How does the UK's Ares vehicle (40t with its add-on armor) compare to the US Army's (39t) M1283? Even though neither of these vehicules are museum pieces, it would be nice to hear about curreent evolutions.
I think I left a comment suggesting this in another video, but I'd love to see a video on "Evolutionary Dead Ends". Things like the oscillating turret or tanks with multiple turrets. I think it'd be fun to hear about why the chose these designs, what problems they were trying to solve and ultimately why they failed or were dropped in favor of something else. Edit: Glad to see this getting thumbs up. Only a facility with as many obscure tanks could even consider doing a topic like this. Hopefully we get to see it in the future!
If they could make this a collaborative series, with the other Military Museums, it would be perfect. The large amount of these types of Tanks/IFVs/APCs only accessible at different online museums would allow for a lot more “hands on” videos.
Every BTR model and most of the German 'armored cars' were wheeled. Not to mention the entire class of half-tracks or 'gun trucks'. I feel omitting wheeled vehicles was a pretty egregious mistake when discussing the history of APC's.
The armor of an M113 was meant to protect from small arms fire and was unable to stop even light anti-tank weapons from penetrating it. Since Northern Vietnam had access to RPG 2s and RPG 7s and captured M72 LAWs, a lot of the time American infantry preferred to ride sitting atop the hull rather than inside. That way they didn't have to worry about light AT weapons, and if they came under small arms fire, they'd just jump off and find cover on the ground around the vehicle. If you've ever seen a photo or film from Vietnam and seen US troops riding on the tops of their M113s, that's why. M113s were and are extremely versatile, which is why they are still in service around the world. They can be infantry carriers, battlefield ambulances, mortar carriers, NBC detection vehicles, anti-aircraft mounts and AT missile mounts. There are a lot of variations by different countries where the vehicle was rebuild or modified. The US had a lot. M58 Wolf Smoke Generator Carrier. M113A4 Armored Medical Evacuation Vehicle. M125 81mm Mortar Carrier. M132 Armored Flamethrower. M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS). M548 - Unarmored 6 ton cargo carrier. M577 Command Vehicle. M579 Fitter Repair Vehicle. M667 MGM-52 Lance missile carrier. M688 Lance missile transport/loader vehicle. XM696 Recovery vehicle. M727 Unarmored carrier/launcher for MIM-23 Hawk surface-to-air missiles. M730 Unarmored carrier/launcher for MIM-72 Chaparral surface-to-air missiles. M741 - Carrier vehicle for the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS). M901 Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV). M981 Fire Support Team Vehicle (FISTV). M1015 Tracked Electronic Warfare Carrier. M1059 - Lynx Smoke Generator Carrier (SGC). M1064 120mm Mortar Carrier.
I recall reading a comment from a Military History Visualized video from a guy who trained to be a Panzergrenadier in the modern German army. He said they did a training where they assaulted a village and all the men were marked dead within 3 or 4 minutes of leaving the APC. The modern battlefield is a highly lethal environment
Chieftain (a tank channel) has said something similar regarding how lethal a modern battlefield is. It really goes to show just how critical quality training is.
Combined arms units are supposed to support each other, but often the various parts forget the needs of other parts. As an example, during the late cold war (1980s) the doctrine was that Armor, Arty, and Air Force assets were to neutralize the enemy ADA, then aviation could neutralize the enemy Armor so that Armor and Infantry could advance in support of each other with infantry identifying hard targets for armor to neutralize while infantry would protect the armor from enemy infantry. However, the Armor school teaches tankers to engage enemy armor, so the hard points that are the threat to Infantry are not taken care of. Schools need to teach Combined Arms so that the combined arms tactics will function.
