I love reading, but listening to Mr Moran talking about the subject is even better
@derrickstorm69765 жыл бұрын
Agree with the latter
@nikirki255 жыл бұрын
Especially when he talks about paint drieing.
@matthayward78895 жыл бұрын
nikirki25 true! 😂
@derrickstorm69765 жыл бұрын
@@nikirki25 drying
@samholdsworth39575 жыл бұрын
Exactly lol
@josephvalvano8295 жыл бұрын
As an old man, retired Army Officer, history and tank enthusiast, I love your videos. I just have to keep it hidden from my fellow 11 Bush comrades. A behind closed doors “tread head” is an infantryman’s apostasy.
@TheChieftainsHatch5 жыл бұрын
Ha! Oh well, keep enjoying.
@markmclaughlin26905 ай бұрын
Even the Infantry needs a hero. There are two kinds of people in the world and A Tanker isn’t either one of them.
@Sedan57Chevy5 жыл бұрын
I absolutely love these historical dives into behind the scenes tank history. Really adds perspective as to why things were the way they were.
@wolfhound1135 жыл бұрын
Me too! This dovetails neatly into Steve Zaloga's book about the development of the M4 Medium. It too was bounced about between the various players: Devers was head of Armored Force (before they sent him to Europe), McNair was head of Army Ground Forces, and Barnes, head of Technical Division of Ordnance. They were all brilliant people but with slightly different viewpoints. But it was a pity that so much time was lost on Dever's pet project, the M7 - although I sometimes wonder if it can be blamed as much as people do for the late appearance of the M26. It did interfere with the mid-life development of the M4, I think. The book is called Armored Thunderbolt - The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Published by Stackpole Books (who else?). I couldn't put it down.
@TacticalOni5 жыл бұрын
The interesting thing to note about the 3rd and 9th Armored getting trained on the 90mm is the stress that the civilian contractor, I believe his name was Price, put on proper boresighting and aiming for certain spots on enemy tanks. When met with incredulity from the tankers in the 11th Armored Division (what does this civvie puke know about hitting anything in specific on a tank with a 90mm gun) Mr. Price set up a row of German helmets across a lake about 625 yards away (I may be a few yards off here but it was definitely around 600 yards) and proceeded to snipe each and every helmet with the 90mm. No complaints about Mr. Price after that, and as things often happen, the gunners set to work to improve upon Price's shooting. Which they did to great effect! In my searches for researching the T26E3/M26, this gentleman's thesis paper really takes the cake and hits all the points I'm looking for when reading about a certain type of tank from development through combat and beyond, I highly suggest anyone interested in the Pershing to give it a read! digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=masters
@999torino5 жыл бұрын
VERY interesting story!
@erniedurocher43765 жыл бұрын
Thanks Owen
@r.j.dunnill14655 жыл бұрын
T33 was APBC-T (for tracer, not tungsten).
@connorshira65495 жыл бұрын
Thank you!!🙂
@fuzzydunlop79284 жыл бұрын
Wonderful comment.
@mikereger11865 жыл бұрын
Nick’s commentary has one great advantage over many of the sources available on the subject matter. Look up entries on tank books and you’ll just get a few snippets and a ton of technical detail. But what this article gives you is context and perspective. Great stuff, Nick is right up there with David Fletcher, from Bovington Tank Museum. He needs to be writing, really - the content is great, both in depth and breadth of knowledge, narrative of timeline, major players and major events. Recommend the presentations Nick gave on M4 design and Tank Destroyers to anybody who liked this video; you’re guaranteed to learn something new even if you’ve studied history for years.
@N_Wheeler5 жыл бұрын
I recall that when attempts were made to assign veteran Sherman crews to Pershing, experienced crews said No. They were comfortable with what they knew (the M4) and had safety in numbers to avoid Special Taskings, i.e., we need your Pershing to do this or do that, 24 hours a day.
@stefanjohansson36705 жыл бұрын
The ghost of logistics that is the failure in most situations and plans. You cannot and must not skip planning. Thanks for a good show. ,😀
@brucer815 жыл бұрын
Tanks have always fascination me as I'm sure it does many others. Having served in the Aviation branch of the US Army in the 70's I probably didn't miss the frozen experience most tankers enjoyed during Reforger exercises on the frozen tundra of southern Germany in and around the Fulda Gap. Romantic but not practical. I am an avid watcher however and very much enjoy the history you provide. Thank you!
