BUILDING A TANK WWII M-3 MEDIUM TANK PRODUCTION DETROIT TANK ARSENAL & FORT KNOX
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 04. 2019
- Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: / periscopefilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
This film is about American tank production and shows work at the Detroit Tank Arsenal in the 1941-1942 era. A shorter version of this film was released narrated by Orsen Welles.The film details the manufacture and use of M-3 medium tanks. Tanks are assembled and treads, motors, guns, and turrets are put in place at a factory. Shows stock of many parts required. At the end of the film, tanks stage an attack at Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Detroit Arsenal (DTA), formerly Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (DATP) was the first manufacturing plant ever built for the mass production of tanks in the United States. Established in 1940 under Chrysler, this plant was owned and managed by the U.S. government until 1952 when management of the facility was turned over to the Chrysler Corporation. This plant was owned by the U.S. government until 1996 . It was designed by architect Albert Kahn. The building was designed originally as a "dual production facility, so that it could make armaments and be turned into peaceful production at war's end. Notwithstanding its name, the 113-acre (0.46 km2) site was located in Warren, Michigan, Detroit's largest suburb.
Chrysler's construction effort at the plant in 1941 was one of the fastest on record. The first tanks rumbled out of the plant before its complete construction.During World War II, the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant built a quarter of the 89,568 tanks produced in the U.S. overall. The Korean War boosted production for the first time since World War II had ended; the government would suspend tank production after each war. In May 1952, Chrysler resumed control from the army, which had been unable to ramp up production.
The M3 Lee, officially Medium Tank, M3, was an American medium tank used during World War II. In Britain, the tank was called by two names based on the turret configuration and crew size. Tanks employing US pattern turrets were called the "Lee", named after Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Variants using British pattern turrets were known as "Grant", named after Union general Ulysses S. Grant.
Design commenced in July 1940, and the first M3s were operational in late 1941.[2] The U.S. Army needed a medium tank armed with a 75mm gun and, coupled with the United Kingdom's immediate demand for 3,650 medium tanks,[3] the Lee began production by late 1940. The design was a compromise meant to produce a tank as soon as possible. The M3 had considerable firepower and good armor, but had serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, including a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun preventing the tank from taking a hull-down position, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance.
Its overall performance was not satisfactory and the tank was withdrawn from combat in most theaters as soon as the M4 Sherman tank became available in larger numbers. In spite of this, it was considered by Hans von Luck (an Oberst (Colonel) in the Wehrmacht Heer and the author of Panzer Commander) to be superior to the best German tank at the time of its introduction, the Panzer IV (at least until the F1 variant).
Despite being replaced elsewhere, the British continued to use M3s in combat against the Japanese in southeast Asia until 1945. Nearly a thousand M3s were supplied to the Soviet military under Lend-Lease between 1941-1943.
The M3 Lee was also the medium tank counterpart of the light tank M3 Stuart.
The M3 Stuart, officially Light Tank, M3, was an American light tank of World War II. It was supplied to British and other Commonwealth forces under lend-lease prior to the entry of the U.S. into the war. Thereafter, it was used by U.S. and Allied forces until the end of the war.
The British service name "Stuart" came from the American Civil War Confederate general J. E. B. Stuart and was used for both the M3 and the derivative M5 Light Tank. In U.S. use, the tanks were officially known as "Light Tank M3" and "Light Tank M5".
Stuarts were the first American-crewed tanks in World War II to engage the enemy in tank versus tank combat.
The Stuart was also the light tank counterpart of the M3 Lee, which was a medium tank.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
The big broaching machine working the turret ring teeth was super cool, love all the old shapers, lathes and mills!
My grandfather was a member of the Blue Rock Gun Club. The skeet and trap fields overlooked the Tank Proving Ground behind the Arsenal. I can remember going there with him (must have been late '40s or very early '50s) and seeing the tanks driving around the obstacles and terrain.
Hm
"Detroit" the Arsenal of Democracy.
Proud to have worked there and the Engineering Design labs.
I used to drive by there years ago when on business in Detroit during the late 80's/early 90's. I recall the entire area outside of the building loaded with Abrams tanks. Two weeks later and they were all gone. A few weeks after that and they were unleashed on Iraq during Desert Storm.
👍👍👍outstanding!!!, I read recently that General Motors is the most innovative company in the history of the world, the numbers of tanks, airplanes, jeeps, rifles, machine guns and everything else made by Detroit during the war is mind boggling, Consolidated gave Ford a contract to make B24's during the war and by the time it was over Ford had taught them how to mass produce their own airplane.
