Operation Think Tank 2012 Part 11
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лис 2012
- 00:20 How good was Sherman?
03:15 Ferdinand/Elefant
04:21 Design throwback (TOG, ARL)
06:30 Advantage to first shot, effectiveness of follow-up
12:09 British procurement system: Multiple calibres, no HE, etc
14:45 Were amphibious tanks effective?
22:00 First tank to have a boiling vessel?
In March of 2012, we brought together six of the most respected authors in the field of tank history, and battered them with questions submitted by the World of Tanks playerbase. You are watching the result of this four-hour Q&A.
Steve Zaloga
Harry Yeide
Hilary Doyle
David Fletcher
Rob Griffin
Kenneth Estes
Feel free to discuss this video on our forum:
forum.worldoftanks.com/index.p...
World of Tanks is a free-to-play online game which incorporates a wide variety of vehicles from the 1920s through 1950s. www.worldoftanks.com
I'm found here on Facebook / thechieftainwargaming - Авто та транспорт
And here I am, almost twelve years later, 01/01/2024, finishing this series and finding it fantastic. I hope you remake it sometime!
Nice to hear these gentlemen strangle some old myths, here are some truly experts.
I have enjoyed this series about as much as anything I have watched on UA-cam.
Range and test bed scores do not necessarily reflect battlefield performance for a number of reasons. In "Dreaded Threat, the 8.8 cm in the Anti-Tank Role", Doyle looks at a selection of AARs from 8.8 units in France, Russia and North Africa. They were generally expending 10 rounds or so of 8.8 AP per kill. The three big issues are a, the targets moving erratically and trying not to get hit, b, targets at unknown range, and c, crew nervous because targets shooting back.
Right, but I did have a disagreement with one of the answers to the question asked. Someone asked about an ambush situation, getting 'first round advantage'. I would think an experienced crew, lying in wait for the enemy and having a good idea of where they might be coming from...would not expend 18 rounds trying to hit them. That's more like a 'they shit their pants' advantage...
@@CastleGraphics it would still depends on how far your target is from you. If you play wot or at least war thunder and you fire from a static position, you'd have a higher chance of hitting a target if the poor bugger is more closer than further. You have to remember that no terrain is similar, you may be in the plains of Russia at one point then to the hilly mountainous terrain of Italy in another
An experienced crew that lies in wait for the enemy tends to be the ones in the defensive position and would always be able to get the first shot off unlike those that wasn't lying in wait which tends to be on the offensive, unless enemy recon has spotted you but they'll most likely just call in artillery on your position
All of these speakers are absolutely fascinating. I gotta go buy their books now.
The guy most left (Steve Zaloga I suppose) is so annoying. He is wise but for god's sake shut up and let the others answer!
In historical terms alone this is the gathering of some of the most knowledgeable, intelligent collection of speakers on the subject of tanks. The depth of discussions and the information provided by these men is eternally enlightening to tank nuts like me. Answered every question I had in my own head. David Fletcher the Einstein of Tanks. Eternally grateful you guys took the time to make this series. I would love to see this discussion held with a veteran of merit from every theatre of WW2. That would be something else!!!
Absolutely the most important piece of equipment.
Some how it just seems fate that the British should have the first tank capable of brewing a pot of tea/coffee.
Its criminal that you do not have more views or subs.
You mention a good point. British accounts that I have read of desert tank warfare say British tankers were happy to have the M3 because of the 75mm dual purpose gun. And they were used quite effectively against the Germans.
"Patton is pleased with this review and would like to offer you moar machine guns."
My favorite amphibious tank? It could have been IJN Yamato if she had made it to place for Operation Ten-Go. I mean, a tank that can float vs a battleship that's beached itself. A "Land Ship" vs a "landed ship".... they're the same, right?
3:35 sounds like the difference in player attitude between grinders and wallet warriors lol
Glad to hear the US has finally closed the Boiling Vessel Gap
This has been a great series and very informative.
Are you planing on doing anymore Chieftain Inside The Hatch videos?
I feel like my IQ score jump a couple of points after this video.
9:28 stationary tanks in defensive posture are better off vs advancing moving tanks that cant aim and shoot and be accurate// yeah.. i like the idea of adding concrete to supplies to a front that has tanks.. so as to build make shift stationary barriers for the tank to be behind
funny seeing Capt. Moran here.
Amphibious tanks!!! I dream of a PT76 in WoT. Flanking move in Murovanka? No problem. Pesky mediums beside the riverbank on Erland? Sorted!!! On the US/Brit side you'd put in the M113AS1 MRV (Saladin or Scorpion turret on an M113 ).
There is a couple of tanks in wot that should be amphibious. The btsv comes to mind
After the 1940 French conquest thru the Ardennes, why were the allies so unprepared during the second german offense thru the Ardennes?
Mechanical accuracy was good. But the limiting factor is the Fire control system, which was almost non existent compared to today.
18 shots to get a shot sheesh
Mental note, do not play any form of golf with old Wehrmacht Panzer Division veterans.
"Those were all practice swings!"
"That's a mini-golf putter, grandpa Klaus, not a 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70."
How about amphibious PT-76!? His US analogs also. What a shameful omission.
Yes you are correct in a b and c. However, that was not what he /and i meant) i think. He stated that the accuracy of guns if ww2 was very poor. Wich is not correct although true in battle condition.
6:52
The german engineers of the 88 flak gun stated that the accuracy was 99% up to a range of 1000 meters. And crew confirms it. So ive read atleast in some of cornelius ryans books. Also horst zank mentions it in one of his books.
Dunno wich gun he is talking about though
Sure. Engineers setting up a trial for days for one shot vs. troops acting and aiming in seconds on the field. Same thing.
7.92mm rifle caliber wasn't at all uncommon in Europe from WW1 through the 60's.
Yankees ugh
Amercans being boring about which unit did what in the pacific. British being funny about boilers.
I wouldnt say the Sherman was as good on the battlefield as Tiger I and Panzer IV ausf F2 and G in late 1942 and early 1943. It was considerably outgunned by both and in the open spaces in North Africa, this mattered. The problem is, the Sherman was designed BEFORE the Germans took a quantum leap ahead with their anti tank guns. At the time the Sherman was designed and first built, the best German tank gun was the 50mm L/60 on the Panzer III. THIS is what the Sherman designers assumed they would be competing against. However the 50mm was soon superseded by the 75mm L/43 and L/48 and the 88mm L/56 of course. The Tiger actually made its combat debut before the Sherman did.
Fortunately the number of German tanks with the vastly superior 75mm and 88mm guns were not in large number in late 1942/early 1943.
If you find that you like Tanks why not play War Thunder?
The sherman won the war... nice joke.
Indeed, the B-24 Liberator did. Or moreso, the Liberty Ship.