The model question reminded me of when I was in the navy. I was stationed in Okinawa in the 70s and had built five expensive remote controlled tanks. When I shipped out I carefully packed them in a footlocker with my comic collection and mailed them home. When I got home I discovered my mother had trashed the comics thinking they were packing and gave the models to my nephew who played with them to destruction. I had hundreds of dollars and hours invested in those models not to mention the collector value of the comics!
That's almost as bad as the soldier who left his papered SKS combat trophy from Vietnam with his dad when he went for another tour...yes, it got well and truly bubba'd.
I started my 8 years in the cav with M3a2s and ended with M3A3s and the thermal CITV was an absolute game changer in gunnery and in iraq the BC could scan for new targets while the gunner was serving another. In iraq the BC and gunner could scan independently of each other covering more of the sector at the same time.
Concerning the definition of "penetration" (going entirely through and ending up on the far side of the plate with the projectile was called "perforation" by the British Navy or "complete penetration" by the US Navy"). Originally, this was termed for warships starting circa-1860 when the first ironclad warships began to appear (HMS WARRIOR all-metal warship for the British and GLOIRE wooden-hulled warship for the French and then the explosion in designs during the US Civil War). The British defined it as making a hole at the waterline to let in water to flood the enemy arship, almost identical to the US Army "light-through-the-hole" definition. This was fine for solid shot weapons, but by WWI the guns now had explosive charges and non-delay (~0.003-second inertial delay) base fuzes. During WWI, British APC -- "C" meaning with a soft-steel nose "crash-helmet" cap to allow intact thick side face-hardened armor penetration in an intact (usually) manner -- got a bad rep for exploding during or very shortly after penetration or perforation. This was largely due to those non-delay fuzes and the rather shock-sensitive "Lyddite" filler used by the British. However, nobody had told the British Navy personnel about this design and they expected the shells to go through the armor and explode rather far inside the enemy warship, just like the German definition of penetration. What had happened was that NOBODY IN THE BRITISH NAVY HAD CHANGED THE AP SHELL SPECS FROM THE 1860 PENETRATION DEFINITION! Thus the shell manufacturers were happily making naval AP/APC shells to the just-make-a-hole version with the explosive there to merely make a bigger hole and cause even more hull side flooding. While perfectly adequate when punching into turrets and barbettes, this old definition was quite obsolete against the new warships with internal "splinter screens" and "protectiove decks" of thin armor to localize damage. It took the investigation after the huge Battle of Jutland, where several British battle-cruisers blew up, to find this out and only then were the much-improve "Greenboy" APC shells designed and issured with insensitive fillers and delay-action (~0.025-second for deep penetration) fuzes. Sometimes nothing is bad about the performance, just the design had naver been revised to better requirements.
I was part of the battalion security during ReForGer '88. While acting as physical security for the BC on a scouting mission (Actually out mudding in the BCs 1008) we (the BC, his driver, and I) were admiring the scenery when we heard a high pitched whine and track squealing sounds intensified until a brand new M1 broke out of the tree line below us and hit a burm, which launched the M1 into the air. Yeah, it was probably less that a foot, but the entire tank was off the ground. This M1 circled the clearing and parked just in time for the next M1 to do the same thing. Those were followed by 2 more M1s. We Aviation guys discussed this amongst ourselves and concluded that they had to be driving at at least 60mph to have accomplished the jump. We did not drive down as ask the Tankers as we were not sure which side they were actually on. Hell, I didn't even know which side WE were on.
0:00:00 Intro 0:00:16 Admin: Audio 0:02:45 Surprises from Ukraine? 0:04:35 Book recommendations for folks new to tanks 0:05:35 Chiefains in Iran-Iraq war 0:06:45 First armored vehicle 1:35 model recommendation 0:08:30 How much and in what way have mission or operations changed to a tank commander or platoon leader from WWII to the last deployment? 0:10:17 T-34-76's gun long shrouded mantlet vs Sherman or Panther's more 'traditional' 0:11:18 Stryker MGS worth saving with more money on hand? 0:12:27 Front mounted transmission by technological limition or innertia? 0:14:30 Merit in S-mines and claymores against infantry? 0:16:05 Q from Caleb Engelhard deserves own video 0:16:15 Why are automatic grenade launchers not more commonly seen on tanks? 0:17:58 Insight on the MPF? 0:18:41 Why was the M26 phased out so quickly? 0:21:13 Did the US ever test a squeeze-bore gun? 0:25:12 Tracked AFVs for Ireland/Funding for Irish Armed Forces 0:28:15 Favoured young Chieftain's armored vehicle 0:28:30 Why no US autocannons in inter-war period? 0:28:47 Preferred pizza 0:28:56 How might late Cold War vehicles be simplified to cut cost and production time if the US got to the point that it ran out of M1s in a war? 0:30:29 Combat vehicle that was bad at designed job, but good elsewhere? 0:31:16 Has the origin of gunner's control handles' Cadillacs ever been sourced? 0:31:28 What is in the display case on your left?/Coin checks 0:32:27 Modern US vehicle recovery 0:32:45 Is there a vehicle I had the opportunity to operate, but passed on it and now regret? 0:32:58 Is there a sci-fy weapon you want to get one? 0:33:50 Gun of the month: Not a Steyr AUG 0:40:34 In a Russian program covering the T-34, the museum staff recalled a story of an American visitor and famed historian ... 0:41:31 What did the Marines think about the M4 variants? 0:43:00 Hybrid drives and see-through armor 0:43:21 What would a WWII tanker verbalize when taking fire from the right and then return fire? 0:43:58 T24E1 referenced in Hunnycut's 'Stuart' had an R975-C4 on rails. What would the advantages have been and what might have been the fix for the Spicer transmission? 0:45:01 What scrapped (due to USSR fall) projects were the various countries working on in the 1990s? 0:47:09 What do the higher-ups think of my TH-cam career? 0:47:50 Usefulness thermal vs. non-thermal CITV for commander for a vehicle which already has a thermal imager for a gun 0:49:50 Major turning points in north Africa other than 2nd El Alamain? 0:50:30 Why did the opinion on the 76 mm gun change from 1946 to Korean War? 0:51:48 Formal studies on applique armor? 0:53:32 Could new behaviour of watching the sides and advancing very slowly with gun-mounted side-looking cameras trained out? 0:55:27 Armored Cavalery Regiment Squadron H-series to J-series capabilities changes 0:59:59 Armor penetration wording 1:02:18 What have you found out about the T28? / 'Can Openers' will be back at Amazon soon. 1:02:42 Thoughts on MPF 1:03:04 Question not understood ... 1:03:16 Why no Bofors gun in 20 ton tank? 1:04:34 Was the M103 outmatched by mid-1970s Soviet enemies? 1:05:21 What#s the deal with the supposed early M1 hitting 100 with the governor removed? 1:05:55 Are M1 sideskirts a descendant of Schürzen or independently developed (M6, M14)? 1:06:40 Manhours of maintenance vs. hours of use 1:07:40 How to earn Stetson and spurs in Cav? 1:08:55 Follow-on on question using range cards 1:09:14 Did the Sovjets copy the jerrycan? 1:09:54 How did the Canadian Cangaroo-series come about? 1:12:24 Intention on long Q&A like Drachinifel? 1:12:37 Enjoy your holidays!
According to Andrei Tarasenko the results of Soviet testing on a captured Chieftain are published in "Issues of defense technology. - 1983. - No. 5 (111)" (Вопросы оборонной техники. - 1983. - № 5 (111)) They only have web archives back to 2013, but Andrei published a penetration chart that has 3BM-6 out of the 115 as penetrating the glacis and turret front at 1600m. Iraq was likely using 3BM-4, which is allegedly just as good against heavily sloped RHA. The same journal has 120mm HESH basically working as intended as well.
I totally enjoyed, as a teenager in the 1960s, Brazen Chariots by Robert Crisp, it is A tank officer's story of the desert war in North Africa against Rommel Africa Corps. The M3 Stuart, M3 Grant, Crusader, Matilda, and Valentine star for the British.
As a Once-upon--a-time Colonial, I read that exact book at that same time. It certainly captured the imagination (and created certain perceptions of Brit Armor and and doctrine of the period) of a young'un and fostered an interest in, and appreciation for whatever the Mad Lads Left Behind by Fuller were dreaming. The thinking behind the A9 and A10 were something out of a fever dream IMHO. Fast moving dust clouds and all that ...
When I was going through Ft Knox for Marine tank school we were still training on the M60 simulator due to the M1 simulator was just built. The instructor that my team used had a grizzled old good old boy who told us he had been part of the M1 development team. He was the driver of the famous highway patrol tried to issue a ticket because he had gone down the tank trail running alongside the highway faster than 55mph. His commander laughed at the cops and told them to leave. I asked him about the “100 mph M1” and he said it was sort of real. He said the early development tanks were geared faster and they had one that they took the turret off to see what the peak speed would be for tracks and suspension. He thought I had been a crazy idea and was sure the tracks would fly a part.
Why would a cop try to ticket a vehicle that isn't even on the highway? That literally makes no sense. That sounds like a story someone came up with and/or garbled in the retelling.