I remember doing REFORGER exercises back in the late 80s when my unit only had M113s. Our armor or tanks would set up outside of the objective like a town or village as overwatch to suppress fire on the enemy in cover in the tree line so they wouldn't be an open target for enemy infantry ATGM teams. The mech infantry company attached to the armor would dismount near the same tree line on the right and left or where ever favorable terrain to dismount usually on the flanks of our armor as close as possible to the objective village or town. The objective would be suppressed with artillery and unit mortars at the same time. Coordination with all units is a must and must be in sync. The enemy knows that during suppression they would move their infantry to the flanks and expect us to come from there using their trench lines covering nearly all the approaches to their positions which they occupy. Combat is a thinking game trying to out think your enemy by using stealth, speed, good communication, coordination, and firepower. All units and soldiers doing their jobs properly under stressful condition is what it takes to take an objective. During my time in the Army's infantry we did reverse roles as playing the enemy and employing Soviet infantry tactics and combined arms tactics. They do make sense once you start to understand both US/NATO and Soviet Doctrines. At Ft. Irwin California at the National Training Center the OPFOR a US Army unit dedicated to only using Soviet Doctrine and only allowed very limited in initiative but to follow their order of battle have beat the best US brigades coming from the very best units of the US Army and Marines as a combined force in some instances. There are instances when even unit commanders are officially relieved of command for being incompetent.
A funny thing about the open half-tracks being vulnerable to grenades is that it works both ways. In the German manuals, they specify frag and smoke grenades should be thrown from within the half-track to give cover or assault positions. In the familiarisation manuals, they describe the half-track as a "mobile foxhole" and clearly state it doesn't offer protection from direct or overhead hits. They wanted the open top to allow the riflemen to fight from within the vehicle and quickly dismount to assault, compared to the infantry being couped inside more modern fully closed APCs. The modern APCs were of course also meant to be sealed off from the expected nuclear battlefield. The manual is Merkblatt 18b/38 from 15th September 1944 called "Panzer hilfen Dir! Was der Grenadier vom gepanzerten Kampffahrzeug wissen muss". It has sections on tanks (Panzer), Sturmgeschütze, armoured cars (Panzerspähwagen), half-tracks (Schützenpanzerwagen), tank destroyers (Panzerjäger), and self-propelled artillery (Selbstfahr Lafetten). The following is the full section on half-tracks translated into English. Note that the manual explicitly uses "gepanzerte Grenadier" (armoured Grenadier) instead of Panzergrenadier (armour grenadier), since the latter does not necessarily use half-tracks. [Square brackets] are notes added by me: First of all: The half-track cannot fight like a tank. It’s not there to support you, but to protect and make the armoured grenadiers mobile. Because the armoured grenadier must be able to follow the tank-attack. It’s their task to exploit the success of the tank strike lightning fast and immediately secure it. Also, the tank cannot fight without grenadiers. So that the grenadiers can follow its pace and striking power, they’re accompanied by half-tracks. Also, the special vehicles (gun vehicle, mortar vehicle, flamethrower vehicle) have no other task but: Protecting the infantry weapons and their operations and make them mobile. Notice: The medium half-track [Sd.Kfz. 251] is the vehicle of the armoured grenadiers. Only the armoured reconnaissance have light half-tracks [Sd.Kfz. 250] for the lightning-fast exploitation of the reconnaissance. What does a foxhole serve? It protects against infantry weapons [the illustrations make it clear they strictly mean small arms, not mortars or infantry guns] and shrapnel. It contains the firepower of the grenadiers. But: It doesn’t protect against direct hits. It doesn’t protect against dangers from above. What does a vehicle serve? It provides mobility. It spares energy and quickly brings you to the target. But: it’s big and many people are crowded together in a confined space. What does a half-track serve? It’s both: A foxhole and a vehicle: a drivable foxhole. Thus: It protects against infantry weapons and shrapnel and many mines. But: It doesn’t protect against direct hits (especially AT gun hits). It doesn’t protect against dangers from above (most importantly ground-attackers). Thus: It brings the fire power of the squad quickly to the enemy. But: It’s a big and quite tall target, a whole squad is crowded together in its belly. Although it drives quickly on roads; But: In terrain it cannot drive everywhere the tanks go through. When you have to reinforce the attack of the tanks and half-tracks, remember a couple of rules: You must keep connection between the half-track and the dismounted grenadiers in infantry combat for smooth cooperation. You must not stick to the S.P.W. like glue, and expect mindless hurra-attacks from it. An AT gun, for example, must be attacked by the armoured grenadiers on foot. The armour of the half-track is not thicker than your thumb. In the vehicle, the grenadiers sit one meter above the ground. But you can crawl on your belly or lay down! It's a very nice and well illustrated manual, in the typical German comic style, and the sections on the other armoured vehicles are in many ways even more interesting.
