Chieftain's Q&A #10

greetings all and here we are a near quarantine as you can imagine my trip to Brazil was canceled I've shifted the flight right two months to mid-may hopefully things will be a little bit back under control by then and from my calculations I have enough vehicles recorded from Sweden that I can release at least the last us through to the end of May which may well bring things to a screeching halt for a month afterwards because to my knowledge I'm still gone from my sejoon we will see also Leif hellström has decided to send me a coat of arms and this works fun because my logo up until now it's basically being a photo of myself taken over 15 years ago and all the cool channels have logos so it's all good hopefully I'll see if I can start doing is a merchandising with it anyway to the questions as ever priority is given to the patrons with the occasional assorted additional one day from here and there usually of the YouTube comments starting with Charles Chirac besides the laughable early us attempts at stopping Armour with anti-tank rocks and rifles in the tracks did any other nations have pre-war infantry versus armored tactics which are equally ineffective for those who are unaware Charles is referring to an article I wrote some time ago in which the US Army suffering a dearth of official anti-tank equipment conducted experiments to disable enemy tanks there's a link to the article in a text description beneath this video if you will recall the video I did on the m5 light that particular tank had the Lightning holes in the road wheels welded over because of the Japanese tendency to shove large pieces of wood or iron bars into them thus immobilizing the vehicle so obviously the Japanese had a similar option of desperation of course they're also quite happy to use satchel charges with lunch mines or just digging a big hole and getting the tank to fall into it a tank trap basically while I'm linking to old articles there's a second link below to a proposed tank destroyer from a Colonel Derby which involved fitting to 5-inch steam pipes to a jeep and turning into a recoilless rifle launcher a more reasonable option was grenadier tank destroyer battalion which basically involved a battalion guys racing around in jeeps with rifle grenades and of course there is a story from Ethiopia as to how the natives would stop CB 33 sides and then use Spears to tip the vehicles over and the Molotov cocktail of course is also a very famous desperate measure but a copy is said to have been ineffective once the weapon had been delivered however since I have not really dug into other countries archives I have not really found much which was tried and then rejected similar to the u.s. ones they've listed above however for mirth and merriment go watch the Dad's Army episode where they test and the great panjandrum I'm sure the Home Guard came up lots of other bizarre things the panjandrum is just the most famous if you guys have examples and I'm not convinced by the anti-tank mine dog story by the way go ahead and send them in to me trace walls wants to know which gun had better performance penetration and accuracy the American 75 76 British 17 pounder or German 75 difficult to say now we know that the American 75 isn't in the running the u.s. 76 is more accurate than the 17 pounder but not as powerful the German 75 was plenty powerful at least the Panther 1 and I've heard nothing bad about its accuracy but neither have I ever seen anywhere a side-by-side test however I think there's a dark horse in that race and that's the d-10 100 millimeter rifle that the Soviets came out with it was plunked into su-100 about the same time as Firefly was created so it's a little bit more recent than the 79 or 76 millimeter but it was a stupidly good gun of sufficient accuracy and power that it is still in widespread service today and you can't say that about any of the others really so point to the Soviets mechanical adept conventional wisdom is that rifling allows for greater accuracy what is the reason that most tank guns have gone to smoothbore conventional wisdom is still correct you all note that example everything except the tank still fires saber rounds from a rifle tube or such as Bradley cv90 ifes and the likes however in search of the almighty penetration and the almighty dollar smooth boards are ruling the tank roost with a rifled barrel that will always be some loss of potential power which reduces the effectiveness of the round if the driving band of the projectile is not fully seal against the grooves some of the propellant gas will escape beyond the projectile and exit the gun first on the other hand the more the driving band or obtaining ring into meshes with the rifling the more friction is created and the projectile is resisting being forced down the barrel so instead of being used to increase velocity a part of the force is not just being used to keep the the round moving further all of our friction causes wear and tear on the lands reducing their life time faster than what is smoothbore then when the wear gets too much is fairly easy and cheap to make an install replacement smoothbore liner to the barrel then a rifled one so all in all you hit harder with a smoothbore but if lost speed isn't your objective there is still advantages to the rifle Commissar Carl when did the US Army learn about apds rounds and was there any development of them the US Army famously implemented a full bore round with a sub caliber head penetrator the H wraparound to achieve its velocity requirements the British took up SVD s super velocity discarding Sabo but the u.s. did experiment would say but before that possibly as early as 1933 but certainly by November of 1942 test-firing of us developed shot was being conducted at the University in New Mexico by February of 1943 the University was directed specifically to create a saber round for the m3 75 millimeter gun of the Sherman lots of folks know that the H wraparound was creative 75 but not issued even I only discovered the Sabre round and the one for the 76 millimeter gun when researching this question they were directed to use the 57-millimeter a PC ran m86 and it was tested in Aberdeen July 43 found to be of about 40% greater dispersion and then the m61 round was hitting about 20% harder infantry branch wanted a say before the 105 millimeter howitzer m3 and they wanted two types of projectile one a chi and one armor-piercing the former presumably for bunker or fortification duty they technically worked but infantry branch rejected them because he was simply unusable due to loading and recoil issues of most interest perhaps would be the sabre projectiles for the 76 millimeter gun m1a2 by this point both university New Mexico and the Remington Arms Company were in on the sable program and each had their own little projects a note it was the m1a2 it