@@tremendousbaguette9680 He never even mentioned the British Firefly post war he mentioned the Pershing which really was that big of a leap all they did was give it thicker armour and a massive gun compare that to the British Centurion tank Of the same time which saw use in multiple conflict and was vital to the Modernisation of tanks it set the balance between Weight, Armour and speed. He didn't even mention the challenger 2 the first European tank to be given to Ukraine one Lazerpig recon did a video finally shining light on what it actually doing turns our the Russians are to scared to engage and do the Ukrainians have been using them to snipe fortifications.
Always boggles my mind how companies we’re so familiar with are responsible for making war machines. Eg. Mitsubishi, Renault as you mentioned, General Electric, Chrysler, Porsche; It’s so jarring to me!
So note regarding the M4 Sherman, that tank had such a high crew survivability rate that you were better off being a tanker in that machine than an infantry man on the ground holding an M1 Garand. Nicholas Moran (TheChieftain) has talked about this in the past and also did a CSPAN presentation on the M4 and general US armor development up to and during WWII, good channel to take a look at some time. Also worth noting that the US produced so many of those things that iirc they were able to arm with just examples left over from WWII, even replacing the M26 Pershing which was loathed by the crews.
Yeah it took something like 3 American tank losses for every killed American tanker in WW2. Doesn't help that American forces often calculated many disabled tanks that were then recovered as lost compared to the Germans where in the same condition might not count it.
what's also impressive is that they were able to transport so many of them. Also the crew comfort and factors like having a radio really made a difference.
A really obvious point that I see a lot of people miss with US tanks is our position as being the only nation in the Allies that was completely protected from having our supply lines and manufacturing factories for tanks attacked. Because everything was made in the US and then shipped, we never had to worry about our planes and tanks being bombed during production, or having materials and fuel cut off due to losing cities. I think this issue compounded Germany's R&D woes and contributed to their inability to adequately keep up with allied tank production, despite many German tanks being incredibly capable. And yes! There was a "Grant" tank. The Grant was the variant of the M3 Lee using a British instead of a US patterned turret, which also meant that it had one less crewman. They saw use in North Africa.
Fun fact. During the Americans' quest to find a suitable anti-tank weapon during the opening stages of WW2. The Americans didn't have any suitable AT weapons. They began experimenting with all sorts of things, amongst which was throwing rifles or laying log between the sprocket and track, but the most hilarious one was this - The anti-tank rock. A literal rock. You can find pictures of it online. And there was a Grant tank, but it was used by the British. It was the M3 Medium (Lee) that was modified with a new turret. Also, when it comes to the names of American armoured vehicles during WW2, only the tank destroyer, the 76 mm Gun Motor Carriage M18 had its name Hellcat officially used. The Americans did not use the names for the tanks we know as today as Lee, Stuart, Sherman and Pershing or the like. The British used the names Lee, Grant, Stuart and Sherman. The names came into common usage as we know them today due to the fact that American designations were... similar. The American press wanted the public to get an appreciation of the vehicles involved, but it was difficult due to them basically being a bunch of letters and numbers. The question was also raised by the military itself. The American press was familiar with the British names and started using them in their publications. After the war, model makers picked up on the naming business so a lot of false names like Slugger, Wolverine, Big Shot, Jumbo and Jackson started appearing for various other vehicles. As a closing point, interestingly, the Germans referred to the US vehicles by the names Stuart and Sherman. Sorry if this was long. Just wanted to share it and please feel free to correct me.
Another fact is that the person that had the task with coming up with names for tanks for the British was in fact Winston Churchill. He was very confused by the designations of British tanks, as an example the A.15, Tank, Cruiser Mk VI known as Crusader (then which Mk of said tank, i.e Mk I, II or III). It didn't help when the American tanks came along. Another example was let's say "Mk III tank". This could perhaps refer to either the British Cruiser Mk III, British Infantry Tank Mk III, the American M3 or the Mark III which was the British nickname for the Panzer III.
One of my favorite tidbits is one video on the sherman, the guy half jokingly called the hitch spots the most important part. While obviously, a tank needs a lot to be useful, but they could never make it across the atlantic if the cranes cant load them onto the ship. Also it was skipped over, but post WW2 pretty much everyone decided that having different tank models(light/medium/heavy) was dumb, and settles on Main Battle Tanks.
I mean there are SOME exceptions to that (especially nowadays) specifically regarding light variants but the heavy and super heavy yes are still dead. Also regarding the hitches, that's also a possible method of recovery if the vehicle is knocked out or otherwise immobilized.
@@Lv-sl3rm Yep, was speaking in general. Theres always specialized equipment in any military setting, but going into the cold war the MBT was the overwhelming path of development.
It's not that it was "dumb", it's just that technology wasn't up for it yet. Now you can have a well-armored tank with very decent mobility and a highly efficient all-purpose gun, so of course it's not as interesting nor efficient to make several classes of tanks anymore.
@@Niitroxyde I never said it was dumb for the time. But yes, the advances in tech made the continuation of that system obsolete, aka, dumb to continue doing. Just like the TOG II wasn't dumb for its mission, its that its mission didn't exist, making it dumb.
@@roguemerc I mean, light tanks are still around, and never really went away at any point in the cold war (particularly in France). I don't see it as the system becoming obsolete as much as technology advancing to the point where a single platform could combine the best elements of both heavy and medium tanks.
We had both Lee and Grant as the same tank is was the M3 and had two variants the M3 Lee was the US version and the M3 Grant was the version used by the UK
My man! Congrats on making it mainstream! History Channel needs good folks like you involved with them. Proud of you for what that's worth! Love seeing good things happen to good people!
So stoked for your appearances on the history channel in the near future Chris! Well deserved! And as always keep up the great and informative content!
Hi Chris. Quick note on the Z symbol. While it is generally agreed upon that one of its purposes is to identify friendly units, the Z, V and O symbols are also used to designate the area of operation for a unit. To my knowledge however, we aren’t actually 100% confident on the purpose of the symbols, as both the Russians have obviously not been too willing to share their thought process on the invasion and we don’t really use symbols painted on vehicles to designate an area of operation in NATO nations. In the Canadian Army, we don’t use painted visual identifiers except for thermal markings to prevent friendly fire. I only know that last part because as an infantryman, we’re taught the different identifiers of friendly vehicles.
