Chieftain's Q&A 15. Starships, Ideology and DIVAD.

[@dukenukem8381]

I was waiting when Chieftain will start talking about the M60a2 starship, but only now i get that it was about an actual starship

[@polygondwanaland8390]

Good news, they're building those in Texas!

[@davidllewellyn5236]

Same! Lol!

[@od1452]

Me too. lol

[@firstconsul7286]

@Gareth Fairclough I rigged the city built on a rock to roll around like Hot Wheels

[@timburns4880]

Dead bang on about the turbine engine “penalizing” tailgating drivers. We were issued the M1s when I was in Germany. These were the L68 105mm M1s. The exhaust off that, compared to our M60A3s, was as hot as the sun. One Conrad decided he wasn’t going to wait behind us as we roadmarched and started to weave in and out of our column in his BMW. At one point he got stuck being the platoon sergeant’s tank and we had to wait for cross-traffic to go by. SFC Neiderer had his driver rev up the engine and you could watch the paint bubble up and peel off the Bemmer’s hood. Conrad was more than a little pissed.

[@DonMeaker]

With the M-60 A3s, we had Germans constantly trying to weave in and out in our columns of vehicles. Sometimes it didn't work out well, as the time a VW bug tried to find a safe space between two tanks, when the second one was being towed with crossed cables. The driver survived, but he had to be removed with the 'jaws of life' after the trailing tank's romped across his passenger side. Fortunately, he was not part of a 'car pool' and had no passenger.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

This makes me want to build a turbine powered rear engine taxi...

[@88porpoise]

One thing on Soviet use of 3 inch guns, the Russian Empire used a traditional system of measurements including a direct equivalent to one inch. While they had some use of metric early, it only really became common after the fall of the Empire with formal adoption decreed by the Soviet Union in the 1920s Russians used 3 inch (or 76.2mm) guns as their standard field artillery since at least 1900. This is also why the Russians used 0.3 inch calibre small arms, or "3-line" calibre in the old Russian measurements. And much like the Americans with the 75mm calibre after adopting the French 75 in 1917, the calibre just kind of hung around for various reasons.

[@darranhirose8153]

By the time the Soviet's adopted metric, they had roughly 25 years of 3" guns (See: Putilov M1900) under their belt. Although they really do love the 100, 122 and 152mm bore sizes.

[@88porpoise]

Darran Hirose All three predate WWI, when the Russians used inches. 76mm field gun and 152mm howitzer is the same as the US had pre-WWI (the us adopted the French equivalents during the war). Where specifically 122mm /4.8 inch came from I don’t know, but it was in service at least in 1909, not can I find any other country with a 122mm gun not derived from the Russians.

[@classifiedad1]

Shaun Young I believe it was rooted in the use of “lines” for caliber in Imperial Russian times, which was 1/10 of an inch. So while 122mm or even 4.8 inches seem rather arbitrary, it makes perfect sense if the caliber is 48 lines. This system was not constructed to artillery; the Mosin rifle and Nagant pistol were both 3 line caliber, the preceding Berdan rifle was 4.2 line caliber, the 76.2mm field guns were 30 lines, the 152.4mm was 60 lines, and the 203mm was 80 lines. They did use guns calibers in metric during the time of the tsars, but these tended to be French imports.

[@peterbloch9381]

@@classifiedad1 This was atleast the case with the 106.7 mm. This measurement was first used in the 42-line Field Gun M1877 (afaik). The same caliber was later used in the 42-line Field Gun M1910 and then again in the modernized version - the 107 mm Field Gun M1910/30 (this time using metric measurements instead of Imperial Russian measurements, since the USSR adopted the metric system in 1925).

[@classifiedad1]

Peter Bloch Huh, good to know.

[@LukeBunyip]

18:16 I'm reminded of the Polish joke about the Cold War relationship between Poland and Soviet Russia. *Q:* "Why are the people of Russia like cousins to the people of Poland?" *A:* "Because you get to choose your friends".

[@Bird_Dog00]

I heard the same joke about czechosolovakia. I'm guessing the feeling was quite wide-spread east of the iron curtain...

[@SonsOfLorgar]

This made my day! XD

[@LukeBunyip]

@@Bird_Dog00 Here's a more specifically Polish one 😉 *Q:* Why can the best views of Warsaw be seen from the top of the Joseph Stalin's Palace of Culture and Science? *A:* Because it's the only place in Warsaw where you're not looking at the Joseph Stalin's Palace of Culture and Science.

[@p_serdiuk]

@@Bird_Dog00 It still is. Putin would really love to re-capture Ukraine and Belarus for a second go at USSR, hence the war in Donbas and his ongoing close negotiations with Lukashenko.

[@Telamon8]

@@p_serdiuk And there was that one ammo depot near Zlín which a couple of Russian agents blew up, and were (presumably) surprised when their stupidity was met with consequences.

[@ShaDOWDoG667]

I was talking to a Ltc. once and he mentioned that on an exercise on Alaska their water buffaloes froze. So he came up with the brilliant plan to just back up some Abrams to them and let them run for a while. Apparently it worked.

[@jamesrasp2713]

Epitoma-Rei-Militaris it would depend on the buffalo tank type. Aluminum I can see doing that, but not the fiberglass ones.

[@ArfurFaulkesHake]

@@jamesrasp2713 The fiberglas ones also woudn't freeze that easily as they hold the temperature better. So i'm guessing they where aluminium ones.

[@Thornbeard]

Not a clue what dude you were talking to but we do not have Abrams tanks or any tanks in Alaska. Source I was a 19K when in the Army and I am a resident of Alaska.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@Thornbeard The Army will send tanks up for exercises on occasion. They're not permanently stationed there. [Edit. Actually, the Marines have done it on occasion too]

[@johnknapp952]

But could you roast a "water buffalo" with the exhaust of an Abrams??? 😊😁

[@DirkdeJager73]

"Dona nobis aut luto mortis" Give us mud, or give us death.

[@freezatron]

and who said Latin isn't relevant today !! :D

[@spacedmanspiff1543]

T-shirt material....Elbonia Forever !

[@1KosovoJeSrbija1]

*excited Krieg Guardsman noises*

[@danksinatra9146]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

[@HanSolo__]

They WILL do great with their IS-3 ..general overhauls!

[@moosemaimer]

If Elbonia is completely covered in mud that would mean it must be fairly flat... could this finally be the use case for the armored hovercraft- the Hovertank?

[@williamforbes6919]

I want to see a literal hovercraft with tank armor, none of that anti-grav stuff.

[@exploatores]

As it should be expensive and kind of useless. I think I would go for a wheeled APC. Hover craft might get somewhere. It seems like they are shoping in the second hand market too.

[@LukeBunyip]

*Cough* OGREs are hungry *Cough* 😉

[@trmindustries.2549]

@@williamforbes6919 Have you read Hammers Slammers by David Drake? I recommend it if you want futuristic hovertanks.

