The Char B1 WAS NOT The Best Tank of WW2 - Tank Myths Debunked with The Chieftan

James is joined by Nicholas Moran from The Chieftan KZbin channel to bust 5 more common myths people get wrong about tanks.
Welcome to Time Radio History Undone with James Hanson, a channel that looks back at pivotal moments and asks 'What if?'. We'll be looking at key battles, strategic decisions and political outcomes with leading historians and current military experts and tacticians to see what might have happened differently, and more importantly, what impact those differences might have had on the world today.

[@davidlavigne207]

If ever the U.S. decides to have a national tank museum, than Nicolas Moran should be its director. He is a living encyclopedia of Armor history. Great talk.

[@brealistic3542]

I would Much prefer Hillary Doyle. He actually is a living encyclopedia on armor. The Chieftain not so much.😁

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

@@brealistic3542 did you think before you made your contact because DUH Mr. Doyle has been doing it longer than Mr. Moran AND more Importantly they are GOOD FRIENDS Please show SOME maturity

[@JDCheng]

@@brealistic3542 I wouldn't discount LTC Moran's first-hand (and current) experience with armored warfare, though.

[@jonlinde5822]

I am watching this from my home in Stow, MA, about 3 miles from the Collings Foundation museum. Thanks for the shout out!

[@juanzulu1318]

I have never ever heard someone claiming that the CharB was the best tank of ww2. 😮

[@CanalTremocos]

I imagine someone very immersed in gaming would think so. The 2 guns make it very good in Warthunder and I remember as back as Steel Panthers a small squad of them could easily cut through a 1939 Panzer division. Those game systems aren't very good at dealing with multi-gun vehicles. They also don't model how awful French turrets were. The Soviet T-35 is also awesome in Warthunder and, in reality, it is a clown car.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

I have a French cousin. Yes, he is that stupid. 🙂

[@Idahoguy10157]

About blitzkrieg maneuver warfare in practice it feels like Percy Hobart doesn’t get enough credit

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

You are right, he doesn't.

[@silentotto5099]

The most likely explanation for calling the M-10 "Wolverine" is that they were built in Michigan, which is widely known as the Wolverine state. The irony of that is that wolverines were never very common in Michigan, even when the state was first being settled. The occasional wolverine wanders in from Canada from time to time when the Great Lakes are frozen over, but that's about it. The nickname actually came from Ohioans when they were looking for a pejorative term for Michiganders during the dispute between Michigan and Ohio over which state owned the city of Toledo. Ohioans thought calling Michiganders "wolverines" was a great insult. But, since wolverines are fearless and feisty, Michiganders embraced the nickname. It's a way better nickname than the one Ohioans use to describe themselves.. After all, a "Buckeye" is just some sort of nut.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I'm inclined to go with that theory as well, but as I say, no actual evidence to support it has as yet been published.

[@MrDubyadee1]

And to think, Ohio “won” Toledo. Congrats.

[@silentotto5099]

@@MrDubyadee1 And Michigan got the Upper Peninsula in exchange. :)

[@robert506007]

Well I can vouch for the Train bit.

[@forgetmeshots]

Great choice in guest commentator.

[@rob5944]

This was another excellent analysis of the subject of warfare in the 20th century. Keep up the good work!

[@hastekulvaati9681]

I think people love the Char Bis because it has a retro sci-fi/ alternative history vibe to it. It’s like something from an Indiana Jones film.

[@Lowlandlord]

My favourite thing about the Char B1 is actually how weird and archaic it is. It's truly a landship and not a tank as we think of it. Also, worth noting that the image on screen at 30:34 isn't the capitaine chef d'équipage Pierre Billotte, but his father, général d'armée Gaston Billotte.

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

However it pales into insignificance beside the wonder that is TOG2🧐🧐🧐

[@davidoldham1946]

The Char B1 WAS NOT The Best Tank of WW2...said no one.

[@mudcrab3420]

Yeah. Even if we are talking France 1940 it is normally the S-35 that gets the fans rather than the Char B1. And the S-35 has a LOT of flaws as well.

[@knightmarethe1st]

Great show! Great guest!

[@MichaelOBrien-ci2ne]

Absolutely outstanding I love your program

[@lukeverhoogt2446]

Monash for maneuver warfare in WW1

[@partygrove5321]

The Char B1 WAS NOT The Best Tank of WW2. Whoever claimed that POS was the best tank of WW 2?

[@steinarvilnes3954]

From what I have seen, it seems that the S-35 SOMUA was actually more effective in fighting the Germans than the Char-b1?

[@pakkazull8370]

Is that a Strv 103 in Swedish colors I spot on the shelf? The Chieftain has impeccable taste

[@chaipup7045]

interesting tank, until it gets flanked...

