@@DrownedinbloodMore powerful engine = more fuel consumption right? The Germans are kinda lacking in the fuel department since that failue to take Stalingrad and rush toward Baku.
The English "thick" is a direct derivative of the German "dick." In some old German dialects, the d sound is pronounced more like "th." This is also seen in the English "the" and the German "die."
1938 Germany: France has this big wall made of guns and steel. We need a big gun to break it up Some random German General: You know, we could just go around it All the other Germans: NEIN! We want big guns! Germany 1940: *Goes around the wall*
I mean since every critical piece of environment - if preparation allowed - has hardened shelters and bunkers the need to kill those bunkers reliably and from range came up again and again
@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 as long as you have air superiority ^^ The stuka was an excellent dive bomber - the only one iirc that could actually dive at 90° - but a very mediocre aircraft generally. Also you didn´t have unlimited air support, so as your average ground unit you still had to fight bunkers directly countless times.
It's interesting how a single unique tank was used for so long on the battlefield without any more of its kind, as if it's the protagonist in the anime that is WW2
The idea of building an armored and self-propelled artillery vehicle received much less political and institutional support from the Wehrmacht, as the Luftwaffe's dive bombers were considered the main ground attack weapon, and all other AFV production would either concentrate on tanks or tank destroyers. In the case of the DM, having been designed purposely for destroying fortifications, it suffered from both its low priority as a weapon system and the fact that its 105 mm gun was no longer good enough to destroy Soviet fortifications.
I think its kill record makes the Dicker Max an unambiguous success in a practical sense, but how much of that is intelligent tactical useage and how much is a demonstration of the vehicle's actual capabilities is of course impossible to know today. I think the idea of the DIcker Max, and other similar open-casemate German TDs like the Marder, have merits that _sometimes_ outweigh their flaws. They lack the mobility and flexibility of American TDs or the heavy armour of other Soviet SUs and German designs like the StuG line, but they have a balance of weight, cost and complexity necessary to make them at least _available_ - and it's undeniable that being able to bring a _very_ large gun to a gunfight is in fact sometimes exactly the right solution to your problems.
They are good first try. But Nashorn was the way forward. Better speed, big enough cannon to knock out any opponent, no need to totally annihilate the opponent, armor to stop splinter and light anti tank guns, compare to the Dicker Max who was in the unfavorable situation to have armor that might and might not stop a medium antitank guns.
The U.S. Army faced the prospect of fortification busting during the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Rather than develop something new or something still in development (those “T” monsters) that would be too late like the Dicker Max, the USA asked what do we already have available with something heavier than the Shermans’ 75, 76 and 105 mm. USA evaluated the 90 mm GMC (tank destroyer) M36 and the 155 mm GMC M40. The former was mobile, armored and could blast away with a 90 mm M3 gun with HE and APC shell. The latter could snipe from a distance (minimal armor) but with an effect on target from an APC shell (M112) and large HE shell (M101). This tidbit is from a declass WW II pamphlet found online.
Germans just didn't have anything suitable for direct bunker busting role in 1940. Armored 8.8cm Flak carriers were considered, but they had even worse mobility and very lacking protection. Similar overly specialized vehicle from US would be T28 super-heavy. Only hopes and dreams would keep that 500hp engine alive at pushing 90 tons up a slope.
As an Anti German main, stop popping smoke the first time you get hit by a MG. It a beacon for CAS and you can’t see what is firing at you. Wait never mind.
It was named Dicke Max, from the literary character Max from the beloved children's book "Max and Moritz: A story of seven boyish pranks" by Wilhelm Busch from 1885. The Max character would be called Fat Max, or Dicke Max in German, by adult characters. Having been written in 1885, many soldiers of the time would have grown up with it. Much in the way of comic strip characters that showed up on WW II and Korean War American aircraft nose art.
Those were rookie numbers for a TD involved in the initial stages of the invasion. They were literally fighting against anything the Russians could patch together in their “Storm-Z units.” Like light tankettes from the 1920s.
exactly. this guy is so wrong. the dicker max did exactly what it was supposed to. it worked pretty well it seems with the tank kills probably more then 18.
_“Excuse me? The Dicker Max?! Oh well now they're just taking the piss! What does ‘Dicker Max’ even mean? I’ll tell you what it means! It means nothing! Nothing at all to me, because I don’t speak German! We won the bloody war, because we know how to name a tank!”_ - Squire
With the dicker max one must only use it defensively due to the weak super structure armour and change positions when it was targeted by artillery and aircraft fire, it’s a good vehicle but if they had allowed a slight weight increase to the 30-34 tons a better engine and transmission could have been installed which could have increased the mobility and top speed
@@pugasaurusrex8253 There's a difference between a cancelled project, and a project that results in something physically *incapable* of being mass produced. The Dicke Max could've been mass produced, but got cancelled before that could happen.