[@derrickstorm6976]

I suggest reverting back to the good old Zeppelins

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

expired ammo : whilst practise shooting M102 howitzers (105mm) in about 1987, we realised that the timed fuses produced Duds - we overclocked them and they would explode on contact. The Ammo was leftover from the Korean war, the Army was Austrian

[@IowanLawman]

"I would expect the professionalism of NCOs to keep the shenanigans to a minimum" - you would be wrong there Major.

[@michaeltempsch5282]

Impressive straight face there though...

[@MrBlueBurd0451]

E-4 Mafia? E-4 Mafia.

[@IowanLawman]

@@MrBlueBurd0451 we dont talk about this in public.

[@noremorsewoodworking2258]

One of the primary requirements of any NCO, and indeed often a large part of the training towards becoming one, is to know ANY AND ALL shenanigans that the E4s and below might come up with. With such knowledge comes the ability to instigate, improve or support shenanigans, as well as the knowledge of how to get away with it, deny it or, in the worst case scenario (O-rank finds out about it), who to blame it on (E4s or below). The absolutely worst/best (depending on perspective) NCOs in that regards are those who have come up through the ranks slowly, those who have had ample time to learn, experience and try all the creative ways of the lower E ranks.

[@jarink1]

Remember, every NCO would have been an E-4 at some point earlier in his/her career. The best NCOs know best how to keep the shenanigans from interfering with mission and also hidden from the officers.

[@ticotube2501]

When I read "Starships" I expected a debate / monologue on the M60A2. Well, on the other hand, Star Trek is always a welcome topic.

[@TerLoki]

Indeed. Miranda is a good choice though, nice utilitarian patrol ship. I especially like the connected shuttle bays that surround main engineering.

[@davidwiddup4201]

Expiration date on ammo, In 87 on HMS Gloucester the 20mm ammo for the Oerlikon were date stamped 1945

[@kentvesser9484]

How much of that old 20mm was the equivalent of sold shot that doesn't expire vs. HE that might start being finicky after 40 years? Were there a lot of misfires where primers or powder didn't work? I know most rifle ammo if properly stored can still be pretty good at that age at least as far as firing, but maybe not so much on accuracy, but I wonder if as you get to cannon shells whether it is more sensitive to the ravages of time.

[@demonprinces17]

Think it was the 80's mortars got WW2 ammo

[@rogerhinman5427]

I was a CEV crewman for a few years back in the late 1970's. The demo gun was a pretty useful tool in both the direct and indirect fire roles. The idea was to be able to destroy, say a bridge or a road obstacle or a building, at range and from cover without having to send a squad of engineers to the target to demolish it under fire. The 30-something (?) pounds of C4 in the demo round will answer a lot of tactical questions.

[@johnharker7194]

Looking for more info on the effectiveness of that gun

[@fien111]

"Gunner, this building offends me. Remove it"

[@rogerhinman5427]

@@fien111 LOL

[@mountainhobo]

21:27 Sir Humphrey Appleby in a Soviet hat. Brilliant, I am not alone in being a diehard fan of those two series.

[@hallstuart6604]

The more of these I watch these Q&A vids the more I realise that the answer to ALL the "Why nation use this thing??" questions is the same. It all comes down to cost and not just cost of the equipment in question but the cost of the entire supply chain. Do the advantages of "this thing" out weight the cost of changing the entire production - supply - implementation - training - maintenance chain? If Yes? We use! If No, we dont! Simple. Everyone expects some ideological answer or something but in reality its pretty straight forward.

[@fabiogalletti8616]

It's basically the same thing Ian said for every Forgotten Weapon: Nation didn't scrap the weapon/caliber X for the weapon/caliber Y because they knew how to handle production and logistics of X, while Y was an unknown beast on costs/production/maintenance.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Most of reality is... no matter how much the nutters try to convince you otherwise.

[@dreadgod81]

21:24 I am a simple man. I see a "Yes, Minister" reference, and I upvote.

[@LukeBunyip]

Why of course, comrade Chairman.

[@ignaciocamargo]

@@LukeBunyip aq

[@apuffofpink8484]

Evening, Chieftain! How’s the track tension today?

[@MajesticDemonLord]

Adjusted, in accordance to the field service manual

[@mastathrash5609]

@@MajesticDemonLord as all things should be

[@CAP198462]

IMO an interesting question might be to ask about lubrication. Has the liquid courage lubricant been applied?

[@Coffreek]

@@CAP198462 The Chieftain is Irish, so.....

[@themecoptera9258]

Secured, contained, and protected.

[@andersmaidment]

I love that you use proper Signal techniques and say, "Correction..." when you want to correct what you've said. I'm not the only one!

[@slateslavens]

Please repeat! over!

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@slateslavens that's a great way to get artillery dropped on you. "Say again" or "Say again, Louder" is the proper phrase.

[@slateslavens]

@@ScottKenny1978 I know. I was poking fun at a common mistake, though it's less cringe-worthy than 'over and out'

[@Masada1911]

Great video as usual. But just wanted to express some appreciation for you going above and beyond with the timestamps!

[@snowstalker36]

Army canons measured in inches are almost always derived from Navy canons, which are measured in Inches by the US. The M10's canon for example is part of a design lineage going back to the 3" M1898 coastal defense canon, and I believe they kept the same shell design the whole way. The 8" canon used on the M110 used a shell from Navy 8" Cruiser canons. So even though the guns themselves were army designed they kept the Navy shell, so they kept the Navy designation lineage.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Chieftain is so disappointed with Ian, because now he needs to make stuff for Elbonia as well 😂😂

[@fabiogalletti8616]

The worst part is that now The Chieftain has to find an Elbonian tank for an inside the hatch, like an experimental M47 with a Panther's gun muzzle break and Pz.IV bogies, kind of less common than an Hakim with MG34/RPD schtuff on. ;-)

[@LN997-i8x]

I can't wait for Drach to chime in on the state of the Elbonian navy.

[@AtomicBabel]

He did recently very recently

[@popuptarget7386]

@@LN997-i8x they get to re-use the 2nd Pacific squadrons motto "and then things got worse".

[@fzyturtle]

@@popuptarget7386 and don't forget, "Do you see any Japanese torpedo boats?"

[@kwaffen9070]

One reason the boxer engine not being used on tanks could be of oil consumption. This style of engine can consume oil on high speed turns. I know a tank isn't a drifting machine but a jerking a turn or ruff terrain could cause this possible issue. But otherwise it is a good design. I heard German half tracks being a boxer air-cooled diesel.

[@Maus5000]

32:10 that bit about the Battle of Arras had me so confused for a few seconds there. "We're really going to judge Mark I and Mark II tanks by ergonomics, in the context of the second battle tanks were ever used in??" Then I realized it was 1940 Arras, not 1917 Arras.

[@N-Word_Boi_3.0]

45:53 I think the answer is: Do you just sit back and wait to be conquered or do you gamble that you might get lucky, even if the odds are terrible or close to zero. I think everybody would gamble. Almost all mis-use of tanks is done by desperate people. Desperate people will do desperate things.

[@justforever96]

And with reason. He says it is 'impossible' for the Germans to actually reach Antwerp, but military history is full of armies or units doing things that were technically impossible. War is fought by humans after all. I suppose it becomes harder to achieve as the scale increases, so you can get miracles like 5,000 men attacking and routing 30,000, but it is harder to imagine the entire US army being routed and defeated, there are just too many reinforcements, too much time to salvage the situation. But you never know, nothing is really impossible, just very unlikely. If it was actually impossible, it wouldnt be a gamble. Marching your men off a cliff after ordering them to fly would be impossible.

[@N-Word_Boi_3.0]

@@justforever96 Well, 5000 men might route 30,000 enemy men but as you say, it gets harder the higher the ratio is. But! There are also other factors involved, 5000 men or even 1000 men can also route 200,000 men IF they take out the enemy's water/food supply, ammo, or fuel supply. It is possible for a very small force to route a whole army if the conditions are exactly right, in theory. But the ww2 German offensive we are talking about didn't have the right conditions to let the Germans succeed, so it failed. The amount of luck the Germans needed and the number of f-ups the Americans had to do for the German plan to work was too great. The evil mustache man was a high-stakes gambler who had years of win after win after win. No odds, no matter how high, was too high for him.

[@MrMenefrego1]

I just received my (unautographed & overpriced lol) copy of the awesomely detailed, fairly entertaining and quite informative book titled: *"Can Openers"!* The Author is some Irish lad who claims to have been a Tanker in the U.S. Army. (Derision/Pasquinade) This will sound nauseatingly cliché but, the book is so thoroughly good and comprehensively written that I honestly couldn't put the damn thing down! Well done, Chieftain!

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

Elbonia has also been done by Drac a couple weeks back on a live segment of his Q&A if i recall right

[@mirdordinii5783]

Really? I'm behind on Dry Dock which one was that?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@mirdordinii5783 I've been keeping an eye out for it, I haven't seen it either.

[@williamforbes6919]

Wait, which stream is this? I've been keeping a lookout for this and somehow missed it apparently.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Found it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6i4dHRuntx5j6c

[@420choochy]

Thank you for finding ,I hadn’t watched that one after giving up hoping he’d answer it after I and many others I’m sure asked him what his choices for Elbonia would be after Ian did his expose awhile back . Again thank you all for finding it,will go back and watch episode now. It’s hard to keep up with that mans channel output .Some have gone by the wayside lately sadly . My apologies drachfinal sir if you read comment sections of other similar but different channels. You are a machine of info . Kudos ! As also you are as well Chieftan sir. It’s nice all aspects of warfare are covered by genuinely interested parties who seemingly want proper info given to the masses as education should be to a degree,Free! Thank you from a very thirsty individual . !

[@MrAjzetting]

I know that M1s in Germany from '85 to '88 had signs on the back of them in German and English warning to stay back or paint damage would occur. And that during winter Assault River Crossing Operations it was common for soldiers to step from the bow pontoon onto the roadway pontoon as a M1 passed to warm up, just don't face the tank when you do it.

[@JessWLStuart]

LOL! I just noticed the Humphry Appleby reference! Well done!

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

I like the two "emotionnal event" detectors on the Shilelagh !

[@timscherrer9924]

I wrote a paper in a poli sci class my senior year in college on the failure of the DIVAD SGT York system. A few years later as a 2LT I had a soldier assigned to my section who was a former SGT York crewman. He said the it was a software issue that just couldn’t get everything to work together. I left that unit about 1992 so it was pretty recent history for him.

[@Caboose206]

Hi Chieftan! Question for you: You've repeatedly stated that the US Army in WW2 was absolutely against putting anything into the field if they could not guarantee that it would work reliably, your discussions on the T20 series of heavy taks as an example. However, from other branches of the US military there seem to be many stories of the USN and USAAF pushing untried and untested technology into the field and into combat units, which resulted in significant non-combat losses and lost opportunities. The examples that come to mind are the Mk. 14 torpedo debacle and the B-29 bombers' engines that were very unreliable and maintenance-expensive. Is there a reason why the US Army seemed to have such a radically different approach to this issue from the other branches? Obviously they have vastly different requirements and resonsibilities, but contrasting the care with which the Army tested the M4 (2,000 mile tests, for example) and the choices of the other branches it really seems to stand out. Interested in your perspective. EDITED: Forgot that it was the USAAF and it wasn't technically split off from the army at the time, though I don't think it really affects my question too much.

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

Chieftan probably has a better answer, but aircraft engine life back then was almost comically short, and the submarine branch of the US Navy was regarded as a bit of a red-headed stepchild that didn't get taken seriously. Feel free to call me a moron if I get this wrong, by the way.

[@thejourney2point0]

I can't speak to the B-29, but I'd recommend you check out youtuber Drachinifel's video on the Mk-14 torpedo. The short version, as I remember it, is basically that the torpedo incorporated a number of new designs and ultimately the final product had several serious problems. None of these issues were unsolvable, but there were complications. A big issue was funding. These new torpedos were very expensive, and during the Great Depression the Navy (and the military in general) had very little money to spare. The navy already has things like battleships and carriers to pay for, so actual real world condition testing of the Mk14s was extremely limited. Thats my understanding for why that POS torpedo was fully in service at the outset of war. It was pretty quickly realized that there were serious problems, but the fixing of the issues was massively delayed by politics and pigheadedness on the part of the bureau of ordnance. Hope that helps

[@memonk11]

That’s great questions. I hope he thinks a good idea for a whole video.

[@EthanThomson]

i imagine its a case that a ground based push can be stalled somewhat until equipment is ready, but bombing campaigns and anti shipping ops need equipment the moment its functional

[@ScottKenny1978]

Radial engines are all maintenance hogs. The B29s engines aren't particularly bad in comparison.

[@od1452]

I do think sleeping is underrated by non-soldiers.. I remember often getting that tap on the head when I was a track driver. It was just too easy to nod off at a stop.

[@iharpo9292]

As a non soldier studying psychology sometimes i wonder about how sleep deprived we keep our soldiers. Yeah in war u cant expect a full 8 hours but you want your soldiers atleast decently effective. Being used to sleep deprivation doesnt necessarily make it okay to be deprived?

[@od1452]

@@iharpo9292 Yes. And eventually it catches up to all people. It is a big problem. The worst part IMO was that some leaders couldn't see it was a normal body response and wanted to punish and threaten people. You have to accept and plan to deal with it as a fact of life by checking on each other often and sleeping when you can.. even very short naps help.