Well when it comes to NBC protection, the Hanomag is nearly in the same situation as the Bradley where the passengers must rely on their own NBC equipment.
Excellent overview, thank you! As an old Armored Cavalry trooper who served during the transition from the M113 series to the Bradley, I'd enjoy seeing more videos about how different countries approached the evolution of the battlefield and the vehicles that reflected their solutions.
Nothing more fun than bouncing about, in the back of an M113 or Bradley across the washboards in the Hoenfels bowling alleys... Also, nothing more fun than driving a Bradley at full speed, skipping across the washboard.
Another excellent presentation Chris. So few presenters can speak English well enough these days but you go the extra mile and pronounce French and German very well also. Thank you, it's a pleasure to listen
Tjis is great timing for me personally, it dovetailed nicely with my obsession-of-the-moment. Also, as a Canuck, so happy to see the Ram Kangaroo! I'd love more videos on infantry transports, both super deep dives into specific vehicles, and also a midlevel thing going into detail on all or most of the vehicles used in a particular time and place.
Excellent video - absolutely loved it. Would love to see another detailing tank recovery through time - so plenty of Scammells, Thorneycrofts and Diamond T's possibly.
Very interesting stuff about the BMP, I didn't realise it was so potent a weapon in its own right. The evolution of armoured engineering vehicles would be really interesting! The roles and capabilities they have on the battlefield, how the army chooses what they want, what solutions they come up with to provide it. Recovery vehicles would be interesting too, how they keep vehicles going in combat and even recover damages vehicles under fire. I'd also love to see something about moving tanks away from the battlefield. How and why tank transporters came about, and how they've changed over time. I suppose you'd have to start with trains and flatcars!
Warriors served us very well in Iraq. Especially in those places we couldn't get chally 2. Warrior will always get my vote for best battlefield taxi ever, but Spartan was also fun to drive.
This is a very informative and interesting video. Rather than discussing a particular vehicle in its chronological context, It shows the evolution of a whole branch of combat vehicles. A very good way of looking at the matter.
The machine gun turret was ditched in the 2nd gen models in favour of a more Sherman-like ball mount. Neither version was deployed with the original turret, almost all were turned into Kangaroos or Sextons
Warrior was an amazing upgrade to the FV432. I loved this vehicle loved learning how to drive and gun it back in the early 90’s. Pretty much saved a lot of our asses back in the Day. In OP Grapple 2 in Gornji Vakuf these vehicles were incredible. Pretty much the only reason we came back without loosing any guys.
one of the nices tricks I have heard of was a Armoured infantery company that should assult a positon. the APCs rewed their engines. they could be heard for miles. so the unit that should defend the position. staired at the woodline infront of them. it must have been totaly worth it for the infantery portion of the assult. to track a few miles in the woods. making a flanking movement.
I second an “excellent video”! I loved it, in part, because it covered the history with far fewer vehicles. It made it very accessible and “digestible”, i.e., perfect amount of information in a short video format. It also plays well to the professional (almost professorial) no-nonsense, military veteran persona of the presenter. Bravo Zulu!
Great video. Shame the British Army is getting ride of Warrior IFV to replace it with a wheeled vehicle that isn’t as protected. Maybe updating Warrior would have been the right thing to do!
In many ways, armoured battle taxis of all types act as a type of disposable personal armour for the infantry. They ride these vehicles into battle, firing their vehicle-mounted weapons, and if/when they get hit by a disabling shot the infantry can still dismount likely all still alive. Everything from Bradleys to the various Humvees used in Ukraine has fulfilled this role of taking the first hits, and leaving the crew alive to keep on fighting.