@Robert Smith Bull shit Detroit has been on the rebound for the past 6 or seven years.
Democracy and N erm Usa doesn't fits together
@@williamjackson5942 Lol, bull shit.
The negative comments are shameful.
Thank God for our American ingenuity.
Not much ingenuity in the M3 ,it was a very poor design and a failure in battle .
If you don't have the courage to see your own mistakes you deserve to repeat them.
@@pauldavidson6321 Nonsense.
Paul Davidson
It was very successful against early Panzer III and Pz 35t that it fought in Northern Africa.
I love the extreme over-hype of the narration from war documentary films during this period.
I musr agree completely. They are really trying to sell the cause. God bless em. Lol
@SittingMoose Shaman It is. I could hardly stand all the made-up feelings being hurt since 1994!!!!!?
Over-hype narration during six years of wartime when 60 million people died around the world. Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. You have little imagination, knowledge or consideration. Take yourself to that time. How would anyone speak when your family and friends, and maybe even yourself, are one step away from draft and combat? Remeber, 60 million in six years.
The workers have no hard hats, no safety glasses, no ear plugs, wearing their street shoes. OSHA would have had a fit, but these men got the job done. I noticed the 37mm had a coaxial machine gun. I did not know that. The M3 did pack some firepower.
I don't know how the Commander had any room at the top, especially with yet another machine gun in the top of the turret.
R Scott B
No, the 37mm is actually crewed by 3 men. The commander sits down directly behind the Gunner on the left side of the turret, the loader stands on the right.
Also a machine gun in cupola above the 37mm. And two more machines, mounted beside each other, in the hull, just above the transmission. At lower right as you look at the tank head on. So four machine guns, one 37mm, and one 75mm. Quite a powerful stop gap.
Most of my family worked for and retired from DATP. Really cool to learn about the history of this place.
Truly remarkable, from so many aspects. Not only the production of the tank, but all that went into making the factory and machine tools. That giant rivet gun was awesome!!
As a native Clevelander, I can appreciate all the little shops, that fed this big monster.
Thanks for posting.
SCOTT: I notice you're still working with Ferrous alloys.
NICHOLS: Still? What else would I be working with?
SCOTT: Ah, what else indeed? I'll put it another way. How thick would a piece of your armour plating need to be, at twenty feet by eight feet to withstand a 88mm HEAT shell?
NICHOLS: That's easy, six inches. We carry stuff that big in stock.
SCOTT: Aye, I've noticed. Now suppose, ...just suppose, ...I was to show you a way to manufacture a plate that would do the same job but be only one inch thick. Would that be worth something to you, eh?
MatchstalkMan very clever Scotty! 😂
The 88 MM did not fire HEAT shell at tanks. It fired armor piercing shells.
I had no idea "How It's Made" was such a long running show.
The M3 Lee/Grant co-starred with Humphrey Bogart in the 1943 movie "Sahara". Some good action scenes.
Lulu Belle did not let them down.
Good film.
My Grandfather worked at this plant. How cool would it have been if there was a close up of him.
My grand fathers were busy on the front. One in europe in the army and one in the pacific in the navy. The one in europe came back to get married to my grandmother and instead of a honey moon was waiting to get shipped to the pacific when america dropped the bomb. Nukes are scary but i probably wouldn't exist today if america didn't bring the war against japan to a sudden hault. Don't get me wrong, no war effort would be succesful without people on the home front. Someone state side built those two bombs that saved my grand fathers.
My Grandfather was in his late 30's so a little old for military service.
@@andrewstoll4548 my grandfather in the navy wasn't so young, in his mid thirties. I don't know if he was drafted or volunteered. I probably should get more details from my father. My grand father was an engineer and i believe they were scheduled to invade one of the islands and his job was to set up posts on the frontlines. But like i said, any fighting force is worthless without those at home handling supply.
Mine was a supervisor in the plant. So even if he would have wanted to join I'm pretty sure they would have denied him. Sometimes keeping the assembly line running is more important then pulling a trigger.
@@andrewstoll4548agreed. Stop feeling you have to justify something. Be proud of everyone that had a role in the war effort. Where i live now almost everyone at least till forty is in the reserves. That is why they say israel can't stand an extended all out war. Nothing would function with so many people called up.
It was amazing how adaptable the M3/M4 lower hull was. Never mind what was on top or what it was used for, they designed the lower hull well the first time.
