Chieftain's Q&A #23: Caerphillies, Canines, CABs and Combat Cars.

greetings all time for another q a where i get to respond to the occasionally weird questions you guys put to me mainly from patreons but i do take the occasional interesting ones from other sources as well such as youtube comments on previous q a's if i think they're good enough i'm going to kick off this time with thunderchild you have been made producer of the grand tour and are helping the guys choose tanks for a special what would you recommend for each actually we took a look into that over at world of tanks obviously we wanted to have our ducks in a row before approaching the boys uh in well back then it was still top gear so we in the american office had to think about it and did some research we figured that even if they didn't want to partake we could have some fun on our own with the various military folks that we had in the company so i would take an american tank you would have challenger my uk counterpart over on world of tanks europe take a british tank and we were kicking around maybe somebody like yuri pashlock for the russian tank so for example sherman t34 churchill or m60 chieftain t72 the problem we had was in finding not just three operational vehicles physically close enough together to actually film them but in finding some whose owners would really let us throw them around a bit for the various challenges let's face it most operating tank owners try not to put too much stress on their vehicles for obvious reasons if they break they are difficult and expensive to repair even acknowledging that we could shoot and edit things to make them a little bit more dynamic perhaps than they really were we decided it just wasn't feasible so we never did attempt to reach out as an aside it appears that james may is a fan of the tank museum in bovington when you call their telephone number he's the voice on the answering machine unfortunately he just says james here so when i asked the staff of bobbington who the hell james was they were a little bit put out i mean british accent name of james how am i supposed to know also what are my thoughts on saracen and saladin i've not had many yet really as far as i know they seemed pretty good vehicles for the time but they were definitely of an older generation obviously i've seen them in museums but i've never really given them a solid going over or mechanical investigation i am sure i will get there sometime there are still a few out there alexander h for gun of the month can i show you the ak-74 okay i was going to get to it eventually anyway a little bit earlier but this is an ak-74 manufactured by mullot i believe it is is the vapor ak-74 and i got it mainly because it was a collector's piece i mean you can't be a firearm enthusiast not on an ak but i wanted the 74 over the 47. i think that was a good call this is actually a lot of fun to shoot not much recoil it's actually very smooth it does have questionable design decisions so for example you have a leaf sight with a notch a blade side yeah whatever you want to call it suffice to say you can adjust for range and it's just a little notch just like a pistol that works with the front side post and you can see the sight radius is only halfway so i mean it's like carbine length sight radius i have acquired as you can see a red dot sight which you will note mounts sort of on the left eye so i don't know if i if i just accidentally purchased a left eyed site i mean i got it from a bloke in the office who happened to have i mean it's russian markings and all so whatever um so i'm in two minds about this one i haven't actually tried shooting with this since i got it uh it is a little bit odd to be on the left eye instead of directly on top of the of the side uh but uh yeah i'm the the fixed side but you gotta admit it doesn't get in the way of the of the fixed site either and i'm told not that i'm an expert in vepers uh that this is one of the better forms of ak and it uses a lot of rpk style parts which makes him a little bit more heavy duty this was one of the firearms that i purchased in california and at the time it had to be california legal which meant that i had a little block on the mag release and like all my well most of my other california legal rifles to the tavor being the exception it took all of about 30 seconds to change from california illegal to evil quote assault weapon unquote but i have to say i i think this was a pretty fun purchase i mean i'm talking about crude look at the safety catch here but this is a fun little blinker i have to say so i'll put that back down and get back on to the other questions and i'm going to continue on with the 11. of all the tags you've reviewed which was the one you enjoyed reviewing the most and why it's like asking which of my children is my favorite and that said i think i'm going to go with the strv103 for three reasons firstly there was a lot of information already available and also if i didn't have the answer pre-researched well the museum director stefan was always close to hand to fill me in and he was a tanker the more i know about a vehicle the more fun i have in talking about it i enjoy getting into the weeds and simply knowing what all the buttons do even the obscure ones secondly they're just so different to everything else and a variety is nice thirdly stefan let me drive the thing and if you watch the video i have this great big grin on my face as the turbine spools up nostalgia the other thing i like about doing a tank review is actually nothing to do with the vehicle at all there are some reviews i've done where the staff are just plain supportive knowledgeable and fun to be around they are rarely seen on screen and in fact oftentimes i will get so distracted in conversation or side items that it kind of eats into my filming time you don't see it because i don't press record but i do gladly accept the delay and i'm happy to say that i'm greeted with a friendly face in all sorts of museums all over the world so folks like rob jeremy jason joel or ralph also as well as stuff that have been great with trusting me with their vehicles answering my questions swapping war stories and doing some skutt work from that crap can you find me a thing too i need an impromptu cameraman would you would you hold the camera so with the scrv103 i had this magic confluence of a fascinatingly unique vehicle the knowledge of the vehicle a running vehicle that let me drive and a friendly accommodating and helpful staff oh and good weather white sagittarius if the netherlands had been more up to standard at the beginning of world war ii whose tanks might they have bought statistically probably british simply because that was what most countries were going with maybe with sweden being an alternative and they did buy swedish armored cars after all but if you look at who was selling tanks for export at the time though it's a pretty small list france which the belgians went with uk czechoslovakia sweden sort of even the u.s you're thinking big arms exporter they weren't really in the export game not for armor marma harrington and christie notwithstanding now that's not to say that italy or hungary or whoever wouldn't sell their tanks if asked but were they good enough to buy compared to the major export powers sworn brother of the ballistic order of saint john moses browning i've heard from two camps regarding the desert storm grand war as it relates to the dreaded 1980s full the gap matchup one school of thought says that the iraqis followed soviet armor doctrine to the letter trained their crews expertly from the soviet curriculum and got hammered indicating that the red army would have been wasted in the facts of superior us-nato tanks weapons etc and their only hope of winning would be through sheer numbers the other camp says that while the iraqis may have officially followed soviet doctrine their t-72s are export models downgraded they bought cheap ammo with reduced penetration capability their training was oriented towards looking cool in their tanks in baghdad parades the iraqi air force was a no-show whereas the soviet air force would be a major player and therefore they should not be considered representative of how the red army would have performed had the balloon gone up in germany it makes you wonder sometimes why is it called a balloon i'm sure there's a history to that idiom but anyway i figured the truth is somewhere in between can you shed some light on the subject well both groups are full of crap it doesn't take much assessment to note that whatever doctrine the iraqis were using it certainly wasn't soviet however your second group is somewhat closer to the truth with regards the air force and the quality of the tank ammunition remember also that unlike a lot of armies in countries led by strongmen the