[@iharpo9292]

@@od1452 it seems like we should be training soldiers to sleep at weird intervals, taking hour long naps when necessar,y and not depriving them COMPLETELY of it constantly. If your already sleep deprived then if combat starts and u cant sleep for 24 hours ur gonna be alot worse off

[@michalsoukup1021]

As for why Russians used 3 inches in the 1930s and 1940s, it is an old Russian Imperial measurement system. Russian Inch happens to be the same as British and US ones, but unlike them is then divided into ten lines. So, for example, Mosin Nagant was known in Russian nomenclature as three line rifle. As to why it was kept, the Soviet Union inherited the Russian Empire's arms industry, and it was just sensible to make guns in calibres for which they already had the tooling.

[@EbonyPhoenix]

What was Sherman's finest moment? Me: Without hesitation....Atlanta

[@mateusz73]

I still think I Columbia was better

[@dropdead234]

*BLAM* Heretic.

[@sgtmayhem]

Disagree. His memoirs written while he was dying so that his family would not become destitute.

[@wanderer651952]

@@sgtmayhem Wasn't that U.S. Grant?

[@treyebillups8602]

WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA

[@roo1975]

Hello, the requirement for avre’s needing their large caliber guns was deemed to be to much of a restrictive addition to any future vehicles. The capability of chieftain and latterly trojan are such that the necessity of having a massive gun was not required in the design description. The trojan is a breaching vehicle, not a bunker buster. The only other reason to have the big gun was bridge demolition, something to rarely done by engineers when not on a deliberate operation it was not deemed worth continuing. I can only speak for uk armoured engineering as I was one. The new vehicles are a completely engineer specific hull design for both the avre and avlb. This made fitting a to what wasn’t originally a gun tank a gun not worth it. If you’re fighting with a gun in an engineer vehicle, something has gone wrong. The engineer vehicles are battlegroup assets and therefore always escorted or protect by mbts or warrior infantry vehicles.

[@watcherzero5256]

Precise airstrikes have negated the requirement to call up an engineering vehicle to destroy one specific bunker or pillbox which earlier strategic aircraft bombing would not be accurate enough to achieve while tactical aircraft like dive bombers would lack the firepower and be very exposed.

[@halftrack9185]

My father-in-law worked in the DIVAD program at Ford Aerospace and I remember him mentioning the rumors about the program and telling us the facts. I don't remember ever seeing the M-247 discussed with as much fairness and accuracy as it was here.

[@justinspark8082]

Hi Cheiftain, I did the last Gunnery course ran by the Royal Engineers on the 165mm Demolition Gun (1990), we also still used the 105mm on dedicated mine plough tanks. In my experience the 165 was generally used as providing a demolition firing party on Reserve Demolitions a means of quickly finishing/improving a demolition after its been fired and has not been fully successful usually in the face of the enemy. In regards to Chieftain AVRE there were two variants the converted 'Willich' AVRE and the later CH AVRE which was purpose built. The Willich was made up from Bailey bridge parts, and both were used primarily for Fascine and Trackway and fitted with either BEMA (Dozer blade) or Mineplough.

[@bobwiber6125]

I used to volunteer at an air museum that had a Sherman tank (Chino, Ca)... and usually got asked by people going through the museum what was the best tank in the war. I tended to tell them.... the one that brought you home. Your comment about the infantry and the column of Sherman tanks brought that back to mind.

[@DonMeaker]

A stabilized gun in a tank that fought against tanks that didn't have stabilized guns had a lot to recommend it.

[@Nhosto]

As a Lithuanian I can confirm that we certainly have a slightly different point of view than the one expressed by the last author quoted.

[@pchelagmail]

As someone living in what they considered "western Byelorussia": so do I, brother, so do I.

[@SinOfAugust]

Love the sneaky “Yes, Minister” cameo!

[@wiggles877]

"....designers aren't idiots...." Valiant designers: "Hold my beer..."

[@ComradeBenedict]

When will wargaming add the Elbonia branch to world of tonks?

[@malusignatius]

Given how Wargaming seems to be able to make historically not very good tanks into monsters (eg. the KV-2), the Elbonian line's liable to be broken AF.

[@LAHFaust]

@@malusignatius The problem with the KV-2 in games is that its biggest issues (even the slightest incline) aren't really factored into games, making what should be horrible tanks (KTs were great, if they didn't have to go far.) absolute monsters.

[@malusignatius]

@@LAHFaustOr that it's reload time was roughly 3 minutes with a fresh, skilled crew, it's travers rate (even on flat ground) was painfully slow, etc. Though to be fair to the KV-2, it was never meant to be used as a tank. It was more a turreted assault gun.

[@ComradeBenedict]

@Ian Greenhalgh nah 20 seconds tops, just give the crew some slightly better ventilation and some tasty snacks

[@malusignatius]

@Ian Greenhalgh Technically, on a range, yes, a crew might be able to get out 2-3 rpm. In actual combat conditions, reload rate was a lot slower, hence my three minute figure.

[@tommeakin1732]

I'm not qualified to actually answer this question lol; but I imagine the reason why most engineering vehicles don't have demo guns is because the gun is actually used very infrequently for most of what the vehicle does in it's lifetime, and the actual space and weight that the turret takes up is immense, and you could exchange that space for other useful stuff and that weight for useful stuff or improved performance

[@llllib]

So it could be said non-gun ones are more of an engineering and less of a combat engineering vehicle. Also, at the time of Churchil AVRE and such, common tank would have 75-76mm gun, those days it's 120, there is not that much increase to 165mm, but at the same time there are whole lot more ways to make that bang without needing specialist combat engineering vehicle for it, whereas you still need means to tow disabled tanks or build a bridge.

[@tommeakin1732]

@@llllib I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that the main use for the demo gun is when you're in dangerous area and need something removed from a safe distance without needing to dismount and put yourself at risk of small arms fire. I believe that the demo guns were really liked for that, but I think those scenarios are sufficiently rare that the "cost" of those guns might not be worth it

[@llllib]

@@tommeakin1732 I think they were mainly used against fortified positions. Which modern tank guns can do well on their own. But if you have some other use cases in mind I would be interested in specific situations.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Dragons teeth, abatis, demoed concrete overheads like they have in Korea... Anything you might want to soften up a bit before you would try running the dozer blade into it. Maybe even just a small cliff.

[@tommeakin1732]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I saw some pictures from the 50's of what 120mm HESH from the Conquerors gun could do to reinforced concrete - I'm curious to see the kind of impression that 165mm HESH leaves (or doesn't...leave...?)

[@bogdanvino]

You mentioned in this video that with conversion of the last Cavalry unit to Strykers, a core capability was lost. That makes me wonder, what is it that armoured cavalry units can do that mech infantry or a tank unit cannot? What is the core capability they used to provide? I'm sure there is one, but I can't think of what it would be.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Actually, the word was "corps level", but it's a fair question. I'll try to remember to attack it on the next Q&A.

