M103 - The Complete History of America's Last Heavy Tank

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks to War Thunder for Sponsoring(!) this video. Play War Thunder NOW on PC, Xbox Series X&S and PS5. Use my sign-up link to get FREE premium vehicles, account time, boosters and more: playwt.link/redwrenchfilms

[@LogoMasterWT]

jokes on you i was playing war thunder when watching this

[@user-op8fg3ny3j]

@@LogoMasterWT I think the majority of viewers on the videos they sponsor already play the game 😆

[@paul.facciolo6985]

Great video!! Unfortunately war thunder sponsorship. Take this👎

[@beaumontgile5886]

Marines take anything and make it better

[@danielspoon1234]

@@LogoMasterWT it's like that

[@Irish37]

I first saw the M-103 serving as a lawn ornament on Fort Knox, Kentucky when I was a kid. It's one of the things that inspired me to return to Fort Knox as an adult and train to be a tanker.

[@Themanfuhreal]

What a story, could I get what tank you served on?

[@StupidPerson-dh9bj]

Dirty rotten tanker

[@sinisterisrandom8537]

M103 -design isn't used. Only for experimentals.

[@zachnar0125]

Lucky! We all joined to do that same thing but............ Too tall was always the answer, whether it was MEPS or the recruiter. Sooooo 13 bravo was the next best choice....... Wasn't going to pick Chaplains assistant lol even though probably should have.

[@gmckemie4281]

I remembered seeing that same tank on the corner when I arrived at Fort Knox in 1983. I thought to myself that was a M48 on steroids.

[@dragonfusilier9173]

Im not sure why, but I've always had a soft spot for the M103 tbh. I just wish I could see one myself so that I can visualise the dimensions better

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I think there’s about 25 dotted around the states and 1 in Bovington (if you’re near haha)

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

I saw one at some outdoor museum in Washington State about 25 or 26 years ago, and jumped up and hanged from the gun by my ankles and hands...the things are just impressively huge.

[@AustinSmith-gq5gc]

There is one on outdoor display in Radcliffe Kentucky, it’s just sort of sitting there

[@tacomas9602]

It’s such a great looking machine.

[@mikecook317]

@@AustinSmith-gq5gc Can you st where in Radcliffe? I'm only a few hours away, I might be able to go look at it.

[@luciusvorenus9445]

The Chieftain did a two part series on the M103 with a retired USMC Tank Officer. It was very cool to have a first hand account of the 103.

[@c3aloha]

Ken Estes!

[@daffyduck7336]

L t.Col Kenth Estes, also Professor of modern Europen history and author of 16 books on military history and author for U S Army and U S Marine corps unit operational history.

[@daffyduck7336]

And there is one factor the M103 introduced to the world of tanks , this the electronics fire control over hydraulics, this was a totally new and new fire control concept! The system was known as "ampadine" , there was no mechanical connection between the gunners controls or the tank commanders controls and the hydraulics turret /fire controls, the connection all by electronics signal! The electronics current was was produced by a pair of "ampadine generators" the electric that these generators produced was (AC current) this current in turn fed to a control/ test module and then to two amplifiers, one for elevation/depression and one fortravering , each of the fire control handles contained a potentiometer, these signals were in turn fed to hydraulics pump controls. This system before solid state electronics, it all test tube ,Picture trying to keep a system like that operating with 6,000 lbs gun tube recoiling at 65 mph! And now you have some idea of what the technicalities could be! And "the US Congress ordered the U S Army to turn project over to the US Marines (all 300 M103s ) along with a bunch cash and the instructing to "fix it", and that's how the M103 heavy tank program ended up in the lap of the USMC! Oh and the elevation/equiaberator cylinder for the main gun was a modified "main landing gear cylinder from the "B29 bomber!

[@daffyduck7336]

And that 120mm gun could take out any tank any on any battel field at 4,000 +meters , the AP round tipped the scales at 51.1 lbs with a muzzle velocity of 3,200 fps.! The shape charge round could penetrate over 9 inches of homogenous steel armor out to 5,000 yards!

[@slate4687]

​​@@daffyduck7336meanwhile in war thunder it has a difficult time penning a Panther at point blank 😂😅😂

[@JerryTheTankYank1776]

Every time I see a new educational video about the m103, I get excited. Edit: I would love to see a video of the T-10, to complete the Cold War heavy tank trio.

[@Mark3nd]

Conqueror, T-10 and M103? Figured it's interesting since both are last heavy tanks

[@petesheppard1709]

Excellent! I've always had a soft spot for this bruiser. I've climbed on the VFW lawn ornament in Anniston, AL, and often wondered what the ride was like for the TC as the turret swung around. Sited outside the turret ring, it had to be interesting.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks for sharing!

