The imperial guard actually has a very similar vehicle called a vywern, it has the exact same turret design but with four launchers instead of just two. Allthough it's main role is as an artillery piece and not an assault vehicle.
@@flatheadgg2443 I know it's meant be AA but I can't think of one single enemy aircraft I've brought down with it. Maybe a couple demons or something but I usually just level the guns at heretical scum or xenos filth.
@@AHappyCubits 2023 and people have been doing it for thousands of years. Even the Romans, often regarded as the most alpha male chads in history did it. Are people seriously still hung up on this?
I remember reading that some crews moved the support arm of the Calliope to the mantlet - you lose range of elevation, but you could fire the gun. I have no idea if it was actually true, though, or just an idea someone had. They didnt seem to see enough service for those sort of field mods.
@@pickeljarsforhillary102I can't tell if you're being serious because the more I think about it, the more it kinda makes sense, but also it seems like the worst thing for the driver to deal with... I imagine it made their necks sore as hell
Special mention to the Matilda Hedghog, literally a Matilda with a hedghog anti-submarine launcher mounted on it, developed by the Australians, apparently it didnt just pass trial, they were bloody impressed with it. Just one issue, the war ended xD
This reminded me of one patch for first Company of Heroes - Calliope lost useable main gun, at the same time ability for rocket barrage became free (not counting cool-down time).
@@wojo44frompl This made the Caliope in CoH2 esentially useless, since without it's main gun it's vulnerable to infantry units equipped with anti-tank weapons
@@interpl6089 No offense but you must be a CoH2 noob if you think that. In the game no one uses it as a tank but as mobile artillery like a walking stuka or panzerwerfer. You launch a salvo and retreat behind your frontline.
Irony is that the main selling point of using M8 rockets as bunker-busters was that they were "cheaper" than 105mm shells while similarly powerful. Then they go about using them as inefficiently as possible, ensuring any savings are negated and then some. Sure, an M8 rocket costs much less to produce in the USA than a 105mm HE shell. The fuse of the shell arguably costs more than the whole M8 rocket. Now consider how many more M8 rockets were needed to achieve the effect of a single well-aimed 105mm shell? An M4 Sherman with a 105mm gun could take out a bunker in around two or three shots. How many M8 rockets fired a T34 did it take to be sure the same bunker was indeed hit? Let's be generous and say 20. That is still six or more M8 rockets per 105mm shell. Now think. How much chemical explosive filler is in each M8 versus each 105mm shell? About the same, so you are expending six or more times the chemical explosive now. How much more space does six more M8 rockets occupy in storage? How much more space on a transport ship? How much space on a truck? All these rockets have to get to the same battlefields as the 105mm shells, but you need six times more ships, trucks, and storage space to handle them. Suddenly, the M8 is not so cost-effective as a bunker buster. Imagine what could have been if someone had just committed M8 earlier to being a substitute for artillery in area fire from the start, using cheaper mounts and all to make the most of the M8?
@@genericpersonx333 It's an interesting assertion to make, considering there were no 105mm equipped Shermans, nor any intention of adding such a massive gun to a Sherman.
@@jfangm You will want to look for the following: M52 Mounting (105mm) M4 (105) M4a3 (105) 105mm Howitzer M4 105mm Howitzer M4A3 For reasons known best by the US Army of the day, the M4 Shermans with 105mm guns didn't have consistent labeling or their own M number to distinguish them. Whatever the case, they were made and used in the thousands. According to Nicholas Moran and others, there was even debate about adopting the 105mm M52 weapon as the standard armament of the Sherman because its 105mm shell was more useful more of the time as enemy armored forces continued to decline in number. As for sources...well I am having trouble finding a book on American tanks of the Second World War that DOESN'T have a reference to the Shermans with 105mm, so take your pick.