was considered that given the results of earlier testing the one in forty twist rate of the earlier 76 millimeter guns would be inadequate for proper saber and usage the one in 32 for the m1a2 whoever showed promise and basically comes down to the ability of the say bow to impart to spin upon the sub caliber projectile 132 is also the same twist rate for the 90 millimeter gun the problem was that both guns had muzzle brakes and this was a problem that they had to solve the saber which was created from 76 was a t 23 series t32 and t-38 were for the 90 millimeter it proved easily capable of punching through six inches sloped to 20 degrees even after dropping to 2,800 feet per second from the muzzle velocity of 3600 at 2 kilometers the round would still go through four inches sloped at thirty degrees these weren't testing by late July of 1944 but tweets were still being made as late as September now this is the 76 round by the way the problem or the reason wasn't accepted for service appears to be of multiple factors firstly because he projectile could only be fired from the m1a2 gun which was a serious problem given most of the vehicles in service who using the m1 a1 or the three-inch m7 the H wraparound worked everywhere secondly the Sailor suffered a dramatic decrease in performance if you were coming out of a warm gun again because of the spin imparting so with a good enough hate wraparound that was basically at the end of that for the Sabo now he also had a secondary question about the assessment of the 57-millimeter gun m1 being pretty miserable but the British six pounder is looked favorably he believes this is down to the British girl and having superior ammunition this question is why did the US stick with its own ammo instead of proving using the proven British one I don't know if I'd agree that the modern assessment was that the 57-millimeter was miserable it was certainly not considered a Wonder weapon by tank destroyer branch or armored force that they had initially been that the believer was but generally it seems to be one enough regarded by the anti-tank units it's a good compromise of size and capability beyond that however I have to say I've not specifically seen anything definitive in the archives I have noted some reference to a compromise the characteristics though between the British and American rounds the British ap round was the same as USM 70 the APC the British room is considered to have better armor penetration at short range but due to its shape a lost momentum quickly giving longer-ranged issues and the APC BC men didn't have a bursting charge which the u.s. still was very much in favor of so it seems that the design compromise was between raw penetrating power and after armor effects and certainly not the only time when World War two that this decision had to be made Alexander H can i elaborate on the custom 1911 that my unit got what model is it and what features does it have you're the Cena in the tank equipment video alright since it's been asked before I guess it's gonna be the start of a new monthly feature gun over the month and this isn't gonna last a year my cash isn't that large and by the way a reminder that if anybody ever uses the term an arsenal of guns slap them last year specifically referring to a place which manufactures them so in a very thoughtful move the unit for my second deployment made arrangements to have set a commemorative pistols created for all those to which to purchase one and so I bought in unfortunately since I lived in California at the time the pistol was not legal for sale in California because it does not unapproved color and it is engraved so as a result I couldn't take delivery of it for over a year until some legal hoop jumping needed to be worked out for those of you who are ignorant of California firearms laws just believe me many of them are blocked the idiotic anyway enough politics the pistol is a para u X a pxt 1445 now I am on record as not being a fan of 1911 so much to the disgust of many who watch forgotten weapons that's not to say that I can't appreciate in mind and there's really nothing wrong with this as a recreational sidearm unlike the traditional 1911 it is a double stack so you're carrying 14 rounds plus one in the tube unless you have it in California in which case died I had to buy 10 round magazines that of course salts one of the major problems of the 45 now of course he can carry a lot more nine-millimeter in the same size grip but still 15 rounds of point 45 a sufficient amount of fu for most situations either way whilst I accept that para are considered by some to be a profane ER of the Lord's gun by mucking with it and fitting more rounds in the holy number of seven I'm quite happy with the move features but let's go in here pull trigger bullets come out there that's about the extent of my knowledge of the thing being a large single action like the original 1911 this is Tamiya range Queen and not something I would routinely carry even if it weren't a commemorative pistol if you're gonna carry a chambered the Hammers back and the Safety's on and this would be less of an issue as a tankers of sidearm goes quick draws and so on aren't really an issue now that said para have done a very good job on this pistol a lot of military experience with the US Army's m1911s is where clapped-out pistols that will rattle when you shake them due to hell warned they are this will no it's a joy to shoot and I know Kimber is supposed to be like to be all and end all of 1911's but this is plenty lovely enough for me and it's got a lovely smooth short trigger and works flawlessly better yep the bullets seem to go more or less where I mean them do downside the recoil spring is such the my wife amongst others has some difficulty in charging it if I have a major complaint about this pistol its maintenance and I make the same complaint by German tanks and this one is as bad why is it so damn complicated to take apart compared to any other pistol I mean I don't need a tool to disassemble most anything else but you need a wrench for this one and I have many words I can say about getting the bloody barrel bushing back on again I am most pleased that firearms design has developed so as not to utilize them anymore and the sealing of my old house has a number of dents created in it from the flying spring cap going up at high warp factors markings well they put the eleventh of AC arm and seeing it on one side which was the Apache would wear and TF wild horse was the name of the task force wild horse being be the call sign for the CAV squadron Operation Enduring Freedom oh nine to ten and on the flip side the distinctive unit crest for the first of the two twenty first cavalry so there you go power ordnance a Perry USA so you moved enough of that back to the tanks Admiral Tiberius as an armoured officer what did the movie