Back in the late 70’s I built Bullard cnc lathes to manufacture parts for the m1a abrams tank. I later on assembled 155 mm howitzers for the us army. I’m dam proud I served.
Thank you.
Ah, the good old days when the news was dramatic for a reason instead of manufactured drama
Toured the Detroit Tank Arsenal back in the early '70s. Very inspiring, to say the least. Detroit patriots doing their part to help their country. Detroit contributed more to the war cause than any other city in America. Without Detroit, we would probably be speaking German today. I'm proud to say I'm part of that heritage.
"we would probably be speaking German today". Not at all likely but certainly the Germans, if there were any left, would be speaking Russian.
@@jjhpor Da, tovarich
Tanks for this...
Made at a time America had an industrial base, and the American public had morals.
Obviously their morals were NOT consistent even then. Nothing has changed between then and now except the technologies.
@@AngryHateMusic What kind of drug were you smoking when you wrote this? It's good at inducing delusion and fantasy.
@@wntu4 America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Tyranny, not liberty, has been the custom in the past. So much of political philosophy throughout history has consisted of concocting reasons why people have a duty to be tame animals in politicians’ cages.
You speak of delusion; the people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Give up your dreams, if you must. Cease dreaming altogether. Call those dreams and ambitions and visions…delusions. Then you will be ready. Then you can truly serve humanity. You can fall back into the arms of the many who will receive you with love. You’ll become an empty vessel through which miracles are channeled. One day Oprah might interview you. One of the greatest delusions in this world is the hope that the evils in the world are to be cured by legislation.
@@AngryHateMusic People are tame animals in politicians cages because they want to be. All your hand wringing sophistry can be eased by understanding basic human psychology.
@@wntu4 You just said you yourself wants to be owned by politicians... we all know as well as you do that you only speak for yourself and then you pretend to comprehend psychology. From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, as I said to begin with, only the means and methods have changed.
I'm more impressed by the machinist equipment/machines and what it took to design and build Them
The M-3 went into production in 1941 and it was produced for a little over one year. Too bad it was obsolete before production started; but I still enjoyed the film.
Larry Williams it performed very well in North Africa.
Yep, 37mm gun was not good enough
Not much good about the M-3
When the M3 was first deployed, its 75mm outgunned all the current German and Italian tanks the British faced in North Africa and could be used in an antipersonnel role as well as antitank. As stated above, it served as a good stop gap until we were able to start shipping the M4 Sherman and the British developed their own up gunned tanks, like the Cromwell in 1944. The 37mm was comparable to many other tank guns of the time, but rapidly being outclassed by 50mm guns showing up on newer German tanks.
Other than North Africa, where did these serve?
Thank you for this find.
Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
Great film...industrial ingenuity at its best...
It's quite astounding that such a complex dual-purpose (military & post-war civilian production) factory was built and operating in such a short time, when demands for manpower were stretching resources in many directions.
WOW. Tthat's "MOM" upside down. Wonderful video. Thank you
The plant went from this to turning out radial engine Sherman's on a phenomenal scale. WOW when you look at numbers .
I worked in one of these buildings in the early 2000s, tore out a some block walls and put in some supporting steel to make some big openings.
Tanks for the memories!!!😁😁😁
This is better than normal movies
You can definitely tell OSHA was not around back then.. not one person with safety glasses on lol.
Jeezus...look at all the fumes coming from that quencher. Way before OSHA regulations. I'd bet the only ventilation was an open window. I worked in a factory making screws and bolts for about a year as a young man in the early 90's. The hot parts coming out of the threader were quenched with DIESEL which produced acrid fumes and smoke. I'm sure I'd be dead from cancer by now if I worked that job for 30 years. God bless the American working man!
Set aside for a moment the fact that tanks are weapons of war as well as defence.
Marvel at the ingenuity of the processes by which the parts are made. It’s a sad fact that conflict will accelerate the development of new manufacturing processes which will ultimately benefit society by making it less expensive to manufacture cars or washers or refrigerators or vacuums, among many things.
Huge effort for victory
2:10 To make an invincible army, you need the Arc of the Covenant!
And to think, for a mere $50,000.00, I bought a 2000 yr model tracked bobcat. This reminds me of all the work/ repairs/ track replacements I have done over 20 yrs.
Only if they had a peek into the future.
What would we have today. The M-47 Patton was a giant leap forward for military armor. The government should have kept all gun ports like the M-47.
A vehicle such as the M-1 would have been even more deadly with the addition of a forward mounted machinegun & gunner station
Great video even for its time the same applies today in the Manufacturing arsenal.
