Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: 17PR SPM Archer, Pt 2

Hopping across the water to Bovington again, a look at the Valentine-based 17pr anti-tank gun.
This is a Wargaming funded video. Do a solid, if you haven't done so already, go try the game out, the link will associate the player with this product and reinforce that it should continue. tanks.ly/WoTChieftain

[@TheNoobop]

I bet the confusion with the seats was caused by someone telling the artist "the commander sits on the right" but never specificating which side is the front

[@davewolfy2906]

Specifying.

[@arcticfox1402]

"A rare amount of common sense for an army document" This guy been there, done that; that's for sure!

[@fabiogalletti8616]

"Ah-Ah" Significant emotional event for the 6+6Volt-ers

[@JustSomeCanuck]

"A rare amount of common sense in an army document." Well, that's reassuring!

[@VosperCDN]

When common sense is normally uncommon, finding an example of it is like finding hidden treasure.

[@nobodyuknow4911]

Well, the phrase "Military Intelligence" is widely acknowledged as an oxymoron ^_^

[@QuizmasterLaw]

M10 was faster and turreted, but this thing had it's gun mounted backwards and reused an otherwise obsolete hull; from an industrial perspective it's quite clever, especially as a defensive weapon. Shoot and run and you're already pointed in the right direction to run so by the time they shoot back you are on the move.

[@firefox5926]

thats why i never understood why on say the stug33 the 75 wasn't mounted backward then you could put the heavy armour there plus you have the engine and since its an assault gun its meant to support the infantry it doesn't need to be able to advance into combat much fasted than the infantry can run ... i.e about the same speed it could reverse and then if it ever did make contact with something it couldn't handle it was already facing the right way to bug out and even it it couldn't the armour's in the right place and even if that didn't stop it there's a good chance the engine and tranny would ...

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@firefox5926 stug literally means "storm gun": it's intended as an attacking weapon. Just about all AFVs have heaviest armour in front, and thinnest at the rear. So this is why guns almost always face forward. Archer is an exception; like I said, the hull was already well obsolete. It's frontal armor was definitely inferior to weapons fielded in 1944 and thereafter. Since the idea was to make use of a good but obsolete hull the reverse gun configuration makes sense.

[@fesa_performance9617]

Should be a french system

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@firefox5926 Besides what has already been mentioned, a more apt analog would have been the various "Jagers", the tank destroyers the Germans employed, the assorted Marders up the colossal monsters. But they didn't think of doing that, and if they had, if you also wanted to hang a significant amount of armor on it, which they did, then you start getting into balance and center of mass problems (all the heavy bits at one end). Which might be why they didn't.

[@barthoving2053]

Also the fighting compartment stays in the same place with the Archer. While with for example the Marders they originally built the superstructure on the engine compartment which gave a higher profile or the German decided to shift the internal lay out completely. You also had not the problem of the gun sticking out in the front, which could be a problem in certain corners, or steep grade shifts.

[@spazbauer]

He fits! Hallelujah!

[@britishexplorer4437]

hallelujah indeed

[@joeblow9657]

God is trying to tell me something

[@blitzmakesunevenmm4323]

Archer “Angery Drunkard” is a beast when you have a team that operates under the umbrella of a good setup.

[@Alpostpone]

And, preferably during the rain, a literal umbrella.

[@simongee8928]

Ahh, I remember being taught double declutching when I drove HGVs back in the early '70s - ! Daft thing is that I still do it now when dropping speed in my wee car - !

[@dirus3142]

If there is one thing I have learned from The Chieftain about British tankers, it's that the loader is responsible for the tea. If the water, and the ammo, is on a particular side, that is just more evidence were the loader should be.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Yeah, the loader is responsible for the feeding and care of both mechanical and organic assets inside the vehicle. ;)

[@Randisides]

I read that crews did like the Archer. mainly because it suited its role really well. It would creep into a firing position fire then drive off forward. the only issue was that with bocage it would sometimes hard to get sighting on the target.

[@G1NZOU]

I can see how it would be, in game like World of Tanks and War Thunder they don't work so well in quick matches, but in real life it seems like a really sensible concept, park up and shoot, have a quick getaway facing the right direction if you needed to.

