Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Jagdpanzer IV, Pt 2.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- Continuing on from the exterior tour, this is filmed inside the prototype vehicle as the other's a bit of a wreck.
This is a Wargaming-Paid video. The link if you want to start playing and attribute it to these videos (as mentioned towards the end) is tanks.ly/WoTChieftain
As one of those whining previously about the excessively loud _lovely_ _WG_ _music_ , I would like to express my gratitude for making it less loud and therefore more bearable. Thank you!
s k well said sir
Preach!!!!
**Tests how easy it is to escape the vehicle**
**Doesn't say "Oh bugger the tank is on fire"**
_My disapointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined_
Well... Commander, Gunner, and Loader have it easy. Driver not so much. Though with a Fuel Tank INSIDE the Fighting Compartment, I don't think there would be much of a 'Oh bugger the tank is on fire' moment.
The crew probably were already KFC'ed.
I agree with you!1. Very disappointed! I can't believe he didn't do this!
It's not a tank and "oh bugger the jagdpanzer is on fire" doesn't have the same ring to it.
*muffled sounds of tall Irishman's jeans rustling against metal in a futile bid to escape Nazi murder coffin*
Mine too.
"You got your periscope..."
[block of wood haphazardly wedged in with hardware store screws]
Oi. That is a highly engineered quality made German block of wood with the best hardware store screws in the world.
Bad Cattitude good question that :-p
@Bad Cattitude yes it comes with the special tool to fix it which is also not present.
Bad Cattitude Indeed I know a specialised screw store in Sofia, Bulgaria.
@Bad Cattitude There's GOOD cattitude?!?
MG42 in one hand, PaK39 in the other. That's quite the dual-wield.
MG42
@@DrLoverLover You're right, I wasn't paying enough attention before. Corrected.
Rambo move over its a new guy in town.
I thought most vehicles ran the mg34
@@loke72 Well in Rambo 3 he did operate a soviet tank all by himself (incl main gun as well as coaxial).
Nicholas is smiling the entire video, either he just had a good day or he has something really funny to hide.
Probably the bloopers from previous video :D The best!
Hahaha I mean, in the panzer 4 video when he's talking to that great old dude, the guy mentions he's super fond of the jagdpanzer and Nick starts cracking up then too and says why?? Hahaha
So I think he just thinks the tank is a janky mess, with a cool design, like most of the german tanks
@@KaladinVegapunk I just rewatched that video, Hilary Doyle's favourite tank was the Jagdpanther, not the Jagdpanzer IV.
You've got to understand that kid screaming at the end, I too would screaming in Tank Museum.
Bet the Commander ate that mount for the Scissors binocular optic a few times.
bet one of them kissed it like a french
Safe work environment and crew ergonomics weren´t exactly high on the list of priorities in ANY WWII vehicles....especially tanks provide an astonishing variety of metal edges to bang your head in when going cross country.
@@paavobergmann4920 I mean didn't they delay the 76 mm gun version of the Sherman because of bad ergonomics with the original turret
@@DeosPraetorian If nothing else the Americans at least gave and still give something of a damn for their service personnel.
It's not exactly Mother Teresa feeding the masses but still. They're not the Russians at the very least who don't do wet stowage and decided the turret ring was the best place to shove ammo into.
The more I see these German tanks and tank destroyers, the more I appreciate how well-designed the Sherman and American tank destroyers were for maintenance and repair purposes. The Sherman and its variants could literally have the entire front taken off in one piece with relative ease, making everything there easy to access. And with the tank destroyers turreted and open-topped, that was even more the case for them.
I've always liked the low profile of the jagdpanzer and the stug. Really good looking tanks.
I love the info but it does take away some of the mystique of armor battles. When I was young and thought less of the death and loss of war, tanks where “cool” and I drooled over them like muscle cars.
Now I feel they are like adventures. Nasty, disturbing uncomfortable things which make one late for dinner.
