For someone 5'6" tall this is definitely very ergonomic and comfortable by Soviet standards...excellent idea of a carousel system to bring ammo to the loader so he doesn't have to crawl around, brilliant!
"Lobbing 6 inches of high explosive love".........I am resisting making an inappropriate comment........I should go now. :) This is why I love the show.
@@The_Ninedalorian That's one hell of a inferiority complex when you have to comment on a random YT video about how much bigger your penis is. And on a Joke comment no less!
I have to wonder if the height difference you found in the hull is actually from the extra weight compressing the suspension and simply making it ride a couple inches lower. And those half torsion bars are actually the standard style, the original. I don't think they ever tried full length ones until right before WWII, I think the Pz III may have been the first. It was considered a clever way of making a torsion beam that could use the entire width of the hull. The half-length is what you typically find in automobiles with torsion bar suspension, since uneven suspension matters more in wheeled road vehicles (and because long beams are more important on heavy vehicles, since a short spring stiff enough to support a massive weight is more prone to cracking and fatigue, since a shorter bar needs to twist and deform more to achieve the same travel). Or sometimes they install them longitudinally, I think the VW Beetle maybe of that type. Although to be strictly accurate, they often use a full-width torsion bar, but they anchor it firmly in the middle, so each half is isolated and serves a different side of the vehicle. Actual half bars are less common.
That drivers seat looks like a real uncomfortable place to be. Especially with the gun in the way. Wouldn't want to be there if it was getting shot at.
In general: You just don't want to be in a Russian or Soviet Vehicles. Even the more modern versions are far less caring about the crew than the western counterparts.
GreenwireGaming Like I said, I'm 6'1'' If i tryed to fit in Most russian Tanks, well. I couldent. If you're above 5'6'' you just won't fit into ALOT of russian tanks.
If these rounds way almost 50 kilos, it seems like a legitimate concern would be the backs of the loaders? Anybody in shape could handle a 50 kilo round in like a warehouse setting, but the twisting and turning inside a relatively small compartment seems like loaders with back injuries would've been a noticeable and recurring problem. Does anybody know of any work done on this or maybe even some period reports? Just curious.
My guess is that the average crew member, as well as soldier, was shorter back then, but also pretty damned muscular from the agricultural make-up of the Soviet Union. Shorter, stronger guys with solid cores could handle those rounds better. I think that the average person watching today just doesn't understand how solid of a core hard-working humans can have and used to have. I'm writing this from experience after having taken a job that was one of the most extreme forms of construction, and working at it for a few years, but also noting the idiosyncrasies of the guys who had been doing it far longer than I. None of us looked like steroid-using body-builders, but there was no doubt that people could see, and commented on, our builds. When one gets that solid, through training and the extra strength needed to control it, it seemed that the back just doesn't bend much. With shorter guys they'd be able to keep their back straighter for sure.
If a loader broke his back, he was simply replaced. Such was the Soviet Union's view of the Human Being: an economic asset to be expended as the State deemed fit. Anyone who could not handle the strain was a liability on the State anyway and the USSR was better off without him; so ran the thought of Soviet leaders.
I would assume the seat folding away, allowing the loader to face directly towards the rounds to lift them may help here a little. But yeah it would be quite a hassle lifting 50kg over and over like this.
From a scale 1 to 10 How comfortable was this tank chief ? 1 would be the Hetzer/Jpz 38 and 10 would be Sherman Dose not look that bad if you are a bit shorter.
Okkjoknk,mkmml,.,knvgjkkjoug5ghb. Huh6bouhiljpin.kmiij7huhbujihkkjnmkjnjilnjbjnungvgvgvgvkghgvuuhuzbgvvzvz7vzgh Mo,mknkl j. Bubuhionjbub6b6hkj7z5t4r4f5g7h7j8j8ku7bbhbh
Ussr doesn't exist. And Russian military shows suck, they cut the spending to their military and mostly receiving logistics stuff. While Chinese military presents game changing weapons every year!!!
+Neurofied Yamato I understand the loader. Loading that heavy shells gonna take a lot of room to swing around. Gunner and driver doesn't really need the extra space. They barely move anyway.
fadly A. Rahman Well, when not in combat situations, you don't have much space to move around in. The loader can stretch and all that relaxing stuff compared to the others.