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

If I were to marry a tank, it would probably be the M103... she's just a bbw, with a massive gun!

[@FirstDagger]

8:14 As the Chieftain said in one of his videos the M60 was never officially named Patton and isn't part of the Patton series of tanks.

[@executivedirector7467]

It had no official name but there's simply no question that it is of the M26/M46/M47/M48 family. There are some (trivial) parts that are interchangeable and lots of M47 & M48 have been upgraded with M60-type components such as 105mm guns and powerplants.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

"official" The thing is, the M60 is still part of the Patton lineage. It's still a Patton tank.

[@kenchristenson7548]

We called it the Patton when I served in a mechanized unit in the 1980s. It was the next stage of the M48 and the chieftain was mistaken.

[@FirstDagger]

@@kenchristenson7548 ; Notice I said official name.

[@daffyduck7336]

Well having served for 22 years in tracked vehicles in the USMC, mostly "tanks" M48, M103,and M60s and I got to "dabbled" with the prototype M1, I never called the M48 "Patton" it was " tank,full-tracked 90 mm gun M48"! OR JUST M48, and the M103s 120mm gun was used as the standard for performance comparison while researching for main gun for the M1 Abrams!

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

I've actually seen an M103 in person, at an outdoor display in Washington state, back in the late 1990s. Somewhere there's an old photo of me, dressed like Kurt Cobain, hanging from it's massive 120mm gun...omg, if you've never seen one up close, I recommend it if you can ever get the chance to...the M103 is just absolutely huge! Probably one of my personal favorite tanks of all time.

[@diltzm]

I've been to that same display outside the museum at JBLM. Unfortunately all the tanks hatches have been welded shut so you can't see inside of it.

[@ndinoguy6845]

The M103 is my most favorite tank of all time. Idk, something about a bulked up M48 with a big 120mm gun just clicks with me. I went to a tank museum in Virginia during Christmas Break and my favorite part of it was when I got to climb inside the M103A1 they had.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I love it too - that 50s/60s aesthetic is just so nice

[@executivedirector7467]

It's more like the M48 is a trimmed down M103, lineage-wise.

[@slate4687]

It has to be one of the best looking tank of all time...that sloped turret is just amazing

[@PitFriend1]

There are two reasons that heavy tanks disappeared for a while. The first was the improvements to tank guns made the need for large bore cannons redundant. High velocity guns like the British L7 had virtually the same penetration as the bigger guns but were much lighter and didn’t require two loaders which meant the tank turrets could be much smaller. The second was the advent of ATGMs against which thick and heavy plain steel armor was about useless against. There was no reason to build a large and slow vehicle with lots of armor when a smaller and lighter vehicle could do just as well and you could make more of them for the same costs. It wasn’t until improved 120mm guns came around and composite armor reduced the threat of ATGMs as well as improved engines to give them decent mobility that heavy tanks like the Abrams not only became viable but successful again.

[@CommandLineCowboy]

I was going to ask the question how the m103's 120mm compared to the L7 105mm, but you've answered. I assume the T123 120mm didn't have APFSDS like the L7?

[@PitFriend1]

@@CommandLineCowboy No the M58 120mm the M103 used only had APBC (Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped), HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank), HE (High Explosive), and WP (White Phosphorous) shells.

[@Psychonau]

i dont think thats really the reason, because the l7 appeared around the same time, it was much more popular but the brits did a switch frm the l7 to the 120 mm l11 anyway and they never downgraded back.

[@jackparker1197]

At 9:46 that M103 is at the museum I work at! Grave Digger is by far one of our largest tanks, only neat out by the Abrams and barely!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The Abram’s has a habit of beating everything… that’s so interesting though, I’d love to come visit someday!

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

That point at about 4 min in about being adapted from a navy AA mount makes me wonder why more ship equipment was not adapted to tanks. I want to say that for the IS-2, the choice was between a 100mm naval gun (which lost, but was eventually refined into the D10T of the T-54/55) and a 122mm artillery piece. Why not adapt the Mark 12 5"/38 caliber gun used on so many ships to tank form? The complete naval turret weighs as much as a tank, but the barrel and breech alone...

[@Orinslayer]

Well the soviets did that. The IS7 uses a 5 inch naval gun as its main armament.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Well, there really wasn't a 4-inch gun in the US Navy and the 3-inch guns didn't become popular after the war except as anti-air weapons, and even then, that was a very short period before the missile replaced the 3 inch guns. So there really weren't any weapons used by the US Navy that weren't 20mm, 40mm, and 5/38.