Reality has a way of doing that. I remember growing up with war movies like "Twelve O'Clock High" showing the flight crew in their B-17... when I finally was able to go inside the one the Collins Foundation preserves, I was amazed at how _tiny_ it was inside; the movie made it look like there was all kinds of room in the plane, and they were actually jammed together fairly tightly. Having to make the set big enough to let them move the camera forced them to take some liberties with the actual interior. The Chieftain's videos have given me a better perspective on the difference between "real life" and "reel life".
G'day Andrew, I know what you're saying. I'm an Air Force type and truly love the design beauty of the Spitfire, of course; the Vulcan, the EE Canberra; the ME-262, the P51D and many more. It's too easy to separate their visual appeal with the fact that their job was to kill other aircraft and drop bombs on targets. The odd thing about military aircraft is that if they looked 'good' they also, almost without exception, flew well and were 'good' at the job of destruction. Cheers, BH
@@BillHalliwell I think that is because humans like airodynamic shapes, as they resemble animals that addapted to be fast (birds, dolphins) we love nature. Therefore planes that are very airodynamic, and logically made, often are beautiful because they resemble nature in some way. And because they resemble birds or dolphins, they can move and fly better than something that resembles a kite or a brick.
Bill Halliwell Interesting point on “look good, fly well”. Makes me wonder why armor design did not include sloped method considering the idea of slope over depth was well known in regards to the removal of corners in fortifications and replacement with rounded battlements.
@@MasterMalrubius G'day Andrew, yes, that's an excellent point because the design of ancient fortifications in relation to projectile penetration was understood not long after the invention of the catapult and then the cannon. Mark Felton's new video, 'The Tiger's Dad' just covered the first tank that the Germans made in 1918. It was almost a carbon copy of the British tank; right angles all over. Destroyed by the Allies in 1919, that tank still influenced the early 1930s German tanks. It took a comparatively long time for the concept of angular armour to be adopted by all countries. Very odd. Cheers, BH
Excellent! More isolation entertainment
Did you Brits not just go into isolation/quarantine? Boris is slow af
Lebowski boris is a bumbling fuckwit, and it’s ‘social distancing’ not full isolation yet 🤦🏻♂️
Geting out of that driver seat looks like a good workout :D
"This is _inconvenient._ I'll leave it at that." Gold. :)
Having the transmission and final drive behind the sloped, frontal armour seems problematic (full stop).
I gather more than a few Panthers were also lost because of the difficulty of changing a failed final drive in the field.
@@ohlordy2042 Also Pz III. It´s a nightmare. You need to pull the turret. No, really.
Thank you so much for keeping the music low or non existent.
The Jagdpanzer IV could have limitations (for the gunner especially) but as a tank destroyer got a fearsome reputation despite the low numbers available at any time!!
In the first minute or so, note the clever tactics of the elderly gentleman who's application of a Jagdppanzer colored jacket, and complete motionless, renders him virtually invisible to any enemy who may be watching.
Thanks ! I love this TD. Roomier than the Stug & Hetzer for sure while still super low profile. Those are the kind of soft stats that count irl as opposed to ahhum, a videogame.
Liked the final version....
I glommed onto WG's early post as soon as it aired, but I gotta watch your post, too, Major Nick. /Respect.
Alright, I'm going to admit that I have played WoT, but normally I'm not overly interested in tanks in general. I started watching ItCH the other day and have been binging them and any other Chieftan video that pops up. I just love how he handles the subject matter. Straight forward, to the point, and with a little humor here and there. I think I will be continuing my binge now!
Awesome video! I really enjoyed seeing the interior. Will be building a model of this jagdpanzer in the very near future. Keep up the great work. Your videos are always interesting and informative.
Raising morale during the days where Toliet Paper is worth more then gold
Yet it still takes less grinding than moving from British tier 3 to tier 4 tanks
And fox-glove leaves are hard to come by! Use a news paper, it's all they're good for!
Gold is still around $1500 per troy ounce...
How much toilet paper did these crews carry?
Can't use anything less than Toilet paper to clean your iPhone screen, with a good Wipe and Toss!
I am so glad that b-roll relevant to the dialogue is being used. It makes me happy.
