Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M4A1 Sherman

The latest episode of "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch" is dedicated to the M4A1 tank. In this first part, Nicholas Moran will talk about the armor, the problem of and solution for narrow tracks, and the well-known reliability of this American vehicle. Enjoy!

[@HawkTheRed]

"thank you very much" "That was Heavy" "go away" that escalated quickly

[@EdMan102292]

TheRed Hawk Those two can open my engine covers whenever they want ;)

[@outcast668]

+EdMan102292 Can I open your engine deck covers?

[@Boreasrex11]

An officer, 100%.

[@Shade01982]

I don't know about the British, but over here a major is an NCO, not an officer. Unless you meant something else.

[@caringancoystopitum4224]

Don't you mean sergeant major? Because a major is an officer in pretty much every army on the world. Corporal, sergeant, sergeant major and so on, those are NCOs. Lieutenant, captain, major, colonel etc are officers.

[@iannordin5250]

What people tend not to give US engineering enough credit for was the detail that they gave to practical aspects of design - not just out and out performance but rather quality of life and maintenance. The uniforms were designed to be easily interchangeable and modular, equipment was standardized, and as seen in the vid mechanical interchangability and ease of transportation was also at the forefront.

[@MrMarinus18]

It was a combination of the consumer oriented and heavily unionized industry of the US and the large and socialist leaning government that the US had at the time. Both of those things seem downright bizarre to consider. But compared to the more liberal economies of Britain and Germany the more socialist United States had a much easier time coordinating since the government could just dictate stuff to those factories. The unions also kept a certain sense of craftmanship in the industry which post war was applied to Germany and to a certain extent is still alive there today. American WW2 industry is really interesting in retrospect cause it's about the complete opposite of today where powerful lobbying by the industrial complex creates all kinds of overengineered white elephants and unions have been crushed to the point of near extinction. The government also largely serves the industrialists rather than the other way around.

[@gianlucamai]

Also created to be transportated over Ocean......not a small detail. Great project

[@kekistanimememan170]

@@MrMarinus18😂 lol no.

[@boardbysled]

Many Sherman chassis (tracks, suspension, transmission, etc) were purchased as surplus in the Pacific Northwest and had logging equipment such as yarders, loaders, and rock drills mounted to them. Many yarders still working today running sherman chassis. Madill and Skagit were the main users of the surplus chassis, but there are many others as well.

[@CrazedZombie]

Great, now we have a Spider crewing a T-34 unchecked.

[@F4Wildcat]

12:00 To give a perspective. A VVSS sherman (early) had a ground pressure of 15.4 PSI. The Panther tank, going trough mud much easier, had a GP of 12.4 PSI. Wich was very impressive and one of the best of the war. The Duck bills (if i read this correctly) brought it down on levels with the panther. But the M4A3E8 HVSS sherman brought this down to 10.2 PSI. now that is mighty impressive

[@ZETH_27]

Now I'm curious as to the probably horrific ground pressure of the M4A3E2...

[@AgentTasmania]

@@ZETH_27 Off the top of my head the Jumbo was at most about 30% heavier than a base model and would be on the HVSS, so actually still lower than an early type.

[@coaxill4059]

@@AgentTasmania While I've seen up-armored HVSS models, all the Jumbo's I've seen both in pictures and surviving were VVSS. It's possible I'm simply unlucky, but at the very least VVSS Jumbo tanks were not uncommon. I expect the ground pressure was indeed quite bad.

[@VFRSTREETFIGHTER]

Now that spider is in a little Soviet spider gulag.

[@wacojones8062]

I have been in a US M4A1 while I was in Basic at Ft. Lewis in 1971 it was the post mascot parked outside the main exchange with the escape hatch missing it was a nice place to sit and read.