@@genericpersonx333 The 105mm M4 was not a tank, it was a gun motor carriage or howitzer motor carriage, as it mounted a howitzer, not a direct-fire cannon. You might want to clarify that next time. There is a BIG difference between calling it a "105mm gun" and a "105mm howitzer." And, while there may have been DEBATE about using the 105mm M4s, that debate likely ended very quickly, since they never actually implemented that idea. In all likelihood, because it was a BAD idea, as a howitzer would NOT be able to engage enemy armor very effectively, OR be very useful in accurate, direct-fire engagement - a necessity given the intense urban fighting Shermans partook in during the European theater. The idea to mount M52s on Shermans likely came from general officers who weren't on the frontlines or even in the European theater.
i have watched a handful of your videos this week cuz i just found you and the “4.5 inches is below average, as we all know” joke was hilarious enough for me to sub! hahaha excited to watch more keep it up!
8:38 // i Think the Russian TOS-1 is a Better Example, Standard T-72 Chassis With Turret Replaced by 30x 220mm Thermobaric or Incendiary-High Explosive Rockets. Although Russians Qualify it as a Heavy Flamethrower.....
Honorable mention to the Magach 6R with the Hydra rockets (recently added to War Thunder). Obviously not done by the Americans, but it was done on an American tank!
While shorter ranged and less accurate rockets are a great way to deliver high explosives somewhere. First since they don’t have to survive the shock of being fired from a gun they don’t need as thick a casing so they can carry more explosives than an equivalent size shell. Second they have little to no recoil so it’s relatively easy to mount them on even light vehicles as they don’t need the recoil compensating systems that cannon or even mortars do. Third they can really suppress the target even if they don’t destroy it. The shriek made by katyusha and nebelwerfers rockets is legendary as “Stalin’s Organ” and “Screaming Mimis” respectively. And that’s not even counting the concussion from a bunch of the things hitting all around.
I feel like the consept could still work especially with the recent push for light tanks like the Griffin having some more anti tank fire power could prove useful.
These were not anti tank rockets, just high explosive for use as indirect artillery fire. What you're talking about is easily remedied by adding some ATGM launchers to a light AFV (like the TOW launchers on the Bradley).
I've read in a book about the m8 greyhound that they planned to put rockets on them on a prototype named the "Armored Chemical Car T30". Unfortunately I can't find a lot of information online about it and there are 0 photos of it, and the development of the vehicle never really went anywhere.
The Russian version was used in large batteries and made a unique, chilling sound so even if they didn't hit the target, the psychological effects on the enemy must have been terrifying
Psychological effects are extremely powerful, especially in wars where civilians were in the line of fire. The siren of a stuka, the unseen terror of a bullet the size of a riding lawnmower falling from the sky from the infamous Paris Gun, the threat of IED car bomb... the 38cm rocket of a sturmtiger staring at you in War Thunder... Psychological warfare is very real.
I was watching this while playing War Thunder, and I came across an M26 T99 while listening! Also, I've seen several reports that the T31 instead had a 105mm howitzer as opposed to the dummy 75mm gun. Is this just a misinterpretation?
So basically the calliope in war thunder is inaccurate? Because in game you can use the tank like a normal Sherman, while also being able to fire annoying amounts of rockets. *Time to leak some documents.*
The whole idea of mounting rocket launchers on tanks was dumb at the time. The Russians got it right by mounting them on cheap trucks and using them in mass as artillery.
@@RedWrenchFilms Rocket launching tanks are still viable, the Tos1 and M270 are fully tracked, armored and fire saturation rockets and are quite recent creations. Trucks are always cheaper though. My point is that the title of your video is deceptive because it gives the impression that the WW2 rocket tanks were a total failure. They had shortcomings sure, but so did everything in that war. The shermans with rockets deserve more respect than you give them, they achieved their mission and were useful in forcing the surrender of the axis. What went wrong was there wasnt enough targets for them at that point in the war. As for the prototypes you cant really make final judgements on a vehicle until its been refined by its service.
