This was great fun, although finding less successful tanks when it comes to interactions with water was harder than good ones, as the bad ones tend to sink out of sight quite a bit!
@@anumeon Chieftain Moran found a document about. Was German WWI development paper and the gist was: to fight a submarine you need an ASW ship, to fight a bomber you need an anti-aircraft fighter, so to fight a tank we need a tank destroyer!
Yes, the original 5 minute guides with the robot voice was well researched - so when I heard him use his own voice, at first I thought he hired a voice actor to do it. Great to support his work.
Regarding the BMP-1; When the Berlin Wall came down and Germany reunified, the German army suddenly added a lot of these to their inventory. I do not know if this is true, but supposedly the first thing they did was declare that the BMP was not actually amphibious. Given what Drach just said, it would not surprise me in the least.
Obviosuly they added them to the inventory, after all the east german army was merged into the west german army. I dont think they were in active service though, I know most were sold to for example greece (of which some BMP1s have since made their way to Ukraine) The only big soviet weapon germany used for a time after reunification was the MIG 29, they were upgraded to be NATO compatible and that german airfoce squadron was suddenly VERY popular in all of NATO to fligh training battles against. After that they were sold for a simbolic 1$ per plane to Poland in the late 1990s and are now on their way to Ukraine to join the fight
@@noobster4779 The BMP-1s they inherited were upgraded with NATO standard radios and such and designated the BMP-1A1 and entered service for a short while before they were sold off to countries such as Greece and Sweden
It realistically was only made to be able to cross small bodies of water that wouldn't be producting high waves (and well, being from eastern europe I have not even seen waves big enough to sink this thing outside of a visit to the baltic) and there needed to be some considerations and preparations before it could reliably do so as well (this was only made to be a secondary measure for things like a surprise cross of a small amount of vehicles in order to establish a bridgehead before you bring in heavy bridgelaying equipment) and there were also some preparations you had to do in order to do these operations, your BMP properly maintained and the crew also trained properly to be able to determine where you can and can't use the amphibious capability. Honestly speaking, it wasn't too useful for major offensive capabilities but it could be used to deliver a small amount of firepower into areas where the enemy wouldnt expect it So they can be best described as having amphibious capability, but not fully amphibious
@@henryoshea4951 and the BMPs and MTLBs sold to Sweden served for a few years in paralell with the pbv 302 and ikv91 as a stop gap sollution until enough Strf9040s had been produced to replace all four of the older infantry support and carrier vehicles. Once no longer needed around 2006, those MTLBs and BMPs that weren't sold on to the highest bidder that qualified under both German and Swedish war materiel export laws, either got scrapped or demilitarised and sold on the civilian market as heavy logging or agricultural haulers at roughly €9000/MTLB Some of the intact ones likely found their way to Ukraine by way of third party involvement after the 2014 first stage of the Russian invasion.
@@SonsOfLorgar The BMPs and Mt-Lbs weren't purchased as a stopgap but in order to mechanize the infantry brigades. They became redundant when Swedish politicians cut down on defence spending and the infantry brigades were disbanded. They weren't demilitarized when sold to a czech company, some of the ones going to ukraine are ex-swediah ones. A lot of the Mt-Lbs were also sold to Finland
@@luisnunes3863 Yes, but an honored viking warrior who died in battle was placed into a boat loaded with flammables, pushed off into the ocean, where an archer would shoot a flaming arrow into the boat, and the honored Viking warrior would be incinerated on the water that Vikings were so good at sailing on.
@@luisnunes3863 th-cam.com/video/00tC_amwPRA/w-d-xo.html "Swords In The Wind" I surrender my soul Odin hear my call One day I'll sit beside your throne In Valhalla's great hall Like so many before me I'll die with honor and pride The right of the warrior Forever to fight by your side Send a sign, raise the sail Wave a last goodbye Destiny is calling Immortality be mine Call the witch to cast the runes Weave a magic spell We who die in battle are born Not for heaven, not for hell [Bridge:] We are sons of Odin The fire we burn inside Is the legacy of warrior kings Who reign above in the sky [Chorus:] I will lead the charge My sword into the wind Sons of Odin fight To die and live again Viking ships cross the sea In cold wind and rain Sail into the black of night Magic stars our guiding light Today the blood of battle Upon my weapons will never dry Many I'll send into the ground Laughing as they die [Repeat bridge, chorus] Place my body on a ship And burn it on the sea Let my spirit rise Valkiries carry me Take me to Valhalla Where my brothers wait for me Fires burn into the sky My spirit will never die [Repeat chorus to fade]
I wouldn't presume to know nearly enough about such an incredibly complex subject to believe that my opinion on the matter would be worth more than the paper on which it was written. That's where you guys come in. :)
@@krixpop not a comment on its combat capabilities, purely on the truly insane amount of detail work you needed to do to get the thing to not drown in a river, given it was too heavy to use a bridge in most combat environments. :)
On the DD Sherman: Of 119 floated for D-Day only 36 sank, with 27 of those coming from the US 741st Tank Battalion assigned to Omaha. Without the US screwing up Omaha the figure becomes 9 of 90 DD tanks floated making it to the beaches, and an additional 8 noted as swamping in shallow water. An overall 80-90% success rate. The US training was different from the British and Commonwealth in that it was led by Army ground instructors, while the British and Commonwealth tank crews included naval and maritime instructors. The key difference being that The US crews, in addition to be dropped too far out and in higher swells, didn't understand the basic concept of steering with the waves. Turning the skirts side on to high swells trying to make their landing point despite being dropped in the wrong spot taking a great many US tanks down in conditions they'd otherwise have a chance to survive. Without those two compounding mistakes the 741st may have emulated the 743rd, who managed to successfully land all of their DD tanks on Omaha. Once ashore having heavy armour to secure beachheads and clear bunkers was vital for getting men and supplies moving forwards. It's no coincidence that despite having the same flawed slow attack patterns, Utah was taken with 28 DD's leading the charge and covering engineer teams in demolishing obstructions, while Omaha was a bloodbath until the tanks arrived. To quote the commander of the 2d Battalion, 116th Infantry in the official record of Omaha , "tanks "saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them.""
Omaha Beach was also one of the most heavily defended sectors, which should be taken into account when looking at the tank loss rate. They were launched too far out and had to wade through a huge amount of fire to get to shore
@@NoMoreCrumbs The majority of the 741st sank before reaching German firing range, and the 743rd landed on Omaha with no losses until after landing (and then immediately suffering losses and disorganisation, since their landing was strung out with no ability to secure local fire superiority, though more than two thirds of the 743rd's vehicles were operational at the end of the first day of fighting). While Omaha was better defended, a great deal of the casualties suffered were as a result of lacking heavy support. A lesson that was already well known after the Dieppe raid - which directly led to the development of the DD in the first place.
Great comment, I respectfully refer to my comment above which although not stating the figures as you have, mentions the impact from the German position of those DD's which made it to the beaches. Why the American's launched their DD's so far out and in rough water is up for debate. As I say the DD made for a terrible boat with abysmal floatation characteristics, underpowered dual drive props and a total inability to adjust for cross currents in rough water. Once on the beach its assets were obvious and considerable. Such is the paradox of the DD experiment. One must also take into account the experience with the Dieppe raid employing early version Churchill tanks on a shingle beach to see how ineffective and inappropriate tank deployment can be without necessary development of adaptive technology with regard to terrain and situation. Although beach conditions between Normandy and Dieppe were extreme and differing, I think it can be argued forcibly that the lessons learned earlier, resulted in a significantly improved deployment on D Day.
some further notes on the bmp-1: it requires the trim vane to be extended, either a full section of troops or equivalent ballast to stop it from nose diving under the water and good maintanence of the seals for it to be ̶e̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ amphibious which is often absent in the soviet/russian military.
