Відео

Both American and British paratroopers would have benefited mightily if they'd had the M-22 on operations such as Market Garden, and other dubious, hare-brained missions.

I think this guy likes talking about armoured vehicles. 🙂👍

Great video! Interesting to learn how the US adapted until they could make a dedicated TD like the M18. LOL, and then used parts from the earlier versions to make the Jackson! The combination of massive manufacturing and practical policies are a powerful formula. God Bless America. 👍

Y'all gotta get an M88! Every tankers friend.

Fantastic Video! Lots of good info here. Thank you for this one. Outstanding stuff! 😎👍

We are coming to visit in about 10 days! Very excited to see your collection and meet your people.

My grandfather, from Oklahoma, was in the 634th TD Battalion, and took his training at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana. He told us the stories of their experiences across France, Belgium, and Germany. Besides a handful of his snapshots, this is the first detailed look I've had at the M10 he fought in. Thank you for this video.

Yet another great video, thanks for posting. For y’all reading the comments, I highly recommend the book Patton’s Vanguard, it’s about the 4th Armored Division and a lot is learned about how the tanks and tank destroyers were used in WWII. The 704th TD battalion refused to get rid of their Hellcats because they were faster than M10’s and M36’s. Great book.

This gentleman is very good at these videos. 👍

Nice video - what about the M36B1?

A visit to the museum is on my bucket list. Keep up the great work!!

I think most of the early panzer 4 actually had worse armour then the panzer 3 so the 37mm gun would kinda work… However the Germans quickly uparmoured the panzer 3 and 4 after their experiences in France. The British 2 pounder and French 47mm guns were quite capable of knocking German armour out so they needed to up armour because they got hammered each time the French or British troops could set themselves up for a fight. Only because they outran the allied reaction capability allowed them to beat them tbh.

A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks. British and US doctrine continued to vary throughout the war but the biggest illustration is the British getting the 17th pounder onto towed and SP platforms as well as Cromwell and Sherman hulls as Challenger and Firefly.

A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks.

From a plane it would penetrate

The Hellcat looks sleek

Excellent 👏👏👏👍from Belgium 🇹🇩🤝🇺🇸

Love these videos from the Museum! Kudos to the Chieftain for recommending it ages ago.

awesome! great video. very informative!

Thanks for another excellent video. Good balance for both new and more knowledgeable viewers.

My favorite story about the TD's during WW2 was: before D-Day, and given the experience of TD's in North Africa and in Italy, around half of the TD Battalions in Europe were converted to towed weapons. However, after experience with the TD's in Western Europe, it was decided to convert ALL TD battalions to self-propelled pieces. Since the Army was introducing the new M-36 at the same time, battalions previously equipped with the M-10 were reequipped with the M-36, and the extra M-10's were used to convert towed battalions to SP battalions. Two little known facts about TD's. First, there were some M-10 equipped tank destroyer battalions which were going to be reequipped with the M-18, and they refused, preferring to keep their M-10's. And second, one of the early M-26 tanks suffered damage to it's gun barrel in combat, and so the mechanics simply replaced the M-26 90mm gun with one in the supply system meant for the M-36.

In all of my research on the "why didn't they just put the superior 76mm gun on all the Shermans" and "The 75 mm short barrel Sherman sucked -- why couldn't the USA do as well as the Germans", I came up with the following after years of diving. There's a reason most dedicated infantry support vehicles / assault guns had short barrels. The short barrels are lower velocity (because of the shorter distance over which the rounds are exposed to a massive imbalance of forces). Lower velocity means that the round can have a thinner outer shell for stability, meaning, you can fill it with more explosive -- AND that shell can be made of softer metal, meaning better fragmentation. This is ideal against infantry targets and has also been shown to be more effective in period tests on inanimate targets. In WW2, 90% of the rounds fired by Shermans were high explosive. Tanks most routinely support infantry. When moving to a higher velocity, longer barrel, it's a trade off. You get better velocity (almost worthless against infantry, but useful against enemy armor), but because velocity goes up, the rounds can be filled with less explosive and have to be made of metal less likely to fragment nicely. And so, one solution might be to send a 76mm long barrel Sherman with every 4 or so 75mm short barrels. And this is often what happened. This would give these groups a bit of all-round protection.

I feel it would be more accurate to say the Blitz set off a AT gun panic. Everyone knew tanks would be important, but everyone had different ideas as to what degree. Additionally, they were seen as offensive weaponry (and so their development a sign of aggression) making their use in large numbers politically undesireable to many pro-peace governments. This channel feels like the History channel at its best; well-meaning, just using sometimes obselete information and not looking much deeper (though I'm loving the increased source referencing). These guys really have the potential to do some good, particularly while the Armor & Cavalry Museum in Ft Benning remains closed to the public.

Bullshit hindsight statements within first 1 minute were puke-worthy. Do better and don't replicated know-it-all bar flies next time tell the HISTORY as it was FFS!