Awesome video! Feel like it is a rather forgotten vehicle despite being solid around and very much a powerful threat on the field
Thanx so much for these 2 videos. I had no idea there were so many variants and changes. My fave TD of the Germans, the model with the 75L70 gun (same as the Panther) is an Allied tanker's nightmare. Unfortunately a nightmare for the driver as well. With the nickname "Guderian's Duck", it waddled down the road due to being so front-heavy that steering was difficult. Ditches were also a problem because of the long gun being so low to the ground. I still like it tho, the ultimate sniper of SPG tank destroyers.
Agreed....Well stated Bill....
-Although the interior room the JP-IV possessed for the crew seemed rather comfy & roomy,-(In comparison to other German AG's)- Not to mention, being extremely effective @ defensive/ambush duties & roles, that PAK42-L70 looong-ass behemoth had >ZERO place< in this AG...
-The PK39 L43 & L48 seemed more effectively manageable & more @ home in this particular vehicle....
-Even with approaching ditches/departure angles, inclines & obstacles @ an angle, Im sure SEVERAL green JP-IV drivers pissed off both the gunner & T.C more than one occasion using the PAK42-L70 barrel as a 75cm ersatz post hole digger & breaching device?...
-Breaking the #1 rule about danger-laden bore obstructions....
-Pretty certain Heinz Guderian INVENTED the "Face-Palm" when dealing with Hitlers hair-brained decisions, manufactures designs n' specs, & the FAR to numerable Waffenamt/Panzer-Inspectorate AFV requirements & the ridiculous crazy amount of available German weapons calibers & the inherent logistics/supply concerns involved?...;)
Never mind my Ewwtoob, line crossing censors work...
Good one Mr Moran ! And you fit in there pretty comfortable.
Thanks. Nice presentation, great facts and research.
Excellent Episode Indeed. A very efficient and capable machine!
I Love every show you do. We need more shows to keep us occupied.
Great series explaining ww2 tanks. And once you get done and before your body heals you can explain how the magician assistant gets from the box through the hidden tunnel to the closet.
Every time I rewatch these videos i always want to go back and play the Tank being talked about
The problem you had with getting out of the drivers position might have been lack of motivation. Perhaps the vehicle being on fire might have been more helpful.
Yeah, brave people indeed in that seat
That's so the turret monster can reveal its' presence in a vehicle that doesn't even have a turret.
@@JustSomeCanuck with the gun traversed 12° to the right that would he an even tighter squeeze getting out, maybe they would turn it to the left to make it easier for him to exit(well unless the gun mantlet was jammed or the gunner was in a hurry to leave cuz oh bugger the tank is on fire)
Yes i think if it was on fire you will get out as fastest you can, if you're hurt your head doesn't matter, a lump in your head is better than being on fire.
@@loke72 You wouldn't have much of a head left to bump if the fire got to the ammo
Love your videos, hope to see a video on the King Tiger tank. As there's not much on the vehicle
Great video!
I listened to the diary of a gunner on the Jagdpanzer 4 (Panther cannon) on another UA-cam channel.
He disturbed the smoke of the canon exactly on the compressed air outlet. Due to the emissions, the view is hindered by smoke by the target personicopop on the roof and a quick second shot is not possible. His company in the 7th tank division was converted to the Jagdpanzer from the Panzer IV in january /february 1945.