All that and then you had to evaluate the river or lake for suitability for transit. They were not to cross into thick sticky mud. Like most of the swampy land in Ukraine. Otherwise it would bog down in the mud while still floating, lacking the traction to move forward, or the weight to sink lower to dig deep enough to dig your way out. Instead they tended to bottom out on the soft sticky mud and lose all propulsion and remain as a small half floating island in the path of all the other units behind you. If that wasn't bad enough. In the event of getting stuck in the water, all those troops used as ballast getting out of the tank could float it off the bottom sufficiently to allow it to come unstuck, nose down. And either float into other machines or quickly sink firmly to the bottom depending on if water proceeded to intrude or not. Sounds fun.
keep in mind that the Sovjet Military was way better in respect to maintenance, training, supply etc than the russian army. so back in the days it might have worked. but only back in the days and only on a sunny day with low wind. and without the enemy being present.... There is a reason why you got several major "Water Obstacles" like dual purpose Canals (shipping and water obstacle) close to the former inner german border.
Generally he pulls some weird stuff. I mean I can't say anything about the Sherman but about the tiger I do know enough about. His whole Spiel about having to fit x ammount of seals on the tank is basically wrong. He specifically mentioned the early tigers with his whole story but what he forgot is that these early tigers he is talking about already had: Sealed hatches Waterproof optics, seals around the turret ring and so forth. The early tiger 1 only needed like 5 seals to put on. Muzzle cap, 2 engine covers where the 3rd was the one for the snorchle Gun mantlet MG port. Attaching all seals took the crew less than 3 minutes to attach.
@@SonsOfLorgar None for the crew compartment. Most modern MBTs are already sealed for protection from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. You should be able to just close the hatch. As for wading, most tanks have given up the concept and prefer dedicated bridging units. Russian tanks do have snorkels, but the actual utility of wading has been spotty at best from recent events. These snorkels are attached over the engine blocks and only take a couple of minutes to throw on. So I suppose to answer your question, they need one seel.
@@pluemas no... Just one part is wrong. I may not know for Russian tanks but the leo1, leo2, leclerc, Ariete, challenger mk2, m1 Abrahams and k2 have their snorkels attached to the commanders cupola so that the commander can see out and direct the driver as well as giving the crew a direct way of escape (the snorchle is ruffly 1m in diameter) The Russians have a ruffly 10-20cm diameter snorchle Wich was a huge complaint part from crews, as there have been instances where crewmen died in exercises because the seals failed and the oxigen masks inside the tank failed as well. 2 out of the 3 men died in one specific instance
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 The documentation I read on the Tiger I stated that part of the reason the river-crossing capability was deleted in later Tiger 1's was because of the complexity and time needed to make it ready.
Here before this gets 1 million views. Thanks Tank Museum for your awesome content. Thanks Drach for your awesome content. We live in a (edit: armchair) historian's paradise these days, and I don't think enough people truly appreciate that!
My first thought of the BMP-1 was, Drach with his medieval squad sitting on one side of a river and sinking battalion of BMP-1s that try to cross it with a catapult.
Tank you for bringing Drachinifel back for his always well thought out opinions on "wet" tanks! Drach does not spare the rod when it comes to giving an honest review of naval craft, and he manages to skewer these armored vehicles in his trademark hilarious manner-- basically a "what were they thinking?" which tells you that sometimes the thinking was shallower than the water to be crossed! Please continue to invite him to return to talk about whatever strikes his fancy... I love his channel AND I love the Tank Museum!
There was often a lot of thought and development behind these 'failed' tanks, particularly those at the cutting edge of technology and doctrine. The Sherman with canvas though, that was an act of desperation that followed under funding of tank development (which led to programs being cut) during the 1930s.
It's not hip anymore to bash the Tiger. Actually it is getting kind of boring, because most of it is hypocrism or double standards. Most smaller bridges in Europe had a weight limit of 25tons. That's also the reason why the Panzer III and IV chassis max out at 25 tons. Everything heavier faces the same problems like the Tiger I. T34, M4, Churchill, IS 2... you name it But the Tiger is particularly bad becaused it actually pioneered deep wading technology together with the Panzer III? Yeah the Tiger sucks because it did everything it was designed for. It was not designed to be your everyday front line mainbattle tank, it was also never planed to be ordered in hugh numbers, but it's getting blamed for this regulary. Further more they also needed a significant amount of time for preping more modern coldwar tanks for deep wading. Leopards, Russian T tanks for example and they weren't ready for combat immediately after leaving the water either, just like BMP. But there were still mbts around, which could not do deep wading at all. The analysis of the bmp is also hypercritical to me, I think MHV and DPM did a much fairer assessment on their channels of the pros and cons of the amphibious capabilities of the bmp. It's US counter part the M113 could only take waves of 14 inches. Maybe i am just in a bad mood and lost my humor. Sorry if that is the case.
@@HaVoC117X, while I’m not a Tiger I fan (I prefer the Panther and Tiger II) but you are correct in that people tend to make a big fuss over the Tiger. When in the right hands they were truly formidable as their reputation shows. While it and its cousin the Panther and Tiger II had mechanical problems (not so much for later Panthers) its not that they broke down more then any other tank it was the availability of spare parts. For those who are going to ask the Chieftain said that during one of his videos.
What I love about these top and bottom fives is that you can find mutual examples where one persons top five overlaps with another's bottom five. A good example is the Sherman DD which crops up in both categories. It just exemplifies the idea that there can be a great tank concept which has many things to its credit but just as many features which disable it also. Its very often a fine line between a new ability and very specific task and a broader limitation to the Tanks previous benefits. DD tanks made for terrible and unstable boats but gave the allies the beforehand unknown ability to bring armour onto a beachhead with definite surprise and impact. One has to only read the records of German defenders reports when DD's dropped their canvas sides and started to dismantle hardpoints to view things from the other position. Alternatively if we read the Americans reports of lost DD's at Omaha and their pitifully small contribution, one could easily believe the concept was a total failure. As with most history, including military history, the conclusions can never be said to be simply pro or con. Was it a great idea badly implemented or a bad idea wonderfully delivered? I leave such decisions up to the individual to comment on. For me it is simply too complex to judge based on so much conflicting data but I know one thing. Its a hell of a good talking point.
Drach reminds me of the middle age guys you used to get in the 1980-1990s growing up jovial, dry, bearded, jumper wearing, coves who were experts in the inane. And I suspect I’m a decade older than him.
❤I absolutely love that I'm finding Drach everywhere I seem to look...from here, to Battleship New Jersey, to our own flower class with the leaf on the side...and now, yet again, another installment of ship Yoda on tanks...I absolutely love it!
It's great that Drach has teamed up with the Tank folks to make this hybrid video. But it may be as close to 'land' (save for naval bases and ship manufacturing) that he may wish to get.
Some of the previous top lists were not very good. This gentleman's analysis is excellent and well thought out. Very well done. This guy knows his stuff.
A 3rd Drach video please! Maybe one on the joys of sharing historical stories and information via TH-cam?. He has such a genuine following as does the TM, so it would be great to have a podcast like chat with him and maybe David W etc. Example-Loved the covid video chats we had in the garden, so a sit down chat with Fin and a cup of tea on the ups and downs of educating us common people would hit the spot nicely.