I first read about it in the book “King of the Killing Zone” by Orr Kelley before I joined so I was familiar with the story before I talked to him. The tank has been on the range for testing and came back by the tank trail that ran alongside the highway through the base. Apparently being in the test one it could go faster than 45mph which was the limit on base and over took the highway patrol. There is another one that is well documented one of the first units to get the M1 was pulled over by the MPs for going way past the base speed limit. The tank crews had never bothered paying attention to the limit on the 60’s due to its lower speed.
I Live in El Paso TX and when the 3rd Cav got their m1 I on the road would be passed by m1 on the base . I clocked one doing 60 mph. soon the CAV got ones with governors ( a buddy in the army and on post [Fort Bliss] saw one leap over a two lane road berm to berm 10 feet up he learned later the crew did not see the cut.)
After going through all the doctrine videos, I can't help but notice the effect of Polands naivete on ww2 keeps coming up. So I'm really curious about Poland's doctrine. Did it have one? The only thing I heard is it had some light tanks and I heard it supposedly ended up using some Archers in some context or other.
I like the single question format, I am often daunted by the prospect of hour-plus videos. So I am all for the single topic Q&A, they seem to be working very well for Ian. I guess the downside to you is that you need to do more videos. But in the other hand, people will probably watch anything you post so you will get more clicks.
On the 100 mph M1s, I was based at Ft. Knox until 1982 and personally saw M1s driving down the main road outside the large motor pool keeping up with the regular car traffic (probably at least 50 mph). In 1982, that was a phenomenal thing to witness.
Doesn't sound entirely safe considering the certain results of an accident with those same cars. What happens when someone stops suddenly in the lane in front of an M1 doing highway speeds in traffic?
@@justforever96 First, if you're playing stupid games around large vehicles, you probably deserve your Darwin award. It would be an absolute disservice to deny such offerings to the gods of tard usually found cutting off loaded trucks and getting pancaked. Second, rubber tracks with good contact patch go skkkkkkkkkrrrrt. 60tons is 60tons, but it stops way faster than you would want to unaware without being strapped in. Weird, but true, loaded semi's have a worse stopping distance in practice.
I don't make models much anymore but I had a really good time with Plastic Soldier Company tanks. They are 1/72 but they're super easy to put together and you'll get several in a box with variant options for each tank too.
Cheiftan, we don't know each other. I am Carl. I wanted to say Merry Christmas! Thank you for all your past service to our country and the work you do on line. It is obvious how hard you work for your viewers. Once again, thank you! :)
The 1/35th Tamiya M41 Walker Bulldog is a great starter kit. Its from the late 60s but but its not a bad kit. I was my second 1/35th scale tank and there wasn't much sanding or filling needed. The painting is simple so you can spend more time working on how to paint weathering, plus there is a few GI figures to practice painting too.
Thanks for another Q&A!! I really enjoy this format and honestly the longform q&a of forgotten weapons were my favorite and I'm still watching the one answer at a time ones, I miss the old. Appreciate all you do and hope you keep it up. Good stuff. Merry Christmas
ADATS was used in Canada, mounted on M113s. I worked on them as a reservist in the '90s. But even by then, it was getting old. It was finally put to pasture in 2004. As far as I know, they've never replaced it in the SHORAD roll.
Ref WW2 Platoon Leader: He would be amazed at the night fighting capabilities, firepower and survivability of the M1other than that like you said it pretty much boils down to leadership. He would NOT like no beer in the field...
Now that I know there are no requirements for wearing a cav hat, I'm inclined to order one now. I was in 1-12 CAV and everyone I knew except myself (and the new guys we got before I was discharged) owned and wore them on Fridays. Now that I'm a civie, I feel that I should at least own one for the sake of having it, since I still wear tanker boots with unfurled ocp bottoms as my normal everyday wear. May as well add to the 'tell me you were a tanker without telling me you were a tanker' look.
Not sure if you do this already, but whenever I shoot video where the audio matters, I make sure I can plug headphones into whatever’s recording audio and take at least a quick listen of someone talking. Ah the travails of working as a one-man-band! And it’s even harder to get everything right in a public space.
Job, family, sleep... there's no way Drach could possibly do anything but channel-related tasks. I've seen the man reply to comments on _other channels,_ and then get back to the responses he got on _someone else's_ comment under _someone else's_ video. I picture the famed Mrs. Drach visiting with him for three to four hours every six months or so, then she salutes and wipes away a tear as he trudges back to the library.
Well done Nick. Another great video. Enjoyed seeing the Steyr, a weapon system I'm well acquainted with. If you're ever down our neck of the woods again, let us know, the boys and I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you.
I believe this was the AUG-like's second appearance; it was Nick's first Gun of the Month, IIRC. Interestingly, I saw an Australian training video showing how some stoppages can be cleared by simply pulling the barrel and shaking it out.
@@StrangelyBrownNo1 Boo...and then Lithgow's owner decided not to allow them to market the civvie version in the States. I was looking forward to forward to them.
@@StrangelyBrownNo1 Yep. There were a bunch of very positive TH-cam videos, getting folks excited--then the Euroweenies pulled the plug, on 'moral grounds'. 🤬
The story I heard about the early Abrams was that the mechanics and engineers were at a place where their shop was a significant distance from the test range, and they were in a place in testing where they'd drive somewhere to do the test, have to drive back to the shop to make changes, drive back to the range to test, drive back to the shop to make more changes, ad nauseam. The engineers got tired of losing half the day to travel between range and shop, so they removed/modified the engine governor. They went flying down the road to the test range right past a base cop with a radar gun at 100+.
@@ScottKenny1978 Damn so in theory a current M4 if you'd be willing to push the engine and transmission could do 80KPH? Pretty impressive indeed. I do love the real engineer solution to the problem, instead of well building the shop closer to the testing grounds, no just make your tank go faster haha
@@teaser6089 my understanding is that the governor exists to keep grunts from hurting the transmission in peacetime. Because all vehicles in the war zones got their governors disabled or removed entirely! So yes, I'd bet that a current Abrams could do 80+kph at 75 tons.
Hi Chieftain. I think you can get some insight into Chieftain vs. T62 and T72 battles when you get a chance to read on Iran-Iraq war. There were multiple tank battles, including some heavy losses on both sides. Chieftain tank's reliable accuracy and unreliable serviceability both played a role. Particularly that Iranians could not import any spare parts. At the same time, the UK tried selling some Chieftains to Iraq, but it was rejected after Iraqies tested some captured Iranian Chieftains.
Chief, your such a national treasure ya could put your musing into a text to speech narrator and it still be riveting commentary!!!!!!!!!!!! It would be a tragedy to deny the world the utter charm that is your Mick Jagger lipped Irish accent, dont go changing ya gentlemen and scholar!!!.
26:30 cork boys being legends, but real talk Ireland doesn't need tanks it need asw helos and patrol bombers and the ships to carry and support them! Ireland needs a modern European navy. That said would love an albonia style brief on what the Irish army would look like if you were in charge of making them ready to fight a Ukraine style war against an invading hypothetical UK or even to reclaim the north, naturaly not any time soon lest we give fuel to the kermlin bots but Ireland if like japan in how contradictngly interesting it is militarily.
With the modelling kits. Going something like a Revel kit, where they have different tiers of complexity. Tamiya are great kits but they tend to be on the complicated side. As an Aussie, it was great to see the AUG clone. I have a feeling having dual thermal images is a huge advantage, because the commanders viewer is not attached to the gun. So it is far more versatile in it's use.
Yeah especially with modern tanks that have the commanders override system where the commander can take over the gun, this becomes less useful at night when the commander doesn't have a 360 vision in IR. But when he does, that system can really work as intended.
Thank you so much for the great answers! Honestly, given the time since the question was asked and all we've seen since then, I was worried that my MPF question might be a little redundant. But man, seeing you with both vehicles and teasing those videos? Couldn't ask for better than that! :D
My Yeomanry forebears had the Littlejohn rounds for their 2 pounder guns in the Daimler armoured cars in 1945 but preferred not to mount the Littlehjohn adaptors. They used HE more and found the tungsten Littlejohn rounds to penetrate almost as well without tapering as with the adaptor.
I'm a peace time anti tank repair guy and your comment on air watch rang a bell. On exercise at Ft Lewis we were hit by an attack from a Huey with door gunners and caught on the back foot. Yet at the after action the BN staff RAVED about how well the unit radar worked and how the whole unit (709 Mt Bn) were well ahead of the game when in fact we were caught in the chow ;ines.
I'd think an add-on benefit of rear-engine/front-transmission systems, though maybe not a reason for keeping it, was that the gearbox in front is bonus armor for the crew. Like, with the same actual armor, a hit that would penetrate the front of a rear-drive tank and you'd have to hose out the crew before welding up the hole and putting a new crew in would likely be a mobility kill with the gearbox up front, but would allow the crew to bail out and go back and get a new tank. And the US Army is all about crew survivability, hence the M1 being so much bigger than its opponents -- wasn't the T-72 designed to be compact bc can't hit what you can't target, and the M1 was designed to be able to take a hit and save the crew?
The T-72 isn’t THAT compact. It’s true that Russia tends to favor lighter MBTs than the US & Europe but it’s mostly for logistical reasons, I suspect. Russia’s the biggest nation in the world by land mass. When your country stretches across 11 time zones, most of your neighbors don’t like or trust you (allies included!) a lighter MBT makes a lot of sense. You can move 48-50 ton MBTs around a lot more easily than 70 ton MBTs.