iraqi army was intended to fight not just look good in parade i mean it had just finished eight years of war with iran however it turns out that your question has already been directly addressed by an article by michael eisenstadt and kenneth pollock entitled armies of snow and armies of sand the impact of soviet military doctrine on arab militaries found in the middle east journal of autumn 2001. in the case studies they look at the major arab competence in the post-war era and the iraqis are the least soviet in doctrine of any of them in fact their doctrine was fundamentally british modified by the reality that they did not have the training or culture to rely on initiative in the same manner as a result iraq like the other arab countries developed the form of arab doctrine better suited to their forces implemented that in their eight year war even though the air force and air defense were the most soviet influence many of the iraqi pilots had been trained in the u.s uk and france and were expected to use a lot more personal initiative in their combat the quote from the article in the cases considered here there is no apparent correlation between the extent of soviet military advisory presence in an arab country or its reliance on soviet equipment and the degree to which that country's military adopted soviet organizational forms concepts or practices in any case it's a long article the bottom line here is that basically nothing about the fulda gap could be extrapolated from the 1991 war hammer of terror why have modern afvs almost all moved to a track system utilizing return rollers actually i'm not seeing any documentation on that believe it or not there is a notable exception in the return roller camp and that's the cv90 which is still unsupported most every other high-speed vehicle whoever uses return rollers it's probably simply to do with ensuring that the road wheels as they bounce up and down don't hit the track return especially if it is a wide and thus heavy track they also want to make sure that if you have large or armored side skirts the track return is kept clear of the support arms for the side skirts which could be very ugly even with just a light contact even the cv-90 though you'll see has a relatively raised track in terms of the gap between the road wheel and the track which of course would raise even higher with the tension caused by the sprocket dragging it forward even unsupported track needs to be tensioned though don't mistake the fact that the track is unsupported with the thought that the tension on the idler and sprocket are much less it just looks less because you have a larger sag i'm sure somebody will now chime in with a technical answer but for now i think not interfering with the road wheels or skirt support arms is probably going to do oscar what is my most favorite swedish tank and why what is it the swedish question today s tank i see aforementioned turbine comment but i do appreciate the pragmatic out of the box thinking behind it i think an honorary mention needs to be given to the l60 though it was a thoroughly good design for the time caleb engelhardt how do i decide what vehicle and which presently surviving example will be in an inside achievement's hatch have i ever had to scrap an episode that had progressed somewhere into production the only one i have ever scrapped was the t-3476 it was the very very first one filmed and the quality was simply not releasable sharp-eyed viewers will see some snippets from that sequence in some of the earlier episode title sequences these days there are several criteria firstly how much does it cost not just filming fees if any and some museum can be quite high which is not why i've not gone to them but getting there and staying in the area for a few days as well also costs money this can also be modified by the number of vehicles present so for example the owner of the most recently produced surviving sherman and is something like last but number 36 off of the line as if i am interested in swinging up his place to cover it absolutely i've not done a 76 millimeter sherman yet and his does seem to be in great condition unfortunately it's also the only tank up his part of the country that i know of which makes it simply cost impractical for now to fly all the way up for just one tank the tks was a target of opportunity i just happened to be in the area for other reasons then i have to debate if it's a tank which world or tanks is interested in if so then i'm going to wait for it to be covered by them they are my full-time employer after all and they have started to support the series again if not then it is something that i will do with patreon funding which actually gets me much more choice i actually do prefer the cold war stuff personally which is why the current batch of videos coming out of my recent forebenning trip involves vehicles which do not appear in world of tanks you've already seen the xm808 and the m51 recovery vehicle there are two more to follow so no no t28 yet sorry the xm808 is also an example of a vehicle which kind of fell into my lap i was digging in the archives and i found out quite a bit of information about it kind of a cool vehicle and i was interested in it so why not put it near the front of the list the next criterion is the quality of the vehicle as much as possible i'm holding out on certain vehicles until i can find the one which is as close as possible to intact inside as well as outside if i can drive or better yet shoot the thing hey this is america after all i'll hold off until a suitable opportunity there are a couple of vehicles which meet that category right now and then of course it all comes down to a balance i'll spend more money traveling to a place which has more quality vehicles or a particularly unique vehicle it's not purely a matter of where is affordable i have mentioned before that i have a trip to brazil's schedule before covet it's not cheap and i don't expect that the vehicles are going to be in great condition but i do expect that they will be fascinating rare and worth covering finally of course they're just responding to demand one large european collection to which i have not yet been has outright asked me to go visit and film there although there are other museums in europe i need to go back to who am i to say no to a request especially if it has a number of vehicles i have not yet covered mike quinton looking at a striker surerad vehicle if it only has four shots with the stinger and two with the hellfire how easy will it be for a pair of these vehicles to be overwhelmed is it the expectation that a battalion or brigade will be attacked by only six aircraft at a time well it seems to me that if 10 aircraft start attacking and six blow up the other four very well may start being very circumspect remember air defense does not require air destruction that said sure rad is basically the last line of defense whatever is attacking the brigade has got to get through the us air force first and i suspect some spare stingers are also carried around that said there are rumblings that man pad stingers will be making a return josh conte can i make an episode about m36 jacksons in korea i'm curious to find out how they were used in conflict if there were tank destroyers or medium tanks josh i think it was the most recent q a if not the one before they were categorized by the koreans as tanks that said i don't know if i have actually seen much about the m36 usage i suspect any documentation on the matter will be in korean which i cannot read and i don't really have access to anyway john zabala what is my opinion on the m4a2e4 and why wasn't it fielded right for those of you who aren't tracking the m4a2 e4 was an attempt to fit torsion bars to a sherman they were full width bars they provided the 26 inch wheels with a 7 inch range of movement overall the vehicle came out as about the same weight as the standard bogey-equipped m4 on the plus side the vehicle seemed to have less rolling resistance and gave a better ride on the cross-country course mainly due to the larger range of wheel motion meaning it was less likely to bottom out and transmit jolts to the crew compartment on the downside for whatever reason it had more vibration than any tank tested against it which included vvss and hvss germans and t20e3 now of interest the t20e3 which also had torsion bars gave the least vibration of the lot so the difference apparently wasn't so much in the suspension type as much as the strength of the suspension as the m4a2e4 was three tons heavier than the t20e3 required stiffer bars the belgian block course saw the vvss as the most stable and on the washboard the two bogey shermans stayed more or less level and just bounced up and down whilst the torsion bar tanks saw the front stay more or less level and the rear pitched