Yeah the Z,V,O markings were most likely based on the area, but that was mostly early war now the only one you really see is the Z for propaganda purposes
You can be pretty much certain that's the reason. A new front has opened once again in the Kharkiv region and we're already seeing a new symbol being used by the Russian forces on that side of the front.
@@tuehojbjerg969 Yes, how absolutely horrible of Russia to stop Ukraine from conducting their planned genocide of Donbass! Dreadfully evil of Russia to step in when Ukraine started mass-shelling and marsching up 160 thousand troops in blatant preparation of attack 10 days before Russia reacted with the SMO. What Russian facism? It's not Russia burning books or declaring their enemies nonhuman or "orcs" or "vermin".
You should be SO proud of landing that history channel spot! I really think you deserve that recognition and the world deserves to see someone with the passion that you bring towards history!
Somehow I'm not surprised you will be on the history channel. If I ever won the lotto I always thought it would be cool to make a documentary on the civil war but with high production. Maybe a mix of documentary and a band of brothers style show. Anyway my point was that I wanted to get people like you, Mr. Terry etc to be the presenters/narrators. So I'm not surprised you were chosen to be one for the history channel. Super cool and I look forward to seeing it!
Interesting part about Little Willie is, that in the beginning, they planned to have a fully rotating turret on top, but after some testing, this part of construction was scrapped. That concept was originaly named Lincoln No. 1 Machine. That's why it has that round metal top cover. So Little Willie would really be the first actual tank with fully rotating turret, not French Renault FT
The thing is, how many of the (no I'm not saying that name lmao) tanks produced had it, and were there enough of them to really matter? I feel like this is kind of a columbus vs erikson situation.
@@NapoleanBlown-aparte you're right about that. There is only one photo of that turret beeing actually implemented (as far as I could find on the internet) on the tank prototype during construction. But even tho Little Willie wasn't ever used in warfare itself, since it was just a proof of concept, it was in my opinion a huge missed opportunity to not implement the turret on Little Willie, because later british tanks never used turret in the Great war.
I'm Canadian and my grandfather was actually a tank mechanic during the WW2. He had to repair and maintain the tanks. He didn't talk much about the war but he did mention he had to repair all these different tanks and would have to make their way to the damaged tanks underfire and try to get them working on the battlefield. He said Germany would target these mechanics whenever they could. I've seen a few documentaries and read alot of accounts but these mechanics are never mentioned even though their work was crucial to keeping these tanks on the field.
Regarding the use of tanks going forward, I think in general: the larger the conflict, the more limited the use. Tanks are only really useful if you command the skies. With the increased use of drones, tanks become sitting ducks in the battlefield if your enemy can get drones into the air.
Apart from the different angle of attack, the Churchill AVRE mortar's high-explosive shells were ideal for busting bunkers and decimating infantry. That's something "normal" tank shells are not exactly made for, as their focus was usually on armor penetration to engage enemy tanks.
If you want to a more nuanced in depth view of tank development you should check out the Chieftain's channel. Especially his lecture on the M4 Sherman has gone a long way to dispel the myth of the Sherman being a bad tank.
The reason the Ratte was unusual was less the use of naval guns and more *which* guns: The main turret was essentially that of the Scharnhorst-class battleships with the central gun stripped out. It had a design weight of 1000 tons, hence the P.1000 designation.
Basically the M3 Grant was the British version of the M3 Lee, major difference was the shape of the turret. They were used in North Africa before the arrival of the M4 Sherman.
18:32 I would assume it’s similar to how the US has historical sights like plantations and slave quarters still standing at places like mount Vernon and Lee’s house. I remember taking school trips to those locations when I was younger.
[ 18:53 ] well Vlog and mitsi, yes the tank will remain a significant piece of equipment for years to come. but no they wont be the "war winning" weapons. that era is long gone. and as the constant armour and armament duel still carries on. its a matter of time until the MBT is replaced with something else
I've always been told that the overall best tank of WW2 was the PZKW V, or the original Panther you mentioned. It was mounted with their world beating 88mm gun. I had an ROTC professor who used this common military proverb: Who wins: 6 rifles or 10000 bows with arrows.
I just stumbled into your channel and it's my go to for my 3rd shift job! Love history and love your takes on a lot of things. Thanks for making my nights less boring man!
It's really unfortunate that mitsi studio skipped over the French Renault tank from ww1. And no, it's not just the full 360° rotating turret, the entire layout of that tank is more or less the reason why we design most tanks in that similar fashion to this day.
Chris Mowery is pretty good at hosting this home-grown show. I watch it all the time. But you DO realize the History Channel contract he just signed means that ''Vlogging" may soon be a thing of the past. The pay at the next level is extraordinary.
2:40 Some historians have argued that the first type of weapons resembling primitive tanks were the "war wagons" used by Czech soldiers in the Hussite Wars of the 1420s. It was a heavy wagon filled with hand-gunners and crossbowmen that was defended by infantrymen on the sides. The Hussites, for those interested, were basically proto-Protestants in what is today the Czech Republic (100 years before Martin Luther) who for many years fought the armies of the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor to a standstill over religious disputes.
I imagine the engineers felt ashamed when they realized that their weapon, designed to break the stalemate in trench-warfare, couldn't actually get over trenches.
Originally the idea of naming tanks after generals came from UK, when they used names Lee and Grant for the M3 tank. Lee for the US version and Grant for the UK version.
Chris, there was a Grant tank the M3 Grant/Lee. According to Wikipedia the mainline tank which had the offset main gun were known as M3 Lees and those with British-style turrets were referred to as Grants.
17:30 - there's an unconfirmed info that those markings were used as being familiar from training sessions and stand for Zapad (west) and Vostok (east) which are two teams soldiers would be split into. Edit: 17:50 - also we've already seen how Leopards 2 performed on the same battlefield - not so well as they've expected.
One of the most interesting early examples of "Tanks" in war..or at least mobile armored warfare is The Hussite Wars. Their use of "war wagons" was a significant game changer that was somewhat overlooked and largely not repeated until the 20th Century. * Since the time of the original video...The Ukraine has shown how inexperienced crews get killed in fancy equipment. Multiple, at least 6 by October 2023, German Leopard 2's have been destroyed. ~ The Russian T-14 is too new to field. The first production batch was produced in 2021 on and have just started being delivered. The expectation is it to start being fielded in any respectable numbers by later this year or next.