[@THX11458]

Not surprisingly, the German StuG crews had the same complaint about difficulty sighting targets in Normandy.

[@kirotheavenger60]

The M10c 'Achilles' was preferred, primarily since it had more armour a turret.

[@MediumRareOpinions]

From what I understand it was intended to operate in a prepared position anti tank role, which doesnt fit video games well since they tend to use a "meeting" engagement. Historically very rare to find two armies of equal size meeting headfirst at a position so many vehicles dont perform at their best.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@THX11458 Also, the Stug's with the long 75mm gun had a huge problem with being off-balance having 80mm of armor on the front face, plus the long gun sticking out the front. This lead to wear on the front suspension and digging the gun into the ground a lot while driving on rough terrain. The Archer is a much more sensible design from an automotive perspective, and works great as a SP AT gun. For an assault gun, not so much, though those were mostly used as SP artillery, rather than driving into a constested position and this would be OK in that role too.

[@NJP695]

So glad WG paid for more music in these segments; that one guitar track was iconic but certainly getting long in the tooth

[@Caratacus1]

Yep I've read that the crews liked the Archer because of its low silhouette. This was the main reason that it had a significant post-war WW2 career until such time as the 17pdr became obsolete. It's best thought of as a mobile AT gun rather than an AFV.

[@DornishVintage]

It literally was a mobile AT gun. Assigned to Royal Artillery, never to the Army armoured units.

[@Spooky711B]

The War Thunder adds before these videos make me so happy. xD

[@birdmonster4586]

That hillstart method might be why sheila had 6 pedals when there was only 4 directions.

[@THX11458]

A couple of inches between my head and the breach block sure in hell wouldn't give me confidence that I wouldn't be decapitated as a driver when the main armament was fired. If I were the driver I'd certainly take every opportunity to abandon my position when that 17 pounder went off.

[@Badbunny666]

David Fletcher has also stated (both in print and in the tank museums video on the archer) that the driver could safely remain in position while the gun was used. Given that the Valentine is usually regarded as being very reliable, why would it be “probably less reliable” than the M10?

[@dsmx85]

The Americans did not to field any weapon system in ww2 that was unreliable unless it provided a substantial battlefield advantage because they had to ship it across the Atlantic Ocean.

[@Betrix5060]

The US had some ridiculously high reliability standards for equipment in WW2. An American tank was expected to operate perfectly fine without any maintenance for ranges longer than the planned lifespan of a German transmission.

[@urishima]

@@Betrix5060 Worked out well for them, so I'd say they had/have the right idea.

[@Arkantos117]

The M10 had more engines so therefore was more reliable.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

For the US, reliability was as important as the gun, mobility & armor. The brits had a little channel to cross, the US crossed an OCEAN to get it veh's and part and people to the fight.

[@zebradun7407]

As an Archer driver I would get at least out of the way of that breech. Anyone on the crew objects can sit in my seat for the firing.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

One of my favorite WW2 vehicles for being such a brilliantly pragmatic design.

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

"Joe, the enemy is getting on board! "Turn on the flame primers! LOUD SCREAMS

[@karoltakisobie6638]

Great video. As always very educational. Having Soviet SU-76 for contrast could have been interesting.

[@DC9622]

Excellent video, but interestingly a British document on receipt, of the first Sherman’s, states it was not has reliable has the valentine. Indeed the M10 was faster on roads but worse off road. Tactical strategy, during the advance into Holland, tracked vehicles were sent off road, to protect the roadway for wheeled vehicles. A problem during the Great Swan, was bogies associated with the Sherman and motor carriages, which were running at a continuous high speed to maintain speed with Cromwell.

[@-DeScruff]

The reason everything is on the wrong side is that you are in the right handed version of the tank. Your manual is obviously from the left handed version! :P

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Clearly they swapped seats for the Normandy invasion because they drive on the right side in France! /s

[@dougalbadger4918]

@@Edax_Royeaux aka the wrong side ;)

[@DepressivesBrot]

For anyone curious but too lazy to look it up: There's 20 hundredweight to the respective system's ton, so since it's British we're looking at a bit over 500kg/1100lbs for the roof.