I may be the only one here, but I think it might be interesting to have a rack tour, showing the models with the associated build story/frustration and books upclose. Shillelaghly could also cameo in it if he/she/it(?) wants
As to your GOTM. Like you, the cantilever scope mount base for my Vortex scope put the mounts nuts on the wrong side. I went on to Ebay and found a better one-piece aluminum scope mount like yours, just with the nuts on the other side. problems solved for under $30 dollars and works a treat with my Crossfire-II scope.
I think logistics were the turning points in North Africa. The general tendency of the fighting seems to be go once side, get stretched too thin, lose effective logistics, flee back to base, then at your base, the others get stretched too thin. Like ping-pong but at a bigger scale.
Regarding Ukraine, what do you think about the argument against sending the Abrams family? The biggest (valid) issue brought up is the maintenance regime and training cycle.
Played the game in the 70's here in the Detroit area with the author. Upset him quite a bit in the two games I played. Lost a Mars vehicle - the first one ever lost in one of his games. 152mm HEAT to the gun mantlet. Stopped a win by the bad guys who had a jet take off with a nuclear bomb. 20mm while it was going down the runway did the trick. Wonder why I can remember that. Other game was all infantry.
I appreciated the response to the Gerlich principle question. That’s something I’d thought about too ever since I learned about the SPzB 41. Squeeze bore adapters can make an obsolete weapon useful again for a short while. It does complicate the logistics train to provide the specialist ammunition though. QUESTION: for what it’s worth. Did the IJA or IJN land forces ever engage in an operation like “Fall Greif”? Note: the OPFOR needn’t be the US, any allied nation: USSR, UK, Nationalist China, ChiCom, etc.
Know I'm a bit late, but the Marine Corps Sherman question reminded me of a tidbit from Dimitri Loza's memoir about how the Soviets liked the twin diesel because in low visibility the second engine meant you could sneak around at low power and make less noise, during say snowstorms or the like.
Technically diesel fuel has more energy content, and thus every explosion in the cylinder produces more force. This can be seen in their torque values for a given displacement of engine and the fuel economy of the vehicle they're installed in. The catch is POWER in engines depends on rpm to have a higher value and gasoline engines rev higher more easily because they weigh less since they don't need to be built stronger to compression ignite the fuel. Thus its traditional to see gasoline engines giving higher peak HP but you need to compare engine RPMs that that value is achieved at. In the case of tank engines for example, in the M4 there were two diesel engine options (the A2 and A6) but one of those was a twin inline-6 and the other a 9 cylinder radial. Thus they can be compared to some of the gas engine alternatives. The Ford GAA V-8 gasoline engine was 18L of displacement producing 500hp at 2600rpm and 1,050 Ib-ft of torque at 2,200rpm. The GM 6046 was a pair of GM 6-71 Inline-6 diesels mounted together. From 14L of displacement it produced about 1,220 Ib-Ft of torque at 1,600rpm and 375hp at 2,200 rpm. A chryler A57 multi-bank on the other hand (with 5 inline-6s assembled together as one engine) was 370hp at 2,400rpm and I can't find a peak torque figure but reversing the math from the peak HP rating we get 809 Ib-Ft of torque at the same engine rpm. The 6046 meanwhile is producing 895 Ib-Ft of torque still at 2,200 rpm. So its probable safe to say the peak torque of the A57 is less than the GM 6046 option in spite of being far greater displacement (about 21L).
30:10 Regarding post-production updates - I was a plankowner of USS Boone FFG-28. She was built by Todd Seattle to the original blueprints, then a year later refitted to the newest standard by Bath Shipyard in Maine, as it was too expensive to change the build in the first place.
On the Steyr optics/hand interface causing bleeding, Look for optics mounts that can be swapped over to the right side or are flush. I've been using Bobro & Scalar works.
I would like to ask on the effectiveness of non anti tank cannons during WWII (i.e. howitzers, artillery pieces, etc.) In their effectiveness against armor, as well as their practical use if by a stroke of misfortune they became the sole anti armor option available. Examples including the 25 pounder with the developed AP round, the 15cm sIG 33 with stielgranate 41, the 152mm ML-20s with both HE and anti concrete, 75mm M2 and M3 howitzers with HEAT, the 105mm M4, Soviet 122mm U-11 and equivalent mounted on the SU-122 and finish QF 4.5 inch tank howitzers with HEAT round
40mm Bofors uses 4 round clips stacked up to 3 clips high which makes for a bit awkward condition in a smaller vehicle. The M247 Sergeant York being an example of how not to do it. Aside from the Poor radar system it took a very long time to fully load with ammo Hydraulic leaks all the time and mounted on an obsolete hull. A friend was on the test team for the monster.
Re close defense: I seem to recall that back when tanks had muzzle brakes, there where cases when people fired off an AP-shot into the distance to use the muzzle blast to knock down infantry that were threatening to overrun them.
I earned my spurs earlier this year while overseas. In my unit if you wear a Stetson with no spurs you will likely be ridiculed right out of the troop building, but that’s not army wide as far as I know. My spur ride in particular was about 60 hours long and we had the Belgian recce unit we’ve been training with tag along. Good times. Garryowen
As an Irishman, his kicking off is very restrained.... . I was expecting Chieftain to dismantle his set with much violence and profanity... but he is a Staff Officer and I am not.
Apologies if this question (or variations thereof) has already been asked. We’re seeing the advent of small personal drones in military use - platoon or company level scouting assets, artillery spotters, and so on. This has not left the tank fleet alone, the new German tank prototype had provision for launching drones. My question is - for a tanker, how practical is this idea? It feels like there’s some potential issues around information overload, especially considering the fact that a tank crew is relatively small and everyone is already busy with their own tasks. At the same time, can tankers afford to ignore this change given how impactful it has turned out to be for other branches?
Are you ever planning on heading to Israel to review the tanks at the museums they have there? I’d love to see a break down of a merkava 4 with its forward engine and infantry carrying capabilities
54:33 A.I. threat-recognition could probably be used on the bore mounted cameras, negating the info-overload on the crew. It would also speed up the whole corner scanning process.
Question: If they're so worried about the .50 cal performance against aircraft, why don't they put a Stinger launcher up there, or upgrade it to M3 speed. It has a speed selector on it anyway. How are they going to find room for a 30mm and all it's ammo? I think GD is pulling our chain, putting that on the M1 XXX.
cool bullpup, I bought a brand name Aug steyr A3 m1 about a year ago (non-nato version) and really love it quite a lot, I did a small upgrade on the trigger but otherwise found it not to be too bad
43:59 What about the progression away from long wordy commands when the Tank crew has served together for over a year. I went over a year wit the same crew and after awhile we went past finishing each others sentences to more grunt sounds. Due to time I knew as a Delta what needed to be done on part before being told. I anticipated where I needed to be and HOW I needed to be. So instead of a long drawn out command from My TC I knew what the gunner needed from me and did it, with short single syllable sounds confirming while already executing with the TC giving an minor corrections in the same short, for lack of a better term, grunts. I could use a term like vocal shorthand but I am a DAT and prefer grunting sounds.
The Coax Guns did not work on our M-48s, according to our tankers . We they just bad weapons or typical GIs to lazy to fix them. We had some very combat experienced tankers as we secured QL-19 and had the Mang-Yang Pass. Note; I was Commo platoon and A/L RTO in the Cav and RTO in 1/14 Infantry, 4th infantry Division until they went back to the states when 14 of us transferred to the 1/10th Cav and stayed in Ankhe. Transferring from combat infantry to a Cav unit an experience. Two different worlds. As night time A/L RTO I had no day job, so was asked to be shotgun on the squadron refueler truck so after my shift I spent My mornings QL-19 and fueling the equipment guarding the bridges and our 3 Fire Bases, Shuler, Action and Blackhawk. Staying busy made the days pass quickly until I entered the Commo Platoon and became even busier.
One answer to the lack mk19 on tanks is ammunition stowage. Those boxes are quite large and can empty all too quickly. Stowing inside also negates the advantage of safe ammo storage. Not quite as much of a worry on anything open topped.
Though the British WW1 tanks did have enclosed running gear of course, I think it is worth noting that especially fragile components like the secondary gearboxes were mounted within the track frames, and thus only protected by one layer of armor. Much effort was however put into developing "double skin" armor for the sides of Mark I and the paper super-heavy "Flying Elephant". Ultimately neither got off the ground; weight and mobility concerns took priority
I'm super curious about the 50 or 60 Spartan vehicles that were reportedly going to Ukraine from the UK. I think the story was their purchase was funded by a private individual. Wondering if you see a special role for them in Ukraine or was this just a vanity project for a wealthy philanthropist? Does their smaller size fill a particular niche or is any armor good armor in these circumstances?? Have you heard or seen of them being used? Thought you'd be the best person to ask.
I've not heard of anywhere near that number from private sources - I heard something about some small number being privately funded and sent with anti-air missile launcher setups - clearly useful right now, though I'm not sure that source was true. But nothing about a private individual donation that substantial. If it is true good on the donator, as that many of one vehicle type is enough to make them logistically sane and mean you can at least keep a reasonable number of them running longer term through cannibalization should spare parts get to be in short supply, and the UK gov has supplied some of them already... As for usefulness, for what they are at least as far as this armchair novice can tell they are solid options, plus anything that multiplies your effectiveness, even if its not the best possible option is better than nothing. It sounds like the Ukrainians rather like the ones they have been given, partly because they are so light they can deal better with the mud.