up and down causing a very unstable ride although the test officer felt that the stabilizer of the gun could probably counteract most of it in the end though it came down to logistics the report concluded that torsion bars should certainly be pursued but on other tanks it was considered simply not worth the hassle of building torsion bar shermans to serve alongside bogey shermans the actual verbiage was quote release of production of the medium tank m4e4 would involve considerable maintenance problems without improving on the value of the medium tank m4 as a weapon or in other words right suspension system wrong tank at the wrong time adam schindler is it easier to work with infantry as an organic or as a divisional core level asset or is that a pointless distinction in combat of course in combat you tend to run in company teams you cross level a tank platoon to an infantry company which itself sends an infantry platoon to the tank company so every little miniature combined arms teams the units themselves will be organizationally pure it simply makes training easier the entire company or battalion whatever level this homogenous unit is could do a tank gunnery at once for example without having to worry about supporting the guys in the ifvs this means then that generally speaking you don't really know the guys wearing blue as you can just end up getting whatever platoon gets assigned to you for the exercise or the operation in world war ii if you read yaidi's the infantry's armor you will see repeated reference to how they tried to keep one infantry tank battalion assigned to one division for a while so that they would start to get to know each other and the same would presumably happen at lower levels if that is your level of integration however i think it all comes down to training opportunities so january of 2005 we were attached to one two four infantry a striker unit as soon as we arrived we held some brief familiarization courses for the infantry because they were in a striker brigade and for all we know their 11 bees had never been close to a tank before and since we were going to be working in a city they needed to know what we could or could not do and where they could or could not stand that sort of thing so to answer the question the answer is that organizationally you want to have infantry and armor mixed at as low a level as you can get away with typically this has been battalion these days with the evolution of the combined arms battalion its company there have been outliers though such as some cav units which had mixed companies by empto of tanks and m113s it's just easier to command and train in peacetime a homogeneous unit flipped sherman okay where do i draw the line between an mbt and a medium tank some people claim that the t55 m48 or centurion are mbts but they served alongside heavy tanks it's a good question and one which has been argued endlessly by people on and off the internet and i'm not going to settle it here i would remind you that an operation think tank when posed the question of what was the first mbt the panel of august experts chose not to wade into it with the exception of steve zaloga who proposed panther my personal belief is that the medium tank evolved into the mbt note that t-54 was developed as a medium and centurion was developed as a cruiser not the universal tank which some of the uk were clamoring for that would have ended up being a different and failed project but simply i hypothesized that technical development was such that less of a trade-off needed to be made anymore in the iron triangle guns were improved and lightened in weight engines were made more powerful for the size meaning that armor could be thicker for the same mobility basically without really meaning to in the attempt to make a better medium or cruiser the builders simply happen to come up with a vehicle which would have the characteristics of what we would later determine to be an mbt i don't think there is a hard and fast line between the two when it comes to physical characteristics i personally would consider centurion and t-54 both to be mbts regardless of the provenance j i've mentioned that the 75 millimeter was found lacking in normandy while previously in italy was seen as effective what circumstances changed between italy and normandy which caused the 75 millimeter to be less effective nothing indeed if anything the reverse was actually true the 76 millimeter tank was released for production in quarter 4 of 1943 it started rolling off the factories in january this meant that somewhere in quarter one 1944 the major commands in europe would have been aware that the tank existed yes you sneezed oh no [Music] he has a little carpentry tool set [Music] oh you went to swim class yes did you do a good swimming okay careful of your feet okay go back to mommy please i have to keep filming thank you oh would you take doggy the major command in europe actually doing the fighting at the time was fifth army conducting its long slog up the italian peninsula that said it was mainly an infantry fight anti-tank issues didn't seem too critical major enemy armored assaults were stopped at gala or salerno and when the panther was finally encountered in early 1944 one of the very first ones met was knocked out by an m5 light tank which got around the rear that said the restricted terrain did normally mean that when a panther or ferdinand was encountered it was down to frontal shots which those vehicles were well suited to 18th of march 1944 fifth army sent a radio message to the us saying in effect for the love of god stop sending a 75 millimeter tanks send us only 76 millimeter tanks and that new t-71 90 millimeter tank destroyer you've been telling us about in fact send us so many 76 millimeter tanks that we can replace all of the 75 millimeter tanks that we have we want to get rid of all the m10s as well they obviously were not seeing the 75 millimeter as suitable to requirement now they did modify the request a week later saying actually we'll keep the m10s while we wait and see if this t-71 is actually any good but we don't want the t-70s the hellcats but their opinion on the tanks though remain the same dog other way turn around turn around dog okay well just don't leave it too loud so um hey put her in the camera so there's this thing on the internet i guess you mentioned dog you must you must show dog i i don't get it what do you mean i don't know i don't get it it's just a thing if you if you mention the dog you have to show the dog that's apparently an internet rule they want to see the dog that's the wife's dog i have nothing to do with her as little as possible to do with it the joys of filming with a family and no i don't have doors on the office either it's on my to-do list anyway it seems that there is no crosstalk on the matter between the lads in italy and the lads in the uk waiting to go to normandy and it also seems that the lads in dc didn't think to forward such an observation to the uk either as far as the guys in uk were concerned the 75 millimeter armed army were still doing a job and they were hearing nothing to say that it was worth the hassle of bringing along those 76 millimeter tanks which had just arrived and thus they only realized in normandy that actually it probably was worth the hassle of bringing them along oh and uh also would mind awfully inventing hvap ammo please however that didn't mean that the 75 millimeter was universally unpopular either shortly after aerocall that battle where the u.s forces with only 75 millimeter shermans and some tds trance the panther unit they refused any 76 millimeter tanks being quite happy with the 75. abrams basically had to be ordered to swap to a 76 millimeter to set an example for his men interestingly after using the 76 millimeter tank for a short while they became converts similarly six armor division reported on 14th of october quote we have received no 76 millimeter tanks and have no great desire for them we'll take more 105 tanks though by late october the 712th tank battalion had no particular opinion on the 76 millimeter gun simply because they hadn't yet found anything to shoot at with it this matches up with another report i've seen in the archives where ordinance branch were complaining that they didn't have any data on the real-world performance of a new ap round because no enemy tanks had been found to get battle results from hooray the reality was that they were simply not a particularly common target so a short answer to the question it all came down to the type of fighting you were involved with i've mentioned before that if you're in italy or northern france you prefer the m10 as a tank destroyer if you're in southern or central france the m18 the type of fighting you were involved with tended to determine your wants normandy was a brutal