The m47 is my favorite, something about the sloped cast hull armor and especially that LFP combined with the turret design (and its ingame responsiveness in war thunder) makes me love it it's just beautiful
Cast is generally hideous on tanks imo, but M47 is my favourite Patton because of the turret shape. While M48 is the single ugliest tank to ever exist imo.
Most beautiful US tank for me is Shermi with short 75 and welded hull+ cast turret) If talking about post war, then its M26 and M46, i just cant stand m48 hull shape
My hand is forced but I gotta admit the m48 just has the softest spot in my heart as im currently serving on the M48 A5 MOLF as a driver in the hellenic forces of Cyprus p.s: it drives like an absolute peach ♥️
You're still rolling around M48's?! I was a driver for a National Guard Cavalry unit driving M48A5s back in the 1980s. I wonder if you're not driving around a tank I used to?
Feels a little harsh on the Pattons in this vid Barring M48's early reliability issues (which were _atrocious,_ granted) it was solid. Same can be said for M46. M46 didn't perform so well (from an outside perspective) on account of being put in pretty impossible situations to deal with and/or being employed improperly. I haven't looked into M47 as thoroughly but it seemed like a stopgap so I wouldn't expect it to be particularly fantastic regardless. I'm certain that the Patton series would've served the US' needs fine when it came down to it. They were good, I think the phrasing "mediocre attempts at a capable medium tank" is selling them short. They had serviceable mobility, serviceable weaponry, and good soft factors (optics, FCS, crew comfort, etc.) For what it's worth, the only time M48 saw much combat in US service, it was rather well liked. Even its claimed-useless extra armor seemed to enhance survivability in Vietnam. When M60 was introduced ("finally a capable design"), it was essentially an up-gunned M48 with a different hull armor layout. The two vehicles were shockingly similar and it wouldn't be until M60A1 that there was any extremely obvious difference between the two via a complete turret replacement.
@@quan-uo5ws It's quite habitual for the US to underestimate its armor in comparison to Eastern Bloc armor. It started with IS-3 and never stopped, the boogeyman in question just changed overtime. Realistically, M48 would fare as well as any tank could be expected to in a Cold War engagement. The downsides to it, barring the first model's reliability, aren't big enough to make a substantial dent in the grand scheme should the US and USSR come to blows. An engagement between a T-54 and a Patton would play out like 95% of all other tank engagements in history: He who fires first and hits first, wins. At least the Pattons had good FCS and optics for this purpose. In engagements with large numbers of each, it's a game of logistics/tactics and not really a question of which tank is better in a vacuum.
@@bluntcabbage6042 well, the production version of the T-54 would materialize in 1949. by which time the americans would develop the M46 patton. then they would develop two more patton variants, and all of them were inferior to the T-54. so the criticism comes from the fact that the pattons were constantly improving, yet still could not overcome the T-54 which had the same design since 1949.
@@quan-uo5ws Inferior only by hard factors and the disparity was not enough to make it a one-sided ordeal. If Pattons could kill T-54s (they could) and T-54s could kill Pattons (they could), it only comes down to firing first and more accurately, and all the processes leading up to that. While Pattons didn't possess quite as beefy as a gun as T-54 or not quite as effective raw armor, they had better optics, ergonomics, and crew comfort which enabled better gun laying and better endurance in combat. And this mentality of only seeming to care about hard factors (which T-54 does appear superior in) is a common behavior by Western analysts looking at Eastern Bloc armor. In many cases, including T-54 and IS-3, their seeming superiority is heavily dampened by soft factors which aren't usually taken into account: IS-3's abysmal reliability or T-54's sub-par FCS and ergonomics for example. My point is that acting as though Pattons were insufficient vehicles is overly harsh: The downsides to the Patton series wouldn't really matter that much in a total war scenario as envisioned by every major war planner at the time. Whether you were in a magically-NATO-owned T-54 or M48 in the Fulda Gap won't likely change your fate as a tanker, because the differences in capability _aren't large enough_ to seriously impact the minute-to-minute combat of an engagement or the grand strategy behind it. All told, the Pattons would have done what the US needed them to do if it came down to total war. They were sufficient vehicles and _definitely_ capable, despite what the video heavily implies and/or outright claims.
2:20 WOW, this is the first time I've seen T29 video, so far I've only seen photos.... Edit: I would really like to know where did you find it, I've seen so many photos but not a single video...
@@snickersmyknickers5120 Well it's hard to tell with those 2 vehicle in background but the one in foreground is for sure not T34 based on the gun, also the gun looks little bit too long and "skinny" for the one of T30. But it's really hard to tell but I'm guessing the first one is probably T29
BUT, Revenge of the Sith and The Force Awakens being on the same B tier is a fucking crime. Even The Phantom Menace doesn't deserve to be associated with such a "meh" rehash.
I like the m46 for the service in Korea and the chickenwire fence heat protection, the m47 for the futuristic design and cool turret, m48 for the service in Vietnam and heavy armor.
remember that for most of their service history in US Army the M48, M47 and M46 are stuck with the dated APCR shell when they were supposed to face T-54s.
This was also a time where HEAT FS rounds where becoming much more prevalent and before any tank had access to protection from it. For all intensive purposes, APCR was kinda obsolete as a HEAT round could penetrate more armor at any range while APCR was more problematic at greater distances and armor angles.