Interesting he left the french Renault Tank of WW1 out, which was amazing for its time. Also the Austro-Hungarian "Motorgeschütz" which even predates WW1 but never got Approvement by the Government. There is the Story, not sure if true, that during the presentation a high ranking Officer Horse went nuts and threw him off. He was so pissed that he was staunchly against it. But also cost might be a factor tough. Also interesting that the Inventor Burstyn already thought of the trenches and came up with some weird arm thingies. Not sure if that would have worked tough, looks rather fragile and not battlefield ready. It also head a movable turret tower on top, so also very modern.
12:31 I believe the U.S. form of agriculture was more mechanized than much of Europe as well. I mention this because driving a tractor or other farm equipment would probably be more akin to driving a tank.
Fun fact the naming of tanks is always be number designated but not always given a literal name. The closest everyone has gotten tot the origin was a code name for specific tanks and that the British started naming tanks and when was given American tanks started naming them after US generals. But a lot is still unknown, Like Honey was the nickname given to the Stuart tanks by the British but even then the British doesn't even know why it was called that.
To the point of the production total of the T-34. Only around 56k of those 85k were actually produced during the war, the rest were produced after the war
16:41. We did not have a Grant tank. During ww2 the British had a different design philosophy when it came to tanks. The British preferred to have their radios in the turrets bustle. So whenever we gave them a new tank, they would always extend the turrets rear to fit a radio. This was the case with the leased Medium Tank M3, known in US service as the "M3 Lee". The British turret was enlarged to fit a new radio, and the machine gun cupola, seen on standard variants, was removed. They called this the "Grant." In fact most of the names like "Sherman" or "Stuart" were never actually given by the US, but rather the British, who liked to name their tanks after historical figures. One thing I forgot to mention is that "Lee" was also a name devised by the British. "Grant" was added as a way to distinguish between the two different variants.
The ability to build and field tanks is really determined by your axis to oil and other resources and your capability of building heavy tanks. Many countries just didn't have the industrial capacity to build heavier tanks like Italy and Japan. To be fair, Japanese tanks worked very well in from 1937 until 1943. Italian tanks were perfectly capable of killing large numbers of Ethiopians, who are arms with 19th century weapons, although even then, the Italians resorted to chemical warfare. Although to be fair, Japanese war crimes are generally not remembered. The British had real problems building larger tanks because of engine problems but also because they were just overtaxed with building things and didn't have the capacity that the US did. The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte with two 28 cm SK C/34 naval gun. These were the same guns used in the Scharnhorst class battle cruisers. The M3 Medium Tank was given the name Grant. The British had a modified version with a separate cupola which they called the Lee.
17:37 There were couple of other letters used to distinguish tanks. Such as V and one more I forgot. My theory is that it was used to separate vehicles to different frontlines.
The M3 Grant and M3 Lee were mostly the same Model. But I think only the Lee was really used by US troops and the Grant was the Version exported to the British.
i just finished the series on the channel the great war about WW1 every week, and after one of the episodes i was looking for a video on the evolution of tanks. real weird coincidence you did this video like a day or 2 later
Would have been nice of them to namedrop the Renault FT, it being the blueprint for pretty much all following tank designs. Would've been a good seque from WW1 to WW2
I dont think tanks will ever be fully obsolete but more used for defense and mobile artillery. With new and better sensors, anti-tank manpads, drones, and artillery deployed mines its hard to imagine something that large playing a huge front line role in a modern top tier conflicts. I do think this will change eith lazer tech because anti-drone lazer weapons will allow tanks better mobility.
The Ratte was meant to be 1000 tonnes. It was vastly impractical. Couldn't be transported by rail, couldn't cross bridges and it would have been a massive target for allied planes. To give an idea though, it was over 130' long and 45' wide.
17:23 you are correct, but missing an interesting aspect of the story. The Russians actually had several different invasion markings. Most of them where just random shapes and colors denoting attacking forces or locations. What is interesting is that Cyrillic doesn't have the Latin Z in it's alphabet, which is why it was used as an invasion marking. It then became synonymous with the invasion because supporters of the invasion could use "Z" on almost any social media platform. So now it is used all across the Russian Armed Forces, not as an invasion symbol, but more so like the patriotic Red Star would have been used in the old Red Army.
I find it kinda funny you’re part of a tv series on the Great War and just this week I finished the Great War by Peter Hart and have moved on to my book on Heydrich.
There were two tanks in WW2. One was M3 Lee and second was M3 Grant. Basicaly the same tank but Lee was made for US army while Grant was purely export model for the Brits if I am not wrong.
11:45 One thing that's great about the M4 that you and the video don't mention is that it was very easy to get out of it quickly. Even more-so when a hatch was installed for the loader.
Congratulations on The History Channel gig. BTW where is the T28 US super heavy tank (doom turtle) with a whopping 8mph that the US army lost for 25 years or so and was found behind some bushes by a hunter for failed tank segment. M3 Grant is the UK version of the M3 Lee. Surprised he didnt' talk about Tanks in MMORPG 😉
At 11:17, from what I've read , until 1944 the Germans weren't doing that bad in the manufacturing department, in fact, they had a lot of units sitting on their warehouses just waiting to be sent to the frontline. The main problem was the serious shortage of oil, which forced them to de-motorize the Wehrmacht and compromised their whole "Bewegungskrieg" or "War of Movement". Logistics was another nightmare for the Germans, above all in the Eastern Front. Btw, love you channel. Greetings from Brazil.
I'll have to disagree with your comment about Destroyers becoming the power of the sea instead of the Aircraft Carrier. The AC is still one of the most important ships in a Navy and it can project more power than a destroyer. However, it's the carrier group as a whole that works together to have everything run smoothly. Destroyers for defense, subs for recon, and Carriers for CAP and long range attacks with their carrier strike groups. But yes, battleships are no longer the kings of the sea.