A UA-cam short video or a video on the American T-40 TD would be cool. She nearly saw combat in Europe but by the time it was going to be sent they had enough Hellcats. Great video Cone. GG
I'd opt for option c: like Char B1-bis, the Dicker Max was an acceptable design for a niche role that had evaporated by the time it entered service. If the Germans had ended up needing to engage the Maginot Line it probably would've done just fine.
All of them seen some heavy action, actually. No wonder, it would've been too big a waste not to put those costly errands at work. I am more fascinated by the fact that all three ended up in the same unit which was fit with Marders. Quite the zoo Germans had around Stalingrad!
Interesting video, I actually never gave a 2nd tought about the Maginot Line because I always heard it was irrelevant and stupid, but come to think of it it's obvisouly more complex and nuanced in reality, like, well, everything.
So if they hadn't cheapened out on the transmission and engine, Germany could have had a great tank destroyer and assault gun with the Dicker Max. Now imagine Nazi Germany having a couple hundred of these non-cheapened Dicker Max in service and on the original timescale and KV tanks would have presented much less of a roadblock during Barbarossa
@@khnelli4918 I have a bunch of German aviation references that mention calling Allied heavy 4 engined bombers Dicker Max with the translation as “Furniture van”. This could be a slang use that wasn’t that common.
@@michaeltelson9798 im german myself, and whatever your reading, i really do think its wrong cuz Dicker Max is translated to Fat Max, which probably relates to the big gun and slow, "fatty" design
Personal opinion here. Obscuration due to muzzle blast is still a major problem today. Give the D-max a more powerful engine and it's GTG. It's especially important as a counterbattery fire weapon, as the 10.5cmK18 was one of the longest ranged artillery pieces of the war. PzDivs were deficient in this regard. Putting these into production would've improved panzerwaffe performance well in advance of PzA Hummel introduction. 12 of these babies per PzDiv would've been a considerable upgrade. The nation that pursued the heavy weapon concept to distraction was the CCCP with its SU100 program(s). These were not meant to be used as artillery, but most likely were.
Great video!! Have built a 1:35 scale plastic model of this vehicle and the Sturer Emil. Good kits and fun to build. Definitely something different than the usual types of armored vehicle kits.
I think it is a combo, a bit of a wonder weapon that was compromised out of it's intended design parameters. From what I gather, Germany was not ready for war when it comes to armor, mostly due to having constant mechanical problems, especially transmissions.
Tbh I always liked it... though I'm lying, I liked (s)K18 installed on it😅 Given existence of Hornisse/Nashorn, I always wondered if it was better to use this gun in place of Pak43 to create "dual purpose" SPG? The second point of interest connected to this gun that most people are aware of is the question of upgunning Tiger 1H/P and the armament of SPGs on its chassis. We know that Pak43/Kwk43 was chosen instead, not to mention that idea of SPG on Tiger H chassis was scrapped and only Porsche followed initial plan. Was additional HE filler of any worth or was it an overkill just like armor penetration of Pak43? No idea. Given the widespread use of 90mm caliber post WWII, I'd say that 90mm HE was doing just fine and thus 88mm would be fine too(not to mention the legendary british 25 pounder of same caliber). Still it remains an interesting "what if" as closest german analogue to soviet 122mm A-19.
generally you do not want to make your SPG dual purpose artillery/AT, because the combat roles are so different that either your design will because incredibly flawed for one (or both) role, and because of Murphy, when you will need the largest number for anti tank, they will be held back for artillery use and inversely also nevermind they aren't same unit type
@@quentintin1 I'd counter by mentioning why dual purpose things exist in the first place - because 1)one of the tasks is FAR more prevalent and/or important then the others; 2)it's cheaper then having specialist tool for every task; 3)because it's really inconvenient to end up with your pants down when you brought the wrong tool for the wrong job aka the opposite of your point about "they'll be stuck behind in artillery roles". Likewise on your point about "being stuck behind" - the whole idea of "kampfgruppe" was coasting on ability to squeeze out unintended utility from equipment you HAD, not equipment you WISHED you had. No idea how useful as an argument be a mentioned of towed AT guns switching to be dual purpose by default, be it Resita 75mm, the soviet switch to ZiS-3 field gun which they regarded as dual purpose or eventual switch of Pak40 production to towed mounts that allowed it to be used as proper artillery piece even at expense of sabotaging it's low profile, something you'd never expect AT gun designer to do. However the need of troops for more of everything was more pressing matter.
@@TheArklyte there is an argument for having as few different equipment yes but, some roles are not compatible with being grouped up together artillery principally fires from far away in high angles anti tank primarily fires from comparatively much closer at very flat angles the implementation of ATG to do local artillery was putting a secondary use to guns that were already there, plus even with higher angle mountings, their range remains limited if we are talking about assaultguns, the talk can be there, since they are meant to get "close" anyway so a consolidation of capabilities can be argued but artillery itself is a different beast
There is something that has always bothered me about certain tank designs (more specifically: tiger, Ferdinand, panther, king tiger and the maus). It's the drooping tracks. Why? Doesn't a track with a significant amount of slack in it just increase the possibility of throwing the track right off the road wheels, especially when turning?