I have a question for you: are coaxial machineguns obsolete? My friend is under the impression that they are useless post-ww2, and only give you a weakspot in your armor. I'm under impression that it's the most used weapon on a tank, but that their usefulness have diminished a bit with the introduction of unmanned top-mounted weapons-stations. The only real big advantage a coax has over a weapons-station is that it's easier to reload a coax in a CBRN-environment.
54:54 best question of the brief!!!!!!!!! my two cents rather then put that camera on the end of the gun to poke round corners put in on some quad copter that can shoot up few hundred feet and look down on the whole urdan street lay out! Ya talk about single vs duel thermal tanks and how disadvantaged a none thermal equipped tank would be but what about and old cold war 3rd gen night vision tank using an accompanying thermal equipped off the shelf drone to spot targets. In essence what if a tank had a 3rd gen IR NV sight but used air borne thermals as its TCPS making it more a TCs over watch sight. does SA trump optics/visual equity for line of sight?
3rd Gen would be starlight scope. These were used on Canadian Leopards (Low Light TV) and Leopard I tanks. The problem with IR is you need an IR source to use them. The normal method is to have an IR searchlight. The T55 were equipped with these when they were introduced long ahead of NATO. The drone could be used to spot enemy infantry and vehicles and the starlight scopes/night sights used to fire on the locations the enemy is hiding in. Better, call in artillery.
uhhh boresighting today uses the m26 power watching device, or pyewatson, as we would say after our lips froze at Graff. Before that on the M60a1 we used string tapped to the bore muzzle and the firing pin removed and the commanders bino's looking up the gun tube tosee the sighting panel somewhere down range. At that point it was much like using the power watching device and boresight was applied to the uper left hand corner of the sighting target down range to get the gun to hit with some amount of accuracy.
I think if you look closer at the J series MTOE, the cav troop had 2 platoons of 4 tanks and 2 platoons of 6 scout vehicles. The light cav units had 2 platoons with 4 TOW armed HMMVSs and 2 platoons of 6 scout HMMVWs.
I have to say that the primary thing we have learned from watching the war in Ukraine is that none of the Russian forces know who Sun Tzu was. Can a T62 kill a chieftain? Given the locations of the hits I'm gonna say only if you label a Challenger with the letter T and the number 62 and then take pictures of the hits on the turret being tested and make em look like they're taken in a desert instead of someplace in England. I've seen that picture at a better quality and the tank in it is still forest. Neither hit penetrated. Walker Bulldog, Tamiia. A common layman misconception about the Claymore mine is that the deadlier side says "this side towards enemy"... It is simply a poorly made shaped charge with junk strapped to the backblast side. Mounting them on vehicles isn't smart as they will spall in all directions and rip everything off the AFV around them. Mounting them on lightly armored vehicles is about as effective as blowing up the vehicle itself as an antipersonnel device. There WAS a commander's pintle mount bracket designed but then someone remembered the word "overpressure" and nixed it. This bracket is actually included in the new high-tech russian AP mines kit... Automatic grenade launchers are for use in pulverizing lightly armored and open-top fortified positions (mud between two layers of corrugated metal, sand bagged fox holes, houses...) and use upon enemies and their vehicles as an area effect and suppressing fire or reach-out-and-FCUK-someone way to push a fist-filleting beyond slow pitch range. Tanks that expect to encounter such objects will carry grapeshot or high explosive and have no real need for grenades. Or they just open up with their portable entrenched machinegun foxhole in converging bursts of fire until the target realizes that waiting around until the tanks ARRIVE would be an exceptionally stupid waste of running away time. Closing to grenade range with a tank is dumb and violates Sun Tzu. -- In a hilarious but intriguing juxtaposition of this, it is possible to mount a pair of Carl Gustav in the Tow Launcher on LAV/Striker/Bradley turrets and kentucky windage the shells to where you want them... and it is completely plausible to find said weapon stowed in an M3 Badly. no "r" or "e"... yes, the M3 Scout Badly Squeezebore... you mean like an M256? Its subtle but its in there. To the TW2000 question: We still maintain training with M3 Carl Gustaf. I know that doesn't directly answer the question but there it is. M50 Ontos absolutely sucked as an antitank vehicle but made a great assault gun.
If you get a Steyr stock, and a few internals, I think you can get a bolt catch and release so that when you need to change the mag, it stays locked to the rear. My Steyr had one. Sadly I sold it when I moved to NY People who worry about bullpups having bad triggers have a point, BUT, there are two big caveats. The first, as you say, is that in combat, your fine motor control is out the window anyway. The second is that you can get the trigger to be just about as good as a standard rifle trigger. I think the people who worry about this are mostly competitive shooters?
36:20 why not a shorter cap nuts & shorter stud on the optics mount so it doesn't stick out so far ? ... Thank s for all your informative and intertying videos 🙂
Rather than use claymores/frags for CQB, British tanks in Korea had a much simpler and more effective method. Whenever they were swarmed by unfriendly folk, they hosed each other down with canister! This rapidly removed the unfriendly chaps without damaging the tanks.
I assume the problem with that nowadays would be that now there's so much additional equipment bolted to the outside of of AFVs, that they would damage each others now. Still, if it comes down to either lose some optics and a APS module or the whole vehicle and crew, that shouldn't be too hard a choice.
@@HistoryNeedsYou Hard to say for a layman such as little old me. In theory, it shouldn't affect it. But I worked as a mechanic in industrial maintenance my entire adult life so far and "in theory it should be fine" falls under "famous last words" according to my experience.
16:40 I remember hoping that the XM307 would be adopted and used on top of tanks. It’s a 25x59mm, so it’s like an in between the Mk19 and the 25mm Bushmaster.
@@grahamstrouse1165 on a tank probably. But I still think the US relies to heavily on the M2. An XM307 in an emplacement or on top of an JLTV/LMTV/Stryker would be far more versatile then an M2.
The model question reminded me of when I was in the navy. I was stationed in Okinawa in the 70s and had built five expensive remote controlled tanks. When I shipped out I carefully packed them in a footlocker with my comic collection and mailed them home. When I got home I discovered my mother had trashed the comics thinking they were packing and gave the models to my nephew who played with them to destruction. I had hundreds of dollars and hours invested in those models not to mention the collector value of the comics!
Ouch
Good god. That stings!
That's almost as bad as the soldier who left his papered SKS combat trophy from Vietnam with his dad when he went for another tour...yes, it got well and truly bubba'd.
Ouch
This sounds like the "one bad day" Joker was talking about.
David Fletcher retired today. Video was heart breaking. The chieftain is the successor!
😔 I miss him already.
I started my 8 years in the cav with M3a2s and ended with M3A3s and the thermal CITV was an absolute game changer in gunnery and in iraq the BC could scan for new targets while the gunner was serving another. In iraq the BC and gunner could scan independently of each other covering more of the sector at the same time.
Concerning the definition of "penetration" (going entirely through and ending up on the far side of the plate with the projectile was called "perforation" by the British Navy or "complete penetration" by the US Navy"). Originally, this was termed for warships starting circa-1860 when the first ironclad warships began to appear (HMS WARRIOR all-metal warship for the British and GLOIRE wooden-hulled warship for the French and then the explosion in designs during the US Civil War). The British defined it as making a hole at the waterline to let in water to flood the enemy arship, almost identical to the US Army "light-through-the-hole" definition. This was fine for solid shot weapons, but by WWI the guns now had explosive charges and non-delay (~0.003-second inertial delay) base fuzes.
During WWI, British APC -- "C" meaning with a soft-steel nose "crash-helmet" cap to allow intact thick side face-hardened armor penetration in an intact (usually) manner -- got a bad rep for exploding during or very shortly after penetration or perforation. This was largely due to those non-delay fuzes and the rather shock-sensitive "Lyddite" filler used by the British. However, nobody had told the British Navy personnel about this design and they expected the shells to go through the armor and explode rather far inside the enemy warship, just like the German definition of penetration. What had happened was that NOBODY IN THE BRITISH NAVY HAD CHANGED THE AP SHELL SPECS FROM THE 1860 PENETRATION DEFINITION! Thus the shell manufacturers were happily making naval AP/APC shells to the just-make-a-hole version with the explosive there to merely make a bigger hole and cause even more hull side flooding. While perfectly adequate when punching into turrets and barbettes, this old definition was quite obsolete against the new warships with internal "splinter screens" and "protectiove decks" of thin armor to localize damage. It took the investigation after the huge Battle of Jutland, where several British battle-cruisers blew up, to find this out and only then were the much-improve "Greenboy" APC shells designed and issured with insensitive fillers and delay-action (~0.025-second for deep penetration) fuzes. Sometimes nothing is bad about the performance, just the design had naver been revised to better requirements.