@@obadiahhakeswill1741 The problem is they made the tanks into mobile artillery until the rockets were launched (vulnerable to the enemy and little use as a tank). Once the rockets were launched it could operate as a tank, but at reduced efficiency. The idea was that an armored company could supply it's own pre attack barrage before it's attack (launch the rockets to soften the enemy position then attack normally), but rocket artillery didn't really suit western needs in occupied Europe and then they're still dealing with a handicapped tank system. The concept was sound but the reality was borderline useless since you could rarely use such an indiscriminate weapon in occupied Europe and you couldn't carry this into direct enemy contact.
The T31 looks like something out of the 40k universe.
I thought the exact same thing! I don't know if it would be on a Leman Russ or Chimera chassis though.
If you think that does, look up the AMX 30B Pluton
@@michaelhowell2326 it would be an ork vehicle, powered by a right proppa WAAAAGH!!!
The imperial guard actually has a very similar vehicle called a vywern, it has the exact same turret design but with four launchers instead of just two.
Allthough it's main role is as an artillery piece and not an assault vehicle.
@@flatheadgg2443 I know it's meant be AA but I can't think of one single enemy aircraft I've brought down with it. Maybe a couple demons or something but I usually just level the guns at heretical scum or xenos filth.
What are you talking about 4.5 inch is pretty average, also m8 had a great personality
Also a penetration with the T37 would hurt much more
@@timonbrun984 yeah, i know from experience
@@kaanotta 📸🤨
@@AHappyCubits 2023 and people have been doing it for thousands of years. Even the Romans, often regarded as the most alpha male chads in history did it. Are people seriously still hung up on this?
4.5inch are pretty tiny in many people perspective. If you're thinking i'm joking, serious or being sarcastic, that's on you to decide
I remember reading that some crews moved the support arm of the Calliope to the mantlet - you lose range of elevation, but you could fire the gun.
I have no idea if it was actually true, though, or just an idea someone had. They didnt seem to see enough service for those sort of field mods.
Absolutely! I don’t talk about it but can see it at 3:12.
That little car merrily bouncing @ 0:50 got me interested. As soon as I notice it, my mind began redesigning a modern version of the vehicle
A true thingamabob
It's probably a variation on the old "Tin Lizzy" concept, or an early attempt at what the Jeep would become.
The bouncing was a feature designed to make targeting difficult for enemy machine gunners.
@@pickeljarsforhillary102I can't tell if you're being serious because the more I think about it, the more it kinda makes sense, but also it seems like the worst thing for the driver to deal with... I imagine it made their necks sore as hell
Special mention to the Matilda Hedghog, literally a Matilda with a hedghog anti-submarine launcher mounted on it, developed by the Australians, apparently it didnt just pass trial, they were bloody impressed with it. Just one issue, the war ended xD
Hadnt realised that the Calliope fitting made the main gun inoperable.. 😮
This reminded me of one patch for first Company of Heroes - Calliope lost useable main gun, at the same time ability for rocket barrage became free (not counting cool-down time).
@@wojo44frompl This made the Caliope in CoH2 esentially useless, since without it's main gun it's vulnerable to infantry units equipped with anti-tank weapons
@@interpl6089 No offense but you must be a CoH2 noob if you think that. In the game no one uses it as a tank but as mobile artillery like a walking stuka or panzerwerfer. You launch a salvo and retreat behind your frontline.
@@R--------- It is extremely slow for that role
I love the calliope in war thunder soooo much
Irony is that the main selling point of using M8 rockets as bunker-busters was that they were "cheaper" than 105mm shells while similarly powerful.
Then they go about using them as inefficiently as possible, ensuring any savings are negated and then some.
Sure, an M8 rocket costs much less to produce in the USA than a 105mm HE shell. The fuse of the shell arguably costs more than the whole M8 rocket.
Now consider how many more M8 rockets were needed to achieve the effect of a single well-aimed 105mm shell? An M4 Sherman with a 105mm gun could take out a bunker in around two or three shots. How many M8 rockets fired a T34 did it take to be sure the same bunker was indeed hit? Let's be generous and say 20. That is still six or more M8 rockets per 105mm shell.