I’m pretty lucky to have an M47 at the museum right outside of my town: the first time I saw it I had no clue what it was because I had only known of the M26, m48 and m60s, and the turret looks quite a bit different from them
@@jevinliu4658 it was one of their outdoor exhibits, so it wasn’t labeled. I talked with one of the museum staff though and they were cool enough to talk about it with me 👍🏼
0:32 - That picture actually shows a Marine Corps M60A1 RISE (P) with ERA during Exercise Solid Shield '89. Unless it was exported to another country, M60A3/M60A3 Passive or M60A3 TTS tanks in U.S. service have never been equipped with ERA in the field. Furthermore, the M60A1 and any other tanks in the Army at that time did not have ERA. Additionally, the visual differences are significant: the M60A3/M60A3 Passive or M60A3 TTS features a fibreglass thermal shroud as using M68E1 and a sensor mast for the new M21 fire control system located on the rear of the turret roof, which distinguishes it from the M60A1. so yeah, you picked the wrong pictures to show the M60A3.
Yep! The last photo was for M60A3 OR modernised variants of any M60, like Sabra/Magach/Samsam for example. Apologies if I didn’t make that as clear as I wanted!
I’m honestly super happy to see a video form you on the Patton family and would honestly love even more details about them if you had more to share. About a week ago, before I saw this video, I went down the rabbit hole trying to figure out the Patton family lineage and design heritage, from the M46 being a new modernized version of the Pershing family, to the M47 being this strange vehicle with almost no immediate resemblance to the rest of the Patton family, to the M48 and M60 which are the tanks I think of when I hear the word “Patton,” the tanks that fought in Korea or Vietnam, all such vastly different tanks in so many ways, and yet all closely related as a direct family lineage of tank technology evolution.
We belgians recieved alot of M47's and my grandfather heard good things about the tankers that he & their tanks transported on an antar tank transporter. The only issue early on was that the tracks tended to throw themself off in high speed turning. But german designed tracks fixed that
M4 Sherman’s are still used in less fortunate countries. Not the most capable medium unless they have their hands on a Sherman firefly that gun was devastating even for 75mm it hits like a 90mm
I have always been fascinated by the M26 to the M48 pattons. Are they the best tanks? No. But they were good solid beasts. Also if you ever wanna distinguish an M26 pershing from an M46 patton I, look at the rear drive sprocket. If their is a small wheel between the sprocket and the lower roadwheel, its an M46. thats the compensation idler wheel Red wrench was talking about.
I will not take this M47 Slander lying down >: ( but seriously great vid as usual, the M47M (the version with the upgraded engine and many design elements from the M48's installed on them made mainly for export) is my all-time favorite American tank, there is something that just draws me to it, also all the weird foreign upgrades and "side-grades" that came about in the ensuing years also are interesting in their own ways, especially the Iranian ones like the Sabalan, and Tiam)
My two favorite variants of the M48 are the Israeli Magach 6R and the German M48 super. Something about additional composite armour and ERA being strapped on an M48 makes it sexy and beautiful
It always seemed odd to me that all three models of tank had the Patton name. The M46 yeah and even the M47 since it was basically just an upgraded M46 okay. But the M48 was a completely different beast. Sure it originally shared components from the M47 but that wasn’t unheard of. It had a totally new turret and hull. I guess like the video said they just wanted the Patton name on a more impressive tank.
The w.o.t. video game Tank Tree has made it easier to understand and visualize the many different tank generations and prototypes. I don't play video games, but I do play world of tanks for the historic value.
If you don’t mind me asking: To start with, I love your presentation style and this is the type of content I’m trying to transition to. Where do you get your footage from and what software do you (or your editor) use to create the animations as seen on the engine layout and armor thickness explanations for example?
Biggest problem I have with this video is The Force Awakens being as high as it is on that list. Also, I have a certain fondness for Attack of the Clones that puts it higher than the bottom. This is something I've been waiting for, ever since I found your channel and you started putting out these massive overviews of tank series. The Patton is a tank I saw in media for many years before even knowing what it was. Games like Army Men and Empire Earth used it as a default "tank" model more often than not, as it matches that stereotypical silhouette so perfectly in our minds. After all that, I never learned much about them. I knew they were Cold War era tanks, alongside the T-54, but aside from that I had nothing. As it turns out, not that complicated. Just steps of varying distance from tanks I knew and loved, Sherman and Pershing. Still, I love getting the gritty details, learning the different variants, international developments, and modernizations made for each iteration.
I don't think no, I believe he once said he did this to train his editing and it kind of randomly worked, so I don't think they're the same person. I'm not the guy and I only speak from memory though
I don't know where I got it or where it's from but i had a 1:64 scale M48 with working road wheels and rubber tracks. Usually tanks that size had faux tracks and had hidden wheels under the hull. I wish I still had it because it got me into tanks and is an anomaly.
Swap Solo and Phantom menace and youve done a smashing job of that star wars ranking good sir. Good to see you addressing the important topics for your channel. Oh and yeah your Patton content was "alright" ;)
Idk about the M48, really all it had going for it was better armor (which at some angles was negotiable). For being the true next tank it wallowed in a lot of issues before it made a clear upgrade, that being the M48A2. In retrospect, I wonder if production of the M48 had been postponed for more testing and performance trials it could've entered with the A2's upgrades. Meanwhile, the M47 just needed to lose the MG port and get its stereoscopic rangefinder sorted.
