Chieftain's Q&A #24. Harpoon-based Books, Misfires and Unmasking
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- If you've not seen a Q&A before, this is easy. People send me questions, I answer them. Some are sillier than others.
FB Page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Donations:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thechieftainshat
00:00 Intro
02:48 Were the Italians really as bad as all that?
06:57 Is the loader really told, at gunpoint, to take of his CBRN mask, or was that a joke?
10:26 What's the deal with post-war AT guns?
14:07 If you could sent an AFV design back to WW1....?
16:02 Are there any non-inlines or Vs in tank engine design?
17:19 What was your average engagement distance in Iraq, is it worth focusing less on long-range capability?
18:35 Why didn't the US put serious stock in the medium tank in the interwar period?
19:43 Why weren't gunshields mounted on US halftracks?
21:49 If IS-3 was such a shock, why didn't they just start building T29s or T32s?
23:10 Were there any examples of huge gun tanks like 175mm on a 108" turret ring?
24:43 Why did the US keep with cast armor?
25:47 CVR(T) use in the Falklands.
27:12 What's your pick of the bunch of modern IFVs?
28:45 What are stand-out tanks for their time in regards crew comfort?
30:38 Main gun misfire drills
32:58 How long are you expected to stay in a tank without dismounting for maintenance?
33:52 If I could own and drive any tank ever built?
34:34 Was the M2 Medium ever used in combat?
34:49 What did the CO and XO of an independent tank battalion do?
36:30 What was the most bizarre or destructive AFV mishap I've witnessed?
39:07 Was "Red Storm Rising" more or less correct in its plot compared to a real WW3?
42:05 What sort of terrain would you prefer as an attacker or a defender?
43:55 First tank to have air conditioning?
45:59 Go back to 1942, what would you tell the designers of tanks to do?
46:45 What is the most heinous fielded track tensioning system?
47:33 How does one prepare an AFV for travel?
48:12 Were there any attempts to repurpose flame tanks for peaceful applications?
48:54 What was the purpose of rear-facing machine-guns on turreted tanks?
50:44 Top three moments of "Haven't you muppets learned anything?" from 1936 on?
51:39 How to tell the difference between SU152 and ISU152
53:25 Is there a master list of my videos?
54:20 Was the AS42 Sahariana better than the LRDG vehicles?
55:02 Why couldn't they make a 76mm round with as much HE as the 75mm?
56:23 Would the MPF make a good cavalry vehicle instead of Bradley?
57:00 History of the Jerrycan
57:18 How long would an M60A3 TTS last in WW3?
58:45 What other content creators would I like to collab with?
1:00:04 What are some fundamental, persistent 'rules' of tanking?
1:01:25 What smaller countries made their own tanks?
1:03:38 Rate Australian armored forces.
1:06:06 Lazerpig's 'comb' video.
Re most bizarre incident 36:30 Not an AFV but In Bosnia I heard my favourite ever radio message (ex Royal Signals). After someone crashed a Land Rover, when asked what happened the driver replied “Rolled a Rover over, over” :)
In 2002 a unit on Ft. Sill was ready for an NTC rotation and had just shipped their heavy vehicles out the day prior via rail car. All their light duty vehicles were line up to leave at the motor pool so that at the butt crack of dawn they could leave.
Upon arrival at the motor pool they discovered that the gate lock had been cut, every vehicle had its headlights turned on, and their brake lines cut.
All that is *except* the commander’s HMMWV. It was missing. About a week later an off duty MP was out fishing at a lake on the far side of post. It was upside down on the embankment on the far side of the lake, precariously perched in place by a rock. My NCOIC & I showed up to start the report. The Cpt & a CW3 showed up in an M88 later and we told them that they would need to go the long way around from the parking lot because they couldn’t traverse the ditch. To which the CW3 replied “Nonsense! It’s virtually impossible to get this thing stuck!” He mumbled a few more things about being a Chief Warrant and we said OK gentlemen and stood back to watch the show.
That “ditch” is actually a 200’ wide by 60’ deep canyon that from the parking lot appears to be a gentle rolling hill since it’s slightly lower. The dam is just up stream from there. Upon reaching the precipice the 88 stopped moving, both officers look out over the gully ahead of them, then back up and go the way around.
To my knowledge we never caught the suspect. The night of the incident a soldier from the unit had gone to the ER for trauma similar to that what should have been sustained in a vehicle accident like this. But it later turned out to be an off post accident that he had covered up because he was drunk. However, years later a coworker and I were swapping Army stories and as I told this his eyes widened! He told me that this was his unit and while he was not the person that stole it, he was the guy that got the phone call to come out and get the driver.
On exercise when asking for casualty report...'No casualties sir, but Dicks dead!'
Oh god, I just almost chocked on my coffee
It’ll buff out little Bondo no need to call csm lol
In Mortar Platoon we had the Land Rovers and high trailers for ammo anyway I was coming into action one time a wee bit fast and I saw everyone with shocked looks on their faces anyway apparently the ammo trailer did a complete 360 and landed back on its wheels I didn’t believe them until I pulled the trailer tarpaulin back and there was 81mm Singaporean Tampella ammo all over the place 😂 so yes 👍 they were correct
When you mentioned "the elephant in the room", I know you were specifically talking about the current events, but I also found myself looking very intently for a small stuffed elephant somewhere on your bookshelf.
I assumed large WW2 German tank destroyer.
@@jonprince3237 Me too. First thougt "What is Ferdinand Porsche up again, dammit?"
Although there was no stuffed elephant on the shelf, there was a 1:72 scale Elephant/Ferdinand tank destroyer on the shelf right next to his left shoulder. So there was indeed an elephant in the room.
Got no idea where do you guys see stuffed elephant in the room/on the bookshelf but I know from reliable sources that there is a stuffed saber-toothed Rabbit - Killer. Monty Python's.
Heh
It is rare to find an honest man. Don't let this go to your head you won't fit in a hatch. Thanks Sir.