Really like these clips when the host actually explains why, with a whole bunch of actual facts (as always done in his own channel), and not just "slightly accurate juvenile tank building kit/telly shows preferences" , or such. And "The deer on the other side of the river is looking at them funny", just proved that this guy knows what he's talking about. 😉
One correction about the BMP-1. It is NOT an APC. It's actually the world's first infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). In fact BMP is actually the Russian acronym for IFV. An APC is simply an armoured taxi to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks. An IFV us not only transport but is expected to engage in serious fighting when it gets the infantry there. An IFV is essentially a lethal threat to pretty much anything short of a main battle tank. Given ATGM armament it can also be a limited lethal threat to main battle tanks as well. A lot of Iraqis learned this the hard way in 1991 when Bradley IFVs likely took out more tanks than Abrams tanks.
You are correct about it not being an APC, according to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe anything with a 20mm or larger gun is an IFV. However, this actually makes Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (SPz lg 12-3) the first IFV beginning production in 1958 as apposed to the BMP which began in 1966. I also believed the BMP-1 was the first until I looked up the definitions of IFV vs APC. Looks like even the Swedes beat the USSR to the punch with the pbv 301. The BMP-1 of course lasting far longer in service than either of those but then again that's the Soviets way of doing things.
@@swb1m1 does indeed appear you are correct about the first IFV's in service. Hardly surprising the Germans beat the Soviets to the punch in reality. After all the Soviets continued the Russian tradition of technological backwardness.
To be fair to the BMP, it was mostly intended for riverine crossings, in the event of a "cold war gone hot" scenario where the Soviet army was invading Germany.
The Soviet Military Mission in West Germany spent an awful lot of time picnicking and fishing on the banks of rivers to find the few places where the western banks had a shallow enough slope to the river bed to let their armoured vehicles climb out. In true Soviet style, their military propaganda films shows them storming up the banks but their engineers had to prepare the river beds with concrete ramps and kerbs to make it look like it could work easily.
Having read the manual for the Boys A/T rifle for context it's worth mentioning the instructions to the user are to aim at a tanks weak points (vision slits and suspension) not armour plate. And one section gives the expected penetration against walls, sandbags etc which indicates it could be used against enemy defences as well as vehicles.
My personal "favorite" are the german diving tanks. Some Genius thought it possible to DRIVE through the channel and invade england like that. Obviously that did not happen, they did do a few "panzer of the lake" style test tho!
Nobody ever claimed they would be an "unmitigated success" and since many American tanks were off-loaded up to 2 miles offshore from the landing beach it's not surprising that almost all of those sank. The few that did make it ashore were a big help in the initial assault.
This is one of the most delightful Tank Chats you've produced. Very informative in a very humorous way. Is hearing about how bad tanks can be somehow more entertaining than hearing about how great tanks can be?
There is a crucial fact about the Tiger 1 almost noone seems to be aware of and it leads to them making all sorts of mistakes in assessing and rating it in such lists. I have heard exactly one (the Chieftain) TH-cam "tank expert" mention it so far. All the others seem blissfully unaware of it. That fact is that the Tiger 1 never was meant to be a Main Battle Tank. It was conceptualized, planned and introduced as a specialized "Durchbruchswagen", which translates to "Breakthrough Wagon" or "Breakthrough Vehicle". It was only meant to be transported by rail to especially tough enemy defensive lines, punch a hole through them, let the actual Main Battle Tanks like the Panzer 4 and the Panther roll though that hole and push into the enemy's "hinterland". The Tiger would then be repaired, maintained, loaded on to rail wagons again and shipped to the next place where a hole would need punching. It was meant to be a specialized tool that would only be fetched from the tool box for special jobs and then put back again while other, more suitable vehicles would do the job of a general Main Battle Tank. It did that job very well and if it would have been allowed to stay in that roll it would have been a great technological success story. The problem was that Germany soon found itself in a defensive war and was just forced to press any tank-like vehicle they had into the roll of a Main (or "General") Battle Tank and thus the Tiger was forced to do things it never was supposed to do. That doesn't make it a bad design or a bad tank though. That is why it being heavy and it not being able to cross every bridge (Which tank is, by the way?) and all that is not really as much of a argument against it or a flaw as uninformed "experts" make it out to be. Besides, thanks to the also unjustly maligned overlapping wheel suspension and the wide tracks, the ground pressure of the Tiger 1 was actually pretty low by tank standards, which actually gave it very good off road mobility and even allowed it to cross bridges a vehicle of that size and weight would normally not have been able to cross. A weight of 60 tons was a lot back then, but as we all know, it isn't exceptional nowadays. If a specialized vehicle that never was supposed to move more than a few dozen miles on its own before being put back on rail wagons gets criticized for weighing 60 tons, then why is nobody crowing about modern actual multi-purpose Main Battle Tanks weighing that much too and usually having higher ground pressure than the Tiger had?
@@Knallteute Yes, but that doesn't mean it was a bad design and all those TH-cam tank experts always talk about the design and criticize it for being a bad MBT when it never was supposed to be a MBT. Imagine "military experts" 60 years from now would make videos talking about how the A-10 Warthog really sucked because it was not good at shooting down other aircraft and would put it on "The 10 most overrated Air Superiority Fighters"-lists and the such.
Number 0. The maus was supposed to be able to ford rivers by attaching itself to another maus and then they both cross one at a time. Which makes to worse then the Tiger because whats worse than having to set up one big metal box for river crossing in combat? Setting up two bigger metaler (but not boxier) for river crossing while in combat.
"jacksparrowsky" made me laugh unreasonably hard. Well done, sir! I always thought some kind of solid fill pontoons might be a decent way to get a light to medium tank to float, but holy hell, not with a flammable filler!
I've spent an unconsionable percentage of my life nerding out on World War II history, and this was the first time I'd heard that the 88 gun had a prior history in the navy. Thank you for the pointer!
I’m really enjoying all of these reviews of tanks. I’m 2nd generation Nuclear Naval construction, and I fully understand that weapon systems are a process balancing competing priorities. Some priorities are improperly weighed 🤷🏽♂️
Hey, cool to see Drach doing non-naval stuff (next idea, sea/floatplanes please?) Number 1, the BMP-1. This, when first seen by Western powers, set the cat amongst the pidgeons. As mentioned, NBC-proof, 73mm smooth-bore cannon with an AT-3 Sagger wire-guided anti-tank missile & weapons ports for the infantry inside to make use of, this really was the 1st of its kind, the IFW. Superseded by the BMP-2, BMP-3 & there's also a BMP-T model out as well (which have been destroyed in Ukraine) 19:55 "if the deer on the other side of the river is looking funny at them" PMSL Please don't ever change your sense of humour & sharing it with us, Drach.
100+ years ago there was a company called Jack Oldings, an agricultural machinery specialist at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, where there is presently a Tesco supermarket (Oldings corner). The story I was told was that the very first "battle tank" was made by Jack Oldings on an agricultural tracked crawler, the project being financed by the Royal Navy to be a 'land battleship' and the name "tank" was to confuse any spies to think it was a battlefield water bowser. The finished prototype was then taken 20 or so miles north to Biggleswade where trials were performed.
I get that this is a 'tank' channel, yet I notice a few not quite 'tanks' covered and some other stuff absent. is there a chance of covering stuff like the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), M113 APC, or CV90 (or Strf 90), or is that all a bit off-topic or too new for a museum channel? Glad to see Drachinifel on the channel again, great content. B)
Very cool , flying boats may be my favorite plane . I like how you worked out the bulkhead and used the rubber band . You sure do a lot of planning and cyphering . Must be that Mathematics degree.
Earlier German tanks were equipped with wading gear and actually crossed the Soviet Bug River in Operation Barborossa. They apparently did work as planned.
@13:15 "less said about when the M4 Sherman showed up the better" I understand these light tanks did not even force the Sherman's to switch to AP shells rather than the Pacific default HE shells.
