Chieftain's Q&A #12 Underwater tanks, muzzle brakes and torsion bars

and greetings all no particular admin issues this month so right into the questions as ever priority does go to the patrons with occasional questions take from from other sources but first an interesting note from the previous Q&A now apparently I've been hanging out with railroad locomotives too much the steam tank apparently ran on difference principle of steam generator which would not result in a catastrophic explosion if one of the boiler tubes were to be ruptured still I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that one tube which burst but there you go something I didn't know and I'm gonna kick off the questions with Admiral Tiberius a couple of years ago the Namur APC was tested by the US Army and supposedly well liked by the testers but the army rejected it why also what is my opinion of APC IFES converted from tanks like background to namers found their way to Fort Bliss in June of 2012 together with a number of other vehicles the double V striker and a Mar Bradley Bradley a MP which is like the turtle is proud of the m113 replacement and CV 1935 they were there for two purposes one of which was the ground combat vehicle testing and the other was a network integration evaluation while they're on this side of the Atlantic it also found its way to the Aberdeen testing ground the reports are classified I can't tell you what's in them the GCB testing wasn't so much a case of a contest to see which would be a winner and first be selected as the next vehicle even if namer did come out fantastically namer Namur I've gone three different ways so far whatever I don't speak Hebrew it likely would not have been selected however what it did do was give the US Army some experience with other vehicles that are currently out there to see what worked what didn't work and what should be stolen and put into the GCV the NIE testing was to do with the electronic systems in the vehicles and there are battlefield communications and the testing in Aberdeen was just to get to lay down what the vehicle could do automotive testing one all conditions after about six months the vehicles were returned to Israel and I presume the CB ninety-one back to Sweden what is publicly known is that the CV 19 a Bradley seemed to come out on top for maneuverability and firepower surprise surprise but the numerous technologies such as various cameras that the dismounts could all use for situational awareness was well regarded bear in mind that number is something of a class of its own and the five vehicles weren't particularly competing against each other it really was just a case of seeing what would be specified in the requirements for the future grand combat vehicle that's for my personal overall opinion on these conversions I have to say I'm rather spitting two minds on it there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of an IFV with the protection of a tank if it can meet the other requirements of the IFA and keeps the tanks engine for horsepower purposes then I would think that the issues of weight mobility aren't too much of a problem after all the tanks and the AFVs correctional EAJA fees are a team if the tank can go somewhere then the tank base IFV should also be able to do it that said I'm not sure that the heavy APC is really needed with the accompanying difficulties of maintenance and logistics of a heavy vehicle you're just asking for more trouble overall I think it's something that's probably situational not great for general purposes Namur does work particularly well for Israel though because of the family collection to Merkava and you know most other tanks would require a pretty significant conversion before becoming a good APC look at the exert for example and you've got a completely we can figure that thing chaise vaults why did the US move from hvss the torsion bar known primarily for a better ride torsion bar allows for a greater range motion at a cost of taking up a little interior space there are also fewer components to brake as well although granted when it does break you do tend to notice it there is a history article armored magazine of March or April 2002 which looks into where did the us get the torsion bars from because if you look at the developmental records and I've seen nothing to disprove the contents of this article over the last 20 years the developmental record just goes when t69 became t70 torsion bar suspension was added instead of the previous coil springs and it's completely absent of any comment as it who came up with the idea or why now the torsion bars were a known thing to us ordinance is without question Barnes for example held a patent on a tube / bar torsion bar design in 1930s and of course they would have also had seen vehicles at least from observers like the Landsberg l60 or maybe later on the kv-1 would use them they all threw the article DP'd Eyre concludes that they probably took this specific design from German practice such as Panzer 3 tested it on the second pilot t67 of which no photograph has ever come to light since the war and then change narrative a little bit to give the Americans credit but you couldn't be seen to be just taken the enemy technology yeah be backwards you'd be behind the enemy it's not a bad argument and the article is available online look for a link below SEO 896 yes the US tested many autoload of mechanisms is starting with the 37 millimeter automatic gun T 16 if not the American armament corporation 37 millimeter / 44 and you know I know reserved the details on this for a future video as well now they bring it up because it's actually kind of a fascinating little topic they've tested anything from 75 millimeter ultimate loaders in world war ii to a 120 millimeter tested before the modern period we're talking hearing like t 57 and the US has tested