Concerning misfires. This is in regards to guided missiles -- TERRIER AA missiles to be exact during Vietnam -- but it is an interesting thing. A North Vietnamese Mig-17 had just attacked and bombed another US destroyer. The TERRIER-equipped guided-missile destroyer (not sure if it was a DLG-9 Class or one of the larger DLG-16 or DLG-26 Classes -- the latter two became "cruisers" by the stroke of a pen later on) observed this due to the rather close range to the other ship of 10,000 yards (this is very close to the MINIMUM range of a TERRIER missile due to it having to drop the big booster at its rear before being able to maneuver to chase down an enemy target being lit up by the ship's missile system target-tracking radar), loaded a TERRIER, locked onto the Mig, and the active system console operator pulled his firing key (the "pickle"). NOTHING HAPPENED AT ALL. Now this is a VERY bad thing, since at least a MISFIRE lamp from the launcher should light up, but nada. Now what? Being a real-life battle situation, not a drill, something had to be done NOW. So the console operator with the firing key in his hand, put the firing key back into its holder, reached over to the special function buttons, turned a selector to EMERGENCY FIRE, and pushed the EMERGENCY FIRE button on that console's set of buttons. WHOOSH! The missile fired so at least it was not a very dangerous "hang fire" situation, but the missile had never had its guidance system activated either, as that was part of the firing lamps that had not lit up when the original firing attempt had been made, and the EMERGENCY FIRE button does not bother with trying to activate a possibly ready-to-blow-up-on-the-launcher missile!
So the ship had just fired a DUD missile at a target possibly within minimum range -- in any case perhaps too close for the missile to get a good track on the Mig until the range opened up somewhat (that was not even thought of when they tried the first firing attempt) -- aimed solely by the ship's electro-mechanical calculator (no digits yet!) ordering the aiming of the launcher rail to hit that target just like a gun would follow a lead angle, but here for the huge missile launcher, with one rail on each side of the central cylinder rotating mount. These launchers were not designed for gun-like precision, as these were GUIDED missiles, supposedly, and didn't need such accurate aiming system.
The bridge officers ordered the starting of loading another missile as soon as the launcher slewed back to its ready-to-load position, while looking with binoculars at the missile smoke trail and the Mig. They of course expected it would miss but it might scare off the Mig and they could get a shot at it as it tried to run away (the missiles were WAY faster than any sub-sonic Mig and it was at such a close range), but instead, they saw the missile slam directly into the Mig and a ball of fire fall into the ocean. They looked at each-other and thought, as one, "Damn, we're good!" This was told to a bunch of us at a meeting by the ex-captain of that ship. He still thought it was amazing.
"Great shot kid, that was one-in-a-million!"
Hitting a jet aircraft with an unguided multi stage SAM missile? One in a million is probably generous.
Hitrate of AAA in ww2 with similar fire control was one in 200 thousand, but that didnt require a direct hit, and was actually capable of accurate fire in a predictable ballistic arc.
If that is even true and not a war story made up after the fact, either entirely by a bored mind that was ashamed to admit they spent the entire war cruising up and down the coast and never saw an enemy, or partly made up, or "embellished" from an actual incident, then it was entirely a lucky hit. There is a reason they get so nervous about two planes getting within a mile of each other near an airport. A rocket is essentially a fast small plane. No one "aimed" it, it was turned in the general direction of the aircraft to lauch, guided by the ships radar, so when they emergency fired it it was already going in the direction of the jet, unlike a modern vertical launch system that 100% relies on the guidance working. The distance from the centerline is irrelevant, most gun turrets were also off the centerline, they didn't need to account for that when aiming, it makes too small of a difference. they would have had worse luck if they had tried to aim the missile launcher manually, since there is no way to sight off of it, the only controls are remote. No way to tell if it is lined up on the jet. So instead he launched it without guidance and the enemy jet flew into it. If it even happened, and if they didn't actually just see the booster falling away and later turn it into an interesting story about shooting a jet down without even aiming at it. I bet the North Vietnamese also went home with stories about the time their radar unit failed on their 57mm AAA piece, so they just closed their eyes and fired, the only gun in the battery left shooting, and "god damned if that US Phantom jet didn't fly right into one of our shells and blow up on the run in!"
43:55 IIRC the ZSU-23-4 had robust air conditioning system in the 60s… but this was to stop the vacuum tube based radar Systems from frying themselves, as opposed to keeping the crew comfy.
Yup, any crew comfort in warsaw pact vehicles were definitely an unintended design glitch...
Similar concept in WW2 submarines: many has select sections of the vessel with air-conditioning, but for dehumidifying the air to prevent water-damage to the electronics. You would think, with more use of electronics today than ever, that we would be aware just how toasty and sensitive electronics can be, but somehow we keep forgetting that they do work better if dry and cool.
The BRDM-2 also supposedly had a VERY good AC system. But it was part of NBC overpressure system with the design theory being to dry the air so any hostile particulates have less to attach to in the cabin. As with the original design theory for AC systems, cooling the air was simply a byproduct.
@@genericpersonx333 subs remember, but it helps to have a nuclear reactor to power your AC plant. 70⁰F, 20-30% humidity. And a loss of chill water for the electronics is a major problem.
Vacuum tubes, electronics that could survive EMP wave from a nuclear blast. Unplanned benefit of older Soviet tech.
1:01:05. This is probably a variant of the old adage: “No combat ready unit ever passed an inspection.”
Or alternatively: “S: Your men are dirty and scruffy and a dammed disgrace!” “F: Men are dirty sir. Rifles are clean.”
Now that's soldiering
Major Sharpe Sir
What an odd coincidence. I was just watching that clip this morning.
Sweet William knew what was up.
"Sargeant! Cite this man for . . . Heavy beard in a combat zone."
One of my highschool teachers had been a mechanic in the Australian army. He recounted a tale of the time a leopard crew decided to drive through a dam (Large agricultural pond) without fitting fording gear. Drowned the tank and nearly drowned themselves in the process.
