I don't know why people complain about the extra info about how much oil fueal etc is in vehicle. This is by far more interesting than actual performance and battle usage as that info is readily available while many other bits of trivia and details of actual use from crew perspective is not.
This is the first video of this page that I have seen - Well done! It's good to hear an experienced tanker talk about tanks, you can always tell the folks who spent quality time living on a turret.
I recall this was mentioned earlier - and turned down. But still: can something be done with the background music, please? I find it annoying, especially when the Chief is talking. Like turn it down or remove it completely at least during the monologues perhaps? I really think the video would be better off without the 'soundtrack', being an educational or documentary piece. It's annoying.
Great video Chieftain! Long-time watcher, first time commenter! Love the nitty-gritty facts and details and your unique insight into the vehicles. Keep it up!
The GM Detroit Diesel engines had different parts for the difference in part locations and rotation of the cranks. Different rotation of engine you could not interchange parts. As for LC = Left hand crank rotation, Starter on Right side. LA= Left hand crank rotation, Starter on Left side.
@@VenturiLife Yea, I dont see any irony in that. Strange, possibly (but not very), but certainly not ironic. it would have been ironic for them to have named it after Shaka Zulu or the Boers, or George Washington. The British have no connection to the Ancient Greeks (aside from indirectly), so it is not "ironic" to name a tank after one of them.
14:09 If you look carefully (especially at the position of the valve springs in the head), you'll see the engines are actually mirror images of each other. That's probably why the parts are all labelled LC and LA - mirrored parts are generally not interchangeable, even though they look identical at a glance.
I didnt see that, but I did notice the intake manifolds are on different sides, so obviously the engines are not identical. Not sure if they would go as far as to make them exact mirror images, but it is much easier than trying to route exhaust and intake, and spark plug wires, etc to the same side of each engine
@@lewisbrand Two-stroke Detroit Diesels have intake ports in the sides of the cylinder and fed directly from the blower, and exhaust valves in the head (either 2 or 4 per cylinder.) They're definitely 2-stroke cycle. :-)
At about 12:20 they cranked the turret counterclockwise towards the antenna then cut to the inside and when they cut back the gun barrel is past the antenna. Was it possible to go over the antenna bending it and the having it flip back or did they cheat there?
If you look closely at the base of the antenna, you can see the big spring that enables it to flex (and return upright) rather than breaking off when it's hit by passing objects--tree branches and whatnot. I'd assume that it works for the gun tube as well. That's pretty common for long vehicle-mounted whip antennae like that one.
As for the bumper numbers....I can't help but wonder if this vehicle once "starred" in a movie or History Channel type WWII episode as an American TD and the numbers/markings just never got changed back to the period/unit correct British Markings. Many, if not most, casual observers with no military background, would not notice one way or the other because they simply don't know there are/were differences. Don't forget the tanks that were used in "Patton"...Lord only knows how many times those vehicles had their bumper numbers and turret markings changed during the making of that movie alone.
I'm not positive about the counterrotation (although it's certainly possible), but they are definitely mirrored engines - which means that a lot of parts will look the same, but won't actually fit both engines. Making a 2-stroke engine run backwards isn't all that hard and doesn't usually require a lot of different parts (mostly cam timing and connecting rod angles), but mirrored designs means that the vast majority of parts will need to be slightly different - and will also look so close to the same that mechanics might make a mistake if they're in a hurry or Jonesing for a coffee break. :-)
I doubt they run opposite directions, that would just complicate the combining of their outputs. It is very easy to make an engine run in either direction, simply a matter of altering the timing slightly, so no reason not too. Especially old 2 stroke diesels, which could often run either direction just by shifting a lever to change the timing slightly. Many old trucks used that instead of reverse gear, and large diesel marine engines still use this system. You are thinking of aero engines, which benefit from counter rotating.
Forgive my ignorance was the chassis not known as the 'universal chassis' as it appeared on the majority of vehicles, TD's, Artillery, Tanks and ARV's and so on?
Does the American M10 have the same problems in terms of the inability of the driver to open his hatch when the turret is facing forward and the gun flying all over the place when not in its travel lock and facing to the back?
+Mel C It looks like the Military Vehicle Foundation (Littlefield Collection), but I could be wrong. I'm making this assumption from a Panther I saw in the background.
It was not at all uncommon in that era, so I wouldnt be surprised. But I cannot say for sure in this case. They expected engines to use a lot of oil back then, so the oil lost from the exposed valve gear was just considered a normal part of operating. There was a reason oil was a consumable like fuel at the time. And one of the 4 external tanks on a T-34 would often as not be used to carry motor oil. Oil consumption was measured in quarts per 100 miles, whereas a modern engine doesnt need to be filled at all unless something goes wrong. Exposed valve gear would be considered a bit archaic by 1940, but not totally antiquated. It was commonplace just a decade or two before that, especially on truck and industrial engines. I think valve covers were originally adopted in passenger cars to muffle the valvetrain noise a little. Covers were unpopular because they made it more difficult to adjust the valves, which had to be done frequently, and it was still a novel idea to cover them up. Valves on steam engines were never covered up in their fathers' day, and keeping all the bits oiled (and getting spattered with oil whenever you stood near a running machine) were just parts of life.