[@ptonpc]

Thanks. People don't realize just how heavy armour is.

[@snipersl270]

An easier way to think of it is 1 hundredweight is 1 hundred pounds. 1 hundredweight = 100 lbs, 5 hundredweight = 500 lbs, etc. edit: this works in North America, just read up that 1 hundredweight is 112 lbs in the UK. I'm going to go grab a coffee and stop posting now.

[@yevua5049]

I see that Jagdpanther in the back! Maybe bless us with an episode on that beast?

[@guopeneferozz]

Thanks for the change in music intensity :)

[@potatopants4691]

Back in 2015 - 2016 WOT, I thought this thing was a beast. Absolutely loved it. The gun handling was good, and the traverse speed + good crew allowed me to push and even flank with the rest of my team. Dont think it would be the same nowadays. Also, Cheiftain talked about it being less reliable than M10. Did the Valentine chassis have a lot of reliability issues? I always thought they were regarded as being quite rugged.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

No, they did not, they were reliable. But the M10 was near bullet-proof. For example, if the M10 lost an engine, declutch it from the power train and continue on on the other.

[@JansenX12]

@@TheChieftainsHatch having 2 Engines is the best Idea ever. If you break one simply use the other one :D gives you another chance after a significant emotional event :D

[@TheDiner50]

@@JansenX12 2 Engines are plain bad. More weight from needing x2 of everything, Hard to mesh 2 engines into one power application. More weight and a extra step in the power train to fail. Takes more room vs single engine. And nearly no tank needing 2 engines is made to run around on just one. Most tanks overheat quite fast due to the strain put on the single engine as it just lacks the needed power. Only real drawback having single big engine is the problem of dealing with it. I mean 2 smaller engines has to be easier to work on as the problem is just half as big. Half the weight to remove or install and so on. Only real good application of multi engines are the Swedish ones with turbines. There it makes sense to have something else but the turbine for slow or standstill maneuvers.

[@AG9229]

@@TheDiner50 quite. The idea that doubling the maintenance and possibility for twice the problems on the basis that one of your engines might be taken out (while the other one miraculously survives) at some random point in the future, therefore making it better is just fanciful.

[@AnikaJarlsdottr]

@@TheDiner50 no tank with 2 engines is designed to run on 1 for very long, but they are designed to have atleast a little bit of service life solo. the point being that if you lose one of those engines in a significant emotional event, they you have enough engine power to return to a safe position to await rescue or assistance. its like multi engined planes, they wont be as fast any more but they can atleast make it home.

[@craigdunglison5181]

Thank for the video. I really appreciate the effort you have and are going through to make them, much appreciated.

[@Catrik]

I always enjoy the small details from manuals, like with the double clutching and hill start! Keep doing them, please :)

[@yalelingoz6346]

Thank you. I've been more impatient for this part 2 than any vehicle shown so far. It's a shame so much of the inside is missing, but I'm pleased to see how all the crew positions work within the tight space. It's something I'd wondered about ever since I unlocked the Archer in World of Tanks. (I think the above and behind view in game makes the crew space look (even) tighter than it is in reality.)

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

I love your knowledge, point of view and the way it's presented. Keep up the good work.

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

"Step on it, Joe!" BANG!! "Should never have promoted you from driver"

[@rvail136]

As always, a well done video.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

My heart sank when Chief said it was going to be a short video....

[@imagremlin875]

Was that a South Park joke used in the starting procedure? You are the BEST Chief!

[@british-sama7007]

Hey mate I think there's something wrong with your tank it's backwards **Laught track**

[@tomhewitt8017]

3:24 "alot of cranking for very little movement" Why do I feel personally attacked

[@tomhewitt8017]

Oh right the impotence

[@Emchisti]

The army did a study on the comments they were hearing from users saying that drivers needed to get out when there gun is fired. The document states that this is untrue and that if the gun interfaces with the driver's head, the recoil system is broken and the gun shouldn't be used in the first place. I'll try and send the document to you.