[@ElysiumNZ]

It’s because of this very video that I was awoken to the reality how good the Sherman M4 was.👍

[@justforever96]

By "this video" you mean part 2 I assume, because he doesn't talk much about the positives of the M4 in this specific video, other than touching on the ease of maintenance and the armor compared to the contemporary tanks. He saves most of his praise for the interior layout, which is in Part 2. He has an entire video of a lecture he did defending the M4 if you haven't seen that. I didn't need to be convinced but I'm glad he's teaching so many other people the dangers of just accepting myth as fact because it's repeated so often, and judging a machine out of the context in which is was designed and used. The M4 Medium may not be the best tank of the war (although I think you could definitely make that argument) , but it's clearly foolish to call it a "bad tank" when even viewed in the worst light it's still one or the ten best in the world during the war.

[@DanielWW2]

*Secretly looking at that Panzer IV and hoping for a inside series on that vehicle. Still, M4 is quite nice and about time. Seriously underrated tank, although making that point would have been a bit easier with a later production model with less of the early issues. It doesn't have to be a nice M4A3E8 76mm wet stowage but maybe a mid production model with the 75mm. Then again, this one is probably more interesting. Then finally I would say that Jentz his comments about reliability make sense. In the end all tanks of this period where just transitioning from being mechanical disasters to reasonably reliability. It would not be that strange to think that being able to carry out maintenance and being able to do it frequently would help a lot with availability figures. The only but would be vehicles who just didn't work very well at al like the T-34 until about 1943, 1943 Panthers, early Cromwells etc.

[@Jermster_91]

DaniëlWW2 The tank I would love to see a tour of inside and outside is the Tiger 2.

[@MrDgwphotos]

The paint color on that Panzer IV makes me think it's one of the ones that were given to Syria and used to snipe at Israel.

[@Oesterreicher77]

Oh yes please inside the hatch panzer IV or III or II or I (best tank of the war Panzer I)

[@Jermster_91]

Eric Kulp His British counter part did the panzer 4 but no where near as in depth as The Chieftains.

[@MrChickennugget360]

or that Sheridan

[@MrWachira98]

i always wait untill the chieftain HIMSELF uploads it to youtube before i watch the video

[@isaacmcdaniel6278]

who else watches these just because this guy just sounds awesome and is so amazing at enthralling you with relatively boring stuff like the tracks and various mechanical parts. honestly this is more entertaining than watching battle footage

[@bluesrocker91]

I remember this actual tank from a book I had as a kid called 'Inside the Great Tanks'.

[@Masada1911]

Good stuff

[@ThumperE23]

Chieftain I had that same exact conversation with Tom Jentz back in the late 1990's at AMPS Nationals in Aberdeen. I felt the same way...

[@zackboone15]

I came by and pestered you at PAX East last year on why you hadn't done the Sherman yet. Thank you for bring me my favorite tank.

[@xikungao2376]

OMG so much information! Love this video! Can't wait for the Part 2.

[@WildBillCox13]

At last! I was beginning to think you weren't going to do an M4 episode. Glad to see you take on the most well publicized armored vehicle of all time. If I didn't know how hard it is to keep everything coordinated, and to bull through the inevitable Murphy's Law moments, I'd say you have my Dream Job. AND you rock it. If I weren't so conceited, I'd be jealous. ;-)

[@askingstuff]

People who rub on the sherman tend to focus on its armor. You see, the sherman has two layouts for its frontal upper glacis. Two inches sloped at 32 to 34 degrees from horizontal, or 2.5 inches at a shallower 43 degrees. The result is a line of sight thickness of 93mm, roughly the same as the T-34. What people like to do however, is take the 51mm plate, and associate it with the 43 degree slope, resulting in a dysmal 74mm plate thickness in an attempt to make the sherman seem thin skinned. These people need to be slapped. With a table.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

A main difference is the Sherman is taller than a t-34, making it a lot easier to hit than a T-34. The T-34s steeper angle also increases the ricochet chance significantly more than what the Sherman has. Then there is the matter of side armor, the Sherman's all have 38mm flat side armor, while the T-34 side armor is 45mm sloped. Finally the Sherman has narrow tracks, while the t-34 has wider tracks, meaning the T-34 can be and is more mobile in rough terrain than the Sherman. Another safety issue is up to the M4A4 model all used gasoline engines, significantly more dangerous than the diesel engine the T-34 always used.