Wait if the brits were short on M3 ammo and training, how did the soviets cope with that? I don't see any soviet modifications of the M4. I'm guessing they went for the russian approach of driving it until it blows up and then getting another one.
As to the engine spare parts? Is it not because the two engines are rotating in a different direction? This might be due to the gearbox meshing the two engines?
14:09 If you look carefully (especially at the position of the valve springs in the head), you'll see the engines are actually mirror images of each other. I'm not sure whether they actually counterrotate (it's certainly possible, although not necessary), but it would explain why the parts are all labelled LC and LA. A mirrored engine layout generally don't have many interchangeable parts, even though they look identical at a glance, whereas to counterrotate a 2-stroke doesn't usually require all that many changes.
Why would you want two different rotation directions when you plan on combining them into a single output? You could, but why? I think it is because it is a lot easier to route the hot exhaust from the outside of each engine and concentrate all the carburetors and intakes in the central area between them. Otherwise you would need two intake systems, or space to pipe the air over or around one of the engines, and you would need to cool the area between the engines where the hot exhaust was confined. That and you would have one of the intakes being heated to very high temps by the exhaust of the other, which is never good. Although odds are in that era the exhaust and intake are on the same side anyway, and all 4 are concentrated in the space between the engines, and they rely on the airflow to keep it cool.
@@justforever96 I would suggest looking into the Detroit Diesel 6-71, the intake would be on the outer side of each engine, fairly low on the block with the supercharger mounted there as well.
Isnt "Gun, 17 Pounder, Anti-tank, on Self-Propelled Mount M10" (Mount, Self-Propelled, M10?) A _US_ designation? Or is this the single case where the British adopted a US designation rather than just calling it a code name like all the rest?
Excellent as always, but marred once more by the constant, distracting dirge-like background repetitive music, over the narrative. Why oh why do you put it in? What purpose does it serve? The video is "cool enough" without having the P-I-T-A looped sounds that, in a video of 16 minutes, you hear at least fifty times. All they do is grate, and interfere. And many people will be watching this whose first language is not English either. Some more will have hearing disabilities. Please remove it from future productions.
I don't know why people complain about the extra info about how much oil fueal etc is in vehicle. This is by far more interesting than actual performance and battle usage as that info is readily available while many other bits of trivia and details of actual use from crew perspective is not.
This is the first video of this page that I have seen - Well done! It's good to hear an experienced tanker talk about tanks, you can always tell the folks who spent quality time living on a turret.
I recall this was mentioned earlier - and turned down. But still: can something be done with the background music, please? I find it annoying, especially when the Chief is talking. Like turn it down or remove it completely at least during the monologues perhaps?
I really think the video would be better off without the 'soundtrack', being an educational or documentary piece. It's annoying.
That FPE shouldn't be there the crew didn't get enough kills to unlock it yet.
0:39 that poor driver xD
Chieftain, you ever have that happen? xD
It taste like coka cola.
+Shkotay D Oh, yes.
+TheChieftainWoT How do you get the water out of the tank?? Naturally theyre sealed on the bottom? (right?)
+Liamv4696 There are hatches located at the bottom of a tank.
+Shkotay D I laughed so hard when I saw that.
Great video Chieftain! Long-time watcher, first time commenter! Love the nitty-gritty facts and details and your unique insight into the vehicles. Keep it up!
The GM Detroit Diesel engines had different parts for the difference in part locations and rotation of the cranks. Different rotation of engine you could not interchange parts. As for LC = Left hand crank rotation, Starter on Right side. LA= Left hand crank rotation, Starter on Left side.
Kind of ironic that something lightly armoured is named after somebody famously invincible
+PhantomGoo Unless he got an arrow to the knee, i mean heel ;)
Also ironic, is the English naming a tank after an ancient Greek.
+shades2 - how's that irony.
shades2 no different than naming it after an American General.
@@VenturiLife Yea, I dont see any irony in that. Strange, possibly (but not very), but certainly not ironic. it would have been ironic for them to have named it after Shaka Zulu or the Boers, or George Washington. The British have no connection to the Ancient Greeks (aside from indirectly), so it is not "ironic" to name a tank after one of them.
The music really helps me avoid getting bored in case you should pause to take a breath from time to time.
Not repetitive at all
14:09 If you look carefully (especially at the position of the valve springs in the head), you'll see the engines are actually mirror images of each other. That's probably why the parts are all labelled LC and LA - mirrored parts are generally not interchangeable, even though they look identical at a glance.