slugfest folks wanted bigger guns once the race across france had begun the 75 millimeter was fantastic then he hit the west wall by december 6th armored had changed its tune it now desired 76 millimeter guns but it said that this was because many of the targets that they would encounter would be concrete or steel fortifications george paramore is there any proof of enemy tank or gun features being basically copied by any nation jerry cans come to mind and boiling vessels i must admit to not being aware of anything copied bolt for bolt as it were but it was standard practice to take a look at either an enemy or allied tank and take it apart to see whether it had any concepts worth incorporating into your own production basically that's a neat feature let bob over in the design office know about it so for example i seem to recall reading that that was basically the reaction the soviets had to the m4 stabilizer and the commander's vision cupola found on the later m4s one looks at the wet stowage and shermans and shafi's and wonders if the wet storage on chieftain was just convergent evolution or if they simply said well that's a good idea we'll nick it this is of course separate to tanks which are basically licensed or unlicensed copies or derivatives of other tanks as a whole so for example there are quite a few tanks in the interwar period where one looks at the vicar six ton then one looks at the whatever and goes hang on a minute that looks suspiciously familiar the carton lloyd tankette was the same way progenitor of anything from tks to the cv33 though i don't believe they ever see royalties for them robert neborney no i have no information on the mobile protected firepower program i've not noticed any press releases or test reports come across my desk i strongly suspect that the latter are classified but i don't think that griffin's being based on ajax is all that problematic it has a sufficiently modified hole i doubt the vibration problems will be the same as the british were having b7 any fun or memorable glitches in tank software i can think of no remember i'm a previous generation tanker i was in m1a1s and m3a2s i don't think they had software not that i've ever delved into it but have a very strong suspicion that they had firmware instead and if you wanted to install a new version of whatever reason let's say an ammo type you needed to swap out cards the only exception would have been with the blue force tracker which i vaguely recall ran on os 2. seem to recall that the system was so clunky that much of the capabilities i never used i mean i never could get into the idea of trying to type in contact information instead of just shooting at it making the contact no longer relevant to concern at most i'll just radio it in it's a lot faster and then somebody sitting at a desk could do the grunt work in fact i also seem to recall that a lot of the logistical capabilities of the system were never used by anyone either felicity longus what can you tell me about tank destroyer doctrines outside of the us army from my understanding the germans seem to take a more offensive approach to the matter seeking out enemy armor rather than being used to blunt enemy armored offensives the soviets seem to consider all their tds to be assault guns even when more specialized for the role such as the su-85 the british assigned their tds to artillery units treating them as towed guns that happened to be able to move themselves well you kind of answered the wrong question the british did treat their vehicles as self-propelled anti-tank guns i'll put a link in the description below but there's a chat by the name of nigel evans who's put up a fairly reasonable overview on british anti-tank gun doctrine in armored champion zeloga mentions that quote the only dedicated tank destroyer the soviets had was the su-85 though as that was for the chapter for 1944 maybe that was because the sc-100 wasn't around yet i did ask yuri pashlock his response on the other hand was that the su-85 was considered a quote universal self-propelled gun and was used in all roles the germans are quite interesting german doctrine for tank destroyers was actually identical to what the us implemented at least until the middle of the war only one level down where u.s doctrine officially stated that tds should be used in battalions and occasionally companies the german thinking was that panzer yeagers would be used in companies and occasionally platoons but otherwise it was the same down to commentary that not having a roof would allow the panzer yeagers to see first and shoot first of course much like with self-propelled artillery the germans didn't actually have the production capacity to spare for purpose-built vehicles in the end only two panzer self's fair la fete sois were built these are fast half tracks with a 7.5 centimeter gum in an open-topped turret panzer jaeger 1 was of course just a reuse of old chassis only when you get to martyred you start to see at least something close to a mass production of a vehicle suited to task after that you start to see doctrine take a bit of a back seat to other matters jake panzer iv wasn't supposed to be a tank destroyer at all it was developed to be disturbed four but became the subject of a fight between panzer branch in reality gulerian who had no time for stokes at all and the infantry and artillery branches who liked stugs guderian won it became designated the egg panzer and thus fell under his control as panzer troop remember gadarian felt that germany's limited afv production needed to be given to the panzer units as the main offensive maneuver unit of the army when combined with the fact that there weren't enough panzers of any sort the vehicle was occasionally used as a surrogate tank no matter what the anti-dag doctrine would have been such also was going to prove to be the case with the egg panther the spielberger book on heavy egg panzers noting the displeasure and inspecting officer had of jake panthers being used in the role of assault guns in offensive operations i also recall hilary doyle stating fairly specifically that jake panzer 38t was considered a self-propelled anti-tank gun and was basically just better than pushing a pack 40 through the mud and of course any project whose design started after about 1940 is going to be a little bit of skew because of the influences of certain political figures who thought that more armor and bigger guns were always going to be better no matter what the history of the first two years of the war may have shown andrew sebastian some modern afvs have been designed without traditional direct optics instead using cameras connected to monitors with either traditional wiring or fiber optics have any of these designs actually entered service and do i have any experience to make comparisons between traditional optics and cameras obviously the main problem with a traditional direct optic is that it requires that a hole be placed in the armor for that optic not only is the hole itself an obvious weak point small as it is but there's also something called edge effect which makes armor around the hole weaker as well the idea of using a camera instead of a traditional optic is that you can route the wire to say the roof where a hole is much less of a problem it's not that you can't run a traditional optic through the roof of course that's what dog houses are and for some auxiliary sites such as challenger they'll go the same way as well but if you're in a modern tank which already has screens for other things why not just use the same screen for the camera site either way it seems that the way vehicle designers are going recently is that they're hedging their bets they're retaining a traditional daylight optic with the thermal imager which of course must use a screen of some sort and using a camera as the backup site one advantage for using a camera particularly applies in the case of ifvs as a repeater monitor can be placed in the troop compartment thus the troops get a good look at what's in front of the vehicle before the ramp drops or alternatively if the driver says doing nothing better at the time he can tune his monitor to monitor the camera whilst the gunner is looking through a different site that sort of thing of course the argument against is that the backup site is supposed to be for when everything has gone wrong and you may not have any power in such cases oftentimes vehicles will have separate circuits and batteries dedicated just to important functions which can be turned on for an hour or two so it's actually not as terrible an idea as you may think i suspect it'll be a very long time though before any tanks are filled with purely electronic optics unless there is some physical reason preventing traditional optic use such as on unmanned turrets john kettner had sherman firefly