Not a "so-called Torsion Bar system"... just a Torsion Bar system!

Thanks Dan, keep 'em coming.

HI. GOOD VIDEO SIR, VERY INTERESTING AND EDUCATIONAL. UH, IF YOU HAVE THE LATE MR. CARL SMITH'S HALF-TRACK, THEN YOU MUST'VE GOT YOUR HELLCAT FROM HIS COLLECTION TOO, RIGHT?? IF SO THEN THAT'S THE HELLCAT THAT WAS FEATURED ON THE TV SERIES "TANK OVERHAUL" WHICH WAS SHOWN MANY YEARS AGO?? OH, YOU SAID TWICE ABOUT TWIN DIESEL CADILLAC ENGINES POWERING SOME SHERMAN VARIANTS; BUT I BELIEVE THOSE WERE GAS ENGINES THAT ALSO POWERED THE M-5 STEWART LIGHT TANK?? I THOUGHT I'D READ THAT THE ARMY DIDN'T WANT DIESEL TANKS IN THE ETO, BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE LOGISTICS PROBLEMS HAVING TO SHIP 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF FUEL, BUT THEY USED TWIN GENERAL MOTORS 6-71 DETROIT DIESEL BUS ENGINES IN SOME TANKS IN THE PACIFIC, BECAUSE WITH SOME NAVY LANDING CRAFT USING DIESELS, THERE WERE NO LOGISTICS PROBLEMS THERE. CHAS ORVIS, PLAINVILLE, CT.

I read somewhere that cast-off Army 37 mm anti-tank guns found a useful home aboard USN PT Boats. They were useful for attacking small ships and barges.

That is incorrect. The United States might not have but European countries definitely had.

You mean well, but in my opinion you focused too much on the machines and not enough on the doctrine of how they were used. Despite the name, they weren't just to destroy tanks, any more than naval destroyers were used solely to destroy torpedo boats despite their initial name of torpedo boats destroyers at the end of the 19th century. Machines alone don't fight or win wars. It's also the men and the methods men use the fighting machines entrusted to them that matter.

You skipped the 57mm anti tank gun.

Not sure if its true but I've heard that while fighting in the Europe during the winters of WWII M10 tank crews ( i think it was )found out the turret traverse moved too slow for a single tank destroyer so Group's of 4 M10s would cover each other on the move via each side ( left right front and back...also regarding the hellcats speed does this mean it's the 2nd fastest Tank U.S. history??

0:48 Confirmed. I assessed the towed 37mm as not very effective and I don't have an ounce of military expertise in my background. :D

America is a continent.

I don't understand how getting run over by a tank is fatal when the whole point is to reduce ground pressure.

If vehicles could talk

Excellent presentation!

The " lesser known " Austin Bantam BRC 40 actually won the trials at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds but was denied the contract because of its smaller output . As a consolation it was awarded the trailer contract . Some 2000 BRC 40s were built and 1000 or so were shipped to the UK under its ownership as Austin was a British company. The BRC 40 saw duty in the Far East and on the Home Front in various roles including mobile anti aircraft, but the bulk of these were sent as aid to the Soviet Union ....

Tough time for some tough boys. Hate to see today's boys try something like that.

I'm not sure what was More interesting! The History of this Russian GAZ or looking at the Walkman cassette player?! Ha Ha! Thank You for sharing this Information with us!

Why does ihop have such crap pancakes but Dennys has awesome pancakes?

From a time usa believed in there own skills insted of buying everything from china

Best presentation on the Esy 8 I've ever seen. Clear, concise and all details. My only reaction is thank you and WOW!

Is this vehicle still in use? Because it is too useful and practical.

8:25 , remember he said the rocket was wire guided ? Well any flinching can be corrected in flight . But there is limit to that correction capability . Very interesting . I was in an infantry company . We did not have mules . We had jeeps . 18:14 , damn , the drive system needs help . And that is why you have it . Fk . So I’m glad you brought that to our attention .

You are Absolutely Right !

some like FAUN Kraka-640

I do have a question, could the gun be lowered enough to be used for direct fire for, let's say, a pillbox or a house?

My Dad was a scout for the 66th Armored Field Artillery Battalion in Patton's favorite Armored Division, the 4th. I used to think that he was a tanker when I was younger because that's what comes to mind when you think of Patton's Third Army. Needless to say that when I asked him what type of tank he rode around in, he said that he mainly traveled around in a jeep paired up with a tank, which for a kid in grade school sounded pretty boring. Later on I understood the part he played in the 4th Armored Division and as my uncle said, "The whole damn world was at war and there's your Dad, driving around in a jeep, looking for trouble!" He fought in the breakout of Normandy, Northern France, the Ardennes, the Rhineland with a stop at the Buchenwald concentration camps and then into Czechoslovakia at the end of the war.

that thing is awesome