@Dreska_5 жыл бұрын
Edit: I'm not sure the exact video I'm referring to is still on youtube but the footage is still out there, just my timestamp might be wrong. I encourage anybody who hasn't already seen it to search youtube for 'Battle for Cologne - tank duel' & see the footage from the T26 knocking out a Panther. Theres a clip that seems to begin at the exact moment the panther took a hit, and you see the crew bailing out and the tank catching fire - you can even see flames through the hole the pershing put in the side of it. Also at 7:45 you can see the commander of the M4 that was knocked out has had his left leg blown off at the knee, yet still climbed out of the tank unassisted, the remainder of his leg still smoking. Puts things in perspective.
@Dreska_5 жыл бұрын
@John Cornell I was looking at it purely as a tank engagement. You just prompted me to watch 'Battle of Cologne 1945 - A young woman between the frontlines - The original source'. Not sure it was the exact same tank engagement but definitely part of the larger battle. Wow, a car drove right through the crossfire, the driver was killed and she was shot. US medics treated her but then the tanks were re-engaged & backed up & apparently ran her over (its not 100% certain it was the same woman but her surviving sister said its her in the footage). The tankers probably didn't even know she was there.
@Dreska_5 жыл бұрын
@John Cornell no you made me look into the human side of it when I usually look at tanks as exciting machines, don't be sorry. Hopefully she was already unconscious when it happened. Cheers
@stonksrgud76453 жыл бұрын
That m4 commander did die a bit later though from the wound
@johnnyzippo7109 Жыл бұрын
Mush appreciated Chieftain, this type of lecture reduces my anxiety and blood pressure .
@PorcuPineAppleSauce5 жыл бұрын
Everybody: "this is bad and nobody should ever do it" And so it was done
@kreuzrittergottes93365 жыл бұрын
ah.... the Army way!
@fuzzydunlop79284 жыл бұрын
@@kreuzrittergottes9336 If you fuck up, fuck up spectacularly so that the boys at USAHEC can marvel over your stupidity for decades and try to find some way for the army to learn from it.
@electrolytics5 жыл бұрын
Love these down to Earth, direct to the point historical videos. Always good material to be found on this channel.
@jasonalmendra38235 жыл бұрын
Note to self. Never name my tank "FireBall".
@wargamingrefugee90655 жыл бұрын
@Baron Von Grijffenbourg That made me laugh. Thanks. :-)
@osmacar53315 жыл бұрын
tbh if i get into the wessex yeomanry i hope i can name the tank i operate, i wanna call it "Bert the avenger" just because why not
@ws22285 жыл бұрын
Lol! My tank M1 in 1983/4 Was named "Deguello" It is a song meaning No Quarter It was played by the Mexican Army to the defenders of the Alamo. D 1/67 2AD
@ws22285 жыл бұрын
@@wargamingrefugee9065 ?
@wargamingrefugee90655 жыл бұрын
@@ws2228 The literal translation is "slit throat". Look this up here on KZbin: The Alamo - Degüello (Slit throat ). You can verify it on Wikipedia.
@rigolgm5 жыл бұрын
Love this. In the War Thunder computer game I really enjoy its T25 incarnation, which seems to the the (one-off?) version that included semi-stabilisation of the turret. They way the game has it modeled (accurately?) it is sluggish speed-wise but has great reverse and turning and is generally brilliant at peeking out and shooting its 90mm gun. Good fun. I pair it with the M36 Jackson.
@dwhallon213 жыл бұрын
I just started watching these videos. I love the history behind what was done when, and why. Puts a whole new perspective on this. Reminds me of our American history teacher in high school. Mr Lowe made us think about things, and it put a different perspective on the whole subject. Thanks
@admiraltiberius19895 жыл бұрын
I absolutely love these videos. I don my headphones, turn on these educational gems and start doing chores or work out.
@MostlyPennyCat5 жыл бұрын
"Don't you think we should test it before we build more?" F35: "No"
@davidb31554 жыл бұрын
*Osprey would like to know your location*
@alangordon32834 жыл бұрын
David Bessey strange AFVs you pair are muttering about 🤔
@KB4QAA4 жыл бұрын
JN: low rate production while testing aircraft has been practiced in the US since 1953.
@justforever968 ай бұрын
They usually end up going back and having to change the initial versions or make them less than fully combat rated even when they test the shit out of them. If the first bunch are going to be not as good anyway you might as well get the production lines going and work out the bugs in that at the same time. They aren't idiots.
@dominic66344 жыл бұрын
Chieftain makes great videos. He has so much hands on experience
@DamoBloggs4 жыл бұрын
Perfect timing - I've just finished Spearhead, and can't recommend it enough to anyone interested in tanks and first hand experience stories. What I thought was particularly good was the way it weaved Clarence's story with that of Gustav, a tanker from the other side, and the fateful collision of their destinies in Cologne. Damn Good book!