I know you aren't a fan of the swinging hatch on the Panther, but apparently there is a very good reason for it. The German tankers seemed to be quite obsessed with reducing visual height, they were extremely unhappy with the early Tiger's hatch, which was on a raised and welded ring with vision slits. The ring was bad enough, since they seemed to feel it was a great liability both in increased visibility to the enemy, and as a weak point when directly struck by high powered shot, but they were even less happy with the hatch itself that swung up to stand vertically. They felt this was like a big flag to to the enemy, both making it easier to see, making it hard to open the hatch when hull down without showing a large object to the enemy, and it also acted as a visual indicator to the enemy that the hatch was wide open. They went to the lower, periscoped ring later. I think the swinging hatch on Panther was a further move to eliminate these problems. Not sure if they fitted them to later Tigers or not. I know they at least made them so they could lie flat and not stand up. This would make them harder to close when under fire though, since you would have to stand in the hatch and lift it up before you could swing it closed. Having the hatch swing sideways from inside the tank would seem to be the solution. A compromise, but I guess they figured if the tank was already hit you were probably screwed anyway, and it was better to avoid being hit at all. I seem to recall that in many areas they lost more commanders to small arms fire while unbuttoned and outside the tank than they did to direct enemy fire penetrating tanks. So eliminating the need to expose yourself and making the tank less of a target would trump making it easy to escape if you were hit. The main thing is to not get killed. Kind of like the debate between hanging tons of armor on soldiers to protect them at the cost of making it harder to avoid getting shot at all. If there is a good chance that the bullet will still do serious damage even with the armor if it hits you, you are better off just skipping the armor. Same thing in naval warfare; not quite enough armor is worse than no armor. It just slows you down and takes up space for ammo and fuel, without actually protecting you. The reason armored cruisers failed so badly.
Swinging hatches are in no way an issue, the issue is swinging hatches which use a very cumbersome way of lifting. Compare to other designs like on Leopard
Thank You for the educational video.
Wow. That was crazy how tight it was
I think he missed something regarding "Hull down": There are vision "slits" in line with the gun, so the driver would have a pretty good idea of where the gun is. Given that it would've been his job getting clear of the hill (or whatever was front of the vehicle) and position the gun anyways (since there's not turret), I would assume that the gunner simply didn't have to worry about obstructions of line of fire.
Assume....makes an ass out of you and me. Yeah the gunner wouldn't have such trivial things to worry about while in theatre. Really?
@@beakyturf6336 thats what he is saying, due to the drivers vision being at the same level of the gun, the driver could make sure the gun was clear as soon as they positioned into position. Meaning that making sure the gun is clear would be regulated tot he driver and not the gunner, meaning the gunner doesn't have to worry about having the gun cleared.
@@Cheezymuffin. I think the observation that respects both viewpoints is that: while the gunner ALWAYS has to be concerned about obstructed line-of-fire, the design forces him to place his trust in a driver that may be relatively inexperienced this late in the war; and I would expect the vehicle commander and loader to also be aware of potential obstructions.
Operating any AFV is still a team effort, with substantial motivation for success.
Well done, sir!
Good job Nic!!!! Thanks! Oohraah!!!!
I'd also like to point out another potential reason for that moved escape hatch you didn't mention; due to the gunner being smack dab in the middle of most of the crew layout, it would be faster for the crew to bail out with it because three out of four of them are right next to it. Of course, this depends on the entire crew being unable to use other hatches to bugger out of, but still.
Great job
Thanks...From Fort Knox Ky...USA..!
Funny thing, I got War Thunder advert before this video.
Great video Chief!
I love kids, if they are properly cooked...
The JgPz IV was the only Tank who had mg 42 as secondary weapons btw (all others had mg 34s)
Nice I like this tank in the game thanks
Well done.
You educated me.
WarThunder ad shown before this UA-cam by The_Chieftain does WarGaming know about this from there competition?
❤️!!HELLYEAH!!❤️ Thanks Irrrrishh Man!! 😊
Just started building some of these for Flames of War and good lord that’s cramped in there, especially for the driver.
I loved to drive this vehicle in Forgotten hope 2 :)
You had me at swinging hatch
Вообщем старается рассказать обо всём и сразу !!!! Смотреть можно все ролики на одном дыхании !!!! 👍👍👍🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺☯️☯️☯️♾
G'day Nicholas, Really enjoyed these two videos. Here, you are in the 'roomy' tank that, with all the stuff installed, turns out to be cramped after all. You've really got to wonder about the Nazis' obsession with huge tanks and tank destroyers. Given the armoury of this vehicle, the cost of it, construction time plus its mechanical worries, it would have been better to make many more 88 flak guns used as mobile tank destroyers which, by all accounts, were highly effective.