fury get right before filming was started the director air sent me a copy of the script for a review for accuracy and I responded that I felt that I was not the first tanker to go over it and sure enough I wasn't however they the chap that they had before whilst a historian and an armor officer was more of a strategic history guy focusing on the Eastern Front than a tactical level chap like myself and no it wasn't glance if that's what you're thinking he was an artillery man anyway err like the changes sufficiently that he invited me to Pinewood Studios for a chat and it was very enlightening before I left I was having a chat with an acquaintance from the Littlefield museum who put Air Arm to me and that acquaintance had been a local law enforcement in California and he was very vocal that air had nailed it with end of watch basically he got it and I think he got it right in fury as well it's very easy to point fingers at the movie and express complaints by inaccuracy some of these issues are brought up there specifically indeed are gum as Forrest has suggested fury ought to be a 75 millimeter tank as a lot of the things would make more sense in such a case down to say white phosphorus not being available at the time for the 76 through the engagement with the tiger being a tad more reasonable however that wasn't his intent he wasn't making in the movie about a tank despite the name he was making a movie by tankers and I've not yet met a tanker who doesn't relate to it so that's seen whether all blazing away in the field with every gun going on that's kind of why I became a tanker now if he could make a historical change in the movie without cost as it were then he did if not well the story had to take precedence now of course only myself and the writing team and anybody also saw the script know the full story of all the changes which were accepted and which worked as far as I know I'm still under an NDA on that so I can't tell you his office was filled with reference books and photographs and basically everything in the movie from the logs in the side to the crewmen wearing the top hat were all referenced in commentation even the fight at the end improbable that it was and I still don't know why didn't use the panzerfausts can at least you have a link drawn to Audie Murphy's stand on it disable them Tim so what he was trying to do was he was trying to get across to the audience within a limit of about two hours in the budget to include also access to only certain types of tank the sorts of experiences that a US tanker could have in World War two no crewmen had everything in the movie happened to them but pretty much everything in a movie happened to an actual crewman at some point in the war and tying all that together was the relationship between the family of six well five and norm a tank who really is tight forged under the fires of battle and the tank is your home so to answer the question he got the essence of tanking right the historical errors I can forgive them shame that they they rejected my suggestion of a track tensioning scene however so well maybe next time there was a follow-on question from Jason Fox how would the fight scene have gone had they been more historically accurate well with the infantry support fight I'm not sure why the whole platoon crossed over online the field seemed small enough that they could have done a bounding overwatch with memmio maybe two stationary tanks at one end of the field providing accurate fires for the other three as they advanced against the tiger while the difference was in the 76 millimeter guns now the use of smoke to gain time to think was spot-on and the manual did say that if you are out ranged by enemy anti-tank guns charge however I'd be fairly sure that the two 76s could have just stayed in place and nailed a tiger that way and meaning what a character of war daddy's type not have somehow figured out how to finagle a H for a parameter to buy their minion wants to know what's the chances of my covering some of the less well-known conflicts such as India Pakistan or Ogaden and probably slim as I tend to focus more on the the side of things and operational and indeed though I wouldn't mind mucking around in say a veggie anta or somesuch it doesn't seem very likely I'll get the opportunity to do so anytime soon further I don't currently have very much by way of reference material on the matter either he also wants to know what chance I'll return to the aaam and Karen's cans however the others pronounce it I would think excellent Rob's been buying tanks left right and centre of late and the collection has to my knowledge all but doubled since the last time I was there about two and a half years ago plus they are very friendly Robert Henry Olsen wants me to go over all the various types of tank ammunition on what they do and I'm gonna reserve that for a future video on the topic I think as a side note you'll note I'm starting to come up with a bit of a list of videos which I'm reserving for the future and right now my priority is editing filmed vehicles between that our day job my army job and occasionally hanging out with the family I have to push some things back same also with these witch ology videos and again if you are a tanker for one of the vehicles that I mentioned shoot me a note just I get the next witch ology videos correct DN Sheep wants a good tanker shenanigans story I'm sure we have plenty but I don't know if they strike me as being particularly remarkable I shall however relate to you the story of the fundus nope where gage to which I was a present witness to the escapades very poor unfortunate branch detailed military intelligent lieutenant I shall name him Jensen had to protect the innocent so we are in the ten-day war at the end of tank school lieutenants and we're having a maintenance stand down day and the tank in front of me one of the one of the lieutenant's was a prior prior enlisted tanker Naima Blaine they actually happened to be in my unit and with him on the crew was branched EMI and what a branch detail is it it gives military intelligence officers a couple of years in company grade level on the ground just so that they can learn what's really happening on the ground before they go off into their their isolated towers of intelligence dump so they go to tank school and then after a couple of years when they go to the captain's course and they convert over the ami properly and as I say they're doing they're they're doing the maintenance and Jensen mainly the helpful sort of chappie is hey Blaine yes Jensen hey I need what do you want me to do now I've kind of done the track tension oh great tell you what here's a hammer go check for the soft spots in the armor Roger okay twenty minutes later hey blade yes Jensen I haven't found any soft spots you know what a surprise what do you want me to do now