The Canadian Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories have developed a gas-protection system for the Ram Tank series, consisting of a positive supply of purified air through face masks to each crew member and sealing materials for closing hull openings to eliminate entry of liquid agents. It provided cool fresh air blowing directly into the face of each crew member and crews were said to prefer wearing it even if no gas threat was present due to this. This was in 1943.
How reliable was it?
@@naamadossantossilva4736 I haven't seen the Canadian report but the Americans tested it in 1944 in the M4. The conclusions seemed favorable but ended with no recommendation as at that point they were working on similar lines of developments themselves.
I was in a couple of Reforger exercises 72 & 73, had no idea until I read Steve Ladd's biography 'From F-4 Phantom to A-10 Warthog: Memoirs of a Cold War Fighter Pilot; that there were Phantoms all over Europe training to go tank busting, would have made me feel a little less like we were just over there as a speed bump.
_"We're not quite sure how much explosives will be needed to do the job."_
TRANSLATION: Get your video cameras out because this one is gonna be awesome!
To be fair, if they had been allowed to use all the shells, bits of the vehicle wouldn't then have been used as part of IEDs later.
If in doubt ... more C4 - Jamie Hyneman
"Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?"
@@alanfhall6450 Definitely! A certain former ready-mix truck comes to mind.
This just reminded me of the infamous incident in the 70's when a whale washed up on the beach in Florence, OR. Not wanting a rotting whale carcass on a popular beach, the then Oregon Highway Division got the bright idea to dynamite it, except they didn't use nearly enough. Blew chunks of the whale everywhere large enough to even destroy people's cars, but still left most of the whale on the beach. I believe they ended up just burying it. You can usually find the old newsreel on CZcams. They even named a park in Florence, the Exploding Whale Memorial Park.
Something interesting about the gun shields is that they were used on AmTanks and other landing crafts.
Most halftracks were AA vehicles. The crews were switched to anti personal once the threat dropped in 45. They were not supposed to have gunshields.
@@RGC-gn2nm not half-tracks, AMtracs. USMC slang for, Amphibious Tractors.
Honest coverage of the performance of Italian forces. Highly appreciated.
Colorado DOT have/had a tank for triggering avalanches because the place where a single gun could cover the most potential slides had once been burried by meters deep packed snow making a tank very attractive for the job and radio calls before and after firing mandatory.
Washington DOT has an M-60 at Wellington on Stevens Pass for the same reason.
@@Cthippo1 Sadly, Washington’s M-60 has been replaced by a howitzer.
At one time Washington state had an Anti-tank gun they used for avalanche control as well(Snoqualmie Pass area)
In Utah a few years ago they missed the mountain, went over the top and landed in someone's backyard lol.
Comment about the rear facing mg on Soviet heavies: Soviet tanks convoyed with the turret spun to the back. The mg gave them a front facing gun to do something with in the event of an ambush. This was removed on tanks with a TC mg post-war.
The medium tanks spun their turrets fast enough for it to not really be an issue
The KV also had a rear gun, and it had a bow MG on the front already. So I doubt that was why they put the MG on the rear, even if they were useful for that.
In Australia we use “vehicle mounted drip torches” essentially flame throwers on light trucks for prescribed burning of bush land mostly ecological and fire prevention purposes. Kill it with lots of fire also come in practice for landscape control of invasive weeds in both bushland and farm pasture.
@@lostalone9320 I think Australia's wildlife is effective against tyranids
@@cmusgrave LOL!
@@cmusgrave "carnifex vs drop-bear" can be a reasonably fair fight sometimes.
Steve Jackson Games wrote an Australia sourcebook for their game Car Wars. There was a section comparing how Texas and Australia were similar. One bullet point was how both are proud that they have animals and deserts that can kill you.
Well The M60A3 was a really good tank, it had the TTS, Thermal Tank Sight, that was quite able of shooting the full length of the M68 main guns 4,750 meter effective range, the tts was nitrogen cooled thermal sight, so we could see you in the dark from your body or hull heat. And the tts was 1/2 generation ahead of the M1's TIS and the TTS didn't use a monocular sight, it used a 6 inch screen, so no paralax and no forming the gunners head mount to get the sight picture up and running for consistent gun engagement results. I learned how to Tank on an M60A3, so it holds a special place in memory for me.
48:32 Polish PT-91 Twardy and 2S1 Gvozdika were widely used in forestry and agriculture as tools to prevent fire from spreading across mead and wood. The tracks were tearing up the litter to form a barrier of pure soil between forest blocks, fields, and meadows.
For your concerns on the Misfire drills; Yes it has been covered here before. This makes the third time. I cannot remember which q&a's they were in specifically, but you have covered this before, once covering the general drill of what you're supposed to do, and another time where you told the story of when a round separated in your turret, and then you drove around with it stuck in the turret for a few days before discharging it.
Repeat questions is a huge issue with channels like this and Dracinifel for example. There are so many videos, that get done over time, that finding one particular question is impossible. So yes, a master list that tells what video each question is answered in would be great.
Your wisdom in avoiding making pronouncements on a barely week old war is appreciated. Considering all the obvious disinformation (from all sides, but I would say one party has been particularly florid with fantastical tales, which, not surprisingly, got parroted enthusiastically), the emotion, and the censorship happy environment, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, literally for years.
I enjoy military history, greatly, but viscerally despise war. Threading the needle of commenting on current events in a military sense, without being labeled biased, shouted down for wrongspeak, or just getting things very wrong based on extremely incomplete information is difficult to the point of impossibility, IMO. Especially in a period where 'war porn' is everywhere, and being gobbled up enthusiastically by some.
It's not a game, it's a tragedy. When it's already happened, decades ago, especially when various parties motivations and merits of those motivations are clear, like WW2, allows for removing emotion and sober study. Just not really doable in a current war situation.
Well stated sir!