[@richterscale76]

Hey Chieftain! I’m fairly new to your content and I am enthralled by it. I appreciate your time and effort you put in to teach us about vehicles/tanks. I do have a question for you. I haven’t gone through and watched every episode so idk if its been answered yet, but here it goes. While on sight with the older tanks, that aren’t taken care of so well. Do you run into many creatures or critters that call old rust bucket home? If so what was the worst encounter?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Black widows are the worst of them.... so far.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The most understated and under disgussed asset of any organization regardless of whether it is military or not is institutional knowledge and culture. If that is completely lost it takes decades to be able to restore it fully. keep in mind first you have to learn it and then you have to apply it and then you have to be able to promulgate new concepts and new theories to apply to an ever-changing dynamic environment. Again this is not just a military concern it is an industrial civilian sector concern. There is no way to understate how important that is.

[@StacheMan26]

Since you mentioned the Soviet proclivity for 3"/76.2mm guns, I believe the choice in caliber is a holdover from the old Imperial Russian measurement system. So just as the Red Army inherited the old "3-Line Rifle" (Mosin-Nagant), they also inherited the 3 dyuym, a unit Peter the Great conveniently set as equal to the English inch, caliber for their heavier guns.

[@Barabel22]

StacheMan26 Also, much of the Soviet artillery park was of 3”/76.2MM, so widespread availability of ammunition/shells would have played a big part too.

[@tonyrigby7948]

Road wheel /torsion bar spacing in the T-55 and T-62. I was taught (1970s at the Armoured Centre of the Australian Army) that the gaps were - T-55 to provide a lower area for the drivers seat in the fighting compartment; and T-62 to provide lower areas in the engine compartment for an oil scavange system. So the torsion bars were placed to better allow lower human and engineering spaces. Not sure if it was /is true, but that's what I was told 40 years ago; and it made sense.

[@JimWarford1]

My M1 company was one of the two that were used during the SGT York's OT-II test out at Fort Hunter Liggett California in 1985. We represented the majority of the maneuver force the SGT York was supposed to protect. From our perspective, the test was a failure...the slow-moving SGT York couldn't keep up with our M1s and was quickly identified as the first target to hit by attacking OPFOR aircraft. They threw every imaginable aircraft at us and the SGT York couldn't do what it was intended to do. At one point, my tanks were actually bombed by an A-7 when a mechanical failure caused it to drop an instrumentation pod on my company position....no damage done. In my opinion, as someone who was there on the ground, it was a designed by committee "camel" that couldn't do the job.

[@kemarisite]

Those complaints I can absolutely understand, as the thing was built on an M48 chassis but massed more than a vanilla M48 (by close to 10%, looks like).

[@Bird_Dog00]

The use of M48 chassis always struck me as a case of "a penny smart, a pound foolish". Sure, using existing hulls that would otherwise be scraped saves a lot of money, but if the resulting vehicle thus can't keep up with the more modern vehicles it is supposed to escort, what's the bloody point?!?

[@kemarisite]

@@Bird_Dog00 yup. There's no amount of coding and software debugging that will get that M48 chassis going any faster.

[@davidfrederick9973]

@@Bird_Dog00 The chassis COULD keep up, even when loaded as an M48 tank; it was in the M247 config it got too slow to keep up.

[@davidfrederick9973]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/op_PemysiK-BZqM

[@ScottKenny1978]

There is actually a 4th, partially turbine powered tank. The LeClerc hyperbar engine has a turbine that packs air into the diesel, as a turbine only burns 1/4 of the air that goes through it. It also spins a generator. So the tanks with a turbine installed are the S-tank, Abrams, T80, and LeClerc.

[@johnallison820]

When I got to Ft Hood in '75 we had a Starship Bn. It was 'intended' for every tank company to have a platoon of A2's in dedicated overwatch over the other 2 platoons. When the powers that be figured out their own ammunition, their own turret mechs, their own repair streams, they consolidated the A2s in their own battalion and stuck the finger up to the doctrinaires.

[@johnallison820]

I've tried it in wargames, very terrain dependent. Really, what were they thinking?

[@coyotePAC3]

ADA veteran here (PATRIOT): As alwasy, you have a very cool vid and thank you so much for answering our questions. However, the DIVAD (or "SGT YORK") didn't get fielded because it was an embarrassment to the US Army and poor Alvin York. to wit: 1. The 40mm Bofors was chosen by Ford Aerospace as part of an agreement with BoFors - the Army went with it because 40mm>30mm even as NATO settled on 30mm. 2. The 40mm barrels the Army got out of storage had warped because of poor storage, a ding on the "off the shelf" savings. 3. The turret and gun system added 7 tons to the M48 chassis - this slowed DIVAD, making it unable to keep up with Abrams and Bradley. 4. The radar - I'll get to that later. 5. The Army kept moving the goal posts on tests to make DIVAD win because of #4. The radar for DIVAD was the APG-66 taken from the then new F-16. A fine radar (customs uses it to hunt drug running aircraft) but it's an *airplane radar* - on the ground, "ground clutter" flummoxed this radar. From tress to it's own barrels pointing up and getting seen by the radar - it couldn't see that well. A helicopter's crew hovering at the treeline would be a safer than in their Momma's arms if a DIVAD was trying to find them. The latrine fan? The radar thought it was a hovering helo and classified it as such. During a PR event, the system aimed (didn't fire, just aimed) at the stands where industry, media and Brass were watching it on parade. The only injuries were sprains as people dived for cover. Ford's team blamed that on it having been washed the day before - a reported wryly asked the PIO if it rains in Western Europe. In order to get the DIVAD to pass, *radar reflectors* had to be added to the drone helicopters it was tested against - an Army report compared this to a bloodhound that could only find a man if he was in a well-lit parking lot and covered in steaks. There was one test against a QF-100 - THAT one did down the drone, bu since it was a jet, it careened outside the test area. Range Safety blew it up - the media claimed that was a "faked test" - really it's just SOP for when something like that happens. SECDEF Wineburger canceled DIVAD because it sucked in it's primary mission. I'm sure the M48 chassis wasn't bad (just slow) and the 40mm may have been a pain to load but it did fire. The targeting system just couldn't do the job. I was in high school when this crashed and burned, but it was an object lesson in what not to do. - oh and Stinger does a pretty good job against helicopters, faster movers like jets? Better to have an Air Force fighter wing on the radio.

[@richardbell7678]

One advantage of the gas turbine engine that you did not mention is that, if the unit has separate turbines for the compressor and output shafts, the unit can have a large value of output torque at zero rpm (it is possible to design them for maximum torque at zero rpm), which simplifies the transmission. A potential downside of gas turbine engines is their slower throttle response.

[@tonymirarchi]

A tank for Elbonia, the M-551. An amphibious tank for a country with so much mud is the obvious choice.

[@stevendunn6255]

I have only recently been watching your q and a stuff. Really informative videos, keep it up.

[@WindHaze10]

I remember using powder charges from Korean war during FH70 howitzer live fire exercises 5 years ago.

[@Aenonar]

New Chieftain video, sweet! "Premieres in 3 minutes" heck...

[@victoriacyunczyk]

My favorite version of Enterprise is CV-6. The M4 Sherman put the Axis on the back foot on land, SONAR and ASW radar at sea, and the P-51 in the air, at least in Europe. That method for keeping yourself steady in the hatch works for more than just tanks. I use the same method when I have to stand on a moving train.

[@stilwellhousepreservationf3446]

Reference expiration dates on ammunition. In 1968 at Grafenwohr, our 155mm battalion was shooting ammo dated 1944. All the new ammo was going to Vietnam. When we fired the prep for an airmobile demonstration for the REFORGER exercise in Jan 69, which was attended by the Army chief of staff and other VIPs, we got new projectiles & powder charges.

[@darranhirose8153]

I knew that Chieftain would love the one ship type that has survived with major refits over a century...

[@darranhirose8153]

...Then again I postulate that the Chieftain would appreciate the CPLT-C1

[@p_serdiuk]

@@darranhirose8153 I'm afraid to imagine what would happen if he befriended Tex.

[@darranhirose8153]

@@p_serdiuk The term "Shenanigans" may apply.

[@cm275]

"I know one guy who thinks they're wheeled truck death traps..." Mike Sparks?

[@seanmac1793]

Oh what I wouldn't give for chieftain to go through blacktail's whole abrams and Bradley series

[@FirstDagger]

@@seanmac1793 ; Would be a waste of time really, Blacktail's videos can be summed up by that the issue in question was fixed already, that Blacktail doesn't understand the importance of optics and soft systems (radio, stabilizer etc) or that the thing was a product of its time. Not to forget that he takes things out of context.

[@1967sluggy]

would absolutely love to see chieftain stare at his page for a few hours

[@Floreal78]

Good ol'Sparky :D

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

**ACHOO!!!** Sorry. It seems like I caught a cold from the mention of, *"he who shalt not be named".* :p

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

28:17 I've heard of this one incident during late-war WW2 *(maybe 1945???),* where this one Panther managed to "play dead" by accident. Apparently, the crew was outside the tank, occupying a nearby building *(which was inside a town).* And during that time, their tank got surrounded by American forces. Surprisingly, the Americans didn't shoot at it immediately *(wtf moment #1).* I guess they thought that the Panther tank was abandoned. Which is reasonable, because after all this is 1945, the Germans were abandoning many of their heavy vehicles due to fuel, and supply shortages. Anyways, somehow the panzer crew managed to sneak back inside their Panther tank. They waited for an opportunity where they could escape, preferably when the ranks of the Americans thinned. Eventually this opportunity presented itself, and the Panther made a mad dash to friendly lines. Suffice to say, the Americans were utterly shocked when this happened *(but, I think they fired upon the Panther, after overcoming their initial shock).* Fortunately for the Panther, it managed to reach friendly lines. Grand theft auto style *(wtf moment #2)* But......unfortunately for the Panther, it got knocked out by a friendly vehicle. Because it thought the returning Panther was an enemy vehicle *(wtf moment #3).* Which I find hilarious, because it reminds me of the M10 Ersatz Panther, but the other way around. So, much for good luck *XD*

[@LMSscavenjer]

Regarding the VT 1-2 and others, the gunsight was stabilised in two axis and aligned with the selected gun. So when the gunner (or commander) lased a target, it would automatically change the azimuth of the gunsight to account for parallax. This is one of the reasons why they went with a PERI (which is normally used for the commander's periscope) instead of the EMES sight (the one which is usually used by the gunner).

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

57:48 Haha. I love how your face was like, "that's cringe" for a few seconds there 🤣

[@dlevine9999]

At first I wasn't impressed by the comment about the army needing to work on defending against drones. Then I noticed that I was watching a 2 year old video. Good job Chieftain.

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

9:23 Just wondering. Weren't those early APUs (shown on the picture) for the M1 Abrams vulnerable to machinegun bullets??? I seem to remember hearing about that from somewhere.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Not that I recall. The bigger problem was they kept getting knocked off.

[@Blitz350]

You briefly mentioned HESH projectiles. Its a relatively rare type of ammo as far as I know and it made me wonder if there are any other unusual and/or interesting anti armor ammo types out there. There's three main ways I know of to defeat armor plate. 1. Hit it with something really hard going really fast. (APFSDS) 2. Melt/blow a hole through it with super hot metal. (HEAT) 3. Bang on it really hard. (HESH) Were there any other methods tried to get through? I mean in terms of unique payloads for a specific effect.

[@jarmokankaanpaa6528]

The oldest modern method was probably to hit it with something hard and heavy, with a suitable-shaped nose and an explosive charge and base fuse at the back (AP). That goes for everything from late 1800s naval guns to WW2 anti-tank weapons. And then of course there's the old Molotov coctail and the satchel charge, though whether you would call them ammo is a matter of taste.

[@davidllewellyn5236]

Spoke to a British tank commander some years ago now and he was saying they'd stuck with rifled 120 as the UK had vast amounts of 120 HESH in store so that fits with the cost related aspects.

[@kentvesser9484]

That would seem to make sense as there isn't much of a secondary market to offload old 120mm HESH at least until America fights its second civil war after the upcoming election (Let's hope not). :)

[@davidllewellyn5236]

@@kentvesser9484 Lets' definitely hope not!! Odd thing is that if you read the IISS Military Balance for 1989 UK was supposed to have 14 days of war stocks of ammo yet having spoken to other UK Service members from the 80s I've heard between 2 and 4 days! I know in 1990 UK was trying to buy 155 artillery rounds from Belgium as presumably there weren't enough rounds to deploy initially just a single armoured brigade to the Gulf. Guess there were more than 14 days worth of HESH! Not sure if HESH works with 120 smoothbore, can't see why not. I dread to think of it's effect on ERA etc. Good news - it didn't penetrate or spall. Bad news we've lost a mass of the ERA for a second shot, the gun is out of battery, the turret and autoloader are jammed, all the optics are smashed and we're all badly shaken!. I guess you might see it in North America if the US ever invades Canada again though! ;-) 'Canadian Bacon' to distract from poll numbers??? Lol! Ooops, lets not give anyone ideas and leave the politics! ;-) Lol! Go safe!

[@kentvesser9484]

@@davidllewellyn5236 Oh, we will have Canada eventually (Insert diabolical laugh). We are just playing a long game and waiting to outflank them by staging a USS Maine incident in Greenland so we can secure that flank first during the Danish-American War...lol. We can't be having the Danes coming to the Canadians assistance during the Second Battle of Hudson Bay or the siege of Saskatoon. :)

[@davidllewellyn5236]

@@kentvesser9484 Well I guess the Revolution remains unfinished without it. Go carefully though - is it three or four times now the US has tried to invade Canada - I've lost count! ;-) Should have sent Mel and the kids to Quebec, not Benedict Arnold. Lol!

[@tarjei99]

I remember Sgt York as reported by International Defense Review at the time. It was not a toilet fan. As I remember it it was a kitchen fan. Sgt York reportedly locked on to said device during final test.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

1:10:12 -- Speaking as an engineer and owner of a few boxer engines, I suspect the problem is primarily lubrication, with cooling being a secondary concern. The configuration of the banks makes consistent lubrication of the bits at the far ends (the respective cylinder heads) somewhat inconsistent unless you use a comparatively large and beefy oil pump for a displacement of the engine, and even then, the bits on the upper side of the cylinder heads are still at comparative risk. Many of the same problems also apply to coolant flow, assuming a liquid-cooled engine. To cut myself off before I write a thesis, I can't really see a good argument for large-displacement, diesel/JP-fueled engines of boxer configuration in any application, let alone tanks. Single-bank flat engines, like the Chieftain or T-64(?) make more sense.

[@nirfz]

The question at 41:58: maybe i got this wrong, but doctrine and tactics evolve influenced by the vehicle or material you are equipped with, what to achieve under what circumstances, against whom (and what are they doing) So i also doubt that a tank would have suited any other nation better. To the prequestion of who had the best doctrine: I think the misconception here (again) is that they had incorporated what works for them. For example in europe, i doubt the german forces on the western front used the same tactics as the ones on the eastern front. As their opponents acted differently. So i would argue that the US for example had a pretty good idea of what to do against germans at the end of the war on their side, as did the russians on their side. But both would have to adjust tactics and doctrine if they would have gone against each other.

[@firstconsul7286]

On the issue of armour for the Rebel Alliance, you also have to think about what the Alliance is: A guerilla force based on space ships. Any vehicle needs to be easily landed and extracted on a troop landing craft, plus easy and simple to maintain. I honestly think they'd be better off with more AT missile systems rather than armoured vehicles given that need, and the general lack of Rebel ships, much less dedicated landing craft unless they get ahold a bunch of old Larties.

[@doughudgens9275]

Avoiding eating a .50 cal is a lot easier in an M-1 then a M-113! I remember a trip to Ft Irwin in ‘85 trying to stay with my tank team in a FIST APC as the CO called out “expedite”. We were left behind and one of my guys in back got motion sickness as they took off with their good suspension. I had rotated the M-2 to the 9 o’clock position, but pointed forward, and kept my had on it to avoid eating the rear. Several friends were not successful and sported various facial injuries.

[@melangellatc1718]

As an XO, I did put the .50 cal mount through my upper lip at Hohenfels once in the late 80'...!

[@Phos9]

The random swaps between imperial and metric units in term of gun caliber is probably down to avoiding confusion, the one example I have an explanation for was the 3 inch on the M10 vs 75mm M3, which I might have gotten from an article of yours, was for that reason.

[@MGB-learning]

Outstanding video and presentation.

[@roycspary8923]

while I have no knowledge of military vehicles beyond driving an ex Algerian ww2 unimog, which was slow but wonderfully charismatic, the boxer engines in subaru cars have maintenance nightmares built in, the cam chain system is so long and complex even a well experienced and qualified mechanic is unable to replace the cam chain unassisted. if you ever blow either head gasket, double the risk with2, engine removal for repair is mandatory unless you wish to cut huge holes in the front structure of the car, so i think the maintainace issues would outweigh any possible advantage merely civilian speculation I admit, even though both my parents were military in ww2,being one quarter irish myself, I just love your unabashed irishness of character keep up the good work

[@davidtakacs7549]

Chieftain,follow up Sherman questions If the 75mm gun on the Sherman was for use against anything that was not a tank due to its good HE round, why not build heaps more Sherman M4A3 105s ? Why not develop a good AP round for the the Sherman M4A3 105 instead of going with the 76mm? Secondly, the Germans used Flak 88s in a bunker busting role, not just in the anti tank and anti air roles quite early in WW2. Surely, the US army was aware of this, and could foresee a use for either a bunker busting either gun or tank to deal with enemy bunkers or fortifications, especially those of Japan. How good was a 75mm Sherman or even a Sherman M4A3 105 at bunker busting compared to say a Tiger with an 88mm gun or a Flak 88?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

There was a serious proposal, I believe under the Gillem leadership, that the Army's sherman fleet should be mainly 105s with a few 76s along for anti-tank work. Didn't go anywhere, of course. The 105 has too low a velocity for effective accuracy. Correct, the 8.8 AP round was developed for bunker-busting work, the AT purpose came later. Not seen a direct comparison, but I'd say the 105 HEAT would do very nicely. The 3" (76mm) and 90mm guns on TDs were given a secondary anti-bunker role in the manual.

[@figmo4227]

I highly encourage you to read Major General Cordingley's memoir of the Gulf War ('In the Eye of the Storm'). It is a highly informative read and quite poignant at times.

[@davidboswell9024]

My last crew on cheiftain tanks could recite Monty Python sketches from memory which was very entertaining and kept boredom to a minimum

[@APPDA]

As always interesting and exciting, great job chieftain 👍 One technical advice on your recordings, maybe add a cd-filter on your camera, so you can get rid of these reflections of the lights on the glass behind you.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

cd filter?

[@WhiteWulfe]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I'm thinking auto-corrupt struck there, and they meant to write circular polarizer, also commonly referred to as a polarizer or polarizing filter.

[@Daddo22]

I don't know about any boxer engines in tanks either, but T-64, Chieftain and Vickers MBT, for example, uses opposed-piston engine. These two approaches are basically the exact opposite ways to get the 2 rows of pistons in the same plane - reduce the space that the engine takes in the vehicle.

[@princeoftonga]

On the question of the 165 on the AVRE and lack of a gun on modern engineering vehicles is likely to do with recent experience. An acquaintance of mine was in the RE and had operated Cheiftain AVRE, CEV and Trojan. When I asked him a similar question a couple of years ago his answer was: “Well that sort of thing was well above my pay grade but if we ever get into a peer opponent war the engineers are probably going be screaming for a big gun of some kind.”

[@JagerEinheit]

Elbonia's armored corp, "we get stuck, so you don't have to". or "only the best mud, slows an Elbonian, that's why we export it to everyone else." or thirdly, We are tree huggers, we use fellow Elbonians as un ditching equipment" or a short one, "Elbonian Armored Vehicle Corp, Our shovels aren't just for show."