[@fulcrum2951]

That very side sloped armor has utterly screwed over the ergonomics of the tank Why would tank designers near the end of the war would design a tank without the sloping of the side armor?

[@dmanbiker]

@@fulcrum2951 I'm not arguing with you, but what really screws up the ergonomics of the T-34 is the Christie suspension. Those sloped sections are filled with giant Christie springs. The T-43 uses torsion bar suspension which brings the floor up a bit, but doesn't need those giant candle-stick springs, they always forget to add on T-34 cutaways.

[@NeblogaiLT]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor However, actual quality of T-34 was lower- engines were not reliable, and there were soon not enough of other metals to make proper steel- thus pure specs in milimeters do not tell everything.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

@Essence of Order the armor of the t-34 shows its advantages and disadvantages. The sloped armor may have helped ricochet rounds, but your forgetting about the low quality of the armor. The sloped armor as well as it’s height is what got a lot of it’s crews killled.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

You wonderful man! My second favorite tank! What a great Saturday!

[@paoloviti6156]

It is good to see this new inside view of the Sherman M-4 ! As usual it has the combination of old and new upgrading done in it's service with the army such as the late cupola in place of the awfully heavy double hatch with it's single periscope! Good job again and looking forward to see the second part!

[@Bajicoy]

Great to see guests on this show ^^ it’s fun

[@dse763]

"They put the appliqué anyway and you put a nice big white helpful aiming mark so the gunners can still get their detonations anyway" That level of sarcasm !

[@AdamMann3D]

It is nice to see you get to geek out on one of these. Your love for the Sherman is quite obvious. This was not a normal ITCH, this was a tank nerds episode. Definite Son of the Sherman/Armored Thunderbolt kind of vibe. I approve.

[@joelpayne255]

Yeah!....I was pestering you about this video about 6 months ago. Thank you guys for bringing it to us. Have a great weekend.

[@USAAmutual45]

Great video, hope this one is a 3 part video.

[@RonI-qz2tz]

Great job love your video's keep them coming

[@LastAustralianGamer]

I was waiting for this video for so long cant wait to watch it

[@KennethKlingler]

Another great video.

[@tibne2412]

Can't wait to see inside.

[@dmactye3]

About time they did this one!!!

[@MongooseJakeNerf]

A couple of things: You briefly mention the Sherman Jumbo, any chance a surviving one could make a appearance here? One of the best Sherman variants, or at least most interesting personally. Also: That Pz IV next to the Sherman really needs it's own video. Great work as always!

[@rvail136]

very good video sir. As always.

[@thelittlestmig3394]

Oh god I love these videos!

[@A1soldiersaint]

ANOTHER AWESOME VIDEO! Thanks for the history you bring to life. I appreciate that there is no hype and none of the typical cliche's and stereotypes that are regurgitated over and over on TV. I also am a Soldier but not a tanker. What is the Chieftain's favorite tank?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Chieftain. Silly question.

[@A1soldiersaint]

Oh dah. Thanks.

[@YounesF5]

How it comes it is your favorite tank and you just did a snapshots on it ??? Silly statement!!!

[@Fretti90]

Great job on the video! Im kinda suprised that i havent seen a M4 inside the hatch before (since its so iconic). Will we be seing more swedish tanks in the near future? I would love to see more from Arsenalen :) Keep up the great work xD

[@chasrmartel4777]

You do a fantastic job. You're much better than the company you're associated with.

[@LukeBunyip]

Ta mcuchly. Looking forward to Pt 2

[@linkigii]

120-mile fuel range: so basically a full tank of gas would get a Sherman farther than the average Panther's transmission...