The hull mounted machine gun is obsolete. It was used to have some capability to fire at enemy Infantry while moving. With the introduction of 2 axis stabilization on the M60A1 (AOS), there was no longer a need for a hull machine gun.
A hull machine gun would end up making the Abrams weaker due to there being a gap in the composite armor that would lack in protection.
Tanks for the memories.
Pretty good going up against Zulu with spears and shields but against tiger tanks not so good.
Early in the war would not encounter Tigers. Against the Panzer Mk IV it could hold it's own.
This tank was good for what it was for. The Germans had to up gun their tanks to compete. The Sherman was good too, though it would have been nice to have the 76mm a lot sooner. I can't help thinking, why didn't they put a bigget engine and transmission in it, for Europe at least, and added another half inch of armor. The German advantage was primarily through their armament. We were a little too slow to adapt once we got these into the field.
These tanks had to be put on ships, and sailed across a hostile sea, in ships that by today’s standards were tiny, especially width wise. So you have to make a choice, make fewer, wider, heavier, more “powerful” tanks. Or you can make many more, smaller, lighter…
when the second part: "How to built your own tank in home - DIY" ?
Jesus, how tall was an M3? You would see that thing breach the horizon at 15 miles!
True. You could watch the sun set... TWICE!
This pretty neat, however, I would love to see how those machines they are using were built.
*Building a tank ww2*
Me: "oh cool"
*M3*
Me: "ah damn it"
Me too 😂
The M3 was actually fairly successful as a placeholder until we could get the M4 in service
Without the M3, all other designs would have been slower to develop. This is the beginning. Not the peak.
WW-2, American tank doctrine was to "run and gun" to keep up with the advancing troops. At that time a heavy tank was unable to do. (They were heavy and slow, the roads could not hold them and they got stuck easier in open forest) ALSO: they needed to be small enough to fit over the then European bridges, saving the time for engineers to build a pontoon bridge. The Third requirement was mandated by the location of the USA. ALL equipment needed to be shipped by sea. The dock cranes were smaller back then and any tank needed to be small enough so it could be loaded on standard cranes. The Sherman fit the bill. Yes, the armor could have been thicker, the gun bigger and the top speed faster. BUT: They would have been slower, shorter ranged and as far as a big gun went, A bigger turret was needed OR you lose the loader. All poor choices.
The Brits did upgun some of theirs, It was crowded and had no better armor. See EZ-8.
there's no excuses for these tanks....
@@manuelkong10 ?
A film that is quite clearly labeled as coming for a US Govt agency, the Office of Emergency Management - a Defense Department Film, yet Periscope Film LLC asserts copyright over it and wants people to pay licensing fees if they want to use it!
I always thought these were British tanks. I've seen dozens of documentaries and played several video games where the English are using these tanks. Now I know the reason England had so many was because of the lend lease act.
Some was filmed in Lima Oh.close to the Standard Oil fields
This plant was not far from where I grew up. It was a square mile of American Might. Long gone. Last I heard they were developing a casino on that land. Yep, America sure is great. A casino!
I live 4 miles from the Warren, MI plant. No casino here. It is now a industrial training center. So odd to see cows where nothing but roads and buildings are now.
Nope, it's still there, though I believe Dana makes rear axles there now. When I started work at TARDEC back in '91, they were still shipping completed M1A1's from there.
Is Dana the same building tho? I was going off my father that it was all torn down years ago.. Miss Warren, really good memories. RIP all my family up there.
and Chrysler had a missal plant just up the road....with the tech center right in the middle....
It is still an active mitary base but greatly reduced in size. Some of the original buildings exist but are private manufacturing, ie dana. I did some contract work in the current arsenal the summer of 2021. Mostly looks like testing, design, engineering etc. The main production moved down to Lima, OH a while ago.
Amazing enough. Can we write a mortgage that is better than bait and switch.
00:09 the music tells me, that I should be aware of these cows. They seem to be quite dangerous.
Those cows are fifth columnists working for Uncle Adolf. Beware of them.
@@Nonamearisto k
"Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank."
Was'nt the M3's gun a 37mm not a 75mm?????
@@danclayberger770 37mm in the top turret, 75mm gun in the hull.
