Then again, if someone from the far future watched a video about our tanks and vehicles in our present day they'd likely say the same thing 😂

@@jeongna LOL, probably so.

even if they were a deathtrap. they were less of a deathtrap than doing a trenchcharge against machinegun & sniper enplacements

@@TheGamingSyndrom good point

The only thing worse was the German tank. It was so slow they often had pizzas delivered while making the slow approach to the trenches. 🤣

"What do we do now... Driver?" "We walk."

* Battlefield 1 theme intensifies *

Bf1 😏

Release the pigeon!

So glad they included our tank corps in that game. Coolest war machines ever

Hanz, I hear ze boss music!

anytime infantry come into contact with an enemy tank it's a bossfight.

@@madjack1748 except these days we have mobile AT weaponry.

Watch the film "Quiet on the Western Front" twords the end sums it up

@@dragoxk4542 They already had mobile AT weaponry in WW2.

And the smell of every fluid male organism can produce.

Interesting information, thank you 👍 👍

this is interesting - do you have any more sorces about that?

What's the ignition point of shoe laces? That's crazy

@@Einhauser wool shoelaces covered in oil...idk

First thank you for your service. That’s interesting information thanks for sharing.

The story I recall was that crates containing parts for early prototypes were labeled as "tank" or "water tank" to disguise the reality of the project. Would have been a plausible disguise given that much of it was heavy steel plating as a tank might be made from. Though the true nature of these machines - nothing to do with liquid-containing vessels - was soon widely known, the term "tank" has stuck ever since for not only these but all vehicles of this sort through present day.

i think there are various stories. the one i've always heard was due to the amount of steel needed for production, foundries started getting curious (it was a secret project, they were just told to make more steel). when asked, the War Department simply told them "for mobile water tanks"

it was called tank to keep it secret, if the germans found out they would think its some plan or vehicle to get water to the troops since that was a problem, if you called it landship it would be pretty obvious

The Abrams Tank has not been built since the 80's, and they just add gear and equipment to the base armored hulls called "Rusty's" if they need a replacement. And I believe the Grant was used by the US in WWII, and the Lee nomenclature was used by Lend Lease nations, including the British Empire and Soviet Union.

@@quillmaurer6563 yes that's the story I am familiar with to.

Recently returned from North Korea good country I advise everyone to go there

@@tankie373 what?

Nah I'd prefer WW2

@@tankie373 I call bullshit. You can't just freely go and visit, you must be invited.

@@KZfaqSaysThereCantBeTwoRyans most likely a bot

I think you mean Bri’ish

To bw fair, it can also heat MRE rations

Only the essentials for our brave boys what-what. *Sips tea* 🇬🇧☕️

When in doubt.... brew up !

The Italians had pasta cookers. Your point?

It wasn't even though of until an armoured devision got wiped out because they were making tea outside of their vehicles.

Imagine tanks in the future with a toilet, hot shower, gas stoves, coffee machine, fridge and... monthly rent payment 🤣

and to this very day they still have no toilets.

@@billyb4790 t-14?

I don't know about this tank but a lot of the early tanks had exposed driveshafts which went straight down the length of the tank, they could literally stick their feet or fall on the spinning drive shaft while it had no suspension and bashed around in the destroyed mud and craters of no man's land.

that's no fun fact

That's sad :(

*sad fact

:(

Probably a fair number of humans did too. I could imagine the pigeons also serving as a "canary in the coal mine" to warn if carbon monoxide was building up inside the tank - if the bird is dead and you feel woozy, turn off the engine, open the hatch, and get fresh air immediately.

In only 2 decades at that. You're right.

And even more amazing how little they changed from ww2 to prezent day!

The only difference is bassicly the elimination of the light and medium tanks

@@moldovanbeniamin1578 Some countries still use light tanks because they're much smaller and less heavier than MBTs.

@@moldovanbeniamin1578 Quite a lot has changed, the elimination of the Germans' idiotic suspension design in favor of a torsion bar setup, reactive armor, active defense systems (such as Trophy), angled armor becoming the norm instead of the notable exception, spalding armor plates, hunter-killer style combat systems, gyroscope-balanced gun, blow-out panels/ammo vault, steering wheel type controls (instead of two levers) and thermal vision to name just a few major additions to the modern tank compared to those of WW2. Then there's the thousands of improvements to existing systems/methods such as much better steel for armor, larger caliber cannons with higher velocity, much more effective shells including the spigot, much more effective communication links and battlefield data systems allowing tank commanders to collaborate with ground troops and air assets and many more things. Compare a Sherman or Pantzer to an Abrams/Leopard/Challenger, they look nothing alike other than they all have tracks and a turret, but so does an excavator.