I was part of the battalion security during ReForGer '88. While acting as physical security for the BC on a scouting mission (Actually out mudding in the BCs 1008) we (the BC, his driver, and I) were admiring the scenery when we heard a high pitched whine and track squealing sounds intensified until a brand new M1 broke out of the tree line below us and hit a burm, which launched the M1 into the air. Yeah, it was probably less that a foot, but the entire tank was off the ground. This M1 circled the clearing and parked just in time for the next M1 to do the same thing. Those were followed by 2 more M1s. We Aviation guys discussed this amongst ourselves and concluded that they had to be driving at at least 60mph to have accomplished the jump. We did not drive down as ask the Tankers as we were not sure which side they were actually on. Hell, I didn't even know which side WE were on.
0:00:00 Intro
0:00:16 Admin: Audio
0:02:45 Surprises from Ukraine?
0:04:35 Book recommendations for folks new to tanks
0:05:35 Chiefains in Iran-Iraq war
0:06:45 First armored vehicle 1:35 model recommendation
0:08:30 How much and in what way have mission or operations changed to a tank commander or platoon leader from WWII to the last deployment?
0:10:17 T-34-76's gun long shrouded mantlet vs Sherman or Panther's more 'traditional'
0:11:18 Stryker MGS worth saving with more money on hand?
0:12:27 Front mounted transmission by technological limition or innertia?
0:14:30 Merit in S-mines and claymores against infantry?
0:16:05 Q from Caleb Engelhard deserves own video
0:16:15 Why are automatic grenade launchers not more commonly seen on tanks?
0:17:58 Insight on the MPF?
0:18:41 Why was the M26 phased out so quickly?
0:21:13 Did the US ever test a squeeze-bore gun?
0:25:12 Tracked AFVs for Ireland/Funding for Irish Armed Forces
0:28:15 Favoured young Chieftain's armored vehicle
0:28:30 Why no US autocannons in inter-war period?
0:28:47 Preferred pizza
0:28:56 How might late Cold War vehicles be simplified to cut cost and production time if the US got to the point that it ran out of M1s in a war?
0:30:29 Combat vehicle that was bad at designed job, but good elsewhere?
0:31:16 Has the origin of gunner's control handles' Cadillacs ever been sourced?
0:31:28 What is in the display case on your left?/Coin checks
0:32:27 Modern US vehicle recovery
0:32:45 Is there a vehicle I had the opportunity to operate, but passed on it and now regret?
0:32:58 Is there a sci-fy weapon you want to get one?
0:33:50 Gun of the month: Not a Steyr AUG
0:40:34 In a Russian program covering the T-34, the museum staff recalled a story of an American visitor and famed historian ...
0:41:31 What did the Marines think about the M4 variants?
0:43:00 Hybrid drives and see-through armor
0:43:21 What would a WWII tanker verbalize when taking fire from the right and then return fire?
0:43:58 T24E1 referenced in Hunnycut's 'Stuart' had an R975-C4 on rails. What would the advantages have been and what might have been the fix for the Spicer transmission?
0:45:01 What scrapped (due to USSR fall) projects were the various countries working on in the 1990s?
0:47:09 What do the higher-ups think of my TH-cam career?
0:47:50 Usefulness thermal vs. non-thermal CITV for commander for a vehicle which already has a thermal imager for a gun
0:49:50 Major turning points in north Africa other than 2nd El Alamain?
0:50:30 Why did the opinion on the 76 mm gun change from 1946 to Korean War?
0:51:48 Formal studies on applique armor?
0:53:32 Could new behaviour of watching the sides and advancing very slowly with gun-mounted side-looking cameras trained out?
0:55:27 Armored Cavalery Regiment Squadron H-series to J-series capabilities changes
0:59:59 Armor penetration wording
1:02:18 What have you found out about the T28? / 'Can Openers' will be back at Amazon soon.
1:02:42 Thoughts on MPF
1:03:04 Question not understood ...
1:03:16 Why no Bofors gun in 20 ton tank?
1:04:34 Was the M103 outmatched by mid-1970s Soviet enemies?
1:05:21 What#s the deal with the supposed early M1 hitting 100 with the governor removed?
1:05:55 Are M1 sideskirts a descendant of Schürzen or independently developed (M6, M14)?
1:06:40 Manhours of maintenance vs. hours of use
1:07:40 How to earn Stetson and spurs in Cav?
1:08:55 Follow-on on question using range cards
1:09:14 Did the Sovjets copy the jerrycan?
1:09:54 How did the Canadian Cangaroo-series come about?
1:12:24 Intention on long Q&A like Drachinifel?
1:12:37 Enjoy your holidays!
You’re doing gods work
Whilst i appreciate the effort, you do realise I've already added those to the description?
@@TheChieftainsHatch Haven't encountered them yesterday.
Cut at 28:55 to order said pizza
According to Andrei Tarasenko the results of Soviet testing on a captured Chieftain are published in "Issues of defense technology. - 1983. - No. 5 (111)" (Вопросы оборонной техники. - 1983. - № 5 (111)) They only have web archives back to 2013, but Andrei published a penetration chart that has 3BM-6 out of the 115 as penetrating the glacis and turret front at 1600m. Iraq was likely using 3BM-4, which is allegedly just as good against heavily sloped RHA. The same journal has 120mm HESH basically working as intended as well.
The Chieftain quotes Douglas Adam's. Best day ever!
I totally enjoyed, as a teenager in the 1960s, Brazen Chariots by Robert Crisp, it is A tank officer's story of the desert war in North Africa against Rommel Africa Corps. The M3 Stuart, M3 Grant, Crusader, Matilda, and Valentine star for the British.
As a Once-upon--a-time Colonial, I read that exact book at that same time. It certainly captured the imagination (and created certain perceptions of Brit Armor and and doctrine of the period) of a young'un and fostered an interest in, and appreciation for whatever the Mad Lads Left Behind by Fuller were dreaming. The thinking behind the A9 and A10 were something out of a fever dream IMHO. Fast moving dust clouds and all that ...
It was on the mandatory reading list in 2nd Tank battalions 2nd Marine division back in the early 90’s. Excellent book!
Team Yankee and the Harold Coyle series is a must read tank fiction. It got me into tanks as a kid and when I joined the army I became a tanker.
Sean and Scott ftw (and Ms Media!)
The tabletop wargame of the same name is loads of fun too!
Only reread Team Yankee this summer. Harold Cole is a great military writer.
Definitely his best work though I did like the others with “The 10000” probably the best of those.
Of course Chieftain is classy enough to know Douglas Adams intimately. I'm not even surprised, just delighted.
Since when is Douglas Adams "classy"? That was peak pop culture back in the day, he is old enough he has to have read them. Everyone read them.
Douglas Adams passed away in 2001, though…
When I was going through Ft Knox for Marine tank school we were still training on the M60 simulator due to the M1 simulator was just built. The instructor that my team used had a grizzled old good old boy who told us he had been part of the M1 development team. He was the driver of the famous highway patrol tried to issue a ticket because he had gone down the tank trail running alongside the highway faster than 55mph. His commander laughed at the cops and told them to leave. I asked him about the “100 mph M1” and he said it was sort of real. He said the early development tanks were geared faster and they had one that they took the turret off to see what the peak speed would be for tracks and suspension. He thought I had been a crazy idea and was sure the tracks would fly a part.
Why would a cop try to ticket a vehicle that isn't even on the highway? That literally makes no sense. That sounds like a story someone came up with and/or garbled in the retelling.
I first read about it in the book “King of the Killing Zone” by Orr Kelley before I joined so I was familiar with the story before I talked to him. The tank has been on the range for testing and came back by the tank trail that ran alongside the highway through the base. Apparently being in the test one it could go faster than 45mph which was the limit on base and over took the highway patrol. There is another one that is well documented one of the first units to get the M1 was pulled over by the MPs for going way past the base speed limit. The tank crews had never bothered paying attention to the limit on the 60’s due to its lower speed.
I Live in El Paso TX and when the 3rd Cav got their m1 I on the road would be passed by m1 on the base . I clocked one doing 60 mph. soon the CAV got ones with governors ( a buddy in the army and on post [Fort Bliss] saw one leap over a two lane road berm to berm 10 feet up he learned later the crew did not see the cut.)
Ironic, because I too would recommend 'Armored Champion' as a pretty good tank primer for the newbie.
Spot on, sir.
After going through all the doctrine videos, I can't help but notice the effect of Polands naivete on ww2 keeps coming up. So I'm really curious about Poland's doctrine. Did it have one? The only thing I heard is it had some light tanks and I heard it supposedly ended up using some Archers in some context or other.
That Steyr was very nostalgic for me after my time in the Australian Army.
I like the single question format, I am often daunted by the prospect of hour-plus videos. So I am all for the single topic Q&A, they seem to be working very well for Ian. I guess the downside to you is that you need to do more videos. But in the other hand, people will probably watch anything you post so you will get more clicks.
On the 100 mph M1s, I was based at Ft. Knox until 1982 and personally saw M1s driving down the main road outside the large motor pool keeping up with the regular car traffic (probably at least 50 mph). In 1982, that was a phenomenal thing to witness.
Doesn't sound entirely safe considering the certain results of an accident with those same cars. What happens when someone stops suddenly in the lane in front of an M1 doing highway speeds in traffic?
@@justforever96 First, if you're playing stupid games around large vehicles, you probably deserve your Darwin award. It would be an absolute disservice to deny such offerings to the gods of tard usually found cutting off loaded trucks and getting pancaked.