[@mrhamneggs5295]

@@CharliMorganMusic The Clemson class DDs had 4" guns

[@jefferydraper4019]

The M728 was an M-60 with a naval gun inside it adapted used as an engineer support vehicle.

[@Maritimesgestein]

@@mrhamneggs5295 and the clemson were build in 1918. The guns and ammo for the clemson 4" wasn't in production anymore.

[@jefferydraper4019]

last M103 I saw was on a tank recovery training range at Fort Knox. It was rolled over on its side and we had to setup the recovery vehicles to get it back upright. Then roll it back over for the next class.

[@parrot849]

I first became fascinated with tanks at the fresh age of 12 when my father took me to an Armed Forces Day (remember when we actually celebrated that once upon a time) parade and event near our home town that included and later displayed for the public a Marine Corps M103 “heavy.” The massive bulk of that enormous vehicle trundling down our little Main Street was what truly amazed this young lad 😮. From that day forward I was totally hooked on all things AFV. When I was 18 I enlisted in navy. I had initially wanted to go into the armored branch of the army, but after a candid conversation with a surprisingly honest army recruiter, I was told that we being smack in the middle of the Vietnam War at the time, there was almost no chance even if he promised I could upon enlisting; that I’d be ultimately assigned to U.S.Army Armored Forces. It would be a 100 to 1 shot I’d be assigned an armor mos. He explained the army needed infantry replacements, period. I’d be sent straight into the infantry. So I went navy-and…, ended up in Vietnam anyway. But that’s not my point. My point is I never did get to serve in a tank; Grrrrr, but have never lost my fascination for everything armor, or as are British mates say, armour!

[@nickhinx22]

The national museum of military vehicles in Dubois Wyoming has one sitting outside kinda by itself. Talked to one of the curators and they'd love to do something with it but the inside is virtually gutted, and it does not have an engine. It is extremely difficult to source any part for this tank. Interesting you mentioned the exhaust issue because you can see inside the engine bay and there are massive hoses on either side of the hull that I suppose would be for the deflection of the exhaust. The thing is an absolute monster, and I really wish this thing got the respect it deserved.

[@roywoodrom9277]

There is an M103 in a park in Nacogdoches, Texas. We used to climb on it all the time when we were kids, but I had thought it was some donated foreign tank because I never saw the M103 in any books or movies.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Does anybody who's not me remember the 3D tank game from the 80s called Conquerer? It was a 3rd person game where you take control of a fleet of tanks and fight an opponent, there were British, American and Nazi sides. You could jump into any tank and the remaining tanks on the field would be AI controlled. You fought until all your tanks or their tanks were knocked out. You could also have two joy sticks control one tank, so two of you could be driver and gunner.

[@Supernionra]

The M103's gun still has the highest muzzle energy of any production tank at 17MJ

[@jjcaron4381]

It would honestly be so sick to be an American tanker in the 60's. Just rolling around in a steel behemoth protected by hundreds of millimeters of armor. No armor penetration, just vibes.

[@EliteHistory117]

I don’t get how this guy doesn’t have more subs. He makes awesome videos Btw I love the M103 so very interesting vid, keep up the good work!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I appreciate that!

[@JimmySailor]

It’s kind of funny the M103 was phased out in 1972 when that’s the same year another 60ton 120mm armed tank began development, the M1 Abrams. So it seems more like the planners foresaw that the M103 platform was at a dead end and it was better to start from a blank sheet of paper.

[@wargames43]

the reason also was that they found out on both sides that the guns eventually out penned any armor made with just steel at that point in time unless you gave the tank over 500mm of armor which would make it tip over or just not be viable. Thats when they started all developing the Ceramic armor and using NERA components in their steel to make it more hardened and have ceramic used as a soft spot to let ammo detonate into or break its shape. thats when the T-64, M1, Leopard 2, Leclerc and Challengers where developed

[@colincampbell767]

"The gun controls were not ideal." Looking at the interior schematic at how the gunner's position was set up made me wonder: WTF were they thinking?

[@BHuang92]

The M103 is America's first heavy tank to see actual service which is by itself an success when considering........

[@Mthammere2010]

That goes to the T-26 Pershing my dude.

[@exoticdachoo007]

@@Mthammere2010 If I remember correctly the Pershing's designation was always iffy, when it was first made it was considered a heavy tank, but soon changed into a medium because the armor wasn't up to heavy standard. Armor wise I think the M4A3E2 Sherman would probably be the first US "heavy tank" that would see combat, considering it had the same thickness as the Pershing but on an ever so slightly better angle I believe and its armor was actually perfect for the heavy tank standard at the time

[@dubsy1026]

Mk VIII?