Shoot and scoot was not a big advantage of this lumbering ATD. Wheeled 88s could fire and be towed away just as quickly with a good crew, or so I have read.
Still, it is an impressive and visually deterring machine that would have been given a wide berth by smaller adversaries. Thanks for another great video and to see you enjoying your 'old' job rejuvenated. Tank on! Cheers, BH
@John Cornell G'day John, Thanks for your informative reply. I'm an ex-air force type and, clearly, I've got a lot to learn. Yes, I reckon it would take a large crew to move an 88 'quickly'. After your reply, I checked out the specs and weight of a towed-88. Speaking of weight, I didn't realise this AFV was so light; I guess I wasn't listening to Nicholas properly. Thanks for setting me straight. Cheers, BH
It’s worth noting that both panzer 3 and panzer 4 serious maintenance required a field depot to do it. To replace major components like the trans you had to unbolt the upper hull from the lower and separate the hulls via crane. Once this was done you had easy open access to everything. Unlike the M4 and many allied tanks you couldn’t do heavy maintenance in the field with the German panzer 3 and 4 unless you had a depot nearby. Another reason the Germans tried to use railroads as much as possible to bring tanks as close to the frontline without excessive wear ant tear
Every army until now tries to carry Tanks, APCs, IFVs, Artillery and any other heavy vehicel on railroad over longer distances as much as possible because it far more economic to do so
I saw the 'A' variant. I don't think it was that ugly. It's definitely taller though.
You seemed like you were in an especially good mood during this one (out of the 90+% of your videos I have seen). Maybe I am wrong.
Thanks for this, I enjoyed it - as per usual.
They had some unfinished hulls of Pz IV around, with fuel tanks in bottom of the hull - it forced them to make some additional space. They went with simpe additional centimeters of superstructure... Yeah, it's ugly ;-)
@@tkasprzak Looks are subjective. As is art. There is no such thing as ugly art or an ugly tank. It is only ugly to whomever thinks it is.
I think the new QE class is UGLY. Many people - especially loyal, biased, Brits do not. Neither is right and neither is wrong.
I have seen the Alkett variant - from several angles. They look somewhat ungainly. I do not think they are ugly.
Tomasz Kasprzak )
One more question.
Is there any chance of having the t23e4 tank being made available on the world of tanks game? It was made in limited production numbers as a training tank. It would be great if I could get this in the first level even if I had to pay for it. Can they make the tanks cheaper, I mean $50 or so may seem cheap to some but when you are on a pension that can be a lot to have to pay. Sorry that was more than one question.
Regards Kaptkaos.
Those welds though! Wow! 🐓 crap on a stick!
2:24 Interesting, an FU-8 for power transmission. Not as good as the FU-M8 in the English and Australian command vehicles though... : P
comparing it to many other tanks. this one looks actually comfortable to ride in.
Are they armor penetrations on the hull wall when he first jumps inside>?
I like the background music. I only see people complaining about it - though at this audio level it adds a nice bit of static behind the silence.
👉While the later sights were graduated, the earlier sights only had a GED!😁
It looks pretty spacious for such a low slung vehicle.
i watched this on wg channel now I'm watching it here to support the chieftain.
0:01 "The Chieftain declares war on the Allies."
L40 and apcr was a nasty combination. 3723 fps and 6.7 inches of penetration is honestly respectable even by todays standards for a non apfsds
Played WoT from the beta. Had some triumphs. Spanked a few baddies. Was regularly whacked by professionals. Left when they made my Battle Buddy awards nugatory. Learning to work as a team while observing good fire etiquette vanished on the spot.
Don't get me wrong-I still recommend WoT to those who might enjoy it. If you need a break, try MWO. Nothing like learning to hate all sensors other than the Mk 1 Eyeball. ;-)
Hi Nicholas I have several questions I would like to ask you. First though thanks for the World of tanks code and I hope I have helped you out with continued funding for your channel as I find it great for information on the tanks.