I'm telling you if you look at the space in almost all old Soviet armor, they destroyed Loompaland, and enslaved them as tanker crews. Wonka located them his fee was simply to keep a few for labor purposes.
its slowed the load but make it easyer its more simple to take 2 pieces one of 45 kg and the oter of 59 kg and place then In the breech one by one than having to move araound a big 104 kg shell índicethe crew compartimento that 1st it disnt fits and second its almost imposible to move
AKlover well, simply put my dad regularly goes to the gym and his maximum "safe" weight to bench press is 105. Imagine trying to lift up and swing around a 104kg projectile in a confined space on your own...
Mostly because of the weight, but for an artillery piece it is also crucial to be able to measure out the propellant charge to the suitable range. you can only get so much efficient adjustment out of the elevation; you want the shell to follow a proper arc to have proper effect. Typically the propellant case contained several smaller bags of propellant (4 on average). The gunner determines the range, and the best propellant charge to reach that range; all 4 would only be used for max range targets, a single bag for very close ones. He tells the loaders how many bags, and they remove 1, 2, or 3 from the propellant case before loading it into the gun. Large screw-breech guns (interrupted screw, etc, such as battleship guns or heavy artillery) dont even use propellant cases, they just use bags of propellant, and the loaders simply load the appropriate number into the breech after the shell. The propellant case only serves as a seal for the breech, actually, and screw-type guns are self sealing. They also make a convenient transport and handling container for propellant charges. Anyway, single piece ammo is impossible to adjust. It was actually the novelty when it came out. When they talk about QF or Quick Firing guns, that is what they refer to, the new idea of loading and attaching all the propellant and shell as a single unit that could be rapidly loaded. It was mostly adopted for small (and therefore short range) pieces since they had little need of adjusting range significantly, and because they were expected to fight small, fast-moving targets like torpedo boats, and later aircraft. Seperate ammo is still the standard for "real" artillery, for the reasons I gave. And this is very much a "real" artillery piece, not a glorified AT gun like most tanks get.
Only one exists, and I highly doubt it is a intact interior because it’s stored outside, there is also a turret mounted on a Is Chassis but that is not the same
If you were a loader in that thing, if it would ever be put in service, you would have a great job... Just putting ammo in the breach, and having all the space of the world. xD
Well, that's the "ready" rack. Once the ready rack's ammunition was expended, I suppose your life would get a lot less comfortable as you attempted to load with ammunition from the floor, other walls, or driver's compartment.
My favorite part of these videos is watching you wrangle your way into the driver's compartment of these tanks. There's barely enough room in there for an underfed soviet, let alone your 180cm+ frame!
Looks like a traditional preservation technique of metal moving parts. Cover em in grease, then wrap them in plastic tape. Looks terrible, but keeps the metal from corroding.
For someone 5'6" tall this is definitely very ergonomic and comfortable by Soviet standards...excellent idea of a carousel system to bring ammo to the loader so he doesn't have to crawl around, brilliant!
For someone 5'3" south east asia men. This tank have many room
10:20 that instrument panel is **gorgeous**
Wouldn't you know it. You finally find an AFV that you can't find any major flaws in, and it never goes into production!
well aside from the fixed gun
@@everythingsalright1121 What are you talking about? The gun isn't fixed.
Also the expenses of making such a tank
Actually it's pretty roomy inside, nice change from the older machines.
"if you have to machine gun someone, sure you have to 14.5mm one the roof anyway", dude you said "machine gun" not "annihilate"
"Lobbing 6 inches of high explosive love".........I am resisting making an inappropriate comment........I should go now. :) This is why I love the show.
damn son I lob 9 inches of explosive love
you poor poor half man you
@@The_Ninedalorian That's one hell of a inferiority complex when you have to comment on a random YT video about how much bigger your penis is. And on a Joke comment no less!
@@mavvh1054 I'd slap you in the face with it, but then your mom would get jealous, son.
@@The_Ninedalorian ... are you an idiot?
seems like for a 5'6" guy this would have been a roomy vehicle.
Impressive machine, I'd love to see the ammo-chain on the back rotating!:)
I have to wonder if the height difference you found in the hull is actually from the extra weight compressing the suspension and simply making it ride a couple inches lower.
And those half torsion bars are actually the standard style, the original. I don't think they ever tried full length ones until right before WWII, I think the Pz III may have been the first. It was considered a clever way of making a torsion beam that could use the entire width of the hull. The half-length is what you typically find in automobiles with torsion bar suspension, since uneven suspension matters more in wheeled road vehicles (and because long beams are more important on heavy vehicles, since a short spring stiff enough to support a massive weight is more prone to cracking and fatigue, since a shorter bar needs to twist and deform more to achieve the same travel). Or sometimes they install them longitudinally, I think the VW Beetle maybe of that type.