DD tankers on D-Day were not Navy men. They were all Army men. One of the DD tanks that made it ashore on D-Day was captained by an Army man who sailed for fun. Knowing his way around a boat, he allowed his DD tank to drift off course rather than fighting the current. He landed his tank at the wrong place, but it was better than swamping and sinking, as was the fate of many of his squad mates.
The Type 95 was conceived as an infantry support tank rather than for anti-tank or general purpose (= both roles) fighting. Its 12 mm armor might not withstand an M2 machine gun, but a heavy machine gun would be less common than a .30, .303/7.7 mm light machine gun or a Lee Enfield rifle (not sure how it would fare against a 30-06 from a Springfield or M1 Garand). The commander of the tank had to do everything from observation, commanding the driver, hand-rotating the turret, and aiming, loading, and firing the gun, probably a task overload. Besides Valentine IIs, M3 Grants were also brought into the CBI Theater. The Grant's 37 mm turret gun was ~10 calibers longer that that of the Type 95. Then there was the Grant's 75 mm hull sponson gun. With a lot of weapons, the IJA and IJN had trouble dropping barely adequate obsolescent/obsolete and going full-on with something modern.
The BMP is not a tank. It is not an amphibious landing vehicle, it is a troop transport that can cross rivers and small lakes with a little bit of preparation. There are normally very few waves on rivers and lakes most of the time.
Some additional notes on the Tiger 1: As Chieftain has pointed out, when the Americans were shipping their Tiger back to the US, they had to take the turret off because the available harbour cranes could not handle the weight of the complete tank. When the Germans evacuated from Sicily, they were able to take only one single Tiger with them to the Italian mainland....which then soon after wrecked its drivetrain and had to be blown up by its crew. Then finally, in 1944 on the retreat from Normandy, whaever Tigers were left west of the Seine had to be blown up as well, because there was no way to get them across the river in a hurry. The infamous wading gear was no longer installed at that point, but I doubt it would have been of much use. Bonus Fact: The first generation Panthers had the same rubber sealing everywhere, including the engine compartment. This caused gasoline vapours to build up, which led to several Panthers completely burning up while unloading from trains just before the Battle of Kursk.
So your point is basically that heavy tanks are difficult to take with you when you are in a headlong retreat. The Germans shipped two battallions of Tigers to North Africa in the first place, so it couldn't have been that difficult under favorable circumstances.
I just woke up and Am eating my breakfast and checked my TH-cam (as one does I guess). And I think my brain thought my eyes were in needed a rub/clean as I read Drach’s name in my Tank Museum post and saw him in a tank…still not sure it isn’t anything but a joke. Maybe they should’ve posted it on April fools day. Anywho, I’m sure it’s going to be great!
A fact that everybody seems to forget with BMP-1 is that it was the first of its kind. So I'd be more gentle with the snide remarks. BMP-2 has added pontoons in sideskirts. It swims quite well, we trained driving in water in the finnish defence forces.
to the Tiger tank, there is said to have been a kind of small ferry or barge that could transport a Tiger tank across the Mediterranean Sea in calm seas by the shortest possible route. this barque is also said to have been armed with an 8.8. If the Tiger could then also fire from the ferry, it would have been a "true" amphibious tank. One wanted to avoid that several tigers are lost in a ship sinking.
friend had to experience of BMP-1 in mid 90's in finnish army. according to him there was some unofficial modifications to make them less sinkable. 1 of them being 3 submersible pumps inside of IFV, in case of some leaks. he remembers 3 nicknames for different BMP's: Ruostekasa (rust bucket), Taistelu lumme (Battling lilypads/water lily ) and kurja (wretched). what friend founded out where some of those went: Lumme (Water lily) went to modifield. the rest spareparts and/or scraped
This was great fun, although finding less successful tanks when it comes to interactions with water was harder than good ones, as the bad ones tend to sink out of sight quite a bit!
"Sink" out of sight lmao, literely hahaha nice pun Drach!
Love your vids!
So you had to go trawling for carcasses in the Thames?
Thanks for the visit! We look forward to having you here again 😊
"Blub, blub, blub."- Drachinifel pointing out the exact flaws on a particular model, from it's final resting place.
@@thetankmuseum Is there a tank chat on the Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle or ‘BARV’? Can't see one in "the funnies" playlist.
Drach gives a new meaning to the cruiser tank concept
Well, i mean there were tank destroyers, stands to reason that there should be tank cruisers.. But avoid the tank submarine force at all costs...
@@anumeon Sad panzer of the lake noises…
@@anumeon Chieftain Moran found a document about.
Was German WWI development paper and the gist was: to fight a submarine you need an ASW ship, to fight a bomber you need an anti-aircraft fighter, so to fight a tank we need a tank destroyer!
@@anumeon The Seeteufel, Tauchpanzer and Schwimmpanzer II where all at least prototyped
@@LostBeaver Prototyped yes.. would anyone willingly serve in one?? Probably not... :)
This man’s a legend! I remember his early days of TH-cam, great to see how far he’s gone with his success!
Yes, the original 5 minute guides with the robot voice was well researched - so when I heard him use his own voice, at first I thought he hired a voice actor to do it. Great to support his work.
No that's the problem with this world he is a prime example of why the worlds going to shi t
@@f12mnb Indeed, it wss such a relief to hear a real voice... and his dry British wit makes it so much better! :-)
Oh my, the old days of robot-voice, when I didn’t know the Italians even had a navy worth mentioning…
@@andrewreynolds4949 Indeed, I'm so glad he finally started doing his own narration... otherwise we'd be denied his delightful dry British wit! 😀
Regarding the BMP-1; When the Berlin Wall came down and Germany reunified, the German army suddenly added a lot of these to their inventory. I do not know if this is true, but supposedly the first thing they did was declare that the BMP was not actually amphibious. Given what Drach just said, it would not surprise me in the least.
Obviosuly they added them to the inventory, after all the east german army was merged into the west german army. I dont think they were in active service though, I know most were sold to for example greece (of which some BMP1s have since made their way to Ukraine)
The only big soviet weapon germany used for a time after reunification was the MIG 29, they were upgraded to be NATO compatible and that german airfoce squadron was suddenly VERY popular in all of NATO to fligh training battles against. After that they were sold for a simbolic 1$ per plane to Poland in the late 1990s and are now on their way to Ukraine to join the fight
@@noobster4779 The BMP-1s they inherited were upgraded with NATO standard radios and such and designated the BMP-1A1 and entered service for a short while before they were sold off to countries such as Greece and Sweden
It realistically was only made to be able to cross small bodies of water that wouldn't be producting high waves (and well, being from eastern europe I have not even seen waves big enough to sink this thing outside of a visit to the baltic) and there needed to be some considerations and preparations before it could reliably do so as well (this was only made to be a secondary measure for things like a surprise cross of a small amount of vehicles in order to establish a bridgehead before you bring in heavy bridgelaying equipment) and there were also some preparations you had to do in order to do these operations, your BMP properly maintained and the crew also trained properly to be able to determine where you can and can't use the amphibious capability. Honestly speaking, it wasn't too useful for major offensive capabilities but it could be used to deliver a small amount of firepower into areas where the enemy wouldnt expect it
So they can be best described as having amphibious capability, but not fully amphibious
@@henryoshea4951 and the BMPs and MTLBs sold to Sweden served for a few years in paralell with the pbv 302 and ikv91 as a stop gap sollution until enough Strf9040s had been produced to replace all four of the older infantry support and carrier vehicles. Once no longer needed around 2006, those MTLBs and BMPs that weren't sold on to the highest bidder that qualified under both German and Swedish war materiel export laws, either got scrapped or demilitarised and sold on the civilian market as heavy logging or agricultural haulers at roughly €9000/MTLB
Some of the intact ones likely found their way to Ukraine by way of third party involvement after the 2014 first stage of the Russian invasion.