[@jackdaniel7465]

Although an odd arrangement, but if you think about it, it's very clever, if you think about a wasp or hornet, it can sting you and take off, with the low profile and the ability just to take off after firing your shot, probably increased the survivability of the Archer, and the gun was probably a very nasty surprise to the Germans.

[@whatdothlife4660]

24 magazines with a Bren sounds like pretty decent defensive capability. Shame there's no mount for it.

[@Cancun771]

God-DAMIT, Archer!!1

[@petermarton3743]

I saw what you did at "step four" ! :D

[@cameronscott6717]

Serviceably accurate

[@yonghominale8884]

I was just reading Wikipedia and it stated the Comet used a newer variant of the 17 pdr the 77 mm HV. Supposedly even though it had a shorter barrel, it used a larger cartridge. Probably the extra muzzle velocity helped with the accuracy.

[@ZGryphon]

"Oh crap" moments, or what Jingles describes as "shotgun mode". I suppose an official manual would have called it "field expedient tank destroyer configuration". :)

[@cleanerben9636]

Archer glad you clicked on this video?

[@Ciderwinder]

Yup, a chief-ton

[@derrickstorm6976]

Batten down the *hatch* we're going down

[@chaswalker2038]

I love these talks, Its just a shame that the vehicle is not more intact.

[@Martinlegend]

sights for "oh Crap!" moments XD

[@QuizmasterLaw]

This was actually a hell of a great idea for a tank!

[@hoodyps]

Hi Chieftain, great episode, as always 👍 Could you talk about use of muzzle brakes, why they were extensively used on tanks and tank destroyers etc in ww2 and early after and not so much in modern tanks, how they affect shot precision etc Thanks Pawel

[@KiloSierra213Sierra]

They're not used in modern tanks because they're not really compatible with sabot ammunition.

[@hoodyps]

@@KiloSierra213Sierra thank you, I didn't know that 👍dzieki 🙂

[@DavidSmith-ss1cg]

Muzzle brakes were used on many WW2 tanks to tame the recoil of the powerful guns that they put in them.

[@stevechambers4810]

@@DavidSmith-ss1cg "modern day tanks use lower velocity guns" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@nhancao4790]

@@stevechambers4810 I wonder what's he smoking.

[@PS-nf3xw]

Troops, there is the front. Onwaarrr.....well, never mind!

[@dermotrooney9584]

Lovely vid 👍I've found a few 17pr APDS rounds. How much is tungsten worth these days?

[@stephanl1983]

I can't believe that the driver has to dismount before firing the AT gun, because one of the of the benefits of mounting the gun backwards was ti shoot and disappear asap from the battlefield

[@lucisferre6361]

Did I detect an Underpants Gnomes reference? Or was saying "Step 4: Profit" not an illusion to the South Park episode with the Underpants Gnomes?

[@theonlymann1485]

cool looking at the backwards tank

[@nathanokun8801]

If it was the gun and not the ammo, then it has to be the twist of the rifling causing a nutation (corkscrew) motion of the shell that messes up the trajectory in the problem gun. If you can't change the rifling, then you have to rebalance the shell to move its center-of-gravity in the barrel, though even this might still cause problems if the shell had a curved trajectory (not much of a problem with the flat-trajectory APDS ammo used in the 17-pdr though). US Army 90mm AA guns in WWII were found to be using the wrong twist for the muzzle velocity of their later proximity-fuzed AA shells and this had to be fixed (not sure if both the gun and shell were changed or just one).

[@vaipporanda9424]

He knows underpants gnomes.....step 4 :d

[@MIDNIGHT-hn7hk]

@ Chieftain on a totally different topic, at E3 every year WOT rolls at an M4 and one time at T-34 too. Do you know if there’s any special story behind those vehicles?

[@samuelbhend2521]

here in Switzerland, the term "Zentner" would be the germanspeaking counterpart to your "hundredweight" Here in Switzerland and over in Austria it's 100Kg (1/10 of a metric ton, 10="zehn" = "ze(h)n-tner") but in Germany it's 50Kg (100 metric pounds (500g)) It's a long gone and completely out of use measurement, but sometimes people over 70 (and specially old farmers) refer to things like harvest or mass goods in "Zentner", as it was an official mesurement up to the late 70's/ early 80's...