@glynwelshkarelian34895 жыл бұрын
The joy of a melodious voice without music! In an opera that would not work (although I might listen to operas) but in a video about tanks it's just bliss.
@nothsim5 жыл бұрын
I do love his lectures.
@mikestanmore2614 Жыл бұрын
A bit late to this, but did I just spot a Hitchhiker's Guide reference at 9.35? Chieftain, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
@TheChieftainsHatch Жыл бұрын
You did, and believe it or not, you're the first to comment on it, all these years later
@mikestanmore2614 Жыл бұрын
@@TheChieftainsHatch Nice one! I guess that shows how many of your audience are *proper* nerds! Thanks for reading my comment! (Dammit, I'm going to have to go looking for Easter Eggs now!)
@charris57004 жыл бұрын
Chief Nicholas I appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge of tank designing, WW2 battles and armored theory. You are very good at conveying the big picture on why things were made as they were on these famous historical WW2 tanks. The various tank statistics you provide + the opinions of the combat experienced armored crewmen; really gives us a well rounded understanding of WW2 armored evolution. TANK YOU Sir!!!
@RemoteViewr15 жыл бұрын
Always the full story, details properly contextualizef. Worth a view to get genuine understanding.
@atlanticrf Жыл бұрын
As a tanker from the 1960's, I think that this video should be mandatory for all the armchair tank fan boys!
@JNF59011 ай бұрын
This video was 4 years ago but I keep coming back to rewatch it along with all of the other vids the chieftain had, since I can't wait for another one.
@Yensen22225 жыл бұрын
Undoubtedly the best place for entertaining tank vidoes!
@arkhtyi94565 жыл бұрын
11:24 "Why build production lines of two vehicles when one of them will do?" Apparently the US Navy didn't learn this lesson even 75 years later. *cough* Littoral Combat Ship *cough*
@zeitgeistx52395 жыл бұрын
It's not the Navy, it's called Congress. The military doesnt get to decide what they buy, its Congress. There's a reason why the US has something like 10,000 stockpiled Abrams or 8 pounds of government stockpiled cheese per person.
@zeitgeistx52395 жыл бұрын
And also dont even bother to google the Zumwalt, your head will explode.
@dwwolf46365 жыл бұрын
The thing is....once adapted 5" versions of the HVAP gets distributed they will most likely make a different saboted version for the 6" guns of the Zumwalt....in the end the guns will be functional. They will probably remove one gun for more VLS for more area defense ESSM or VL-RAM and some NSM. The focus seems to be surface warfare now.
@classifiedad15 ай бұрын
@@dwwolf4636they’re taking off the guns from the Zumwalt and replacing them with larger missile tubes for future hypersonic missiles.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer5 жыл бұрын
I like reading, I like listening. Honestly, I don't always agree with you, but life would be boring if we all did. I enjoy your delivery of information. It helps that you a wry sense off humor. Keep being you!
@Jonathan-ky4bi5 жыл бұрын
Talks about bad requirements, basically lists the requirements for the failed "Future Combat System Ground Combat Vehicle"...
@killianlile1735 жыл бұрын
Yeah that gave me quite a chuckle myself.
@redenginner5 жыл бұрын
OnTheSpectrum the FCS concept was pretty hilarous. It basically it was taking the Bradley’s development process and applying it to a whole family of vehicles.
@killianlile1735 жыл бұрын
@@redenginner I know I've read up on it
@fulcrum29515 жыл бұрын
Combat
@newdrug18805 жыл бұрын
Got to love the pershing
@joebuchanan38084 жыл бұрын
Great information presented with a nice touch of humor : )
@williamtraynor-kean72145 жыл бұрын
The Chieftain is very good in holding your attention, excellent delivery. Tankies talking tech are normally the military's answer to Mogadon so a Bravo Zulu to the Chieftain.
@jcwoodman52855 жыл бұрын
More on Super Pershing please🤗
@yujinakamura33165 жыл бұрын
Maj. Moran, I read your "book”(not really, articles on your blog) Wish you good luck wherever you are now.
@hiltibrant19765 жыл бұрын
The first batch of 20 Pershings sent to Amsterdam.... I assume you meant to say Antwerp? Wouldn't want to to ship them directly to the Germans, right?
@triestelondon5 жыл бұрын
Give that decision a red light.
@LokkieF5 жыл бұрын
The people of Amsterdam were starving to death at that moment. They would have eaten the tanks...