autoloaders on the m1 the m1 t TB the m8 and of course it is currently in service on the m11 28 Robert Henry Elston what's with the US Army not being a fan of multicolored camera schemes most everything in world war ii was mono color and even today it's not unusual not only is it not unusual we also seem to have an aversion these days to painting things green no matter what terrain be it forest or snow now that's probably gonna be another Wednesday kind of video light if you aren't particularly impatient they'll look up the Emmy RDC and dual Tex camo as two interesting experiments now course a form of weather just an experiment I lasted quite a little bit longer than the latter Hugo you why was the Canadian dry pin track not more widely used CDP was an expedient caused by a lack of rubber in Canada it's only other main advantages were weight and increased durability in some environments like hot rocky deserts which kind of basically murder rubber tracks however it was extremely wearing on the rubber road wheels and idlers it also had a bit of a tendency to walk off and though it wasn't a major issue things like extended end connectors to increase flotation were never issued for those things either because you're a single pick track he also asked I should know think about it I guess theoretically you could put an extended and connect you on Singapore track but you will be putting one that was specific for that track only and it wouldn't be interchangeable with the other Sherman's anyway he also asked why was the m10 based on the m4 a two rather than on the m4 a three and the short answer is the dam for a three didn't exist yet that is none steel the first m4a3 will loft line in May 1942 t 35 and T 35 e1 the prototypes for the antenna were already at Aberdeen in April when they finally moved production to the m10a1 which was based off the four v8 engine and off M tens had been produced to meet US Army needs so they were only ever sent to their allies use at home for training or later given new turrets and converted into M thirty Six's and no to answer another question I have never attempted to make a comprehensive list of every tank variant ever I have more productive things into a my life could there possibly be another of those oh crap moments in modern times when a new tank shows up that is so much more advanced than anything else as practically indestructible what kind of technologies etc do I think that would entail well what are you talking about tank panics such as when the is-3 showed up now it's to be observed that it doesn't actually have to be all that much more advanced than anything else it just has to be perceived to be so in order to cause a panic no until we get something incredibly dramatic like a railgun a hover tank or maybe some new composite armor which is like the hardness of diamond with the weight of styrene I don't think we're going to see such a thing any time soon any major changes over the next couple of decades are most likely going to be a little bit less visible and internal to the tank itself cooperative engagement systems better battle fuel management semi autonomous capability smarter munitions that sort of thing totally impossible to see on the next military parade going down your city center they could indeed be very revolutionary but I suspect they're less likely to cause panic and there was a sort of a similar thing that happened when the spoons class destroyers came out they came with I think the only visible weapon they had was he as rocking the gun and people wondering why on earth was all this money there but of course it's princes were actually pretty capable for the time once they finished getting him air anyway Fred Benton if the Korean War had kicked off a little earlier when t32 was still in service how would the t32 have performed t32 is described in the test report as quote basically an excellent vehicle in its weight class unquote now have a couple of glitches to be dealt with particularly what the transmission and gun but let's assume they could be ironed out and we'll presume it could have made its way over the Pacific now for the record boards in the United States in 1946 in nineteen forty eight concluded that no heavy tank to include t29 and t30 could actually meet the u.s. as doctrinal requirements for heavy tank no matter how well they may have met the design requirements so all became in effect learning experiments there are however two immediate thoughts firstly and granted this is with the benefit of hindsight what would they be needed for it turned out that it was basically nothing that the m4 and m26 is couldn't deal with anyway and the DPRK and Chinese forces were similarly relatively lacking in good anti-tank weapons which would require the additional heavy Armour secondly the t32 is from 55 tons now I have not seen an engineering assessment of where heavy tanks could go in Korea and what weight capacities of the various structures were but by wave at least providing a bit of a data point for the Sagan experiment Armour branch decided to do a route reconnaissance of the hypothesis and moving a heavy tank battalion of T 29 s between Fort Knox Kentucky and Frankfort Kentucky a distance of about 85 miles on the 16 bridges along the good road and it was a good Road at the time 12 of them were rated for 70 tons one was rated for 50 tons but they called up the state highway engineer and he said yeah it'll take a 70-ton tank and three bridges would have to be built in all cases the tanks would have to cross one at a time and no more than at five miles per hour now think as to what the level of infrastructure was in Korea versus Kentucky in about 1948 it would seem to me that the act of moving in unit a t32 is around Korea would be quite a significant event with a lot of planning requirement and also of course the Liberty ships would