[@AKUJIVALDO]

Probably because then a farm-man would be lugging these weights unaided by tech. Maximum weight for manual labour...or something on those lines.

[@dovaking7777]

Not to sure if it is your choice, but you should try to do the Tiger 1 or 2, or maybe the Jagdtiger or Jagdpanther, that would be amazing!

[@skogga]

Since most Americans have never driven a vehicle with a clutch, "Double-clutch" is releasing the clutch pedal between gears to keep the transmission spinning in order to synchronize the gears. It does not refer to some fancy F1-inspired supercar shifting scheme.

[@45CaliberCure]

Pfft. I've been driving a manual since the late 80's. Although, I'll admit, the option for getting a manual transmission in a pickup or non-sports car these days has diminished considerably. I just had the engine replaced on my '97 Tacoma and had to suffer the beeps and dings of an automatic hybrid rental car for nearly a month. FFS, the damn thing even physically "corrected" steering when it didn't like my drive line. Felt like I'd never gotten shot of my ex-wives... And I have tried double-clutching, but there's really no advantage to it in a vehicle that already has synchros, as far as I can tell, although in cold weather it did seem to make shifting easier on the transmission in low gears before it warmed up.

[@skogga]

@@45CaliberCure I drive a Freightliner at work, an 18-wheeler. The transmission slows down a lot between gears, there's a way to not double-clutch but if you miss the shift you have to. And i know what you mean, IIRC model year 2017 had a grand total of 3 vehicles with a manual option.

[@B9oyd]

Hey nick loving your vids! Are you planning on attending tiger day at bovington in april this year? Ill be there for my 30th and it would be icing on the cake to see you there :)

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

No. Tankfest.

[@B9oyd]

I looked at that over tiger day, but tiger day seems a bit smaller, more intimate and intricate, but theres more going on at tankfest. Dont suppose you could offer any pros/cons?

[@dmitryfalkovich833]

what about the "oh no the tank is BACKWARDS" drill?

[@vojtechsalbaba8780]

"Get inside Archer" - phrasing!

[@PNurmi]

So, is the reason why the driver"s panel has the radiation symbol is because the dials have glow in the dark radium paint? Or is it for something else?

[@Catrik]

I was wondering that myself, you might be right about the dials.

[@gunther482]

I’d be guessing so. I’m pretty sure Bovington’s KV-1 was mentioned by museum staff to be locked up due to radium contamination from the dials or something too if I’m remembering correctly.

[@ptonpc]

The dials would have been painted with radium or something similar to make them glow. The sticker is post war. Just in case someone decides to break the glass and inhale or lick the dust.

[@AnikaJarlsdottr]

@@ptonpc anyone silly enough to do that will probably ignore the sticker anyway :P

[@ptonpc]

@@AnikaJarlsdottr Have to agree with you there!

[@breakfaust]

looks like a perfect fit between the Archer and chieftain

[@Frostfly]

that zoom while your taking about the sabot ammo is deeply uncomfortable.

[@evilreddog]

already seen it on WoT channel, But it made me wonder: If you could take a modern armored vehicle (1950-2020) in to ww2 (pick your side). What would it be? It has to be able to be servicable to that days technology, meet the tonnage requirement to go over bridges and/or shipping and ammunition should be easy to convert and fit the vehicle. Me personaly am devided about a late model Centurion, M60 or T-62 on the tank side or a CV9040 on the IFV side. the CV90 require maybe little more reverse engineering to service. but ammunition is avaliable to it from the Bofors 40mm anti air gun. With a reverse engineered APFSDS from it's stowage you have anti armor capability to atleast 120mm at 1000m. you can also pack troops in the back, so a very versatile vehicle for both anti tank and assault of a possition. with the Centurion and M60 we have something closer to the technology level of the time, so reverse engineering should go much smoother in a sense. the Gun was already on it's way on paper, and ammunition not far from it as well. alittle on the heavy side with 52 tons, but with some preperation can cross bridges. Being able to crane them must happen in turret and hull seperation to reach the crane max of 40 tons iirc. T-62 is a very impressive beast for it's time, and simpel enough to retrofit the times technology. Does not need to be transported overseas as well unless you want to give the west the tank. it is 37 tons at that, so lighter then a sherman to boot. the engine was not all that great but given the time period it is about on par with most engines.

