Why the Trinity of Tank Design is Flawed (featuring Panzermuseum)

Ralf Raths the director for the Panzermuseum (Munster, Germany) and I talk about the so called "Holy Trinity of Tank Design" - Protection, Firepower and Mobility - and how it is quite unsuited for most aspects. We do this in front of a King Tiger that stands next to Sturmtiger, because we kann.
Panzermuseum on KZbin (soon with English videos too): / daspanzermuseum
Follow the Panzermuseum on twitter: / daspanzermuseum
Panzermuseum on facebook: www.Facebook.com/daspanzermuseum
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» SOURCES «
our brains and hair

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History and talk with experts, consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/ The Panzermuseum's KZbin Channel is here and there will be English Videos in the future: www.KZbin.com/daspanzermuseum

[@Irobert1115HD]

on fuel side the discussion is easy: tank type dictates: scouting is gasoline and mai battletank is diesel (because it is a stronger engine on the torque side and the fuel doenst burn as easy as gasoline).

[@mileshinksmon2256]

why would you want to complicated your supply line though

[@thethirdman225]

Irobert1115HD They are all multi fuel.

[@Irobert1115HD]

@@thethirdman225 i know but they are mostly running on diesel on parades and or using engines that are realted to the diesel engine by construction or turbines.

[@chemiker494]

One interesting episode was in late 1939 when, after the Hitler-Stalin pact, the Soviets could put their hands on a Panzer III, and compare it. And indeed what they found is than in the "holy trinity", the T-34 was indeed superior, as its 45-mm armour was much thicker than the 30-mm of its opponent, and was sloped ans even when considering that the Germans used face-hardened plate, the ratio would still be 61 to 36 mm equivalent. Of course the 76-mm gun ont the T-34 was vastly superior to the 37-mm on the Panzer III, no contest here. Not only was the F-34 easily able to penetrate any German tank at the time while the PAK 36 and its derivatives would become to be known as "Panzeranklopfgeräte" (Tank door knockers), its HE projectile was also almost 10x as heavy. And despite having the firepower and armour protection of a contemporary heavy tank, thanks to its 500hp Diesel engine and wide tracks the T-34 had very good mobility as well; in theory making it the first ever Main Battle Tank, before the term was even invented. But they also found many things they liked about the Pz III. Many things like the superior workmanship and the complexity of its optics or drivetrain they found outside the possibilities of the Soviet industry at the time, but they identified three crucial engineering solutions that every future Soviet tank should include: - torsion bar suspension, giving it a smooth ride at high speed, while avoiding the huge impact on internal volume by the Chrisie-type suspension - 3-man turret with a commanders cupola, giving the gunner, the loader and the commander dedicated functions - good communication between tank, instead of only equipping command tank with radios The lessons were indeed learned, but too slowly adapted to counter Operation Barbarossa

[@cleanerben9636]

guy is dressed like a Bond villain

[@OrangeCub14]

Hahhahah SPOTON man.

[@kopfauftischhau216]

Nope, a Bond villain needs to have a cat...wait...dont i see a 70ton cat there? OK,mb

[@iceee420]

My man is a bond villain

[@mihaiserafim]

BOND villain?!? No, no, no! Die Hard all day. He just poses as a historian. I am afraid that Bernhardt is already a hostage. Somebody get Bruce Willis, fast!

[@palasta]

What? Are you suggesting germans dress like (bond) villains?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The fundamental skill of a combat soldier (or tanker) in the US Army is "Shoot, move, and communicate". Tankers have to do this as much as everyone else. The card game you are referring to at about 10 minutes is known as "Top Trumps" in English (I have made the exact same comparison). Fully agreed on the importance of a tank suiting the requirements of the nation which built it, which may not be as important to any other nation. A good example of the crossover between training and ergonomics such as at 16:30 is the introduction of the automatic (Hydromatic) transmission on the M24. Suddenly drivers didn't need to be as highly trained to get reasonable capability out of the tank. See also fire control systems. An example of the nature of reliability at the crew level was the Dracula test in the UK. Both Cromwell and Sherman generally made every stage per day, but the Cromwell showed up later due to on-the-road breakdowns. The crew repaired them, but they got less sleep as a result, affecting their capability and morale. That all said, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Holy Trinity is obsolete.

[@thomaszhang3101]

Please do inside hatch on Tiger II! Reason: it is like Chieftain - having impregnable armor on the outside, but the soft and squishy interior is susceptible to significant emotional event! Do it!!! Plz

[@thomaszhang3101]

Oh, speaking of Hydromatic transmission, what do you think about the ones on Tiger and Tiger II? Is the reduction in requirement for good driver a reasonable trade off for the increased complexity?

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

I'd argue, that the holy trinity is not obsolete, and far from it. However(!) it's focussing on one tank (model) in particular. In a world where units and combined arms exists this approach is naturally flawed. It's a good starting point to compare "hard" facts of a vehicle, facts that you can measure easily. The crews performance is very important, but how do you measure it? Reload speed? Target acquisition time? How good the driver is in terrain? That's hard to put on paper, where you can just put a ruler on the armour plate, write down the thickness and call it a day. That naturally leads to a few armchair generals and arguments like "The M4 Sherman pure shit and the Tiger II is the best tank in the world", completely disregarding that the Tiger II was a very much a mediocre tank (imo) because of its out of combat flaws like speed, reliability, steel quality, etc. tl;dr; Holy trinity is good for a first look at the model, but should not be used when discussing anything bigger.

[@kizzthis9983]

I learned in world of tanks that it is best to move after shooting. once the enemy has identified you, it's time to get go

[@andrewphillips8341]

The Chieftain to the rescue! Love your channel!

[@free_at_last8141]

Two Germans dressed in black discussing the fine points of tank design. Que James Bond theme.

[@CCfiftyeight]

One German and one Austrian 😜

[@arthipex8512]

@@CCfiftyeight Even more dangerous! Two weeks until I see my Austrian relatives again for christmas ^^

[@lovablesnowman]

@@CCfiftyeight so two Germans?

[@Shorjok]

@Xenomorph Captain Vex Ghost of the brony community you're right, I just see the word "que" and think they mean a line. whichever word they mean it's equally annoying

[@alithahnar7957]

@@CCfiftyeight heh m8 Austrians are germans they just not allowed on paper to merge into one country anymore. And the fact that the prussians kicked them out in the first place was as i recall the start of the end for Austro-Hungary.

[@leoarc1061]

You really are a good interviewer. You know when to speak, you know when to listen, you allow both parties to inter - view (to exchange views). Awesome job!

[@vdotme]

First!

[@vdotme]

But seriously they are both exemplary here. Too many people can't resist the urge to show how much they know even if it makes them look stupid in the end.