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

35:14 If I had to drive a tank at ludicrous speeds, I would probably strap my entire body with pillows. ALL THE PILLOWS. Good for dealing with concussions. Also useful for immediately falling asleep :P What do you mean, It makes me too big to fit through the hatch??? Why would you leave when the tank is your home? What do you do when the tank is on fire? That's just the tank's AC being nice, and cozy *P.S:* Now that I think about it, the Elbonian armoured corps should have standard issue pillow suits. Feels right up their alley :^ )

[@Perfusionist01]

M107 SP 175mm had a gun that was all new (at that time) while the basic tube, recoil system, mount and ammo for the original M110 was the same weapon (8" howitzer) that was designed just before WW2 and entered service during the war. It would have been cumbersome to redesignate it as the 203mm howitzer with thousands of manuals, lots of spare parts, much ammunition and many, many trained personel who all had it listed as an 8 inch howitzer. To my knowledge the 8 incher was the last weapon with an "imperial" bore designation in the US Army. Just about everything since WW1 has been listed in metric terms. the 8" howitzer, 8" field gun, and various coast artillery weapons were the legacy weapons that carried through. The 3" AT gun (towed and SP) were developed from AA weapons, which were at that time under the Coast Artillery branch. Oddly enough, the rocket weapons mostly had imperial designations, i.e. 2.36 (instead of 60mm)" Rocket Launcher M1A1, or the 4.5" artillery rockets (were these adapted naval designs?).

[@Freedomfred939]

Two DIVADS can be seen on the Wonderhussy Channel on KZbin. They are sitting in the desert near China Lake navy test center. Wonderhussy has also filmed a training base where there are monuments to independent tank battalions.

[@davidnancarrow6286]

With the Marines giving up their armor units, its like watching history repeat itself. Recall in WWII when armor units were "attached as needed" to infantry divisions. There is a learning curve in tank/infantry combat which has to be practiced in order to take full advantage of such a combined team. A step backwards, as a study of such combined teams will show.

[@ScottKenny1978]

The problem is that the existing tanks are too heavy for the LCACs and LCUs. And I mean the M1A1, not the A2. The Marines need a tank that weighs no more than 60 tons combat ready, and ideally closer to 50 tons to allow for growth later.

[@loganmason2891]

Have a SiG P320, an M17 without the extra features, and I love it.

[@-BigTMoney-]

Diesel vs turbine - The logistics of having to have the different kind of fuel with your Tanks, many Army's don't want the extra hassle when Diesel works just fine

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

M1s can operate on diesel if you don’t want the hassle. In the US Army’s case, most everything runs on JP8

[@The_Tyrant_Regi]

Question maybe for next Q&A, but had the T-55 Engima saw combat against Iranian Chieftains and Pattons, how effective would it be?

[@davidllewellyn5236]

100mm with home made steel penetrator, or HEAT? Probably not very. They did very well with T62 against them though but only after the the Iranians managed to get the vehicles bogged down and enveloped on three sides. I think Engima was configured against HEAT so 120mm Sabot (or 105mm L7) would probably make a mess of one I suspect. I think you would have needed more than the 5 they appear to have made. Also didn't seem to do well at Khafji against Qatari AMX30s. Even downgraded export T72 seems to have been a beast in Iran Iraq War unlike Desert Storm. Engima is a cool looking tank though. Love the one in Bovi.

[@americanpatriot2422]

Outstanding video and presintation.

[@matthewbrasel2737]

Yaaay! You brought up the stingray!!

[@axelrajr]

on boxer engines, i wonder if its a simple case that any space you can fit a boxer engine, you can just as easily use an inline, even if its laying on its side. or maybe an opposed piston engine.

[@Tomyironmane]

How to work the parallax problem on a two barreled turretless tank: Optical rangefinder setup, as in the old WWII era battleships, with a sight over each barrel. Synchronize the gun azimuth with the appropriate sight.

[@MichaelEdelman1954]

Illustrating the Soviet doctrine quotes with an inset of Sir Humphrey wearing an ushanka was inspired.

[@snidertom8971]

The reason Britons stayed with the rifle gun was that they intended to have a mixed fleet of Cheiftain and Challenger 1s then a mixed fleet of Challenger 1s and 2s. When it came to it “options for change” cut the size of the British Army to the point where it did not need a mixed fleet.

[@501strookie]

A thought of a question I wanted to ask and then saw this posted, but I'm just gonna ask anyway: How do they fit escape hatches into the bottom of tanks with torsion bar suspension? Wouldn't the torsion bars get in the way?

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

On the M60 series there was enough room between the torsion bar pairs supporting the first and second road wheels to fit an escape hatch. I would have to guess from memory that the front-to-rear dimension of the hatch was about 16-18 inches. Here's a link to a scale model showing fantastic detail: www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986689-m60a1-patton-main-battle-tank-135/ The standard bounty that had to be paid by any driver who lost the escape hatch (the driver sat right above it so was directly charged with making sure it was dogged down) was a case of beer. The bounty was paid to the crew of the tank who noticed it on the tank trail or elsewhere in the field and retrieved it. IIRC hearing from senior NCOs that the original M60 escape hatch was round; the M60A1 and A3 had sort-of-oval shaped hatches.

[@LeonidasRex1]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 , I was an instructor on the A1 and A3... The A1/A3 hatch was basically a rectangle with rounded corners, so you're pretty much spot on that and the placement both. On the A1/A3, we strapped the escape hatch lever to the closest dog arm to prevent it from vibrating or being kicked to the open position and dropping the hatch. That damned thing was heavy as hell and a serious pain in the ass to get put back in if it had to be dropped for some reason (usually wash rack). The case bounty? I'm sure some units must have had that, my first unit in Germany (1/2 Cav) didn't, if a hatch got dropped by accident, the driver got an Article 15... drivers were religious about that hatch being strapped.

[@reteip9]

Tiger II (and I think Tiger I as well) had an escape hatch for the radio operator, (Jagd)Panther with its double torsion bar suspension did not.

[@chewykalden3967]

Question: How did schurzen armor from ww2 perform against HEAT rounds? Did they, like some claim, actually make the shaped charge more effective by providing it with a proper standoff distance?

[@loneghostone6883]

From a tanker perspective, what do you view as an "ideal" or at least "best on the market" firearm for issuing to tank crews? There's a range of weapons designed for these purposes from things like the vz. 61, the AK-74U, P90, etc... Do you think factors like effective range comparable to a service rifle is worth sacrificing some size and weight, or is a smaller pistol-caliber firearm better?

[@wytfish4855]

i seem to recall his answer is something along the lines of "as long as its small enough to not get in the way while im inside the tank, with enough ammunition let me keep the mobs away while i run for my / another tank"

[@MalikCarr]

@@wytfish4855 Basically this. All I need it to do is adequately suppress the bad guys while I run away towards the protection of friendly armor. Personally I think P90 sounds good for that, it's fairly compact and has a high load of ammunition per magazine.

[@georget5874]

When is he going to do a video on the Chieftain tank? Chieftain in the Chieftain sounds like a winner right there.