only take 50 tons there was a program to update the booms to at least 60 but I don't think that'd happen until mid fifties now don't get me wrong I like t32 if nothing else it just looks like a good tank and other loved for it to entered service but for Korea I just don't see it as having been acquired John Rae burger what kind of men portable anti-tank devices are of most concern and do numbers matter as I see an interesting question I don't think we need to patent where we're talking so for example if I were in Miami on a1 and the chap over yonder has something like a fire to get pop attack missile like javelin I would be in some fairly significant trouble the normal techniques for responding to an incoming missile quite simply really won't work now maybe just maybe popping smoke and driving into the smoke could do something however as active protection systems start being installed the single missile like that has become less of a threat and also ApS is usually have a fairly fast reset rate to engage multiple targets and fast sequence now it does get a little bit more interesting when the anti-tank weapons are coming in from multiple directions though so it's less a matter of saturating the defense and more matter of trying to get around it honestly though I was always most worried about a guy with a rifle somebody can do a lot of damage to a tank crew when they receive our Ponty maintenance or whatever a lot of ways to die and you don't have to be in your tank for it to happen which actually I'm gonna go in a quick digression somebody posted something oh this is a great tank I was able to kill seven of the enemy before I died he's obviously playing a computer game and yeah I think good round as well in the great tank and I'm there going that kind of encapsulates the difference in thought between a real tanker and a gamer a real tanker is not gonna go at least I got seven of the enemy before I died the object is go home alive it doesn't matter how many of the enemy you kill anyway speaking of handhelds it's time for good of the month and what we have here is by the serial number Baron in 1961 put options so fairly early woo ger Bearcat it is a single action revolver it's a 22lr somebody has apparently put aftermarket grips on it there they're kind of all sort of shaped like bark instead of the original wood can't say I'm a huge fan of it but I won this pistol in a raffle and it was kind like my introduction to so it's kind of oh we're having a unit raffle in California a firearm is not going to be on the list day of the way I like it which is a thing in California you did not give five rounds as raffle prizes this was a raffle prize in Nevada anyway it was apparently marketed as a self-defense weapon for hikers and on the cylinder are engravings of a cat of some sort of Puma and a bear this is a 22 now I'm not going to ever underestimate a 22 I seem to recall seeing something that more people are killed in us by 22 than any other caliber possibly because there is something more 22 that there and a lot of it's often a common beginners caliber so a lot of people who don't know what they're doing about be using and I certainly I'm not going to volunteer to stand down range and get shot at by a 22 however for the purposes of dealing with critters with large claws and sharp pointy teeth I am not convinced I would go with a 22 and it's actually not all that much smaller than well what would be a common common semi-auto in the 1960s Oh a 45 I'm still not sure 40 if I would do a howl on a bear but at least we'll do something to a coyote mountain lion wolf or things like that so for today's purposes though the this little Bearcat and as I say it's single action yet you load it by opening up a little latch and you insert the the rounds in here you'll click stop every time and you do have to pull the hammer back all the way before you can pull the trigger pulling it otherwise doesn't do anything has a little chute for emptying out the it's good to have emptying out the shell casings that you just fired nice little feature it is actually though quite a fun little plain corner 22 isn't exactly expensive ammo and you know just for taking downrange or blinking of bottles or whatever this thing's actually quite a lot of fun and because it's a 22 and has absolutely no recoil whatsoever great starter gun so not my favorite firearm in my collection and really completely impractical I would say but still an interesting little piece all right back to the questions Spencer looper what was perhaps some of the strangest projects undertaken or at least once I've read over and have to ask who at any point thought this was a good idea and actually takes me to thought because things like the flying tanks actually do make a little bit of sense the nuclear-powered tanks are an immediate first thought what could possibly go wrong with putting a reactor into an armored box on tracks onto a land battlefield now I had seemed I seem to recall the concept revolved around a central reactor tank providing power to satellite tanks and I'm not sure quite how the wires were going to avoid getting caught or tangled I don't think they quite got into microwave transmission of power as I said of flying tanks to aerodynamic impossible the jumping tanks designed to simply hop over obstacles by use of big Springs or Rockets where perhaps are the less reasonable Mouse does count it is technically feasible but to what end the idea of driving tanks along the bottom of the English Channel perhaps I mean we can do it for rivers it's not difficult the channel is just a 25 mile wide river right there was a proposal by a lieutenant bait that a good beach assault tank would be an m10 the thinking was that the crews will be given scuba gear and that you could easily convert the gas masks for the job the m10 would be job dropped off the landing