1, Is there any chance you can ask the guys from world of tanks if the time period of use for the beginning level of the game can be made unlimited instead of the few days that it has now before you have to pay to continue playing?
2, Is there any chance they can make some more scenarios for the beginning level besides the boot camp one and then going into online battle? Something like being on your own to find and eliminate the enemy and one where you work within a group both of which can be played as many times as you like to help build experience. Of course it would be you against the AI in these like in the boot camp and there could be four or so maps to choose from.
3, Can they make it so that there are more types of motors and other equipment available to upgrade with? I don't mean putting a modern motor type into tanks designed from the thirties and forties but other types of motors from the time period that the tanks are from. Also axis tanks should only be able to use what ever was available from within the axis countries and the allies tanks can only use what was available from the allies countries, such as the Packard V12 as used in the PT boats even though these were not used in tanks (I have no idea why they weren't, could you imagine a Sherman with one in it). What if you classed these mods as experimental?
4, Has the training for the mine sweepers changed since WW2? I ask this as I have seen a doco on tank battles of Vietnam where a tank commander came to a rail over pass which he and his troop had to go under so he asked the mine sweepers to check as he believed it was a good place to set anti tank mines. They checked and said all clear but he still did not trust it so he had them check again, this went on for three or four times and in the end he had to go through. Yes there was a mine set there so his tank was disabled and the two mine sweepers were no longer with us. So I was wondering do they not train them to check for none metal mines anymore or was that just slacking off in training up until recently?
Sorry this is so long, regards Kaptkaos.
I’m not sure what you’re on about for the first question. on the PC, at least, it is possible to play forever for free.
2 is possible. 3. we already do to a large extent. 4, in combat, no, there hasn’t really been a change in detection, though for clearing roads we now have ground penetrating radars. Clearing mines, however, have become a faster process.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Hi Nick thanks for answering so quickly I have only been playing world of tanks for the last three or four days so I am still finding out things also I suffer from motion sickness in some games and believe it or not world of tanks turns out to be one of them (bugger). At least I can get to play four or so games before it gets too much for me and I finally got my first kill followed with the required damage to other tanks in the next game.
I know the way they deal with mines these days has changed but from what I saw the guys searching for mines during Vietnam seemed to rely on their detectors only to tell them if a mine was there. Kind of dangerous I thought and was wondering if they still rely on their equipment only to say it is clear.
Those MGs look like MG42s, I thought armored vehicles were typically equipped with MG34s. Am I wrong? 🤔
Jagdpanzer iv was actually one of the very few with the MG42.
huh interesting, thanks for the clarification! :)
They had to stick with the MG34 in those vehicles designed before the MG42 came out because it has a different barrel change mechanism that wouldn't fit. MG 42 barrel comes out sideways, and you need to change it every 100 rounds or so as it gets hot. But this vehicle came later and got an MG42 mount. Also loads of space in there giving elbow room for the barrel change.
@@Cancun771 Makes sense!
As Cancun said it's due to the barrel change mechanism. They could build it this way since there was enough space to pull the entire MG back inside the tank for a barrel change. You couldn't do that in the narrow front compartment of the Panzers, thus the need for the MG 34.
If it went on fire, it’s a death trap. What was the crew survival rate ?
About the inconvenience of changing out the transmission: If I remember correctly from one of your earlier videos, if you wanted to do that in a Pz III, you´d have to more or less disassemble the vehicle, taking out the whole turret, 2 viewports, the radio, the radio operator´s seat, and get the whole thing out that way. Fun!
So....only having to put the gun and drive shaft aside sounds like a huge progress in maintenance ergonomics to me......so they did let experience influence the design....maybe....I mean, relative to other german vehicles....somewhat....
I'm not that sure.
in a Tank you have to dismantle a lot, drag the transmission in the turret ring and crane it out.
Not ideal.
But here you have to crane and slide forward the gun, drag the transmission in the middle, lift it with no crane thru the roof at gun level, and drag horizontally it out thru the mantle hole, that is ye big, to finally crane it.
Non a great improvement, I may say.