Now think. How much chemical explosive filler is in each M8 versus each 105mm shell? About the same, so you are expending six or more times the chemical explosive now.
How much more space does six more M8 rockets occupy in storage? How much more space on a transport ship? How much space on a truck? All these rockets have to get to the same battlefields as the 105mm shells, but you need six times more ships, trucks, and storage space to handle them.
Suddenly, the M8 is not so cost-effective as a bunker buster.
Imagine what could have been if someone had just committed M8 earlier to being a substitute for artillery in area fire from the start, using cheaper mounts and all to make the most of the M8?
I'm not even going to get into why your "M4 Sherman with a 105mm gun" assertion is ridiculous.
@@jfangm Interesting choice of argumentation.
@@genericpersonx333
It's an interesting assertion to make, considering there were no 105mm equipped Shermans, nor any intention of adding such a massive gun to a Sherman.
@@jfangm
You will want to look for the following:
M52 Mounting (105mm)
M4 (105)
M4a3 (105)
105mm Howitzer M4
105mm Howitzer M4A3
For reasons known best by the US Army of the day, the M4 Shermans with 105mm guns didn't have consistent labeling or their own M number to distinguish them.
Whatever the case, they were made and used in the thousands. According to Nicholas Moran and others, there was even debate about adopting the 105mm M52 weapon as the standard armament of the Sherman because its 105mm shell was more useful more of the time as enemy armored forces continued to decline in number.
As for sources...well I am having trouble finding a book on American tanks of the Second World War that DOESN'T have a reference to the Shermans with 105mm, so take your pick.
@@genericpersonx333
The 105mm M4 was not a tank, it was a gun motor carriage or howitzer motor carriage, as it mounted a howitzer, not a direct-fire cannon. You might want to clarify that next time. There is a BIG difference between calling it a "105mm gun" and a "105mm howitzer." And, while there may have been DEBATE about using the 105mm M4s, that debate likely ended very quickly, since they never actually implemented that idea. In all likelihood, because it was a BAD idea, as a howitzer would NOT be able to engage enemy armor very effectively, OR be very useful in accurate, direct-fire engagement - a necessity given the intense urban fighting Shermans partook in during the European theater. The idea to mount M52s on Shermans likely came from general officers who weren't on the frontlines or even in the European theater.
I love all the random little vehicles running around. It looks super fun to run around Aberdeen proving ground trying to break stuff.
That T-31 needs some. Holy water!
Reminds me of Japan’s anti tank missile series, the dedicated launcher (type 60 ATM), the launcher on the jeep, and the very peculiar looking M24 ATM
I think China has a modern missile launcher tank, don't remember what it's called
i have watched a handful of your videos this week cuz i just found you and the “4.5 inches is below average, as we all know” joke was hilarious enough for me to sub! hahaha excited to watch more keep it up!
Thanks Trey :)
Awesome you opened it with Kelly's Heroes, best tank movie ever, woof woof woof! 😂
I love it!
8:38 // i Think the Russian TOS-1 is a Better Example, Standard T-72 Chassis With Turret Replaced by 30x 220mm Thermobaric or Incendiary-High Explosive Rockets. Although Russians Qualify it as a Heavy Flamethrower.....
Love the quality of ur videos man, keep up the good work..
Appreciate it!
I love this
what are you talking about 4.5 inches is huge for a rocket. i always heard 3 inches was average...
Always a good day when u post :D
They tried to use rockets as the main weapon on the Sheridan too.
Those were missiles! I’ve got a video on it if you’re interested.
Rocket works once. America : GIMME 600000
Factory go brrrrrr
you always bring us joy, hope you reach 50k soon
I hope so too!
4.5 inches is way above average, what are you on about?
As an American I can confirm that we *love* explosions.
I was hoping to see something different when "rocket tank" was mentioned but this will do very well
I see you using Kelly’s Hero’s as footage, you made my day better sir
Honorable mention to the Magach 6R with the Hydra rockets (recently added to War Thunder). Obviously not done by the Americans, but it was done on an American tank!