well we've been bashing through a lot of bushes and trees and so on so I'm a little worried about the the way I'm on the front slope of the tank so go ahead check it out with the phone so we're gage Roger and up guys Jensen up the top of the turret looking up opening up the sponson boxes looking for the front so we're gage after a minute or two he calls back down realizing he doesn't actually know what what he's looking for Blane yes Jensen what the folks that we're gage looked like I don't it's a little black box about yea big or little orange needle in it couple minutes later Lane yes I I can't find one well there's only issued one purple attune we don't use them all that much so maybe one of the other tanks has it Roger starts hopping tank to tank the tank some of us get it some of us don't none of us say anything we think that's it about four days later were turning in all the equipment and you do what's called a bilayer VIII layout where you basically take every tool that was issued to you with the tank and you lay it out in front of the tank and somebody will say hold up socket three-quarter inch and you hold up the socket three-quarter inch then you put it in the bag basically make sure everybody's got everything and yet to the sides this is a great timing to find that fun stuff we're gage he starts going around looking from it doesn't just stay in our platoon because around the whole gang company then starts asking the cavalry again most of us have figured it out by now nobody says anything we think that's the end of it a week later were graduating tank school and we're all in the Patton museum back in Fort Knox and our dress greens waiting to cross the stage and you know a couple of final words being given out by the the Cobra Commander and okay so don't forget when you're done here yes you got your certificate but you got to get your 10:59 otherwise you will never hear and the 10:59 is the form that you get at the end of any school that says you know you were here this is the official a unit item of record and this is what you scored and so on and so don't forget comebacks pick up your 10:59 and Jensen you need to sign a statement of charges for the offense that word gage and he just got white but look everybody knows he took responsibility for this thing and it's an expensive piece of equipment but Jensen there's no such thing as a front slope where gage anyway one of the tanker shenanigans stories so to say some of the names had me chained bullying actually is Blaine he don't know if he's still in around I think he transferred over to logistics if I recall but yeah good guy right back to more questions Jason Fox believes that the turret monster may be easily defeated by completely enclosing the turret basket that way nothing can get in between and the hole where the monster resides the monster laughs at your feeble attempt at warding him and that you think you have been the first come up with such a solution okay if you look back at some of the earliest full platformer turret baskets you'll see that they're basically a floor plate hanging from a couple of struts in the turret however it was quickly noticed that it will be incredible very simple for somebody who had rested his foot or anything else for just matter just to see the foot slip off the edge of the platform because of a bump or you know wet shoes from rain or whatever the mediate response to us was to attach a sheet metal lip maybe two to four inches high around the outside to eliminate such simple thought hole interactions not all vehicles did that though I have a definite recollection of a t-55 with no such lip but the whole floor was flush with the rubber-coated basket floor so it wasn't all that horrible however outside of that Kay would still need to be taken in order to avoid anything get caught between the lip and Turing and there was very little which could be done about that at least until after the war now I think Jackson and focusing on my comments about being able to see where the turd is by simply glancing at the hole has missed a more important reason that the the basket remain partially open generally speaking most ammunition at the time was stowed in the hull famously in the sponsons vehicles like Sherman or tiger and indeed in some vehicles like Panther there was no - ready rack at all in order to obtain the ammunition there was no choice but to leave space open between the turret basket floor so that the loader could easily access two rounds as long as the turret was positioned close enough for him to grab as a result was some tanks would move to having a fully throw his basket on the commander's in Gunners side the loader by necessity needed to remain open however in order to see what was going on outside the basket that shielding could just be a mesh and indeed that's typical for most American tanks although I do note that the Bradley has its turret completely shielded from the hole these meshes are usually panels which can be detachable and normally without too much trouble and indeed I have seen more than one which managed to come loose at an inopportune time and then became victims of the term monster itself on the logo side once you have a reasonable ready rack of ammunition stowed in turret itself there is less need to leave the basket open and there were a couple of solutions which can be present such as a swing door in the basket of the air one or the netting that you would have seen in the past or sixty one video used either for accessing the drivers position maintenance components of the hole or just the hole stowed ammunition of course even that doesn't provide ultimate protection from the term monster there is still a couple of ways and he can get yet one is by chewing up something in the area of the gunman where by necessity there is no turret basket shield in order to let the gun go up and down or the turret monster may decide to use the gun itself as the instrument of its destruction perhaps you know crushing something between the breech and the roof for the carriage in the Gunners field finally the monster may simply decide to be irritating and just take a pan or an ear bullet or some other thing which is small enough to fall down to the third floor and then bounce around a bit in a hole to the sub turret floor or between the gaps of the shielding where you'll never see it again the turret monster will always find a way now he decided to throw a second question at me regarding Sherman's we know that the Sherman had a higher Hall because of the radial engine would you acquired a bit of space under the turret basket for the prop chef but when the u.s. shut down production of the radial on multi-bank why not redesign the m4 to be lower and indeed a might have been possible to reduce the overall height at the m4 hole even with the radio still in production the m18 demonstrates