I work in manufacturing as a tool engineer in Los Angeles. Most of our customers are the major aircraft builders. I find this video jaw-dropping amazing. It's difficult for most people to understand and appreciate what goes into developing and building these manufacturing systems. Unfortunately all the effort that you see here was to produce sub-par death trap tanks who's armor and firepower was no match for the next generation of German panzers. They were just better at it. They were obsolete the moment they were driven onto the battlefield. They were using rivets to hold them together! Still they did their job and many brave young men died in the process doing the best they could with what they had and they eventually won so... When I hear Eisenhower's words echoed "Beware the Military Industrial Complex" I understand exactly what he meant and he was right but I'm also glad that we have one because the Chinese and Russians and who knows who has one.
Fred Hammon, Fred, do you feel, perhaps, the tanks were poorly matched for the war against the Germans due to a poor specification developed and solicited by the Army to industry? Or some other reason?
The M3 was a match for all German tanks up to the 50mm long armed Pz 4’s. When the Germans ran not the M3 in North Africa, when fielded by the Brits, they were unable to properly combat them; in fact the German had respect for the M3. The Brits appreciated the 75mm and separate high velocity 37mm. Evaluate the tanks based on what it was designed to combat
@@ficklefingeroffate I think that you are confusing them with M4 Shermans.
@@firstnamelastname3558 It takes time to develop a design and then tool up for production and then make the damn things. That could take a year and a half before a tank gets delivered to the battlefield. By that time it is obsolete because the opposition has a better design on the field already. The Russians were actually better at it. They had a better design anyhow. Americans knew how to build stuff but you need a good design to start with. We didn't have that. The best tank we developed were the Shermans and they got nicknamed "Ronsons" because they'd burst out in flames on a first hit.
Fred Hammon, I’m a Senior Contracting Officer with the DoD. I understand fully the time required. A year and half is nothing. I’ve been in programs that were in development for over six years before the Government even reached its first article testing.
“They” allowed production of the M-3 and Sherman KNOWING how inferior they were
Criminal 😢😢😢😮
37mm wouldn't scratch the paint on the tiger, let alone kill one. These were very brave men indeed.!
The Tiger was a late war tank, the M3, an early war. The M3 did quite well against German contemporaries in the dessert.
@@SteveT44 M3 had a 75mm which was welcomed by the British in North Africa in 1941. It was more than a match for the Panzer Mk3 in use by the Germans and could hold its own against the Mk4.
The M3 was a stop gap developmental weapon. Only deployed in Northern Africa 42-3.
If you wanted something built to last it was in Detroit..great vid .
key word: "Was" which is a damn national shame.
Unless you're a student of it you have to turn off the audio babble. The visuals are riveting.
When you consider the fact that this was all hand designed and hand made, with no help from computers, or CNC lathes, it is truly ahead of its time. The Abrams Tank makes this tank seem so primitive by todays standards...
Awesome manufacturing capabilities,but that tank was obsolete before it left the factory floor.
Great factory, but the Lee/Grant tank was subpar. The Sherman was a good medium tank. Very easy to make, maintain, and it was very good for fighting tanks of its weight. Armchair historians will say that it was no match for the Tiger/King Tiger tanks, but matching it was never the goal. That was a heavy tank which a medium was never intended to fight.
Just the thing for rush hour.
I think you meant to say crush hour.
And good when vying for a parking spot.
I rember going to events (can't rember what) at the detroit arsenal. Is this the same place?
Insects sould be a bigger influencer about armoured vehicles
Imagine if they could have seen the Abrams back then, imagine what will be in 70 years from now
Anyone else notice the total lack of any gloves, safety glasses or hearing protection? I used to work in an HVAC equipment manufacturing plant. The production floor was noisy and the metal could cut skin easy.
It’s amazing to think that back then there were no computers using programs and cnc machine to build such a thing. It all had to be drafted by paer and pen and machined with the ut most precision by hand.
not as exotic as you think. nothing precise was done "by hand" at least any more so than today.
16:05 FLYING TANK.
19:14 That looks like an old M2 on the right. Perhaps there weren't enough Lee's to go around yet so some crews had to use older vehicles to train with the 37mm main gun until they could get their own Lee.
I guess they trained on M3 Stuarts at Knox, but you're right, the turret looks kind of boxy for a Stuart, it looks more like an M2
@@cwgauss Thank you for making me want to watch it again. It IS an M2. Look closely at the chassis and you will see 3 sets of bogies one the right side while the Stuart only had 2.
14:14 you have to start this tank with a starting handle? If so you really wouldn't want to stall on a battlefield!
Thanks for the upload, by the way - great little movie
:)
Vandal Savage I’m pretty sure the starting handle was only entirely necessary after long periods of rest.
They had electronic starters!
Just didn't use it in the film clip!
This was common for most tanks in WW I’ll. The Tiger I had the same system.