craft far from shore maybe 500 yards and I will then drive along the bottom maybe 30 feet down if necessary and it would get close to the enemy in complete invulnerability the open top of the vehicle was considered to be an asset as it afforded unlimited visibility presumably both under the water and once it started to appear out of it being an eager sort he sent his ideas straight to the commanding general I thank the story branch by passing a couple of people on the chain I do actually have the the full exchange documents on one of my written articles I'll give you the link slightly less bizarre was the idea of using 55-gallon oil drums to float an m4a1 Betty turned into a huge raft this was at least given enough consideration to do the mathematics and it was found that quote the quantity of oil drums required will be too great to be practicable unquote so one chap on Facebook calculated that well over 200 oil drums will be needed to flow in m4a1 now of course the biggest failure a lot probably is the rotor trailer I'm sure there's plenty of other stupid things out there but I just can't really remember Alexander H what are my thoughts on tank competitions such as strong Europe tank challenge or the Sullivan Cup well the concept goes back a while now apparently when I said were forger in the last video number ears from old-timers perked up well here's another one for you the Canadian Army trophy the cache there was a multinational gunnery competition in the late Cold War era and it was matter of pride not only for the nations competing but also for the manufacturers of the tanks hoping to put out some export sales for whatever reason the concept just died for about a quarter century and then it just saw resurgence and there are no knees for such multinational competitions in a cycle worthington challenge is the Canadian one and it allows mixed platoons of tanks and lighter vehicles driving to have foreign teams are normally welcome strong Europe is basically the NATO equivalent can I go this sort of a successor of the c80 and that's normally one of the best attended ones because it's not too hard to get to thanks to Germany from Austria agrees France UK wherever the Sullivan Cup is the one that does the job for the US Army and I have on the World of Tanks Channel some videos when I covered it from four years ago and that also sends out invitations to foreign nations and the Russians of course have their tank biathlon which like name implies as a combination of running and shooting during the brief period of date and we were seeing between Russia and the US a couple of years ago the u.s. actually was going to send a team to the biathlon in Russia which ordinarily just t-72 users and the Chinese were type 96 or whatever but sadly Crimea happened and that was the end of that we never got that head-to-head at the m1 against the Russians I am told I seem to recall reading that this year and it's in August I believe a t-80u with the turbine engine is going to be partaking and there's also going to be an all-female tank crew they aren't tankers apparently their signal woman or something like that are trained to be tankers I strongly suspect that their promo girls and the best-looking females in the Russian army just for photographic purposes but anyway it is a change so back to the tournament's they tend to have different focuses the tank biathlon as I say it's a pure running gun event strong Europe adds features like small arms chemical operations and some tactical driving whilst the Sullivan Cup is uniquely aimed at Americans for tests like doctrine and I personally think too much emphasis and things outside of the tank foreigners are invited but it's not easy to get a tank to Fort Benning from anywhere so you have to know how to use an m1 and the tests are done to American standards and this can be a bit of a problem you think that's something even as simple as stripping and assembling m240 wouldn't be hard and it's actually different in different countries so in Ireland I was trained it the first thing you do when you go up to one of these things is he opened the feed tray and he removed the source of ammunition and this got so ingrained into me that for the longest time I kept failing the American Test and I had to basically keep repeating myself go to the gun fire step away think charge step away think safe step open open the feed tray as I would you know I was at the testing table so foreigners who were attending Sullivan cup are mainly doing so just to understand how the Americans do things it not so much because they're there to win sure the one mind but it's not expected the other problem is that unlike say the best sniper contest which is also headed for Benning there's a little bit more to putting an entry in than putting three folks on the commercial air with the weapon in checked baggage so another difference is a scale of the event Sullivan copy is every crew for itself the Canadian Army trophy was a platoon level event which required coordination in the teams the contests are I think best seen as a motivator to get crews to excel but interestingly they basically all cover purely quantifiable events gunnery how fast and accurately you can shoot driving how long does it take to get around of course physical how long does it take you to run from A to B maybe maintenance how long does it take you to break and relink track and the cheaper the event to run the bed now granted these are all crew level tasks which every crewman in every tank is supposed to be able to complete however I'm not sure any of them actually test squidgy er issues like tactical decision-making route selection or troubleshooting yes these are subjective yes it would require a panel of judges but yes these are also important things for tankers to ndy Bert why did the US Army never filled an anti-aircraft