The early anti tank guns were also just giant bolt action rifles too.

BF1 is my favorite FPS of all time. It’s a masterpiece.

@@michaelj6392 100% agree,mainly because I am a fan of ww1 history,but it sure is a masterpiece

@@michaelj6392 I just wish we got those side facing MGs. The amount of infantry on the flanks isn't even funny.

my favorite story line of BF1

Battlefield 1 is still going, keep playing to keep it alive! Was the last good battlefield game in my opinion. I enjoyed that the operations mode, actual battles and they provide history about the battles. Great blend of learning and an engaging game.

I had a book like in my elementary school library.

@@wyattpeterson6286 Awesome I remember there being one about ships and one about trucks.

@@Aatell764 I would get that tank book almost every time and I would be extremely hesitant to return it.

@@wyattpeterson6286 Hahaha same here! I kept getting it renewed until she told me I had let someone else atleast get a chance to read it.

@@Aatell764 I hated when the librarian would do that.

Heck, my Corolla produces 168 hp. But it’s the torque that matters on a machine that size.

@@thomasmiddlebrooke1012 That's where the difference is. Those large pistons made it possible to produce the torque needed. Like the engines on ships. They produce lots of horsepower and the torque is even more immense.

And Harley-Davidson engines are not particularly power-dense, they're seen as rather primitive even, by modern motorcycle standards. There are sportbikes that make this or more power out of an engine slightly bigger than a shoebox.

@@quillmaurer6563 when you realize those Rev up as much as a f1 engine with turbos the Harley is impressive in its own right

@@quillmaurer6563 when you realize those Rev up as much as a f1 engine with turbos the Harley is impressive in its own right

It's like being in a metal plated portapotty with a big dirty smoke spewing engine in it

Not just tank warfare - it was a common mean of communication by both sides. You gotta use something in times when radio wasn't invented yet.

Yeah your practically inside a bullet magnet

don't get caught with your pants down get gigamon🤣🤣🤣

OSHA didn't exist then

pretty sure soldiers safety was the last priority back then, in ww1 a human life wasn't worth a cent

@@phlyphan1083 Still took time to train them and money to equip them. You'd think they'd see some wisdom in at least trying to minimize losses to maximize the return on that investment.

@@foxymetroid i mean it's prob cheaper to lose a couple MG gunners than make the entire tank safer for crew

They were made when you didn't need uncle Sam to tell you what's safe

Conscripted where? Russia?

@@michaelj6392 Finland

@@michaelj6392 you do realize like half of Europe has conscription within their militaries right? And not just Eastern Europe, western and Northern aswell

@@valaskimusic what tanks did you operate?

@@basileusgaming7047 CV9030

Well a private collector did spend 15 years refurbishing a Tiger tank in his basement in Germany…only for it to be taken from him from the German Government. No respect for private property.

I'll bet your great-grandpa used to insist that meant he was in at least 2 more females than other people in his town.

Pretty much the second, though the tank doesn't 'immediately' drop, still not quite the same comfort as a sunday drive in a Rolls Royce.

When the tanks were first tested, most of the tank crews ended up unconscious due to testing the tanks going over steep drops. The lack of suspension on the early tanks meant crews would often hit their heads on the roof of the tank with such force it knocked them out

At 5km/h?

@@thelastwoltzer it can't be any gentler than falling 15 feet from a ladder, going 0km/h

@ian frogfish can you share the link of the video?

Not elitism, just really interesting info! It is interesting to compare these tanks versus later designs, some of it I suspect wasn't just technology so much as they had different challenges to face. These tanks were built before tanks were common, so they mostly encountered anti-infantry weaponry and obstacles - small arms, machine gun nests, barbed wire, and trenches. Enemy tanks were not a common encounter. The goal of these machines was to be able to drive across no-man's land impervious to enemy fire, then drive straight over the enemy's trenches, all without getting stuck. In WWII things were very different, anti-infantry weapons and obstacles (trenches in particular) were less common, but enemy tanks and aircraft were a bigger threat. The tanks needed to be faster, more maneuverable, more heavily armored, and equipped to take out enemy tanks. Less concerned about getting through trenches and mud. I'd even suspect an M1A1 Abrams would struggle in many ways in the environment of WWI because it was built for a different type of war.