how this was done by use of a transfer box which basically stepped down the output so that the prop shaft was parallel to the hole just above the floor now there are two answers to this the first is obvious it just wasn't worth the bother they had a vehicle for which the factories were well tooled and producing and they had one that the ergonomics were known to work with stowage that was ample when they changed the whole design to large hatch holes for simpler manufacturer they increased the internal volume of the hole not reduce it so there is no cost to a known working system and it's not as if they didn't put that extra space you could use with sufficient room under the turret in the wet stowage vehicles for the ammunition which would not have been possible with an M 18 type system in the lower turret the second reason was T 22 this set out to be basically a low profile tank using the innards of the m4a3 pretty similar to your pasta nation now perhaps ordnance talking a bit too far by making it a rear drive vehicle but the bottom line was by the time they got around to really getting the thing to work there were already new or shinier things to distract them I knew Sebastian wants to know why we've gone away from white tank magnets mainly because they're not necessary anymore now of course if we look at the front of almost any tank from World War two you'll see that the mount that basically covers the entirety of the front of the church left to right and everything is mounted to this mantlet the optics the cannon the coaxial machinegun or guns but if you look at a modern tank like the Abrams you'll see it's a lot narrower well kind of there is still a minimum distance that it's required in order for a cannon and a machine gun to exist side by side the m1 has a small amount that the knepper too but you'll note that the uptick in the machine gun are on the same side on the Abrams but on opposite sides on the lip left now bear in mind leopards turret is huge compared to a Sherman and you may just be getting a bit of an optical illusion a further narrowing is caused by the use of articulation so for the sake of simplicity and reliability pretty much all coaxial optics in World War two were straight runs but the m1 has a kink in it the eyepiece in the machine gun are basically side by side in the interior of the tank but one above the other in the mount life save the wave on the other hand if you look at the leopard to mount though which has the optic and machine gun on opposite sides I'll actually be kind of surprised if it's not far off the width of a Sherman's mantlet there are a couple of other reasons as well so for example when Sherman was being built it was deliberately designed to be modular by installing a map let mount anything from the 75 to 105 could be basically plug-and-play as a work and this necessitated that the front of the turret basically be predominantly opened to fit everything alternatively if we look at the way the German tank turrets were welded out of their pieces it was easier and lighter to create a good solid mantlet to cover most of the front of the turret then to try to create sort of a half with a thing of equal strength of course the other possibility is that you observes is to simply cut a slot in the front armor and this is particularly noticeable on tanks like T 60 to achieve done and don't forget also that the amount that affects the balance of the gun on the one hand a bigger amount that means more tonnage that needs to be moved by the elevation or stabilization systems on the other hand expect the balance to be affected by having too much or too little weight in the wrong place compared to the trunnion making it harder for the system to elevate or stabilize james Morgan no I have still not acquired an m3 Scout car please donate by a patreon subscribe star or PayPal to contribute to the chieftain Scout car fund although I'll probably still get him one five one first honestly he also wants to know what's my favorite thing I found in the archives well the anti-tank Rock mentioned earlier does seem to have been a popular one as are some of the oddities I've seen like a device for overtaking in the UK with a left hand drive car the rotor trailer and its lineage or even the idea of giving m24 city airborne troops which when it was discovered that didn't fit in the transport aircraft got somebody took a measuring tape they just took a famous Soviet idea I wasn't amused when I found all the HL yo drawings in the classified section of the archives I had to file a Freedom of Information request before I could scan them even though the images were already published at Honeycutt what I really like though was finding things that I don't seem to call anybody even knew existed to ask for in the first place such as the testing or the automatic 37 millimeter gun T 16 which they still can do an m5 light or the documents in which the Ordnance Department decided to give nicknames to vehicles and weapons they never made it into the official nomenclature but they do prove the source of the various names like Jackson Scott or Pershing by which we have come to associate the vehicles still haven't found any joy in Wolverine though only one handwritten note from Aberdeen in 1949 Stafford Magnus has a question I've been asked many times will there ever be another operation think tank and I would like to say it's not unlikely possibility now on a purely monetary basis a think tank was a failure just look what the hick counters are now even today years after the fact almost all of the episodes are under 50,000 views now I think it's one of the best tank related things on the internet but obviously the internet doesn't believe so now imagine the cost of flying all these folks together putting them up for a few days or anything at the location and all that just so we can get a World of Tanks logo in front of your eyeball no bar on the screen that is not a great dollar to eyeball ratio here so as a purely business venture it makes absolutely no sense which is we do the main reason we've not done it again and that's why I've been commenting on the wargaming funded videos recently about associating those inside the hatch videos to players else the wargaming footed inside the hatch goes the same way after what what game is a gaming company that's how they make their money they're not I had to make videos just for the sake of enjoyment fortunately as you gather from the Sweden trip you patrons have allowed me to go independently a bit so there will always be something coming out as long as museums continue to welcome me and my camera now all that aside we now have a precedent everybody who took Barre enjoyed it and for the 30,000 or so view unique visitors who have actually watched it which I will note is likely going to be lower than the amount of people watching this QA based on past numbers I am sure that we all agree that was actually quite a good product but we probably need to make this an ancillary event to something like for example a tank fest type event and to make it a self completing item not an advertisement for World of Tanks and maybe next time one won't be a technical Q&A session perhaps well focus more on operational histories and get different historians however all of the above said at this time the bottom line is that there is no such Museum or event which has indicated a willingness to host it and cover the expenses I think in time we'll get there but that time is not this year or likely next year Connor dot Minh has any tanker lingo made it into everyday speech such as nautical sign has done and I can't specifically think of any tankers in the US at least still use horse cavalry lingo varying from you refer to your mount or you know a beer session for the unit is called a stable call the closest I can think of is the term pop smoke meaning to get the hell out of wherever you are but though that is very obviously something that tanks will do it the push of a button I'm not entirely sure if it originated with them or with infantry which also have smoke grenades of their own that they can throw so if anybody can think of any tanker lingo in common use please feel free to comment below and I'll make a mention of it in next month's video Adam Schindler is there a difference between damaged tank and scrap for those of us who aren't familiar with tanks any damage to Kubota tank out of action seems catastrophic but field workshops are seen to have made many miracles routine have the complexity of modern tanks changed things okay there are various different levels of kill you can have a mobility kill the tanks have that track blown off or the engines hit or whatever you can have a mission kill maybe the guns hose or the turret is jammed not that improve might not elect to continue with the machine guns only of course there's a cake kill what you really is a tank it's completely knocked out by the fight maybe the crew of all become casualties or there's a significant hardware failure and there is a catastrophic kill which usually involves very pretty pyrotechnics pretty much anything except the catastrophic kill can be repaired if the tank catches fire not only will everything inside and often outside melt and need a complete replacement of an empty hull but the heat of the fire may also affect the metallurgical integrity of the armor so it's one of two reasons that especially in World War two folks would shoot at tanks until they burned which rather artificially inflates the burn rates the other is that flames are usually the only obvious indicator that you've actually knocked out a tank so as I say you shoot it until the catches fire or changes shape if the crew were killed patch up the hole clean out the bodies reissue if there's something actually broken with the tank almost anything can be changed out ran through the transmission change transmission gun took a direct hit on both the map removed the gun replace hydraulics failed due to a leak repair the leak refill the fluid and so on the real question isn't whether or not the tank is repairable the question is whether or not it's worth the man-hours spent to repair it now if a tank today can't be fixed within 24 hours is usually sent up the line to a higher level and a replacement tank acquired that higher level may decide to repair it cannibalize it for spares or controlled substitution or send it further up the line in a situation like today where the US has so many abrams and storage it may well prove cheaper in the case of some significant damage to simply rebuild a store day one instead of repairing a damaged one Kazuki K has a primarily us-based researcher what sources have I regarding Chinese tank development seems pretty obscure I have none honestly it's astonishing what you can find if it grows what the national ground Intelligence Center has but it's all classified so we can use it there is a little unclassified stuff that the u.s. government has but not a hell of a lot otherwise I simply have not purchased anything on the subject there are also some sources that wargaming has which be made available on the company's internal web site but again much of it is unsourced and some of it is just scans of magazines and the likes when I divert my attention attorneys vehicles I'll do more shopping for reference materials and as has become his or her want a second question from he were there field modifications done to tanks for urban combat for battles such as way none that I can think of and he or she is talking Vietnam here there are a couple of famous enough photos as such as the m48 with parasol and twin mgs or another with a ridiculous amount of sandbags but look at the vast majority of pictures from Vietnam the tanks remain stock if you look at the modifications of the Sherman and m113 from the period you will see gun shields mounted and you know say a similar manner to tusk today so you would have thought that the ability to fire from behind cover would be important yet there were quite a few photographs of m48 with either the 50 Cal removed from the cupola mount and put up top in a Flex meant for the TC to rapidly shoot or simply sticking another machine gun on top of the whole lot bear in mind the cupola 50 was not designed for close-in snap shooting otherwise nothing unusual seems to be routinely done Kaleb Englehart had the shower to see being produced during World War one do I think would have had much of an impact well it certainly would have shocked the Germans as it used Mercedes engines which they later swapped out from my backs yeah we tend to think of the to see as a late into war tank given that they were still on active service when world war ii started but for the french that is hardly surprised after all they said a couple of thousand FTS on hand the to see was a 1918 design which was delivered in 1921 and as designs went it was an entirely horrible for a 1921 tank you have a three-man turret with a basket and no four armor to actually take a couple hits and it was intended to be able to cross a four-metre trench so in this basically years you can call it a tog two decades before tog showed up also this was not FCMs first design of the type the first one the FCM a of 1916 never made it into steel but the FCM won a did built in 1917 there in 1917 35 millimeters of armor 40 tons and over 8 metres long it had a 105 millimeter gun turret although they decided that if they were going to produce in mass it would be 75 millimeter the problems were that it really wanted to go only in a straight line and it was not capable of a great turn or speed six kilometers an hour on the other hand it wasn't too much slower than a lot of other vehicles at the time the lessons learned