[@michaelpielorz9283]

more realistic it would have get him only as far to his first(and last) encounter with a panther.

[@ct92404]

@@michaelpielorz9283

[@darnit1944]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Even more realistically, the Sherman will find a Panzer III, IVs, and Stugs in the Panthers place. And it will go on facing mostly infantries until 1945.

[@Jay_Mac1775]

@@ct92404 what does wheraboo mean? I’ve been seeing it a lot

[@Minotaur4005]

@@Jay_Mac1775 it's basically a person who is convinced that all of nazi germany's things were better than that of the allies and constantly excuses any crime they commit

[@dallasknight8620]

i love watching your videos

[@Vnx]

When it comes to a tank's reliability, I think in terms of 'reliable enough'. That the force has adequate personnel, spare parts, and facilities to keep up with the tank's maintenance needs and have a high rate of readiness, as noted. Two armies could get very different experiences from the same tank as a result of this. Army A could have warehouses of spare parts, dedicated towing vehicles, adequate field repair facilities, and have a very good experience with that tank's reliability. Army B could be using the same tanks, but they have no spare parts, they have to wait for another tank to break down to cannibalize parts from it to fix other tanks, and they have to use their tanks as towing vehicles because they don't have the machines for it, which puts strain on the vehicles they aren't meant for and makes breakdowns more likely. To Army A it seems like a great, reliable tank. To Army B it's a lemon.

[@peterstickney7608]

There are a number of ways to describe "Reliability" - perhaps the one that's most appropriate in this context is "How many tanks do I start the day with? How many arrive at the objective? How many will I have tomorrow morning?" It's not just parts not breaking, it's also the ability to get a deadlined vehicle back up and running. If, say, you throw tracks just as often in a Sherman as in a Panther, but it takes you a half-hour to get it back on and going, vs. 2, you're going to be catching up with your road march in pretty short order (They'll be halting avery hour or so to go over the vehicles). If whatever breaks can be fixed without calling up Ordnance, There's a balance to be struck. That being said, I haven't heard of a lot of Sherman issues that required extensive work to repair - while, for example, the final drives/transmission can be swapped out easily (As pointed out in the video), I haven't run across anything that indicates that it had to be done often. Note also that simplicity does not always equate into reliability. I've worked on U.S. and Russian Equipment. And, as people are prone to note, the Russian stuff is simple in design (which does _not_ imply stupid), and can often be fixed by banging it with a rock. But you end up needing an awful lot of rocks, and doing a lot of banging.

[@MrMarinus18]

Another thing that helped the US is that in 1942 the US had more cars per person than any other country in the world by a wide margin. So a huge number of their soldiers grew up with cars and had likely helped their dad repair them at some point. It was really a problem for the Italians that very, very few of their people owned cars so for many tankers going into a tank not only meant learning to drive and maintain the tank. But just learning to drive and work on a vehicle of any kind. So going with your example army A could have a machine gunner who had repaired cars as a side hustle and so felt confident to work on the tank if it had a minor breakdown even if he didn't know exactly what was wrong. He could just open the manual and would have the confidence to fix it. Army B might have a crew of which none had ever even been in a car before so they would need to call a repair crew for the same minor breakdown.

[@MrJohnsmith507]

Love seeing the DAT Boots again.

[@JonManProductions]

Did your camera guys get new gear? Because I've noticed the FPS increase. Even though I tend to play the other game more often (I have played WoT on both the 360 in the beta phase and then on PC for a little bit), I still love watching these videos.

[@johnathonowens6516]

love the tanker boots

[@ianmaw66]

Cool video thanks.

[@flynnhancock3181]

Thanks Dude!