@TomLike2ski5 жыл бұрын
your right I think (20:05) Amsterdam got free when the germans surrendert in germany. The allies never liberated them.
@pieterzwaan44515 жыл бұрын
Maybe a chance for the germans to test the new tank??
@Zamolxes775 жыл бұрын
It was meant to tie down german resources, by trying to move and get away with 20 extra 45 tons tanks, that they couldn't use anyway because they broke down all the time and had no ammunition for it. Clever plan !
@ironstarofmordian70985 жыл бұрын
Absolutely staggering. Please do an audio book. Don't care what been just an audiobook.
@machinenkanone93585 жыл бұрын
He has a voice like a velvet blanket
@1morrel5 жыл бұрын
Interestingly, in Steven Zaloga's book Perkshing vs Tiger (Osprey series) he notes that Fireball was repaired and returned to service about a week after it was knocked out in Elsdorf. As noted, the Tiger I was immobilized in building rubble and was abandoned by its crew. Therein lies an important point about the vulnerability of the German heavy tanks - the ability to recover them and perform maintenance was practically nil at that stage of the war. Has anyone published an assessment of German armor lost to malfunction versus losses to hits by allied opposition?
@hjorturerlend5 жыл бұрын
Believe it was about 50/50 in Normandy, primarily due to fuel shortages during retreats. Tho to be fair whoever is on the defensive will have a harder time recovering equipment in general.
@GeorgiaBoy19614 жыл бұрын
1Morrel, such a study would be interesting, because the Anglo-American ability to recover/repair battle-damaged tanks and other vehicles was one of the great underappreciated Allied technological triumphs of the war. Trained crews proved tougher to replace than the tanks, in fact. One reason why U.S. armored formations were reduced to "drafting" guys from other jobs to be tank crew. and then training them more-or-less at the front, without them returning to the 'States to attend armor school at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.
@lyndoncmp57513 жыл бұрын
The Germans were just as adept at recovery and repair as the allies were when not losing ground. Not a single Tiger was lost in June and July 1944 in Normandy due to not being able to recover them. That changed in August when they lost ground quickly. All armies abandoned tanks when having to retreat quickly. The French in France 1940, the British in North Africa 1941/1942, the Soviets in Barbarossa 1941 and summer 1942. The Germans were increasingly losing the ability to do much of much from 1944, due to the overall strategic situation of the war.
@johnmachinemachine7065 жыл бұрын
Thank you for taking the time to make such magnificent videos 👍👍
@xedyalla3 жыл бұрын
I really want these kinda videos as podcasts
@suffolksettler51065 жыл бұрын
great video - thanks
@ian.anderson45 жыл бұрын
More of this type of video please Chief...very informative
@willheelan61625 жыл бұрын
Happy St. Patricks Day!
@Militaryminiatureshq5 жыл бұрын
Excellent story, thanks
@Bob.W.5 жыл бұрын
Heck of a teacher. Thx.
@_scooter98_925 жыл бұрын
Great video. Would there be enough content to do an in depth video on Australian Tank Design/Production/Doctrine/Anything tank related? Same thing with Canada and other Commonwealth Countries. Love to see you read first hand accounts/stories/diary entries/letters from real tank crews as well
@FairladyS1305 жыл бұрын
There is info on line and several books on the topic. The Australian effort showed what could be done on a shoe string but once the Japanese became involved in WW2 the need for a anti German tank faded, plus the US would not supply components like air cooled MG's and pushed the Sherman which was not the best tank available to fight the Japanese.
@boomslangCA5 жыл бұрын
A lot to unpack here. I'll have to watch this a couple more times to get it down. Awesome job.
@kwkfortythree394 жыл бұрын
Something like this about Soviet post WWII designs would be amazing: obj 252, 252u, 705, 257, etc etc. Those vehicles are fascinating
@Doug_M5 жыл бұрын
Good book so far. I'm about halfway through it.
@johnspizziri19195 жыл бұрын
The Chieftain as always puts the proper perspective on combat- Logistics, Logistics,Logistics.
@kclcmdrkai10855 жыл бұрын
Did the demand for more Pershing tanks ratchet up by the ground troops during the early phase of the Battle Of The Bulge as more German Tanks in quantity started breaking thru the Ardennnes Front and more Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, JagdPanther and Stug IV tanks started to arrive in quantities which might have cause some issues with the Sherman tanks whose medium 75mm cannons were having difficulties penetrating the newly arriving Panzers at range or that the German Panzers were themselves penetrating their own armor at longer range until combat range drop under a mile??