The Ford GAA aluminum V-8 was a development from the GAF V-12 that started as a fighter aero engine to compete with the Merlin. The Ford GAF was cheaper, easier to assemble and maintain. It was nothing like the Merlin other than displacement and conviguration. It had a single casting aluminum block and aluminum 4-valve hemi heads with four overhead cams all gear driven. The AAF did not want the GAF since they had all the Allisons they could use. There was a need for a better M-4 Sherman engine. Ford loped 4 cylinders off the GAF to make the GAA, best tank engine of WWII.
Dude, right now the US army is kind of making me nervous, the M10 Booker is likely gonna be 38 tons bare, and ~42-45 tons Heavy combat equipped with APS and add-on modular NERA as well as BRAT armor modules. Yet, they have the same base engine as the UK's new 40mm SCOUT IFV rated at 800hp... I forget exactly which engine, but supposedly it's getting a version using the same block rated to 1100hp which I think the UK are supposed to switch to as well as the M10, but it ain't even in production yet meanwhile GD and GDELS keep manufacturing both vehicles with the 800hp version installed in the roughly 45 ton vehicles...😅
I may have missed, but Israel operated M48 Pattons, improved them and a 105mm gun. I assume they worked well as did the Israeli up gunned Centurion. So mediocre or not it worked.
Can you also do the video of panzer 4? I have a lot of problem identify the late war variant especially the H an J variant but also the very early variant as well.
Tbh, a thing that heavily plagued the Patton Family, isnt exactly something to do with the tanks or its designers, but was rarher the US being in a very poor spot economically during the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was a large reason why they stuck with the tried and true design plan of the M26 as the basis of the family, even up to the M60 as they simply couldnt afford to chase a design that offered improved protection, mobility, and firepower only to have it fail on every front.
Great coverage! I don't think you gave it a verdict though like your title suggests. I think it was magnificent success. The problem was as new fixes were found new problems arose that compromised the design. Technology just wasn't there for what they wanted to achieve, but it kept up through the years at a pretty steady pace. Good thing it wasn't better because we would have made millions of them before it had matured thereby giving it a M47 problem. Once they saw they weren't sending tons of IS-3 or by that time T-10s to Asia, it was sufficient in its role. The Sherman too was a stop gap in retrospect we see it as brilliant, same for these Pershings and Pattons as we learned #1 crews were way too vulnerable in Shermans. I am sure we used both material science and math to try to bring about a good balance and that is why it got so big. It needed better ground pressure. We wanted that torsion bar system and independent road wheels. We needed the 90MM to have a stable and strong platform. We needed a focus of turret armor with a big enough turret for crew operations. We wanted a V shaped hull in order to help mitigate heavy hull damage from mines. Seems like those goals were met. Sure the HP/ton wasn't met but it was adequate. The things were largely troop support anyway, and breakthrough so they didn't have to be super fast. Or else they would have went the way of the T23. Albeit that did spawn what became the M47 Bulldog, another great platform and proof that these were excellent. Guess you would need to compare to the T-55 and Centurion to see how successful it was? On a year to year basis? M47 shoring up Nato was a huge nod to that success indeed. Though in comparison to bests it doesn't seem like it. Guess we might need videos on the Cents and t-54/55 how they compared for a better answer. T-55 is often noted first and foremost of the most produced, but not much is really said about its drawbacks. Which i am sure there were plenty.
Yeah, i feel like time treated the pattons better Dunna, just got the pattons recently and enjoying them. Still a pain to use on higher pattons. Other then that, nice tank to use in my lineup on all the patton BR
Looking forward for Part 2 of the "Patton Series", especially the M-60 series. So what I learned so far: M-46 Patton 1 is just a "rebadged name" of an "upgraded later series" M-26 Pershing meanwhile the M-47 Patton 2 seems to be a "bigger version" of the M-41 Walker Bulldog Nothing special about the M-46 & the M-47 & struggled to compete against the Soviet's T-34, T-44, & T-55 Meanwhile the M-48 Patton 3. Now that's a "Real Patton" completely different than the M-46 & M-47. M-48 & M-60 are the glory of the Patton Series, but these are the "later models" of the Patton Series. Unfortunately, the earlier models of the Patton Series like the M-46 & M-47, they're not that glorifying compared to the later models...
It would be nice if you could include effective armor thickness (i.e. using nominal thickness and slope to calculate effective) as you layout the armor schemes for each vehicle.
I have a question that is not covered about tanks. Why have we not kept the Stroboscopic Cupolas that the French implemented post WW1? I would love to see a video made about this and the reason it was abandoned before the outbreak of WW2? Notable tanks that I could think of were the Char C and the FT tanks
@@XSaintsofDoomX While cool, they were just complicated and expensive. They required an electric motor to operate them, the bearings would be very noisy if not regularly maintained/replaced, any warping of the metal would cause them to stop working, and the image they provide would be inferior to that of a simple periscope. A couple of glass periscopes did the job just as well for much less effort!
Could you do a dive into the more controversial vehicles? recently ive seen videos on the t-34 ,panther series and tiger 2 that show they weren't as as deserving of their praise, and i want finally see an end to the discussion
18:08 I noticed the M48A1 had an external handset box located at the rear but the T48E2 does not show the external handset. Does anyone know what tank was the last to have external handsets? I believe it was the M60A3 TTS was the last to have one. With radios being more widely available and smaller I could see why there wouldn’t be a need to install them on newer tanks
10:27 That's incorrect. What you described here is the function of a coincidence rangefinder, not a stereoscopic one. A stereoscopic rangefinder has its operator seeing a 3D image, and it ranges by adjusting the depth of the ranging reticle until it matches the depth of the target.