@@LogoMasterWT nah, by the # of trophy lines i`d say otherwise. Luck & skill, but not rushed. The chassis is trash, the trani is overengineered and the gun is non-optimal with unwieldy breach & 2 part ammo. Most probably brought forth vs heavier tanks.
Whilst i am no armour expert by any means, i think a lot of the issues in arming the Pz 2 with 37mm, might have been down to issues such as turret ring size, ammo capacity, internal turret size, ( bigger gun = bigger gun breech, longer gun recoil etc, ), whereas, in a concrete superstructure,those same issues would be largely irrelevant.
That tank fixed in every tank division.........CAUSE..........There where Panzer 4s, which had the same tracks, engine, gear etc and each divison had those 10,5 cm guns as Artillery. SO there was all the knowledge, all the personal, all the spareparts, ammunition etc. there. A very big point for a "new weapon in the house".......
not the same gun nor ammo, the gun from the Dicker Max was from the 105mm Schwere Kanone SK-18/L52 long range artillery/counterbattery, the standard divisions light artillery howitzer was the LFH-18/L28. The weaker and insufficient engine was due to to the limited space in the middle under the gun, the chassis should have been elongated to fit the Maybach HL116 or HL230 ... all other parts would be the same though.
@@thingamabob3902 NOPE! EVERY tank division has one battery of this 10cm Kanone 18 in his stocks! It doesnt matter, where the engine was stationed, more important was, that it is the same engine, the Panzer 4 had! AND............a Panzer 4 in later versions, has the same weight as a "Dicker Max"!!!!
@@mauertal Well, while its true that every PD had the SK18, the Panzerjägerabteilungen were not always directly attached to a Panzerdivision or Panzerkorps ( the Prototypes were though, in the 521. Panzerjäger-Abteilung of the 3. Panzer-Division, but we are talking hypothetically if they would have been in production und used like the other heavy TD like Nashorn etc ). Also its NOT THE SAME ENGINE ( the earlier prototype suggestions wanted to use it, but not the actual two prototypes), why don´t you understand that the smaller Maybach HL66P engine in the prototypes was used because there WAS NOT SUFFICIENT SPACE in the chassis to use the standard Pz.IV engine and the placement under the gun in the middle was one of the reasons it didn´t fit .... did you even watch the video ?
@@thingamabob3902 I read the original papers in German Archives! Those 2 tanks are prototyps, the planed serial has the orgiginal Pz 4 engine, gear etc.. NO, the 10 cm Kanone 18 was not in anit-tank formations, but as a heavy battery in the artillery-regiment of each tank division.
@@mauertal sigh ... its like talking to an obstinate child or an especially dull wall. REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS PLANNED THE ACTUALLY BUILT PROTOTYPES HAD THIS ENGINE, PERIOD. Planned =/= Reality, you know.... The rest was paper projects, planned but not realized ... And I never said that the ARTILLERY was in antitank formations for gods sake, the self propelled SFL IVA with the GUN was in a Panzerjäger Unit. I even specifically said that before if you would care to read ...
Seems as if it were more agile and up powered, it could have been very successful. Germany it seems, had a lot of design fails just getting the power or lack of power to the tracks.
The StuG was used more for fire support. It was designed to be no taller than an infantryman so that they can travel w/ infantry without needing higher concealment
As to the dichotomy proposed, this vehicle is likely a bit of both. Too many compromises, and too much "wunderwaffe" hype. Interesting show, Cone. Well done, as always.
Trying to do weight reduction on a already heavy chassis is just dumb like ah yes let's make it have more problems rather then sorting out the current reliability problems You said they put a smaller engine and different Trans in it and I face palmed
With enough speed and a gun with a long range they're not entirely a write off. You just have to train crews from the ground up. Not transfer them from other enclosed tanks.
Open topped vehicles provide several benefits such as better visibility and improved ventilation of the fighting compartment. While they do also come with some downsides it highly depends on the type of vehicle. An artillery vehicle for example is not intended to be on the front lines so the risk from infantry attacks are lessened. The same is true for tank destroyers or other SPGs to an extent
Meh, artillery will penetrate the top armour more often than not, and no tank should be close enough to enemy infantry for grenades to be a problem. Before bore extractors and nbc filters, the combination of massively improved vision, lighter weight, signifcantly better venitalation, improved crew dismount speed, ease of rearmement, etc makes it's the superior choice outside of direct combat in urban environments.
Awful design. First of all, 50 mm of maximum frontal armour was ridiculously inadequate. Second: Who was the moron who decided that a 12-cylinder engine was "too much"? Third: Why not make it heavier and better protected? Anyway, it was rubbish and deserved to end as it did.
Thanks to Call of War for sponsoring. Play the game for free today and get a special bonus available for 30 days:callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/s6gzkg4c
I thought the t34 made the Germans make better tank I never thought it was the french fortress was I wrong or was it both
@@reaperiscomingforme both impacted German tank design in different ways
@@ConeOfArc thanks I wasn't sure thanks for the reply keep up the good work I love your videos
Love the new intro btw
I haven't played it yet but thank you for sponsoring one of the best and one of my very favorite "tank" channels.
Be like Dicker Max: They may call you fat, but you can still rack up 18 kills before you get snagged by Ivan.
i hate the dicker max and sturer emil. why? because they refuse to die. a direct and perfect hit from t-34-85? no damage.
@@ravenouself4181 they have as much empty space as a zeppelin shoot the ammo racks
As a dicker max user I can confirm
@xavier4519 or your bullet snag on some unholy angle and nonpens
@@xavier4519 or just use HE
“Had it been given a more powerful engine…”
Sort of a recurring theme in videos about failed weapons programs.
Perhaps especially heavies
A pity as I love this weapon
More powerful engine, better transmission, not being a pain in the ass to make.
@@DrownedinbloodMore powerful engine = more fuel consumption right? The Germans are kinda lacking in the fuel department since that failue to take Stalingrad and rush toward Baku.
@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863 But you need your tank to move...
Dicker Max also known under the nickname "Biggus Dickus"
And yes, I know that "dick" in german means thick.
@@bobkowalski7655 So that means: "Thicker max" is the meaning of Dicker max.
Is the Sturmtiger then Incontinentia Buttocks?
@@Gaming.N.Stuff.Official it actually means fat max in german
I get the Monty Python Life of Brian reference. I'm not sure other people have. 👍🏻
“Is this an SPG, assault gun, or tank destroyer?”
“Ja”
A:
So. Everyone is running around with 37mm and 50mm guns. Which should we choose?
B:
How about a 105mm!
Wonder why it didn't work, yeah me neither.
SfpzlSApBBArt
Selbstfahrende panzerlafette anti panzer bunkerbrechende Artillrie
@@thatoldme1234Everybody is bullet proof to 37 and 50mm
"Private Johnson, lube up and ready your Dicker Max!!"
"Sir, it has suffered from premature explosion!"
Freaky ahh👅
0:03 Lego piece ahh battle plans
Xd
'Dicke Max' = 'Fat Max' or 'Big Max', the collective terms for McDonalds.
Germans called Goring 'Dicke Herman', too.
me when I lie
Rip 'r'
The English "thick" is a direct derivative of the German "dick." In some old German dialects, the d sound is pronounced more like "th." This is also seen in the English "the" and the German "die."
Also known by the Latin name Biggus Dickus
1938 Germany: France has this big wall made of guns and steel. We need a big gun to break it up
Some random German General: You know, we could just go around it
All the other Germans: NEIN! We want big guns!
Germany 1940: *Goes around the wall*
Germans also: Pulls Uno reverse card.
I mean since every critical piece of environment - if preparation allowed - has hardened shelters and bunkers the need to kill those bunkers reliably and from range came up again and again
@@thingamabob3902 But Stuka were proved that bunkers and defenses were obsolete l.
@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 as long as you have air superiority ^^ The stuka was an excellent dive bomber - the only one iirc that could actually dive at 90° - but a very mediocre aircraft generally. Also you didn´t have unlimited air support, so as your average ground unit you still had to fight bunkers directly countless times.
@@thingamabob3902 Combined arms were the thing even today.
It's interesting how a single unique tank was used for so long on the battlefield without any more of its kind, as if it's the protagonist in the anime that is WW2
The idea of building an armored and self-propelled artillery vehicle received much less political and institutional support from the Wehrmacht, as the Luftwaffe's dive bombers were considered the main ground attack weapon, and all other AFV production would either concentrate on tanks or tank destroyers. In the case of the DM, having been designed purposely for destroying fortifications, it suffered from both its low priority as a weapon system and the fact that its 105 mm gun was no longer good enough to destroy Soviet fortifications.
I think its kill record makes the Dicker Max an unambiguous success in a practical sense, but how much of that is intelligent tactical useage and how much is a demonstration of the vehicle's actual capabilities is of course impossible to know today.
I think the idea of the DIcker Max, and other similar open-casemate German TDs like the Marder, have merits that _sometimes_ outweigh their flaws. They lack the mobility and flexibility of American TDs or the heavy armour of other Soviet SUs and German designs like the StuG line, but they have a balance of weight, cost and complexity necessary to make them at least _available_ - and it's undeniable that being able to bring a _very_ large gun to a gunfight is in fact sometimes exactly the right solution to your problems.
They are good first try. But Nashorn was the way forward. Better speed, big enough cannon to knock out any opponent, no need to totally annihilate the opponent, armor to stop splinter and light anti tank guns, compare to the Dicker Max who was in the unfavorable situation to have armor that might and might not stop a medium antitank guns.
The U.S. Army faced the prospect of fortification busting during the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Rather than develop something new or something still in development (those “T” monsters) that would be too late like the Dicker Max, the USA asked what do we already have available with something heavier than the Shermans’ 75, 76 and 105 mm. USA evaluated the 90 mm GMC (tank destroyer) M36 and the 155 mm GMC M40. The former was mobile, armored and could blast away with a 90 mm M3 gun with HE and APC shell. The latter could snipe from a distance (minimal armor) but with an effect on target from an APC shell (M112) and large HE shell (M101). This tidbit is from a declass WW II pamphlet found online.
And then they dropped the sun on them. Twice.
Japanese bunkers construction were mixture of Sea shells and concrete.
Germans just didn't have anything suitable for direct bunker busting role in 1940. Armored 8.8cm Flak carriers were considered, but they had even worse mobility and very lacking protection.
Similar overly specialized vehicle from US would be T28 super-heavy. Only hopes and dreams would keep that 500hp engine alive at pushing 90 tons up a slope.
yeah war criminals
Some German main in war thunder is crying rn
they're all fragile chuds after all
They cant, they are too busy replacing their crew because an arty shell landing 2 blocks away
As a German main I didn’t even research the docket max marder III is better
@@Lionheartsmh agree, me too, much better mobility and gun still melts everything so no point in getting a slow overkilled gun.
As an Anti German main, stop popping smoke the first time you get hit by a MG. It a beacon for CAS and you can’t see what is firing at you. Wait never mind.
I'm a mature adult I'm a mature adult...
You won't say it, it's too easy
Biggus dickus maximus
It means fat max
4:04
"As you can see we should attack from the east, and then-"
"Why don't I draw the line?"
Well, he is a totally qualified artist
"ZE DICKER MAX IS BEST TANK IN ALL OF ZE VERLD"
"ZE DICKER MAX ALSO COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS THE "FAT MAX OR THE THICK MAX" "
The Chonkin Max
Und here we havben, ze bane of the Allies, ze Dicker Max, ya?
DIE CHONKENJUGEN
@@DeliveryDemonJA***
@@ThommyofThenn Ve did it, Hans! Ve made it to ze ozer end of ze factory floor!
Sturer email and ducker max are my favourite german SPGs of WW2, Ive been waiting for this video for a long time !
It was named Dicke Max, from the literary character Max from the beloved children's book "Max and Moritz: A story of seven boyish pranks" by Wilhelm Busch from 1885. The Max character would be called Fat Max, or Dicke Max in German, by adult characters. Having been written in 1885, many soldiers of the time would have grown up with it. Much in the way of comic strip characters that showed up on WW II and Korean War American aircraft nose art.
It can hardly be cursed by its design if it racked up that many kills.
Those were rookie numbers for a TD involved in the initial stages of the invasion. They were literally fighting against anything the Russians could patch together in their “Storm-Z units.” Like light tankettes from the 1920s.
exactly. this guy is so wrong. the dicker max did exactly what it was supposed to. it worked pretty well it seems with the tank kills probably more then 18.
_“Excuse me? The Dicker Max?! Oh well now they're just taking the piss! What does ‘Dicker Max’ even mean? I’ll tell you what it means! It means nothing! Nothing at all to me, because I don’t speak German! We won the bloody war, because we know how to name a tank!”_ - Squire
With the dicker max one must only use it defensively due to the weak super structure armour and change positions when it was targeted by artillery and aircraft fire, it’s a good vehicle but if they had allowed a slight weight increase to the 30-34 tons a better engine and transmission could have been installed which could have increased the mobility and top speed
Except then it couldn't cross most bridges and need special modified rail stock... compromises were made for good reasons
And then Germany wouldn't be able to mass produce it.
@@naamadossantossilva4736
I thought they only made 2?
@@pugasaurusrex8253 There's a difference between a cancelled project, and a project that results in something physically *incapable* of being mass produced. The Dicke Max could've been mass produced, but got cancelled before that could happen.
This is my favorite vehicle in WoT along with the T14 and M4A3E2 Jumbo... I have so much money in that game, if only I played the game more.
☕🐝🇺🇸
Play war Thunder ╏ ” ⊚ ͟ʖ ⊚ ” ╏
A UA-cam short video or a video on the American T-40 TD would be cool. She nearly saw combat in Europe but by the time it was going to be sent they had enough Hellcats. Great video Cone. GG
Best tier VI in Blitz, plus the jokes never cease
God I miss the old cursed by design intro, would leave me in tears every time
I'd opt for option c: like Char B1-bis, the Dicker Max was an acceptable design for a niche role that had evaporated by the time it entered service. If the Germans had ended up needing to engage the Maginot Line it probably would've done just fine.
I didn't knew Dicker Max and Stur Emil actually saw combat, I trough they we're only on paper
All of them seen some heavy action, actually. No wonder, it would've been too big a waste not to put those costly errands at work. I am more fascinated by the fact that all three ended up in the same unit which was fit with Marders. Quite the zoo Germans had around Stalingrad!
@@intensiveintensives4887It makes sense to put all temperamental weapons in the place with the best engineers.