[@jcbbb]

The power in ww2 tank engines is outstanding... along with all the mechanical engineering done at the time

[@rodsutkowski2506]

Not sheet metal on the bulges but one inch armor plate welded on the drivers' and assistant drivers' hatch bulges, also the 55 degree slope was a late war modification, (armor thickness was increased to 2 1/2" to compensate for the greater slope) to the M4, M4A1, and the M4A3(E8), which included the larger turret and 76mm gun.

[@peterson7082]

Sheet metal around the ammunition boxes, not on the exterior. I take it you mean 47 degree slope, the 57 degree were small hatch M4s. You forgot the M4A2, which also received the larger hatch. M4A1s never were consistent in armor thickness on the front. _"E8"_ simply is the project designation for any M4 (excluding the M4, M4A4 and M4A6 officially) equipped with 23" track HVSS.

[@billradloff1919]

Did you guys get a new camera? The video quality seems a lot better than older episodes, which is nothing but great!

[@vinnelap8017]

Such a lovely music track constantly looping into eternity. I will never forget that. Like what has been said. I need to eat the meat and spit out the bones. The bones you know that I mean.

[@xenofoxx]

Spider: "Hello!"

[@totallyaploy1824]

Where

[@OOZ662]

@@totallyaploy1824 24:02

[@nikolajc7617]

I like your videos about tanks and i love the funny way you say things about something useless, pointless, or badly designed, it gives me a good laugh👍😅😉😂

[@Lucassnowman]

If anyone is interested, an excellent book about the Sherman tank is "Armored thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga.

[@larshenrik8900]

Chief, when can we excpect part 2?

[@FINNIUSORION]

The dubliners. Foggy dew. Beautiful song. Luke kelly was a genius.

[@ShaneC2788]

Hello from Tipp ;)

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Land of the 1st Cav.... :)

You should do one on the auxiliary engines used by different countries.

[@Davito2000]

Mr. Moran may find the AAF Museum in Danville, VA interesting. Assuming all parties were in agreement, that place would have some impressive specimens to overview.

[@TheTemplarnight]

was really hoping for some Sherman Jumbo coverage as that Tank really interests me.

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

TheTemplarnight Sherman Jumbo: get a sherman add more armor get inside laugh everytime anyone says "yup, the Tiger I is heavy armor"

[@basiaromanovski458]

"So they put in big white star mark so gunners can still detonate them" I died laughing

[@niclyx7970]

Dammit Chieftain, that was an AMERICAN spider.

[@shoominati23]

I can see that applique armour was any scraps of sufficient thickness oxy acytelene cut to an appropriate shape and welded on

[@EBC_1142]

holy shit... thats my favorite tank!!! sherman!!

[@bacongod4967]

I know im a little late but he really should do inside the hatch for the T-34 76 (early and hexagonal turret) since theyre so rare now, just to show cramped they are.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Believe it or not, I have one, it was one of the first ever recorded. But as such, not good enough quality to release. I’m still trying to figure out what to do with it.

[@CockadoodleDont]

@@TheChieftainsHatchRelease it! Stitch it together with some photos or videos. Or come out to Massachusetts and film it again lol

[@saabaton169]

As an engineer it irritates me that they couldn't have a transfer case to make the driveshaft lower and thus the tank shorter. Such a good design with a goofy quirk in the middle

[@VFRSTREETFIGHTER]

The M4 Sherman, the perfect vehicle to take on a crooked southern sheriff who has thrown your teenage son in jail on trumped up charges! I wonder how many heads I went over with that reference....

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Depends on if anyone is named James or Garner.

[@VFRSTREETFIGHTER]

Very true. Rip James Garner.

[@gamingsentry6000]

PBRStreetGang I remember that

[@duanecoleman387]

PBRStreetGang don't forget the hooker and the old moonshiner in the stump country.....

[@TheAtarois]

I will see your corrupt southern sheriff and raise you one medium tank said Mr. Garner.

[@williamsager805]

Can you do a show on the life of the brakes on older tanks that depended on clutch and brake steering. I've heard stories that this could be a limiting factor on larger tanks until modern cross drive steering was perfected.

[@peterson7082]

William Sager Speaking of transmissions, it's sad that the electric transmission has been used so little despite it working quite well on the T23 and T25.

[@cowerdnerddespacito9518]

The most marketable plushie looking Of all the Sherman’s

[@lkchild]

On reliability, it's worth a read of PM Knights book on the technical history of Crusader. It has the polar opposite reputation to Sherman as an unreliable tank, mostly due to serviceability and parts supply. After the initial teething problems, the tanks simply couldn't be serviced, and were repaired with components cannibalised from other tanks that had already hit their service lifespan, hence more more frequent breakdowns. Have you come across any mention of the British asking the US to build Crusaders ahead of M3 and M4 mediums? I'm certain I've come across that in a good source (I thought it was in "The Business of Tanks") but I'm stuffed if I can find it now.

[@Tarv1]

Nice video, curious was Meathead paid in bacon for his appearance? :D

[@norman3605]

Great video. FYI: Lima, OH is pronounced “L-eye-mah” not “L-ee-mah”. The town name just isn’t phonetic.

[@SteamCrane]

@Oggy Yes. That was one of the main deal breakers in the remake of Thomas Crown Affair, besides the lifeless acting. Different pronunciation is very common with midwestern US place names.

[@H0kram]

Ah the Sherman! thank you!

[@od1452]

Radio Antenna.. it's clearly different that modern ones. Can you show it in detail and how long is it.?

[@wimthorntonbooks3606]

I remember having to repair a track while my Sherman was 3 feet deep in the mud. I still own little bits

[@Bajicoy]

Thought all of you were crazy for talking about some spider, then I saw the bloopers... xD

[@jsma9999]

Will you Meathead Militia on other Videos?. Are you talking US Gal or Imp Gal . Thanks For these great films.

[@ronaldcach2779]

What different types of engines were installed in the Sherman? Thanks

[@antonrudenham3259]

If 40 tons was the SWL for dockside cranes then how were huge locomotives,and turbines and naval gun barrels and all that heavy stuff transported around the world for decades before lifting tanks became an apparent problem? Wouldn't it have been possible to maybe build bigger cranes for the docks where these heavier vehicles were to be shipped from and to? How did they transport the 46 ton M26? I also have a question about the R1820 engines, I have read that apart from the problems already discussed they were terribly prone to oiling their plugs. Something to do with them being originally built for aircraft which typically operate at constant high RPM and the pistons being designed to be a 'loose' fit thus taking up and forming a perfect seal at high RPM through heat expansion. What with a tank engine spending most of its time idling the Lub oil would pass from the crankcase through the piston rings and into the cylinder head and glaze the plugs. Crews used to carry as many spare plugs as they could scrounge and sand blasting units were in high demand at maintenance yards.

[@rider3312]

I was always wondering why the m4 in most of its variants had this weird cable-looking thing around the machine-gun port in the front. Does anybody know?

[@xxxlonewolf49]

Sherman, forward!

[@TorontoCanada5]

“The Americans had spare parts coming out the wazoo” well that is where spare parts come from so 😂

[@attilarischt2851]

I noticed this in the previous video, but this new opening/intermission clips has a really differing music style than your background jingle, which makes it feel really off. Can you ask the people who decide these stuff to try and use a more upbeat tune?