@Legiondude5 жыл бұрын
By late 44, 76mm Shermans had been filing in and even Easy 8s were reaching the frontlines, they had enough save for long distance head on engagements with Tiger II and Jagdpanthers. The problems of Panther had been realized and matched by stopgap measures and tactics when they swept central and southern France
@donaldwiller9238 Жыл бұрын
Great information 👍
@razor1uk6105 жыл бұрын
Thanks again for this informative and concise intro in to the T26 Mr. Moran ;) :P Later I will be watching the 3rd part of your museum tour with Sofilein with a nice mug of caffine.
@philgardocki52945 жыл бұрын
Thanks. Good article.
@joedelafranier278 Жыл бұрын
What are the differences between the 3 rounds ,, 75mm the 76 mm and the 3 inch ? More or larger propellant ? longer casing or powder was more powerful ?
@douglaswhite67025 жыл бұрын
I would not call myself a Tanker but I was in an M109A2 Pally .... But I love armor and Chief keep these great videos coming. Maybe at some p[point you can talk about the M109 and it's history as it will do direct fire and is now being trained to do so more then it was in Desert Storm. After desert storm this was being trained funny you sight down the open bore but now the computer does it ... But it works in a pinch.
@kiltmanm605 жыл бұрын
Well done Sir. I cringe at the parts that you describe the tanks being divided up. Every time I was attached to the Infantry it was a nightmare. In Division Cavalry there were comparatively no issues. But the infantry were always a lot of pain. One time I will never forget my Tank Company (B Trp 1-12 Cavalry but was really a Tank Company as everyone in 1st Cav falsely carries the name) was attached to an infantry battalion for an NTC rotation. I will not bore you with all the stories of how we were tactically miss used but, the last day when the HETS arrived to load us up the BN CDR and XO were standing there screaming like mad men, to get on the F-ing HETS and that once we were on them we were not their F-ing problem! They did not stop screaming and cursing us until all 14 tanks were loaded up. I could not believer their behavior and obvious hate of us from beginning to end of the rotation. It was as if we were the enemy and not fellow US Soldiers.
@alexwaverley7296 ай бұрын
My dad commanded the Pershing that took out a Tiger in Cologne.
@EpicGamerino5 жыл бұрын
To shorten the video Ordnance: “Y’all need bigger tank.” Army Ground Forces:”No.” Ordnance: “ We didn’t ask” AGF: “WTF this thing is too heavy and breaks down to much!?” Ordnance: “Yeah but it’s better than a lot of the German tanks so shut up” AGF: “Fuck.”
@donvanduzen89445 жыл бұрын
Having read Spearhead, I have to question the other main engagement involving the Panther at the Airfield. It's an even more extraordinary story than the Cologne engagement. I understand that Clarence never spoke till recently,but why has nobody ever spoke of this before? I am a big Pershing fan, and don't doubt Clarence, I'm just curious. Any thoughts from those who have read the book?
@brennanleadbetter9708 Жыл бұрын
Maybe the engagement wasn’t documented very well. Or it was overshadowed by the more popular Cologne duel. (I’ve read the book btw)
@ECHOFOXTROT2895 жыл бұрын
Great job!
@runkm19865 жыл бұрын
Great job 👍
@ElysiumNZ3 жыл бұрын
Still think the US Armoured branch should’ve taken up the offer of the 17pdr and equiped at least a small number of M4s for use where heavy German cats were known to be stationed. I mean would one in every five M4s being a Firefly been a problem?
@lyndoncmp57513 жыл бұрын
No it wouldn't have been much of a problem. The Americans were too overconfident.
@AngryMarine-il6ej Жыл бұрын
I read about the politics involving the production and fielding of the M26. From what I read General Jacob Devers (commander of the 7th Army) bypassed AGF (General Lesley McNair) and went directly to General Marshall. Marshall approved it but what I read McNair was still in opposition to it. Unfortunately, McNair was killed during an inspection tour in Normandy when U.S. troops were bombed accidentally by 8th Air Force bombers.
@robertdendooven72585 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know when the Ford GAC V-12 engine was installed in the T-29 super heavy tank prototype? I ask due to whether or not it was available for any T-26 prototype before the end of 1944. Did anyone developing the T-26 think, "33% heavier tank, I might need a 50% more powerful engine" during the development stage? On the same thought, when was the Allison cross-drive transmission developed? Could a quasi-M-46 tank been available at the end of WW2 or was R&D not ready yet?
@caelachyt5 жыл бұрын
The problem with thinking "the 76 is good enough" is that the enemy is probably not thinking that and developing better tanks. That kind of thinking inevitably gets you to a place where you may frantically have to play catch up.