Although to be strictly accurate, they often use a full-width torsion bar, but they anchor it firmly in the middle, so each half is isolated and serves a different side of the vehicle. Actual half bars are less common.
That drivers seat looks like a real uncomfortable place to be. Especially with the gun in the way. Wouldn't want to be there if it was getting shot at.
The driver would be much shorter than him.
Meh, I'm 6'1'' and I'm a driver of a T-34-85 in re-enactments. Compaird to alot of tanks I've had to drive that doset look so bad.
In general: You just don't want to be in a Russian or Soviet Vehicles. Even the more modern versions are far less caring about the crew than the western counterparts.
Nabael its not that bad.. they just don't need espresso makers
GreenwireGaming Like I said, I'm 6'1'' If i tryed to fit in Most russian Tanks, well. I couldent. If you're above 5'6'' you just won't fit into ALOT of russian tanks.
If these rounds way almost 50 kilos, it seems like a legitimate concern would be the backs of the loaders? Anybody in shape could handle a 50 kilo round in like a warehouse setting, but the twisting and turning inside a relatively small compartment seems like loaders with back injuries would've been a noticeable and recurring problem. Does anybody know of any work done on this or maybe even some period reports? Just curious.
My guess is that the average crew member, as well as soldier, was shorter back then, but also pretty damned muscular from the agricultural make-up of the Soviet Union. Shorter, stronger guys with solid cores could handle those rounds better. I think that the average person watching today just doesn't understand how solid of a core hard-working humans can have and used to have. I'm writing this from experience after having taken a job that was one of the most extreme forms of construction, and working at it for a few years, but also noting the idiosyncrasies of the guys who had been doing it far longer than I. None of us looked like steroid-using body-builders, but there was no doubt that people could see, and commented on, our builds. When one gets that solid, through training and the extra strength needed to control it, it seemed that the back just doesn't bend much. With shorter guys they'd be able to keep their back straighter for sure.
Mambo Dave Eh, anecdotes.
Could be some insight into it.
If a loader broke his back, he was simply replaced. Such was the Soviet Union's view of the Human Being: an economic asset to be expended as the State deemed fit. Anyone who could not handle the strain was a liability on the State anyway and the USSR was better off without him; so ran the thought of Soviet leaders.
I would assume the seat folding away, allowing the loader to face directly towards the rounds to lift them may help here a little. But yeah it would be quite a hassle lifting 50kg over and over like this.
or maiby it was simply one of the reasons the type never went into production in the first place
They have a SU-100y there too. I wish he would do a video on it.
Cheers Chief!
Waiting for the next vid.
Keep up the good work!
I suffer with back issues, and currently have an injured right rotator cuff... I would be screwed as a driver!
Love this TD in game
Bit of a random question lol. Where is the music from? I just heard it on the food network!
Those engineers really liked hose clamps. What a whopping piece of technology this one is.
Why is nobody mentioning that he swung like a ninja on a barrel?
That's a pretty comfortable looking tank to operate.
From a scale 1 to 10
How comfortable was this tank chief ?
1 would be the Hetzer/Jpz 38 and 10 would be Sherman
Dose not look that bad if you are a bit shorter.
Okkjoknk,mkmml,.,knvgjkkjoug5ghb.
Huh6bouhiljpin.kmiij7huhbujihkkjnmkjnjilnjbjnungvgvgvgvkghgvuuhuzbgvvzvz7vzgh
Mo,mknkl j. Bubuhionjbub6b6hkj7z5t4r4f5g7h7j8j8ku7bbhbh
WinnyJ1 That's why they have height limits when they choosing a vehicle crew and a pilot.
I love these thanks guys!
Great video, keep up the good work!
I would of made a few dozen for shock value, and military parades. The USSR is the best at military shows, to this day.
Ussr doesn't exist. And Russian military shows suck, they cut the spending to their military and mostly receiving logistics stuff. While Chinese military presents game changing weapons every year!!!
For someone 160 cm / 5'3" south east asia men. This tank have many room
Comfortable spots from what appears the best to worst: Loader, Commander, Gunner, Driver.