"Sturer Emil"
“Hans, where is ze good transmission and engine?”
I swear this happens every time with German WW2 tanks
I love how translating it to english doesn't make the name any better.
Thicc max does sound like a femboy streamer ngl.
Interesting video, I actually never gave a 2nd tought about the Maginot Line because I always heard it was irrelevant and stupid, but come to think of it it's obvisouly more complex and nuanced in reality, like, well, everything.
So if they hadn't cheapened out on the transmission and engine, Germany could have had a great tank destroyer and assault gun with the Dicker Max. Now imagine Nazi Germany having a couple hundred of these non-cheapened Dicker Max in service and on the original timescale and KV tanks would have presented much less of a roadblock during Barbarossa
Dicker Max = Big Truck was the German nickname for a furniture van. It was also the nickname that they used for American heavy bombers.
Isn't that the Möbelwagen with its boxy design? Google search hits all mention Dicker Max = Fat Max?
i can tell you: No, it wasn't. The Nickname Dicker Max was exclusively for this vehicle. Maybe you're thinking of the Möbelwagen?
@@khnelli4918 I have a bunch of German aviation references that mention calling Allied heavy 4 engined bombers Dicker Max with the translation as “Furniture van”.
This could be a slang use that wasn’t that common.
@@michaeltelson9798 im german myself, and whatever your reading, i really do think its wrong cuz Dicker Max is translated to Fat Max, which probably relates to the big gun and slow, "fatty" design
@@LeroxYT was gonna say this. Maybe it got lost in Translation?
2:30 - That particular example is a bit of a stretch for the term "vehicle", even by the standards of railway artillery.
The fact that it could do its job against other tanks shows it had what it took
*clears throat* The Maginot Line was a strategic success.
Ya mean the thing that slowed the German army for all of a couple days.
I mean sure the Germans love their timetables but calling it a success ...ehh.
France: You cannot come through.
Germany: We'll take the scenic route.
Personal opinion here.
Obscuration due to muzzle blast is still a major problem today.
Give the D-max a more powerful engine and it's GTG. It's especially important as a counterbattery fire weapon, as the 10.5cmK18 was one of the longest ranged artillery pieces of the war. PzDivs were deficient in this regard. Putting these into production would've improved panzerwaffe performance well in advance of PzA Hummel introduction. 12 of these babies per PzDiv would've been a considerable upgrade.
The nation that pursued the heavy weapon concept to distraction was the CCCP with its SU100 program(s). These were not meant to be used as artillery, but most likely were.
"MAXIMUM DIIICK" -Martincitopants
Great video!! Have built a 1:35 scale plastic model of this vehicle and the Sturer Emil. Good kits and fun to build. Definitely something different than the usual types of armored vehicle kits.
Great work ConeofArc, a fascinating vehicle for sure.
I think it is a combo, a bit of a wonder weapon that was compromised out of it's intended design parameters. From what I gather, Germany was not ready for war when it comes to armor, mostly due to having constant mechanical problems, especially transmissions.
Despite being subscribed, I had no notifications about your videos for months
Same here. I was on YT when it was uploaded, and it never did make it to my Notifications.
Do you have Discord?
@@brennanleadbetter9708yes
@@bwilliams463 Yeah, UA-cam doesnt like such topics. I never got a single notification.
Sweet, a new ConeOfArc video. Time for some popcorn.
Wow I find it so fascinating that there is photos from practically the beginning of its life to its end with the soviets
The picture you used for this video is very beautiful. Thanks for the new edging content.
Your edging to tanks? Lemme join in
Sure!
#neveredge #nevergoon #goonpolice
Tbh I always liked it... though I'm lying, I liked (s)K18 installed on it😅
Given existence of Hornisse/Nashorn, I always wondered if it was better to use this gun in place of Pak43 to create "dual purpose" SPG?
The second point of interest connected to this gun that most people are aware of is the question of upgunning Tiger 1H/P and the armament of SPGs on its chassis. We know that Pak43/Kwk43 was chosen instead, not to mention that idea of SPG on Tiger H chassis was scrapped and only Porsche followed initial plan.
Was additional HE filler of any worth or was it an overkill just like armor penetration of Pak43? No idea. Given the widespread use of 90mm caliber post WWII, I'd say that 90mm HE was doing just fine and thus 88mm would be fine too(not to mention the legendary british 25 pounder of same caliber).
Still it remains an interesting "what if" as closest german analogue to soviet 122mm A-19.
generally you do not want to make your SPG dual purpose artillery/AT, because the combat roles are so different that either your design will because incredibly flawed for one (or both) role, and because of Murphy, when you will need the largest number for anti tank, they will be held back for artillery use and inversely
also nevermind they aren't same unit type
@@quentintin1
I'd counter by mentioning why dual purpose things exist in the first place - because 1)one of the tasks is FAR more prevalent and/or important then the others; 2)it's cheaper then having specialist tool for every task; 3)because it's really inconvenient to end up with your pants down when you brought the wrong tool for the wrong job aka the opposite of your point about "they'll be stuck behind in artillery roles". Likewise on your point about "being stuck behind" - the whole idea of "kampfgruppe" was coasting on ability to squeeze out unintended utility from equipment you HAD, not equipment you WISHED you had.