tanks such as the German flag Panzer 4 or the British crusader AAA I guess the immediate response is to flip the question around and ask why did Germans and British Field anti-aircraft tanks they're putting a perfectly solid tank chassis to a non tank use now granted the Germans at least did tend to use deficient tanks such as those which had suffered battle damage but still if all you want to do is roll around with a couple of autocannons which aren't particularly heavy usually or multiple heavy machineguns or whatever there are other less expensive and less heavy vehicles able to do the job and in the u.s. context that means half-tracks this is where I put a link to the m16 inside hatch video the closest thing really for the Americans would have been the m-19 and the m42 which are both based off of light tank components the m-19 was basically based off the Chaffee and the m-40 to basically offer freedom 41 the m2 47 searched in New York would have been the closest of Locke really to a tank based system as was based off of the m48 chassis in a sad cost-cutting measure and no I have not personally encountered any skink test reports rookie mistake wants to know when would a PDS be used over heat especially in the days of the 105 millimeter round today it's simple enough it's a bow and heavy armor heat a light armor in the Cold War that what really was something of a balance for a while between the two and it was quite a debate for a very long time as to which will become the dominant projectile and there wasn't really much between the two if the the was a choice go with the apds because it is a faster round with a shorter time of flight and less chance of a miss bedroom and I heard given that many countries continue to use gun armed anti-tank vehicles to this day such as the PTZ 89 which granted has been retired santaro Qureshi a striker mgs it seems that the concept has some advantages over 80 GM systems he can think of a versatility and reduced time of flight of cannon shells and four missiles but what are my thoughts on the matter well striker mgs is more of an assault gun not an anti-tank vehicle we have striker anti-tank for that job but the other examples are fair you are correct that both of those are advantages certainly you have multiple types of round ready to fire and the type 16 for example which looks very sad or alike it's often considered to be a tank destroyer but there really is more of a wheeled light tank in doctrinal where it's hits in doctrine another advantage is sustained rate of fire so your typical anti-tank missile vehicle will have between 2 to 6 shots for a striker anti-tank to engage two targets at 1500 meters will take 14 seconds not counting the time taken to switch targets and acquire and when those two rounds are expended it's out of the fight for the next minute or two while the hammerhead reloads which then brings us to a terrain question countries which use cannon tank destroyers are often countries with shorter lines of fire and smaller fields of fire so it's all very well being able to reach out and touch somebody with a tow missile at 30 750 metres and then taking the time to reload before firing again at say 3,000 metres but if you terrain a search that has a lot of mountains woods or other breaks in the line of sight you may will find that you're better off with the cannon the time of flight can also prove useful when taking keyhole shots because you don't have to track a target so long that the target has gone behind cover before your projectile reaches the target if you don't want a keyhole shot is it's sort of like your tank is here there are blocks here and tanks are passing by the other side of the block so you can see one very briefly for a short period of time but it also means that your masked from everything else and room no last name wants to know why the Soviets used su 76 isn't traditional artillery in the Battle for Berlin rather than tanks I don't really have an answer to that and it's not as if there were no tanks present it very well may be something you can do well that's the vehicle that happened to be in that sector or assigned to support that particular infantry regiment that said it's not unheard of on the other side either as the Germans said after the US Army used in m12 in the direct fire role to attack his fortified position in Aachen when the Americans start using 155-millimeter artillery pieces as sniper rifles it's time to give up I will say though that an su 76 does give the crew greater vision than a tank does so maybe at least had that going for it a cake oh no I have not seen any firm penetration numbers with on a 5 millimeter gun t8 per se the wiki page seems to be misleading if you look at hugs book you'll see that the two 10 millimetres at a hundred meters it was an estimate Hogg implies it but I can confirm that the ammunition fired was the same as that of the 105 millimeter gun t5 a1 two-piece ammunition shot armor-piercing tracer t32 and shot high-velocity armour-piercing tracer t29 III I can also tell you that I've seen an Aberdeen report that the t5 II one gun and the t8 gun were ballistically identical penetration reports of the t5 II one are definitely available online so you just have to use those Samuel Fisher how did I actually make models in Afghanistan but when we went overseas we were given a footlocker in addition to the various different duffel bags we brought with us and always able to put a couple of kit boxes in there and into the kit boxes they also put some snippers knives and glue the accommodations over there were a plywood Hut subdivided by more plywood into small rooms about maybe 6 foot by 8 foot and I'd make my models in there because I didn't know that those Hut's would be there but whatever I never did build them so big that they couldn't fit back into a box on the way back so it's pure