The Patton tanks were often the templates for multiple tank toys I had as a kid. Therefore, I say magnificent. I cannot be swayed by any other argument.
I went to school in 1983 with a man who had been a tank unit commander in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion. I asked him what he thought of the M60, and he answered with two words: "they burn".
There was a time when the M60 was one of the Soviets' most feared tanks, but then they adapted their way out of the problem. Not sure how well this applies to the conflicts in Lebanon, but I thought it was worth mentioning. th-cam.com/video/eLw_UdCLMEc/w-d-xo.html
> M48 turret ring diameter - 85"
> M103 turret ring diameter - 85"
Are you thinking what I'm thinking???
Lmfao. Bobblehead tank!
@@thebinarysquad5962definitely cooler then the other option smh
Don't, I have delt with enough today.
Yes
Would be funny, kind of like the M4 with the T26 turret.
Also reminds me of the M48 with leopard 2 turret.
5:36 A "communist spanner" you say? One could also say a "red wrench", don't you think?
TH-camr mentioned
HE SAID THE THING!!! (self-reference)
"And the Dad joke of the day award goes too @Schiwi17!!!"👏👏
I see what you did there comrade…
Arnold Schwarzenegger himself crewed one of those Austrian M47s during his time as a conscript. Much later, he bought and imported the tank he drove.
The m47 is my favorite, something about the sloped cast hull armor and especially that LFP combined with the turret design (and its ingame responsiveness in war thunder) makes me love it it's just beautiful
Cast is generally hideous on tanks imo, but M47 is my favourite Patton because of the turret shape.
While M48 is the single ugliest tank to ever exist imo.
Relies on cast angles to hopefully bounces shots
My fav is the M60 because I love the engine block and the swet 105 mm and the beautiful cast turret in my opinion. It lacks so much backup speed tho😭
Indeed! A WoT player here, but for 10 years M47 Patton has been the most beautiful tank I've seen!
Most beautiful US tank for me is Shermi with short 75 and welded hull+ cast turret)
If talking about post war, then its M26 and M46, i just cant stand m48 hull shape
My hand is forced but I gotta admit the m48 just has the softest spot in my heart as im currently serving on the M48 A5 MOLF as a driver in the hellenic forces of Cyprus
p.s: it drives like an absolute peach ♥️
wait youre a Cypriot?
@@r.ndomperson he's greek (obviously)
@@vasopel Oh ok, got confused since both Hellenic and Cyprus were mentioned. My apologies
@@r.ndomperson no need to apologize,have a nice day ;-)
You're still rolling around M48's?! I was a driver for a National Guard Cavalry unit driving M48A5s back in the 1980s. I wonder if you're not driving around a tank I used to?
Can you do UK mbt next? Centurions, chieftain, and some variants
Vickers MBT B)
vickers too plz, i absolutely love the mk.7
@@meepmerp6935 I believe they did a video on that
Try enjoying the moment- so stupid
I'd love to see that honestly and see how bad the chieftain's engine transmission was and the various fv variants.
M46 was my favourite of the bunch in War Thunder. The power boost relative to weight was insane. Armour also doesn't matter at the br of heat fs.
Feels a little harsh on the Pattons in this vid
Barring M48's early reliability issues (which were _atrocious,_ granted) it was solid. Same can be said for M46. M46 didn't perform so well (from an outside perspective) on account of being put in pretty impossible situations to deal with and/or being employed improperly. I haven't looked into M47 as thoroughly but it seemed like a stopgap so I wouldn't expect it to be particularly fantastic regardless.
I'm certain that the Patton series would've served the US' needs fine when it came down to it. They were good, I think the phrasing "mediocre attempts at a capable medium tank" is selling them short. They had serviceable mobility, serviceable weaponry, and good soft factors (optics, FCS, crew comfort, etc.)
For what it's worth, the only time M48 saw much combat in US service, it was rather well liked. Even its claimed-useless extra armor seemed to enhance survivability in Vietnam.
When M60 was introduced ("finally a capable design"), it was essentially an up-gunned M48 with a different hull armor layout. The two vehicles were shockingly similar and it wouldn't be until M60A1 that there was any extremely obvious difference between the two via a complete turret replacement.
Yeah i agree here.
i think the criticisms were mainly due to the Pattons not expected to fare well against T-54 horde in europe...
@@quan-uo5ws It's quite habitual for the US to underestimate its armor in comparison to Eastern Bloc armor. It started with IS-3 and never stopped, the boogeyman in question just changed overtime. Realistically, M48 would fare as well as any tank could be expected to in a Cold War engagement. The downsides to it, barring the first model's reliability, aren't big enough to make a substantial dent in the grand scheme should the US and USSR come to blows.
An engagement between a T-54 and a Patton would play out like 95% of all other tank engagements in history: He who fires first and hits first, wins. At least the Pattons had good FCS and optics for this purpose. In engagements with large numbers of each, it's a game of logistics/tactics and not really a question of which tank is better in a vacuum.
@@bluntcabbage6042 well, the production version of the T-54 would materialize in 1949. by which time the americans would develop the M46 patton. then they would develop two more patton variants, and all of them were inferior to the T-54. so the criticism comes from the fact that the pattons were constantly improving, yet still could not overcome the T-54 which had the same design since 1949.