@@fabiogalletti528 and i thought working on a ford aerostar was hard!
Looking around 8:15 I don't quite understand where the transmission shaft goes from the transmission to the left sprocket wheel. There's going to be pedals, feet etc.
It's okay, the Germans made sure to only hire guys with no toes to drive the jagpanzer IV.
I'm very fond of this *tank*
Dare I ask what all of the "holes" on the interior are?
Looks like a bunch of cannon holes on the left hull behind the ammunition stowage.
Yeah i saw those too...i wonder if those are penetrations from like a 2 pdr or a bofors or something in the 20-30mm size or something? Or are they part of the construction and supposed to be there? They sure look like small exit wounds...it might have killed it's crew or maybe it was slightly used as target practice after the war and aren't from combat?
In his previous Video, no holes on the outside can be seen (ua-cam.com/video/i0clp2b_oeo/v-deo.html)
Nonetheless, it is not unlikely that the Germans (or Allies) might have used this pre-production model as a armor testing vehicle.
3:36 so effectively, you could say it has a coaxial gunner
The Chieftain is always the best.
This slot for the main gun sight seems rather unsecure to me.
Having an mg42 is allready cool to have in a vehicle. But two mg42's? Woah
Cool, indeed.
But I'm still a little lost as to how they actually sighted a target to fire at. The vision port just above the MG42 is tiny and the gunner is along way back behind a standard, field type MG.
How on earth could they see what they're firing at?
Or am I missing something?
more dakka
vury good.
Do an episode on the Object 279! (the real one, in Kubinka)
The 10 round ready rack has housing for 11 rounds? 🤔
The 75mm L/70 PAK 42 could pen the IS-2 turret but not the hull. I dont think the IS-3 turret could be penetrated unless using APCR.
How terrifying it must have been to be in a tank fighting. Man oh man you never know if they would fire one of those panzerfousts or whatever they are called. Or even just a round. Man I seen what it does to these tanks. Awful. Just awful. War is awful. War is hell.
So without your CVC on how often do you dent your mellon in these videos?
So the prototype has been used as a target I presume, looked liked HEAT holes in the side.
What I don't like about Guderian's Duck is its 28 foot length. As an American driving a rented Euro Box which is about a dozen feet long in Euro Cities and back roads I don't see how anyone could maneuver one of those in that situation without Bulldozer support.
Can we see the bloopers / outtakes please
Given the ammo storage, a "Bugger! The tank is on FIRE" would be fairly pointless?
I imagine it would be
Intéreesant
This question should probably be on Facebook or some such but I did not find a link
Wondering here - Why could the Ordinance 17 pounder not have an effective explosive shell designed for it. I can understand why a given gun might be unable to use a high-velocity shell (chamber space or tube strength) but since the 17 pounder clearly had both the chamber and strength for a APCBC round (and etc) why could a shell not just be made with thinner walls and therefore a larger explosive filling? Was there a technical reason it could not be done or were the resources just not available to make yet another type of shell - thanks
One was. by the end of the war, a low velocity HE round was developed.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you :)
My god. That transmission change sounds even worse than the Panther. A larger, multi-part access hatch or perhaps removing the sprocket followed by a removable panel to slide it out would have been immeasurably better. The latter is what I assumed to be for German tanks before I watched your videos.
Imagine the fumes from the fuel tank while waiting in ambush
em...I think there would have been a stopper to close it
11:54 Oh My God, The Tank is On Fire !
Jeep. Nicholas you still haven't done the Willy Jeep. What are the differences compared to the Ford Jeep?
I've generally avoided jeeps to date, as there are so many actual jeep experts and servicable jeeps, I think I would be making a second-string product compared to what I presume is out there. Of course, I can be bribed...
So, do German tank killers carry mg42s instead of 34s? It would seem that the changing the barrel problem isnt present as the hull is wide and big?
Well not all but the Jagdpanzer. IV does indeed carry MG 42.
Zafran Orbian thanks
I might be seeing why there was not "OMG, the tankes on fire" part :P
the 70 A is nightmare fuel