[@leoarc1061]

@@vdotme I really... really have a distaste for most YT collaborations. It usually becomes a popularity contest! "Im better than you" "No, im better than you!" "Im funnier than you" "No! Im funnier than you!" "I have more knowledge than you" "No!!! I have all the knowledge!" "Im talking now" "Yes, but I need to speak more than you do!" Its ridiculous! What happened to the good, old fashion, coherent, beautiful, intellectual, academic discussions?! The owner of this channel does it perfectly! He does a true inter-view. And, as a bonus, we can actually learn something meaningful :) Proper job!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

As long as tanks don't have wings, they will always be flawed. Thanks for the interview, great stuff! There is something to be said about the 'simplicity' of the Trinity that covers tank design It gives us a good idea of what goes 'into' making a tank and the respective tradeoffs that come with it. Of course, there is more to it that once you go into detail and once you see how these 'hard' stats (as Ralf mentions with the Trump cards) actually perform in the field. Suddenly ergonomics, crew training, and communication get as important. It's similar with planes, the overall designs can give you clues to the respective qualities of the planes vis-a-vis but once the gloves are off, those qualities are suddenly put into balance by the way pilots use them. Also, just like with tanks we can see how their internal design often reflects their purpose. For example, on many of the early fighters of WW2, pilot comfort was somewhat omitted since those planes would usually only stay in the air for about an hour. So in the design, it wasn't 'as' importnant to provide a more comfy ride whereas late war, with the introduction of long-range escort fighters, crew comfort & ergonomics suddenly becomes more important and this is reflected in the aircraft themselves.

[@texan_commando]

Military Aviation History / there is one flying tank.....the A-10 thunderbolt.

[@iceee420]

Didnt they try wings on a tank so they could glide them down from planes?

[@captainkhami2671]

Does parashute a tank from a plane count as flying? :D

[@Segalmed]

@@iceee420 Yes, and there was a Christie's tank with wings that was supposed to fly by its own. But the armor protection was ridiculous because it had to be light enough. Iirc prototypes were actually built and tested and found totally impractical.

[@brianreddeman951]

...hides flying tank....

[@HSMiyamoto]

"Protection starts with not being seen." Cue Monty Python reference.

[@Hakirokone]

....and not being seen starts with avoiding the draft! "Win by not playing game".... old Tsun Tzsu philosophy.

[@amitabhakusari2304]

The first rule of not being seen is to not stand up when they call your name.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Mr. Nesbit, can you stand up please? *BOOM!*

[@dzikijohnny]

Wrong one of the big faults of the Sherman was it was too tall.

[@largol33t1]

And that is why they're both still alive! They clearly know the importance of not being seen!

[@jamiekamihachi3135]

Military History Visualized: the answer is always it’s complicated. Also logistics.

[@DasPanzermuseum]

What's up, guys. Our own Hans Gruber is headed for training right now, but will comment later.

[@darthvader4316]

I hope I get to visit DasPanermuseum one day! it's a biit of a trip from Canada.

[@MrBiggrim]

Hans Gruber? Didn't John McClane ....? Oh well. "Happy trails, Hans"

[@xornxenophon3652]

#@@darthvader4316: Well, it is just EUR 900 away (both ways)...

[@killerkraut9179]

i Hase heard from the Chieftain another Reosons against sloped armours that sloped armour when it sloped to the inside reduce space and sloped to the outside is not verry Usual .

Did he take his little tank with him?

[@alphaxalex1634]

3:16 ‘Depending on the Dickhead you are fighting’

[@program4215]

I think he actually said "decade" but im not sure.

[@TheJimc101]

Definitely 'decade'

[@HistoryGameV]

Decade. Definitely.

[@leoarc1061]

Definitely "decade". One good thing about Germany is that it learned from history. The rest of us just keep on producing conflict after conflict, with supposed "dickheads", even when there is no evidence to back up the purpose.

[@filipeamaral216]

Definetly Dickhead.

[@mavrik104]

How not to be killed 1. Don't be there in the first place. 2. If you must be there do not be seen. - Camo and concealment 3. If you are seen do not be engaged. - Pulling back- Mobility 4. If you are engaged do not be hit. - Mobility 5. If you are hit do not be penetrated. - Armor 6. If you are penetrated do not be killed. - Layout Yea the trinity gets kind of confusing when you explore it.

[@FirstDagger]

2. Know where the enemy is. -Optics and Communication

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

The other Trinity reliability, producebility, and suvivalblity Simplfy tho

[@Oliolli3]

1,5. If you must be there, do not walk in front of the camera.

[@thethirdman225]

Maverick_CIV 7. Use your brains. Lay an ambush and prosecute it with the utmost ruthlessness. Once you start shooting, you can’t stop until everyone else is dead or captured. 8. Don’t be squeamish.

[@Karelwolfpup]

@Maverick_CIV at number 3 I think you should add weapon system lethality as well as communications, if you can't kill it and have to move back you also need to communicate that. But as Bernd and Ralph say in the video, a lot of factors that sort of meld together.

[@emeryalmasy7727]

I have commanded tanks AND designed them [a few years ago], so I found this talk fascinating. The trinity is not flawed, but it is not all-encompassing. It represents a set of trade-offs that determine the overall design. In WWII, a heavily armored tank with a large gun will likely have decreased mobility, a light, fast tank will have to reduce the weight of the armament and armor. The various potential design combinations then have to be evaluated in light of current doctrine and potential opponents. Advancing technology distorted this clean vision of a trinity of design trade-offs: the heavy tank disappeared and the medium tank became the main battle tank in the 1960's. In 1985, the M1A1 Abrams achieved all three elements at the same time: it was superior in all three values and had thermal sights on top of it, starting a bit of an arms race that left older tanks completely obsolete. Modern tank designs are now addressing long-range and all-round sensors [including aerial drones], active camouflage, crew automation, and maintainability - but only after the firepower, mobility, and protection are decided.

[@snarks1532]

At some point, people began misinterpreting the trinity as the most important aspects of a tank instead of its original intention when it was really about those values being inevitable or direct trade-offs. That said, I'd still argue that the holy trinity is sort of a flawed concept because you can make trade-offs between other elements such as protection and ergonomics, which then invalidates the trinity anyways.

[@thethirdman225]

Emery Almasy The problem is more the way it’s used, not by professionals but by gamers posing as knowledgeable people or worse, historians. From my armchair, the holy trinity model is simply incomplete and is the basis for spec sheet warfare which ignores any and all tactical and strategic considerations. There is a train of thought on the interwebs which actively discourages people from looking beyond equipment and focussing solely on what they call “tech”, all the while ignoring the human factors and decisions which make for success in warfare.

[@thethirdman225]

Michael Smith They can already do that with reactive armour.

[@IzmirWayne]

@Michael Smith even smart bombs are stupid enough to be tricked I would not bet on tanks becoming obsolete, especially since they will be (wo)maned by only two people in a matter of years and possibly only one person in a matter of at most two decades. Then you can reduce size and thus energy consumption and thanks to massproduction you get a pretty cheap and yet very effective weapon; on top of that comes the fact that the ratio of fire- to manpower is incredibily good, if you can reduce the crew to two or even one. So my guess is that tanks are here to stay for quite a while.