@@SonsOfLorgar The BMPs and Mt-Lbs weren't purchased as a stopgap but in order to mechanize the infantry brigades. They became redundant when Swedish politicians cut down on defence spending and the infantry brigades were disbanded. They weren't demilitarized when sold to a czech company, some of the ones going to ukraine are ex-swediah ones. A lot of the Mt-Lbs were also sold to Finland
“On your way to Valhalla in true Viking style”
That was the most scathing indictment of that tank that I’ve ever heard
The vikings armor and shields worked against the stuff they fought.
@@luisnunes3863
Yes, but an honored viking warrior who died in battle was placed into a boat loaded with flammables, pushed off into the ocean, where an archer would shoot a flaming arrow into the boat, and the honored Viking warrior would be incinerated on the water that Vikings were so good at sailing on.
@@oldtimefarmboy617 There's a song about it, it's called Swords In The Wind.
@@luisnunes3863
th-cam.com/video/00tC_amwPRA/w-d-xo.html
"Swords In The Wind"
I surrender my soul
Odin hear my call
One day I'll sit beside your throne
In Valhalla's great hall
Like so many before me
I'll die with honor and pride
The right of the warrior
Forever to fight by your side
Send a sign, raise the sail
Wave a last goodbye
Destiny is calling
Immortality be mine
Call the witch to cast the runes
Weave a magic spell
We who die in battle are born
Not for heaven, not for hell
[Bridge:]
We are sons of Odin
The fire we burn inside
Is the legacy of warrior kings
Who reign above in the sky
[Chorus:]
I will lead the charge
My sword into the wind
Sons of Odin fight
To die and live again
Viking ships cross the sea
In cold wind and rain
Sail into the black of night
Magic stars our guiding light
Today the blood of battle
Upon my weapons will never dry
Many I'll send into the ground
Laughing as they die
[Repeat bridge, chorus]
Place my body on a ship
And burn it on the sea
Let my spirit rise
Valkiries carry me
Take me to Valhalla
Where my brothers wait for me
Fires burn into the sky
My spirit will never die
[Repeat chorus to fade]
Or the original "Tommy Cooker"
The course of the war changed when both sides switched from 4" crabs to the 6" crab.
You left out the interim model, the 5 inch crab
@@barelyasurvivor1257 : So did most procurement departments, hence why Elbownia wound up with 12 different models for a while.
@@absalomdraconis True
the so called "crabnought" effect!
@@barelyasurvivor1257 The 5 inch Crab was only used for AA
If I remember, BMP2 had indeed some flotation boxes added over the tracks.
It didn't helped much to avoid a "jacksparrowisky" moment, tho.
Let us know what you think of Drachinifel's Bottom 5 Tanks. Which vehicles would you choose?
I wouldn't presume to know nearly enough about such an incredibly complex subject to believe that my opinion on the matter would be worth more than the paper on which it was written. That's where you guys come in. :)
LOVE Drachinifel , however ... Tiger 1, is the 4th bottom Tank ?
👀
He should stick to War-ships ...
The Italian armored car the Saharaina are there any left .. they were the Nemesis of the SAS ..
So bizarre Fletcher didn't mentioned the flammability of the L1. 😂
@@krixpop not a comment on its combat capabilities, purely on the truly insane amount of detail work you needed to do to get the thing to not drown in a river, given it was too heavy to use a bridge in most combat environments. :)
On the DD Sherman: Of 119 floated for D-Day only 36 sank, with 27 of those coming from the US 741st Tank Battalion assigned to Omaha. Without the US screwing up Omaha the figure becomes 9 of 90 DD tanks floated making it to the beaches, and an additional 8 noted as swamping in shallow water. An overall 80-90% success rate.
The US training was different from the British and Commonwealth in that it was led by Army ground instructors, while the British and Commonwealth tank crews included naval and maritime instructors. The key difference being that The US crews, in addition to be dropped too far out and in higher swells, didn't understand the basic concept of steering with the waves. Turning the skirts side on to high swells trying to make their landing point despite being dropped in the wrong spot taking a great many US tanks down in conditions they'd otherwise have a chance to survive. Without those two compounding mistakes the 741st may have emulated the 743rd, who managed to successfully land all of their DD tanks on Omaha.
Once ashore having heavy armour to secure beachheads and clear bunkers was vital for getting men and supplies moving forwards. It's no coincidence that despite having the same flawed slow attack patterns, Utah was taken with 28 DD's leading the charge and covering engineer teams in demolishing obstructions, while Omaha was a bloodbath until the tanks arrived. To quote the commander of the 2d Battalion, 116th Infantry in the official record of Omaha , "tanks "saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them.""
Thank you!
They also managed to bugger up the mulberry harbour as well!
Omaha Beach was also one of the most heavily defended sectors, which should be taken into account when looking at the tank loss rate. They were launched too far out and had to wade through a huge amount of fire to get to shore
@@NoMoreCrumbs The majority of the 741st sank before reaching German firing range, and the 743rd landed on Omaha with no losses until after landing (and then immediately suffering losses and disorganisation, since their landing was strung out with no ability to secure local fire superiority, though more than two thirds of the 743rd's vehicles were operational at the end of the first day of fighting).
While Omaha was better defended, a great deal of the casualties suffered were as a result of lacking heavy support. A lesson that was already well known after the Dieppe raid - which directly led to the development of the DD in the first place.
Great comment, I respectfully refer to my comment above which although not stating the figures as you have, mentions the impact from the German position of those DD's which made it to the beaches. Why the American's launched their DD's so far out and in rough water is up for debate. As I say the DD made for a terrible boat with abysmal floatation characteristics, underpowered dual drive props and a total inability to adjust for cross currents in rough water. Once on the beach its assets were obvious and considerable. Such is the paradox of the DD experiment. One must also take into account the experience with the Dieppe raid employing early version Churchill tanks on a shingle beach to see how ineffective and inappropriate tank deployment can be without necessary development of adaptive technology with regard to terrain and situation. Although beach conditions between Normandy and Dieppe were extreme and differing, I think it can be argued forcibly that the lessons learned earlier, resulted in a significantly improved deployment on D Day.
some further notes on the bmp-1: it requires the trim vane to be extended, either a full section of troops or equivalent ballast to stop it from nose diving under the water and good maintanence of the seals for it to be ̶e̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ amphibious which is often absent in the soviet/russian military.
The trim vane also has a tendency to collapse if it did not see regular maintenance, was deployed wrong, or just hit a big enough wave.
All that and then you had to evaluate the river or lake for suitability for transit.
They were not to cross into thick sticky mud. Like most of the swampy land in Ukraine. Otherwise it would bog down in the mud while still floating, lacking the traction to move forward, or the weight to sink lower to dig deep enough to dig your way out. Instead they tended to bottom out on the soft sticky mud and lose all propulsion and remain as a small half floating island in the path of all the other units behind you.
If that wasn't bad enough. In the event of getting stuck in the water, all those troops used as ballast getting out of the tank could float it off the bottom sufficiently to allow it to come unstuck, nose down. And either float into other machines or quickly sink firmly to the bottom depending on if water proceeded to intrude or not.
Sounds fun.
keep in mind that the Sovjet Military was way better in respect to maintenance, training, supply etc than the russian army.
so back in the days it might have worked.
but only back in the days and only on a sunny day with low wind.
and without the enemy being present....
There is a reason why you got several major "Water Obstacles" like dual purpose Canals (shipping and water obstacle) close to the former inner german border.
Omaha was an outlier. The 2 (3?) eastern Normandy beaches saw the Sherman DDs land with only a few losses. The key was of course the wave height.
Generally he pulls some weird stuff.