Another video expanding on this topic would be cool! Maybe a tangent about today's "heavy" IFVs many nations are leaning towards (ex Singapore, Germany, Korea)
Wooo0oW!! Such an amaaaAazing general introduction of the evolution timeline!!! I can still recall my own mind-blogging experience, the very first time I spotted a box of "Double Stars" (how we called Japanese manufacturer "Tamiya" in our language locally) with a jaw-dropping illustration of a strange-looking vehicle at the only plastic scale model shop in my neighborhood decades ago😋😋😋!!!!! I was extremely intimidated by those mysterious foreign languages (back in those those days I didn't even know those foreign characters and alphabets are called Japanese, English, and Germany) printed on the box 🤯🤯🤯!!! Our local unwritten shopping rules are, shopkeepers will only answer limited questions about merchandises before customers pay for it 😭😭😭!!! On top of that, all sales are final!! 😱😱😱So this obsessive nightmare had been traumatized my innocent modeler childhood for many years!! 🤣🤣🤣 Would you like to take a guess of what vehicle possessed me back then?!! 😜🤭🤪
Love the chock on the FV43 in front of the first road wheel. I guess there is a power train issue. Also thanks for the "water training" flashback in the M113 segment.
One thing you did mention was that M-113 was very lacking in NBC protection for most of it's working life. Kind of hard to do that when they were the TOW variant which required the open top for the sort of pop up mount of the 70's and 80's. Oh and lord help the TOW crew if the damn copper roll springs failed! As an old 27E (Tow Dragon repair tech) those things were a pain to replace and offered us the best chance for an injury in some combat unit's motor pool. When asked by newbies just arriving why I liked staying in the shop rather than running around Germany in a Dodge Power Wagon (m-880 sries) pick up I just said springs dude.
great shot with the T-72, Cheiftan and Leopard 1 Would love to see a presentation on the CV-90, that thing is just about as cool as it gets, the Razors edge.
Thank you. An excellent video. You might want to do a video on maintenance issues. Lottie-aka Lottie the Tank Whisperer-the apprentice mechanic from the Australian Armour & Artillery Museum in Cairns, Queensland has mentioned a number of design/modification issues with British military vehicles; including the excrescence added to the left side of the FV432 which blocks a critical maintenance hatch. Her gentle sarcasm appears to be well founded. She would make an excellent remote guest presenter, in a similar vein to Stefan from Arsenalen.
"so we are not looking at wheeled vehicles for instance" *looks inside* Half-tracks! It is strange how Japanese with their meager tank forces developed and fielded the only fully tracked APC if we aren't counting modifications such as Kangaroo. The Type 1 Ho-Ki was very simplistic. It could be described as tracked lorry with minimal armor and seats at the back. At the very least it was light and had an adequate engine.
Perhaps a discussion of tracked vs wheeled vehicles. It seems a lot of new systems are coming out in a wheeled configuration instead of tracked, light tanks, TD.s, recon, APCs and artillery all going this way.
Wheeled is much cheaper to build and operate, and cost effectiveness is a main factor, especially in low intensity conflicts where you can afford to stick to the roads most of the time (what NATO has been doing in the past 30 years). Tracked has much better off-road performance, and in high intensity conflicts concerns about damaging road surfaces and such go out the window.
Determining the actual drop off point for infantry is the hardest thing. Today an MICV can continue forward as a mini tank with some powerful weapons of its own. Auto cannon, missiles etc.
I do not know about firing ports on soviet vehicles, but on BVP М-80, that I commanded, there are small devices we call kidneys, because of their shape, that you attach to the barrel of the M70 AB2 or M72 AB2 rifles, that then attach to firing port of the BVP. Infantry can then use their rifle very effectively out of a very stable mounting, but most importantly, you have more eyes observing every possible direction, including back doors. This feature is not really imagined to be used for active fighting, more for additional vehicle protection when traveling through terrain that is not secured.
I have fond memories of when I lived in Bovington Camp and use to play on the tanks that was in 1948 my father served in the tanks in World War 2 . I went back in 1972 I enjoyed the day .
Excellent work, but a short dive into the israeli modified heavy IFV such as Achzarit(T55), Nagmachon, and Namer can be in order. These are direct reaction to extreme powerful IEDs and 2/3 Gen AT systems used in the modern battelfield, and quite successful ones.