No idea how useful as an argument be a mentioned of towed AT guns switching to be dual purpose by default, be it Resita 75mm, the soviet switch to ZiS-3 field gun which they regarded as dual purpose or eventual switch of Pak40 production to towed mounts that allowed it to be used as proper artillery piece even at expense of sabotaging it's low profile, something you'd never expect AT gun designer to do. However the need of troops for more of everything was more pressing matter.
@@TheArklyte
there is an argument for having as few different equipment yes
but, some roles are not compatible with being grouped up together
artillery principally fires from far away in high angles
anti tank primarily fires from comparatively much closer at very flat angles
the implementation of ATG to do local artillery was putting a secondary use to guns that were already there, plus even with higher angle mountings, their range remains limited
if we are talking about assaultguns, the talk can be there, since they are meant to get "close" anyway so a consolidation of capabilities can be argued
but artillery itself is a different beast
There is something that has always bothered me about certain tank designs (more specifically: tiger, Ferdinand, panther, king tiger and the maus). It's the drooping tracks. Why? Doesn't a track with a significant amount of slack in it just increase the possibility of throwing the track right off the road wheels, especially when turning?
4:43 the elusive elefantstug
can you make a vid about the fcm 36 (if done plz another version ;) )
Bad chassis with a big gun & a pro crew. They made it work!
good chassis with ok gun and not well-trained rushed crew
@@LogoMasterWT nah, by the # of trophy lines i`d say otherwise. Luck & skill, but not rushed. The chassis is trash, the trani is overengineered and the gun is non-optimal with unwieldy breach & 2 part ammo. Most probably brought forth vs heavier tanks.
@@ciuyr2510The Dicker Max and Sturer Emil crews seemed to be very good at their job.
I wanted to call myself "dicker max" but sadly i only have a 13mm MG131
The Maginot Line succeeded where it existed. Failure to extend it is why France was forced to surrender.
If it had been extended it would have fallen to airassault like the fort lines in the low countries.
0:03 France was defended by LEGO's - no wonder they fell so easily!
PzII turret with a 37mm used as a Tobruk??
Why didnt they up gun more of them if that cannon would fit?
Whilst i am no armour expert by any means, i think a lot of the issues in arming the Pz 2 with 37mm, might have been down to issues such as turret ring size, ammo capacity, internal turret size, ( bigger gun = bigger gun breech, longer gun recoil etc, ), whereas, in a concrete superstructure,those same issues would be largely irrelevant.
I'd like to think i helped because i brought up the Dicker Max in the nashorn video
Just i coincidence im guessing, but the tool company Stanley has a line of tools, the ones a bit more expensive and nice, called "Fat Max"
Loved this video! Would love to see a video someday of the Semovente 75/18 series of vehicles.
oof. the worst way to reduce weight... putting in a worse engine...
That tank fixed in every tank division.........CAUSE..........There where Panzer 4s, which had the same tracks, engine, gear etc and each divison had those 10,5 cm guns as Artillery. SO there was all the knowledge, all the personal, all the spareparts, ammunition etc. there. A very big point for a "new weapon in the house".......
not the same gun nor ammo, the gun from the Dicker Max was from the 105mm Schwere Kanone SK-18/L52 long range artillery/counterbattery, the standard divisions light artillery howitzer was the LFH-18/L28. The weaker and insufficient engine was due to to the limited space in the middle under the gun, the chassis should have been elongated to fit the Maybach HL116 or HL230 ... all other parts would be the same though.
@@thingamabob3902 NOPE! EVERY tank division has one battery of this 10cm Kanone 18 in his stocks! It doesnt matter, where the engine was stationed, more important was, that it is the same engine, the Panzer 4 had! AND............a Panzer 4 in later versions, has the same weight as a "Dicker Max"!!!!
@@mauertal Well, while its true that every PD had the SK18, the Panzerjägerabteilungen were not always directly attached to a Panzerdivision or Panzerkorps ( the Prototypes were though, in the 521. Panzerjäger-Abteilung of the 3. Panzer-Division, but we are talking hypothetically if they would have been in production und used like the other heavy TD like Nashorn etc ). Also its NOT THE SAME ENGINE ( the earlier prototype suggestions wanted to use it, but not the actual two prototypes), why don´t you understand that the smaller Maybach HL66P engine in the prototypes was used because there WAS NOT SUFFICIENT SPACE in the chassis to use the standard Pz.IV engine and the placement under the gun in the middle was one of the reasons it didn´t fit .... did you even watch the video ?
@@thingamabob3902 I read the original papers in German Archives! Those 2 tanks are prototyps, the planed serial has the orgiginal Pz 4 engine, gear etc.. NO, the 10 cm Kanone 18 was not in anit-tank formations, but as a heavy battery in the artillery-regiment of each tank division.