I love military history, this conflict is history in the making. I prefer conflicts old enough that all the vets have died, since it avoids hurt feelings. Everyone is so thinskinned. Time will clear the fog of war, to some extent.
He also works for a Belarussian company.
@@watcherzero5256 And some branch of the US Military (Texas National Guard?).
Considering that we still argue about what specifically went on in various operations & battles during WW2, I think it will be decades before we discover the realities of this current conflict.
@@calessel3139 I doubt we'll ever be certain. Or more likely, we'll be absolutely certain of numerous mutually exclusive truths.
Your forgotten weapons appearances were so so good! Please continue with that as often as is lucrative to you please!😁 or gun jesus, I love the contrast between tanks and small arms that you have that actually coincide to each other!
For what it’s worth the Redback is absolutely belting the Boxer in Australian trials. Which probably means we’ll buy the Boxer.
Lol,..agree. I asked the question before word started leaking.
Only after DMO specify that the Boxer be modified to Redback standards.... and we keep the M113 buckets for another 29 years while the whole acquisition project runs overtime and over budget.
@@SnoopReddogg and gets built in a new facility in SA.
Hm, you are comparing a wheeled APC with a tracked IFV. Or do you mean puma/lynx?
@@luke6565 I did, apologies. There’s so much coin floating around in the ADF at the moment I get confused!
Q: How did the Germans react when encountering the Sherman Jumbo? Where they caught off guard by AT weapons suddenly not having the same effect against an M4( since it can be hard to tell a Jumbo from other models during combat).
Tanks don’t die to one shot in real life so often (back then), but the 75 pak was still viable to gun down jumbos anyway, and jumbo isn’t the first tank the Germans couldn’t bang through by the front, so it probably didn’t get a specific reaction
How did they react? They shot at it again.
@@SSSeTEDS probably "Scheiße! Hit it again!"
@@looinrims the pak could take it out but it struggled more against it
It's difficult to see if a tank is knocked out so they probably kept shooting until the tank stopped moving
Air conditioned tanks: If I recall correctly a French crew from 5th Cuirassiers (Royal Polish) rigged up a Chaffee in Indochina with an air conditioner. They got it ditched or bogged down and made near suicidal efforts to recover the vehicle under fire as it was the only air conditioned tank in South East Asia!
As for tank/infantry coms, in Vietnam the Aussie Cents carried a US ANP77 set somewhere on the turret, outside, to speak to the grunts.
The rear mounted field telephone on the cents was useless, as the crew positions had been rewired to take US helmets. The telephone, when used, produced deafening squeels in crew headsets, thus not used. Any correction would have required, literally a complete rewire, as the tanks still used British radio equipment. Imagine how easy this was in practice when your recon and infantry used US M113 systems. Nato integration is totally necessary. Especially for smaller National Armies.
9:24 In PLDC, we had to give classes, to 'Train the Troops'. One guy, had to do NBC\MOPP training, and had to show the demasking procedure, and how to use the auto-injectors. The 82nd guy ran thru the drill, popped the Atropine Injector, and it filed. Wasn't a training aid - the Cadre still had it, and it was the same kit we had in the First Gulf War ARTEP. Needless to say, the Cadre paniced, and rushed to the presenters aid. By now, the Atropine (synthetic adreninine) was working quite well, and made him 'ill'.
One of the medics in our class jumped into action, hit him with the other larger injector he had, to begin the counter-action to the first.
Always check your kit - you may be in for a surprise you don't bargain for...
Actually, I have a friend, Italian Army "Alpini" Officer Candidate school, that went thru the same exact thing. 2nd Lt "volunteer" to be the dummy for demostration was pricked by a true needle. Ops!
Atropine, although it neutralizes nerve agents, is itself a poison. If you "over-atropinize" someone, you need to counteract it with the 2-Pam Chloride in the large injector shown in Chieftain's video. Good to see some things haven't changed - that's the same equipment we had at CBR School (as it was called then) back in '76.
@@colbeausabre8842 indeed, that 2nd lieutenant was rushed in the civilian hospital near the base, in a flurry of senior officers yelling at each other hunting for the one who took the wrong syrenge.
41:45 an interesting book that was inspired by the setting of the book of Hackett is Team Yankee by Harold Coyle, which centered on an tank platoon trying to survive ww3 in Germany.
On the question of the use of flame tanks in a civilian role, while not strictly a civilian role. The British did use flame throwers to clear various hedgerows and small woods of Germany butterfly bombes. I do not know whether these were tank, carrier or human mounted.
Just for info - even in such an anti-firearm state as California it is legal to own a flame thrower as they are needed for agriculturl purposes
A slight bit Ukraine related of a question, but you'll have to forgive me: The Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted something very small but significant: Traffic management. Just how exactly are you supposed to make sure your units are all going where they're supposed to be going and arrive at the time you need them to? I'm sure it might differ a bit from nation to nation but I'd like to hear your input!
It doesn't differ. Always the same. Lots of planning and lots of training. Guess who didn't think they needed to do much planning or training.
@@TerminalConstipation Montgomery?
@@ApoThanathos what is your point? Alabama?
@@benwilson6145 don't you see some similarities on the lack of planing as to some operation of the name market garden?😅 It was just a joke
@@ApoThanathos Planned in a week! There was only one route, that's geography! fastest advance on the Western front and achieve 5 out of the 6 bridges and would have had the 6th except Gavin sat and did nothing for 6 hours.! Not sure of the similarities?
For the M3 half tracks and the shield. One reason might be is that they considered the air threat the biggest threat. Which a shield won't do crap against as its not going to be head on. Along with the extra weight it would add, to slow down slewing the gun to an air threat.
This is possibly true in 1942, but by 1944 it would have been clear that there was minimal air threat
You should check out the novel "Red Army" by Ralph Peters (yes, the former intel officer turned columnist). The book is absolutely excellent at capturing the Soviet perspective.