@Predator203574 жыл бұрын
Well it’s a good thing that they made the 90mm already then
@ChristianMcAngus5 жыл бұрын
Was the bow machine gunner essential though? Or should that position have been left out right from the start of production?
@TheChieftainsHatch5 жыл бұрын
ETO thought as much. On the M26, it would have been the only weapon capable of being fired when on the move, but I doubt ETO knew that at the time. Ordnance were as happy to delete it. Then again, note that some vehicles like M18 and M10 did not have a bow machinegun, but kept the crewman.
@gregbellinger57654 жыл бұрын
Objective, accurate, and good voice.
@davidhulkower77795 жыл бұрын
i had asked wee you have been since i didn't see anything new.I hope everything is ok.looking forward to more
@peachworks_en5 жыл бұрын
Sir Moran talking about my favorite tank? Am I in heaven?
@adamcullen315 жыл бұрын
Finally someone who loves The Pershing as much as me!
@artturretje423 Жыл бұрын
M26's can't have been sent to Amsterdam, as it was still occupied but still I find Chieftain's video's just great! Wonder what tank transporter could take those beasts, anybody knows?
@dethkon22845 жыл бұрын
Cheiftan reviews tank girls tank, both live action and comic book. I bet he would do this as an *April fools* as well
@Maverick19445 жыл бұрын
Cheiftain I gotta idea that might be a bit of a stretch, but if you ever got time, why not take a trip down to Ft, Benning Georgia and take a inside the hatch of the monster “super heavy tank t28”. That would be absolutely awesome.
@LegoStarHawk985 жыл бұрын
The inside of it is probably rusted to hell though
@seanmalloy72494 жыл бұрын
In his last Q&A, he mentioned that he was putting off going down to Ft. Benning, because they had the T28 under restoration, and if he waited until they finished, he might be able to do a full outside & inside video on it.
@adamalton24365 жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation as always, sir. I was curious about the drivetrain issues Pershing had. Were the engine/transmission chosen as a matter of convenience/availability or did the designer simply underestimate the power requirement of such a heavy vehicle?
@billwilson36094 жыл бұрын
The issues were the result of not running the initial batch thru rigorous testing to find and correct any problems. Ordnance wanted to do that but was overruled by members of Congress who had been agitating for a heavy tank after the M4's first encountered the Tiger 1 in North Africa. Ordnance decided that some testing was required so took the first three produced and ran those non-stop around a track for 500 miles. Two made it and one lost a road wheel after traveling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so declared that the T26 was good to go.
@suryia67065 жыл бұрын
Great Video. More please
@WOTArtyNoobs5 жыл бұрын
Regularly posting links to Chieftain's channel on my channel. Enjoy these videos.
@EdwardGolla-t8k11 ай бұрын
How would you have deployed M26 in Normandy? One per troop like firefly or heavy battalion? Since 88s saved Rommel at Arras assume development started in 1940 and logistics were in place to trade 2 Shermans for 1 Pershing before DDay.
@martentrudeau69485 жыл бұрын
Thanks for T26 history, the devil is in the details, and you get those little devils out. Thank Nicolas
@themightymo34915 жыл бұрын
Spearhead was such a good book.
@onenote66193 ай бұрын
When he started talking about getting rid of the wet shell stowage in order to carry more rounds, I immediately started thinking: 'Isn't this the British at Jutland all over again?'
@FairladyS1305 жыл бұрын
Only the US could make designing and fielding an effective tank in WW2 so complicated and protracted, compared with both Germany and Russia. I had a fair idea how bad this was but this video helps get by providing detail, incredible. Keeping very much in mind that Germany was fighting for it's life and had material and manufacturing problems which forced design compramises eg Panther rear drives, they were still able to get private companies to design and manufacture what turned out to be basically superior tanks without the messing around that slowed and complicated the US effort. The Russians too managed to get effective tanks onto the battlefield despite their disadvantages, including the minor detail of being invaded with it's accompanying production disruption. In contrast the US did not have the significant disadvantages that both Germany and Russia had yet the US managed to be a sound last in getting something comparable onto the battle field which says it all really. For the rare few who actually would like to know more without the rah rah a good start is The Business of Tanks by G.MacLeod Ross.