The Grant and the Lee are actually pretty much the same tank; the Lee has a cupola for the commander, while the Grant doesn't. The countries that developed advanced tanks during WW2 were the Germans, and everyone fighting them. Since the Japanese didn't really bother to develop much in the way of tanks (they were fighting the Chinese, who pretty much had no tanks at all), the early war Grant and Stuart tanks (a light tank with weak armor and a small but good for its size gun) were quite effective fighting there, while when they were deployed the Shermans easily handled everything the Japanese threw at them. Pretty much all the Allied armies used Shermans. We gave thousands to the Russians, and the Free French got them to. Even the Chinese got a few towards the end of the war. Victor Davis Hanson, in his recent book on WW2, pointed out that if the Allies *had* tried to use a Sherman tank, it would have been a pain getting them across the Atlantic, given how heavy they were. The Abrams isn't actually classified as a "heavy" tank, as they don't use that designation any more. It's a "Main Battle Tank" or MBT for short. This is why it's the M-1, meaning it is the first MBT that the US has adopted. We had M-48s and M-60s during the cold war, but they were medium tanks, successors to the Sherman. The Army is currently in the process of equipping itself with a new vehicle called an M-10 Booker, which the Army insists on calling "Mobile Protected Firepower" or MPF, when pretty much everyone else thinks it's a light tank. By the way, it's not named for a general: there were two soldiers named Booker for whom the vehicle is named, one a Medal of Honor recipient who was killed in Tunisia in 1943, and the other a Distinguished Service Cross recipient who was killed in Iraq in 2003.
2:55 i'd argue that thats just the idea of an armored vehicle and not a tank.... that carriage is more like an APC If theres a version that has some kind of small arms, youve got an ancient BMP
There was a simple logistical reason for why the WW2 US military didn't really use heavy tanks (with rare exceptions): Cargo crane weight limits. US tanks had to be shipped to warzones overseas, and few harbours had cranes that could lift more than 40 tons. Thus, all Sherman variants were in the 35 to 40 ton weight range. More often than not, such concerns of logistical and industrial capabilities determined weapon system designs, not ideas of what would be strictly militarily optimal.
You need to come up to Hudson, MA and visit American Heritage Museum which has the largest collection of Armored vehicles.they have both of those tanks you see at the 2:01 mark
There is nothing currently on board that can fill in the role of the tank, or more broadly armored fighting vehicle, on the battlefield. Carriers superceded battleships because they filled in their role as the main firepower delivery platform on the sea. There was some talk at the beginning of the Ukraine war that the tank may become obsolete because of the ATGM systems like Javelin and drone strike capability. But those things can be protected against. The Javelin itself is an evolution of ATGM that has two-stage warhead to beat ERA on tanks that themselves protect against a single-stage ATGM's. And either way a drone or ATGM crew can never supercede the tank, because they won't create a breakthrough nor will they provide a meaningful support for the infantry.
There was a Grant tank, it was a variant of the Lee. It would be too much to get into their differences here, just look up M3 Grant and M3 Lee, I'm sure you will find resources that directly compare the two :)
i think its amazing that even today only a few countries actually make tanks, the main ones being the big names in WW2, America, Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany have been consistent with new tanks. but other than them only 21 other countries (27 total out of 195) have produced tanks at all, some like israel, north and south korea, india and pakistan have produced more than 2 or 3 designs themselves, but the rest have only had 1 maybe 2 goes at it, and half the time its in prtnership with one of the bigger producers. someone once asked why so many countries just got steamrolled by germany in WW2? why didn't they have tanks as good or none at all? i explained all the biggest tank producers in WW2 were the countries who saw them work and used them in WW1, because they had the money and resources to do it, tanks were new, its expensive to invest in a new technology at the start. i guess i just didn't realise how much thats still true today, paraguay still has some sherman tanks in their military, i saw a military parade in burma and i think they had 3 matilda tanks. its actually quite eye opening to go through other countries rosters and see the complete mish mash of tanks they have from being able to buy little bits of old stock every 10 years or so.
Favorite lend/lease rib from the Brits: The M3 "Lee" tank was exported to the British military who, in typical tongue in cheek fashion, called their version the "Grant." Edit: corrected for technical inaccuracies between the different versions of the M3 chassis/turret combinations.
That is not quite accurate. Both the Lee and Grant names originated from the British, and filtered back to the Americans after a while though officially they clung to their "M" designations. Lee was the designation for the standard M3 Medium Tank, Grant being assigned to a British ordered version with a redesigned turret.
Great Vlog again!
Fantastic work on this video! You'll be at a million subs in no time.
hi
Hello@@jerryersha1709
I found your channel through this video. Love your animation style, you’ve definitely got a new subscriber.
He forgot to mention the Renault FT-17 which was the first tank with a fully rotating turret. The basis of future tanks.
French tanks were completely edited out of the video. Fortunately, Lazerpig did them justice.
@@tremendousbaguette9680 He never even mentioned the British Firefly post war he mentioned the Pershing which really was that big of a leap all they did was give it thicker armour and a massive gun compare that to the British Centurion tank Of the same time which saw use in multiple conflict and was vital to the Modernisation of tanks it set the balance between Weight, Armour and speed.
He didn't even mention the challenger 2 the first European tank to be given to Ukraine one Lazerpig recon did a video finally shining light on what it actually doing turns our the Russians are to scared to engage and do the Ukrainians have been using them to snipe fortifications.
Always boggles my mind how companies we’re so familiar with are responsible for making war machines. Eg. Mitsubishi, Renault as you mentioned, General Electric, Chrysler, Porsche; It’s so jarring to me!
@@bondstreetblues9660 Volkswagen
@@bondstreetblues9660I mean, who else is going to make a tank if not a company that already knows automobiles well?
Omg good luck on the history channel! very exciting news man
Literally can’t wait to see it
What happened?
So note regarding the M4 Sherman, that tank had such a high crew survivability rate that you were better off being a tanker in that machine than an infantry man on the ground holding an M1 Garand. Nicholas Moran (TheChieftain) has talked about this in the past and also did a CSPAN presentation on the M4 and general US armor development up to and during WWII, good channel to take a look at some time.
Also worth noting that the US produced so many of those things that iirc they were able to arm with just examples left over from WWII, even replacing the M26 Pershing which was loathed by the crews.
Yeah it took something like 3 American tank losses for every killed American tanker in WW2. Doesn't help that American forces often calculated many disabled tanks that were then recovered as lost compared to the Germans where in the same condition might not count it.
@@jerithil It's just looking at the data while not considering why it might be beyond "Clearly Sherman was bad." Context changes a lot.
what's also impressive is that they were able to transport so many of them. Also the crew comfort and factors like having a radio really made a difference.
Having a door hatch under the tank helped too.
Chris gonna be talking about Aliens soon. Congrats on working with the History Channel!
A really obvious point that I see a lot of people miss with US tanks is our position as being the only nation in the Allies that was completely protected from having our supply lines and manufacturing factories for tanks attacked. Because everything was made in the US and then shipped, we never had to worry about our planes and tanks being bombed during production, or having materials and fuel cut off due to losing cities. I think this issue compounded Germany's R&D woes and contributed to their inability to adequately keep up with allied tank production, despite many German tanks being incredibly capable.
And yes! There was a "Grant" tank. The Grant was the variant of the M3 Lee using a British instead of a US patterned turret, which also meant that it had one less crewman. They saw use in North Africa.
Super exited for the miniseries. Always a joy to hear your knowledge
Fun fact. During the Americans' quest to find a suitable anti-tank weapon during the opening stages of WW2. The Americans didn't have any suitable AT weapons. They began experimenting with all sorts of things, amongst which was throwing rifles or laying log between the sprocket and track, but the most hilarious one was this - The anti-tank rock. A literal rock. You can find pictures of it online. And there was a Grant tank, but it was used by the British. It was the M3 Medium (Lee) that was modified with a new turret. Also, when it comes to the names of American armoured vehicles during WW2, only the tank destroyer, the 76 mm Gun Motor Carriage M18 had its name Hellcat officially used. The Americans did not use the names for the tanks we know as today as Lee, Stuart, Sherman and Pershing or the like. The British used the names Lee, Grant, Stuart and Sherman.
The names came into common usage as we know them today due to the fact that American designations were... similar. The American press wanted the public to get an appreciation of the vehicles involved, but it was difficult due to them basically being a bunch of letters and numbers. The question was also raised by the military itself. The American press was familiar with the British names and started using them in their publications. After the war, model makers picked up on the naming business so a lot of false names like Slugger, Wolverine, Big Shot, Jumbo and Jackson started appearing for various other vehicles. As a closing point, interestingly, the Germans referred to the US vehicles by the names Stuart and Sherman.
Sorry if this was long. Just wanted to share it and please feel free to correct me.
Another fact is that the person that had the task with coming up with names for tanks for the British was in fact Winston Churchill. He was very confused by the designations of British tanks, as an example the A.15, Tank, Cruiser Mk VI known as Crusader (then which Mk of said tank, i.e Mk I, II or III). It didn't help when the American tanks came along. Another example was let's say "Mk III tank". This could perhaps refer to either the British Cruiser Mk III, British Infantry Tank Mk III, the American M3 or the Mark III which was the British nickname for the Panzer III.
One of my favorite tidbits is one video on the sherman, the guy half jokingly called the hitch spots the most important part. While obviously, a tank needs a lot to be useful, but they could never make it across the atlantic if the cranes cant load them onto the ship.
Also it was skipped over, but post WW2 pretty much everyone decided that having different tank models(light/medium/heavy) was dumb, and settles on Main Battle Tanks.
I mean there are SOME exceptions to that (especially nowadays) specifically regarding light variants but the heavy and super heavy yes are still dead.
Also regarding the hitches, that's also a possible method of recovery if the vehicle is knocked out or otherwise immobilized.
@@Lv-sl3rm Yep, was speaking in general. Theres always specialized equipment in any military setting, but going into the cold war the MBT was the overwhelming path of development.
It's not that it was "dumb", it's just that technology wasn't up for it yet. Now you can have a well-armored tank with very decent mobility and a highly efficient all-purpose gun, so of course it's not as interesting nor efficient to make several classes of tanks anymore.
@@Niitroxyde I never said it was dumb for the time. But yes, the advances in tech made the continuation of that system obsolete, aka, dumb to continue doing. Just like the TOG II wasn't dumb for its mission, its that its mission didn't exist, making it dumb.
@@roguemerc I mean, light tanks are still around, and never really went away at any point in the cold war (particularly in France). I don't see it as the system becoming obsolete as much as technology advancing to the point where a single platform could combine the best elements of both heavy and medium tanks.
We had both Lee and Grant as the same tank is was the M3 and had two variants the M3 Lee was the US version and the M3 Grant was the version used by the UK
Grant had a different turret design and one less crew member
@@ThatGingerGuy51 yep, the Lee used a US designed turret, whilst the Grant used a Brit turret
My man! Congrats on making it mainstream! History Channel needs good folks like you involved with them. Proud of you for what that's worth! Love seeing good things happen to good people!
So stoked for your appearances on the history channel in the near future Chris! Well deserved! And as always keep up the great and informative content!
Hi Chris. Quick note on the Z symbol. While it is generally agreed upon that one of its purposes is to identify friendly units, the Z, V and O symbols are also used to designate the area of operation for a unit.
To my knowledge however, we aren’t actually 100% confident on the purpose of the symbols, as both the Russians have obviously not been too willing to share their thought process on the invasion and we don’t really use symbols painted on vehicles to designate an area of operation in NATO nations. In the Canadian Army, we don’t use painted visual identifiers except for thermal markings to prevent friendly fire. I only know that last part because as an infantryman, we’re taught the different identifiers of friendly vehicles.
Yeah the Z,V,O markings were most likely based on the area, but that was mostly early war now the only one you really see is the Z for propaganda purposes
@@skidi4218 Yeah pretty much. The symbols have no real use now that the frontline is pretty much stagnant (for now at least)
You can be pretty much certain that's the reason. A new front has opened once again in the Kharkiv region and we're already seeing a new symbol being used by the Russian forces on that side of the front.
@@Crytica. They are still using the Z as a symbol for russian fasicm since thats is what it is in their war of genocide
@@tuehojbjerg969 Yes, how absolutely horrible of Russia to stop Ukraine from conducting their planned genocide of Donbass!
Dreadfully evil of Russia to step in when Ukraine started mass-shelling and marsching up 160 thousand troops in blatant preparation of attack 10 days before Russia reacted with the SMO.
What Russian facism? It's not Russia burning books or declaring their enemies nonhuman or "orcs" or "vermin".
You should be SO proud of landing that history channel spot! I really think you deserve that recognition and the world deserves to see someone with the passion that you bring towards history!
Somehow I'm not surprised you will be on the history channel. If I ever won the lotto I always thought it would be cool to make a documentary on the civil war but with high production. Maybe a mix of documentary and a band of brothers style show. Anyway my point was that I wanted to get people like you, Mr. Terry etc to be the presenters/narrators. So I'm not surprised you were chosen to be one for the history channel. Super cool and I look forward to seeing it!
Same in France since 1990 the MBT is the Leclerc from Philippe François Marie Leclerc de Hauteclocque.
Interesting part about Little Willie is, that in the beginning, they planned to have a fully rotating turret on top, but after some testing, this part of construction was scrapped. That concept was originaly named Lincoln No. 1 Machine. That's why it has that round metal top cover. So Little Willie would really be the first actual tank with fully rotating turret, not French Renault FT
The thing is, how many of the (no I'm not saying that name lmao) tanks produced had it, and were there enough of them to really matter? I feel like this is kind of a columbus vs erikson situation.
@@NapoleanBlown-aparte you're right about that. There is only one photo of that turret beeing actually implemented (as far as I could find on the internet) on the tank prototype during construction. But even tho Little Willie wasn't ever used in warfare itself, since it was just a proof of concept, it was in my opinion a huge missed opportunity to not implement the turret on Little Willie, because later british tanks never used turret in the Great war.
I'm Canadian and my grandfather was actually a tank mechanic during the WW2. He had to repair and maintain the tanks. He didn't talk much about the war but he did mention he had to repair all these different tanks and would have to make their way to the damaged tanks underfire and try to get them working on the battlefield. He said Germany would target these mechanics whenever they could.
I've seen a few documentaries and read alot of accounts but these mechanics are never mentioned even though their work was crucial to keeping these tanks on the field.
I appreciate all your hard work. Great content and analysis as always. TY !
The KF51 Panther name was a name given to it by rheinmetall not the Bundeswehr
Regarding the use of tanks going forward, I think in general: the larger the conflict, the more limited the use. Tanks are only really useful if you command the skies. With the increased use of drones, tanks become sitting ducks in the battlefield if your enemy can get drones into the air.
Talking about the history of tanks without mentioning the Renault FT is incredible.....truly incredible
Apart from the different angle of attack, the Churchill AVRE mortar's high-explosive shells were ideal for busting bunkers and decimating infantry. That's something "normal" tank shells are not exactly made for, as their focus was usually on armor penetration to engage enemy tanks.
Congratulations mate, you absolutely deserve it
Best wishes to your fantastic career man, hearing that you're working with History Channel sounds great!
If you want to a more nuanced in depth view of tank development you should check out the Chieftain's channel. Especially his lecture on the M4 Sherman has gone a long way to dispel the myth of the Sherman being a bad tank.
The reason the Ratte was unusual was less the use of naval guns and more *which* guns: The main turret was essentially that of the Scharnhorst-class battleships with the central gun stripped out. It had a design weight of 1000 tons, hence the P.1000 designation.
Basically the M3 Grant was the British version of the M3 Lee, major difference was the shape of the turret. They were used in North Africa before the arrival of the M4 Sherman.
Congrats on the history channel stuff!
18:32 I would assume it’s similar to how the US has historical sights like plantations and slave quarters still standing at places like mount Vernon and Lee’s house. I remember taking school trips to those locations when I was younger.
My grandfather served with the 712th Tank Batallion during WWII.
[ 18:53 ] well Vlog and mitsi, yes the tank will remain a significant piece of equipment for years to come. but no they wont be the "war winning" weapons. that era is long gone. and as the constant armour and armament duel still carries on. its a matter of time until the MBT is replaced with something else
I love it when you look at the camera as a small apology for his obscenity.
I've always been told that the overall best tank of WW2 was the PZKW V, or the original Panther you mentioned. It was mounted with their world beating 88mm gun.
I had an ROTC professor who used this common military proverb: Who wins: 6 rifles or 10000 bows with arrows.
Best of luck on the history channel gig! Hope there'd be more after that 🎉
I just stumbled into your channel and it's my go to for my 3rd shift job! Love history and love your takes on a lot of things. Thanks for making my nights less boring man!
Thanks Paul! Glad you made your way here.
18:37 love your reaction, it makes me smile in laughter. Nice reacton video btw and new sub👍
It's really unfortunate that mitsi studio skipped over the French Renault tank from ww1.
And no, it's not just the full 360° rotating turret, the entire layout of that tank is more or less the reason why we design most tanks in that similar fashion to this day.
So cool for the History Channel! Let everyone know what you're going to be doing!
Love the animation Mitsi Studio makes.
i believe there was both a Lee and a Grant tank which was basically the same tank but the brits gave theirs the name Grant while usa called them Lee
The Grant and Lee tanks had different turrets, as well as a few specifications.
Chris Mowery is pretty good at hosting this home-grown show. I watch it all the time.
But you DO realize the History Channel contract he just signed means that ''Vlogging" may soon be a thing of the past. The pay at the next level is extraordinary.
2:40 Some historians have argued that the first type of weapons resembling primitive tanks were the "war wagons" used by Czech soldiers in the Hussite Wars of the 1420s. It was a heavy wagon filled with hand-gunners and crossbowmen that was defended by infantrymen on the sides. The Hussites, for those interested, were basically proto-Protestants in what is today the Czech Republic (100 years before Martin Luther) who for many years fought the armies of the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor to a standstill over religious disputes.
the first tanks can be debated to be the elephant
or the cataphract
or the chariot
when he said the Ratte was designed to use naval guns its not quite what you're thinking, the entire turret was taken from a cruiser
I imagine the engineers felt ashamed when they realized that their weapon, designed to break the stalemate in trench-warfare, couldn't actually get over trenches.
Originally the idea of naming tanks after generals came from UK, when they used names Lee and Grant for the M3 tank. Lee for the US version and Grant for the UK version.
The Grant and Lee are mostly the same, with a key difference being the Grant had the radio in the turret for the tank commander to use.
Chris, there was a Grant tank the M3 Grant/Lee. According to Wikipedia the mainline tank which had the offset main gun were known as M3 Lees and those with British-style turrets were referred to as Grants.
17:30 - there's an unconfirmed info that those markings were used as being familiar from training sessions and stand for Zapad (west) and Vostok (east) which are two teams soldiers would be split into.
Edit: 17:50 - also we've already seen how Leopards 2 performed on the same battlefield - not so well as they've expected.
One of the most interesting early examples of "Tanks" in war..or at least mobile armored warfare is The Hussite Wars. Their use of "war wagons" was a significant game changer that was somewhat overlooked and largely not repeated until the 20th Century.
*
Since the time of the original video...The Ukraine has shown how inexperienced crews get killed in fancy equipment. Multiple, at least 6 by October 2023, German Leopard 2's have been destroyed.
~ The Russian T-14 is too new to field. The first production batch was produced in 2021 on and have just started being delivered. The expectation is it to start being fielded in any respectable numbers by later this year or next.
Pretty sure it was put on delay till the end of the war or longer lmao.
There was a "Grant" tank, ironically it was a british version of a M3 "Lee" called a M3 Grant
Interesting he left the french Renault Tank of WW1 out, which was amazing for its time. Also the Austro-Hungarian "Motorgeschütz" which even predates WW1 but never got Approvement by the Government. There is the Story, not sure if true, that during the presentation a high ranking Officer Horse went nuts and threw him off. He was so pissed that he was staunchly against it. But also cost might be a factor tough.
Also interesting that the Inventor Burstyn already thought of the trenches and came up with some weird arm thingies. Not sure if that would have worked tough, looks rather fragile and not battlefield ready. It also head a movable turret tower on top, so also very modern.
The last M4 Sherman was retired back in 2018.
12:31 I believe the U.S. form of agriculture was more mechanized than much of Europe as well. I mention this because driving a tractor or other farm equipment would probably be more akin to driving a tank.
Fun fact the naming of tanks is always be number designated but not always given a literal name. The closest everyone has gotten tot the origin was a code name for specific tanks and that the British started naming tanks and when was given American tanks started naming them after US generals. But a lot is still unknown, Like Honey was the nickname given to the Stuart tanks by the British but even then the British doesn't even know why it was called that.
You do a great job. The Americans named the M3 Lee and the British made some changes to the M3 and renamed it Grant
15:54 well it doesn’t sound that crazy, until you realize the turret on top was the same as the ones on the Bismarck housing the same 15 inch guns.
To the point of the production total of the T-34. Only around 56k of those 85k were actually produced during the war, the rest were produced after the war
16:41. We did not have a Grant tank. During ww2 the British had a different design philosophy when it came to tanks. The British preferred to have their radios in the turrets bustle. So whenever we gave them a new tank, they would always extend the turrets rear to fit a radio. This was the case with the leased Medium Tank M3, known in US service as the "M3 Lee". The British turret was enlarged to fit a new radio, and the machine gun cupola, seen on standard variants, was removed. They called this the "Grant." In fact most of the names like "Sherman" or "Stuart" were never actually given by the US, but rather the British, who liked to name their tanks after historical figures.
One thing I forgot to mention is that "Lee" was also a name devised by the British. "Grant" was added as a way to distinguish between the two different variants.
The ability to build and field tanks is really determined by your axis to oil and other resources and your capability of building heavy tanks. Many countries just didn't have the industrial capacity to build heavier tanks like Italy and Japan. To be fair, Japanese tanks worked very well in from 1937 until 1943. Italian tanks were perfectly capable of killing large numbers of Ethiopians, who are arms with 19th century weapons, although even then, the Italians resorted to chemical warfare. Although to be fair, Japanese war crimes are generally not remembered.
The British had real problems building larger tanks because of engine problems but also because they were just overtaxed with building things and didn't have the capacity that the US did.
The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte with two 28 cm SK C/34 naval gun. These were the same guns used in the Scharnhorst class battle cruisers.
The M3 Medium Tank was given the name Grant. The British had a modified version with a separate cupola which they called the Lee.
17:37
There were couple of other letters used to distinguish tanks. Such as V and one more I forgot.
My theory is that it was used to separate vehicles to different frontlines.
The Ratte wasn't just "heh, naval guns". It was to mount the turret off a battleship
Can't wait for this show to talk about futuristic wars.
The M3 Grant and M3 Lee were mostly the same Model. But I think only the Lee was really used by US troops and the Grant was the Version exported to the British.
i just finished the series on the channel the great war about WW1 every week, and after one of the episodes i was looking for a video on the evolution of tanks. real weird coincidence you did this video like a day or 2 later
The grant was the British version of the Lee. It had a different turret but same guns
Would have been nice of them to namedrop the Renault FT, it being the blueprint for pretty much all following tank designs. Would've been a good seque from WW1 to WW2
Fun fact the city of Detroit when it went into full war mobilization mode was able to produce more tanks and planes than many countries.
I dont think tanks will ever be fully obsolete but more used for defense and mobile artillery. With new and better sensors, anti-tank manpads, drones, and artillery deployed mines its hard to imagine something that large playing a huge front line role in a modern top tier conflicts. I do think this will change eith lazer tech because anti-drone lazer weapons will allow tanks better mobility.
The Ratte was meant to be 1000 tonnes. It was vastly impractical. Couldn't be transported by rail, couldn't cross bridges and it would have been a massive target for allied planes. To give an idea though, it was over 130' long and 45' wide.
17:08 Uralvagonzavod is very good at turret toss.
Congratulations on getting on the History channel
Regular tank gun vs Mortar: Direct fire vs indirect fire.
17:23 you are correct, but missing an interesting aspect of the story. The Russians actually had several different invasion markings. Most of them where just random shapes and colors denoting attacking forces or locations. What is interesting is that Cyrillic doesn't have the Latin Z in it's alphabet, which is why it was used as an invasion marking. It then became synonymous with the invasion because supporters of the invasion could use "Z" on almost any social media platform. So now it is used all across the Russian Armed Forces, not as an invasion symbol, but more so like the patriotic Red Star would have been used in the old Red Army.
"Z" is also the first letter in word "zapad" that in Russian means "west".
@@xerpenta and since they wont use the swastika they use a symbol that looks like it, since they share ideology
I find it kinda funny you’re part of a tv series on the Great War and just this week I finished the Great War by Peter Hart and have moved on to my book on Heydrich.
There were two tanks in WW2. One was M3 Lee and second was M3 Grant. Basicaly the same tank but Lee was made for US army while Grant was purely export model for the Brits if I am not wrong.
11:45
One thing that's great about the M4 that you and the video don't mention is that it was very easy to get out of it quickly. Even more-so when a hatch was installed for the loader.