There's something I've long wondered... some tanks use pairs of road wheels with a center guide horn, and some use a single wheel with two horns on either side. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? What factors would make engineers decide to use one or the other?
At a comment based on engineering experience I will say the following. Single wheels are cheaper and have higher downward track pressure, but simpler to replace. Doubles have lower pressure and are more durable due to redundancy, slightly more susceptible to fouling with debris, more expensive, heavier and a bitch to replace the inside one only.
Draw what conclusions you wish from that statement.
Speaking of Eric Flint's 1632, David Webber's Safehold series is also based on upskilling a preindustrial level world and is a quite a good read.
Harry Harrison did a timetravel story based around someone taking sten blueprints to the US civil war, and Harry Turtledove did a couple based on similar ak47 taken to 1860s
@@davidbell5528
The problem in the 1860s would not do much have been the weapon but the brass cases.
@@mpetersen6 and it's hard to get gas systems to work with black powder.
Leo Frankowski wrote of an engineer transported back to Poland in the 1200's with a bunch of plant seeds...
@@mpetersen6 not really, brass cases were known then. See Sharps and Spencer rifles.
They just weren't in large production.
I watched all your Q&A videos in your respective playlist, I just stumbled upon this episode which is not included in the playlist.
Keep up the good work.
Good catch. Fixed.
Chieftain Q&A my day just got better !
Thank you for answering my question, much appreciated sir !!
Unmasking procedures are a great motivator to get some skills and never be the least mission-essential personnel again.
Thank you so much for picking my question !
And this even though I'm not able to afford to support you on patreon (yet). You have my most sincere gratitude.
Lazerpig is one of my favorite channels
Ahhh, 1 to 1 tank battles on a tabletop. Brings back memories.
Another good vid Chieftain, thanks.
In Operation Compass, the Italians were fighting the Western Desert Force, which was probably the best-trained armored division outside of the German Army at the time. Aside from the earlier intense training of the WDF under Hobart, they had had the opportunity to do months of gunnery practice. It's a bit like why the U.S. Army was so good in Desert Storm: in addition to everything else, they got stuck put in the desert, and then trained for several months before launching the attack.
If you look at Bedard Film (stupid autocorrect! Beda Fomm, Beda Fomm!) in detail, the British tanks were in worse mechanical shape than the Italian tanks, which had arrived relatively fresh, the British tanks had almost certainly lost boresighting in the brutal conditions of the drive across Cyrenica, which as an unending series of severe jolts, and were still landing shots at long range. WDF tanks were driving north and south cross-country parallel to the the Italian column and firing 2-pdrs from 1 to 2 km, typically on the move. Somehow, they were still hitting Italian trucks.
"Oh, Sidi Barani! Oh, Mersa Matruh! The Eyeties will get here, then what shall we do?" - Eighth Army Doggerel
You were right about the M60A1/A3 vs the M1 for room. The turret was quite roomy. You could actually fall from the TC platform to the turret floor and it hurt.
24:46 mechanical engineer student here. i was taught about welds (and then did further reading in research papers), while an unwelded rolled plate is stronger than cast armor, the process of welding creates weak spots (both the welds themselves and the heated zones to either side), in the time between now and ww2 there has been many techniques and technologies that reduce this difference (so that the heated zones and welds are effectively the same as the plate for non-armor grade steels) but even modern techniques fail to eliminate the weld weak spots on armoured plates and before 1956 welding didn't have any of these techniques at all (and then its a gradital accumilation of these techniques).
casting requires fewer welds than rolled plates, thus fewer weakspots and points of failure (welds break not just when it but also from shockwaves traveling through the armour from a hit somewhere else on the tank), resilting in stronger armour overall (especially with the points mentioned by chieftain here about shape)
armor failure occurs rarely at the weld joints, but mostly by direct penetration of the armor plate. Armor falling apart at the seams used to be a common issue way back when the armor plates were riveted to a frame.
You mentioned Red Storm Rising and August 1985 in your talk today. I wondered if you ever had the chance to read Harold Coyle's Team Yankee. It is based on an M1 Armor Company Team fighting in Europe based on Sir John Hackett's August 1985. Since we are talking books back in 1980 I picked up a book The Guiness Book of Tank Facts and Feat. Nice book to give someone a quick overview of tank development. On Ukraine, the Ukrainian's seem to (at this early date) applying our 1990 Deep Battle Doctrine and hit the logistics and follow on forces. My background: Armor Officer Basic 1982 (M60A1,A2 and A3 any M60 we could get to train from the school house) Went to Flight School served with the 2/6 Cav and 4/9 Cav flying Kiowa Scouts (not Warriors) and Blackhawks. Served as Air Cavalry Troop and HHT Commander. Last assignment was in the Deep Battle Cell for the 11th Attack Brigade in Germany.
Another great historical video from the chieftain! :)
Well done Chiefy, another great episode.👍🏻👍🏻
Wow. What a cool desk. What a cool room. What cool models! Thanks for this window on your world.
16:02 The AMX-13 also had a horizontally opposed 8 cylinder, surprised it wasn't mentioned
mr.chieftain.....we salute your very realistic, sincire and objektiv comments on the ongoing conflict......God bless you,.....greatings from Yugoslavia
I was admitted to ER 5 days ago and I still am today with great pain and I kept looking out to see your video! I Was so thrilled when I realized you did!
Oof. Sorry to see that. I hope you're getting better.
Third World War by Sir John Hackett, the followup/update was The third world war Untold story, which in itself was the basis for the novel Team Yankee by Howard Coyle, leading onto computer games and tabletop wargame of the same name. (to show my age I have a 1st edition hardback of the original book I was given around 1980)
I was going to mention Team Yankee - for all intents and purposes it's The Third World War told from the company level.
I bought my copy at the Armor School Bookstore
Similar books are Kenneth Macksey's First Clash and Brian Peters' Red Army.
I have heard that if you whisper "David fletcher" three times into the breach of a tank gun he will appear and tell you about the tank you're in.