@philgardocki52945 жыл бұрын
We had the luxury of the home country not being threatened. But, from the beginning, we also had no idea on how to go about designing a tank. What is the primary requirement? Gun or Engine? Heinz Guderian stated the engine. Others will say the gun. Soon as you have the primary consideration, the other is a compromise as to what is available, and can fit. Also what would you regard as "effective" tanks. We get that a Sherman vs. Panther encounter will run poorly for the Sherman, but how about reliability? An American battalion of 65 Shermans is likely to be running 60 vehicles in the morning. A Battalion of Panthers, not as many. After 10 days of operations, 50% of the T-34's in an operation is inoperative due to mechanical failure. Where Sherman treads had a longer life expectancy than a T-34 engine. When the Soviet 1st Guards Mech Corps were issued brand new T-34/85's to replace their Shermans, they raided the depot and took their Shermans back.
@Predator203575 жыл бұрын
Phil Gardocki I agree and also think about where the USA is, it’s between the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean meaning they have to carry everything by Boat. Because of this, The US Forces can’t be sending over heavy tanks without severely reducing the amount of tanks over in the field. Since the Pz.lV is the common German Tank, what’s the point in trying to make a tank that matches the Panther or Tiger in strength when the lighter Tank can have more produced and be upgraded to fight these heavier tanks. Despite America not having a fucking clue on how to make a tank at first. They managed to make at least a decent tank that can out produce the Germans.
@kimepp22165 жыл бұрын
Any idea why they didn't add 4 feet to the barrel of the 75? They could have shipped the barrel strapped to the side of the tank for assembly in Europe.
@CowMaster90015 жыл бұрын
3:21 Where have I heard that concept before? 🤔🤔 God, it's just the Elephante in the room of my mind.
@ODSTOninersIxTwO5 жыл бұрын
Can we get a continuation onto M46/M47/M48?
@edgartaylor74215 жыл бұрын
What is the advantages vs disadvantages with having the transmission in the front vs the back?
@gafeleon90325 жыл бұрын
As far as I know the forward transmission helps with maintenance as you can access it directly and the engine is more free to be accessed directly from the rear and not only the top, but it makes the tank taller thus making hiding and covering it harder, rear transmission tanks are usually shorter but maintenance is harder
@Riceball015 жыл бұрын
Now a days it doesn't matter since you have an all in one power pack that houses both your engine and transmission.
@herrmu41865 жыл бұрын
Oh man. your furniture still hasn´t arrived?
@JustSomeCanuck5 жыл бұрын
Actually, it did. He points that out at the start of his video about interwar British tank development. This was merely filmed in front of a calming white background.
@Y.M...5 жыл бұрын
hehe
@CowMaster90015 жыл бұрын
I prefer the void.
@rdallas817 ай бұрын
It's camouflaged
@maxwellsmith36485 жыл бұрын
I know this doesn't have anything to do with the T26 but can someone explain to me why they just didn't increase the length of the Sherman's 75mm barrel to increase its velocity since you could still use the same ammo and even revert back to a shorter barrel if need be?
@inisipisTV5 жыл бұрын
We'll they're replacing it already with 76mm which is much better, and lengthening the barrel would offset it's balance with it's breach so there's a lot more that needs fixing.
@maxwellsmith36485 жыл бұрын
inisipisTV thanks!
@Paladin18735 жыл бұрын
McNair is often included among the list of controversial American commanders in WWII, such as Fredendall, Clark, and Lucas. Despite not being a combat commander, he was killed by friendly fire (aerial bombing) while observing the opening phase of Operation Cobra.
@torbai5 жыл бұрын
He is controversial because no one knows what GHQ and AGF are.
@Paladin18735 жыл бұрын
@@torbai The US Army in WWII was, conceptually, really two armies. The first one organized, trained, and equipped the forces at home, while the other one employed those forces in combat operations across the globe. In this sense, the combatant commanders (predominantly Eisenhower and MacArthur) were the customers who identified their requirements to McNair, who was their force provider. A key point to remember is that McNair was neither subordinate nor answerable to these combatant commanders. He worked for the Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall. As the Chieftain pointed out, the requirements of each commander varied. Had McNair worked for them, I doubt he could have gotten much done, so he needed a degree of independence. I know this is a gross oversimplification of what was really going on, but this forum limits a broader description. There is much to both admire and admonish about McNair. Nobody had ever been given such a monumental task as he received - turn a million man Army into an eight million man army, and train and equip it to fight an ever evolving modern war. He was a great organizer and excelled in this task. Those who criticize his armor decisions may be right, but I think they pale in comparison with what I consider to have been the Army's worst mistake - the individual replacement system (in lieu of whole unit replacements). McNair advocated this approach to deploying causality replacements, and he had Marshall's support. Far from ideal, it had the advantage of greatly limiting troop space requirements on supply ships. It also reduced the demands on Army recruitment, which made the captains of industry happy. But from a tip-of-the-spear viewpoint, it was a tragic fiasco. When criticizing the decisions of commanders, one must consider not just their successes and failures, but the reasons for the decisions that led to these successes and failures. We will never know for certain, but their shortcomings may have been the result of the best possible courses of action available at the time, abysmal as they may appear in hindsight.