[@joachimhupe4018]

@@dubsy1026 That is objectively correct

[@MichaelSmith-ms3jw]

We shot these up as hard targets in the 80s. The armor was shredded by 105mm APDS training rounds, the tanks eventually being reduced to unrecognizable piles of scrap.

[@roybaker6902]

My Marine Reserve unit in Rome, Georgia first received our M103s in mid -1967 to replace the ONTOS we previously had. The changeover actually occurred while I was at Parris Island for boot camp. Our unit was never called up, I guess the M-103 wasn't practical for Viet Nam.

[@sys3248]

When even regular Sherman sinks and Hellcats become their main front lines IFV there's little hope employing heavy tank.

[@HankDoolin]

I was in the Rome, GA reserve unit from 1964 to June, 1968. I still have a roster for 1st Platoon - A Company from early 1968. I was the headquarters section leader. Your name was listed as a member of my tank crew. We thought we were going to be activated when North Korea captured the Navy spy ship the Pueblo in January, 1968. We were put on one week notice for activation, but then nothing happened. Thanks for posting your comment, it got me thinking about my old unit. It had some good people and I was proud to be a part of it.

[@Goober762]

From what I’ve heard “correct me if I’m wrong” the M103 was huge and if it was deployed it probably would have gotten stuck and have to be towed I’m pretty sure M48s had issues too with the terrain. Also thank you for your service.

[@Goober762]

@@HankDoolinthank you for your service

[@alexfortin7209]

In 1948, Western nations classified tanks by gun size: - light gun tank, light tank - medium gun tank, medium tank - heavy gun tank, heavy tank In 1957 the light, medium and heavy tanks nomenclature was pushed aside in favor of the universal/main battle tanks. This happened because of improved power packs making mobile, well protected and well armored tanks possible.

[@matthewcuratolo3719]

One of my favorites as well. I think it's that massive turret and gun.

[@edwinsalau150]

We had one at Quantico, Virginia. Our tank platoon in Schools Demonstration Troops. First cake Battalion at camp Pendleton had an entire battalion of them. Remembering from 61 to 63 when I went back to Okinawa. Don’t know how much longer they kept them in service.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

I sucked at playing this tank till I researched how it was supposed to be used. If you sit across the map, you bounce most shots and your HEAT deletes shit. Your long reload isn't a issue at 2000 yards because only a R3 will flank in less time then the reload. But if you try to slug it out at close range, good luck

[@tschoero12]

And of course the 300HP 7.0 FOX

[@iguanaamphibioustruck7352]

My patent 94 is on Low Impact Tracked Vehicles. The second one 96 is on Traction Improving Device, supporting the load with cone shaped rubber fingers that penetrate, bend and flip on exit. My R&D work, since 1991 includes building and testing 5 prototypes. I can say, based on empirical data, that short wide tracks are better than long narrow tracks. Tracks that can withstand a lot of tension can become structural elements in the system. This eliminates the need for the road wheels and the frame to support them. My latest design has two differential drive axles in the center of the system with pairs of tracks extending in either direction. Hence, I have four tracks instead of two, four axles instead of two. The axles can be either powered or idler, the bearings are running in oil. The possibility of a tank with four tracks instead of two, with angle control for ease of levering over obstacles and doing spin turns is exciting. Further, the standard drive tires can either be single or dual depending on the weight of the vehicle and the cargo. No more chain and sprocket where a little wear kills the efficiency. See more on my KZbin channel Iguana Amphibious Truck. Iguana

[@colincampbell767]

Tanks don't have axles. And it is much mechanically simpler to have drive sprockets connecting the transmission to the tracks. And did your two smaller tracks have the same surface area as only one track and evenly distributed weight? And without road wheels - what kind of suspension will it use? (Note: the road wheels are attached to torsion bars which are attached through the hull of the tank. There is no 'frame,') Also - those differentials add complexity and weight, as well as taking up armored volume. Which means that you have to either have less of something else under the armor - or you increase the amount or armor needed. Adding armor means that you need to beef up your drive train and suspension - which adds more weight to the tank. Also running the drive train under the turret basket means that the turret has to be higher so there is enough room for the crew - which means more armored volume and more weight. And traction is rarely an issue on a tank - unless you did something stupid. And even then, you can attack the tow cables to the tracks and use them to get yourself out. And I wonder just how long those rubber cones are going to last when used under field conditions. BTW - a 'little wear' has no real effect on the efficiency of a drive sprocket. And it would take more wear than I've ever seen to cause the track to slip.

[@HIFLY01]

I wish the tank was more competitive in war thunder. Its supposed to have one of the most powerful guns ever on a production tank but still would bounce of a panthee hull lol

[@Madduckkk]

5:24 can agree taking out sad little German mains never gets old

[@braydenwestcott6031]

There is a park about 2 hours from my house that has an old M103 on display. Always wondered what kind of tank it was

[@darrenskjoelsvold]

And when you consider the weight of a current MBT it really puts these things into context.

[@SWEArcher]

Yet another great video from my idol!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks again!

[@Katzbalger001]

Saw one in a tank park at Camp Lejeune back in 1983--definitely an imposing vehicle.

[@GSC-Operator-chan]

Great video, however one minor issue: The M60 is not part of the "patton series" of tanks. The name is reserved only for the M46, M47, and M48 tanks.

[@andrewhaddock7996]

My 3 all time favourite tanks, conqueror, tortoise, and m103.

[@thegamingzilla6269]

Id say that heavy tanks were killed, less by the rise of MBT's, as these were really just medium tanks with heavier guns. What killed them was the rapid rise of stuff like sabot ammunition as well as HEATFS which made lumbering armored behemoths useless as both of these ammunition's could easily penetrate even the Maus from the front. More modern construction of these ammunitions also made previous generation versions, such as the HEATFS developed for the M103 redundant as they could penetrate more armor while also being smaller, lighter, and more accurate. Missiles also played a part in the death of the heavy tank concept as despite early missiles being horrendous to control, could still pretty easily and precisely mission kill a heavy tank

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Yes, but fired out of the “heavier guns” that were put onto the medium tank. A medium tank became an MBT, which could kill a heavy, therefore rendering heavies useless.

[@thegamingzilla6269]

@@RedWrenchFilms it would still be the ammunition which killed them, because eventually light tanks would also get the same guns and ammunition as the MBT's

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@thegamingzilla6269 Ammunition allowed guns to be smaller/lower calibre, which allowed them to be put in MBTs, which killed the heavy.

[@mrbaab5932]

My father was a Sherman tank commander in the last year of the Korean War, who said his tank fired indirect fire on a heavy JS3 tank with a forward observer. It was destroying a nearby unit and it's Sherman's. They fired a few smoke an white phosphorus rounds to get on target. They could hardly make out the target with their optics at that range and would have never detected on their own. They use the White phosphorus after running out of smoke. Once on target, the first heat round destroyed the tank. The forward observer kept ordering more rounds after the target was clearly destroyed. I think they fired 19 rounds in total. Dad is long gone to ask about the details. The were told it was a Russian tank with a Russian crew, but the Chinese copy of the Russian tank with a Chinese crew makes more sense to me. He and his crew were impressed that the Chinese or Russians were able to get a heavy tank up the steep mountains ⛰ of Korea.

[@thesickrobot6924]

IS-3's were not used in korea.

[@xignifect]

Cool story would've been believeable in an alternate timeline where they used IS-3 in the Korean War.

[@yi_hou3092]

IS-3s were never used in Korea your grandfather must've confused it for an IS-2M a decent chunk were given to China to bolster their Forces

[@executivedirector7467]

@@yi_hou3092 And even the IS-2 was probably not used in combat. The only tanks we can be certain of the DPRK and PRC forces using in combat are the T-34-85 and anything they captured. China had a regiment of IS-2s on hand but as far as we know they were never deployed into combat.

[@executivedirector7467]

China was not manufacturing tanks during the Korean war. They were lucky if they could manufacture a rifle in those days.

[@executivedirector7467]

great video

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you 🙏

[@terrified057t4]

Well darn, now I want the A1 and A2 in WT...

[@1cowboyr512]

Two things I wish that would return: Heavy Tanks and Battleships. They are just awesome.

[@albertborgman859]

They had some parked at Ft McCoy, Wisconsin. With the heavy gun an effective tank destroyer.

[@rask906]

i am very exited for the next vid, very good btw great job on the editing

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks!

[@Genuinespaceman]

I saw a M103 in the Dubois Wyoming museum. One of my favorites💪

[@jasonpatience8255]

I loved his tank on WoT, so glad you did a vid to get the history behind this beast 😍

[@m4shermanfan225]

Basically a Patton tank on steroids

[@philo6850]

Learned something new today, never heard of this tank before. I think this project was a good lesson in how sometimes less is more with the pursuit of the MBT concept superseding it. Too big, the size of the 120mm ammunition must have been horrendous to handle anywhere, let alone in the turret. What can I say but another awesome video, a most enjoyable Cold War history lesson, thank you again!

[@katrinapaton5283]

And yet here we are with the M1, a 68 ton tank with a 120mm gun, which is also a fuel hog.

[@StrikeNoir105E]

@@katrinapaton5283 That's more due to the fact that the MBT became heavier, with the M1 being as large and heavy as it is due to all necessary hardware. Unlike the M103 though, the M1 is significantly more mobile being faster (M1's 70Kph compared to the M103's 40Kph) and more agile, thus fulfilling the criteria to be a "main battle tank" instead of a "heavy tank".

[@crocidile90]

@@StrikeNoir105E and the fact that APFSDS means you get more penetration per shot and advancement in chemical science meant better powder so shells are lighter and more powerful. Also helps that if the Abrams didn't have its side skirts on, it would lose about 5-6 tons, still on the heavy side but not near the 70t mark as a Sepv3 is with all the armor packages.

[@Brahmdagh]

Its just SO BEAUTIFUL

[@CMDRFandragon]

M103 is the sexiest Cold War Heavy.

[@hotlanta35]

That tank had one of the most powerful guns on any tank

[@paulhunter1735]

I love the fact that the M-103 at 70 tons was said to be to heavy and impractical and now we have the 70 ton Abrams.........go figure lol.

[@ryanr1945]

Currently looking at my ground rb line up and debating on running my m103

[@rvh1999]

Great vid, only downside I personally have, is that you talk a bit on the fast side.

[@hamster-wh3ws]

Short and sweet version (if you don't want endless detailed discussion on trivia): Heavy tanks sacrifice mobility and maneuverability for benefits in armour and firepower. It's a concept that no longer exists today. Most likely modern tanks are so well powered they can keep the armour and heavy guns and still have great mobility and maneuverability. That is all.

[@MadaraUchiha55910]

Interesting how the whole point of the MBT was its ability to do everything a heavy tank could while weighing less but the MBT of today weigh’s near if not the exact same as the M103 did

[@bluntcabbage6042]

It wasn't about weight, it was about mobility. MBTs didn't have to be lighter than heavies, they had to be faster. This originally meant lighter weight, because engines were not powerful enough to support more armor. Modern engines are plenty capable, so bolting on a ton of armor as well is a logical choice.

[@MadaraUchiha55910]

@@bluntcabbage6042 So in theory, the JagdTiger could have worked in they had the engine tech of today

[@bluntcabbage6042]

@@MadaraUchiha55910 Yes, there's just no point to doing it.

[@MadaraUchiha55910]

@@bluntcabbage6042 What about the Tiger and Tiger II with today’s technology those would have worked in theory.

[@kasualmechanic4854]

Nobody seems to have stated this so I will: the M103 looks like something straight out of Warhammer 40k. Like, all that needs to be added is several more machineguns, a bow gunner in the hull and we are set.

[@jamesharris4695]

This was the tank that had me in awe as a child

[@germanpanzer38t]

Well hello there red wrench

[@Paskalion]

My fav tank in World of Tanks. Use hulldown tactic most of the time.

[@DK-ed7be]

The US Army did borrow one battalion of M103A2s and accompanying M51s from the USMC and deployed them with 3AD in Germany during the 1960s into the early 1970s. Now the history of the M103 is a bit more complete.

[@johnchambers2996]

Impressive on paper but a maintenance nightmare and requiring the heavy M-51 retrievers. At any given time, half would be down due to broken torsion bars or fire-control issues.

[@Christopher_Giustolisi]

The Abrams also weighs over 60 tons but strangely it´s not considered to be a heavy tank

[@DeltaAssaultGaming]

It’s a main battle tank, which rendered heavy tanks obsolete.

[@Christopher_Giustolisi]

@@DeltaAssaultGaming but it´s as heavy as the heavy tanks and since weight is the criteria, why isn´t the Abrams a heavy tank?

[@jonathanallen3688]

​@@Christopher_Giustolisikinda late but to answer your question weight alone was not the only designating factor for a heavy. Almost every nation has differing criteria for example the panther according to German doctrine was a medium but according to other nations it was a heavy. By WW2 classification for most nations most MBTs would be considered "Heavy" tanks but one that system of classification died out 60 years ago and most tanks are classified by their doctrinal use nowadays.

[@YippingFox]

At some point it is no longer about penetrating. If you hit a tank hard enough, you'll, literally, knock out a crew from the impact alone.