"The panzer onslaught against the low countries and France saw the great French army I'll equipped to deal with such an attack. They were paralyzed and slashed to ribbons by this new instrument." In 1940 when Germany invaded France, France had better tanks and more tanks than Germany had. The french strategy is why they lost. The narrator made it sound like France was caught off guard by this new weapon and there was nothing they could have done to stop it.
P R O P A G A N D A
Grant, designed during the civil War!
1:20 'New?' The tank had already been around for over 20yrs.
True but their use in WWI was minimal. It wasn't until WWII that the tank came into its own.
@@PeriscopeFilm I wouldn't exactly say minimal. The Arras attack in August 1918 had well over 500 machines.
Tiger Tanks trembled with excitement every time one of these fine Bunnies hit the front line.
Abba dabba-- The tiger tank did not exist when the M-3 hit the front line. Your comment shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. The M-3 fought all the way to the end of WW2 in one theater or another.
@@bobbrooks80 Are you an escapee from some loony bin or did you just arrive from outer space?? The M-3 what??
Our tank doctrine was flawed pre war and never really materialized like our air and sea doctrine. End of war and post war tanks were more in line. This tank was never meant for tank on tank battle. Tanks were used for infantry support. This was its primary mission, which this tank could and did satisfactorily. This was already outmoded doctrine as we discovered after emerging from our isolationism pre war. The bandaid was the M10 wolverine and M18 Hellcat tank destroyer which were a handful for German panzers. The problem was there were not enough of them. The M18 was the fastest and highest kill ratio tank the US had.
If our tanks weren’t meant to fight tanks then why were they equipped with anti-tank guns and armor piercing shells? And why were Shermans equipped with high velocity 76mm guns, which were inferior to the 75mm in HE performance?
Tabourba that’s what I’m saying. I’m arguing against the idea that our tanks weren’t meant to fight tanks.
@@sgt.ribeye3742 He did not say that they did not engage tanks, it just was not army doctrine to do so. That's why the M3 and M4 were equipped with shorter barrel, lower velocity, main guns. While they had AP ammunition, it was not designed for the armor thickness of newer German tank designs. The 76mm gun came out later but had drawbacks in roles other than armor penetration. As stated, the Tank Destroyers were meant to hunt other tanks, not go head to head. Logistics being a big part of it as well since everything had to be transported not only around from battle to battle but to Europe, Italy, Africa and all over the Pacific theater as well.
Not even remotely close to the case.
@@ronmcintyre1232 Hardly the case.
If they had only known about the tiger tank at this time...
Tiger wasn't all it was cracked up to be... Liked to break down often with more Tigers in the garage than on the field and it couldn't fire on the move. Barrel had to be locked in place during any movement so as not to damage the vertical drive. (downside of having an 88). It had to come to a complete stop, they had to then unlock the barrel and then sight the target. In combat when you're flustered and you're fumbling a bit with cold wet hands, that whole process could take 20 - 30 seconds maybe longer; assuming the gun was already loaded. It was more akin to mobile artillery in that its has to be set up to fire.
Video games and movies have given the Tiger it's fame, not its actual ability in combat.
Don't get me wrong, by design it was a monster and it certainly wasn't to be trifled with on the field but it wasn't the amazing machine its made out to be. Same with most German tanks. If you want really successful tanks, you need to look towards the Pz. I and Pz. II.
Pz. III wasn't bad either.
Tanks require a lot of maintenance to stay operational.
Replacing the steering clutches on a Tiger or Panther was huge amount of work, sourcing replacement parts was often a headache as well.
Replacing the steering clutches on a Stuart, Lee, or Sherman went a lot faster, and the parts were usually available.
5 fully functional Sherman tanks trump 1 disabled Panther every time.
A lot of this machinery was sent to Asia, along with the skills to operate it, so we can buy crap for cheap. And it better be cheap because the middle class trades jobs went with it. Retail jobs at Starbucks and Petsmart are what we were left with. That wasn't a good trade. We got screwed.
@Peter Michalski
Exactly, scary thought for young people just starting out in life, I'm glad most of my lifes out of the way and I wouln't have to worry about it.
Automation killed the most manufacturing jobs; the USA has more manufactured-goods output than any other time in our history. We export more planes, heavy equipment and cars to more countries than ever before. I just takes 85% less workers and all the "cheap" simple stuff like cloths and gadgets is built where labor is cheap.