This is a great video. But it leaves one question unanswered. Why did the MBT and APV evolve into the MBT and IFV rather than MBT, APC, and Light Battle Tank? With MBTs, APCs, and LBT and MBTs can be supported by as many infantry as required carried by the APC battle taxis but the LBTs cover the combative role of IFVs with heavier fire power and armour.
The return of the "battle taxi" seems to be required in parallel to the "Infantry Fighting Vehicle", in that elite elements need to be delivered to the Schwerpunkt and assisted in their necessarily close combat by "Infantry Fighting Vehicles" that both deliver the troopers and provide artillery support for their activities. The follow-on to those activities would be the voluminous troop numbers required to secure and hold the battlefield just secured, which requires an armored vehicle of considerable internal volume to deliver massed squads of infantry to the newly acquired positions, along with their associated logistics and support arms (Mortars, Combat Engineers, Medics, etc)
I would love a more detailed show on WWII on all personnel carriers used and there relative weakness and strengths. How many Kangaroo’s were used? I would like to hear more about the Bren carriers.
I think it should be mentioned that the design concepts were significantly different between the SdKfz 251 and the M3 halftrack series. German halftracks were designed from the ground up as halftracks, with the tracks supporting most of the vehicle and able to steer the vehicle; the wheels just added balance and more steering control. The US halftrack design was essentially a 6x4 cargo truck with the rear wheel assembly removed and replaced with tracks; the wheels supported a significant fraction of the vehicle load and handled all the steering. The shorter track length on the ground gave them a higher ground pressure than the German halftracks, giving them poorer cross-country performance. On the other hand, the German designs were overengineered and required more maintenance, often by specialist personnel; in the US army, someone trained to repair a truck could handle virtually all of the maintenance of a halftrack, and didn't require much additional training for the rest. It was another example of how the US built its hardware to be kept running at the bitter end of a transatlantic supply chain, while the Germans expected high-quality maintenance to be much closer and more readily available than actually wound up being the case.
I would like to see a off road comparison of a tracked APC versus say a 6X6 APC. What is the real difference in mobility here? How about a half track? or an 8X8?
One could argue that concept of apc is older than tank. Trojan Horse comes to mind and wood plank cladded wagons of Husites are well known. Even chariot troops in antiquity often had Infantry following them closely but in open unarmoured wagons but they relied on speed.
@thetankmuseum A tank with out fuel, maintence, ammo and so on is useless! Why not a video about the supply/maintence vehicles for the tank? Recovery? Service? Ambulance? Specialised NBC cleaning vehicles for cleaning the outside the tank? That would be really intressting. Thx you for some excellent and informativ videos - Sorry for any misspelling english aint my native tongue
Hi Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed this latest episode of Evolution, let us know what else you'd like to see from the series.
I love the tank museum UA-cam channel. Thank you for sharing all the wonderful videos you make.
Armoured recce, asking for an old queens dragoon guard??
Love the video! How about a follow up for wheeled ones?
Was hoping youd touch on the marder or puma, but cant cover everything i suppose :)
How does the UK's Ares vehicle (40t with its add-on armor) compare to the US Army's (39t) M1283?
Even though neither of these vehicules are museum pieces, it would be nice to hear about curreent evolutions.
I think I left a comment suggesting this in another video, but I'd love to see a video on "Evolutionary Dead Ends". Things like the oscillating turret or tanks with multiple turrets. I think it'd be fun to hear about why the chose these designs, what problems they were trying to solve and ultimately why they failed or were dropped in favor of something else.
Edit: Glad to see this getting thumbs up. Only a facility with as many obscure tanks could even consider doing a topic like this. Hopefully we get to see it in the future!
The once-popular primary/secondary hull gun and its ultimate evolution, the assault gun (or Strv 103 MBT if you ask the Swedes) also springs to mind.
If they could make this a collaborative series, with the other Military Museums, it would be perfect. The large amount of these types of Tanks/IFVs/APCs only accessible at different online museums would allow for a lot more “hands on” videos.