While shorter ranged and less accurate rockets are a great way to deliver high explosives somewhere. First since they don’t have to survive the shock of being fired from a gun they don’t need as thick a casing so they can carry more explosives than an equivalent size shell. Second they have little to no recoil so it’s relatively easy to mount them on even light vehicles as they don’t need the recoil compensating systems that cannon or even mortars do. Third they can really suppress the target even if they don’t destroy it. The shriek made by katyusha and nebelwerfers rockets is legendary as “Stalin’s Organ” and “Screaming Mimis” respectively. And that’s not even counting the concussion from a bunch of the things hitting all around.
Modern rocket artillery can have a far longer range than conventional artillery, which is why the US primarily has it tasked to counter battery fire.
A channel dedicated to tanks and information about them? Damn guess i’ll have to binge watch this
Love the channel. Great content
Thanks!
So the Caliope couldn't fire the main gun? Did I understand that correctly?
Not when mounted as intended! Late war modifications got around this by jerry rigging it onto the mantlet.
There were rocket carrying T-34 variants, too. It is not just the US that had tanks with rocket banks
I feel like the consept could still work especially with the recent push for light tanks like the Griffin having some more anti tank fire power could prove useful.
These were not anti tank rockets, just high explosive for use as indirect artillery fire. What you're talking about is easily remedied by adding some ATGM launchers to a light AFV (like the TOW launchers on the Bradley).
I keep coming back to this video to look at that beautiful T2
Well...its not about how big or small your rocket is, its about how you use it.
38cm Sturmmörser go yeet
"But 4.5 inches, as we all know, is pretty average."
God bless America for giving us tank mounted rockets. I also think the Bradley is some sort of spiritual successor to this concept.
The bradley cant shoot artillery missles though
TOW 2Bs are kind of artillery missiles. Being indirect
I did not expect the dick joke, but I appreciate it immensely! XD
Excellent work as always ^_^
I've read in a book about the m8 greyhound that they planned to put rockets on them on a prototype named the "Armored Chemical Car T30". Unfortunately I can't find a lot of information online about it and there are 0 photos of it, and the development of the vehicle never really went anywhere.
The Russian version was used in large batteries and made a unique, chilling sound so even if they didn't hit the target, the psychological effects on the enemy must have been terrifying
Psychological effects are extremely powerful, especially in wars where civilians were in the line of fire.
The siren of a stuka, the unseen terror of a bullet the size of a riding lawnmower falling from the sky from the infamous Paris Gun, the threat of IED car bomb... the 38cm rocket of a sturmtiger staring at you in War Thunder... Psychological warfare is very real.
You missed the Canadian Staghound armoured car with typhoon rockets
The T-2 looks like some random prediction from 1950 of what tanks would look like in the year 20000.
There also was a Sherman with the T99 launcher
Grandfathers of the modern Steel Rain.
The problem with this idea is that it made them priority targets for German AT guns, Panzers and of course infantry with Panzerfausts.
Man I remember using Calliope in Company of Heroes. Good times
I was watching this while playing War Thunder, and I came across an M26 T99 while listening!
Also, I've seen several reports that the T31 instead had a 105mm howitzer as opposed to the dummy 75mm gun. Is this just a misinterpretation?
I think so. No images of a 105mm howitzer on any of the documents, and it wouldn't really make sense to have it as well as the rockets.
@@RedWrenchFilms That's what I suspected.
YASSSSS MORE VIDEO LET'S GOOO
Im not trying to be rude, but "Kayusha" is pronounced Katyusha. The T isnt silent
i can only imagine the t-26’s turret turring into apllo 13 after the rockets exploded 💀
I think 4.5 inches is really big actually
The germans used a sdkfz 251hanomag with 6 rocket launchers
6:54 bro why the tank flyin
Isn't 4.5 inches roughly 114.3 mm? A 105 mm shell would be 4.13 inches.
The M8 carried (roughly) the same explosive yield as the 105mm shells, it wasn't itself 105mm in diameter.