being based off the bigger turret sherman would it be more effective or should the commonwealth have just adopted the 76 millimeter the uk had a very good reason for preferring the 17-pounder over the 76 they already had the gun in their system they were building the ammunition for it it was a good anti-tank gun where is the main advantage to them for keeping the 76 millimeter the question for them wasn't 76 millimeter or 17 pounder the question was what do we shove the 17 pounder into and that was a problem that they wrestled with for quite a while the requirement was always to receive 75 millimeter turrets now i've not seen anything specific on the british side as to why but i suspect from reading in between the lines of an experiment which the us did and putting a 75 millimeter into a 76 millimeter turret that it may simply not have fit correctly it's not just a matter of how big the turret is but also where the components are inside it the 76 millimeter turrets trunnions are a little bit further forward compared to the 75 millimeter turret which altered the positioning of everything behind the mountlet relative to the turret ring it's entirely possible that some components of the recoil system or the elevation system simply wouldn't be able to fit or have the right clearance in the t23 turret i personally still think that being better off using m10s admiral tiberius in my last tank video with ian i mentioned that the soviet 115 millimeter was never really developed as it could have been could i explain further t62 was something of an interim tank which kind of sounds a little bit odd when one considers just how many vehicles were made but then again look at the m3 medium or the m10 tank destroyer which are also interims a lot of the soviet leadership's attention was being focused on object 432 which would eventually become t-64 however it was suffering from significant teething troubles and nobody was interested in putting all the eggs into the t-64 basket eventually of course the t-72 will come along as well and eventually between the two of them they would push t-62 out of frontline service at least against nato tanks all the development effort then went into the 125 millimeter the t-62 went to secondary areas where the ammunition it had was quite acceptable or to export com customers where the ammunition had was good enough for export now that's not to say that there were no upgrades at all improvements in ammunition arrived in the 3bm 21 of 1977 and 3bm 28 in 1982 and the bm36 of 1988 which was depleted uranium and i don't believe exported but if you think about it even that's over three decades without a new round nearly four if you look at the export ammunition only compare with for example the contemporary british 105 millimeter which was still seeing ammunition developed as recently as a decade ago the russians simply put their efforts into the 125 millimeter leaving any possibility for improvements in t-62 ammunition design to after-market manufacturers kazuki k vehicles like the t-55e1 were unsuited for the needs of world war ii but considering the much more urbanized nature of warfare today could there be a niche for a vehicle that's wheeled and armed with a primary armament much more geared towards infantry support especially for military which isn't first-rate it will be easier to maintain a manufacturer cheaper and easier to cross train drivers in what does the modern tracked ife cover that need already see more the latter i have three issues with the idea of a wheeled vehicle in urban combat the first is the amount of three-point turns that it have to do to get down half of the streets most country cities are not quite as open as north american ones after all the second is that if there is particularly serious combat i would expect there to be a lot of debris to include concrete rubble and rebar to be in those streets which i don't think would do great things to a wheeled vehicle thirdly it seems to me that if there is any scenario where you would want as heavy a vehicle as possible in those tracks it would be in a town with armor on the sides top and bottom also a issue that does not mesh well with wheeled vehicles of course immediately one must look at singapore which is mainly city and note that they are buying 450 terex 8x8 vehicles but on the other hand it also has over 800 bionx ifvs so they seem to be going more for the tracks on the subject of t55e1 any plans on a video about weird wheeled prototypes in the us's history of testing and developing wheeled tank destroy type vehicles up to the 1128 not specifically on that subject no but i will hit a few with targets in the standard run of things witness the recent xm808 video you've mentioned on many occasions about the sheer rawness of vibrations and concussion in tanks has there ever been any research or testing conducted on the use of power boat style hydraulic damping seats not that i'm aware of i'm sure it's been looked at for shock protection for blasts but i can imagine it would be rather irritating trying to keep your eye to an eyepiece when your seat keeps moving up and down relative to the optics because of the internal suspension feature or trying to aim precisely with the control handle would also be a problem when your shoulders keep bouncing around relative to the handle indeed m1 gunners basically get clamped into position between the chest and back rests to try to keep them from moving it seems to me that the ideal is a sort of a break point for normal movement the seat remains completely fixed but if there's a massive shock of a blast then the seat will move next from trevor long who served in the australian army as ceo of the unit which had the m113 a1 with the t50 turret with the coaxial caliper 50 and caliber 30 machine guns he says caliber 30 i thought with the b762 and tlc with m113a1s with scorpion turrets with 76 millimeter guns he would appreciate it if i could do an article on both of these vehicles well the mrv very well may be doable i know there are some of the earlier fsv's with the solid interior museum i've not seen the scorpion version if you know where one is which is accessible and intact write in the comments below i've not seen the apc version and i don't know how many weren't converted to the as4 so that not probably not as long an answer as you're looking for but as i say if i come across one i'll be sure to give it a look because they are unique matt lesich i recently discovered the big wind which is the t-34 tank with the turret removed and replaced your twin jet engines from a mig-21 used to put out oil well fires after the gulf war have i come across any other interesting or unusual tank conversions frankly if you can imagine the conversion it's probably already been done however watch for a video that i appear on another channel soon as face does any army have a doctrine to deal with a mass technical assault is it different to an assault by other vehicles i can only think of two differences firstly confirmation that the vehicles coming towards you are in fact technical and not civilians if they're shooting at you with heavy machine guns as they charge that simplifies your process the other difference is that they are likely to be far more vulnerable to 7.62 and 5.56 millimeter fire than the typical armored vehicle so there is no need for specialist equipment alex 862 is the us still considering the xm360e1 to fit onto the m1 as far as i know no the gun has two major improvements on the m256 it has a higher chamber pressure meaning it can fire ammunition more power and it is about a ton lighter with better recoil management it seems to me that the army would be more interested in the second two features as apparently would mean that a 20-ton vehicle could take the weight remember it was developed as part of the now cancelled future ground combat vehicle which was supposed to be much lighter than the m1 however it would appear that there is considered no significant benefit to refitting the m1 with this gun presumably the army believes that the current gun with current ammunition is capable of handling anything it meets and saving one ton on what is now basically a 70-ton vehicle probably isn't worth the money as far as i know not that take-home cc's me on updates all work on the gun has stopped joe powell the british army have decided a challenger 3 is a bit naff as tank names go for the americans naf means disappointing unfashionable or tacky sensing a good chance for some publicity they reach out to a popular tank-themed youtuber to choose a name as tradition dictates the name must begin with the letter c and not have been used by britain before what name or names do you suggest they better ask quickly because i think kona work is about to overtake me in subscribers okay good scenes for british tank constitution car consolation congress chesapeake concord champlain chippewa chisel contibrite colony carrick negative clone mill carrergena de las indias calenso kilt chrysler in operation think tank david fletcher pointed out that they suggested carefully as the name for what would become challenger it's an impressive castle in south wales although a grant it doesn't exactly strike fear into the hearts of the enemy when you say it you can imagine some foreign soldiers screaming oh my god the british are coming and now you brought their care release even if it wasn't against the rules to reuse i can't imagine that crusader would be politically acceptable no matter how fearsome it may be callous collector or souls i guess there's something to be said for cyclops but they might have missed their chance on that one now that they're putting a second site uh commander's optic on the top of it cupid fin ammo it's basically big arrows culverin charger the horse not the general lee i think i'll go with corondo the guy who transported folks from the world of living to the world of the dead i'm actually a little bit surprised that hasn't been used yet actually ed are you aware of any such proposals reichsbeer minister what were the most useful slash best changes slash adaptions in tank design that i've come across to improve the quality of life in a tank are there any improvements you're wondering why they weren't implemented step holes in the side skirting and british tanks like centurion the water heater drinking water tanks heaters and air conditioning refrigerators the aussies have those automated track tensioning systems household power sockets all in all it seems that pretty much anything you can think of has by now being implemented somewhere just not everywhere the reason why not is probably related to the cost i mean imagine how much it will cost to have a u.s government contractor fit an australian-style refrigerator to all the m1s in the us army not that i'm cynical or anything stefan weiss i didn't find anything in the older q a's here's my question i found some videos of emergency unload training of tanks from train cars by the soviets and other war pack armies like the nva but nothing about that from nato is there any reason why not i'm thinking two possibilities one is that nato simply doesn't think it's going to find a train under ground assault which requires rapid unloading instead of unloading in its own time and secondly it's not exactly a difficult process which requires practice at least in a nato tank all you do is you just neutral steer in place so the tank is pointing off to the flank and then you drive off the side easy the typical soviet built tank however cannot neutral steer making getting off the flat car a much more interesting proposition buying coaches or caucus in world war ii what weapons did the infantry from the various nations have at their disposal to deal with tanks if the infantry didn't have supporting anti-tank guns or their own tanks and can't retreat well the traditional method is to have an anti-tank gun now something to bear in mind is that until the late 1930s an anti-tank gun means a shoulder fired bipod rifle normally somewhere around 13 to 15 millimeters in diameter such as the boys 0.55 but bigger ones such as the latte or the solitude 20 millimeter would also be found these would be things which could be found distributed around infantry units even a heavy machine gun will work nicely at the larger end of the scale the soviets seem to give everybody who could carry one a ptrd or ptrs but it is worth observing that unlike the earlier at guns these weren't really expected to defeat proper tanks they could if they got lucky with a flank shot but one was more likely to encounter an armored car or half track which an older at rifle would be quite capable of dealing with the next option is the rifle grenades such as the american m9 of 1942 had about five centimeters of penetration though one must ask whether or not that took into account the fact that a rifle grenade unless a very very close range was unlikely to impact at a perpendicular angle satchel and demo charges were always popular magnetic mines were a thing for the germans you run up clamp it on pull the pin and run good luck getting that close at least the japanese put theirs on the end of a really long stick but on the other hand unlike the german magnetic mine there was no time fuse then again their idea of an anti-tank mine could be dig a big hole that's large enough for a bloke to sit in with an artillery shell and a hammer and wait for the tank to drive on top most folks tended to use normal pressure detonated anti-tank mines one doesn't hear very much about them but they were extremely effective and rarely available in the numbers desired by the troops throwable grenades were also a thing most of them such as sticky bombs or molotov cocktails tended to work on an incendiary effect however there were some exceptions the germans simply bundled a bunch of hang grenades together to make a bigger blast the rpg-40 also worked on the blast principle but eventually the rpg 43 and rpg6 hand grenades came along which used shaped charges and little drogues to try to keep the thing pointing at the enemy another incendiary effect weapon was the northover projector which fortunately did not see service for very long and then you get to the self-propelled stuff mainly rockets and powder charges such as bazooka panzerschreck panzerfaust or piat all of which seem to use the shaped charge principle i guess the blacker bombard gets a mention as well but it really counts more as a small anti-tank gun due to its size so anyway you get the idea that infantry can be dangerous even without attached anti-tank guns charles charange which nation had the best armored doctrine pre-world war ii and who had the worst i'm not sure that's an easy question to answer each nation had its own requirements for doctrine and you couldn't look at french doctrine compared to german doctrine and say that it was better or worse if the french officially had the german doctrine would that have suited the french situation there's also the question of the difference between doctrine and the ability to put it into practice soviet doctrine was extremely forward thinking the only problem was that the vehicles to put it into practice weren't built yet and the people who understood it tended to get shot whatever the pluses and minuses of french doctrine the command culture in place something did not permit the doctrine to be followed and that's quite important i remember hearing about the israeli effects based doctrine from the early 2000s as part of my professional military education and the fact that one of the major difficulties with the doctrine was that nobody understood it to employ it is that a flaw in the doctrine or the teaching of the doctrine would the french doctrine have worked in 1940 had the senior officers had any fight in them the british visitors and generals were stunned at the level of resignation and inactivity by the french senior leadership if they had not waited for written orders instead of working off telephone orders would the french counter-attack at saddam have failed plus one has to distinguish between doctrines which are impracticable because of their nature in the real world versus not properly conducted because of other issues i submit the former maybe held against the doctrine but not the latter usa usa what is the difference between a tank and a light tank or combat car as far as i can tell the us did not officially use the term tank tanket in classifying armored vehicles some sources call the ctls or ford three-ton or maybe even the m1 combat cars as tankettes you are correct the us did not use the term for its own vehicles i think the m1918 three-ton will get a pass though because light tanks hadn't diversified enough to split off into tankettes and lights however looking at period documentation it seems that the us was willing to make the distinction for other nations referring to things like the type 92 or type 97 japanese tankette versus the type 93 or type 95 light tanks there seems to be no hard line cannons or machine guns could be found on both turrets on both what the us refers to as tank gets all had two man crews the light tanks had three man crews but i don't know if that was a dividing line either it may have been otherwise there's not a hell of a lot in between say a type 97 tank get and a mark vi light tank but a panzer one wasn't considered a tank and that was just a two-man crew thus it seems to me that the definition seems to revolve around what other vehicles were in the army at the time or the general whim of the person doing the naming ling taoli hypothetical let's say you are a minor nation in the aftermath of world war ii and you have acquired a mix of 75 and 76 millimeter armed tanks and tank destroyers from different surplus sails from different nations would it be easier to re-gun all the tanks to have the same gun modify the breeches to all take the same round or set up a separate ammunition supply line for each gun so in this case we're looking at say sherman 75s and 76s panzer fours panthers t34s m10s obviously the best solution as much as possible is to re-gun everything to the same gun if you can afford it this simplifies not only the ammunition problem but also the maintenance problem if that can't happen maybe just the tank can't take the gun the next simplest thing is re-chambering it to take the same ammunition however if you have a panther you might want to ask if it's truly worth downgrading the gun's ammunition to something which the panzer iv can also shoot the most realistic solution is to share projectiles the us 76 millimeter and three inch fired the same projectiles 17 pounder and 77 millimeter fired the same projectiles in north africa they put german projectiles into u.s shell casings 75 millimeters or 75 millimeters after all you may still have multiple ammunition lines and types to try not to mix up but at least only one projectile manufacturing line is required robert naboroni what's my opinion on the russian fill-in device sounds like it's a problem for tanks and at weapons i'd never heard of it so i looked it up quote the sp-42 fill-in creates a powerful beam of light similar to the strobe-like effect preventing enemy soldiers from aiming and targeting protected platforms now using light as a weapon against individuals isn't new go back to the canal defense lights of world war ii which strobed in a disorienting manner a laser dazzle system was deployed to the south atlantic in 1982 on world navy ships the idea was to blind incoming pilots especially those who are flying low and under sea dart if they were blinded they might pull up to avoid crashing into the sea thus giving cedar a crack never actually ended up being used though then the stingray bradley was deployed in the gulf war again i don't believe operationally used though the idea was it scanned around looking for reflections and when i found one it gave a pulse of light with the intent of disabling the optical system now most modern optics are filtered so the dangerous laser light is not transmitted to the eyeball but in that case i don't see why that shouldn't apply to the electronics as well so maybe that's why it just never entered widespread service either way the chinese also have a similar system in service sabre 203 was something close to what the film does it temporarily blinds and disorients folks it's basically a laser that one shoves into an m203 grenade launcher the replacement for that is the phaser the personnel halting and stimulating response rifle which of course presumably has no rifling at all as it's a handheld laser weapon again it is designed to create temporary blindness so as you can see it's hardly a new concept there are two main concerns the first is whether or not such weapons are lawful under the laws of warfare which which prohibit unusually painful weapons generally speaking if they cause permanent blindness they should be banned less permanent blindings are not so specifically prohibited the other question is well if you know something's there why not just shoot at it i'm not going to say that it's absolutely not a force multiplier or that maybe they've come up with a derivation which other nations have not but there is likely a reason why such systems which have been around now for quite a few decades have not entered widespread service masonic rat what is overmatching with regards to armor penetration well in order for a saber rand to get a kill when a punches through the armor plate of the enemy what actually causes the destruction is little pieces of metal which fly off both the steel armor and to a large extent the penetrator there's also going to be a bit of the energy which is converted into heat a combination of these things will result in a bad day for the personnel inside and any ammunition of fluids however fire the same round at a plywood target on the guttery range the penetrator basically remains untouched and a hole is punched in the wood some splinters will come out but not much else basically the penetrator went through like a hot knife through butter so you can imagine what would happen if a penetrator designed to punch through a foot and a half of armor impacts on something like an armored car it'll punch a very neat hole on one side fly straight through not drag any metal with it not change much energy in the heat and make a nice little neat hole out the other side if it doesn't hit anything vital on the way through you've over matched it's too much power for the effectiveness on target for such targets you're better off using either smaller rounds like a caliber 50 or a chemical effect round masonic rat who says that he recently watched pentagon wars thought it was funny government procurement is his personal hell as a j.o and is curious about how the bradley came to be would i be able to describe bradley's development yes and that's likely going to be a topic for another video however as a teaser i would direct you to my video on what pentagon wars got right it is in no way a coverage of bradley's development but it is a teaser for some of the stages along the way joshua nichols don't think i've seen this pop up in the movie fury when both pac-40s and tiger fire their shells they have a distinct whistle as they pass is this accurate not having ever been shot at by a pack 40 or kwk36 i can't tell for sure however i have an extremely strong suspicion that it would actually sound like a crack basically the sonic boom booney with the mainstreaming of autoloaders do you think we would see a new tank design one day with twin cannons fed by autoloaders it could be a massive beneficial increase in firepower i don't think so we're already looking at autoloaders which reload in four seconds unless at this point we're getting to the point that not loading is the delaying factor as much as the entire rest of the engagement cycle now that's not to say that twin barrel systems aren't a thing despite the old vt-1s and look at the amos 120 millimeter mortar but indirect is a little bit special because you want to have as many impacts as quickly as possible after the first couple of rounds go off most folks will have made it to cover and for the sake of flinging high explosive around the more the better there isn't really any practical advantage to being able to fire two rounds sabo on one second at the cost of the weight and space taken up by a second system besides modern tanks only carry about 45 rounds or so anyway how quickly do you want them to run out joe polloway what was the chimera was it a stug an s tank or something else i've only seen it in war game red dragon okay before anybody tells you to go look at the armored archives video on chimera that is a different chimera the one in war game is a canadian vehicle quote unquote however it turns out that the same job ed has also done an article over on tank's encyclopedia i've linked to it below of interest one of the chaps who worked on the project chimed in on the comments section and it explains how what was actually a british project ended up being considered canadian in the computer game it does not explain why some imagery chose only six wheels per side however when the text and the model indicate originally seven anyway i cannot add to the article i haven't seen anything so i am just going to leave you off in that direction colonel chang i think it is fair to say that the japanese have no qualms about licensing and adapting us technology for local use which has resulted in a number of japanese systems being quite similar to the us equivalents from the f-15 variants the f-16 f-2 or the congo class destroyer city early burke however japanese tanks are radically different to those in the u.s what are the reasons for the significant divergence of japanese mbt design to the us and other western bloc nations as an aside how heavy and tall does a loader need to be to efficiently handle 120 millimeter rounds well the japanese requirements are radically different water is basically water it's generally flat with few obstructions so a ship is basically a ship fighters generally have similar requirements as there isn't much up in the sky to worry about it's really just distances ground is a far more varied terrain japan is basically an archipelago a bunch of islands some pretty big islands mine but equipment still needs to get from island island and around those islands also those islands tend to be a little bit more mountainous than the typical battlefield that us tanks were designed to operate in i