Congratulations on The History Channel gig. BTW where is the T28 US super heavy tank (doom turtle) with a whopping 8mph that the US army lost for 25 years or so and was found behind some bushes by a hunter for failed tank segment. M3 Grant is the UK version of the M3 Lee. Surprised he didnt' talk about Tanks in MMORPG 😉
Now you MUST do how countries fight their wars (parts 1 and 2)
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL AND MITSI STUDIOS PLEASE REACT TO MORE FROM THEM!
3 words as to how tanks ought be used
Combined arms warfare
As the plane junkie I am, I think it’s only natural to do Mitsi’s history of fighter planes next.
At 11:17, from what I've read , until 1944 the Germans weren't doing that bad in the manufacturing department, in fact, they had a lot of units sitting on their warehouses just waiting to be sent to the frontline. The main problem was the serious shortage of oil, which forced them to de-motorize the Wehrmacht and compromised their whole "Bewegungskrieg" or "War of Movement". Logistics was another nightmare for the Germans, above all in the Eastern Front. Btw, love you channel. Greetings from Brazil.
Congrats on the History Channel spot!
I'll have to disagree with your comment about Destroyers becoming the power of the sea instead of the Aircraft Carrier. The AC is still one of the most important ships in a Navy and it can project more power than a destroyer. However, it's the carrier group as a whole that works together to have everything run smoothly. Destroyers for defense, subs for recon, and Carriers for CAP and long range attacks with their carrier strike groups. But yes, battleships are no longer the kings of the sea.
The Grant and the Lee are actually pretty much the same tank; the Lee has a cupola for the commander, while the Grant doesn't.
The countries that developed advanced tanks during WW2 were the Germans, and everyone fighting them. Since the Japanese didn't really bother to develop much in the way of tanks (they were fighting the Chinese, who pretty much had no tanks at all), the early war Grant and Stuart tanks (a light tank with weak armor and a small but good for its size gun) were quite effective fighting there, while when they were deployed the Shermans easily handled everything the Japanese threw at them.
Pretty much all the Allied armies used Shermans. We gave thousands to the Russians, and the Free French got them to. Even the Chinese got a few towards the end of the war.
Victor Davis Hanson, in his recent book on WW2, pointed out that if the Allies *had* tried to use a Sherman tank, it would have been a pain getting them across the Atlantic, given how heavy they were.
The Abrams isn't actually classified as a "heavy" tank, as they don't use that designation any more. It's a "Main Battle Tank" or MBT for short. This is why it's the M-1, meaning it is the first MBT that the US has adopted. We had M-48s and M-60s during the cold war, but they were medium tanks, successors to the Sherman. The Army is currently in the process of equipping itself with a new vehicle called an M-10 Booker, which the Army insists on calling "Mobile Protected Firepower" or MPF, when pretty much everyone else thinks it's a light tank. By the way, it's not named for a general: there were two soldiers named Booker for whom the vehicle is named, one a Medal of Honor recipient who was killed in Tunisia in 1943, and the other a Distinguished Service Cross recipient who was killed in Iraq in 2003.
2:55 i'd argue that thats just the idea of an armored vehicle and not a tank.... that carriage is more like an APC
If theres a version that has some kind of small arms, youve got an ancient BMP
Can’t wait to see the histor channel Great War with you
There was a simple logistical reason for why the WW2 US military didn't really use heavy tanks (with rare exceptions): Cargo crane weight limits. US tanks had to be shipped to warzones overseas, and few harbours had cranes that could lift more than 40 tons. Thus, all Sherman variants were in the 35 to 40 ton weight range. More often than not, such concerns of logistical and industrial capabilities determined weapon system designs, not ideas of what would be strictly militarily optimal.
The m3 has 2 variants. One is the Lee, the other the Grant
You need to come up to Hudson, MA and visit American Heritage Museum which has the largest collection of Armored vehicles.they have both of those tanks you see at the 2:01 mark
The last time I was high on Pervitin, I invented 500 EXCELLENT pieces of military equipment in 72 hours. I just can't prove it....
I love your channel Chris
The tradition of naming American made tanks after American generals was started by the British in WWII.
There is nothing currently on board that can fill in the role of the tank, or more broadly armored fighting vehicle, on the battlefield. Carriers superceded battleships because they filled in their role as the main firepower delivery platform on the sea. There was some talk at the beginning of the Ukraine war that the tank may become obsolete because of the ATGM systems like Javelin and drone strike capability. But those things can be protected against. The Javelin itself is an evolution of ATGM that has two-stage warhead to beat ERA on tanks that themselves protect against a single-stage ATGM's. And either way a drone or ATGM crew can never supercede the tank, because they won't create a breakthrough nor will they provide a meaningful support for the infantry.
There was a Grant tank, it was a variant of the Lee. It would be too much to get into their differences here, just look up M3 Grant and M3 Lee, I'm sure you will find resources that directly compare the two :)
The Grant and Lee are the same tank in Britain they called it the lee and America is Grant
i think its amazing that even today only a few countries actually make tanks, the main ones being the big names in WW2, America, Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany have been consistent with new tanks.
but other than them only 21 other countries (27 total out of 195) have produced tanks at all, some like israel, north and south korea, india and pakistan have produced more than 2 or 3 designs themselves, but the rest have only had 1 maybe 2 goes at it, and half the time its in prtnership with one of the bigger producers.
someone once asked why so many countries just got steamrolled by germany in WW2?
why didn't they have tanks as good or none at all?
i explained all the biggest tank producers in WW2 were the countries who saw them work and used them in WW1, because they had the money and resources to do it, tanks were new, its expensive to invest in a new technology at the start.
i guess i just didn't realise how much thats still true today, paraguay still has some sherman tanks in their military, i saw a military parade in burma and i think they had 3 matilda tanks.
its actually quite eye opening to go through other countries rosters and see the complete mish mash of tanks they have from being able to buy little bits of old stock every 10 years or so.
Favorite lend/lease rib from the Brits: The M3 "Lee" tank was exported to the British military who, in typical tongue in cheek fashion, called their version the "Grant."
Edit: corrected for technical inaccuracies between the different versions of the M3 chassis/turret combinations.
That is not quite accurate.
Both the Lee and Grant names originated from the British, and filtered back to the Americans after a while though officially they clung to their "M" designations.
Lee was the designation for the standard M3 Medium Tank, Grant being assigned to a British ordered version with a redesigned turret.
Wish this was true😅, but they had different turrets
Dang good video loved it👍👍