@@quan-uo5ws Inferior only by hard factors and the disparity was not enough to make it a one-sided ordeal.
If Pattons could kill T-54s (they could) and T-54s could kill Pattons (they could), it only comes down to firing first and more accurately, and all the processes leading up to that. While Pattons didn't possess quite as beefy as a gun as T-54 or not quite as effective raw armor, they had better optics, ergonomics, and crew comfort which enabled better gun laying and better endurance in combat.
And this mentality of only seeming to care about hard factors (which T-54 does appear superior in) is a common behavior by Western analysts looking at Eastern Bloc armor. In many cases, including T-54 and IS-3, their seeming superiority is heavily dampened by soft factors which aren't usually taken into account: IS-3's abysmal reliability or T-54's sub-par FCS and ergonomics for example.
My point is that acting as though Pattons were insufficient vehicles is overly harsh: The downsides to the Patton series wouldn't really matter that much in a total war scenario as envisioned by every major war planner at the time. Whether you were in a magically-NATO-owned T-54 or M48 in the Fulda Gap won't likely change your fate as a tanker, because the differences in capability _aren't large enough_ to seriously impact the minute-to-minute combat of an engagement or the grand strategy behind it.
All told, the Pattons would have done what the US needed them to do if it came down to total war. They were sufficient vehicles and _definitely_ capable, despite what the video heavily implies and/or outright claims.
2:20 WOW, this is the first time I've seen T29 video, so far I've only seen photos....
Edit: I would really like to know where did you find it, I've seen so many photos but not a single video...
Possibly all 3 of the variants, 105mm, 120mm and 155mm
@@snickersmyknickers5120 Well it's hard to tell with those 2 vehicle in background but the one in foreground is for sure not T34 based on the gun, also the gun looks little bit too long and "skinny" for the one of T30. But it's really hard to tell but I'm guessing the first one is probably T29
Bro same I was like WOAH that's cool 😂
That's my favorite heavy tank, so seeing footage of it running is cool
@@T29Heavy Same, I really wonder where he found it
Cant wait for IS-3 to IS-7 video
He did that a while ago
@@viethoangnguyen6922 not in depth like IS-6 though
*I'm loving my IS2 on War Thunder!* 😅
Grandpa went from a Pershing to a Patton which was a God send
The Empire Strikes Back being S tier is based. 0:53
Because it’s the best Star Wars movie
@@darren334 facts brother. one of the best sequels ever made in history, if not the best
BUT, Revenge of the Sith and The Force Awakens being on the same B tier is a fucking crime. Even The Phantom Menace doesn't deserve to be associated with such a "meh" rehash.
@@darren334 Thou stories of the death star contractors never fall apon thine thoughts? (ROTJ is better)
Return of the Jedi should be S tier, period, I will take no further arguments.
I like the m46 for the service in Korea and the chickenwire fence heat protection, the m47 for the futuristic design and cool turret, m48 for the service in Vietnam and heavy armor.
Thank you so much for the clear pronunciation. This is the first English channel that I can understand immediately without subtitles
remember that for most of their service history in US Army the M48, M47 and M46 are stuck with the dated APCR shell when they were supposed to face T-54s.
There’s not much info online but I’m pretty sure 90mm hvap could go through the t54 ufp
This was also a time where HEAT FS rounds where becoming much more prevalent and before any tank had access to protection from it. For all intensive purposes, APCR was kinda obsolete as a HEAT round could penetrate more armor at any range while APCR was more problematic at greater distances and armor angles.
@@milkbaologist5610 is not the hvap could go strait through the turret with no problems
@@Roof_Korean. Nor the WW2 era M304 nor the more modern M332 HVAP could go through 100mm/60° target at any distance.
@@peasant8246 What gun caliber?
I was only in the 48A5 and it was outstanding for its time. Fast, reliable, easy maintenance, and great optics.
I’m pretty lucky to have an M47 at the museum right outside of my town: the first time I saw it I had no clue what it was because I had only known of the M26, m48 and m60s, and the turret looks quite a bit different from them
Oof, must be rough
Good thing my local museum actually labeled the T26E4, or otherwise people would miss out on the tank
@@jevinliu4658 it was one of their outdoor exhibits, so it wasn’t labeled. I talked with one of the museum staff though and they were cool enough to talk about it with me 👍🏼
@@AlexNV75 Oh, rip. I don't think it should be too hard to add a weatherproof sign though.
@@jevinliu4658 ig there were a lot of circumstances 😅: I think it was in the process of being repainted, so idk if they took the sign down or not
0:32 - That picture actually shows a Marine Corps M60A1 RISE (P) with ERA during Exercise Solid Shield '89. Unless it was exported to another country, M60A3/M60A3 Passive or M60A3 TTS tanks in U.S. service have never been equipped with ERA in the field. Furthermore, the M60A1 and any other tanks in the Army at that time did not have ERA. Additionally, the visual differences are significant: the M60A3/M60A3 Passive or M60A3 TTS features a fibreglass thermal shroud as using M68E1 and a sensor mast for the new M21 fire control system located on the rear of the turret roof, which distinguishes it from the M60A1. so yeah, you picked the wrong pictures to show the M60A3.
Yep! The last photo was for M60A3 OR modernised variants of any M60, like Sabra/Magach/Samsam for example. Apologies if I didn’t make that as clear as I wanted!