[@dennislemasters4339]

the allies really did fear the is-3 when they first saw it as at the time the best tanks the british and americans had the pershing armed with a 90mm gun and the centurion armed with a 17 pdr which would shortly be upgraded to the 20 pdr could not pen it's upper glacies plate, the is-3 was made to withstand hits from the 88mm gun of the king tiger and the 128mm gun of the jagdtiger

[@ICECAPPEDSKY]

The first Heavy Tank the US made in decent numbers was the M6 series M6/M6A1/T1E1/M6A2E1 but they never saw service just served as spectacles for war bond drives in WW2 and used as trial vehicles for the heavy tanks they tried to make later. The M6A2E1 led to the T29, then the T30, then the T34 ,and finally the M103 The M103 was the last and only heavy tank the US made that actually saw service. I mean the modern Abrams tanks are MBT’s but are definitely heavy enough tonnage wise to be considered a modern heavy if you want to consider them as such

[@c3aloha]

Ironic that the USMC at the time adopted the heaviest tank at the same time they also acquired the Ontos. Reflects the philosophical splits that have always existed in thinking about USMC role other then second land army. Manifesting today with Force Design 2030 and the retirement of Marine tanks.

[@ReviveHF]

The armour protection of this tank is still adequate for infantry support role even by today's standard. It can shrug off older variant of RPG-7 and 40mm cannon shells. Old tanks aren't useless, just look at the Russians bringing back the T-62 and T-34 tanks back into action, rumours says that they even bringing back the IS-3 heavy tanks.

[@danielm.595]

Considering that there were variants of the IS-2 in service up to the 90s, I wouldn't be surprised if they appeared in Ukraine as more modern tanks are destroyed and Russian desperation grows.

[@aksmex2576]

M103 was my first 3 mark tank in world of Tanks.

[@richardsuggs8108]

The M1A Abrams tank can weigh in at almost 67 tons. It depends on the version of the tank.

[@zzgonnazz6893]

But is not a heavy tank its a mbt

[@richardsuggs8108]

@@zzgonnazz6893 Don’t know about you sir but I think 67 tons is pretty heavy.

[@kristianxoto]

@@richardsuggs8108 if you think that is heavy then you have not seen my momma

[@richardsuggs8108]

@@kristianxoto 😂😂

[@executivedirector7467]

@@richardsuggs8108 The weight of the tank is only coincidentally related to whether it is classified as a "heavy tank". "Heavy" refers to the tactical role, not the weight per se. So the M1 is a "main battle tank" because it is the basic tank issued to all US Army tank units. There are occasional exceptions such as the Airborne tank bns that had M551s but those are exceptions. "Heavy" tanks are designed and employed to support other tanks, typically with bigger guns and thicker armor (thus the greater weight) and are almost always employed in much smaller numbers in specialized units. That's what makes them "heavy" tanks, not how many pounds they weigh in at.

[@lt_cycloperstrike199]

Been imagining always if the T110 Concept Series especially my favorite the E5 been produced or even just a Prototype, it would be so amazing

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I 3 marked that tank in WoT - loved the thing

[@lt_cycloperstrike199]

@@RedWrenchFilms but what i hate about the E5 is it’s 6 Road Wheels instead of 7 like the M103

[@jamesocker5235]

Please explore tracks used on T69, they look like enlarged t93 tracks like bull dog but larger as whole chassis has a m41 on steroids look from m42

[@jeremywells9019]

Korea proved these were not obsolete as much as they were unavailable.

[@brayy__l0]

there’s one in front of my local library Edit: the first picture he showed of the m103s towards the end is the one I’m talking about )

[@Storlans]

you could say at the end of the dayu it kinda came back since the 120mm gun was needed in the end anyway.

[@George_M_]

It's just too big, I've seen one. The is3 feels about as tall as it's hull. And going from WoT, it's armor really only works head-on, which is bad when you're that tall. Anyone know where 'Junkyard Dog' from the MVTF wound up?

[@franknord4826]

This makes me wonder, with current iterations of MBTs like Abrams, Challenger and Leopard all sporting 120mm guns and comparable weight to the M103, what even differentiates the heavy tanks of yore from current main battle tanks?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Mobility - composite armour has allowed MBTs to remain well protected without being prohibitively slow and ungainly.

[@kashawashatvop203]

Warthunder needs to add the latest version of this vehicle to the game

[@thomasmitchell7645]

I enjoyed your videos on tank destroyers: the American Hellcat and Jackson, the German Jaghpanzers and the Soviet SU series. Why not do a video about why the tank destroyer disappeared as an armored vehicle type in the postwar world (except in Sweden)? Also a discussion on which type of tank destroyer was more effective the German-Soviet assault guns or the lightly-armored roofless American tanks. Also why the Brits never developed their own tank destroyers in WWII.