don't think about it i don't know if the rail system can handle mbts with their three foot six inch gauge and of course japanese people are a little bit smaller than their western counterparts so why create additional volume inside a tank to fit folks who aren't applicable look at the k1 versus the m1 over in korea so with a pretty narrow range of operation basically japan in this environment the japanese military could afford to design a tank specifically for operations in the japanese area whilst the us had to be a little bit more broad in the matter it's a bit like why mercovir is such an odd design it's designed solely to operate within conditions found within the 300 mile circle as for the size of personnel to load rounds it's not a matter of size as much as technique a strong arm doesn't hurt but it would be an unusually small and weak adult who can't handle a fifty pound shell once they figure out what they're doing jenny r given that in the u.s modern armor cavalry squadrons is currently being fielded differ from combined armed battalions only in relatively small ways what is the opinion on the possibility of the formations becoming interchangeable do i believe that german panzer grenadiers being doctrinally something of a hybrid between neck infantry and cavalry by american reckoning be an interesting model to adopt or do i think that simply does not fit the way the us fights his wars the u.s used to have a distinction between what the germans consider panzer grenadiers and infantry tubes in world war ii they were armored infantry infantry branch but trained under armored force for operations with armor units in the later cold war the distinction was the eleven mike mos make infantry versus the 11b who are not so blessed with comfortable transportation the elimination of the 11 mike has led to some debate as to whether it was a good idea or not back in 2019 there was a proposal in armor magazine to do exactly what you suggest create the 19 mike mos thus placing mech infantry under the auspices of armor branch much as panzer grenadiers are considered panzertropin and not infantry obviously this hasn't gone anywhere but there have been rumblings of infantry branch trying a bit of mechanized specialization i can't say i've been particularly thrilled what i've been hearing so far but i'll wait until i see the final proposal if it ever makes it out into the field as for the other question you might be confusing two different issues when the army created combined arms battalions they basically took any unit that was going to be in a brigade and if it was a cavalry squadron such as in first cav division it got to keep the name for lineage purposes but was basically a combined arms battalion like any other similarly the functions which used to be performed by an armored cavalry regiment today are to be performed by a brigade combat team it's argued whether it's a true successor but anyway however the actual cav squadrons which retain the cavalry role are not similar to the cabs a current infantry cab consists of two mech infantry companies and a tank company with a mortar platoon and scalp platoon at battalion level a little light for battalion if you ask me but anyway on the other hand a cavalry squadron has mortars at the company level three companies of recon bradley's two platoons each and a company of tanks as in older cavalry formations is a little bit heavy on firepower and little light on dismounts as a result there very definitely is still a distinction and capability and role between a recon squadron and a combined arms battalion for completeness as of 2016 the cabs are now called armor and infantry battalions again but the difference is just that they are two tank one infantry or two infantry and one tank company per battalion mike quinton for all our comments on the problems with tigers and panthers weren't the generals and planners aware of these before the vehicles were deployed breakdowns low mileage weight and transportation issues were hardly a secret and even a private could figure it out yet they plowed ahead for tigers absolutely they realized there were limitations with the vehicles and that's why they were designed as breakthrough vehicles not standard tanks go to where they're needed probably by rail conduct the operation then refit pending the next breakthrough requirement the fact that they needed more man-hours was reflected in the fact that whilst a typical medium tank battalion had a maintenance platoon the heavy tank battalion had a maintenance company only once they started being misused did they really start having reliability problems panthers that's a sort of the vehicles were obviously rushed into production and i'm sure everyone expected some form of teething trouble though i'm not sure anybody expected them to be quite as bad as they were the bigger problem with panther though was that if you compare the specifications that man originally put forward with what was built in the end you'll see a few extra tons are added over the probably on underestimate originally proposed so looking at jensen doyle's the panther tank the verbiages quote on 15th of may 1942 oberst fitner fitchner fitch fitchner f-i-t-c-h-n-e-r figure it out this colonel telephoned man and informed them that hitler had decided in favor of the man panther and that series production has been ordered the glasses plate was to be strengthened to eight centimeters there is no indication as to how hair hitler came to this decision the submission put to him said six centimeters however that's kind of the thing with autocrat dictators if they make a decision you generally follow it so even though unlike tiger panther was no longer within the boundaries of what the designers recommended tough teddy the designers also apparently were not told to make the tanks idiot-proof for the benefit of the motor unskilled who have very little time to train before going to fight again i'm sure someone in the pipeline realized that there was going to be a problem with under-trained troops operating highly complex and sensitive equipment but what were they going to do have there been any generals alive to see the tank or afv named after them not that i can think of bradley came close he died just before the vehicle was named i can't think of any in other countries either now i think about it i don't know who the al hussein was named after churchill's reaction seems to have been a bit mixed initially honored and then a little bit irked after its combat debut was less than stellar quote that's the tank they named after me when they found out it was no good presumably his opinion change again later the other one which comes to mind is harry hopkins but i have absolutely no idea what the man thought of it if churchill thought the infantry tank was no good hopkins must have been downright insulted if anybody even told him about it christopher ryan assuming that the logistics of charging and heat management could be reduced to match the current refueling and engine cooling capabilities in modern tanks would a battery electric armored vehicle be better than a dyno powered one also assuming the battery density has advanced to the point where range is not significantly degraded pure ev no unless maybe you want to look at hydrogen as a fuel source a refuel on the move is done in a matter of minutes however long it takes to get out of the tank open the fuel filter port covers put the fuel in and they are bigger fuel nozzles than you find for your car close up and get going again how can you do that with a rechargeable battery you need to find some way of swapping out a charged battery for an empty one kind of like the way tesla advertised for their model s note how though that that never seems to have happened in practice and i can't imagine it would be any easier in an armored vehicle let alone an armored vehicle in the field for hybrid systems though there may be promise and this goes back to something akin to questions and answers number one or two folks have been playing around with hybrid systems for a few years now with a couple of miles of range on batteries for recon vehicles to allow them to sneak around even more sneakily or just old-school porsche barnes type diesel electric transmission without any battery capacity so far though they've been looking at these solely for lighter vehicles nobody seems to be interested in going back to an electric motor for a heavy tracked vehicle right that is it for the q a apologies for the noises in the background but again you take the filming time when you can get it and if there's noises in the background sorry lads hope you found it interesting and informative i'll talk to you on the next one

Channel: The Chieftain

Views: 102,247

Keywords:

Id: I_MFDdeZMRo

Length: 77min 12sec (4632 seconds)

Published: Sun Nov 14 2021