@@RedWrenchFilms No worry and No problem, I'm just pointing out the little problem.
@@Mechanized85 And the M-60 was never called a "Patton" tank.
Maybe showing some love on Swedish tanks?
CV90!!!
I’m honestly super happy to see a video form you on the Patton family and would honestly love even more details about them if you had more to share.
About a week ago, before I saw this video, I went down the rabbit hole trying to figure out the Patton family lineage and design heritage, from the M46 being a new modernized version of the Pershing family, to the M47 being this strange vehicle with almost no immediate resemblance to the rest of the Patton family, to the M48 and M60 which are the tanks I think of when I hear the word “Patton,” the tanks that fought in Korea or Vietnam, all such vastly different tanks in so many ways, and yet all closely related as a direct family lineage of tank technology evolution.
Yours videos are fantastic, and even tho I have been a tank anthusiast for years, I still learn a lot with your videos.
I was a Tank Commander on a M47 way back in 1956-1957. Cal Nat Guard
The m47 is one of my favorite tanks
Is it true that it had a coaxial .50 cal?
Always loved the M48 Patton since I was younger due to it being the Tanks I got from those Army Men playsets.
M-48 one of the first models I made as a kid (we won't go into when that was).
Chieftain to Challenger when?
Can you make a video discussing the various Abrams variants and how to tell them apart like you did with the Soviet T-series MBTs?
You can watch RedEffect's video about it
Just because I can go somewhere else for something, doesn't mean that I don't want a video from Red Wrench on the topic.
yeaahh new Red Wrench vid!
it's a good day :)
Quite amazing how Cold War US tanks performed so great, their canon and armor mediocre, but their crew were well trained and the ergonomics were good.
m-47 pattons were considdered a stopgap measure, they were later sold or donated to US-allies, some of these remained in service
We belgians recieved alot of M47's and my grandfather heard good things about the tankers that he & their tanks transported on an antar tank transporter. The only issue early on was that the tracks tended to throw themself off in high speed turning. But german designed tracks fixed that
The Spanish Army obviously provided a bunch for the film debacle _The Battle Of The Bulge_ .
M4 Sherman’s are still used in less fortunate countries. Not the most capable medium unless they have their hands on a Sherman firefly that gun was devastating even for 75mm it hits like a 90mm
Love all the technical details you cover, as well as how the different vehicles are related. The Light Tank T37 looks interesting... Gaijin when?
Could you maybe do a video about the leopards including vehicles with leopard 1 chassis etc? No rush though , Love the vid btw
Kind of a bummer that you didn't mention how the M47 was the base template for Japan's first post war designed tank, the Type 61.
I have always been fascinated by the M26 to the M48 pattons. Are they the best tanks? No. But they were good solid beasts. Also if you ever wanna distinguish an M26 pershing from an M46 patton I, look at the rear drive sprocket. If their is a small wheel between the sprocket and the lower roadwheel, its an M46. thats the compensation idler wheel Red wrench was talking about.
Lovely Vid in my Opinion the M60 was the best
I will not take this M47 Slander lying down >: (
but seriously great vid as usual, the M47M (the version with the upgraded engine and many design elements from the M48's installed on them made mainly for export) is my all-time favorite American tank, there is something that just draws me to it, also all the weird foreign upgrades and "side-grades" that came about in the ensuing years also are interesting in their own ways, especially the Iranian ones like the Sabalan, and Tiam)
Very good review. Thanks.
That's a very interesting history. Thank you!
I really like the redesigned engine deck of the M48A2 onwards, it's a really good tank butt.
Rumor is the M60s are not called Pattons at all
Not a rumor
Not "officially", but... c'mon... it's a Patton. Everybody calls it a Patton.
@@xxfalconarasxx5659 Right? I know I did for the longest time
@@xxfalconarasxx5659 fr
My two favorite variants of the M48 are the Israeli Magach 6R and the German M48 super. Something about additional composite armour and ERA being strapped on an M48 makes it sexy and beautiful
It always seemed odd to me that all three models of tank had the Patton name. The M46 yeah and even the M47 since it was basically just an upgraded M46 okay. But the M48 was a completely different beast. Sure it originally shared components from the M47 but that wasn’t unheard of. It had a totally new turret and hull. I guess like the video said they just wanted the Patton name on a more impressive tank.
By the time of the a5 Patton, the m48 was a very good tank. Just a shame that version never saw combat at least with the US
15:22 This section of the trials course is always so enjoyable to watch, just like your videos :D
M48 was good at clearing roads of mines in Vietnam. Its boat-shaped hull gave good protection.
Absolutely loved this video, can’t wait for the follow up!
Agree.
Love using the Star War reference on the next video. And M48A3/A5 & M60A1/A3, love those tanks
My dad was on an M48 and then transferred to an M60, which he said was a soild enough tank for the Vietnam War
I like the cast turret of the M48. Beautifully round
The M48 was a really successful design👍🏻..with upgrades its still in service with a few nations despite its age
The w.o.t. video game Tank Tree has made it easier to understand and visualize the many different tank generations and prototypes. I don't play video games, but I do play world of tanks for the historic value.
If you don’t mind me asking: To start with, I love your presentation style and this is the type of content I’m trying to transition to. Where do you get your footage from and what software do you (or your editor) use to create the animations as seen on the engine layout and armor thickness explanations for example?
Biggest problem I have with this video is The Force Awakens being as high as it is on that list. Also, I have a certain fondness for Attack of the Clones that puts it higher than the bottom.
This is something I've been waiting for, ever since I found your channel and you started putting out these massive overviews of tank series. The Patton is a tank I saw in media for many years before even knowing what it was. Games like Army Men and Empire Earth used it as a default "tank" model more often than not, as it matches that stereotypical silhouette so perfectly in our minds. After all that, I never learned much about them. I knew they were Cold War era tanks, alongside the T-54, but aside from that I had nothing.
As it turns out, not that complicated. Just steps of varying distance from tanks I knew and loved, Sherman and Pershing. Still, I love getting the gritty details, learning the different variants, international developments, and modernizations made for each iteration.
Is this just reel engineering but as a different channel??
I.....have no idea.
I don't think no, I believe he once said he did this to train his editing and it kind of randomly worked, so I don't think they're the same person. I'm not the guy and I only speak from memory though
Most def not, found out reel engineering doesn't really know whats he's talking about, specially when it comes to military
Another great video ❤ cant wait for the rest of the series
Please make some more videos. These are great. I watched the whole video very informational and very entertaining. 😊
I don't know where I got it or where it's from but i had a 1:64 scale M48 with working road wheels and rubber tracks. Usually tanks that size had faux tracks and had hidden wheels under the hull. I wish I still had it because it got me into tanks and is an anomaly.
From my experience (m48) it needs the german 105 mm gun with apfsds to be good.
I would really like to see a video like this on all the American t series tanks, It's surprisingly difficult to find information on the t32s.
Tanks being compared to Star Wars movies, odd but I like it. Good job keep it up,
Quite interesting how the M48 Patton is still in service.
Thanks for doing my suggestion!
Swap Solo and Phantom menace and youve done a smashing job of that star wars ranking good sir. Good to see you addressing the important topics for your channel.
Oh and yeah your Patton content was "alright" ;)
@@4dlem0nhead Phantom Menace extremely underrated! Thanks as always 💕
@@RedWrenchFilms jar jar says you're wrong!
Idk about the M48, really all it had going for it was better armor (which at some angles was negotiable). For being the true next tank it wallowed in a lot of issues before it made a clear upgrade, that being the M48A2. In retrospect, I wonder if production of the M48 had been postponed for more testing and performance trials it could've entered with the A2's upgrades.
Meanwhile, the M47 just needed to lose the MG port and get its stereoscopic rangefinder sorted.
The Ford GAA aluminum V-8 was a development from the GAF V-12 that started as a fighter aero engine to compete with the Merlin. The Ford GAF was cheaper, easier to assemble and maintain. It was nothing like the Merlin other than displacement and conviguration. It had a single casting aluminum block and aluminum 4-valve hemi heads with four overhead cams all gear driven. The AAF did not want the GAF since they had all the Allisons they could use. There was a need for a better M-4 Sherman engine. Ford loped 4 cylinders off the GAF to make the GAA, best tank engine of WWII.
Dude, right now the US army is kind of making me nervous, the M10 Booker is likely gonna be 38 tons bare, and ~42-45 tons Heavy combat equipped with APS and add-on modular NERA as well as BRAT armor modules.
Yet, they have the same base engine as the UK's new 40mm SCOUT IFV rated at 800hp...
I forget exactly which engine, but supposedly it's getting a version using the same block rated to 1100hp which I think the UK are supposed to switch to as well as the M10, but it ain't even in production yet meanwhile GD and GDELS keep manufacturing both vehicles with the 800hp version installed in the roughly 45 ton vehicles...😅
800hp at 45tons or 17.7hp per ton is quite average. It's not great it's not bad it's ok.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the M26 to M60 series of tanks, but fair I guess
Revenge of the Sith should be bumped up one, but other than that your tier list is perfect 👌
I apriciate you work but i want the IS7 history
I may have missed, but Israel operated M48 Pattons, improved them and a 105mm gun. I assume they worked well as did the Israeli up gunned Centurion. So mediocre or not it worked.
Can you also do the video of panzer 4? I have a lot of problem identify the late war variant especially the H an J variant but also the very early variant as well.
Tbh, a thing that heavily plagued the Patton Family, isnt exactly something to do with the tanks or its designers, but was rarher the US being in a very poor spot economically during the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was a large reason why they stuck with the tried and true design plan of the M26 as the basis of the family, even up to the M60 as they simply couldnt afford to chase a design that offered improved protection, mobility, and firepower only to have it fail on every front.
I do think it bears mentioning the M4 lineage, as the T20 program is literally just an M4 form factor miniaturized.
18:55 I'm MrBeast and I'm donating 8500 M47s to countries in need!
First one not to touch a minor or harass a employee get 10000000$
@@Wafflewerfer-1stlol
Great coverage! I don't think you gave it a verdict though like your title suggests. I think it was magnificent success. The problem was as new fixes were found new problems arose that compromised the design. Technology just wasn't there for what they wanted to achieve, but it kept up through the years at a pretty steady pace.
Good thing it wasn't better because we would have made millions of them before it had matured thereby giving it a M47 problem. Once they saw they weren't sending tons of IS-3 or by that time T-10s to Asia, it was sufficient in its role.