[@Train115]

1:32, that looks like a range finder.

[@afmo500]

Was convinced 'CIA' was stencilled on one of the Marine 103's for a few seconds. Somehow seeing 'CIA' on a tank was uniquely fear inducing.

[@albertborgman859]

Last I saw we were parked up at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin.

[@jcameronferguson]

The Marines passed on the M60 but cludged its engine into the M48 and M103... Only to wind up being the last branch to operate M60s, which they took to Desert Storm 🤔

[@BenVaserlan]

How much did it weigh compared to the Abrams?

[@Bill23799]

Was the M-88 recovery vehicle based on the M 103 chassis?

[@executivedirector7467]

No. The M88 is based on M48/60 chassis. There was a TRV on the M103 chassis but the nomenclature escapes me at the moment.

[@Bill23799]

@@executivedirector7467 Thanks

[@AlexRoivas]

Blows my mind that it took forever for the USA to adopt diesel engines tanks

[@BARelement]

The T29 itself was 70.8 short tons, it was 64 metric tons. M103 was 65 short tons, 59 metric tons, 58 long tons. The M103 wasn’t near 20 tons lighter… Neither the Pilot model which was I think around 2-4 tons lighter.

[@BARelement]

Wait a dalmn minute, why is your super Pershing customized similar to mine -.-. Similar TASTE?!

[@kallinfluaitt3983]

I know your videos few weeks old at this point and I sure as fuk didn't read the rest your comments to make sure no one else brought up this point but I disagree on why you stated heavy tanks throughout the world fell out of favor in my opinion it is due to the prevalence and perfection of shaped charges what a 90 mm gun can penetrate over 300 mm armor at any rains you can at least hit then it really doesn't matter how much armor you can put on conventionally but all-in-all I enjoyed your video and it was well put together

[@NorthernNorthdude91749]

The early experiments with autoloaders are interesting. Since the tech is more mature now, I'm confident the next generation of US tank, be it the Abrams-X or a whole new tank, will use it. Manual loading is just objectively obsolete, and there's absolutely no reason not to include an autoloader in all further tank designs.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Weight, cost and reliability are three big issues! One less crew member also makes maintenance that much more difficult.

[@ravenoferin500]

​@@RedWrenchFilmsIf you could make a configuration that had room for a "loader" that's just there in case the autoloader has issues and just give him an mg or something to play with and bam. Best of both worlds. Could give an extra set of eyes to look for targets or whatever. Hell give him a good view front low and could be on IED finding duty. But eh all hypothetical. Autoloaders are big makes shoving another extra bit of meat spaced armor harder.

[@cccc285]

Time traveler confirmed, he said google it at the very start of the video

[@Appletank8]

tbf, there are very few tanks that weren't vulnerable from the side

[@Maximilian7992]

Sad thing is, this is America’s only mass produced heavy tank.

[@jdawg1712]

What song was used in the intro? It sounds good!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

"The Last Legion" by Dream Cave :)

[@jdawg1712]

@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you!

[@sincereeastman6972]

M60’s not a Patton

[@HarbisonelII]

Some say it is, some say it isn't. It really doesn't matter, it's just a nickname.

[@jamesngotts]

Lol, there was no point in deploying a 65 ton 120mm tank. I find that so very ironic though in context to the time frame, it does make sense.

[@cloxurf9603]

Ill be honest with u, you arent gonna get famous very soon but god damn you have great videos dont stop making them

[@jlawsl]

I love the rationale, we don't need a 60 ton tank with a 120mm main gun and lots of armor anymore, and then we make a 60-72 ton MBT with a 120mm gun and lots of armor...derrrp. But, we don't call it a heavy tank. Mind blown.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

To be fair the Abrams 120mm is a lot smaller and a lot better than that on the M103, and despite the tank being heavier it's also a lot faster and more nimble while having incredible armour protection. But I do see what you mean!

[@executivedirector7467]

See above. The M1 is a main battle tank; the M103 was a heavy tank. Two very different concepts that are only coincidentally related to actual weight.

[@callumbush1]

The Ukrainians would love 1000 of them!

[@mohammadshehada267]

If USA send them M60 or even M48 it will by easier, cheaper, and more useful than sending the good old M103 😂😂

[@Bryan_Kay]

@@mohammadshehada267 M60 have better main armament imo.