I mean I can't say anything about the Sherman but about the tiger I do know enough about.
His whole Spiel about having to fit x ammount of seals on the tank is basically wrong.
He specifically mentioned the early tigers with his whole story but what he forgot is that these early tigers he is talking about already had:
Sealed hatches
Waterproof optics, seals around the turret ring and so forth.
The early tiger 1 only needed like 5 seals to put on.
Muzzle cap,
2 engine covers where the 3rd was the one for the snorchle
Gun mantlet
MG port.
Attaching all seals took the crew less than 3 minutes to attach.
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 how many seals do modern MBTs require for deep wading?
@@SonsOfLorgar None for the crew compartment. Most modern MBTs are already sealed for protection from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. You should be able to just close the hatch.
As for wading, most tanks have given up the concept and prefer dedicated bridging units. Russian tanks do have snorkels, but the actual utility of wading has been spotty at best from recent events.
These snorkels are attached over the engine blocks and only take a couple of minutes to throw on.
So I suppose to answer your question, they need one seel.
@@pluemas no...
Just one part is wrong.
I may not know for Russian tanks but the leo1, leo2, leclerc, Ariete, challenger mk2, m1 Abrahams and k2 have their snorkels attached to the commanders cupola so that the commander can see out and direct the driver as well as giving the crew a direct way of escape (the snorchle is ruffly 1m in diameter)
The Russians have a ruffly 10-20cm diameter snorchle Wich was a huge complaint part from crews, as there have been instances where crewmen died in exercises because the seals failed and the oxigen masks inside the tank failed as well.
2 out of the 3 men died in one specific instance
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 The documentation I read on the Tiger I stated that part of the reason the river-crossing capability was deleted in later Tiger 1's was because of the complexity and time needed to make it ready.
Here before this gets 1 million views.
Thanks Tank Museum for your awesome content.
Thanks Drach for your awesome content.
We live in a (edit: armchair) historian's paradise these days, and I don't think enough people truly appreciate that!
I would like to think that we who subscribe to these channel s do ..
My first thought of the BMP-1 was, Drach with his medieval squad sitting on one side of a river and sinking battalion of BMP-1s that try to cross it with a catapult.
Tank you for bringing Drachinifel back for his always well thought out opinions on "wet" tanks! Drach does not spare the rod when it comes to giving an honest review of naval craft, and he manages to skewer these armored vehicles in his trademark hilarious manner-- basically a "what were they thinking?" which tells you that sometimes the thinking was shallower than the water to be crossed! Please continue to invite him to return to talk about whatever strikes his fancy... I love his channel AND I love the Tank Museum!
There was often a lot of thought and development behind these 'failed' tanks, particularly those at the cutting edge of technology and doctrine. The Sherman with canvas though, that was an act of desperation that followed under funding of tank development (which led to programs being cut) during the 1930s.
It's not hip anymore to bash the Tiger. Actually it is getting kind of boring, because most of it is hypocrism or double standards.
Most smaller bridges in Europe had a weight limit of 25tons. That's also the reason why the Panzer III and IV chassis max out at 25 tons.
Everything heavier faces the same problems like the Tiger I. T34, M4, Churchill, IS 2... you name it
But the Tiger is particularly bad becaused it actually pioneered deep wading technology together with the Panzer III?
Yeah the Tiger sucks because it did everything it was designed for.
It was not designed to be your everyday front line mainbattle tank, it was also never planed to be ordered in hugh numbers, but it's getting blamed for this regulary.
Further more they also needed a significant amount of time for preping more modern coldwar tanks for deep wading. Leopards, Russian T tanks for example and they weren't ready for combat immediately after leaving the water either, just like BMP.
But there were still mbts around, which could not do deep wading at all.
The analysis of the bmp is also hypercritical to me, I think MHV and DPM did a much fairer assessment on their channels of the pros and cons of the amphibious capabilities of the bmp.
It's US counter part the M113 could only take waves of 14 inches.
Maybe i am just in a bad mood and lost my humor. Sorry if that is the case.
@@HaVoC117X, while I’m not a Tiger I fan (I prefer the Panther and Tiger II) but you are correct in that people tend to make a big fuss over the Tiger. When in the right hands they were truly formidable as their reputation shows. While it and its cousin the Panther and Tiger II had mechanical problems (not so much for later Panthers) its not that they broke down more then any other tank it was the availability of spare parts. For those who are going to ask the Chieftain said that during one of his videos.
Drach is an icon! Good on you, Tank Museum, for hosting another quality presenter
Thanks Drach, shortlist for the Elbonian marine corp future upgrade options.
I listen to Drachinifel every night as I fall asleep, do now watching this in the day time is making me tired :P
Drachinifel is a true chad!
Love his dedication to his channel and his ability to talk for hours on end!
A morning surprise I was not expecting but a welcome one
Thanks!
What I love about these top and bottom fives is that you can find mutual examples where one persons top five overlaps with another's bottom five. A good example is the Sherman DD which crops up in both categories. It just exemplifies the idea that there can be a great tank concept which has many things to its credit but just as many features which disable it also. Its very often a fine line between a new ability and very specific task and a broader limitation to the Tanks previous benefits. DD tanks made for terrible and unstable boats but gave the allies the beforehand unknown ability to bring armour onto a beachhead with definite surprise and impact. One has to only read the records of German defenders reports when DD's dropped their canvas sides and started to dismantle hardpoints to view things from the other position. Alternatively if we read the Americans reports of lost DD's at Omaha and their pitifully small contribution, one could easily believe the concept was a total failure. As with most history, including military history, the conclusions can never be said to be simply pro or con. Was it a great idea badly implemented or a bad idea wonderfully delivered? I leave such decisions up to the individual to comment on. For me it is simply too complex to judge based on so much conflicting data but I know one thing. Its a hell of a good talking point.
Also if you read about the landings at Salerno you learn how badly the infantry suffered because there was no armour support from H-Hour.
I read that they used HE against the HA-GO because AP would usually go through it with often not damaging anything vital.
The Tiger schnorkel was abandoned when it was discovered that the standard 16 tonne bridge worked perfectly fine even when the Tigers drove over them.
... the crossover of two of my favourites on YT! Great!
There’s a photo of a Ha-Go that was captured and was being carried on the back deck of Sherman during the Philippines campaign. Insult to injury.
Drach, you are a natural. I imagine you would be a good presenter for anything.
Drach delivering he trademark in fantastic style, also the BMP had me laughing
awesome collab, Drachinfel is amazing!
Drach reminds me of the middle age guys you used to get in the 1980-1990s growing up jovial, dry, bearded, jumper wearing, coves who were experts in the inane. And I suspect I’m a decade older than him.
Wow Drach, you look nothing like I pictured in my mind based on your voice. Very nice presentation. Love your channel and the Tank Museum's as well.
❤I absolutely love that I'm finding Drach everywhere I seem to look...from here, to Battleship New Jersey, to our own flower class with the leaf on the side...and now, yet again, another installment of ship Yoda on tanks...I absolutely love it!
How did I not know of this till now. Love Drach, awesome collab!
It's great that Drach has teamed up with the Tank folks to make this hybrid video. But it may be as close to 'land' (save for naval bases and ship manufacturing) that he may wish to get.
Thank you, Tank Museum, for having Drach on! Love both of your content!
Some of the previous top lists were not very good. This gentleman's analysis is excellent and well thought out. Very well done. This guy knows his stuff.
A 3rd Drach video please! Maybe one on the joys of sharing historical stories and information via TH-cam?. He has such a genuine following as does the TM, so it would be great to have a podcast like chat with him and maybe David W etc.