@@mauertal sigh ... its like talking to an obstinate child or an especially dull wall. REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS PLANNED THE ACTUALLY BUILT PROTOTYPES HAD THIS ENGINE, PERIOD. Planned =/= Reality, you know.... The rest was paper projects, planned but not realized ... And I never said that the ARTILLERY was in antitank formations for gods sake, the self propelled SFL IVA with the GUN was in a Panzerjäger Unit. I even specifically said that before if you would care to read ...
7:45
Slight correction it would be fat max (correct) or thick max (not thicker).
6:35 'Tank Destroyer Spectrum.' Snuck that one in us, you sly dog.
a bit of both, a decent design but with a lot of flaws that later similar spg's did their best to make up for
Seems as if it were more agile and up powered, it could have been very successful. Germany it seems, had a lot of design fails just getting the power or lack of power to the tracks.
Despite being a bit of a sack it was still successful is the craziest part
Why did the Wehrmacht call the Sturmgeschutzs with anti-tank guns StuGs, instead of Jagdpanzers?
While they did engage tanks unlike tank destroyers Stugs primarily engaged other targets
The original purpose of Stug 3 was for fortifications and infantry support, when they mounted anti tank guns, they just didn't change the designation.
The StuG was used more for fire support. It was designed to be no taller than an infantryman so that they can travel w/ infantry without needing higher concealment
Dmax in real life: Meh...
Dmax in WT: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
AYYY HES BACK❤
"It works at least" is the most mediocre compliment for a tank. Thanks for the video.
Honestly they should have made big tanks that work instead of big tanks that don’t work. What a bunch of good balls
I just realized that your profile is from a FCM 36 tank turret of France
German Wonder Weapon? a simpel spg a stopgap test unit?
Yes
Interesting video
The design kind cool. remember building 1/35 scale of it and yah, it looks like muscle tank destroyer.
It was called what?
Cool Story, Thanks!
Like other German weapons fortunately it was underpowered with a fragile drive line. The Nashorn shows what it could have been.
Good video man
As to the dichotomy proposed, this vehicle is likely a bit of both. Too many compromises, and too much "wunderwaffe" hype. Interesting show, Cone. Well done, as always.
I played it in warthunder, it had a nice depression and could snipe tanks before they respawned in planes and died but killed 7 tanks...
Very cool 💯
make a video about the mirny-13 boos aka(the immortal) another double gun tank it looks interesting to me
The Fat Max has avoided my attention until now. Hitler had wished to begin fighting a year later thus many developments were annoyingly not available.
Trying to do weight reduction on a already heavy chassis is just dumb like ah yes let's make it have more problems rather then sorting out the current reliability problems
You said they put a smaller engine and different Trans in it and I face palmed
All tanks on the eastern front got destroyed by winter and cold, only dicker max got destroyed by summer and heat.
Changed gear on the transmission. Hee hee.
Seems to be another innovative weapon that needed upgrades to reach its full potential.
Dose the AE Phease 1 tank has story
honestly I think that open topped vehicles are not a good idea in their entirety
With enough speed and a gun with a long range they're not entirely a write off.
You just have to train crews from the ground up. Not transfer them from other enclosed tanks.
Open topped vehicles provide several benefits such as better visibility and improved ventilation of the fighting compartment. While they do also come with some downsides it highly depends on the type of vehicle. An artillery vehicle for example is not intended to be on the front lines so the risk from infantry attacks are lessened. The same is true for tank destroyers or other SPGs to an extent
Meh, artillery will penetrate the top armour more often than not, and no tank should be close enough to enemy infantry for grenades to be a problem.
Before bore extractors and nbc filters, the combination of massively improved vision, lighter weight, signifcantly better venitalation, improved crew dismount speed, ease of rearmement, etc makes it's the superior choice outside of direct combat in urban environments.
Would have been a good TD if they got the kinks out , like the engine and transmission
By sheer coincidence, Dickher Max was my nickname in college.
Ironically in video games the Dicker max is actually really good 😂
Do the Heuschrecke 10. I named my puppy that, he is now a 130lb Sheppard pit 😅
The cook off of a shell just meant one thing
It was very hot day
are you still in contact with Armoured Archives, he hasnt been on YT or Twitter for 2 years
you should make a video on the russian object 220 also known as the KV220
Awful design. First of all, 50 mm of maximum frontal armour was ridiculously inadequate. Second: Who was the moron who decided that a 12-cylinder engine was "too much"? Third: Why not make it heavier and better protected? Anyway, it was rubbish and deserved to end as it did.
warthunder KV-1 cant climb a small hill
irl KV-1 8:23
.... There are just some jokes that write themselves.
War Thunder should add the Max exploding randomly. For realism.
That would be funny and they don’t announce it
They were affectionally called Max and Moritz. German fairy tales my mother in law would read to my children
From the things I've read those nicknames were actually used for the pair of Sturer Emil not the Dicker Max brothers