+Neurofied Yamato I understand the loader. Loading that heavy shells gonna take a lot of room to swing around. Gunner and driver doesn't really need the extra space. They barely move anyway.
fadly A. Rahman Well, when not in combat situations, you don't have much space to move around in. The loader can stretch and all that relaxing stuff compared to the others.
Are you ever afraid of getting truly stuck in one of these things?
luvr381 well, there's probably a reason he hasn't done the AMX yet...
This is the maus killer
"my right foot is kinda STOCK" i love british pronounciations.
+xGxPhantom Zzz He's an Irishman.
Keyser Soze for me it's almost the same,i wanted to say UK.
I'm telling you if you look at the space in almost all old Soviet armor, they destroyed Loompaland, and enslaved them as tanker crews.
Wonka located them his fee was simply to keep a few for labor purposes.
LMFAO! Oompa Loompa doompadee doo...i have got a riddle for you...
What do you get when......IN MOTHER RUSSIA STALIN LOOMPAS YOU!
Nicholas Dobos see conspiracy solved😂
Simple question I've never seen answered? Why use separate projectile and charge and not an all in one cartidge?
Simple answer: weight and length.Projectile weight is 45 kg or 100 pounds without charge and heavy brass case .
its slowed the load but make it easyer its more simple to take 2 pieces one of 45 kg and the oter of 59 kg and place then In the breech one by one than having to move araound a big 104 kg shell índicethe crew compartimento that 1st it disnt fits and second its almost imposible to move
AKlover well, simply put my dad regularly goes to the gym and his maximum "safe" weight to bench press is 105. Imagine trying to lift up and swing around a 104kg projectile in a confined space on your own...
The Brits loved having the charge and projectile separate. It's easier to safely stow away the charge decreasing the chance of your tank blowing up.
Mostly because of the weight, but for an artillery piece it is also crucial to be able to measure out the propellant charge to the suitable range. you can only get so much efficient adjustment out of the elevation; you want the shell to follow a proper arc to have proper effect. Typically the propellant case contained several smaller bags of propellant (4 on average). The gunner determines the range, and the best propellant charge to reach that range; all 4 would only be used for max range targets, a single bag for very close ones. He tells the loaders how many bags, and they remove 1, 2, or 3 from the propellant case before loading it into the gun. Large screw-breech guns (interrupted screw, etc, such as battleship guns or heavy artillery) dont even use propellant cases, they just use bags of propellant, and the loaders simply load the appropriate number into the breech after the shell. The propellant case only serves as a seal for the breech, actually, and screw-type guns are self sealing. They also make a convenient transport and handling container for propellant charges.
Anyway, single piece ammo is impossible to adjust. It was actually the novelty when it came out. When they talk about QF or Quick Firing guns, that is what they refer to, the new idea of loading and attaching all the propellant and shell as a single unit that could be rapidly loaded. It was mostly adopted for small (and therefore short range) pieces since they had little need of adjusting range significantly, and because they were expected to fight small, fast-moving targets like torpedo boats, and later aircraft. Seperate ammo is still the standard for "real" artillery, for the reasons I gave. And this is very much a "real" artillery piece, not a glorified AT gun like most tanks get.
Look at all that *grease* !
Let's see the KV-2 and it's derp gun
Only one exists, and I highly doubt it is a intact interior because it’s stored outside, there is also a turret mounted on a Is Chassis but that is not the same
why do they cover the sights with this tap, or grease?
6:45 childbirth backwards
If you were a loader in that thing, if it would ever be put in service, you would have a great job... Just putting ammo in the breach, and having all the space of the world. xD
Well, that's the "ready" rack. Once the ready rack's ammunition was expended, I suppose your life would get a lot less comfortable as you attempted to load with ammunition from the floor, other walls, or driver's compartment.
My favorite part of these videos is watching you wrangle your way into the driver's compartment of these tanks. There's barely enough room in there for an underfed soviet, let alone your 180cm+ frame!
Not even close, he's 198 cm tall IIRC. I asked him once about his favourite tank, being 2 m tall myself.
Underfed? Tankers ate the best. Get a grip.
Nice tank
Does this vehichle run?
Adam Warnock Yes
Ammo coffin.
What the heck is covering the gunners scope assembly and why?
Looks like a traditional preservation technique of metal moving parts. Cover em in grease, then wrap them in plastic tape. Looks terrible, but keeps the metal from corroding.
Im definently not getting my fat ass in that thing.
I love the series but fgs, get rid of that music!