what that tank would then put into the to see as such it would apparently have achieved all the technical specifications required of it it was tough it was capable of taking the punishment of the Western Front dishing it out as well by and large and of crossing the obstacles and trenches as a breakthrough or fortress tank no arguments of course it didn't cost by twenty times the cost of an F T and it can be argued as to whether you want one to C or two companies of F T's and being very long and thin to fit the rail gauge it could basically only drive in a straight line so just pointed towards Berlin and said cruise control of course it was overtaken by events and took no notable part of World War two by which point it was nearly two decades old where I had W inquires what was the rationale behind using a radial engine in the Sherman and Stuart what advantages does a radial engine have in a tank the main advantage was that it was available the 1930s were some pretty lean years and the attention was going on aviation engines designed for tanks seemed not alway important especially given how few tanks the army was buying anyway however aircraft engines hadn't be fairly reliable fairly powerful and fairly lightweight as a result they actually did fit most of the requirements for a tank the one which they did not fit was that of compactness and also the army always knew that there will be a ruin on aircraft engines in the event of a new war so they always didn't kind of keep a hand in with developments but as ever it's why they did m4 had the design it had not just to take the Continental but every other engine type the army thought it might have to shove in there to make up the numbers so the radials weren't specifically chosen as being good for tanks but for being the next best thing that they could get there hands-on sort of similar to the British problem except the British for whatever reason seemed to go with bus engines or warmed-over World War one designs SEO 896 how effective is modern-day self-propelled artillery in combat a bit of an hour question it's still the king of battle and a force multiplier without which an army is a quite a disadvantage come back to that minor point later in the Q&A I have any pass-qa express an opinion as to why artillery probably scares me as a tanker more than they'll miss anything else out there if you're a rifleman for example you know I have multiple rounds on target at once from a single tube and of course self-propelled has the advantage being able to set up at a random location fire a few rounds and then evade retribution the only downsides of SP artillery compared to toad or the fact that it's a bit heavy to fly around much and they are much easier to find because of their much larger signatures they are not small vehicles this panther how bitsa the Revell cave curious is the same scale as the m60 next to it which is Tamiya Christopher le a sorry I forgot that wrong the leopard one at the end of the Battle Royale and the keno last year through a track it wasn't maneuvering particularly hard or on rough ground what happened true it was not an afraid mr. start the first time I seen a track thrown a light manoeuvre on a public display there's a video on YouTube of an m1 throwing a track in Washington at tankfest Northwest now I was hanging out with a bunch of retired tankers they're making smartass comments from the peanut gallery which was actually quite a bit of fun again I'll look for the link and if I find out put in the text below in both cases the problem it's neither manoeuvre nor terrain but more likely mechanical in the case of the m1 mechanical defect cause the idler arm to lose pressure and it collapsed to new tension in the case of the leopard one it seems like it was a matter of the tractors being plain worn the process for putting it back together again was trickier than it normally would have been because the track had stretched out to such an extent that the track Jax wouldn't mount and after it's a museum piece and they run it hard so it was either that or maybe fish intention but the bottom line is that the museum piece doesn't get the same level of tension or spare parts that a service vehicle would have that's it all cost money museums are short on that he also wants to know about the various different philosophies different countries had towards being able to drive tanks head out I open hatch raises see so American tanks that's exactly what you do open hatch we exceed Soviet tanks in World War two and British tanks a lot of them you open the big hatch at the front German tanks while the dependent on the tank but oftentimes he didn't have a choice because the hatch wasn't directly above you and you were forced to drive before the periscopes always the British had sometimes it did this or use the big hatch up front now it's a fair observation if not entirely accurate for example in allowed that the m3 Stuart or dm8 Scott do not have head out driver positions they used at big hatch in the front and some Soviet and German tanks could be driven head out but a truthful answer is I do not recall everyone countering anything in the American requirement specifications saying must be driven head out or I'm actually one for the Germans either I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of this is obvious so we don't need to write it down be it that the Germans didn't think of is worth putting in any effort into or that the Americans try to create it by default it's an interesting question but not one I can answer I'm afraid rich Botsford was the first to ask the question of the month which I've received multiple times and multiple sources what's the deal with the US Marine Corps disbanding its tank units I am personally somewhat baffled but presumably the decision made sense to someone after much analysis of course the striker decision made sense as well now we're reconverting some Stryker brigades back to armor not all of them they still have a place but at least the army always hedged its bets the Marines are now talking about removing an entire capability and not just Armour that's just what's been attracting the attention if I'm reading things right they're also eliminating bridging companies which at first blush seems even more astonishing I mean tanks were no tanks surely they might still need to build bridges no I mean unless jl tvs and whatever the new truck will be have developed an amphibious capability that I missed law enforcement goes away as well that will all be institutional knowledge which will be very hard to get back if they ever decide that they want to reverse the decision remember how I said modern artillery the force multiplier the marine artillery forces they can heck of a whack as well going from 21 artillery batteries to 500 also aviation is getting cut back now that said I'm only somewhat baffled