[@johanmetreus1268]

Problem I see with all your suggestions are electronics, ranging from radios to fire control systems.

[@keithrosenberg5486]

It seems to have radium on its driver's panel?

[@Cob450]

What's up with the radioactive warning on the IP? Radium in the dials maybe?

[@Eleolius]

"rare amount of common sense for a manual for an army vehicle." Lol.

[@deef631]

I am currently downloading World of Tanks on my Xbox one.

[@PitFriend1]

“If everything’s working” is not something to ever rely on with WWII era British vehicles.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Says who?

[@sadwingsraging3044]

All the driver had to do was stop, pull back on the tillers, lock them in place, hit the fuel shutoff, and pray the recoil stop didn't break if the 17 pounder was fired with him in that seat.

[@HarryVoyager]

So that why it has six pedals?

[@barrycabbageM34]

OwO I see a jagdpanther in the background of the opening.

[@larryfontenot9018]

I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea of the main gun facing over the engine deck. Yes, the driver is facing the "get the heck out of here" direction, but he's also facing the "I can't see anything to help my gunner track the target" direction. Plus, the thinnest vertical armor on a tank is on the part they marked "this side toward enemy", so if someone ever does shoot back, the thickest armor on the vehicle is where it'll prevent the enemy's shell from exiting, not entering. The Germans and Russians both built many a turretless tank destroyer, and not one of them had the gun firing over its fanny even when the engine was forward mounted. Maybe they knew something the Archer designers didn't?

[@watcherzero5256]

Valentine had 60mm all around (dropping to 43 on sides for Mk. 8 through 11) with the roof being heavily sloped 30mm on the front and 17mm on the rear. So really not much difference.

[@johanmetreus1268]

" The Germans and Russians both built many a turretless tank destroyer" Right there is your main problem wrapping your head around the Archer. Those vehicles had a completely different role. The Archer is much more similar to the German 8,8 cm FlaK gun, it's to anchor the line and protect it from enemy attacks. Being able to leave the position fast once spotted is paramount, as never getting hit is a superior protection.

[@trashtasticus7714]

What happened to the oh bugger the tank is on fire segment?

[@mrb692]

Trashtasticus I suspect those are for the videos Cheiftan does on his own and not for the WG produced vids

[@nhancao4790]

@@mrb692 Nope, he did it in the offical M4 Sherman, Panther and T-34 videos.

[@fabiogalletti528]

There's no roof: where is the fun? :-)

[@johnknapp952]

Technically not a tank but a motorized (self-propelled) anti-tank gun. Owned by Artillery, not Armor.

[@fabiogalletti528]

@@johnknapp952 so "oh bugger, the self propelled gun is on fire" Nay, doesn't sound funny either.

[@jessiethatgaymer4528]

I always thought the Archer was built on the Crusader chassis, not the Valentine..Hm, the more you know.

[@michaelmclachlan1650]

There was a Crusader II, Gun Tractor Mk I used to tow 17 Pdrs.

[@stewartross1233]

The producers of the videos are determined to keep the music whilst someone is speaking despite years of complaints!

[@donjones4719]

The heavy metal breech slamming toward the driver's head shouldn't be disconcerting - after all, he's wearing a helmet. :)

[@ninus17]

whats with the radiation warning sticker by the drivers dials ? does it have radium or something on the hands on the dials to light them up in the dark ?

[@ptonpc]

The dials would have been painted with radium or something similar to make them glow. The sticker is post war. Just in case someone decides to break the glass and inhale or lick the dust.

[@andrewgregory151]

I still have not figured out that thing in the background. It looks like a weird bt series with a British style turret

[@simonestill2351]

Its an AEC heavy armored car. Essentially a wheeled tank.

[@mrswimmytanker7422]

Was that dash really radio active

[@jorno1994]

Thats a weird B Roll at 6:19

[@malcolmheather3204]

"if everything is working..." great. If this is wrong, get a new driver.