[@SilentRazor1uk]

+TheChieftainWoT Another great vid, complete with wildlife too (the spider, not Meathead Militia - although he's a welcome addition to help - I hope). Just wondering about the Chrysler A57 engine (I hope the future hinted at M4A4 video might include something about this beast of an engine), since the rumours of it being able to run with 2 of 5 banks of 6 knocked out, shouldn't the in games A57 engines have a higher health-pool ?, rather than currently being joint worst engine health-pool for the Shermans if that is/was so. Also the A57's in-game have 425 horsepower, not the 467/460-ish as commonly seen listed about them online; is there a possibility this power discrepancy could be rectified (if the 467hp is actual use-able power rating that is) ? Thanks for any help, and sorry for any inconvenience. ..ahem, I'm a bit of a petrol-head, so I like the bonkers yet ingenious idea of a 30 cylinder engine with crud-loads of grunt and being said to have run with few problems even after suffering damage that'd kill other tank engines - I would love it modelled/represented ingame as the motor it was.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Unlike other multi-engine configurations, such as the M4A2 or the M24, I don't believe it is possible to disconnect the individual banks easily from the rest of the engine. Thus, it seems to me, that not only would the two remaining banks be providing only 160hp or so, but it would also be trying to cycle the remining three dead banks, which has got to be a significant power drain. I would think that if even one bank goes, the maintenance shop is the next destination.

[@SilentRazor1uk]

..true enough with the pumping/frictional losses, sure power would suffer relatively largely. Although in theory the mechanical torque in hindsight could/would help keep the engine running, if it was already running when hit, more than a engine with less mechanical/rotating parts torque & mass(es) could tolerate. But in logical 'thunking', if it was a later 'unified' single pump cooling system multibank motor, it wouldn't be running for long if leaking coolant, if not oil too, - perhaps enough to crawl & lurch away into semi-close cover than another simpler, lighter motor could survive for, for the crew to thence escape more safely. I understand the earlier/earliest motors was more individual in construction and details such as radiators arranged into a 'single-looking unit' radiator frame fan-shroud assembly, ignition systems, and perhaps some ability to open/close oil feeds to/from 'knocked out' blocks from inside or in semi-easy access from the fore end of the engine bay. With regards to that vein of thought, maybe some of the stories come from repaired/recovered tanks vs similar M4's with other engine packages and or from the 'erks'/fitters/mechanics working on them etc. ...thus creating the A57 myth in a manner from missed details of memories muddled in to one 'story' ? & perhaps some aspect of rose tinted hindsighted mechanical love for the ungainly complex heavy engine that personified US manufacturing 'Can do' attitude and 'engine of democracy'(? ...5 working together despite differences) mixed in too - no offence intended.

[@antonrudenham3259]

If the fuel inlets are removed from the dead bank it would greatly ease running by losing the compression, of course that would have to be done erm, after all of the bullets had stopped.

[@Jason-iz6ob]

2 inches of armor… Can’t help thinking of that scene in To Hell and Back where Audie Murphy tells that tanker lieutenant, how thick you think this GI shirt is?

[@OnlyHereForCake]

Regarding the narrow tracks vs wide tracks debate, I recall a statement/debate/something I heard somewhere that even tanks such as the IS series and Tiger II had better cross country performance despite the greater weight thanks to the wider tracks giving more traction and improved weight distribution. I would assume the Panzer III and IV suffered from similar issues on soft ground. Is there any truth to that or source specifically discussing it?

[@unknown091291]

Please do inside the hatch for the amx elc! Pretty please! 😅

[@harrymack3565]

I am pretty sure he is taller than it is long lmao.

[@MGPW01]

TheChieftainWoT is there a document, like a specification or an order where the 40t crane load limit is discussed with regards to the shipping issue? Or would that be part of the larger design/development dicussion. Btw hope to see you back in Arsenalen soon!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I must admit to not having seen anything in particular on the cranes in the Ordnance transportation, though the weight of the M6 for transport was mentioned as an issue in the non-selection of the vehicle. The crane weight limits came up somewhere else.

[@peterstickney7608]

I don't know if it was called out in the tank's requirements or not, but looking over the ship characteristics and logistics data for the time does set limits. A Liberty or Victory Ship had one 50 ton capacity boom and winch. They weren't going to be self-unloading more than that. (And you had to count on that - there's no guarantee for example, that the dockside cranes at Antwerp of Cherbourg were going to be in working shape. The U.S. Army Transportation Corps dock handling equipment had a maximum capacity of 40 tons. So - if you want to get tanks across the water and unload them, 50 tons was your upward limit, and 40 tons was a much better target. While you could put tanks onto amphibious ships, like LSTs, a WW2 LST had a ramp capacity of 50 tons. So it's still an uppper limit.