Having just watched a Lazerpig video before this one, I'm not overly surprised at the Chieftain's apparent attitude towards his comb video.
Honestly, I couldn't think of two more different military themed CZcams creators.
Lmao agreed
For those who havent read it, "Can Openers" is a great book!
I love the blue choo-choo on your desk!
I’m eager to watch thorough analysis of armor interactions in Ukrain by Chieftain. And I hope that there will be books about it and not paintings on the concrete walls…
Thank you again !
The aircraft rules are known as Boelcke's edicts. There are 8 rules. (Corrected there were 8 originally not 10)
Hungarian Turan was a Czech design.
The Hungarian Toldi light tank was a license copy of the Swedish L-60.
"Dicta Boelcke."
"According to Boelcke's first biographer, Professor Johannes von Werner, the eight dicta were written for Colonel Hermann von der Lieth-Thomsen."
It is not part of the Dicta, but perhaps Boelcke's most famous quote is "I fly close to my man, aim well, and then, of course, he falls down."
There is a difference between "edicts" and "dicta" that is subtle, but important.
So, 8 dicta, not ten.
5am and a Chieftan Q&A to start the day
@20:30 M2 .50 cal mounts were intended to be used an AA weapons, not used in direct fire engagements, soo... in the logic of the Army, a gun shield wasn't necessary.
If one were to go back over after action reports* I suspect that the number of .50 BMG rounds expended by ground troops against aviation assets would be minimal.
*Somehow I doubt every single action was written up.
@@mpetersen6 That has very little to do with my post and more than a minimal amount of .50 cal was fired at aircraft. Sometimes it was even the enemy's.
@@mpetersen6 after action reports rarely have anything to do with how a weapon system is designed.... mostly because by the time it's in action you'd hope the design phase was over and done with...
generally speaking the .50 cals mounted to american tanks were not intended to be used in a direct fire roll, which is why they're mounted the way they are and have no real protection.
@@petriew2018
I understand that. And the decisions made in the design and development process. But intended use and doctrine are one thing. Tactical use is another. I still suspect the majority of .50 BMG ammunition expended by US Army infantry and armored units. Along with Marines. Was used against ground targets. As to the overall expenditure of .50 BMG ammunition expended in combat overall in WWII by US forces. I would expect that expenditure was by the USAAF, Naval and Marine aviation.
@@mpetersen6 that's true.... but i fail to see the relevance of bringing this up in this context.... it has literally nothing to do with the point at hand.
The gun was put there for air defense, it was put in a place that makes adding any sort of gun shield impossible, therefore how it was actually used is of little consequence to why it does or does not have a gun shield
I quite enjoyed that time you educated Lindybeige at Bovington .
The question, and your response, about AC in armored vehicles took me back to Ft. Knox, KY and 1980. In July and August of that year the entire state of Kentucky was basically a BBQ pit, but training had to continue....Right up until, on two separate occasions, tanks and their crews, belonging to the 194th Armored Brigade (Separate) and 2/6 Cav, ran into a bit of a problem. In both cases the M60A1s and M60A3s were involved in Tank Gunnery Qualification Operations. Since crews had to train "buttoned up" for extended periods of time things got a bit warm inside the tanks. Also in both cases, crews and range personnel apparently became so focused on the mission nobody (outside of the tanks themselves I assume) realized just how HOT it was inside the M60A1s and M60A3s until firing tapered off to nothing and TCs stopped responding to radio calls from Range Officers. Thankfully nobody died, but a number of Tankers required hospitalization on Post due to severe dehydration and/or "heat stroke". And in case anyone is wondering, it took maintenance personnel utilizing cutting torches to get the hatches on several of those tanks open/off so that Medics could get to the crews. Needless to say, that due to those incidents, training in buttoned up armored vehicles was forbidden until later, in September, when things cooled off a good bit.
Good and informative; thanks!
Good rule to follow. Never sleep under your M4 Sherman on soft ground when contact with the enemy is possible. My Dad tried that once. Someone started shoot, then some fired the main gun. Dad was pinned under the tank when sank into the ground
Well, there's a new scenario to have nightmares about.
The Elephant in the room comment made me think you were gonna discuss that weird elephant tank from last year (before this video).
And the "36:30 What was the most bizarre or destructive AFV mishap I've witnessed?" story made me think of Mythbusters blowing up the cement mixer truck.
As a fan of both The Chieftain and Angry Cops, they are very different on subject matter and personality, but I think they could find things to talk about. Granted, AC would be coming at it from an Enlisted/Infantry point of view while Chieftain would be coming at it from an Officer/Armor point of view.
Which AC characters would be in what positions in a tank? Private Potato as Loader? Loads a round, closes the breach, then announces, "Into the skyyyy!" Dirtbag Private as Driver, scamming his way with passers-by?
Another superb exposition.
Great discussion.
Grateful for explanation of reference to "Questionmark conference". Unclear.
Just great! Thx!
re: the most potentially destructive incident- when you said "15 rounds of 155" my first thought was "how much of the cliff did they bring down on the town???" without realizing the town was at the *top* of the cliff. Either way, good thing the C. O. nixed it.
If those techs had their way, the town would have been at the bottom of the cliff, assuming there was any cliff left left
@@Jonnyg325 cliff? They want the mountian gone
Mark Ferguson - Do the math, One 155 shell weighs 95 pounds time 15 shells equals 1975 pounds.
Really enjoy your videos 😎
Another excellent informative entertaining video 😁😁😁😁
Amazing!!!
I am one and a half minute in I already agree with Chieftain.
One needs a lot of accurate data and perspective to correctly understand something.
Much respect to his channel for always well documented and researched information.
Re:sending an engineering packet to WW1, I'd send a Stuart or Czech light tank. The 1-2" guns are way more than enough for everything bar actual concrete forts, the armor was very good for their weight, and the track and suspension system was very simple and easy to manufacture.