soap assemblies only but sadly even that was insufficient to protect them from damage the guys have brought their 40k armies over intended to take a bit more care using film Pelican boxes or not Jamie McMillan I often see muzzle breaks or a fume extractors and tank barrels but really both at the same time is real reason why they are seldom used together why have muzzle breaks that originally fallen out of use in modern tanks well it's true they are rare in combination the m26 a1 or the m-46 will be examples of it actually happening but it is really not all that common I can think of no particular reason why the two components are incompatible I think we need some more matter of timing bore evacuation wasn't really a thing until mid World War 2 when he was here on let's say Panther and that used compressed air as the first example of that sort of idea now by the time bore evacuator z' with the big bulge on day the tube came along we have moved to the point that tanks had grown heavier and recoil systems have grown better so this simply hasn't been a need for the things you will still see muzzle brakes on smaller vehicles no striker mgs for example it really just does come down to a ratio or the recoil force of the gun compared to the mass of the vehicle that's mounted on and the amount of room in the turret for a recoil run some people will say it's to do with saber rounds and I've actually seen no evidence of this even today the Bradley's 25 millimeter fire saber rounds with a muzzle break which I'm told takes it off about 15% of the recoil force Charles arange why were the world war 2 bazookas so ineffective in Korea how did it go from one of Ike's four tools of victory to such a loser a decade later now assuming that there's no issue with the fusing caused by the very smoked armor the only thing I can think of which has been referenced in documentation is the fact that task force Smith went overseas with wartime production ammunition which probably hadn't been all that well stored and was likely defective basically the US Army had not kept its powder dry with unmaintained ammunition who knows what would happen rah w-would the u.s. being better off buying ikv 91's instead of Sheridan's and no I kV 91 is not on my sequence of Swedish videos from this trip I do plan on filming it but it's not on the sequence the two vehicles were designed for entirely different purposes yes and both are lightweight armored vehicles with a big gun but once a fire support vehicle designed for operations in Scandinavia and the other is a recon vehicle which was designed to be chucked at a aircraft if you see it i KP 91 in the fresh it's a surprisingly large vehicle also the ikv was almost a decade behind in the production ones so now I don't think it would have helped DN sheep and thank you very usually asking refreshing questions did I ever wish that Tom or Wile E Coyote would win over their opponents Jerry or Roadrunner technically wily coyote super genius did actually catch Road Warner once given a circumstances though I'm not actually sure counts as a win there were a couple of times a Tom wins but not necessarily by beating Jerry book by achieving his own goal the one which always disappointed me though was the rather poor showing of the army surplus special and it was he lowest of the points scorers beating only the mean machine which never won a race at all Callum Bailey observes in the last Q&A I had said that if you have to fire up a very steep angle you're probably better off going away but he points out that reverse of slope ambushes are a thing this is true they are a thing and indeed especially in World War two when target ranges were inherently short anyway they have three main advantages now whatever verse November is is you have the hill you have your tanks at the base of the hill shooting up to help people it's - coming over the top so first exactly first advantage if the slope is steep enough the enemy tank will not be able to engage until it drops forward and then it still has to go through the process of acquiring and laying and this takes time secondly the belly of the tank will be visible for a few moments so if you're quick you might be able to get a shot on an otherwise almost invulnerable tank thirdly and I think in modern terms this is where it could still be important the ridge line is an inherent dividing factor a unit is rarely going to crest the hill at all exactly the same time one or two is gonna go over the top first which needs some unsupported and vulnerable to the masked fires of the defenders their friends will be unable to help because we're on the wrong side of the ridge line and sometimes may not even know what is on the far side is all they will see is the smoke from their comrades remains first real advantages of technique really lies in the ability for a defending force using reverse slope ambush to be able to engage a superior enemy force on good terms be like a keel really and for that you don't need to be up close and better yet if you're at a distance you have the opportunity to escape if things don't go as well as planned if you're defending from up close you're in a die-in place position you'll win or you'll die there's no third option here and that's actually what happened to basically to the Iraqis that you mentioned in your question not healthy world Casey has a civil questions in the Pens of four video Doyle and I refer to the panzer 4 as the Maglite even translated to support or escort or vehicle but in several sources the BW join development stands for battalion Fury's wagon matching the Subaru wagon platoon leader vehicle designation that was the code name for Panzer 3 what gives this is best answered directly by reading from Panzer tracks and number four is actually the introduction as well when I get this whole thing open okay originally to be called