[@JansenX12]

I startet humming the Music after the intro till i realised it was changed :,(

[@Kouki240sx]

Imagine being the driver and then getting decked in the back of the head by the gun breech.

[@bachelorchownowwithflavor3712]

If you're lucky you wouldn't live to feel it.

[@ptonpc]

If the recoil dampers and the recoil guard failed, I think you would have other problems.

[@drbedlam9786]

The design begs the question (and be nice cos I'm not an engy): Why not just turn the transmission upside down and use some metal rods and levers to place the driver facing the same direction as the gun?

[@theJellyjoker]

Because that would make to much sense.

[@drbedlam9786]

We must of designed the archer for the French ;)

[@johnfisk811]

Because the driver would need x ray vision to look through a 17 pounder gun, a diesel engine and the transmission.When to need a driver urgently? When you want to run away fast so you put the driver at the end pointing away from the enemy.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Why do you need to driver facing the same direction as the gun? Many tanks of the period moved the turret backwards when traveling so that the long barrel wouldn't hit the ground when on uneven terrain and ruin the gun.

[@drbedlam9786]

The gun is over the engine bay and wouldn't slap the ground, and if he's in the "front" (rear?!) of the compartment he could see over the engine bay.

[@schoppepetzer9267]

8:30 Why radioactive warning sticker on the control panel?

[@ScottKenny1978]

Probably radium paint on the gauges

[@billy4072]

Needs bloopers.

[@alexfish3120]

What is being radioactive inside the tank?

[@keithskelhorne3993]

possibly have been the luminous dials of the instruments? Back then it could still have been radium?

[@practicing1]

Designer vs end user? How does tank designer assessment differ from Tank user assessment?

[@RDEnduro]

it looks like you drove into a pool :p

[@jpennell5555]

A hundred weight is just a over 50kg......for some stupid reason some crop seed varieties in the UK still use it.

[@samuelbhend2521]

here in Switzerland, the term "Zentner" would be the germanspeaking counterpart to your "hundredweight" Here in Switzerland and over in Austria it's 100Kg (1/10 of a metric ton, 10="zehn" = "ze(h)n-tner") but in Germany it's 50Kg (100 metric pounds (500g)) It's a long gone and completely out of use measurement, but sometimes people over 70 (and specially old farmers) refer to things like harvest or mass goods in "Zentner", as it was an official mesurement up to the late 70's/ early 80's...

[@QuizmasterLaw]

8:30 NUCLEAR CAPABLE! XD

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Or maybe it's just a warning about the radium on the dials.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@Edax_Royeaux I am certain you are wonderful fun at parties

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@QuizmasterLaw I am certain you are wonderful fun at parties

[@blitzmakesunevenmm4323]

Gov’t 🏷 Safety label seems absurd absent any warnings for the breach, the barrel, the track , and of course, trip and fall... must have been some serious radiation to warrant that. Maybe like the the old pace makers for the heart were.... straight Plutonium!

[@jimbo9305]

The Government's wisdom: warn military members about the dangers of smoking but say nothing about the dangers of their chosen profession.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

config doesn't match manual perhaps because some of us notice Russia's tendency to espionage and take counter-measures.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

or sabotage, which is something else Russia is good at inspiring.

[@ptonpc]

Far more likely the manual was being written at the same time the system was being designed and used an earlier version of the layout.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@ptonpc says the guy with the graphic evoking the soviet propaganda piece "drive red wedges into white troops" )

[@ptonpc]

@@QuizmasterLaw Well you know the original artwork. That gives you a bit of kudos, most people don't. Now for bonus points. Can you tell me what work of fiction this version is used in?

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@ptonpc Unfortunately I do not know which fictional work uses your graphic. You may tell me, which would save me searching for it.

[@fulcrum2951]

So, the brits didn't bother modifying the engine?

[@hugocorminboeuf8007]

Wait... why did I see an atomic hazard sign on the dashboard? The glowing paint maybe?

[@mattyb7183]

Probably. I suspect the dials are painted with radium. And the sticker is a modern addition to stop someone from having the sudden urge to start licking them.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

PROFIT!!!

[@northernzeus768]

Love the channel and videos. Long time subscriber. Please stop with the music.