Furthermore, the engine and transmission are not so outlandishly complex or high tech that they could not have been manufactured during World War I. Difficult, yes, they'd be pretty slow and much lighter duty than the Stuart or vz 35 we know, but they would function. Having the armored, mobile machine gun mounts would have made an incredible difference.
Churchill Mk III and Czech Lt 38, Churchill basically Tank Mk IV or V with top half cut off and turret added, powertrain and suspension could be used on Tank Mk IX to produce a good APC, already using 6pdr guns. Stuart's volute suspension and radial engine too complex, only know of one radial engine used at that time, by Austria. Czech LT 38 simpler and better leaf spring suspension than Czech LT 35 and could mount a 3pdr gun(47 mm)
37:00 i recall that story you told me in Pub back in Prague, still makes me laugh :D
The sending a vehicle back in time question...
No welding, no vulcanised rubber for tyres, casting complex hulls wasn't possible until considerable time after WW1,
The best would be to send back the most modern varient of the tank they already have so they can see the improvements. An Ft17 or Mk4 for example.
Maybe an interwar tank at a push.
Vulcanization was patented in 1845, so it seems a bit unilkely that no one could have manufactured vulcanized tires in 1914.
Thank you! And yes, I don't know why but "list of answered questions" (as well as proper youtube playlists) are items that are too often appreciated later than they should. Please do one!
I would say that welding rather than electronics is the limiting technology for sending a tank design back to WWI. It was starting on ships in the late war (1917), and didn't make it to tanks until the Pz.Mk.I (If I remember correctly the discussion you had at the Panzermuseum Munster - unless that was the first fully welded tank).
OI! As a former loader I take deep offence that we are the least critical person :P The tank can't shoot more than a single round without us. Any other crewmember can be lost and the tank will still be deadly and lob multiple rounds towards any target. Loaders still have the best job in a tank - lots of space, good view and of course easy escape ;-)
A/C for all US Army vehicles(except medical vehicles) were believed to be none essential because vehicles were designed for the European combat theater, not the SE Asian theater...thus when the US Army began to spend a significant amount of time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and simular combat zone, A/C became essential for the performance and sustainability of the combat crews...
I don't know how many other people agree but you're intro is probably the best way to answer anyone wanting you (or anyone else) to talk about Ukraine.
The fog of war and abundance of misinformation (purposely or not) makes talking about the conflict basically impossible with any certainty.
I respect that.
Another excellent, informative, and entertaining program. A couple items to mention. As to the question regarding horizontally opposed tank engines, two mass- produced British Second World War designs used them; the Cruiser Mk V Covenanter and Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. The engines were 12-cylinder units from the Meadows company. As to combat use of the US M2 tank, the medium tank M2 never saw combat use--they were only used in the US as training vehicles. The M2s you mentioned in Egypt were light tank M2s, sent over for training and familiarization purposes. The light tank M2 was used in combat by the US Marine Corps on Guadalcanal. Your showing some of the volumes in your book collection is a great idea--perhaps you might consider continuing on it.
I remember hearing from a friend in mechanized infantry back in the 1980s they always liked the M577 command track because it had air conditioning, though it was mostly for the computers rather than the crew.
My brother was a jarhead in Desert Shield/Storm and probably had one of the best jobs in the war -- he was a communications guy and sat in an air-conditioned vehicle with a virtual ringside seat to the entire conflict.
Oh my yes, James May and The Chieftan would be epic I'm sure.
26:47 CVRT in the Falklands Question - A few corrections. @The Chieftain
I did a 4 Part Video Series on the CVRTs on my (german) channel. For that I searched a lot of sources on the CVRTs in that conflict.
- 1 Samson was present. It ended the war on its head, because it had broken through Mural Bridge, north Two Sisters whilst moving up for the attack on Wirless Ridge. Was later recovered by Chinook.
- Mt. Longdon: I could only find one source that stated that the CVRTs were involved in the Battle for Mt Longdon. The CVRT Owners Workshop Manual, that otherwiese is quite extensive in its coverage of the Falklands war and the CVRTs doesnt mention it. I dont think it is impossible, in fact I think it is strange they didnt help out. But I coouldnt verify it and said as much in my 2 Video.
- As far as I know the first combat ground for the CVRTs was the support of a diversionary Attack of the special group of 2 Scots Guards on the Area around the foot of Mt. William by 4 Troop of the Blues and Royals. Commanded by Lt. Mark Coreth, who now is a famous scouplturer. Early on the lead vehicle hit a mine. Nobody was seriously injured, but the vehicle was out of action and the Argentinian Artillery acted on the explosion and shelled the vicinity. They withdrew and were forced to support the diversionary raid with fire at very long range. I think it was some 4000 m. They the supported the withdrawel of the patrol and waited out the night. The damaged CVRT was later recovered by Chinook and returned to the UK.
- The attack on wirless ridge did not involve all 8 (at that point 7 remaining, see paragraph above). But only 3 Troop B&R. Because the other troop was at Mount Tumbledown/William at the same time.
So 4 CVRTS, 2 Scimitar and two Scorpions under Lt. Lord Ines Ker fought with 2 Para. The Battle for Mt Wirless. Which realy was a battle for two sets of ridges one after the other from north to south. Was the only "all arms"battle in the Falklands war. On account of the preparatory Artillery fire, Naval Gunfire and support by the light tanks.
The CVRTs were very valuable, because they could provided direct fire support, even after the artillery lifted and their 2 generation night sight provided intelligence on argentinian positions.
A marked difference to the earlyer attack of 2 Para on Darwin/Goose Green, were they didnt have enough fire support.
3 Troop entered Port Stanley along with 2 Para the next morning as one of the first units to do so.
Interestingly they dont seem to have fought the Argentinian Panhard 90mm armoured cars directly.
I did plan to start my english channel with an english version of these videos, but right now I dont think interest in the Falklands War 40 Years anniversary is going to be as high as I thought a few months ago :)
Love the shout out for 1632, great series.