Example-Loved the covid video chats we had in the garden, so a sit down chat with Fin and a cup of tea on the ups and downs of educating us common people would hit the spot nicely.
Great guy! Thanx for your time!
Mine was well spent.
Really like these clips when the host actually explains why, with a whole bunch of actual facts (as always done in his own channel), and not just "slightly accurate juvenile tank building kit/telly shows preferences" , or such.
And "The deer on the other side of the river is looking at them funny", just proved that this guy knows what he's talking about. 😉
One correction about the BMP-1. It is NOT an APC. It's actually the world's first infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). In fact BMP is actually the Russian acronym for IFV.
An APC is simply an armoured taxi to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks. An IFV us not only transport but is expected to engage in serious fighting when it gets the infantry there. An IFV is essentially a lethal threat to pretty much anything short of a main battle tank. Given ATGM armament it can also be a limited lethal threat to main battle tanks as well. A lot of Iraqis learned this the hard way in 1991 when Bradley IFVs likely took out more tanks than Abrams tanks.
You are correct about it not being an APC, according to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe anything with a 20mm or larger gun is an IFV. However, this actually makes Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (SPz lg 12-3) the first IFV beginning production in 1958 as apposed to the BMP which began in 1966. I also believed the BMP-1 was the first until I looked up the definitions of IFV vs APC. Looks like even the Swedes beat the USSR to the punch with the pbv 301. The BMP-1 of course lasting far longer in service than either of those but then again that's the Soviets way of doing things.
@@swb1m1 does indeed appear you are correct about the first IFV's in service. Hardly surprising the Germans beat the Soviets to the punch in reality. After all the Soviets continued the Russian tradition of technological backwardness.
@@davidpnewton I agree. If anyone were to come up with an unique design to apply new doctrine to it would be the Germans .
Loved the commentary, retained more information because of the way it was delivered. Thanks.
To be fair to the BMP, it was mostly intended for riverine crossings, in the event of a "cold war gone hot" scenario where the Soviet army was invading Germany.
The Soviet Military Mission in West Germany spent an awful lot of time picnicking and fishing on the banks of rivers to find the few places where the western banks had a shallow enough slope to the river bed to let their armoured vehicles climb out. In true Soviet style, their military propaganda films shows them storming up the banks but their engineers had to prepare the river beds with concrete ramps and kerbs to make it look like it could work easily.
@@johnfisk811 cool stories brah
Now we need Rex's Hanger to do airborne/air portable tanks
Aw yes, he's going back to the uk too
Was it Sheridans the US army just chucked out the back of C-130s on sleds?
Just the intro reminds me of why I subscribe to both channels, the rest was just a bonus!
TY for coming over to do a video with Ryan U.S.S. New Jersey. I liked this, keep em going Sir.
Four inch crabs can be very dangerous during an amphibious assault - they can shell you
Having read the manual for the Boys A/T rifle for context it's worth mentioning the instructions to the user are to aim at a tanks weak points (vision slits and suspension) not armour plate. And one section gives the expected penetration against walls, sandbags etc which indicates it could be used against enemy defences as well as vehicles.
Great work and great guest. Love Drachs content and yours as well.
13:12 **A Sherman tank fighting some Type 95 HA-GO's in the Pacific** "So this is what it feels like to be a Tiger!"
More like: "look mom, I'm a tiger!" 😁
My personal "favorite" are the german diving tanks. Some Genius thought it possible to DRIVE through the channel and invade england like that. Obviously that did not happen, they did do a few "panzer of the lake" style test tho!
Das passiert wenn man widerliches Kölner Bier trinkt.
Sounds about right
I appreciate your effort as a naval historian, it's a difficult task.
Drachinifel!! My favorite ship TH-camr doing tanks? Amazing.
Love the content. This Drachinifel collab is awesome. Cheers from Estonia
Nobody ever claimed they would be an "unmitigated success" and since many American tanks were off-loaded up to 2 miles offshore from the landing beach it's not surprising that almost all of those sank. The few that did make it ashore were a big help in the initial assault.
At 56.35 74% landed on US beaches, 83% on Brit/Can beaches.
The Disaster of the DD Tanks on DDay
th-cam.com/video/2nabCopaVrY/w-d-xo.html
This is one of the most delightful Tank Chats you've produced. Very informative in a very humorous way. Is hearing about how bad tanks can be somehow more entertaining than hearing about how great tanks can be?
First. I love drach AND tanks. What a win!
He's one of the coolest military historians on youtube. Great video!
There is a crucial fact about the Tiger 1 almost noone seems to be aware of and it leads to them making all sorts of mistakes in assessing and rating it in such lists. I have heard exactly one (the Chieftain) TH-cam "tank expert" mention it so far. All the others seem blissfully unaware of it.
That fact is that the Tiger 1 never was meant to be a Main Battle Tank.
It was conceptualized, planned and introduced as a specialized "Durchbruchswagen", which translates to "Breakthrough Wagon" or "Breakthrough Vehicle".
It was only meant to be transported by rail to especially tough enemy defensive lines, punch a hole through them, let the actual Main Battle Tanks like the Panzer 4 and the Panther roll though that hole and push into the enemy's "hinterland". The Tiger would then be repaired, maintained, loaded on to rail wagons again and shipped to the next place where a hole would need punching.
It was meant to be a specialized tool that would only be fetched from the tool box for special jobs and then put back again while other, more suitable vehicles would do the job of a general Main Battle Tank.
It did that job very well and if it would have been allowed to stay in that roll it would have been a great technological success story.
The problem was that Germany soon found itself in a defensive war and was just forced to press any tank-like vehicle they had into the roll of a Main (or "General") Battle Tank and thus the Tiger was forced to do things it never was supposed to do.
That doesn't make it a bad design or a bad tank though.
That is why it being heavy and it not being able to cross every bridge (Which tank is, by the way?) and all that is not really as much of a argument against it or a flaw as uninformed "experts" make it out to be.
Besides, thanks to the also unjustly maligned overlapping wheel suspension and the wide tracks, the ground pressure of the Tiger 1 was actually pretty low by tank standards, which actually gave it very good off road mobility and even allowed it to cross bridges a vehicle of that size and weight would normally not have been able to cross.
A weight of 60 tons was a lot back then, but as we all know, it isn't exceptional nowadays. If a specialized vehicle that never was supposed to move more than a few dozen miles on its own before being put back on rail wagons gets criticized for weighing 60 tons, then why is nobody crowing about modern actual multi-purpose Main Battle Tanks weighing that much too and usually having higher ground pressure than the Tiger had?
The point is that by the time it was fielded even the germans didnt really use it as intended anymore.
@@Knallteute Yes, but that doesn't mean it was a bad design and all those TH-cam tank experts always talk about the design and criticize it for being a bad MBT when it never was supposed to be a MBT.
Imagine "military experts" 60 years from now would make videos talking about how the A-10 Warthog really sucked because it was not good at shooting down other aircraft and would put it on "The 10 most overrated Air Superiority Fighters"-lists and the such.
Number 0. The maus was supposed to be able to ford rivers by attaching itself to another maus and then they both cross one at a time. Which makes to worse then the Tiger because whats worse than having to set up one big metal box for river crossing in combat? Setting up two bigger metaler (but not boxier) for river crossing while in combat.
Drach's sarcasm never disappoints! :)
"jacksparrowsky" made me laugh unreasonably hard. Well done, sir!
I always thought some kind of solid fill pontoons might be a decent way to get a light to medium tank to float, but holy hell, not with a flammable filler!
I've spent an unconsionable percentage of my life nerding out on World War II history, and this was the first time I'd heard that the 88 gun had a prior history in the navy. Thank you for the pointer!
The caliber did but so did many calibers in service. Standardization is good as it means you need less specialized tooling for the guns and stuff.
