"DO YOU LIKE MY TANK?"

*Running in the 90's starts playing*

*Säkkijärven Polkka intensifies*

GAS GAS GAS

N-Nani!!!? Kansas Dorifto!?

Christie failed to read all of the fine print before he signed his first contract with Ordnance.

was about to say that too, but checked if someone else said it first :D

LOL

The Chieftain has confirmed with this video...Darjeeling best girl

@@borderwardoomer6465 Is there any competition? Her elegance is immeasurable.

@@borderwardoomer6465 the abrams is literally aiming at her

Well, there's always scratchbuilding

Kitbash time baby

I know what you mean. I'm totally digging the Combat Car T-2!

You could try checking out the Smithsonian Museum to see if they sell the blueprints for Christies designs, those designed by others and Ordnance.

But did they paint it red and yellow tho?

Anything else is heresy

@@le_travie7724 Soviets sure did.

cirian75 Lots of dakka is great, but when you can only fire for 30 seconds due to a lack of ammo...

paulrward does it have something to do with the Cajun dish?

There is a case in russia. where a german infantry man was walking in this type of mud. It riped his boots of his feet.

@@CAP198462 it's mostly found in the deep South of the US, same places where gumbo stew is found.

@@ScottKenny1978 im from montana..... we have a lot of bentonite and alkali in our ground this makes for NASTY gumbo mud. . and ya, i thought all mud pulls your boots off...... thats just how it is around here (you eventually develop a style of walking where you "tip" your feet, to break the suction) . like, the alkali is REALLY bad around here. it pools in low lying areas..... and turns the ground white. . say you have 10 tanks the first 8 may be able to drive over it just fine but the 9th will INSTANTLY sink 5 feet down. . or.... the first tank will sink 5 feet down ya just never know..... so its best avoided by a WIDE margin .

and ya..... gumbo mud will turn your "super swamper" mud tires on your 400HP truck into slime. it just sticks.... even if you spin your wheels at 120mph..... . so you end up with a slime covered tire.... that is PERFECTLY smooth.......AKA, you arnt going ANYWHERE!. . even tractors in this area.... with big "bar lug" tires..... (and even the REALLY big ones with tracks) will get stuck

As always

Sowme tawk owf Awexawndew awnd some owf Hewcuwese,

I was wondering what a random chibi doll I bought from Goodwill was. Nendoroid pointed me in the right direction. :)

Only if you are Telly Savalas in the Battle of th Bulge you can have a convertible Cadillac tank. ;-)

Yeah and it feels weird

It does seem to validate the need for the MPF, too. We made such a platform then and we'd like one now.

The US Arsenal was working up the Stuart design at the same time which made the US Army realize that it's vertical volute suspension was superior to the Christie suspension due to being less complicated, didn't take up interior space and was easier to repair or replace. The one holdover from the combat car design was using the radial aircraft engine since the crews and mechanics like it plus those were cheap and plentiful as obsolete engines stored in the warehouses of commercial aircraft operators.

@@cheyannei5983 perhaps we will see a convertible tank and related vehicles again soon.

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis Not convertible, just an armored, self-moving field gun you can move via jet... aka a tank.

What the fuck are you talking about

@@samsonthemighty9254 the figure in front of his hands blind lil man

Chibi Darjeeling took center focus at last.

I’m a Riko “Erwin” Matsumoto fan myself, but if Darjeeling is the Major’s preference, that’s fine.

Should have been Kay, or better yet Alisa

Is it the same one as the one Bob Hope was in en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caught_in_the_Draft Phil Silvers en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_in_the_Army_Now

@@mpetersen6 "In The Army Now" is the one. I remembered it as late 30's but obviously it was 1941.

Did it work

Right now I'm sitting about a mile from one of their former competitors. Peter Pirsch. Pirsch was more into the custom tailored trucks en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pirsch_and_Sons

American LaFrance only produced 5 combat cars in 1932/1933 which took them nearly 18 months due to changes made by Ordnance. They also made a few turreted wheeled armored cars in 1933 that were exported to Iran.

The company probably didn't care to mention the project since they pissed off the US Army and the Ordnance Department by producing only 5 combat cars after going thru the $200,000 given them to manufacture 15 or 20.

I think it depends on where you're willing to spend your money and resources. Both the British and Soviets had great success using the Christie suspension on tanks, right up until the end of the war. Both the British Comet and late-model Russian T-34 tanks were still using it, though it tends to get forgotten about as vehicles pass the 40 ton mark.

@@Senbei01 To be fair though, the Russians were trying to get rid of the Christie suspension and make the T-34M with torsion bars instead, but with the war breaking out it seemed pointless making such a radical production change and endure a drop in production numbers while the Germans were coming right at them. The brits on the other hand still went with some variation of coil springs for almost everything, and once they got to Centurion, which is without a doubt just too heavy, went with Horstmann bogies. British suspension design generally seems to be a bizarre struggle of using everything and anything as long as its not torsion bars.