[@treyriver5676]

TheChieftainWoT I had looked it up myself quite a bit as to the weight of cranes and such. there were cranes larger than the 40 ton standard but they were few and far between and only at Major ports the cranes aboard the primary transports we're now a limiting and total amount but limited the 40 ton lift to only one of the holds Liberty ships.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

How thick is the Engine deck cover?

[@alansmodelmaking1558]

Didn't some of the tanks at Portola Valley get sold off and separated at auction? It seems at least the layout is different than the videos from a few years ago

[@Legiondude]

The auction was 2 years ago

[@SoltyII]

Why are Sherman tracks known as "narrow" while Pz III and IV do not get any bad reputation even though their tracks seem to be even narrower?

[@peterson7082]

The _III_ was almost twelve tons lighter in its earlier variants.

[@Alpostpone]

Panzers' tracks do tend to get unfavorably compared to T-34's.

[@dieselhead7961]

Makes me think, could we ever see an inside the hatch or at least an overview on the M6? It's pretty much not talked about at all and I find it neat.

[@peterson7082]

There's two that I know of left. One's a T1E1/M6A2 welded up completely at Ft. Knox Armor school. The other is a M6A1, however as far as I know has been stripped naked in terms of equipment.

[@Phos9]

Wait a moment, in the new transition, that conqueror has burster plates. Is that the made up fv heavy tank replacement?

[@DFMurray]

The engine armor was made in Pennsylvania!

[@jeesmith99]

That original Michael tank is still on display: www.tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1955-32

[@juk-hw5lv]

I have a question - was the handcrank connected to the engine directly, i.e when the motor starts there's a good chance of breaking your extremities with it, or does it employ a some kind of a clutch to disconnect the handstart mechanism one the engine kicks in?

[@SteamCrane]

It was used to get the oil out of the lower cylinders with the magnetos switched off. Once the cylinders were cleared, the electric starter was used. Same as seeing mechanics turn over aircraft radials by grabbing the propeller blades. Definitely want the mags switched off!

[@gamingsentry6000]

Are you going to do a jumbo or 76

[@IFear_Naught]

Nicholas, a question I've wanted to ask for some time now. When you refer to an aspect of a tank that is present on a former version, but absent on a later version, why do you refer to to it as being "deleted," instead of omitted or removed?

[@tyler_bt3326]

IRejectSociety that's how documentation usually refers to it

[@davidvanniedek2605]

Montreal Locomotives works... Canada represent!

[@holytiamat777]

FINALLY

[@SootHead]

Moran- If you want to get your ass kicked in a bar in Lima ("Lime-ah") near the tank plant, just call it "Leem-ah." ( : < )

[@brucetucker4847]

Regarding the USMC's adoption of the M4A2, my understanding is that this was mostly a matter of supply - the US Army had few if any diesel-powered vehicles in its front line units so diesel-powered tanks would complicate supply, while the Navy used diesel engines for many of its landing craft and boats, so supplying the Marines with diesel for tanks wouldn't be a problem.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Marine Historian Ken Estes is adamantly opposed to this theory, and goes down to the date/minutes of the meeting that decision to accept the A2 was made. It was a choice, for the Marines, of diesel powered M4s now, or gasoline ones six months later. If you think about it, everything else the Marines had ashore, from jeeps to trucks to Amtracks, were all gasoline, so adding diesel just doesn't make logistical sense, it would require a second fuel source be landed just for those. In the meantime, the US Army's M10s were predominantly diesel already.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks for the correction.

[@dylanmattimore4833]

I like the m6 I think it's a cool looking tank qwq