the new boy ferret soaked new bio fairs org for a week you know where I'm going renamed the bug light wagon escort tank the first trial vehicle from Rheinmetall still had the coil spring suspension adopted from its predecessor the new body freezer by 1943 Rheinmetall no longer knew what BW stood for and erroneously recoded it as a battalion volume then post-war historians relying on military intelligence sources expanded the name to battalion Fuhrer vagon for the panzerkampfwagen fear to match the Z Zhuge Fuhrer vagon for the panzerkampfwagen dry so there you go all a horrible mistake what happened to the US foreign I am easiest too easy to confuse an eye with a one or a small L and I is not uncommonly skipped in military nomenclature did the Allies use modified tanks for artillery observation like the bareback Broncs panther and with its a mock-up dummy gun command vehicles with dummy guns yes artillery not normally that I can recall there may have once it certainly won't say they didn't but besides they had plenty of light aircraft to do the artillery spotting role bird of prey or vor'cha I'll go the cruiser I'm not known for being subtle I'm a tanker and that would be kind of counter to type why was the Panzer 3/4 stopped well basically it didn't mean requirements it was one thing to keep the three and the four lines open for the stove's and the panthers but the 3/4 was designed to kind of combine both into one unified design however was a lot of work for a new type of tank and it wasn't considered tough enough against next generation of Soviet tanks keeping Panzer foreign production was one thing but retooling a line for something which wasn't really a tactical improvement what's the point Kisuke gay in the FM 31 video Stefan suggested that the idea of the will come track may be worth exploring in a more modern scenario what are my thoughts I think I'd have to ask him what he was thinking because I can't think of anything particularly relevant today is running gears are far more reliable and careening down the autobahn has been done for decades now and we've also got lots of lot better drugs capable of carrying basically anything as well I'm just not sure I see the benefit if you do need to compromise a bit the rubber tracked m113 variants such as the police would use or the t live in canada they seem to be a reasonable way of solving the and driving on roads issue commerce are Carl and I'm sorry somehow misses one last month thank you for the nudge he places a hypothetical during the great tank shortages like late 44 army ground forces decides to give barns is 250 T 23 medium tanks a shot and the combat theater how would an affair compared to the M 476 well they would have had to send not only the tanks but also especially trained mechanics in the course of spare parts one of the observations from testing was that not only was the electric drive a little bit fragile but that when repairs were needed highly skilled people were required as opposed to anybody who could understand suck squeeze bang blow and then turn a wrench when the tank worked though it seemed to be great the firepower would have been fine as the turret obviously enough was the same as that found on the e6 Sherman's the vehicle was extremely nimble it was able to turn on the spot it accelerated well and will go as fast backwards as forwards however the remote control feature was removed armored force considered that and to be a bit of a waste of space and better used for ammunition space was a problem though there's a physiology report I have on the pilot saying that 75% of armored force can't fit in the driver's seat comfortably it suggested raising the whole roof by two inches as well as adding a more joyful seat I'm not sure quite how the 250 production models actually ended up but I don't think they raised the roof another side affected lack of internal space was to fit all of the required ammunition any attempt to protecting the ammunition was abandoned there was a recommendation to move to wet stowage but that would also have meant dropping the ammunition capacity dramatically if you look at my facebook page you'll see I posted a couple of days ago a cover letter from armored board to army ground forces apparently saying anything negative about t 23 which was general Barnes's pet project was not gonna go over well with ordnance branch and instructions were to keep the source of the letter secret to protect him from backlash the comments we're as follows and there's a lot of them I hold it I will the medium tank T 23 is a considerable number of very desirable characteristics the main ones being performance maneuverability and low silhouette however in spite of all its assets the medium tank T 23 is not considered comparable to a medium tank of the m4 series with the Ford engine not a good start as compared to the medium tank him for a 376 millimeter the medium tank T 23 weighs two thousand five hundred and ninety pounds more the center of gravity of the t 23 said the rear of the center the vehicle causing the rear suspensions to be loaded more heavily than the front I should also add that the some testers viewed because of the imbalance and the VVS s suspension between the two and the low silhouette it was the worst handling gun platform that they'd ever been on from previous tests on the m4 medium tank it has been determined that the number-5 bogie tires wear out more quickly than the others this condition would be worse in the t 23 due to the fact that the weight of the t 23 is greater than the m4 and the suspension for the two tanks are the same the ground pressure is naturally higher on the t23 the t23 has considerably less fighting compartment space than the m4 tanks in the stowage and ammunition racks are not considered nearly as satisfactory as those of the m4 another serious difficulty or defect on the t23 