Tripper Trooper
It's not automation, a study was done years ago that showed for every job lost to a robot 7 were created in the robotics world, and it's not big ticket items like planes and cars, it's the average little everyday things that aren't made here anymore, there was a G.E. automotive light bulb plant several miles down the road from me when I moved to this area I live in now, it closed several years ago and recently when I went to the local parts store to get a bulb for my car and I got a G.E bulb that says "made in China" on it, it keeps popping out of it's socket everytime I go down a bumpy road, that pretty much sums it all up right there.
@@dukecraig2402 , automation is a major reason for manufacturing job loses. Robots are only a part of automation process and not all processes that are automated require a robot. Many welding processes are done by a person, but nuts, studs, etc., are delivered automatically speeding up the process. I have a job thanks to automation and I have seen how automated parts carries replaced drivers, etc. The high out of control cost of health care is another reason, and there are also others. But US manufacturing output is now at or near its highest point in history, with the least amount of workers in those sectors. So go figure?
@@dukecraig2402 www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/25/most-americans-unaware-that-as-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-have-disappeared-output-has-grown/
Well, according to all the experts commenting here, we lost the war.
The Soviets won the war.
@@westelaudio943 So did we.
lol right... "America has *always* been the birthplace of Adolf Hitler"
@@reallyhappenings5597 Wow your a real scholar no I mean fool!
@@westelaudio943 Your must have flunked History class! Or just have a LOW IQ!
The designer of the T34 tried to sell it to the DoD before selling it to Russia. We built this turd instead. But we did learn...now its the M1 king of the field.
Nice historical film.
Can't find his name right now, but the guy who designed the P51 was an ex-pat Russian, so they sort of repaid the mistake.
But you're right. The DOD was as bone-headed as the navy BuOrd regarding the horrible torpedoes the Navy had to deal with for at least two years.
No, it is the Leopard 2 A6! Grüße aus Deutschland!
Nonsense
@@peterson7082 The canon is from Rheinmetall and a lot of Nato-member did their choice: Leopard 2.
@@oliverschmitz6349 I was talking to Captain Codebook. The _M1's_ 120mm. is not from Rheinmetall- it's produced by Watervliet Arsenal under contract from GDLS. It's developed from the _Rh.120 L/44_ but it is not the same gun.
Just think some of those machines are still working.
What's so special about that?
The narrator has not yet heard of the Tiger.
you mean the tank the losers fielded? ;-)
@@stephenandersen4625 So was it a bad tank because they lost? If this is how it works then every american vehicle from the Vietnam era must be utter sh!t.
The _Tiger_ wouldn't be in service until basically a year after the _M3_ saw service.
The Tiger was in general a awful vehicle. I could go on a long rant why, but the tank was hard to produce, unreliable, and the Gun had to be locked in elevation while on the move to prevent damage to the vertical drive
Mortally Challenged
Many vehicles we fielded in Vietnam were worse then Soviet Contemporaries. The M60 was first in service in 1959. First time it had a stabilizer was in 1972 with the M60A1 AOS upgrade.
The Soviets on the other hand had the T-64 by 1967. The original had a 115mm Gun but in 1969 the T-64a had been introduced with a 125mm.
We didn’t get something better then the T-64 until 1980 with the Introduction of the M1
M3 Lee
"Safety glasses?? What are those?"
Who knew it took so much effort to build a Ronson burner.
These are not Shermans.
Dead Freight West that name applied to the M4 Sherman, not the Lee/Grant. The Vast majority of M4 tanks were built in Ontario.
And once wet stowage was introduced, the supposed nickname went away. Nobody can find any evidence that these lighter nicknames were ever used in the war in the first place.
No need to worry about fire! You'd be dead from the rivets as they broke and rattled around the inside of the tank as soon as you got any serious hit on the armor.
@@jordanulery524 ?
The M3 was effective for breaking up the zoot-suit riots in CA (1941 movie). 🙂
Look Mr. Periscope narrator, the M-3 MEDIUM TANK was not "a threatening juggernaut of destruction". It was a poorly designed tank, that was thrown together, because the US didn't have any tanks at all, and the development of the Sherman was not ready yet. As soon as they got Sherman's out, they right out stopped using this mess of a tank.
Not really the case
There were other tanks, but just light ones. The M3/5.
The narrator had to be taken out by men in white coats and given a sedative.
Only if they knew about sloped armor and welded seems.