You will also notice that this shows the engines are not two stroke ( cycle ) at all
@@lewisbrand Why? You can make a 2-stroke with or without overhead valves, that has nothing to do with it.
I didnt see that, but I did notice the intake manifolds are on different sides, so obviously the engines are not identical. Not sure if they would go as far as to make them exact mirror images, but it is much easier than trying to route exhaust and intake, and spark plug wires, etc to the same side of each engine
@@lewisbrand Two-stroke Detroit Diesels have intake ports in the sides of the cylinder and fed directly from the blower, and exhaust valves in the head (either 2 or 4 per cylinder.) They're definitely 2-stroke cycle. :-)
I'm not clear from this when the 90mm was introduced. The standard gun for the M10 in US service was, as you said initially, the 76mm.
+peezebeuponyou T71/M36 entered production mid 1944, about the same time as the 17pr conversions hit.
I have massively missed these vids :(
at around 5:15 he referred to the suspension as hvss,whe it is a vvss system.I'm sure he caught it and hoped we wouldn't notice...
Ay yeah best Monday ever Mingles WIth Jingles and Inside the Hatch.
04:30
This tank is so tall!
At about 12:20 they cranked the turret counterclockwise towards the antenna then cut to the inside and when they cut back the gun barrel is past the antenna.
Was it possible to go over the antenna bending it and the having it flip back or did they cheat there?
If you look closely at the base of the antenna, you can see the big spring that enables it to flex (and return upright) rather than breaking off when it's hit by passing objects--tree branches and whatnot. I'd assume that it works for the gun tube as well. That's pretty common for long vehicle-mounted whip antennae like that one.
As for the bumper numbers....I can't help but wonder if this vehicle once "starred" in a movie or History Channel type WWII episode as an American TD and the numbers/markings just never got changed back to the period/unit correct British Markings. Many, if not most, casual observers with no military background, would not notice one way or the other because they simply don't know there are/were differences. Don't forget the tanks that were used in "Patton"...Lord only knows how many times those vehicles had their bumper numbers and turret markings changed during the making of that movie alone.
+FD Mackey I was reading about SU-100s being used on WW2 films to be the german stugs.
The reason LC, or LA, I would lay money on, one engine turns clockwise the other counter-clockwise. As you can see they are mirrors of each other.
I'm not positive about the counterrotation (although it's certainly possible), but they are definitely mirrored engines - which means that a lot of parts will look the same, but won't actually fit both engines. Making a 2-stroke engine run backwards isn't all that hard and doesn't usually require a lot of different parts (mostly cam timing and connecting rod angles), but mirrored designs means that the vast majority of parts will need to be slightly different - and will also look so close to the same that mechanics might make a mistake if they're in a hurry or Jonesing for a coffee break. :-)
I doubt they run opposite directions, that would just complicate the combining of their outputs. It is very easy to make an engine run in either direction, simply a matter of altering the timing slightly, so no reason not too. Especially old 2 stroke diesels, which could often run either direction just by shifting a lever to change the timing slightly. Many old trucks used that instead of reverse gear, and large diesel marine engines still use this system.
You are thinking of aero engines, which benefit from counter rotating.
Forgive my ignorance was the chassis not known as the 'universal chassis' as it appeared on the majority of vehicles, TD's, Artillery, Tanks and ARV's and so on?
MAOR! How many of these do you still have in the queue?
what a cool person
Does the American M10 have the same problems in terms of the inability of the driver to open his hatch when the turret is facing forward and the gun flying all over the place when not in its travel lock and facing to the back?
+James Nigel yes, on the second, and I believe so on the first
Where did you film this? Looks like a cool display area.
+Mel C It looks like the Military Vehicle Foundation (Littlefield Collection), but I could be wrong. I'm making this assumption from a Panther I saw in the background.
Are the valve covers removed for maintentance or do the engines really not have them?
Removed for maintenance. You can find pictures of the GM 6046 showing valve covers held on with 4 large knobs running down the centre of the covers.
Do they run them without valve covers?
That does look odd.
Colin Park I was thinking the same thing
It was not at all uncommon in that era, so I wouldnt be surprised. But I cannot say for sure in this case. They expected engines to use a lot of oil back then, so the oil lost from the exposed valve gear was just considered a normal part of operating. There was a reason oil was a consumable like fuel at the time. And one of the 4 external tanks on a T-34 would often as not be used to carry motor oil. Oil consumption was measured in quarts per 100 miles, whereas a modern engine doesnt need to be filled at all unless something goes wrong.
Exposed valve gear would be considered a bit archaic by 1940, but not totally antiquated. It was commonplace just a decade or two before that, especially on truck and industrial engines. I think valve covers were originally adopted in passenger cars to muffle the valvetrain noise a little. Covers were unpopular because they made it more difficult to adjust the valves, which had to be done frequently, and it was still a novel idea to cover them up. Valves on steam engines were never covered up in their fathers' day, and keeping all the bits oiled (and getting spattered with oil whenever you stood near a running machine) were just parts of life.