The Sherman too was a stop gap in retrospect we see it as brilliant, same for these Pershings and Pattons as we learned #1 crews were way too vulnerable in Shermans. I am sure we used both material science and math to try to bring about a good balance and that is why it got so big. It needed better ground pressure. We wanted that torsion bar system and independent road wheels. We needed the 90MM to have a stable and strong platform. We needed a focus of turret armor with a big enough turret for crew operations. We wanted a V shaped hull in order to help mitigate heavy hull damage from mines.
Seems like those goals were met. Sure the HP/ton wasn't met but it was adequate. The things were largely troop support anyway, and breakthrough so they didn't have to be super fast. Or else they would have went the way of the T23. Albeit that did spawn what became the M47 Bulldog, another great platform and proof that these were excellent.
Guess you would need to compare to the T-55 and Centurion to see how successful it was? On a year to year basis? M47 shoring up Nato was a huge nod to that success indeed. Though in comparison to bests it doesn't seem like it.
Guess we might need videos on the Cents and t-54/55 how they compared for a better answer. T-55 is often noted first and foremost of the most produced, but not much is really said about its drawbacks. Which i am sure there were plenty.
Nice to use in warthunder at least🤷♂
Yeah, i feel like time treated the pattons better
Dunna, just got the pattons recently and enjoying them.
Still a pain to use on higher pattons. Other then that, nice tank to use in my lineup on all the patton BR
The M47 is honestly one of the single worst if not the worst tank not only at its BR but just to play in the game in general. It stinks- all around
Looking forward for Part 2 of the "Patton Series", especially the M-60 series.
So what I learned so far:
M-46 Patton 1 is just a "rebadged name" of an "upgraded later series" M-26 Pershing
meanwhile the M-47 Patton 2 seems to be a "bigger version" of the M-41 Walker Bulldog
Nothing special about the M-46 & the M-47 & struggled to compete against the Soviet's T-34, T-44, & T-55
Meanwhile the M-48 Patton 3. Now that's a "Real Patton" completely different than the M-46 & M-47.
M-48 & M-60 are the glory of the Patton Series, but these are the "later models" of the Patton Series.
Unfortunately, the earlier models of the Patton Series like the M-46 & M-47, they're not that glorifying compared to the later models...
The Patton series is the pimp my ride of early cold war tanks
It would be nice if you could include effective armor thickness (i.e. using nominal thickness and slope to calculate effective) as you layout the armor schemes for each vehicle.
I mostly agree with your Star Wars tier list, but I’d bump episode 2 up a tier and episode 7 down
I assume the clone wars are with those two prequel movies because there is no F tier for the sequels.
Also, cool vid.
Appreciated the Robots reference :D
I have a question that is not covered about tanks.
Why have we not kept the Stroboscopic Cupolas that the French implemented post WW1? I would love to see a video made about this and the reason it was abandoned before the outbreak of WW2?
Notable tanks that I could think of were the Char C and the FT tanks
@@XSaintsofDoomX While cool, they were just complicated and expensive. They required an electric motor to operate them, the bearings would be very noisy if not regularly maintained/replaced, any warping of the metal would cause them to stop working, and the image they provide would be inferior to that of a simple periscope. A couple of glass periscopes did the job just as well for much less effort!
The M47 is like the KFC of tank. Its presence in the US is blurred and rare to see, but it's a huge boom for the other countries.
M47 is the best looking US tank from the cold war.
Could you do a dive into the more controversial vehicles? recently ive seen videos on the t-34 ,panther series and tiger 2 that show they weren't as as deserving of their praise, and i want finally see an end to the discussion
“Who was tragically forcefully removed from the conversation due to his outspoken attitude towards the Soviets”
There, fixed.
That reporter/photographer was almost removed at 13:23.
The Patton family was better than the Sherman family before it, but was neither magnificent nor mediocre.
18:08 I noticed the M48A1 had an external handset box located at the rear but the T48E2 does not show the external handset.
Does anyone know what tank was the last to have external handsets? I believe it was the M60A3 TTS was the last to have one.
With radios being more widely available and smaller I could see why there wouldn’t be a need to install them on newer tanks
Those armour angles, are they internal or external angle? from horizon ?
Thanks very much. Very comprehensive explanations.
Upvote just for my own Star Wars Tier List in the video.
10:27 That's incorrect. What you described here is the function of a coincidence rangefinder, not a stereoscopic one.
A stereoscopic rangefinder has its operator seeing a 3D image, and it ranges by adjusting the depth of the ranging reticle until it matches the depth of the target.
The real content is at 0:53 .
And I 100% agree with the ratings!
RAHH I ASKED FOR THIS RAHHH
The Patton tanks were often the templates for multiple tank toys I had as a kid. Therefore, I say magnificent.
I cannot be swayed by any other argument.
what's the music around 16:36?
Ww2 movie call Tanks are Coming at was about M26 working M4 . Tank company with 3rd Army (Gen Pattons)
10:58 Nice "King Tiger" reference!! 😂
you better make a video on the continuing trilogy
I always wondered why they use plastic (or dust cover) in the area on the turret where the gun and coaxial machine gun placed?
OMG YES I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS!!! Tysm
I went to school in 1983 with a man who had been a tank unit commander in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion. I asked him what he thought of the M60, and he answered with two words: "they burn".
There was a time when the M60 was one of the Soviets' most feared tanks, but then they adapted their way out of the problem. Not sure how well this applies to the conflicts in Lebanon, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
th-cam.com/video/eLw_UdCLMEc/w-d-xo.html