is the fact that all of the electrical conduits and electrical equipment is either on the floor or very close to the floor observers from the southwest Pacific area have stated that all electrical equipment must be placed as far away from the floor as possible so obviously if you're in a really human environment maybe it's condensation that goes down or something but there you go again remember this tank it's gonna go everywhere not just Western Europe the t 23 carries 68 rounds of ammunition compared to 71 of the medium tank and 4376 the powertrain and electrical drive on the t 23 under ideal conditions should give very good performance and should be very reliable it never was there was there were modifications made I've seen a test report about 1946 stating that although the cooling issues were improved they were still not satisfactory however under dusty conditions difficulty has been experienced with the electrical equipment from an engineering standpoint the gas electric drive is considered satisfactory but several shortcomings have been noted mainly should the engine be an operative there is no way to steer or control the vehicle and in several cases during the braking test due to poor idling conditions on the engine several tanks have gone out of control also in addition to the above it is felt to the intake and outlet grills of powertrain are very vulnerable ballistically to small arms or high explosive there is no data available on the ballistic test of the t 23 and no ballistic tests have been conducted on a complete vehicle it is not known what would happen to the electric drive equipment should the tank be hid in the engine compartment while running it is felt that the electric drive would be much more vulnerable from a penetration and fragment strand point then would be the mechanical vehicle based on the above it is not felt that the t 23 is either battle worthy or completely mechanically reliable the gas electric principle seems to have a lot of abilities and the development should be continued especially to obtain information on this type of drive to determine what troubles will result and to train the personnel and obtain maintenance information on this type of equipment the flotation ground pressure defect could be largely overcome by installing the 23 inch track in the horizontal violet suspension on the t23 however this will not be available until August or September of 1944 and of course the hvss was trial don t 23 as was torsion bar and a few other things but the production vehicles were all the VV SS so to answer the question no it is probably just as well that army ground forces kept saying we're gonna stick with the Sherman Benedict Wagner have I been inside a leopard - and how does it compare with the m1 what's the best feature what's the worst yes I have I have found it to be surprisingly cramped inside and I'm really not sure why because it's a big vehicle now I've not really gone over it with a measuring tape but it seems to me that perhaps the turret ring might be a little smaller and certainly things like the protection guards interfere that they come into your space a little bit more as I said I'm not gonna over what a measuring tape but I do also know that I am not alone in thinking that the m1 is roomier between the two outside of that I can't really say it's better or worse than l1 it's just different so for example I can see the merit to having the replenishment ammunition in the front hull from where the ready rack can be quickly restored on the other hand I can see issues with ammunition in the front unless there's a blower panel I've missed which is entirely possible the loader indexing the round instead of the gunner seems to make sense to me and for non tankers indexing the round means telling the computer what round is in the tube so in the leopard there's a switch that the the loader hit something challenging - as it as well whereas on the Abrams is actually the gunner has a tunnel or push button of any variant the leopard does need a bigger bustle rack but it is nice to have a belly hatch there seemed to be more button or switches for the gunner as well otherwise though it seems to be an entirely fighter ball from the small amount of time that I spent in there I would very much like to have a bit more of a spin in a leopard too so if anybody is in a position to accommodate please let me know right that is it for Q&A form a wouldn't have gone into June I'm not able to keep up 2020 has been a hell of a year well only halfway through it next is back for more - Swedish vehicles on Saturdays I have not had time to go back to the modeling I'm probably just gonna do another quick video but that autoloader thing seems like it's gonna be quick cheat and cheap cheerful and easy I do own another couple of past reserved for a future day I'm gonna have to go back and watch my q and A's now see what was that I didn't reserved for a future time Oh Christie tanks that was it the American army purchased the Christie tanks and said Oh Americans didn't like Christie tanks with yeah if I recall in the 30s the Americans bought more Christie tanks than any other kind of tank so it's not as if they didn't give him a fair crack so yeah there we go I hope you found the Q&A interesting and informative I need to go lubricate my vocal cords a little bit and I will see you on the next one so until then again these feel free to support me financially on patreon whatever I'm not granted spending the money on airplane tickets right now because I'm not flying anywhere because I carve it but when I do you guys are funding it alright that's about it take care I'll see you want to see you next

Channel: The_Chieftain

Views: 67,982

Rating: 4.9715252 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: -EvzqRIS8KQ

Length: 52min 11sec (3131 seconds)

Published: Sun Jun 07 2020