They didn't have a time machine though, to view the future of tanks.
they did. baby steps
they did but but they had ro build the tools to make them
The M3 was produced using riveted, cast and welded hulls and turrets.
odd thing with rivets. I just welded around them on a 23 year old gmc. Adding new steel, drilled out to see where the old rivets are. The frame disappeared into a pile of rubble before the hardened hanger and rivet never failed. It did take a long time.. but the weld is the final say.
13:32 Lifting the tracks this way made me cringe. The hinge parts must be under a lot of stress.
Looks dangerous.
Remember, the Lee and Grant were both medium tanks, not heavies! Does anyone know the difference in a Lee and a Grant?
Brit & American
One was from the north, one from the south........
The Grant was used by the Brits; they skipped the cupola, had some MGs replaced with smoke dischargers.
Alguien no sabe si estos eran los tankes que los yankees llamaban "latas de sardina"?
Por qué si eran impactados en las costuras de remache, estas "latigaban" y se rompían matando a sus tripulantes... no por la penetración ni la explosión si no por qué la energía de tensión creada y almacenada en las piezas de acero remachado.
The Coffin For Seven Brothers.
What is that tank in the intro ?
The same tank theyre making, it's in the title
Very Good!... #378 ✝ {5-24-2022}
the 37mm would have been effective in WW1
Many other countries tanks were fielded with 37mm turrets! Don't believe me, check out most of your panzers were front line up threw defeat of France!
The film mentions an anti-aircraft role for it! :-)
'
which country this american tanks were W W 2 time...
germany or japan...
also same tanks in korea war time...
same tanks in vietnam war time
What tank was that in ww2? I thought we just had the Sherman but I didn’t think it had a radial aircraft engine?
Shane: you must be new to WWII history... it's a fascinating story.. and it begins with the M2 Medium, then the M3 Grant/Lee and then the M4 Sherman and its replacement the M26 Pershing. We wanted to simplify engine production for American industry so standardized on a radial aircraft engine. It turned out that once our industry got on a total war footing we could produce enough of every type of engine needed. But by then the design of our tanks was set and included the extra height needed for a radial design. The last batches of M4 tanks had V8 engines, diesels, and even a multi-bank powerplant that was comprised of five 6-cylinder engines! And it worked!
Paul Farace I’ll have to read about that, I thought most tanks and boats of ours used Allison engines, thanks.
Shanne glad your interested. This history should not be forgotten
While your at it, check out the m18 hellcat. It had a aircraft engine too. I restored one a number of years ago. Check you tube for Buicks 110th anniversary if you like to check it out!
@@phred.phlintstone The _M4_ was never riveted. The hull was bolted on multiple sections- but not riveted. Cast hull tanks (albeit the welded hull tanks always had cast transmission housings and turrets) were the first produced- though they were technically the second type of tank authorized for construction. They were otherwise introduced at the same time with the exception of _M4A3_ and _M4A4,_ and by omission the _M4A6._
" 𝓑𝓾𝓲𝓵𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓼𝓽 𝓐𝓻𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓿𝓮𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 !" ☝😏
👉 then genious tank
👉 now lol tank
😎🍺🍕
It’s a shame that US designs did not seem to be predicated on the ability of the frontal armor to prevent penetration by German tank and anti-tank gun rounds. Tiger tank crews must have felt a bit more confident in a duel.
The chance of encountering a Tiger was always minuscule. The HE capability of the 75 mm gun is what really mattered, especially in the desert. It was the first weapon that allowed the British to shell the German Pak 38 a/t guns with impunity.
Tanks do not fight tanks. They were for chasing and killing infantry. Tank killers like the Hellcat as well as anti-tank guns were for killing tanks and the German Panzer operators were afraid of them. Tank duels were a Hollywood invention. Sure you might come face to face accidentally, but if you kept moving and moving abreast of them, you were hard to hit as long as you kept moving.
Tigers could penetrate the frontal drive gear box and upper turret. They could not penetrate the Glacis slope.
@@donogoobo9992 Not the case.
Not in '1941 or '1942 was that the case.
Great tank. Out of date as soon as the first one took to the field. German armor was already 2 steps ahead.
Yea but after Kursk the Germans had like 3 tanks
Negatory. When the M3's first took to the field they gave the panzy tanks all they wanted and then some. The most common German tank seen in Tunisia and Africa during the M3's introduction would have been the MkIII and it could deal with those rather nicely. The MkIII was more finely machined, more complex, took more man hours and might have even been more expensive to produce, but even if it was a "special" its 50mm gun was no match for a 75mm no matter where it is mounted. The M3 would mow down PzIII's with 37mm guns with ease.
@@b062838868 After Kursk the Germans added backup lights to all their vehicles.