Second, rubber tracks with good contact patch go skkkkkkkkkrrrrt.
60tons is 60tons, but it stops way faster than you would want to unaware without being strapped in. Weird, but true, loaded semi's have a worse stopping distance in practice.
I don't make models much anymore but I had a really good time with Plastic Soldier Company tanks. They are 1/72 but they're super easy to put together and you'll get several in a box with variant options for each tank too.
Cheiftan, we don't know each other. I am Carl. I wanted to say Merry Christmas! Thank you for all your past service to our country and the work you do on line. It is obvious how hard you work for your viewers. Once again, thank you! :)
Hallo Carl! Happy new year to you!
Thank you, Chieftain, for another "cover the earth" Q&A. Great stuff.
The 1/35th Tamiya M41 Walker Bulldog is a great starter kit. Its from the late 60s but but its not a bad kit. I was my second 1/35th scale tank and there wasn't much sanding or filling needed. The painting is simple so you can spend more time working on how to paint weathering, plus there is a few GI figures to practice painting too.
Tamiya's old Tiger I would also be a good choice. Simple to paint and it has some play value to it.
Thanks for another Q&A!! I really enjoy this format and honestly the longform q&a of forgotten weapons were my favorite and I'm still watching the one answer at a time ones, I miss the old. Appreciate all you do and hope you keep it up. Good stuff. Merry Christmas
ADATS was used in Canada, mounted on M113s. I worked on them as a reservist in the '90s. But even by then, it was getting old. It was finally put to pasture in 2004. As far as I know, they've never replaced it in the SHORAD roll.
Canada never replaces anything in any role. They haven’t even replaced the Eryx In the infantry ATGM role.
The concept aint wrong.
Ref WW2 Platoon Leader: He would be amazed at the night fighting capabilities, firepower and survivability of the M1other than that like you said it pretty much boils down to leadership. He would NOT like no beer in the field...
Now that I know there are no requirements for wearing a cav hat, I'm inclined to order one now. I was in 1-12 CAV and everyone I knew except myself (and the new guys we got before I was discharged) owned and wore them on Fridays. Now that I'm a civie, I feel that I should at least own one for the sake of having it, since I still wear tanker boots with unfurled ocp bottoms as my normal everyday wear. May as well add to the 'tell me you were a tanker without telling me you were a tanker' look.
Not sure if you do this already, but whenever I shoot video where the audio matters, I make sure I can plug headphones into whatever’s recording audio and take at least a quick listen of someone talking.
Ah the travails of working as a one-man-band! And it’s even harder to get everything right in a public space.
Kinda want to see Chieftain rigged up in one of those instrument suits playing his heart out on six things at once.
Wondering, if the "unreleasable due to audio" video might be a candidate for a voice over. Shame to lose a fair bit of work.
My memory was that we had to wait *years* between getting a Leopard 1 kit and a chieftain. (It was, of course, not that long).
Drach's stamina is legendary or is it, as you suggest he just can't restrain himself?
Large bladder
Drach doesn't have another job.
Job, family, sleep... there's no way Drach could possibly do anything but channel-related tasks. I've seen the man reply to comments on _other channels,_ and then get back to the responses he got on _someone else's_ comment under _someone else's_ video. I picture the famed Mrs. Drach visiting with him for three to four hours every six months or so, then she salutes and wipes away a tear as he trudges back to the library.
@@ROBERTN-ut2il Or a bucket under the desk?
@@johnladuke6475 Actually, I would expect Mrs. Drach to visit him every few hours. a) to make sure he's still alive and b) to change the IV drip...
Well done Nick. Another great video. Enjoyed seeing the Steyr, a weapon system I'm well acquainted with. If you're ever down our neck of the woods again, let us know, the boys and I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you.
I believe this was the AUG-like's second appearance; it was Nick's first Gun of the Month, IIRC. Interestingly, I saw an Australian training video showing how some stoppages can be cleared by simply pulling the barrel and shaking it out.
@@petesheppard1709 not with the EF88 - the QCB system got the arse!
@@StrangelyBrownNo1 Boo...and then Lithgow's owner decided not to allow them to market the civvie version in the States. I was looking forward to forward to them.
@@petesheppard1709 they really did blueball the yanks didn’t they!
@@StrangelyBrownNo1 Yep. There were a bunch of very positive TH-cam videos, getting folks excited--then the Euroweenies pulled the plug, on 'moral grounds'. 🤬
The story I heard about the early Abrams was that the mechanics and engineers were at a place where their shop was a significant distance from the test range, and they were in a place in testing where they'd drive somewhere to do the test, have to drive back to the shop to make changes, drive back to the range to test, drive back to the shop to make more changes, ad nauseam.
The engineers got tired of losing half the day to travel between range and shop, so they removed/modified the engine governor. They went flying down the road to the test range right past a base cop with a radar gun at 100+.
Jesus I'm guessing this was a hull without armour?
Or close to full weight?
@@teaser6089 story teller implied that this was close to full weight, but remember that "full weight" was only 62 tons in the beginning.
@@ScottKenny1978 Damn so in theory a current M4 if you'd be willing to push the engine and transmission could do 80KPH?
Pretty impressive indeed.
I do love the real engineer solution to the problem, instead of well building the shop closer to the testing grounds, no just make your tank go faster haha
@@teaser6089 my understanding is that the governor exists to keep grunts from hurting the transmission in peacetime. Because all vehicles in the war zones got their governors disabled or removed entirely!
So yes, I'd bet that a current Abrams could do 80+kph at 75 tons.
@@ScottKenny1978 Damn that's crazy! Never knew that!
Hi Chieftain. I think you can get some insight into Chieftain vs. T62 and T72 battles when you get a chance to read on Iran-Iraq war.
There were multiple tank battles, including some heavy losses on both sides.
Chieftain tank's reliable accuracy and unreliable serviceability both played a role. Particularly that Iranians could not import any spare parts.
At the same time, the UK tried selling some Chieftains to Iraq, but it was rejected after Iraqies tested some captured Iranian Chieftains.
Chief, your such a national treasure ya could put your musing into a text to speech narrator and it still be riveting commentary!!!!!!!!!!!! It would be a tragedy to deny the world the utter charm that is your Mick Jagger lipped Irish accent, dont go changing ya gentlemen and scholar!!!.
26:30 cork boys being legends, but real talk Ireland doesn't need tanks it need asw helos and patrol bombers and the ships to carry and support them! Ireland needs a modern European navy. That said would love an albonia style brief on what the Irish army would look like if you were in charge of making them ready to fight a Ukraine style war against an invading hypothetical UK or even to reclaim the north, naturaly not any time soon lest we give fuel to the kermlin bots but Ireland if like japan in how contradictngly interesting it is militarily.
PS ever wanna sell that cali legal aug ya have customers!!
Do you have any plans or wants to visit Fort Benning’s vehicle hall to do some inside the hatch videos? Things like T30, T95, etc.?
I have done a few videos on vehicles in their collection I’m sure I’ll do more
With the modelling kits. Going something like a Revel kit, where they have different tiers of complexity. Tamiya are great kits but they tend to be on the complicated side.
As an Aussie, it was great to see the AUG clone.
I have a feeling having dual thermal images is a huge advantage, because the commanders viewer is not attached to the gun. So it is far more versatile in it's use.
Yeah especially with modern tanks that have the commanders override system where the commander can take over the gun, this becomes less useful at night when the commander doesn't have a 360 vision in IR. But when he does, that system can really work as intended.
Thank you so much for the great answers! Honestly, given the time since the question was asked and all we've seen since then, I was worried that my MPF question might be a little redundant. But man, seeing you with both vehicles and teasing those videos? Couldn't ask for better than that! :D
A few pints down the Temple Bar sounds like a wicked way to spend Christmas. Have a good one by the way and a fine new year. Thanks for the vid Chief.
My Yeomanry forebears had the Littlejohn rounds for their 2 pounder guns in the Daimler armoured cars in 1945 but preferred not to mount the Littlehjohn adaptors. They used HE more and found the tungsten Littlejohn rounds to penetrate almost as well without tapering as with the adaptor.
I'm a peace time anti tank repair guy and your comment on air watch rang a bell. On exercise at Ft Lewis we were hit by an attack from a Huey with door gunners and caught on the back foot. Yet at the after action the BN staff RAVED about how well the unit radar worked and how the whole unit (709 Mt Bn) were well ahead of the game when in fact we were caught in the chow ;ines.
I'd think an add-on benefit of rear-engine/front-transmission systems, though maybe not a reason for keeping it, was that the gearbox in front is bonus armor for the crew. Like, with the same actual armor, a hit that would penetrate the front of a rear-drive tank and you'd have to hose out the crew before welding up the hole and putting a new crew in would likely be a mobility kill with the gearbox up front, but would allow the crew to bail out and go back and get a new tank. And the US Army is all about crew survivability, hence the M1 being so much bigger than its opponents -- wasn't the T-72 designed to be compact bc can't hit what you can't target, and the M1 was designed to be able to take a hit and save the crew?
Israel’s Merkava tanks have their engine up front for precisely that reason. 🙂
The T-72 isn’t THAT compact. It’s true that Russia tends to favor lighter MBTs than the US & Europe but it’s mostly for logistical reasons, I suspect. Russia’s the biggest nation in the world by land mass. When your country stretches across 11 time zones, most of your neighbors don’t like or trust you (allies included!) a lighter MBT makes a lot of sense. You can move 48-50 ton MBTs around a lot more easily than 70 ton MBTs.