While the 3 man turret did eventually become standard, it did take a while for the French and the Russians to adopt the concept.

@@Riceball01 to be fair its rather hard to change design philosophy when occupying powers won't let you play with tanks.

Concur, it is low speed high torque acceleration that counts

Yes, very much do. I like to say "We are reading history; they were the ones making that history."

After WW1 the US Army bought tanks made in foreign countries to test and examine. Patton and Ike worked together tearing them completely down to examine all the system components then put them back together to get an idea on how hard those were to repair.

What anime figure?

Never mind I saw it now

Don't know what the hell that's from, but I imagine GuP to be a good bet.

@@DarknessInferno15 Yup, Darjeeling from GuP. And it's hardly a bet considering The Chieftain worked on GuP.

Yeah, it's always in the background somewhere @@strangerakari2836 Source on that?

The US Army accepted the Arsenal's combat car for use in 1939 then declared it obsolete before the year was over.

Russians did it first though. Russians absolutely loved the design and had followed through with it since the 1930 , improving it's design gradually, first n the BT series tanks which later changed to A series , which later became a T34 tank in 1940. The soviets had contacted Christie in 1930, in 1931 first tank designs were shipped to the USSR, and in 1932 they were made domestically and started improving it's design each year after that.

Christie sold the same tank blueprints to the British and Soviets at the same time.

@@billwilson3609 Not true. The British only started development after a British military delegation had seen the effectiveness of the BT tanks in a Soviet military exercise.

The Chieftain can spark interest and amaze anyone, even a "Tank Suspension" expert! Oh No "The Tank is on Fire" but don't jump out we are on road wheels only and running 50 mph... "Chieftain" is rolling in the dust ...long gone as you look back at him, while the tank fire starts to consume you! LoL

Christie never bothered to design weapon systems for his military vehicles and left that to the Ordnance Department. He did design gun motor carriages to hold certain guns supplied by the Army and one tank that had an Ordnance supplied turret with gun.

Yup, almost sucked my bots off several times while frogging with a friend.

Buick's first Hellcats could do 60 mph since those used two Buick V8's. Ordnance decided it would be better if it used the same R975 radial as the M4's.

...and you never work it wet, unless it's flooded (like rice farmers). Turns to bricks. We farm the stuff in SW Indiana.

@ALEX HUANG That is why they called their tanks “Combat Cars.” I am saying that a proper armoured car might have been better. Ideally something like the M38 Wolfhound, granted that is 10 years more modern but how difficult was that technology the the mid 1930s?

@ALEX HUANG Sure, but what price are they paying on roads and level ground? They were considering using the wheel/track system primarily on wheels, despite only 2 of the wheels being powered. The M1 armoured car was bad cross country, but that was just an armoured truck with unpowered front wheels and small wheels. Bigger, or at least more, wheels and all powered would be almost as good as tracks in difficult going and dramatically better on good going. Retractable metal wheels like the Panhard EBR would have been interesting.

Yes, it's a bad suspention, yet everyone seems to think it's an amazing thing because.... t-34 i guess. Even the soviets stoped using it as soon as they could, the t-34 being the only tank in production using the christie suspention and it was more because they had to than because they wanted to, when germany launches barbarossa the were testing the torsion bar on the t-34 but the decided to not make it enter production because they needed something NOW and changing the suspention would have caused huge production issues and slow downs, only the british continued to use it past WWII, but hey it's the british, they designed a partially bolted vertical armored tank when even the germans decided to use sloped armour.

Even if the US army had adopted it I feel they'd have completely dropped it once they got sucked into WW2. Everything that went into the Lee, Sherman, and Stuart was to make them as easy to use and fix as possible on the troops over seas. The Christie just doesn't fit that design requirement.

@@85blutch That's t-34 being the only tank in *soviet* production using the christie suspension *at that time*. The suspension isn't terrible, it allows for large wheels with a wide range of motion which means a smoother ride, and large helical springs seem to be easier to produce than torsion bars. Curiously enough, the israelis seem to be using a derivative helical spring-bell crank combo on the merkavas, so it can't be that bad...

Richard J Stuart I would like a comparison between the T 34 , Sherman and the Panzer 4 all are about equal ish on paper and none are perfect and all underwent upgrades and modifications during production. They also represent the thinking of the respective regimes military ordinance officials and the limitations of their manufacturing and supply chain.

Seems rather odd to me that the criticism is that they took their time testing & developing various options to determine the most ideal solution - instead of just blindly accepting the extraordinarily compromised Christie design Also, history yet again proving that convertible "do everything" designs are a complete and utter waste of everyone's time - often times, it REALLY IS worth designing and producing two different ideas to cover two different needs, instead of trying to make one that can be converted to do either. Or, just accepting that one of these needs(high speed cross country travel - just haul the damn things there if it's really such a distance) isn't actually legitimate in the first place... ...the convertible tank, a solution looking for a problem...

RyTrapp0 we have the benefit of hindsight but at the time there were a lot of “good ideas” going about from multiple turreted land battleships to two man tankettes which would swarm all over the battlefield. The wheel/tracked idea was quite common as the tank could be driven to where it was to fight then changed to tracks rather than rely on rail or lorries that weren’t that large at the time.

@@johnludmon7419 The US Army got excited over Christie's 1929 design due to being blazingly fast when everyone else has low speed tanks. Christie never bothered to design weapon systems or turrets for his tanks yet did suggest a forward firing hull mounted cannon in the front of the 1929 by fitting a section of pipe with bins for ammo stowage inside for the gunner with the driver sitting behind him. Walter said the low profile tank (was under 6 feet in height) would be hard to see and hit as it raced around behind enemy lines shooting things up. The Army had him make some more that Ordnance fitted with a turret holding a gun to put thru rigorous testing. The crews liked them because those were fast even when going up long slopes so the Army hired American-LaFrance to build some more using a design worked up by the Ordnance engineers. A-F was given $200,000 to build around a dozen and after two years, had only made 5 before running out of money. In the end, the Army decided it would be best to use a simple suspension like the vertical volute bogie in combat since it was more robust, easier and faster to repair and could still support weight with broken springs.

Modern US crescendo helmets have that type as an inner layer under the removable kevlar. It’s decent on its own but I always wore the hard shell. Armoured vehicles are hard and surprisingly pointy on the inside.

Considering they still use them, the "Shlemofon", They're probably good enouth. When it comes down to it, if the tank is penetrated there's problems anyway, helmets may or may not do much depending on how its penetrated. Might be a little cheaper to. But that's not to say more substantial helmets aren't better, good enouth does not mean best.

US wanted tank development, which as Chieftain pointed out was very limited intra-war, to be unified rather than diluted in different directions -- sensible enough. While the cavalry wanted tanks, the Infantry _needed_ tanks, so they were given control of tank development. But, as Chieftain noted, the cavalry just called the tanks they wanted "armored cars", so the army-only restriction didn't have much actual effect.

Yep. Turns out if you are going to make a proper medium tank with Christie suspension, the T-34 is the logical outcome.

it was not the congress who forbade the cavalry to have tanks, but rather military thinking and WWI experience there were armoured cars in WWI, most of which were crewed by cavalry once the horse proved to soft to charge under machine gun fire, the vehicles were light and (relatively) fast which was perfect for the usual roles of the cavalry (recon, skirmishing and exploitation). the tanks on the other hand were slow, lumbering giants, heavy beasts of steel with guns poking out of every side and provide a hail of fire to help the crunchies cross the no man's land, there adapted to the infantry style of fighting of the time, which could be (overly) simplified to facing the enemy and locking horns with him. this experience influenced the interwar naming conventions in some countries, thus the cavalry had combat cars while the tanks were reserved to the infantry, France was in the same boat, the most famous french medium tank of WWII, the S35, was in nomenclature a cavalry combat car, a pretty weird combat car if you ask me, but one none the less

@@quentintin1 Thanks for the comment..but the Army was giving the Cavalry tanks..just calling them Combat Cars...so that wasn't fooling the Army..or anyone.

@@od1452 it affected only the naming conventions, early in the interwar the distinction stood has the tanks were unreliable compared to wheeled vehicles but the lines blurred as the reliability increased to the point that the distinction existed in name only. it was the same for france, where by the mid 30's only the Panhard 178 was really an armoured car, the others (AMC 35S, ACG1, AMR 35) were fully tracked vehicles, but the naming conventions stood because there was a meaning attached, a tank is heavy and slow while an armoured car is light and fast, today we know this isn't true, but that was how they named things before it was the same for firearms, today an automatic rifle is a machine gun, back then it was just an autoloader in short, the name wasn't referring about the way the vehicle moved about, but about the service branch, the capabilities and the intended role of the vehicle

The US Army didn't bother with designing tanks after WW1 and instead purchased tanks made in other countries to test and examine. Patton and Eisenhower got acquainted at the new Army Armor School where the two would completely disassemble purchased tanks to study their operating systems then put those back together to determine the difficulty of their repair in the field. The US Army didn't have much money after WW1 so used J. Walter Christie to build prototypes of their designs since they used his services earlier which earned him $100,000. There's plenty of online information about J. Walter Christie.