I thought them not including a turret was them being unsuccessful with the little willie as it lacked the cross-country capability to even traverse the muddy terrain as well as struggle to even cross a trench. Which was designed to feature a turret but was abandoned. Since the Mk1 tank had a missing feature and a pretty significant obstruction to even include a unditching beam. Since crews hadn't figured out as well as the designers, that the crude wheels which was meant to steer the tank in the back that it's fixed to, it was completely unecessary as the tank could be steered with just the tracks. This meant when the completely exposed fixture broke, the crew of the tank usually high tailed it out and ran. Even though the tank was normally fine. This wasn't fixed till the MKIV. Which got rid of the wheels. It was also the tank to feature the rails for the newly included unditching beam.

I'm only saying this because of how significant the Little Willie was in tank development yet never get much attention. Heck the giant Russian tricycle gets more appraisal.

@@quillmaurer6563 you are absolutely correct, the M1 isn't "better", than the MkV, it is better what that it was designed to do, which is the balance of the "holy Trinity of tanks": firepower, mobility, and armor. The MkV disregarded mobility, because it wouldn't Make sense if it outran the infantry it was meant to protect. Tanks are expensive, so when you Look at something on a tank, it must be important, else why wouldn't they spend millions on it in mass production

Didn't the french already have a tank at this point that did have a gun turret?

The civil war ironclads have been covered to death. It'd be nice to see people actually have some intrest in other ironclads; but due to the over saturation of USS Monitor and CSS Virginia, and the under covering of all other ironclads (with the exception of the HMS Warrier) its discouraging to many to try to research them

@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic either way ironclads are such a huge leap in technology especially for the time period and sort of an enigma to layman students of history. I think Simple History should do some civil war vids overall.

@@TjtheSquishyLegomanic Well like Trevor said, its a technological leap. In less than 40 years we go from the Wood bound frigates and Man-o-War's like the USS Constitution or the HMS Victoria, to the Pre-Dreadnoughts like HMS Royal Sovereign. And the Sovereign looks a lot like what we would see in the 20th century warships none-the-less. The era that connects the two is the age of the Ironclads. The CSS Virginia didn't end up becoming the type we see universally after the US Civil war, but it was an excellent first step into the concept of plated ships. And the Monitor would ultimately be one of the founding ships to establish what modern vessels would look like in the ages to come. Its a very important connection point in Naval history, so it's fair that is is discussed to regularly. There are really only a small handful of notable engagements involving the Ironclads, like the Battle of Lissa, but beyond that the fighting after the Battle of Hampton Roads is really our only other major example.

the tea is what keeps them doing the accent

Don't worry every British tank in WW2 had a water boiler for tea.

Getting pissed off at your tanking breaking down was a good substitute

@@aj1218 : Onboard water boilers were not fitted until 1945, the first being in the Centurion Mk1. Before that the crews had to 'brew-up' outside the vehicle, normally using old 2 gallon cans with the tops cut off and then filled with earth or sand, to which petrol was added as fuel.

very steriotypical.....

GRAVB THA PEGION THATS AN ORDER SON

It is reference too that Even thumbnail

That was probably my favorite war story. It just gave me so much of a power trip

Even though they weren't so great he tastes like you even sweeter

Yes I think I would of prefared to be inside one of these instead of running towards German machine guns.

Much better than charging in the no man’s land

YES. The jackasses who pretentiously call these "death traps." I'd rather be in a WWI tank than standing in a trench filled with blood and feces.

@@HERETOHELPPEOPLE729 having every cannon pointed at you is only marginally better

@@MaticTheProto NO it's not.!!! I don't think you quite understand the term 'over the top' where our men literally came out of the trenches and ordered in a calm manner to slowly Walk towards the German machine guns, ( lots of reports of Germans having huge trouble killing men slowly walking and some refused to) I would absolutely prefer to be inside w tank neither is a good position to be in but in my opinion a tank is a bit better.

Yeah and trying to hide what it actually was from spies

Amazing how it got stuck with it forever

Another fun fact: Germans actually didn't have a name for the tank for the entirety of WW1 so they just called it tank.

"water tanks destined for Russia" too.. and the Russian word for tank today is ... *drumroll ... TANK.

@@attempt5074 They call it tank today. Every post WW1 tank is called "panzer". But WW1 tank is "tank".

probably has people working on the animations and gathering information. Not a one man team.

Haha imagine thinking 1 single person makes these videos

"magnificent"

Japanese Typ-89, hands down. The M3 is just a French design slightly reworked.

That would be cool!

;)

other bodily functions

I prefer the German box of doom

​@@MaticTheProto I prefer French baguette with guns (Saint-Chamond)