It's a real stretch, I think. There were 88mm naval guns, and there was then an 88mm flak cannon. That's about it.
Jack Sparroski 😂😂 love Drack's humor.
"But why is the vodka gone?"
The Sherman DD was actually an attempt at stealth inspired by Metal Gear Solid
Brilliantly written, just an overall great time. Well done Drach :D
look at him. Happy as a clam in that turret! Entertaining as always
I’m really enjoying all of these reviews of tanks. I’m 2nd generation Nuclear Naval construction, and I fully understand that weapon systems are a process balancing competing priorities. Some priorities are improperly weighed 🤷🏽♂️
Hey, cool to see Drach doing non-naval stuff (next idea, sea/floatplanes please?)
Number 1, the BMP-1.
This, when first seen by Western powers, set the cat amongst the pidgeons. As mentioned, NBC-proof, 73mm smooth-bore cannon with an AT-3 Sagger wire-guided anti-tank missile & weapons ports for the infantry inside to make use of, this really was the 1st of its kind, the IFW.
Superseded by the BMP-2, BMP-3 & there's also a BMP-T model out as well (which have been destroyed in Ukraine)
19:55 "if the deer on the other side of the river is looking funny at them" PMSL
Please don't ever change your sense of humour & sharing it with us, Drach.
100+ years ago there was a company called Jack Oldings, an agricultural machinery specialist at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, where there is presently a Tesco supermarket (Oldings corner).
The story I was told was that the very first "battle tank" was made by Jack Oldings on an agricultural tracked crawler, the project being financed by the Royal Navy to be a 'land battleship' and the name "tank" was to confuse any spies to think it was a battlefield water bowser. The finished prototype was then taken 20 or so miles north to Biggleswade where trials were performed.
Love the Tank Museum. I support all they do to keep history alive.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 a most epic presentation. The comments were spot on 😂😂😂😂
Great to see Drach
Nicely done, thank you.
Floating biscuit tin, awesome analogy Drachinfel!
"Hans! Our 4 inch crabs are ineffective. Quick - Get ze long poking stick thingie!"
I get that this is a 'tank' channel, yet I notice a few not quite 'tanks' covered and some other stuff absent. is there a chance of covering stuff like the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), M113 APC, or CV90 (or Strf 90), or is that all a bit off-topic or too new for a museum channel?
Glad to see Drachinifel on the channel again, great content. B)
Very cool , flying boats may be my favorite plane . I like how you worked out the bulkhead and used the rubber band . You sure do a lot of planning and cyphering . Must be that Mathematics degree.
Earlier German tanks were equipped with wading gear and actually crossed the Soviet Bug River in Operation Barborossa. They apparently did work as planned.
7:43 true it is a link .. also both the tiger 1 and most ships are made of steel so theirs another link too
I am a simple man. I see Drach, I watch and like.
@13:15 "less said about when the M4 Sherman showed up the better"
I understand these light tanks did not even force the Sherman's to switch to AP shells rather than the Pacific default HE shells.
DD tankers on D-Day were not Navy men. They were all Army men. One of the DD tanks that made it ashore on D-Day was captained by an Army man who sailed for fun. Knowing his way around a boat, he allowed his DD tank to drift off course rather than fighting the current. He landed his tank at the wrong place, but it was better than swamping and sinking, as was the fate of many of his squad mates.
Damn I'd love to do one of these videos. Thoroughly enjoyable!
Oh goody! Drach is talking about tanks!
Come on Drach, do what the Chieftan does... Bloody hell, the tank is on fire....
and he forgot track tensioning....(Although Drach did do a "bloody hell the ship is on fire" video)
Man, Drach, you are everywhere
The Type 95 was conceived as an infantry support tank rather than for anti-tank or general purpose (= both roles) fighting. Its 12 mm armor might not withstand an M2 machine gun, but a heavy machine gun would be less common than a .30, .303/7.7 mm light machine gun or a Lee Enfield rifle (not sure how it would fare against a 30-06 from a Springfield or M1 Garand). The commander of the tank had to do everything from observation, commanding the driver, hand-rotating the turret, and aiming, loading, and firing the gun, probably a task overload. Besides Valentine IIs, M3 Grants were also brought into the CBI Theater. The Grant's 37 mm turret gun was ~10 calibers longer that that of the Type 95. Then there was the Grant's 75 mm hull sponson gun. With a lot of weapons, the IJA and IJN had trouble dropping barely adequate obsolescent/obsolete and going full-on with something modern.
I had hoped that the Combat Engineer Tractor (CET) might have had an honourable mention. I swam one once in Bovington….
Must admit surprised with #1, when I saw #2 I did wonder what was going to beat it to the top/bottom spot
The BMP is not a tank. It is not an amphibious landing vehicle, it is a troop transport that can cross rivers and small lakes with a little bit of preparation. There are normally very few waves on rivers and lakes most of the time.
Speaking of _armour,_ the man cuts quite the dashing figure with the rest of our favorite Medieval battle recreationists and TH-cam creators.
Drach got into the wild, wide world of maritime history. Great dude.
Some additional notes on the Tiger 1: As Chieftain has pointed out, when the Americans were shipping their Tiger back to the US, they had to take the turret off because the available harbour cranes could not handle the weight of the complete tank.
When the Germans evacuated from Sicily, they were able to take only one single Tiger with them to the Italian mainland....which then soon after wrecked its drivetrain and had to be blown up by its crew.
Then finally, in 1944 on the retreat from Normandy, whaever Tigers were left west of the Seine had to be blown up as well, because there was no way to get them across the river in a hurry. The infamous wading gear was no longer installed at that point, but I doubt it would have been of much use.
Bonus Fact: The first generation Panthers had the same rubber sealing everywhere, including the engine compartment. This caused gasoline vapours to build up, which led to several Panthers completely burning up while unloading from trains just before the Battle of Kursk.
So your point is basically that heavy tanks are difficult to take with you when you are in a headlong retreat. The Germans shipped two battallions of Tigers to North Africa in the first place, so it couldn't have been that difficult under favorable circumstances.
Drach in a tank hits different
I just woke up and Am eating my breakfast and checked my TH-cam (as one does I guess). And I think my brain thought my eyes were in needed a rub/clean as I read Drach’s name in my Tank Museum post and saw him in a tank…still not sure it isn’t anything but a joke. Maybe they should’ve posted it on April fools day.
Anywho, I’m sure it’s going to be great!
Great Vid. Tank you very much.
A fact that everybody seems to forget with BMP-1 is that it was the first of its kind. So I'd be more gentle with the snide remarks.
BMP-2 has added pontoons in sideskirts. It swims quite well, we trained driving in water in the finnish defence forces.
Tanks aren't ships, this is quite literally out of your wheelhouse.. and I'm here for it.
LET'S GOOOOOO DRACH IN THE TANK MUSEUM!
Great to see Drach again, along with more nautical related tanks.
to the Tiger tank, there is said to have been a kind of small ferry or barge that could transport a Tiger tank across the Mediterranean Sea in calm seas by the shortest possible route. this barque is also said to have been armed with an 8.8. If the Tiger could then also fire from the ferry, it would have been a "true" amphibious tank. One wanted to avoid that several tigers are lost in a ship sinking.
friend had to experience of BMP-1 in mid 90's in finnish army. according to him there was some unofficial modifications to make them less sinkable. 1 of them being 3 submersible pumps inside of IFV, in case of some leaks.
he remembers 3 nicknames for different BMP's: Ruostekasa (rust bucket), Taistelu lumme (Battling lilypads/water lily ) and kurja (wretched).
what friend founded out where some of those went: Lumme (Water lily) went to modifield. the rest spareparts and/or scraped