[@85blutch]

@@IzmirWayne People says tha tanks are obsolete since WWI and th beginning of anti-tanks weapons, and your concept of one or two persons in a tank is pretty much as old... French were the ones who tried it the most, and it never worked very well, we expect the crew to do most of the job, serve the tank and maintain it, mechanics gets involved wen something is broken, and 2 guys (or even worse, one guy) having to fully maintain a tank in war situation is not good, more people in the tank means more people to maintain it and doesn't mean the job won't be well done if your loader is human and not a machine

[@Richi_Boi]

The Bob Semple Perfectly Balanced

[@brianreddeman951]

The one vehicle I don't think they took into consideration. :)

[@JAWS-fv3dx]

Best and sexiest tank ever

[@WildBillCox13]

Hehehehehe New Zealand is finally on the map!

[@fulcrum2951]

Definitely

[@Rannos22]

As all things should be

[@snookums01]

There was a point that went past too quickly - German tanks being built around the load bearing capacity of German military bridges. This was also something that the Chieftain expanded on in the design of the Sherman. The Americans FIRST planning brief was to make a tank that weighted less than 40 tons. Why? Because that was the load capacity of the average crane in dockyards. His point was (from a non-European view point), it didn't matter how good your tank was if you couldn't get it into the battle field.

[@Horseshoecrabwarrior]

@Carnivorus If I remember correctly, there were a lot fewer Pershings shipped than Shermans. And they would only require a slightly-above-average crane, if the average can lift 40 tons.

[@barryjones8842]

@Carnivorus Disagree, the did have problems with shipping significant numbers of Pershings. Also, How easy would it have been to get a Pershing to and over a beach in the Pacific? The USA fought all over the globe not just in Europe.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

And similiar infrastructure and terrain restrictions is the reason for the short guns, narrow hulls and low weight of the Swedish pre 1950's tanks: their dimensions were kept limited by the railroad flat carriage width, railroad bridge load capacity and railroad tunnel standards as well as the weight limit and width of the average renaissance or medieval stone bridges that were still common as part of the rural road network. That because trains were the only realistic logistics option for any redeployment of armored formations in a very stretched densely forested and sparsely populated country like Sweden in the 1940'ies where 19th century living standards were the norm as soon as you got more than a mile outside any of the larger cities (cities over 20'000 inhabitants)

[@davidbriggs264]

​@CarnivorusNo, they didn't have problems shipping the Pershing, but that's because the Army took a look at the limitations of the Sherman with regard to weight, and increased it. The 40 ton limitation was imposed in 1941 when the first Lee-Grants came off the production line. However, the Pershing only reached Europe in 1945, by which time the lift capability had been increased to of 50 tons (and possibly even over 100 tons). The LCM2's could carry 15 tons, the LCM3 could carry 30 tons and the LCM6 could carry 32 plus tons, and the post-war LCM8 (currently in service) can carry 53 tons. Bridges also went substantial increase in carrying capacity during (and after) the war.

[@etwas013]

This could hold only after US forces already had big losses and were in France. It is actually pretty silly to think that US, a country without any limitations wouldn't be in the position to build a few cranes for tanks, considering how fast and easily they build cargo ships. What in fact happened is that US army miscalculated. They though shermans will be enough in France and actually left a few thousand models with 76mm cannon in Britain at the time of the invasion. Besides, I think Germans built their tanks to fit on the trains and equipped panthers and tigers with fording equipment.

[@aaronsolley1674]

Could this guy be more German? Ponytail, five o'clock shadow, and black turtleneck...

[@N0die]

ja genau

[@m9078jk3]

They could wear Pickelhaube's on their heads and monocle's

[@martinroner5688]

huh never knew ponytails were part of my culture... but yay for stereotypes

[@IrishCarney]

Needs angst and techno music.

[@gracefool]

So better than a trinity, a noninity: Protection Stealth (how easy to spot or hear the tank) Visibility (how easy to see targets and terrain around the tank) Firepower Mobility Maintainability Reliability Cost of production Communications Ergonomics can be subsumed under the others because it only matters so far as it affects those other things.

[@SuperDeadzombeh]

Stealth is part of protection

[@brianmead7556]

Tank nonagon? >Firepower >>Gun caliber >>Effective range >>Fire rate >Mobility >>Top speed >>Cross country >>Effective range > Armor >>Armor weight >>Armor thickness >>Active countermeasures

[@velikiradojica]

Let's not forget that tanks have to be inside certain dimensions and weight due to rail tunnels and bridges.

[@snookums01]

As Mako below said, the Americans first planning restriction was a 40 ton limit, due to the load capacity of the dock yard cranes. If you could not load it onto a ship, it didn't matter how good the tank was, it was never going to get into the battle field.

[@gyalpoirgyud4759]

Let's not forget the pepperoni nipples picture

[@Carlos-zv2tf]

Ralf Raths and Bernhard Kast I've been waiting for this way too long

[@mandernachluca3774]

Finally someone metiones the idea of the box style tank and that it wasn't nessecarly flawed :D.

[@nindger4270]

The Chieftain also mentions this once, I think in his video on the T-34.

[@adm0iii]

Right. Structural strength and simplicity has value, as noted in the video. The Chieftain added that sloped armor cuts into interior space, which is precious.

[@stefanpavicic6277]

From all tanks first to cross my mind was maus

[@adm0iii]

Please do not use your maus to click on this video.

[@doktork3406]

it was good because it was designed to face 75mm shermans and t34 76 and the thing was simply put ,impenetrable for those plates at the ranges the Tiger was engaging them

[@mensch1066]

"Thinking about penal companies" LOL. You and Bismarck sure have a lot of people walk right in front of cameras without noticing what they are doing.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well, in that case, it was really "WTF", because what you can't see the camera stands behind a Armored car that sat in the middle of the hall, the path split around the armored car, it was even outlined with a redline. Additionally, the museum is small, so it should have been easy to avoid and also easy to see what was going on. It was not some mega-event like Tank Fest in hot summer heat etc.

[@clazy8]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Don't worry about it, the camo sort of added to the atmosphere.

[@colinsdad1]

I basically lost interest once those two dumkopfs entered into the video....

[@commonpepe2270]

they just assumed the camo made them invisible to the camera.

[@adm0iii]

It's sad that people can be that self-absorbed and oblivious to others, but setting-up a few meters of barbed wire would teach them. ;) Seriously, though, just four 1-meter poles on stands linked by tape would be pretty effective. Even when totally self-absorbed they wouldn't purposely not go around something that would inconvenience to _themselves_ to go through. I'm sure the same line-control stuff concession stands and ticket lines use are for sale to anyone.

[@RuggedCoyote69]

Honestly, Republic Commando deserves a remaster

[@TheIfifi]

Not sure... we need an imperial commado more. I would much rather find out what happens to Sev than see him go MIA in HD.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

That'll make a good movie too bad it not safe for Disney but instead another pointless movie

[@Mr_Bunk]

What does that have to do with this video?

[@JHorsti]

Nothing, but he's completely right

[@TheIfifi]

@@USSAnimeNCC- oh I meant a videogame.

[@AlexanderSeven]

But what about mice protection level? You cannot use tank if someone have eaten wires in it!

[@h1017412]

I don't comment often but I commend you and your associate on a well thought out and presented edition. Thank you.

[@colonelgraff9198]

Nice format- thanks for going out and interviewing, it brings out good conversation and different point of view!

[@K-H-28]

I really enjoy these technical discussions that you and Bismarck do. On top of that, thanks for another great year full of content!

[@SuperLusername]

"Thinking about penal companies" had me spitting my drink!

[@magicsinglez]

Evilsamar lol, I read a semi-fiction novel about an axis penal company in WWII. They may have been danish

[@SouthParkCows88]

I love me some Ralf Raths, and I had no idea he ran the museum over there. He's done many great documentaries.

[@felixnein8060]

looking forward to visit the museum soon!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

enjoy and bring strong shoes, the concrete sucks out the warmth.

[@SuperBeals]

3:17 I thought he said 'depending on the dickhead you're fighting' and didn't bat an eye since I imagine in war the dickhead you're fighting is an extremely important factor.

[@thomasdimarco7918]

Alec Beals hahaha I didn’t even notice it lmao

[@garytoth8152]

Dickhead has a different meaning in german

[@PrivateHaggard]

I wouldn't say the "holy trinity" is obsolete, I'd say it's fine for an initial comparison between two vehicles the "stats" if you will. But if you really want to gauge the value of the vehicle on the battlefield you have to factor in so much more. And if you want the value of the vehicle on a campaign scale the list just grows longer.

[@abraxaseyes87]

Great commentary with both ideas and how conveyed from both of you. Excellent content and window into the knowledge of y'all

[@B.D.E.]

Excellent conversation! I really enjoyed this exchange.

[@darthcalanil5333]

Thank you some much for this video. I've learnt some new information and things that tank engineers thought about that wouldn't have never crossed my mind otherwise. Vielen Dank :D

[@martindesombre7817]

yes, it's elements that are talked about, but it's good to summarize them and compare their influences... we don't always take them in account all together I think, so it's good to do so, especially since it's not modeled in games ^^

[@DrDezaro]

But if you are an engineer talking to a politician then the trinity is a good tool for communicating overall suitability of the task and whether or not it makes sense to up gun or up armor etc.

[@machinegunpreacher2469]

Nice to see you working with Mr. Raths on this one. I watch documentaries (for entertainment only, along with a GIANT grain of salt of course) quite a bit and always enjoy his commentary when he is featured. Thanks for yet another great video!

[@godwrote01]

that was an outstanding discussion...loved every minute of it

[@mcbroccoli1277]

Tolles Gespräch! Es scheint so als haben beide voneinander gelernt.

[@paddyflage]

"The squishy stuff inside". Thank you for this 😂

[@pRahvi0]

Sounds like an engineer's definition. Source: I'm an engineer. :D

[@rolandfelice6198]

A very worthwhile video. Going beyond the simplistic 'trinity' and exploring other factors that contribute towards the efficiency of a unit. I loved it!

[@scandor8599]

I'd argue that training can sort of be considered part of the tank design, but only indirectly. A complicated design that requires more training time dedicated to lots of features or an over-designed piece of equipment is likely going to have fewer training resources and time left to produce crews of superior skill. On the strategic level, this becomes even more important - no sense having a tank you can produce in six hours if it takes six years to train the crew.

[@colincampbell767]

Actually you consider the quality of the people you are going to have on your tank crews as part of the design. High quality recruits in a country that is willing to devote lavish amounts of money on training them are going to have an easier time with high technology and will be able to utilize that tech to the fullest. Poor quality recruits and no willingness to devote lavish time and resources for training them demand a tank that is as simple as possible. Another factor to consider is tank cost vs reliability and maintainability. The US has always paid more for tanks in order to get tanks that were more reliable and easy to keep in running order. One of the thinks that made the M1 series tanks great is that a lot of thought went into how components were going to be accessed and removed for repair if needed. Every component in the turret that was not depot level maintenance was designed so that two people could remove it through the loader's hatch. You could replace the engine in under an hour.

[@Psiberzerker]

4:10 The Vision Slits... Vision is actually critical, before you even get to the Armament, you have to Find the enemy, often looking through holes in the tank armor. (Now with Prisms, but still) What good is having Mobility, and Firepower if you drive right past the enemy? Likewise Communication, where's the rest of the tanks, and other vehicles? The infantry, who's fox-hole did we just run over, and where's the enemy? From the Operational standpoint, a lot of decisions made in Tank design involve getting the tanks to the battle. You don't just hop in, and drive there, so they had to be narrow enough to get on a train car, or light enough to drive over a bridge, while having a big enough gun, and enough armor for crew protection. How do you repair the transmission? Okay, how do you repair it in the field? (Keep in mind we're talking about a transaxel that weighs more than a Volkswagen.) ??? These are all questions that have to be answered before you even deploy tanks toward a battlefield.

[@gracefool]

weight & getting into battle could come under mobility

[@Psiberzerker]

@@gracefool Yes but not for the TANK. Battlefield mobility isn't operational mobility. That would be the train, or plane's mobility. When you get them to the battlefield, THEN the Tank's mobility comes into play.

[@theoriginaldylangreene]

Just a quick edit for you "Now with Prisms, but still" should actually be "Now with Cameras".

[@IrishCarney]

Depends on the tank's role. If tank on tank combat isn't its primary purpose, but rather simply driving deep into the enemy interior to disrupt command, logistics, and morale, then you don't need to see as much when you're buttoned up.

[@Psiberzerker]

@@IrishCarney Bullshit. You have to see where you're going, and you need to see enough of the ground to avoid Tank Tracks (Which are intentionally below the level of vision slits/Prisms) curbs, trenches, and so forth. People don't seem to realize how tanks turn, so a 4:curb can lock it into the same track it's alongside if it's too close. One of the reasons why Tanks are so useless-to-vulnerable in Urban Combat, specifically on roads designed for Cars, and Pedestrians.

[@conorclimo8534]

The best method of design is that of "Whatever Works" and "What is Cost Effective".

[@mandernachluca3774]

Well, by definition not everythingthat works can be the best method and cost effectivity is just for those with not enogh time on theur hand and (or) not enough money. I mean, look at the Abrams, it is neither of them, compared to a Leopard and is still regarded as one of the best MBTs.

[@conorclimo8534]

@@mandernachluca3774 Either way "Whatever Works" is a good methodology.

[@mandernachluca3774]

@@conorclimo8534 It is certainly not bad if it works and cost effectiveness is a very good bonus ;D.

[@bradjohnson4787]

Weapon systems integration is what our engineers talked about at McConnell-Douglas when we were upgrading the Apache helicopter. Prior to that it when the company was Hughes we met a very specific attack helicopter spec based on experience in Vietnam. One thing you didn't mention was what was acceptable human losses (no one officially talks about that).

[@shitoryu8]

Your content is getting next level.

[@SuperLusername]

Hmph an austrian and a german in Germany speaking english. Until about 100 years ago you would be speaking french, as would all nobility and you surely would be nobility. Military History Visualized von Habsburg and Ralf Raths von Hohenzollern.

[@luansagara]

But 100 years ago the nobility was pretty much powerless

[@SuperLusername]

@@luansagara but it did exist. French was even spoken by everyone at the treaty of Versailles, except Americans, they didnt speak French. French used to be what English is today - lingua Franca

[@vaahtobileet]

american spotted

[@SuperLusername]

@@vaahtobileet i doubt

[@SueccoViejo]

One thing I used to hear quite often now is, oversimplified of course, that the russians could repair nearly everything with 3 tools while the germans needed at least three specialized mechanics to figure out the problem. As said, very oversimplified, but I find some truth in it. If you can easily repair minor damage caused by terrain or simle tear over time, then you save a huge amount of time and ressources (as in personel that coud work more efficient on other stuff).

[@alexanderruckheim3870]

DaNikolo not quite right. But the russians had one advantage. They didn’t imply parts that were expensive and thus hard to come by. On the other hand the germans did exactly this and the closer you come to technical perfection, the more complex it gets to fix problems that still occur from time to time. I am a mechanic and if I have some older cars ( like a '94 VW Golf III) in front of me, it is way easier to find and fix errors. If I have a VW Golf VII GTI for example, and it’s a more complex error, it often takes over an hour to find and fix them.

[@snookums01]

You are mostly correct. The Russians had a "battle life" of 3 months for their tanks so they didn't built it to have a 20 year life span. If it was still around after 3 months, all well and good. The Germans couldn't help but NOT go overboard on technical innovation because they couldn't see the tank wasn't going to last 20 years. However, with Panzer Iv's and StuGs on the Golan Heights in the 1960's, who am I to judge? But you do hit on one very important point, ease of maintenance. To have a transmission change, a Panther needed to have it's turret removed, all the interior front end removed and then the transmission removed - a three day job before you even replaced it. A Sherman could be towed in, the front end removed, an entire new front end and transmission bolted on and be back in service in under 3 hours. The benefits of the car industry and assembly line technology.

[@rettson22]

great interview!!!

[@olliemaxwell18]

A fascinating and thought provoking video. Many thanks!

[@FxTR22]

hmm, so pleasent to see two germans having a conversation in english :-)

[@andypanda4927]

Only 'cuz they're edited folks. Not lak us 'muricans

[@andypanda4927]

D**n google. What part of educated does that idiot word effing checker not find acceptable

[@Jinseual]

Don't forget gun depression, Lindybeige and The_Chieftain had talked about how the Western tanks with taller turrets have better gun depression than the Soviet tanks so even though Soviet tanks are smaller they would have to expose themselves a lot more to be able to shoot at targets below them while most western tanks don't. The more depressed your gun is, the better chances of your survival.

[@K_Kara]

Jinseual Good luck finding a suitable hill to make use of gun depression on the North German Plain. Centurions may have had a field day with Syrian T-55s at Golan Heights, partly due to what you said, but I don't think it can be generally applied as a major factor. Especially considering the geography of West Germany.

[@Jinseual]

@@K_Kara With human ingenuity you can make artificial mounds on some strategic positions.

[@Riceball01]

@@Jinseual Exactly, or you dig a depression (the tank equivalent of a fox/fighting hole) for the tank to sit in, with a ramp/slope in the front and/or maybe a berm in front and you can utilize your gun depression.

[@thethirdman225]

Jinseual Why be resourceful when you can moan about equipment?

[@jobabbjobabbsen7602]

What do you mean? Should the crew get out to dig an artificial mound just to get good use of their depressed gun? I'm sure its a good thing to have on your tank, but in general terms, i think many other factors comes first.

[@mihaiserafim]

I love Ralf! Thank you Bernhardt for this series of videos, the best ones so far ( for me)!

[@LikeUntoBuddha]

You had me at the Monty Python reference. I'm loving the way you are talking and making films of it with others. That is the way to find out sometimes little but interesting things. You two worked really well together. You are really good at letting people speak and then making quick comments. And I found this guy to have some really interesting information. And I find that if you hear even the same thing said by someone else in a different way you tend to learn a bit more and remember it. Hearing another person say basically the same thing reinforces it in your mind.

[@frankwhite3406]

It's a Beautiful Tank!

[@BartJBols]

how easy and cheap to produce, how easy to train crews to be their finest in it, how easy it is to repair and restore, how easy it is to refurbish with new technology.

[@knutdergroe9757]

Do not confuse the college boys.....

[@atlehunekonge]

Nice video. I was at the museum this summer. Great place to vsit, and huge ammount of vehicles.

[@stevea4744]

This was an interesting discussion and has altered some views of armor's role on the battlefield for me. Well done and very informative.

[@steveamsp]

I think the "Trinity" is a real thing, but it isn't a single description, it's pointing out the three aspects, and how they need to be balanced against each other in the tank design. That doesn't mean that the best designed tank will necessarily win, because Training, Logistics, Support are all hugely important, and no matter how well you balance the three aspects, if you're not trained/supplied/supported, you're screwed. The trinity IS still worth discussing, but as one one aspect, not the sole answer.

[@davidbriggs264]

Surprisingly enough, the Trinity in a slightly modified form is not just inherent to tanks, but EVERYTHING that moves, be it a tank, a truck, a car, an airplane, a ship, a submarine or a space ship. For ALL of those vehicles, the maneuverability, the range, and the carrying capacity are three elements of design that always need to be taken into account. For tanks in particular, the carrying capacity is broken down into defensive and offensive capabilities, the defensive capabilities being armor protection among other elements (such as size of the tank, crew ergonomics and such), and the offensive capabilities being the Main Gun, but can also include secondary guns, crew visibility (how well can the crew see), ease of loading the guns among others.

[@HSMiyamoto]

Given the reliability issues of late WWII German tasks, one wonders how many tanks that Allied flyers claimed to have "destroyed" by air attack were already broken down. A working tank was much less likely to be visible from the air than one broken down along a road or stalled in the middle of a field.

[@Predator20357]

Your not off as the other allies planes like the p40 where strapped rockets when they were not made for it. A lot of kills they claim can be brought down way above fifty percent

[@birdmonster4586]

Great to see another video on this subject of the "trinity of tank design" Too many people put stock in just those three factors and fail to consider the myriad of other factors.

[@ting1895]

Das Argument mit dem Motorgeräusch ist interessant. Wir hatten damals in der Grundausbildung eine nächtliche Vorführung von Spz Luchs und Spz 10 kurz, wobei man den Hotchkis kilometerweit kommen hörte und den Luchs nur an seinen quischenden Bremsen ungefähr lokalisieren konnte. Der ziemlich große Luchs stand plötzlich neben uns.

[@mart4144]

War Thunder Statistic cards don't tell it all...

[@charleswindsor7835]

sooo, seven seconds in and i'm getting heavy vibes that these two guys are going to takeover the world using sharks with lazerbeams on their heads.

[@udeychowdhury2529]

Thanks again for the great debate

[@marc9283]

Damn, I love this Museum, seeing this King Tiger next to the Sturmtiger and all the other amazing vehicles around there was awesome.

[@Kr-nv5fo]

The more speed you have, the faster you'll be in Paris.

[@brianmead7556]

Wie schneller du fahrst, wie schneller nach Polen!

[@alganhar1]

It all boils down to one thing, and one thing only. How well can the tank support and expidite the task of the infantry. Because at the end of the day, if you look at any army in the world, that is what it boils down to. The armour, the artillery, the logistics, the intelligence, the communications, everything, all of it falls apart if the infantry are unable to do their job. In a very real way *every* facet of an army is there to ensure that those grunts are able to do their job. So at the end of the day, the design of a tank really boils down to a few questions. And they all focus on the ability for the vehicle to support the infantry. Aircraft, tanks, artillery, they can all prepare the ground, but at the end of the day its the PBI who has to go in, take it, and hold it. The ability to do that is why I actually consider the M4 varients as among the best tanks of WWII

[@alganhar1]

No, actually, it is not. Fact is, the Infantry are the single most important aspect of an army. Tanks, cannot hold ground, aircraft, cannot hold ground, Artillery, cannot hold ground. Only Infantry can do those things. Only an idiot disregards the importance of infantry in an army. Yes, today Infantry are carried into battle in IFV's, they are supported by heavy armour, as in tanks, supported by Air power, supported by artillery of all sorts... Infantry does not have to mean LEG infantry, at least to carry them into battle... But Infantry are the only arm of the army that can TAKE ground, and HOLD ground.... The most important part of a combined arms group is the fucking infantry... because without those infantry the combined arms group is effectively useless.

[@alganhar1]

Let me put it this way, if you take the Artillery, tanks, intel, airpower... any of those out of a combined arms op and you have a high risk of failure. You take the Infantry out, and the Op is a no go from the start. In 1941 Rommel was not demanding extra tanks in North Africa, he wanted more INFANTRY, because his formation was tank heavy. The British suffered the same issue in Operation Crusader, at least partly... using tanks alone to try and take objectives, with an extremely tank heavy force, and without their infantry they got fucking hammered. The Germans settled on a 2:1 ratio of mech/mot infantry regiments to a single Armoured regiment for their Armoured divisions... why is that I wonder? Is it perhaps because Infantry happens to be important? Oh wait, the British and Americans eventually settled on about the same ratio of infantry to armour... Why is that I wonder? Feel free to cogitate.

[@alganhar1]

Did I say Logistics was not important? No, I said its all irrelevant WITHOUT INFANTRY. Without Infantry you cannot take and hold ground. Infantry is what the entire Army is there to support. Tanks were first developed to support infantry, tanks are STILL USED in an infantry support role. Just as infantry are used to support tanks. Tanks may punch the hole, but it is infantry that takes and holds the ground. Everything in an army is there to ensure the Infantry can do their job. Be it Intel, Artillery, Armour, Logistics, it is all irrelevant without the infantry. If you cannot take and hold ground you cannot win a war. That is TAUGHT at places like Westpoint and Sandhurst. If you cannot get those infantry to where they need to be, support them, and supply them, then you may as well not bother turning up for the war. Tanks are great things, but without infantry they are all but useless. Infantry however CAN operate without armoured support.....

[@EradWir]

This was a great Video more please

[@stevenrogge7278]

Very good discussion about design and I would add a huge design factor logistics. We always considered logistical support in the design of aircraft. It factors into several of your points. Also as a designer I have had several what was I thinking incidents after we fielded the system.

[@raseli4066]

Someone has to make a tank card game.

[@Pfsif]

Just send in the Irish, tanks are expensive.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

How about an Irishman in a tank? (Just asking for a friend...)

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@ They cant, there are no potatoes left.

[@davidbriggs264]

There were a couple of Irishmen who planned to declare war on the Soviet Union at one point, but decided against it when they learned that the Soviets had an Army of 50 million men. They couldn't figure out what were they going to do with 50 million Prisoners of War.

[@IrishCarney]

Despite our pugnacity and perceived expendability, the Irish were not used as shock troops as much as our Celtic cousins from Scotland. It's Scottish, not Irish bagpipes, that have echoed from hills all over the world, from Afghanistan to South Africa to New Guinea.

[@dillonpierce7599]

Y is it always my peeps? 😅

[@mcfontaine]

Great discussion guys.

[@KriegHammer]

Excellent discussion!

[@cleric7788]

The turtleneck means he is an expert on tanks.

[@stcredzero]

If we go back as early as WWII, it should be obvious that a big factor is, as always, logistics. Far superior tanks still fell to opponents with far superior logistics.

[@jim99west46]

Excellent discussion. Would be nice to get a current tank engineer and tank commander to participate in a future discussion.

[@rogerwhite9484]

Great video & you've definately proven IMO that the trinity of Firepovver/protection/mobility in tank design is indeed flavved, & though I vvas avvare of 1 of the other aspects that you brought up I never thought to take it into account , novvI realise hovv significant the error is . TY for making great videos about military history & all its aspects & to not be afraid of questioning things that most vievvers ( myself included ) thought vvere "vvritten in stone" . Keep up the great vvork !

[@j.f.fisher5318]

I've found it interesting food for thought, that looking at WW2 and the Spanish Civil War, in any campaign where there was a significant difference between the armor and firepower of the tanks on each side, the side with the "stronger" tanks mostly lost. Another interesting tidbit is that a detailed simulation reconstructing the Battle of 73 Easting during the 1991 gulf war suggested if the U.S. Army and Iraqi Republican Guard had traded equipment, the only difference would have been the U.S. forces taking 25% more casualties while still destroying the large Iraqi force. I feel like the military industrial complex has exaggerated the importance of technical superiority to drive defense spending.

[@thethirdman225]

Jeffrey Fisher Tells you a lot about the importance of initiative. The internet focuses almost entirely on equipment and ignores the input of the people using it or the environment in which it is used. That is what usually wins battles.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@thethirdman225 Exactly, and the things that support initiative, like training, communications, logistics - tanks can't push the initiative if they are broken down, or out of gas and ammo,

[@andro7862]

In the end it comes down to who is manning the tanks, not the tanks itselves.

[@colincampbell767]

Actually - you yourself identified the advantage superior equipment give you. The superior tanks had 25% fewer casualties. Fewer casualties are a long term strategic advantage because your investments in crew training are not going to wind up in hospitals or body bags. BTW - did those simulations factor in the fact that the US troops were able to identify and engage the enemy before the enemy could see them?

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@colincampbell767 The half-dozen or dozen men whose lives were saved are no doubt glad they are still alive, as are their families. But that's not what wins wars. In 73 Easting, many engagements were made within visual range. For example, on engagement either at 73 Easting or in a nearby battle saw 2 M2 Bradleys take on over a dozen T-72s within visual range even though they could easily have been destroyed by any T-72 that had been able to be gotten into acton, and destroyed 5 of them with missiles and a 6th with 25mm cannon fire before they could respond. That's training, not sensor technology. In the air war over Iraq, several Iraqi pilots flew into the ground while trying to engage in combat maneuvering. That's training, not anything to do with technology. Going back to the WW2 pattern, the Germans crushed the Soviets in Barbarossa because of better training and leadership, not because their Panzer IIIs with medium-velocity guns and Panzer IVs with low velocity guns and no more than 50mm of vertical armor were stronger than T-34s and KV-1s. Sure, superb troops with superb weapons do even better. But what really is superiority? Tigers couldn't have made the armored thrusts of 1939, 40, 0r 41. Nor could Tigers in American hands have made either the long series of pushes from breaking out of the Normandy beach-head to the Rhine, nor the pivot and road-march to relieve Bastogne. And Tigers in Soviet hands would have been ill-suited to the long push as the Soviets counter-attacked. Which came first? The tanks to unreliable and thirsty for fuel to mount sustained attacks? Or the army too broken by a long war to mount effective offensive action?

[@matthewlee8667]

Looks like these designs really tanked

[@satsukilarge4826]

Matthew Lee you must feel really good about yourself right now

[@thomassaldana2465]

Looks like we're on track for a tank-related pun contest. I'm sure it'll be a barrel of laughs.

[@matthewlee8667]

@@thomassaldana2465 Panzer IV sure

[@thomassaldana2465]

@@matthewlee8667 I was trying to think of a witty reply but I got a bit stug.

[@matthewlee8667]

@@thomassaldana2465 I Sherman-aged to stump you eh?

[@IzmirWayne]

Just by reading the title I think: this will be a great video! My first spontaneus thought: context of application (where is the tank going to be used and by whom?). My second spontaneus thought: ergonomics My third spontaneous thought: communication My first elaborated thought: Looks like I already learned quite a lot from MHV and I can't wait to see this vid!

[@ycplum7062]

I was trained to be a cavalry scout on th M3 Bradley. I always thought it stranger that I would in in a vehicle taller and louder than the M1 that we would be scouting for.

[@colincampbell767]

Those were the days. A platoon of tanks and a platoon of scouts who always trained together. And knew that whatever happened - they could depend on each other. Which didn't stop us tankers from deliberately misidentifying the M3 CFV as a "BMP" just to screw with the scouts.

[@ycplum7062]

@@colincampbell767 After a NG ARTEP (where the 10th Mountain was the OpFor), the officers had an After Action Review to include everyone, which doubled as a learning opportunity, one officer went into bounding overwatch vs moving overwatch using M113s (the Scouts) and Tanks. During the exercise, the Tanks provided Moving overwatch for the Scouts through a highs shrub field. The Officer asked if a bounding overwatch could have been used, with the Tanks and Scouts taking turns providing overwatch. I (an E-4, but with prior service in the Active Army) kind of shocked everyone by saying you could, but I wouldn't. To the officer's credit, he asked why. I said the tanks were too valuable to risk, AND they do not have the visibility to adequately respond to the infantry hiding in the dense shrubs. Upon realizing I may have embarrassed the officer (my brain had been in a pure tactical evaluation mode), I immediately said my OPINION would be different in a more open field. LOL With regards to the shrubs, one of the guys on another track in my platoon had told me that they were engaging some infantry on their 10 o'clock. When an Ump "killed"the track. Because we had infantry and vehicles together, a track was not allowed to approach within 25 meters (don't remember exact distance) of infantry and any infantry that finds itself within 15 meters had to make themselves visible and were considered "killed". When the Ump walked over to the track, the track commander immediately started complaining that they were not "really" within 25 meters and they were going safely past them anyway. The Ump calmly said that the track was not "killed" because of the squad at his 10 o'clock, but the other squad that he did not see 15 meters at his 1 o'clock. LOL And this is with the driver, TC, and as much as four guys with their heads sticking out of the back top hatch looking. Good times.

[@IrishCarney]

Was it at least faster, more fuel efficient? That way you could zip away from the main body, then back again to deliver reports or the like. Right? Also, be careful what you wish for - the BMP-1 and 2 are VERY low slung, but so much so that main gun fires at the level of, not above the heads of, dismounted infantry.

[@ycplum7062]

@@IrishCarney The first true IFVs, rather than simply an APC! With that said, I think the BMPs would make poor scouts because the turret wa so small. It would if you had a turret that can fit two, the gunner and commander. Th gunner can look one through the gun optics and the commander can stick his head out for a bigger picture view. Also, people often underestimate the advantage of popping your headout to listen or even smell. Of course, these days, you can do a lot with just optics, particularly if you can raise a periscope. That would be ideal. Whether you have tracked or wheeled depends a lot on the terrain expected. There were occasions (area not that hilly, lots of roadways, light woods) where I liked the HMMWV as a scout vehicle. Edit: Sorry, did not answer your first question. The M3 was more fuel efficient, but not faster. The M1 can also accelerate faster. With regards to reporting, today, it is pretty much all done with the radio. We had a saying even back then, "First Out, Last In". First to go out to scout around and last in, screen the movement back. During exercises, we rarely passed back through friendly lines. Supplies was brought to us, to include fuel sometimes. We did practice passage of lines, but rarely. It was more of a commander and senior NCO thing to coordinate the passage of lines.

[@bbbabrock]

Ergonomics wasn't a concern for WWII Russian troops. In civilian life they lived in ice and snow and ate turnips and dirt. So life in a T-34 was like a 5 star hotel to most of them.

[@readhistory2023]

Ergonomics shows up in the rate of fire difference between the Sherman and the T34.

[@cnlbenmc]

Broken Transmission; the bane of the German tanker's existence in WWII.

[@snookums01]

And Russian.... Consider the T-35. 68 of them built, 5 actually destroyed in combat. The rest failed due to transmission issues.

[@Luwi1996]

Great Sound Quality

[@stupidburp]

I think the trinity makes most sense from the perspective of design decisions within given constraints such as total weight that can be supported by logistics and infrastructure in the operational area. If you have bridges with strict weight limits and very rough terrain for example then total weight will necessarily be lower and thus sacrificing some protection for mobility and firepower would make sense. Determining the best fit into the strategic doctrine of the user is also important. If your country is tiny and the likely enemy approaches can be anticipated then defensive ambush tactics might be part of your doctrine. In that case, some mobility could be sacrificed for firepower and protection. If you have rough terrain with many opportunities for cover and concealment and a known likely enemy with armor that has excellent protection, then perhaps you would emphasize firepower over protection or even mobility. But none of this is comparative evaluation of a specific complete tank design against other specific tanks. It is just a thought of what features might be particularly well suited to your needs. Of course other features such as communication and fire control will also play a large role in how well the final design will perform in the tasks it is given.

[@BrownFoxWarrior]

Now try to convince cozy home kids basing their "facts" off games.

[@thethirdman225]

Two Tailed Warrior Yeah, absolutely. It’s ridiculous how games like WOT push people towards things like the Tiger II when in reality, that tank achieved very little.

[@BrownFoxWarrior]

@@thethirdman225 or even in general. It's easy to point when you're not the one who has to go out there to get shot at.

[@thethirdman225]

Two Tailed Warrior ...or be the general who has overall responsibility for winning the battle. People need to learn to think outside the confines of the tank. Tank crews are important but so are other things like the battlefield and who controls it. It might not be the army with the “best” tank. Control of the high ground and the fire lanes is of major importance. So is the weather. Gamers never consider any of this because there’s no reason to. WOT is little more than a FPS game with tracks.

[@thethirdman225]

@Grundy Malone No it didn't. The King Tiger was a failure. It was also too big to be used in the street fighting in Berlin. the Battle of the Bulge failed because the Germans missed their fuel dump at Stavelot.

[@JimFortune]

The holy trinity are zero sum. If you increase one, you decrease the others. Communication and crew training don't cost you in terms of the three.

[@tigara1290]

communication costs stealth as the antennas can be easily seen and also internal space

[@JimFortune]

@@tigara1290 Neither of which are the holy trinity.

[@edi9892]

Well you can increase all three, by e.g. converting a panther into a Jagdtpanther. Well, it's not a big increase in armour and mobility, but ditching the turret offers you a lot of benefits including production costs and silhouette...

[@MrRugbylane]

Scissors Paper Stone

[@edi9892]

@Michael Smith not really. It doesn't matter for long range engagements. Also most turret less designs allow still at least 10° adjustment to the sides.

[@hellman9655]

great video!

[@IrishCarney]

On the issue of the crew needing or not needing a specialized crew, in "Panzer Ace" by von Rosen, the author constantly talks about how he and his crew would spend hours a day sometimes carrying out maintenance on their own tank, such as cleaning the air filters (vital to get out dust in the summer), changing the water, fixing tracks and wheels, etc. That's aside from the maintenance crews showing up to carry out more major repairs and tasks.

[@alexanderruckheim3870]

I also think that there is a simple correlation of protection with firepower. If your shells have a higher chance of penetration, or your gun has a better range, accuracy, rate of fire, etc. you can keep enemies actually away from a deadly (for yourself) distance, which increases your „protection“ by far. That is one simple fact that most hobby-armchair-generals, I‘ve encountered many of them, don’t get. I have served in the armed forces of Germany for a while and soldiers think pragmatically, e.g. „ why hide behind armor if you have greater firepower anyway?“ Now I‘m working as a mechanic and I have this one colleague I would call a tank freak. But he is comparing tanks to each other only by numbers. One example: If this tank‘s armor is 5 inches thick and that tank‘s armor is only 3 inches thick, the first one will win. Doesn’t think of outmaneuvring, doesn’t consider angle of armor, doesn’t consider firepower or type of ammunition.

[@jskkc9023]

The problem with that is it considers an idealistic situation where the terrain is suited for the tank’s range and the tank crew is able to effectively spot the enemy tank. It also doesn’t take into account one of if not the largest threat to a tank. Infantry.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Yes and no. There is no doubt that many of the German designs of WW2 had this advantage over their opposition. On the Soviet steppes, they were able to make reasonable use of this. On the other hand, life sucked for those tanks in Western Europe, because a number of the features which made the tank good in the East were a disadvantage in the West. The idea of long-range capability providing survivability is certainly still a thing today, witness the lightly-skinned vehicles mounting anti-tank missiles, but then again, when the US made the Great Missile or Gun Choice in the 1970s, they still decided the gun was the better option, and to this day, tanks are still compromising long range accuracy for other benefits.

[@martijn9568]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Also manouvring a big vehicle on a small road with rocks on either side or a ditch.

[@thethirdman225]

The_Chieftain Much of this can be neutralised by human ingenuity. If we ignore the equipment for a minute (sacrilege!!), tactics and the presence of other elements will make a huge difference to the outcome. Laying an effective ambush, controlling the fire lanes and the high ground and the presence of infantry will all influence the result. But as you rightly point out, terrain has a massive influence.

[@jskkc9023]

That's true enough, I wonder how useful combine arms would be with things like the Humvee with mounted TOWs being used as long range accurate fire supporting Main Battle Tanks being used to support the infantry closer to the front. Ultimately the battle field is so dynamic with the different types of enemies, terrain, weather, and situations on a Grand strategic or even strategic level there can only be a certain amount of specialization. At a point we have to cut our losses and accept that there can be no perfect combat vehicle or even combination of combat vehicles.

[@mindfreak078589]

Tigers are so damn sexy. It's a shame Hitler and his buddies were more concerned with extermination rather than peace. They could've made beautiful things.

[@hacked6613]

With peace, the tiger would never have been made. War is a hell of a motivator for innovation.

[@tombrunetti3000]

Great video, we probably shouldn't call it the trinity, and more like the tank commandments. When I first saw the video I thought it was going to be about something Guderian talked about with 3 different types of tanks. If I remember correctly it is, recon tanks, anti tank tanks, and finally a heavy defensive tank.

[@308473mb]

Love your content. Thanks for another great video (and yes, I know I'm half a year late!).

[@medezy3333]

Please make tutoriel . how to create tank .lol

[@George-jg9sy]

WOW , nice beard

[@cosmicmuffet1053]

Agreed. There's no way that beard is purely german. I think it must be an example of some kind of hybrid-vigor.

[@George-jg9sy]

@@cosmicmuffet1053 Damn, I can't leave a beard. regulations...

[@maxsmodels]

I recall reading about how late war Panthers had poor welds due to a lack of materials required in welding. The seams would split on the turret welds even when the armor was not penetrated. Gets to Ralf's point about quality of steel and its mounting.

[@arjovenzia]

I think having such a sliding scale of comparison is what makes tanks such an interesting feild of study. Making an effective weapon is hard enough, making it mobilized, crewed well and long-lived, well, could talk about it for ages. Someone aught to make a KZbin channel about that... :-p Keep it up mate, good stuff.

[@Archangelm127]

A gorgeous Austrian man and a gorgeous German man talking about tanks for 20 minutes straight. Who needs Pornhub? :P

[@bust-a-nut9050]

2 germans speaking english,ultra weird.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I thought the trinity of tanks was the Panzer IV, Panzer V, and Panzer VI. I really enjoyed this video, you two made a lot of good points about training and how it effects the tank in actual usage. Great job.

[@nerdfatha]

"the crew, the squishy stuff inside" that cracked me up! great and educational conversation.