and I've noticed that a few commentators have already dived in and released her opinion pieces before the document itself was released only just working off the basis of the news there were actually some pretty fair arguments at play here these days it seems pretty hard to distinguish Marines from the army both are being used for long term ground operations and I don't think the Marines have really done anything particularly marine ish at the large scale in decades even in 1991 thought okay they did provide a force in being a float at the decoy but their actual combat was conventional heavy ground which the US Army is supposedly perfectly capable of dealing with the US military doesn't really need an army unit which says yah instead of who I what sounds kind of Russian now I think about it and by the way I hate a lot there's a lion in the media reporting that doesn't get much attention the Commandant who wants to integrate more with the Navy and this seems reasonable you certainly don't see the army taking a huge interest in this the perception right now the Marines is is basically you know my ass rides in navy equipment the Navy works as a taxi service puts the Marines ashore and says good luck they also provide a landing strip for marine aviation to work off and some medics that's doubly integration and it doesn't Fuli synergies capability yes I know it's a buzzword I think it applies here the reimagining isn't for a general power capability the Marines here are looking at a very specific geographical area the Indo Pacific Ocean you don't fight high-intensity combat they're the same in Kuwait or Poland and the idea seems to be from my brief reading primarily to be a ground-based component of the Navy's fighting ability note for example the requirement to obtain shore-based anti-ship missiles by a increase in the number of rocket units you can perhaps imagine Marine units scattered archipelagos being another form of contact that the enemy has to deal with well if you want to put it another way the fleet commander has airpower submarine power cruisers and ground-based power all at his disposal for the fight instead of just being told go there deposit Marines you won't control them when you get there and then fight your own battle with everything else you have what concerns me isn't a reduction in capability it's a total elimination of capability and if there's no place for all these tank battalions were artillery units in the new scheme of fighting so be it but I can't imagine that a few tanks who would be a bad thing to bring along in the event the Marines might actually be told to go conduct in a post landing somewhere or that they might need to build a bridge to get off the beachhead I must assume that the decision for total elimination was a budgetary one and indeed the force design 2030 document is worth a read it's only 13 pages seems pretty explicit on the matter quote operating under the assumption that we will not receive additional resources we must divest certain existing capabilities and capacities to free resources for essential new capabilities unquote unfortunately budgets are a real thing we have to live with and this is not a total disaster if the Marines do decide to change their mind they can borrow some soldiers on exchange to get some institutional knowledge back into the force there is a line a bit further down in the document saying that the army will provide heavy ground combat power although it doesn't specify if it means that the army will attach some tanks to the Marines for a landing or just that once the initial beachhead is achieved the responsibility for the heavy fighting will immediately the army still I would have thought that it might at least keep forth tanks the reserve unit or this is also a possibility maybe it's a bluff the announcement was made significant publicity has resulted and I wouldn't put a pass some money in Congress to say ok this is unacceptable let's give the Marines a few extra dollars so that they can keep some tanks either way we'll see what happens the tanks haven't been scrapped yet it's only a statement of intent there are certainly some very angry marine tankers I know and some awfully bemused army wants he'll go troop mistake forever why are the panther models in that order and what are the d1 DEA to designators now i've never heard of those sub designators and i had to start looking they don't appear in the answered oil or in any other reference book that i have after looking up online it seems to be a convenience thing made up later as 4yd then a you know technically a that d than a there are multiple theories none of which have any documentary evidence behind them so your guess is as good as mine as for the second question that you had the panther with the lake cupola but the letterbox whole machine gun port was an early a the a's entered production in september 43 the ball mount showed up in november finally he wants to know if the skoda t25 was actually competitor in the panther project i don't believe so certainly all the designs were going around at the same time but it seems that skoda were proposing it as a use for their facilities in addition to whatever the germans were coming up with instead of being a direct competitor timebomb 757 after the failure of m2 47 and the retirement of m163 why is the US Army placed very low priority on self-propelled and the area formations came under heavy enemy air attack the Air Force has proven quite capable of dealing with enemy air power and the a da folks basically just started being quite bored now that's it we do have a new in the former small unmanned aircraft drones including suicide types but for now just small observation designator or jammer types or at the top of the target list the Air Force isn't really designed or suited to dealing with that so there have actually mean some talks of maybe reintroducing the linebacker back into service and the army now wants to put an air defense battalion back into every division and in air defense company and every independent Brigade be it Avenger or linebacker even a dot though a Stinger missile is pretty expensive to use against a cheap drone and there's a fair bit of research being done on projectile based systems such as air fuse rounds or lasers and microwaves tests of such systems including lasers on strikers have proven concept to be very viable and it will likely not be long before the US military obtain some anyway that's about it for the QA hope you enjoy your stays at home that your family doesn't drive you to batty and if you feel too bored feel free to go from my back catalogue of videos including Operation think tank take care

Channel: The_Chieftain

Views: 89,983

Rating: 4.9761014 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: Y3kHyfAUtJA

Length: 57min 58sec (3478 seconds)

Published: Sat Apr 04 2020