Yeah, the concept of the rear MG was because in many cases, all you are facing is soft targets, and you are better off with two ball mounts that can be fired on the move like the bow MG. A coax is only good for longer range, accurate fire, and you have to be halted to use it. With a rear turret MG you can just pivot the turret and advance against the enemy spraying MG fire from both guns. That was also how the MGs mounted on the back of US tank turrets were used, they didn't actually get out and stand on the rear deck to fire them. The Russian concept took up more room but it also gave protection to the user. On lighter tanks like the Ha-Go, they wanted it to be either an MG tank or a cannon tank as needed. Before the war, like with the Renault FT, you could get them armed either with an MG or with a small cannon. the Ha-Go was set up so by pivoting the turret you could either have a crank-laid light caliber cannon or a ball mounted MG for fighting infantry. I think it was a good idea. They only abandoned it when the main function of tanks became killing other tanks, during and after the war. Before that they were still expected to be used to crush through enemy trenches and redoubts. And being able to fire to the rear was never a bad idea, since you were likely to be leaving a ton of enemy infantry hiding in trenches behind you.
thank you
Three minutes in, and your view on this Ukraine - Russia issue is maybe the best I have heared today...
Love it!
Now the rest of the video.
I played a computerized version of Harpoon, Dos & Amiga, and I can't imagine doing all the calculations for a board game version. Last played a version patched to run on Win 7, Matrix was selling it at that point. My all time favorite simulation, in the Cold War era he who had an AWACS/EWACS won.
It's been some time since I played *_Harpoon_* on the computer but I remember the best weapon platforms were the ones that had the weapons -- both air-to-air and air-to-ground -- with the longest ranges.
NBC vs CBRN makes me want to stick to ABC for 2000AD reasons if not accuracy. I guess we could add 'Dispersion' from 'Radiological Dispersion Device' if we wanted to try and keep the theme with ABCD, and the ensuing BIG JOBS.
Ooh I see a question about the RAAC at the end, this will be good even if rather short as it’s a small force
My father was in North Africa from 41 till going to Italy. His comment about the Italians was that under the right leadership they were good troops and worthy advocates.
For the WWI question I think the biggest issues would have been to the engines and transmissions -- those got a lot more powerful and reliable in the decades following the war. But a better armored vehicle might not be the game changer the questioner likely assumed. For most of the war forces were generally capable of taking enemy trenches; up to the point where they started outrunning their own artillery support.
A self propelled tracked heavy artillery vehicle might be more useful -- or possible better, just a bunch of reliable and powerful bulldozers able to use their blades and tracks to permit the existing WWI heavy artillery to be quickly moved forward through ground torn up by heavy shelling (and to permit supplies and ammo to also move forward to support said artillery)
100% this, it seems so small, but the leaps in manufacturing technology and the subsequent advances in engine technologies is a major factor. Henry Ford invested insane amounts of money on his V8, like a billion dollars in back then money. And the metallurgy advances are super important. One only needs to look to late war germany to see how quickly things stop working without the right alloys.
Never has anything truer than the first three minutes been seen on FB. The rest is pretty good too.
Love the story of setting the M1 on fire from towing it without the exhaust deflecter. The look on Ian's face when he says that the deflecters showed was delievered a week later us priceless.
I’m Nick….Ian’s on the other channel…, :(
@@TheChieftainsHatch sorry about that since I also watch Ian's channel too. As a matter of fact I hope to see the two of you to do more stuff to gather.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I am not sure, we need to break out rare french firearm to ascertain it.
In North Africa Australia used valentines and crusaders during the first battle of El Alamein. I imagine they kept those tanks in the 2nd battle. In the pacific they tried using stuarts but their armour was too thin and they were perferated easily by enemy AT weapons at point blank range. Matildas were aquired by then and a deal made with the kiwis to trade 40mm AT guns for 3 inch howitzers(as the tabks would be used primarily against strong points) matildas proved ideal, as they could be readily landed from Landing craft medium(the most common grade of landing craft after landing craft troop) and their thick armour on every side (rear plate of 60mm) and slow speed were pretty ideal in slow jungle combat.
The grants were never deployed in combat and were converted into self proppeled artillery(25pdr). During early 45 the mk 7 churchill and M4 sherman were given jungle trials in northern new Guinea with the churchill winning out for its better mud crossing abilities(of these mobility tests the matilda mk2 outperformed the m4), better climbing etc, along with its better protection. An order of 500 mk7s was place for the expectant continuation of the war in the pacific and possible invasion of mainland Japan.
The centurion was a no brainer, so much so that we ordered them early enough for the bloody poms to order the ships to Korea and steal them.
In reveiw the departure from the Australian trend of choosing well protected heavier tanks was the leopard 1 which is pretty understandable at the time, only the cheiftan was the west's choice of heavy well protected tank. The M1a1 Abrams was not the best choice, as it was of political nature, we vould have had non depleted uranium A2s(which we are only now deciding to aquire) and the vehicles we did purchase were not in running condition and were stored open conditions essentially in a desert graveyard.
Protection is a high factor as Australia has a smaller population; we want the tanks you have to replace the crews of least often, and in close in fighting, such as in a rainforest good all round protection is really really nice to have. Logistically in the modern age Australia will either transport its tanks by heavy rail(in case of invasion) or civillian or US military ship. Personally i believe that in addition to a welly trained heavy mechanised force Australia requires more autonomous cavalry units equipted with amphibious vehicles(what the AUSLAV was doing) as this would round out our defence capabilites to all year round in regards to the seasonal north of Australia: the part that is most likely to be invaded first if indeed this happens although our main trump card is the USMC base in Darwin, anyone who wants to invade is going to have to essentially do a Pearl Harbour, just don't do something silly like go off and have another go at a civil war guys(although such cav units and vehicles would be really good for overseas deployments, peace keeping etc)
I was a dinotanker who missed the space but figured out that you had the space you need. Got quite comfy in the M1.