@@RedWrenchFilms That's fascinating. Thank you for enlightening me.:-)
Idk man sherman+rocket seem op. but then again no main gun, except in wart hunder rockets work with the gun
I LOVE playing the calliope in war thunder, its my main tank
PLEASEEE A VID ON IS4M(object 701) i beg you
If anything 4,5 inches is too big [that one german guy with misfortune to meet calliope].
So basically the calliope in war thunder is inaccurate? Because in game you can use the tank like a normal Sherman, while also being able to fire annoying amounts of rockets.
*Time to leak some documents.*
E T 31….Phone Home.
That 4.5 being under average….
i had to screen record the "4.5 inches is a little below average" XD
Panzerwerfer next? 👀
Russia: keep it simple mount on truck.
USA: MAKE IT KOMPLICATED
Isn't it quite dangerous to have a punch of rockets mounted on your turret?
Calliope is the name of a Greek Goddess
What is the vehicle at 0:56?
That's the Medium Tank M1921! Only one was ever produced.
@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you very much
All it needs is a bayonet on the main barrel!
4:31 210 meters = 688.9764 feet
0:50 is this gmod
Peestol, pew, rocket gone.
The whole idea of mounting rocket launchers on tanks was dumb at the time. The Russians got it right by mounting them on cheap trucks and using them in mass as artillery.
4:10 😔
5:28 😏😏😏
4.5 inch rockets 🥵🥵🥵🥵
Why arena those in world of tanks lol
Nothing went wrong but things just went better else where…. guided missiles etc etc
9000 ge is too much for this sherman
That 12° of depression sounds like an excellent way to end my 12° of depression
I first saw the t31 in a cursed rhythm thief video and didn't even know what it was.
Now I know.
Gaijin when
When i have seen this comment i got wt ad
Love the penis joke veeeery close to 4:20
i still do think the strumtiger is better T H I C C gun
T-31 needs to be in War thunder
Ammunition Depo on Tracks
👍👍👍❤❤❤
4:13
Ok
Agreed.
Why do people always comment "Ok"
Roger that.
My favourite rocket tank is the British “Tulip” Sherman, I don’t know why
British' crap isn't even worth mentioning.....
Rockets on a sherman firefly, probably a nightmare for the crew inside to operate, the turret was already cramped but looks awesome.
Literally nothing went wrong
Top heavy, vulnerable, inaccurate, limited the use of the main gun, lowered crew survivability…
@@RedWrenchFilms its an artillery piece
@@obadiahhakeswill1741 I’m aware! But there’s a reason they don’t mount rocket pods to the top of tanks anymore.
@@RedWrenchFilms Rocket launching tanks are still viable, the Tos1 and M270 are fully tracked, armored and fire saturation rockets and are quite recent creations. Trucks are always cheaper though. My point is that the title of your video is deceptive because it gives the impression that the WW2 rocket tanks were a total failure. They had shortcomings sure, but so did everything in that war. The shermans with rockets deserve more respect than you give them, they achieved their mission and were useful in forcing the surrender of the axis. What went wrong was there wasnt enough targets for them at that point in the war. As for the prototypes you cant really make final judgements on a vehicle until its been refined by its service.
@@obadiahhakeswill1741 The problem is they made the tanks into mobile artillery until the rockets were launched (vulnerable to the enemy and little use as a tank). Once the rockets were launched it could operate as a tank, but at reduced efficiency. The idea was that an armored company could supply it's own pre attack barrage before it's attack (launch the rockets to soften the enemy position then attack normally), but rocket artillery didn't really suit western needs in occupied Europe and then they're still dealing with a handicapped tank system. The concept was sound but the reality was borderline useless since you could rarely use such an indiscriminate weapon in occupied Europe and you couldn't carry this into direct enemy contact.
🤨SMH, 4.5 is a healthy average. Stop imposing your idealist propaganda.
6:54 Is that a shot from Despicable Me? 😆😆😆
Electrically, not electronically. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics