"We need a tank that's heavier and lighter, bigger and smaller, taller and shorter, more powerful and more fuel efficient, with a bigger gun and more rounds of ammunition storage. Make sure it's better engineered and more thoroughly tested, and deliver it to the front lines sooner." Simple.

By 1944 every American AFV, whatever its gun or armor thickness, had the one design feature most German TCs could only dream of: A full tank of Gas!

The perfect tank for 1945 is a fusion of the Maus turret and the Bob semple hull. Gods and titans shudder at the name of such a vehicle: the Shirley semple

"you can't have a 90mm gun on a sherman" M51 Super Sherman: "Hold my beer"

Listening to all this "what do you want?", "yeah no." Reminds me of how an E-7 can hold a 6 hour training session on "Proper Time Management".

My father served on a DE escorting convoys to Liverpool and I remember he told me that sometimes a ship waited two weeks or more before it could be off loaded because of problems off loading, like lack of man power, docks and cranes. I had two uncles who served in the army, both were transferred from the African campaign to England prior to D-day. Both said there was so much "stuff" stored there that they joked the island was starting to sink! Tanks and trucks were stored in fields everywhere and equipment was stored where ever space could be found. So in addition to their training they were sometimes employed moving stuff around and looking for the stuff they needed. "Guns win battles, logistics win wars", but only if you can find the stuff you need!

It just occured to me that metal TD models with a folding can opener would be the ultimate meme Christmas present.

Nothing better than sitting, drinking a nice whisky, and listening to The Chieftain talk about armor and various reports. This is the pinnacle of informative entertainment.

"Dougal, this Tiger is close, that Tiger is far away.. too far for the 76mm" "Sorry Ted, I still don't get it"

yay, Sgt shillelagh got his own T-Shirt

Panther replica mentioned. WG: American Panther it is Stonks

The talk about shipping existing tanks and also conversion/update kits and overloading in-Theater maintenance made me think of similar problems the Army (yes, it was called the Army Air Corps and Army Air Forces in WWII) had with aircraft, especially heavy bombers. My grandfather's B-17 crew flew a mid-production B-17F across the Atlantic in summer of '43 only to have to immediately turn it into a modification depot. The modifications were mainly for updated gun mounts in the nose and navigation equipment).

My tank caught fire once. It is a nice story. No one was hurt and they towed the tank in to get rebuilt. It was an old M60A3.

11:15 - Never underestimate the amount of political posturing that goes into the public and official statements of general officers.

This was good stuff. Having been in procurement in the Air Force, I am glad to see that things were just as screwed up in the past as they were in the present. Guys on the front lines could never get their point across to the guys in the rear with the gear.

A lot of these documents pretty much mirror my own emails to management when I am procuring equipment at work. Especially the part about needing vast improvements in something and then stating the such improvements are doubtful.

I love the digressions. To me, a historian by trade, it proves to me you are called to pass on this historical data in the time honored manner. With digressions a plenty!

We got the hat trick. You, Mark Felton and Drachinifel all in the same day 👍

Such a pleasant change. Someone on KZfaq who knows what he is talking about! Please keep them coming.

Keep up the good work, Nicholas!

Thanks for another interesting & informative talk Nicholas.

Can openers is great! A worthy addition to any armour hobbyists collection

The details in the construction and the design of the real tanks leads to extra enjoyment of the build and operation of the RC versions of the tanks. Talks like this providing vehicle information and hindsight per use in the field are incredibly useful and enjoyable. Please keep them up.

I love hearing about the logistics as much as the combat :)

Can’t believe I missed this episode when it first came out. I am subscribed all. Love the way Moran Describes everything. He’s The one non-political speaker I could listen to anything he talks about. Yes I found the “paint drying” episode entertaining. Thank you Chieftain!

Just how strong is that top shelf?

Never doubt. Very interesting and informative. Exactly the kind of next level information that is needed to significantly enhance ones understanding of the subject matter!

Love this type of context ! Provides much needed context, which often times, is overlooked by desk chair commanders (myself included) lol # WT

Great info thanks Chieftain.

Great stuff major. Thanks a lot!

Outstanding video, information and presentation.

All of these talks are fascinating. You are a superb historian.

Supply chain management is always a hard issue to manage.

Amazing video! You are a star! Thank you very much for informative content.

I would like to hear some quotes from tank crews from that era. Either way, thanks for that interesting and informative video.

These "readings" are fascinating.

Heard you this morning on We have ways with Al and James and now a new video from you. It's a Chieftain day today.

A new Chieftain video ...... Thank God !

Great Vid!

Comparing this user/designer/producer/high-command discussion for US Army equipment with US Navy equipment might be of interest. Obviously, when a major warship was completed and commissioned, other than the overhauls every few years, most of its existing equipment was "set in stone" and had to be, more-or-less, used as-is by the crew. However, It might have to used as it was physically situated, but not necessarily as the designers informed the crew who used it in their manuals! Mention was made of "tinkering" with various equipment by personnel in the field to try to improve it or adjust it to their immediate field conditions. In the US Navy such things were termed "Sailor-alts" and, depending on the ship officers and the talent and production skill of the crewmembers, the results could vary. One thing that virtually everybody was for was anything that could improve rate-of-fire without undue increases to the danger to the ship from accidents or enemy hits. What happened at the WWI Battle of Jutland to several British battle-cruisers who bypassed safety systems to improve rate of fire -- KABOOM!!! -- was most definitely counter-productive in this regard. Nonetheless, when possible, such sailor-alts to improve rate of fire were done and, when successful, actually lauded by the ship's officers. Unfortunately, not so much by the shore establishment that supported these various equipment (the torpedo fiasco during WWII was by far the most lasting negative sailor/shore facility hatred that occurred during any US Navy time frame, to my knowledge, so this is not a minor thing). In fact, there were cases where the sailors who changed things were accused of SABOTAGING US GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT!! Not good at all. What resulted when successful sailor-alts were made in US Navy warships during WWII was that: (1) They were rapidly shared among the affected ships and quickly became the SOP for that gear, no matter what the manuals said and, (2) ship officers absolutely backed their crew in this and hid, with crew implementation, these changes during inspections to ensure nobody got into trouble and that these fixes remained in use (better battle performance never hurt anyone's career, now did it?). A major example as to how much such sailor-alt work could benefit the "by-the-book" operation of a naval weapon was the 8" guns used in the WWII new-model heavy cruisers (BALTIMORES and so forth). Their by-the-book rate of fire was 3 rounds per minute per gun (9 per three-gun turret and 27 per minute per ship). What they got by the end of WWII was 45 (!!) rounds per minute per ship instead, with 5 rounds per minute per gun (12 seconds between salvoes instead of 20 seconds). How was this fantastic thing accomplished "under the table"? First, the gun's recoil mechanism was cranked so tight that it only recoiled about half of the amount that it was designed for -- this sped up the gun being ready for the next shot by a couple of seconds and did not hurt anything since it turned out that the recoil mechanism was heavily reinforced by design, as it should be, of course. Second, the powered rammer that pushed the powder bags (these were separately loaded silk powder bags rammed in one set of four, I believe) on the loading tray into the barrel just prior to closing the breech was kept as-is (you do not want to tear open a bag), but the ramming of the 335-pound 8" Mark 21 AP shell used in these new guns just prior to the powder bags was sped up by slamming the rammer at souped-up speed into the base of the shell like a pool stick and, like a cue ball, shoving it so fast that the rammer could be retracted while the shell was still moving forward to jam itself into and lock itself the gun rifling, saving several seconds on the ramming and retracting sequence (obviously this was dangerous in heavy seas, but the gunners were not crazy). Three, since these were powder-bag guns, it was absolutely necessary to ensure that no burning bits of powder from the prior shot was still in the gun breech area when the ramming was done. To further speed things up, one crewman, with insulating pads on his legs and hands (the guns get hot after firing a few times) would jump onto the gun and look down the barrel as the high-pressure air blew the barrel free of any material out the muzzle and as soon as it was gone he so stated and jumped off the barrel while the shell was being loaded for ramming. This too saved a second or so in waiting for the clearing to be finished. This ends the speed-up in the turret. We now go into the turret barbette rings where the heavy AP projectiles (and 260-pound -- the old AP weight too prior to these new guns -- nose-fuzed HC shells for shore bombardment and the like) were stored pointing straight up and held by clamp rings to the moving inner barbette supporting the turret or fixed to the inner wall of the fixed armored outer barbette cylinder (the powder bags were light enough that no changes to their procedures were needed to keep their hoists from the powder magazines to the turrets full even at the new speed -- only some retraining of the hoist operators was required to accomplish this speed-up). These projectiles were considered heavy enough that manual loading was not specified in the their loading sequence into the hoists (they were tilted automatically horizontally in the turret for loading so that was not a problem there). A pully cable was supposed to be used with some rotating, manually-controlled powered turnbuckle pulleys to slide them along the deck from their storage points to the hoist doors (one door per gun). This was in fact the major reason for the slow rate of fire, since unclamping the shell, holding it still while wrapping the cable around it, and then dancing it across the deck on its base to the hoist, being held by the cable and some crewmembers upright the whole time (in a pitching, rolling ship, remember) took some time. The shell-room sailors said, "Screw all that crap!", and created the following major jury-rig: They took heavy wood rails and a thick leather sheet and created a heavy-duty "emergency medical" (I assume they called it that for any inspectors) sling held on each end by a strong crewman. This was placed just outboard of the desired projectile and another crewmember with his foot would kick the shell sideways so that it fell over into the sling. The crewmembers would then lift it to waist height and run to the hoist, pivot around, and slam the shell vertically into the hoist nose-up. Pull the control handle to grab the shell in the hoist and they then could run back to be ready for the next shell. Worked like a charm and, by handing off if they got tired to waiting personnel no longer needed for this loading sequence, they could keep it up indefinitely. Now THAT is "tinkering"...

RIP to every little boy like me that grew up wanting to be a bow gunner.

Yes. Interesting and informative. Thanks! .

Another great vid.

They did make a 90mm Sherman, the M36B1. :3

Greetings Chieftain

Presumably the US were aware of the new British Centurion. Had they been provided with an early model of this tank and did they make an analysis of this compared with what they were proposing?

I wish the Chieftain had a “The Chieftain” logo tshirt for sale. Small logo on the front, maybe an option of having a blank Butthurt Report form on the back, for all the complainers.

General Scott "we need a better tank to fight the Panther" General Scott a year later "Disregard I was wrong the Sherman is getting it done".

yea, that was interesting n informative, well done.

Right on time

21:35 "It must be kept in mind that tanks must be moved by transporters". A masterpiece. How to say Your superior "Please, just no BS, FFS!" in a way that, a) he doesn't realize it, b) he feels smart for coming up with the idea of doing what You told him. Never underestimate the effectiveness of euphemisms! I wonder if it didn't work for the Germans, or they just didn't find such a way to express themselves.

There was such a tank in June 1945, only in use with the brittish centurion. It checks all the boxes.

No tanks are currently equivalent to the German Panther. They left out the part where the transmission on the Panther explodes every 150km.

You, Sir, are a Genius. (Vis t-shirts. Choosing tanks over bombers was a choice made poorly)

Fascinating explanation of events, was the debate actually kicked off by General Jacob Devers report the backend of 1943, when he suggest the need for a “fighting tank’ 1 per Platoon. Given the tensions between the different departments, was there a degree of filibustering going on to prevent or slower developments not agreed by ordinance. It is interesting to compare the full debate approach, when the British took a more pragmatic approach albeit, outside of channels (the challenger solution) to bodge together Firefly, because they knew it was required, with all its faults, because Comet and importantly Centurion were being developed and not ready. Same approach was taken with the P51, Rolls Royce took the standard aircraft, which the US Army airforce discarded and bodged in the Merlin 61, the rest is history.

A TKS T-shirt would lend itself to some sort of humorous caricature motif.

I find old mates tone soothing and perfect at low volume for going to sleep too.

The Road to the M48, 5 years later, was convoluted.

I didn't get the notification for this video. I'm guessing KZfaq must be having problems with the wrong crystals in their radio sets.

This was convoluted. And I don't think it could be helped given how beyond convoluted the subject itself was

A.T.G.M. - Assisted Therapy Group Munitions

Either I missed edit stops or you were able to share your knowledge and the reports from memory. Two thumbs up, really enjoyed the video.

Bought my sweatshirt!

If you want to see a similar issue when it comes to supply of a good, demand for that good, and the limited capacity to produce that good; please see the latest nvidia and AMD graphics cards.

First Ive heard the term 'fighter tank'. Interesting, as the analogy would make the current Tanks as 'bombers' (against infantry, positions, etc)

Chieftain- your thoughts on von Mellinthin and his conclusions from armored combat. also I would still like to see how Subdei's tactics and Mongol strategy in their "western campaigns" compare to modern armor doctrines

Interesting choice of tank for the T shirt! The comet?

I've heard that the 90mm Sherman couldn't be produced sooner then the M25/M26 anyway due to a shortage of 90mm tubes (A lot of them were reserved for AA defense.) However, I can't help but wonder if they were referring to a complete replacement of 76mm for 90mm. The bottom line was the US did produce, and use in combat the 90mm M36, the key factor being we only made a couple thousand of them, and most of the useful service was from the 1st 500 made. Those entered combat in Oct 1944, and they had been delayed at least 1 month, maybe more like 3, because the initial request for production was rejected, not due to shortage of 90mm tubes, but because it was viewed as unnecessary in Sept 1943. (You can read about this in Zalogas Armored Thunderbolt, location 1424 in kindle edition.) They requested it later, suggesting it was needed not for enemy tanks, but for breaking the Siegfried line and it was approved. I wonder if a limited production of 1000-2000 was actually possible, they were getting tubes for the M36 at this time.

While the reports of general officer boards are always interesting, they tend to hold to long held doctrine of senior participants. There were, some who still proposed the use of horse cavalry early on until they were reassigned to some remote support command. More important were the maintenance management and after action reports from each echelon that made their way to the project managers for that particular weapons system. After creating a report, some poor field grade had to take it to the above mentioned board for revue and hope it would go to the right places. Then Branch was still a thing for some. Two to one kill rate, not great but acceptable. But How? Tank vs tank or with spotters in a tank calling in artillery support or the guy in the next tank calls in air support and then there are those tank destroyer and anti tank guys also on radio, setting up their traps. Infantry is plugged into the forward battlefield network and calling in support and giving it. Conclusion, the 1939 combined German Blitz Kreg to the 1944-5 Combined Allied Arms Offensive, big difference in a short time?

Fascinating, I recently acquired the book “How to kill a Panther Tank, unpublished scientific reports from WW2, Craig Moore”. It includes a “Pamphlet on attack on Panther and Tiger April 1944 number B8727”. It is comprehensive with photographs and polar diagrams of how to engage each vehicle from various directions, using the various 21st Army Anti-Tank weapons including the US 3in 75mm, whether the results are easy eg 17 prd or fail 75mm unless close. They developed the Firefly solution for Sherman and M10, both in good enough now category, using available and plentiful components which proved very successful. There is also a copy of the US Army pamphlet “How to Kill a Panther 28 December 1944”. So the ultimate question, why is the 21 Army, training its combatants from April 1944, producing specialist armour knowing it will have to engage the heavy tanks, and the US Army isn’t leaving 76mm Sherman behind, then takes 8 months for guidance. Simply a major Intelligence breakdown or a bit of a Colonel Blimp attitude within AGF, indeed is this the basic reason why post war the Sherman got, the unfounded and unnecessary bad press.

In the picture of the M4A3 with the 90mm gun prototype, any idea what the M4 chassis with a box body behind it is all about? Or the Jeep with the staggered seats and a very wide door opening are all about? I'll dig out my Crismon volumes and see if anything turns up, but both are new to me.

I love this talk from the archives to see what people were thinking back then. I wonder, given the comment how the mobility was lacking on the T26, if anyone from Armor Board pressed this issue with Ordinance? If this was a deficiency in April 1944, could the T26 prototype been modified to use a V12 engine in time for the production start in Nov. 1944?

Hey Chieftain, was just wondering if you or anyone here knows when the Auxillery fueltank for tanks was first introduced? i was looking around and didnt find anything.

It's a shame they didn't get more 76's over there, and more of those fancy AP shells. Man, that's a shame. Right across the channel.

Nick - when is the 'Track Tensioning' T-shirt turning up?!

3XL t-shirts would be a great idea ...

Hey Chieftain, Not sure if you ever heard this one they should relaunch mail call and give you the role for it. RIP lee. PS i would watch it.

Can Openers was a very good read. I wish it had been formatted a little differently for ease of reading, but as far as nitpicks go, that's minor. While the information in it is as useful as a reference text for the history, it reads a lot better than a Hunnicut book. Do you like Tank Destroyers? Do you want to know why the US tank destroyer branch was a bit of a fuster-cluck in WWII? Do you like arguing with randos on reddit and being right? Pick up Can Openers! Unfortunately, it doesnt solve the mystery of how the T28/95 was lost in a field, but at this point i'm not sure anyone knows how that happened.

Hindsight being 20/20, the T26/Pershing should have had a diesel engine (maybe an americanized soviet v12) or a v12 aero engine (like done with the meteor), keep the turret ready rack delete the bow gunner and replace with ammo stowage , ala firefly, or better yet, move the ventilator to the turret, shift driver to the center, and you get ammo storage on either side of the driver. And, a rangefinder. It WAS possible, because A.A. troops had a handheld optical range finder. With the hindsight of history, we wonder why they didnt put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

Even though I'm subscribed and pressed the bell thingy I'm still not getting notifications for your channel. Sad. Just letting you know buddy.

Alright i got a question for you which tanks in wot have or had a turbine engines im very curious

It's always a worry when committees get involved in design.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, the British were tinkering around with their A41/A45 (later known as the Centurion) and its needed Antar transportation system. Even the most positive estimation of this effort, describe this as having been fraught with bad management, which caused its introduction into European theatre of war too late to actually take part in the hostilities. Understandably this was kept out of public scrutiny, but it would be enlightening to cast some further light on de development of what later proved to be such an excellent and long-lasting fighting system. Note: I use the term "fighting system", since its development included not only the vehicle itself or its armament, but also the logistical installations and requirements to make it work (hence the development, of among other things, the Antar 'Low Loader' Trucks). Maybe something to squeeze in between enlightening us with the more US-oriented efforts and undertakings in that respect.

Could you please possibly do an video on the T-26 mod1933.

Every time I see you, you look more and more like R. Lee Ermey

Please do the Citroën P28 'cos it is soooo cute!

Can’t wait for a video on German 1945 tanks.

Everyone thinks a tank from 1945 is out of date.. until you have to drive through Portland....

Its actually really "Simple" . . . "Too many cooks, spoil the soup" !.

18:44 So, a Panther built by the US to fight WW2? that looks interesting

As an owner of a Prius and lover of tanks, I need that shirt haha.

The Board went on to work for Telstra . Wait 6 months and resend the job back out for the customer to make a new meeting but dont tell them . Plus dont ring the Tech and ask him about the sudden damage to all the services that prohibited the work going ahead . But the computer says its ok

I just watched apocalypse now again, i wonder how common is for cavalry guys to done the hat and quote kilgore? So common is it a punishable offense by now?

I never understood why Ordnance didn’t just put existing 90mm M36 turrets on M4a3 chassis. Up-armoring of the turret could also be done to increase protection.

Now that comment about the ETO not wanting to lose the bow gun made me wonder about the reasons for it. As far as I know the deletion of the bow gun was due to the combination of factors you’ve mentioned (i.e. extra ammo stowage and the need for stronger frontal hull armour), but I’ve also heard that some US tankers in Vietnam wished they still had bow guns on their M48s. I’ve never seen an explanation why, though. Plain old extra firepower against infantry? Lower mounting making it easier to sweep the turret MGs’ dead zones in front of the tank? Something else entirely? And were there ever any complaints about bow MGs causing a higher rate of friendly fire against accompanying infantry compared to the turret-mounted ones, or were standard TTPs already good enough to minimise this?

Does anyone know if the US was paying attention to the UK's armor development? I meab Comet and Centuriamwere the steos in the right direction and I wonder if the US paid attetion to them at all? Also you ever think sir that you'l redo the Comet vids from either old footage of reshoot it? You're new format 2 parter is much better than the 4 parter that vid was.

32:42 cannot wait for an American 90mm M4 in War Thunder

36:50 - somebody make the guy that wrote that the president, he's perfect for the job.

I haven't watched the whole thing, but the M4 fit on rail cars and was deliverable. It could handle emplacements and light vehicles, and maybe get lucky against the bigger German tanks. The US planned to use air superiority to destroy most German tanks and hard spots. The tank destroyers would try to engage break out heavy 500 series Grman battalion units, and they could always get firefly guns (they thought). Then they just pumped them out and shipped them as fast as they could, and their own breakthrough did not occur against hunting panthers and tiger tanks, but mostly against infantry with supporting stugs and 88 or 75mm guns. Sometimes against these they got beat up, as during operation Goodwood. German tanks were pretty scarce on the ground after Falaise pocket, and were being hunted from the air relentlessly.

Not sure KZfaq knows the demo for these videos, as I got an ad for prettylittlethings!!!