@@justforever96 I used to adjust the valves on my landrover frequently, the cover was held on by three screws, so easy to remove.
Wait if the brits were short on M3 ammo and training, how did the soviets cope with that? I don't see any soviet modifications of the M4. I'm guessing they went for the russian approach of driving it until it blows up and then getting another one.
Would presume they manufactured there own. Russian had the space and resources we didn't.
As to the engine spare parts? Is it not because the two engines are rotating in a different direction? This might be due to the gearbox meshing the two engines?
14:09 If you look carefully (especially at the position of the valve springs in the head), you'll see the engines are actually mirror images of each other. I'm not sure whether they actually counterrotate (it's certainly possible, although not necessary), but it would explain why the parts are all labelled LC and LA. A mirrored engine layout generally don't have many interchangeable parts, even though they look identical at a glance, whereas to counterrotate a 2-stroke doesn't usually require all that many changes.
Why would you want two different rotation directions when you plan on combining them into a single output? You could, but why? I think it is because it is a lot easier to route the hot exhaust from the outside of each engine and concentrate all the carburetors and intakes in the central area between them. Otherwise you would need two intake systems, or space to pipe the air over or around one of the engines, and you would need to cool the area between the engines where the hot exhaust was confined. That and you would have one of the intakes being heated to very high temps by the exhaust of the other, which is never good. Although odds are in that era the exhaust and intake are on the same side anyway, and all 4 are concentrated in the space between the engines, and they rely on the airflow to keep it cool.
@@justforever96 I would suggest looking into the Detroit Diesel 6-71, the intake would be on the outer side of each engine, fairly low on the block with the supercharger mounted there as well.
wasn't this uploaded on WORLD OF TANKS channel?
+Themoustar15 Yes. This channel is for people who want the history but aren't interested in the other WoT features.
Ok :D you replied to my question.
I'm terrified of having to maintain this thing. Sure tanks are hard, but.....dat track tension.
So, if the turret was pointing towards the front and the vehicle got hit, the poor driver was pretty much screwed... great design.
+Danox94 Not entirely. There is no turret basket, so getting out from behind and up the turret is not actually a particularly difficult exercise.
TheChieftainWoT great! thx for the reply
+TheChieftainWoT So it's like a T-34 in that aspect?
+budmeister Similar. I found T-34 to be a little more cramped in terms of getting out through the turret. The difference would be minor, though.
+TheChieftainWoT But on the other hand if the Achilles was surprised during transfer the counterweight makes a nice shot trap
Isnt "Gun, 17 Pounder, Anti-tank, on Self-Propelled Mount M10" (Mount, Self-Propelled, M10?) A _US_ designation? Or is this the single case where the British adopted a US designation rather than just calling it a code name like all the rest?
No, US uses “Gun Motor Carriage” instead of “self propelled mount”
10:59 tell them to represent that in game... Thank you.
The 90mm was a better gun than the 17 pounder?
In terms of ballistics and penetration.. Yes yes it was
4k vid??
Anybody else go "OOF! OH GOD" When they were going over those moguls? Wincing in sympathetic pain here, that's bad enough in a 4X4 at 5mph.
Where's part 2? I don't see it, search doesn't either?
+SaginawGS
I guess you will have to wait until it's uploaded. Just like the rest of us.
I didn't realize they didn't load them up together, makes no sense but ok
if this is the achilles, where's the heel?
git gud he's gone for a burton.
The heel is usually the Rupert - isn't it? :-P
man that mussel break is sexy
M18 and the StuG3 were the best TDs of ww2
Stugs are technically classified as assault guns, even the long barrel ones but close enough.
Hopefully they never planned on towing a ROTA trailer with that tow pintel
0:40..the driver is getting drowned in liquid mud..stoic af..
poor driver at :39 lol
Wet driver for sure!
Driver : it taste good tho.
im getting the feeling i have seen this before
yep, i too
Excellent as always, but marred once more by the constant, distracting dirge-like background repetitive music, over the narrative. Why oh why do you put it in? What purpose does it serve? The video is "cool enough" without having the P-I-T-A looped sounds that, in a video of 16 minutes, you hear at least fifty times. All they do is grate, and interfere. And many people will be watching this whose first language is not English either. Some more will have hearing disabilities. Please remove it from future productions.
You already uploaded this SIGH
+jared bussard This vid was first featured on the World of Tanks channel. He is now posting it on his own TheChieftainWoT channel.
To bad they didn't stuff the 17 pounder into the Hellcat.
I generally feel that the U.S. had pretty good planes but crappy tanks in World War II
Englishims
what a cool person