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It is

[@mikael5938]

yes. designed for defensive battles against soviet b tank formations and bmds.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@chaipup7045 "interesting tank, until it gets flanked..." If you've seen a 103 move, you would know that it doesn't get flanked until it gets destroyed. It is extremely fast and almost absurdly agile. And with the radio operator acting as the backwards driver, it drives same speed backwards as forwards. See if you can find a video of when a skilled driver goes from full speed movement to a snap turn/spin/skid(greater than 90 degrees turn, sometimes outright 180s) to precision accurate firing in less than 2 seconds. The only reason it lost out as badly as it did in the 90s when a nextgen tank was needed, was due to how because the gun and autoloader is literally part of the hull, upgrading the gun becomes a HUGE affair. Which is why someone came up with the idea of seeing if they could get the extra firepower by making the existing gun capable of burstfiring(the autoloader was already almost capable of rapid autofire). Which worked, but still wasn't quite enough to compete with a modern 120mm, although it would utterly tear apart anything that wasn't heavily armored. And even 3-shot bursts degraded the gun much faster than normal firing.

[@NathanAdams-v4c]

I am surprised you didn't mention Percy Hobart, Guderian was very well known for copying the work of Percy Hobart for the Germans new version of warfare

[@MarkS.Holland]

And who thinks it was? Having to steer the whole thing to aim the 75mm? Really?

[@PatGilliland]

The 75 was an anti-fortification / anti ifaantry weapon so didn't need speed of aim like the 47mm in the turret - which was an ok tank gun for its time.

[@Mr-Science-Stevens]

Great

[@garylynch9206]

Is this fella from Ireland originally but in US for years? His oronunciation of 'T' especially at the end of words suggests so.

[@neilcampbell2222]

Yes. Irish army, then America. KZbin channel the chieftain

[@waynesmith8431]

Chieftain is the best!

[@darthcalanil5333]

Chieftain is the best

[@carlcarlton764]

Lite Beam! 10ish KW laser with 2km range to dispose of annoying drones.

[@daveansell1970]

It would help with some, but does it help with low flying fpv drones that are below the horizon? I wonder if you basically equip every ifv with an all round passive drone detection camera ( IR and visual cameras and some CPUs looking for drone signatures). Then give them airburst HE shells and let them deal with the small drones.

[@bobthebomb1596]

Too many ads!

[@danmcdonald9117]

Wow

[@estebancastellino3284]

👍

[@jeffbrooke4892]

Anybody who takes a history lesson from "Hollywood" will find themselves seriously disabled in their intelligence on the subject. And to take a lesson on reality from a game? Again, seriously?!

[@schaddenkorp6977]

What’re you talking about?

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Completely agree.

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

There are some very niche wargames that try to take everything into account including mechanical reliability but the number of players are tiny.

[@NathanAdams-v4c]

I love you guy's but common where is the love for Percy Hobart common guy's surly you know of him

[@heneagedundas]

Hobart's reputation points to him being a bit cantankerous rather than surly.

[@sheilah4525]

Best tank: the Sherman. Every other loses by comparison, loss rate, repair rate, ADAPTABILITY, IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL, ALL OF IT. PERIOD.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

*lol* How about lolnope? The Sherman's biggest advantage was numbers... Far too big silhouette. Not good enough maingun until summer -44 when the 76mm upgrade came around. Just enough armor for when it was designed, which gave it insufficient armor for when it entered service. Not enough enginepower for most models. The Sherman was HEAVIER than the T-34, but had a 350-400 HP engine compared to the T-34s 500 HP. The LIGHTEST Sherman was just barely half a ton less than the HEAVIEST T-34, and yet the T-34 is the better tank, with better mobility, better firepower and slightly better armor(roughly equal from front, but better sides and rear). Why don't you look up the T-44. Which was produced during WWII, but never actually used for logistical reasons. It's still lighter than the heavier Sherman models, but it makes a complete mockery of everything the Sherman is. Twice+ the frontal armor, much better gun... And basically the T-54 is the T-44 with flaws fixed. You know, the T-54, the tank that is still in service today? Even LIKED still today. With upgrade kits that allows to have a chance against any modern tank. How many Shermans is still in service? And how many Shermans can you find an upgrade package for that gives it a realistic chance to fight an Abrams?

[@Odin029]

Aircraft carriers as good as they are, can't do any of the jobs that a battleship could do. They can't loiter, they can't provide shore bombardment, or quick response infantry support, and they can't operate inside overly contested waters. And just like The Chieftain said that there's nothing else on the battlefield that can do what a tank can do, there's nothing sailing in any of the world's navies that can deny an enemy their shoreline the way a battleship could, and yet the ones that survive are museums, so being able to do a job that nothing else can isn't reason enough to keep a piece of equipment around.

[@WilcovdSteen]

Aircraft carriers could do everything that used to be assigned to battleships, but you would have to look at it slightly differently I think. If you need shore bombardment, it is because you need something blown up near the coast. Get some carrier based divebombers. Loiter? In that case you want on call fire support. The bomber planes usually could stay airborn for 3 hours or more. So if the aircraft carrier was there, they had plenty of time to hang around. Or the carrier could be 100 miles away, and they would have to fly back and forth for half an hour, still 2 hour of linger time. The aircraft carrier should not be in contested waters, but it doesnt need to be. What you want is to sink enemy ships there, Most carrier planes the US used then have around 800 miles range, so the carrier can be 200 miles away and still sink ships in the contested space. There are 3 times a battleship still had the advantage in those days i think. Nightfighting, fighting in heavy weather and a battleship could take fire much better as a carrier. But you should not rely on the last one anyway, the other 2 are legit though, not fixed untill the 70s