my voice as you drift off to sleep.”
You say that as though you are not in possession of one of the most calming voices on TH-cam. In all honesty, I’d say you’re up there with Drachinifel and Oculus Imperia for my preferred “channels to listen to while I try to relax after 6 hours of working at FedEx” list.
The only thing, in which these tanks were better at than Valiant, might be that you at least could disassemble it in case the driver got his foot stuck.
2:40 weird. I actually love falling asleep to these videos
Hey chieftain, for your next q&a i would like to know the reason why the ram 2 was never used in combat even though it had a very capable 57mm gun and was it based on the m3 lee or mr sherman tank. Thank you!
Probably standardisation, easier to keep common parts for the Sherman on the front lines
Probably because the 57mm was only good for killing tanks. The 75mm on a Sherman was much more useful for shooting everything else on the battlefield, in addition to being decent against tanks.
I did indeed fall asleep during this video. Taking into account that I'd just spent the day working in a blazing hot Home Depot parking lot, this is not surprising. Great video as always, thank you.