I may be the only one here, but I think it might be interesting to have a rack tour, showing the models with the associated build story/frustration and books upclose. Shillelaghly could also cameo in it if he/she/it(?) wants
As to your GOTM. Like you, the cantilever scope mount base for my Vortex scope put the mounts nuts on the wrong side. I went on to Ebay and found a better one-piece aluminum scope mount like yours, just with the nuts on the other side. problems solved for under $30 dollars and works a treat with my Crossfire-II scope.
I think logistics were the turning points in North Africa. The general tendency of the fighting seems to be go once side, get stretched too thin, lose effective logistics, flee back to base, then at your base, the others get stretched too thin. Like ping-pong but at a bigger scale.
Combine that with constant harrassing attacks on the Axis line of supply across the Med by the RN and RAF.
Regarding Ukraine, what do you think about the argument against sending the Abrams family? The biggest (valid) issue brought up is the maintenance regime and training cycle.
I'm so pleased someone still knows what Twilight:2000 is...
Played the game in the 70's here in the Detroit area with the author. Upset him quite a bit in the two games I played. Lost a Mars vehicle - the first one ever lost in one of his games. 152mm HEAT to the gun mantlet. Stopped a win by the bad guys who had a jet take off with a nuclear bomb. 20mm while it was going down the runway did the trick. Wonder why I can remember that. Other game was all infantry.
Many tanks and merry Christmas! All and Mr Chieftain
The moment I saw spurs in the title I knew it was my time. Thanks sir
Why do tanks in WW2 use muzzle breaks but tanks stopped using them, is it due to change to APFSDS ammunition
Better recoil systems.
@stevelynch9970 check out soviet object 187, it was part of a project to replace T-72. Its higher recoil 125mm resulted in it haveing a muzzle break.
I appreciated the response to the Gerlich principle question. That’s something I’d thought about too ever since I learned about the SPzB 41. Squeeze bore adapters can make an obsolete weapon useful again for a short while. It does complicate the logistics train to provide the specialist ammunition though. QUESTION: for what it’s worth. Did the IJA or IJN land forces ever engage in an operation like “Fall Greif”?
Note: the OPFOR needn’t be the US, any allied nation: USSR, UK, Nationalist China, ChiCom, etc.
Happy Quarter of a Million dude.
Know I'm a bit late, but the Marine Corps Sherman question reminded me of a tidbit from Dimitri Loza's memoir about how the Soviets liked the twin diesel because in low visibility the second engine meant you could sneak around at low power and make less noise, during say snowstorms or the like.
Technically diesel fuel has more energy content, and thus every explosion in the cylinder produces more force. This can be seen in their torque values for a given displacement of engine and the fuel economy of the vehicle they're installed in. The catch is POWER in engines depends on rpm to have a higher value and gasoline engines rev higher more easily because they weigh less since they don't need to be built stronger to compression ignite the fuel. Thus its traditional to see gasoline engines giving higher peak HP but you need to compare engine RPMs that that value is achieved at. In the case of tank engines for example, in the M4 there were two diesel engine options (the A2 and A6) but one of those was a twin inline-6 and the other a 9 cylinder radial. Thus they can be compared to some of the gas engine alternatives.
The Ford GAA V-8 gasoline engine was 18L of displacement producing 500hp at 2600rpm and 1,050 Ib-ft of torque at 2,200rpm. The GM 6046 was a pair of GM 6-71 Inline-6 diesels mounted together. From 14L of displacement it produced about 1,220 Ib-Ft of torque at 1,600rpm and 375hp at 2,200 rpm. A chryler A57 multi-bank on the other hand (with 5 inline-6s assembled together as one engine) was 370hp at 2,400rpm and I can't find a peak torque figure but reversing the math from the peak HP rating we get 809 Ib-Ft of torque at the same engine rpm. The 6046 meanwhile is producing 895 Ib-Ft of torque still at 2,200 rpm. So its probable safe to say the peak torque of the A57 is less than the GM 6046 option in spite of being far greater displacement (about 21L).
30:10 Regarding post-production updates - I was a plankowner of USS Boone FFG-28. She was built by Todd Seattle to the original blueprints, then a year later refitted to the newest standard by Bath Shipyard in Maine, as it was too expensive to change the build in the first place.
Gun of the month when he said if you pull out the trigger pack, I was hoping to hear Ian did a rather good video on what this is.
Has he done a video on any aug copies like this or the MSR? If not I think this one is a candidate.
@@5t3v0esque who Ian no, not that I'm aware of.
@@chrisspencer6502 yes sorry I meant Ian. Would be interesting to see how the various clones compare imo.
On the Steyr optics/hand interface causing bleeding, Look for optics mounts that can be swapped over to the right side or are flush. I've been using Bobro & Scalar works.
That AXR is nice! Good answers too. Thanks.
I would like to ask on the effectiveness of non anti tank cannons during WWII (i.e. howitzers, artillery pieces, etc.) In their effectiveness against armor, as well as their practical use if by a stroke of misfortune they became the sole anti armor option available. Examples including the 25 pounder with the developed AP round, the 15cm sIG 33 with stielgranate 41, the 152mm ML-20s with both HE and anti concrete, 75mm M2 and M3 howitzers with HEAT, the 105mm M4, Soviet 122mm U-11 and equivalent mounted on the SU-122 and finish QF 4.5 inch tank howitzers with HEAT round
40mm Bofors uses 4 round clips stacked up to 3 clips high which makes for a bit awkward condition in a smaller vehicle. The M247 Sergeant York being an example of how not to do it. Aside from the Poor radar system it took a very long time to fully load with ammo Hydraulic leaks all the time and mounted on an obsolete hull. A friend was on the test team for the monster.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas and you have a great New Year Chief!
Happy Christmas, Nick and family!
I would be very interested in seeing you do a run down of tank fighting in the Gulf War
Agreed! Nicholas knows that neck of the woods pretty well, btw-He deployed with the National Guard to Iraq in the early 2000s. 🙂
Re close defense: I seem to recall that back when tanks had muzzle brakes, there where cases when people fired off an AP-shot into the distance to use the muzzle blast to knock down infantry that were threatening to overrun them.
I earned my spurs earlier this year while overseas. In my unit if you wear a Stetson with no spurs you will likely be ridiculed right out of the troop building, but that’s not army wide as far as I know. My spur ride in particular was about 60 hours long and we had the Belgian recce unit we’ve been training with tag along. Good times. Garryowen
As an Irishman, his kicking off is very restrained.... .
I was expecting Chieftain to dismantle his set with much violence and profanity... but he is a Staff Officer and I am not.
Apologies if this question (or variations thereof) has already been asked.
We’re seeing the advent of small personal drones in military use - platoon or company level scouting assets, artillery spotters, and so on. This has not left the tank fleet alone, the new German tank prototype had provision for launching drones.
My question is - for a tanker, how practical is this idea? It feels like there’s some potential issues around information overload, especially considering the fact that a tank crew is relatively small and everyone is already busy with their own tasks. At the same time, can tankers afford to ignore this change given how impactful it has turned out to be for other branches?
Are you ever planning on heading to Israel to review the tanks at the museums they have there? I’d love to see a break down of a merkava 4 with its forward engine and infantry carrying capabilities
My favorite response to a coin check is prolly from Zach Hazard; when a boot challenges you, challenge them to go away.
My old boss, Ed Bashaw had his picture taken on Life magazine in 1945. He was the driver of the M24 pictured as the First tank across the Rhine.
Was not a short guy. I've been in an M24 and I'm not short guy, either.
Asked for recommendation for books:
Chieftain is so humble he didn't even recommend his own book.
54:33 A.I. threat-recognition could probably be used on the bore mounted cameras, negating the info-overload on the crew. It would also speed up the whole corner scanning process.
Tamiya makes a great 1:35 M4A3E8. Also Scalemates generally has the manual for pretty much any model you can find so you can look at it.
Question: If they're so worried about the .50 cal performance against aircraft, why don't they put a Stinger launcher up there, or upgrade it to M3 speed. It has a speed selector on it anyway. How are they going to find room for a 30mm and all it's ammo? I think GD is pulling our chain, putting that on the M1 XXX.
That shelf needs a baneblade.
Thanks for the early crimbo prezzie .
Merry Christmas and Happy New year Chief!
cool bullpup, I bought a brand name Aug steyr A3 m1 about a year ago (non-nato version) and really love it quite a lot, I did a small upgrade on the trigger but otherwise found it not to be too bad
Love the Twilight 2000 callout! The new edition by Free League is excellent :)
43:59 What about the progression away from long wordy commands when the Tank crew has served together for over a year. I went over a year wit the same crew and after awhile we went past finishing each others sentences to more grunt sounds. Due to time I knew as a Delta what needed to be done on part before being told. I anticipated where I needed to be and HOW I needed to be. So instead of a long drawn out command from My TC I knew what the gunner needed from me and did it, with short single syllable sounds confirming while already executing with the TC giving an minor corrections in the same short, for lack of a better term, grunts. I could use a term like vocal shorthand but I am a DAT and prefer grunting sounds.