@torbai5 жыл бұрын
Colonel K Well, I already know that... I am sorry that it must cost you a long time to write a long article but the only reader already knows what you said... My apologies.
@Paladin18735 жыл бұрын
@@torbai When I respond to anyone I assume others are reading these comments and may chime in. If not, I don't mind. A lot of the folks here are pretty knowledgeable, and any polite and intelligent discourse is always appreciated. It helps keep my mind sharp.
@hakdov64965 жыл бұрын
Spearhead was a great book!
@DuncanCaddick Жыл бұрын
Hindsight is a wonderful thing ..
@ThroneOfBhaal3 жыл бұрын
'A concealed Tiger tank fired three shots from about 100 yd (91 m). The first penetrated the turret through the machine gun port in the mantlet, killing both the gunner and the loader.' Ouch. An 88 at 91 meters through the MG port is not going to tickle. :/
@garyroberts15525 жыл бұрын
Oh damn I heard what you did there...Douglas Adams smiles from the ether..."You're not going to like it"...42.
@AdamMann3D5 жыл бұрын
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the conspiracy theory surrounding the cologne duel. I'm not one for those usually but the documentary on Amazon connecting the photographer with Chrysler was a well made argument. It's called "March 1945 - Duel at the Cathedral".
@TheChieftainsHatch5 жыл бұрын
I only heard about it this morning. Other than that there is a conspiracy theory about it, I know nothing. I also have absolutely no reason to give a conspiracy theory on the matter any credence whatsoever.
@General_Cartman_Lee5 жыл бұрын
This came up due to a DVD one person (Hermann Rheindorf) made some years ago. As usual conspiracy theories spread further than articles checking the facts. There is an in depth analysis available here (it's in German with Google translate links on the page, if something is not clear in the translation feel free to ask, I was born less than 3km away from that place 😉 ): anicursor.com/battled2.html Here is an overview of what happened where (this page is available in Englich and German): panzerduell.de/
@mugwump585 жыл бұрын
@@General_Cartman_Lee Thank you!
@Imbeachedwhale5 жыл бұрын
Apparently this theory claims the entire battle was a hoax. Smells like BS to me.
@General_Cartman_Lee5 жыл бұрын
@@Imbeachedwhale Rheindorf's theory is that the US propaganda wanted to show the capture of Cologne as being easy while it wasn't in his opinion. But why should they do this when on other occasions they showed the resistance when it existed. And as far as I know the Wehrmacht never claimed that they even tried to defend Cologne. It makes no sense at all when you have a natural border (the Rhine) behind you. The bridges in Cologne were all destroyed and one day after the tank battle the bridge at Remagen was captured. So if Cologne was not captured on March 6th (like Rheindorf says) the US would have simply ignored and / or bombed it like they did with several other cities that were defended.
@operation4wheelz5 жыл бұрын
Hi Chieftain. Wondering if you consider doing some more vids on Cold War era tanks. Leo’s, chieftain, Soviets t62/72 etc. a vid on MBT70 would be awesome
@UNDERGROUNDSOUNDSMI3 жыл бұрын
I have found very little on the 9th Armored's use of this weapon. Can anyone expand? I suspect the 9th got some as they were rebuilding after their mauling around St. Vith and Bastogne, thus making it easier to integrate and train with new replacements; but I cannot find any certain reason why they were issued these tanks nor much of their record with them.
@ranhat25 жыл бұрын
Learned, researched, good. Perhaps add something to embellish and richen it beyond the gent's sitting and talking. More photos, at least, perhaps something running as he speaks, perhaps films of tests, show some of his researching--him here or there, some of the documents--give us an idea of the work going into such production. AND contrast, perhaps in detail, our struggling development practices with the Germans'.
@phil20_203 ай бұрын
So, McNair wasn't, "That Guy", and they really could have used that tungsten penetrator much sooner. EZ with the negative waves, baby. Speaking of which, how about some more on that tank from, "Kelly's Heroes?" And the Tiger's maintenance for that matter.
@donfrandsen77785 жыл бұрын
Super Pershing!!!!!!!!
@hunter7ize4 жыл бұрын
A tankers dream could be an engineers nightmare
@robertjohnson89385 жыл бұрын
Good info
@Dragonblaster14 жыл бұрын
I think the Pershing and the A34 Comet were the two best-looking tanks of the war, low-slung and dangerous-looking.