The Coax Guns did not work on our M-48s, according to our tankers . We they just bad weapons or typical GIs to lazy to fix them. We had some very combat experienced tankers as we secured QL-19 and had the Mang-Yang Pass. Note; I was Commo platoon and A/L RTO in the Cav and RTO in 1/14 Infantry, 4th infantry Division until they went back to the states when 14 of us transferred to the 1/10th Cav and stayed in Ankhe. Transferring from combat infantry to a Cav unit an experience. Two different worlds. As night time A/L RTO I had no day job, so was asked to be shotgun on the squadron refueler truck so after my shift I spent My mornings QL-19 and fueling the equipment guarding the bridges and our 3 Fire Bases, Shuler, Action and Blackhawk. Staying busy made the days pass quickly until I entered the Commo Platoon and became even busier.
Always interesting, thank you.
Chieftain We hear you.
One answer to the lack mk19 on tanks is ammunition stowage. Those boxes are quite large and can empty all too quickly. Stowing inside also negates the advantage of safe ammo storage. Not quite as much of a worry on anything open topped.
Though the British WW1 tanks did have enclosed running gear of course, I think it is worth noting that especially fragile components like the secondary gearboxes were mounted within the track frames, and thus only protected by one layer of armor.
Much effort was however put into developing "double skin" armor for the sides of Mark I and the paper super-heavy "Flying Elephant". Ultimately neither got off the ground; weight and mobility concerns took priority
TD command adopted the M39 to tow the M5 3 inch Tank Destroyer (AKA "Antitank Gun"). When the 3 inch was abandoned, the M39 was farmed out elsewhere
I'm super curious about the 50 or 60 Spartan vehicles that were reportedly going to Ukraine from the UK. I think the story was their purchase was funded by a private individual. Wondering if you see a special role for them in Ukraine or was this just a vanity project for a wealthy philanthropist? Does their smaller size fill a particular niche or is any armor good armor in these circumstances?? Have you heard or seen of them being used? Thought you'd be the best person to ask.
I've not heard of anywhere near that number from private sources - I heard something about some small number being privately funded and sent with anti-air missile launcher setups - clearly useful right now, though I'm not sure that source was true. But nothing about a private individual donation that substantial. If it is true good on the donator, as that many of one vehicle type is enough to make them logistically sane and mean you can at least keep a reasonable number of them running longer term through cannibalization should spare parts get to be in short supply, and the UK gov has supplied some of them already... As for usefulness, for what they are at least as far as this armchair novice can tell they are solid options, plus anything that multiplies your effectiveness, even if its not the best possible option is better than nothing. It sounds like the Ukrainians rather like the ones they have been given, partly because they are so light they can deal better with the mud.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Sir! Much appreciated.
Merry christmas and a happy new year. 🎄🎄🕯🕯🎁🎁🎆🎆🎇🎇✨✨
I have a question for you: are coaxial machineguns obsolete?
My friend is under the impression that they are useless post-ww2, and only give you a weakspot in your armor.
I'm under impression that it's the most used weapon on a tank, but that their usefulness have diminished a bit with the introduction of unmanned top-mounted weapons-stations.
The only real big advantage a coax has over a weapons-station is that it's easier to reload a coax in a CBRN-environment.
54:54 best question of the brief!!!!!!!!! my two cents rather then put that camera on the end of the gun to poke round corners put in on some quad copter that can shoot up few hundred feet and look down on the whole urdan street lay out! Ya talk about single vs duel thermal tanks and how disadvantaged a none thermal equipped tank would be but what about and old cold war 3rd gen night vision tank using an accompanying thermal equipped off the shelf drone to spot targets. In essence what if a tank had a 3rd gen IR NV sight but used air borne thermals as its TCPS making it more a TCs over watch sight. does SA trump optics/visual equity for line of sight?
3rd Gen would be starlight scope. These were used on Canadian Leopards (Low Light TV) and Leopard I tanks. The problem with IR is you need an IR source to use them. The normal method is to have an IR searchlight. The T55 were equipped with these when they were introduced long ahead of NATO. The drone could be used to spot enemy infantry and vehicles and the starlight scopes/night sights used to fire on the locations the enemy is hiding in. Better, call in artillery.
uhhh boresighting today uses the m26 power watching device, or pyewatson, as we would say after our lips froze at Graff. Before that on the M60a1 we used string tapped to the bore muzzle and the firing pin removed and the commanders bino's looking up the gun tube tosee the sighting panel somewhere down range. At that point it was much like using the power watching device and boresight was applied to the uper left hand corner of the sighting target down range to get the gun to hit with some amount of accuracy.
I think if you look closer at the J series MTOE, the cav troop had 2 platoons of 4 tanks and 2 platoons of 6 scout vehicles. The light cav units had 2 platoons with 4 TOW armed HMMVSs and 2 platoons of 6 scout HMMVWs.
With the title I was hoping to learn a bit more about Steyr APCs and the Kürassier!
A video on one of those has been recorded....
Beaverton! I grew up in Beaverton, my mom still lives there.
Actually Madden’s Naval fortification rifles were the 1st semi-auto rifle & 1st service semi-auto. They beat the Mondragon maybe by a decade or more.
I have to say that the primary thing we have learned from watching the war in Ukraine is that none of the Russian forces know who Sun Tzu was.
Can a T62 kill a chieftain? Given the locations of the hits I'm gonna say only if you label a Challenger with the letter T and the number 62 and then take pictures of the hits on the turret being tested and make em look like they're taken in a desert instead of someplace in England. I've seen that picture at a better quality and the tank in it is still forest. Neither hit penetrated.
Walker Bulldog, Tamiia.
A common layman misconception about the Claymore mine is that the deadlier side says "this side towards enemy"... It is simply a poorly made shaped charge with junk strapped to the backblast side. Mounting them on vehicles isn't smart as they will spall in all directions and rip everything off the AFV around them. Mounting them on lightly armored vehicles is about as effective as blowing up the vehicle itself as an antipersonnel device. There WAS a commander's pintle mount bracket designed but then someone remembered the word "overpressure" and nixed it. This bracket is actually included in the new high-tech russian AP mines kit...
Automatic grenade launchers are for use in pulverizing lightly armored and open-top fortified positions (mud between two layers of corrugated metal, sand bagged fox holes, houses...) and use upon enemies and their vehicles as an area effect and suppressing fire or reach-out-and-FCUK-someone way to push a fist-filleting beyond slow pitch range. Tanks that expect to encounter such objects will carry grapeshot or high explosive and have no real need for grenades. Or they just open up with their portable entrenched machinegun foxhole in converging bursts of fire until the target realizes that waiting around until the tanks ARRIVE would be an exceptionally stupid waste of running away time. Closing to grenade range with a tank is dumb and violates Sun Tzu. -- In a hilarious but intriguing juxtaposition of this, it is possible to mount a pair of Carl Gustav in the Tow Launcher on LAV/Striker/Bradley turrets and kentucky windage the shells to where you want them... and it is completely plausible to find said weapon stowed in an M3 Badly. no "r" or "e"... yes, the M3 Scout Badly
Squeezebore... you mean like an M256? Its subtle but its in there.
To the TW2000 question: We still maintain training with M3 Carl Gustaf. I know that doesn't directly answer the question but there it is.
M50 Ontos absolutely sucked as an antitank vehicle but made a great assault gun.
Or to quote the UCMJ "Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense"
If you get a Steyr stock, and a few internals, I think you can get a bolt catch and release so that when you need to change the mag, it stays locked to the rear. My Steyr had one. Sadly I sold it when I moved to NY
People who worry about bullpups having bad triggers have a point, BUT, there are two big caveats. The first, as you say, is that in combat, your fine motor control is out the window anyway. The second is that you can get the trigger to be just about as good as a standard rifle trigger. I think the people who worry about this are mostly competitive shooters?
36:20 why not a shorter cap nuts & shorter stud on the optics mount so it doesn't stick out so far ? ... Thank s for all your informative and intertying videos 🙂
Rather than use claymores/frags for CQB, British tanks in Korea had a much simpler and more effective method. Whenever they were swarmed by unfriendly folk, they hosed each other down with canister! This rapidly removed the unfriendly chaps without damaging the tanks.
I assume the problem with that nowadays would be that now there's so much additional equipment bolted to the outside of of AFVs, that they would damage each others now.
Still, if it comes down to either lose some optics and a APS module or the whole vehicle and crew, that shouldn't be too hard a choice.
@@Bird_Dog00 and how would ERA enjoy canister?
@@HistoryNeedsYou Hard to say for a layman such as little old me.
In theory, it shouldn't affect it.
But I worked as a mechanic in industrial maintenance my entire adult life so far and "in theory it should be fine" falls under "famous last words" according to my experience.
@@Bird_Dog00 I think an experiment is called for!
@@HistoryNeedsYou Couldn't agree more.
I want to see the video!
16:40 I remember hoping that the XM307 would be adopted and used on top of tanks. It’s a 25x59mm, so it’s like an in between the Mk19 and the 25mm Bushmaster.
Seems a bit excessive, IMO.
@@grahamstrouse1165 on a tank probably. But I still think the US relies to heavily on the M2. An XM307 in an emplacement or on top of an JLTV/LMTV/Stryker would be far more versatile then an M2.