Potential History did quite a good video on that topic but I agree, that would be a fascinating video for the Tank Museum to do
Definitely needs a section for the American obsession with machine guns, like the 7 MG-armed M2 Medium.
Maybe an extra Episode about Wheeld IFV/ Personal Carriers?
TANK museum
Like the vab or vbci?
That would be cool/very interesting
Every BTR model and most of the German 'armored cars' were wheeled. Not to mention the entire class of half-tracks or 'gun trucks'. I feel omitting wheeled vehicles was a pretty egregious mistake when discussing the history of APC's.
@@andrewpease3688 They're part of the tank support system!
The armor of an M113 was meant to protect from small arms fire and was unable to stop even light anti-tank weapons from penetrating it. Since Northern Vietnam had access to RPG 2s and RPG 7s and captured M72 LAWs, a lot of the time American infantry preferred to ride sitting atop the hull rather than inside. That way they didn't have to worry about light AT weapons, and if they came under small arms fire, they'd just jump off and find cover on the ground around the vehicle.
If you've ever seen a photo or film from Vietnam and seen US troops riding on the tops of their M113s, that's why.
M113s were and are extremely versatile, which is why they are still in service around the world. They can be infantry carriers, battlefield ambulances, mortar carriers, NBC detection vehicles, anti-aircraft mounts and AT missile mounts. There are a lot of variations by different countries where the vehicle was rebuild or modified. The US had a lot.
M58 Wolf Smoke Generator Carrier.
M113A4 Armored Medical Evacuation Vehicle.
M125 81mm Mortar Carrier.
M132 Armored Flamethrower.
M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS).
M548 - Unarmored 6 ton cargo carrier.
M577 Command Vehicle.
M579 Fitter Repair Vehicle.
M667 MGM-52 Lance missile carrier.
M688 Lance missile transport/loader vehicle.
XM696 Recovery vehicle.
M727 Unarmored carrier/launcher for MIM-23 Hawk surface-to-air missiles.
M730 Unarmored carrier/launcher for MIM-72 Chaparral surface-to-air missiles.
M741 - Carrier vehicle for the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS).
M901 Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV).
M981 Fire Support Team Vehicle (FISTV).
M1015 Tracked Electronic Warfare Carrier.
M1059 - Lynx Smoke Generator Carrier (SGC).
M1064 120mm Mortar Carrier.
I recall reading a comment from a Military History Visualized video from a guy who trained to be a Panzergrenadier in the modern German army. He said they did a training where they assaulted a village and all the men were marked dead within 3 or 4 minutes of leaving the APC. The modern battlefield is a highly lethal environment
Chieftain (a tank channel) has said something similar regarding how lethal a modern battlefield is. It really goes to show just how critical quality training is.
Combined arms units are supposed to support each other, but often the various parts forget the needs of other parts. As an example, during the late cold war (1980s) the doctrine was that Armor, Arty, and Air Force assets were to neutralize the enemy ADA, then aviation could neutralize the enemy Armor so that Armor and Infantry could advance in support of each other with infantry identifying hard targets for armor to neutralize while infantry would protect the armor from enemy infantry. However, the Armor school teaches tankers to engage enemy armor, so the hard points that are the threat to Infantry are not taken care of. Schools need to teach Combined Arms so that the combined arms tactics will function.
MOUT combat is horrible. You can't see past the walls around you, and soldiers tend to follow each other into funnels and killing zones.
jaw jaw -not war war war --haha-best stay home mates
??
I remember doing REFORGER exercises back in the late 80s when my unit only had M113s. Our armor or tanks would set up outside of the objective like a town or village as overwatch to suppress fire on the enemy in cover in the tree line so they wouldn't be an open target for enemy infantry ATGM teams. The mech infantry company attached to the armor would dismount near the same tree line on the right and left or where ever favorable terrain to dismount usually on the flanks of our armor as close as possible to the objective village or town. The objective would be suppressed with artillery and unit mortars at the same time. Coordination with all units is a must and must be in sync. The enemy knows that during suppression they would move their infantry to the flanks and expect us to come from there using their trench lines covering nearly all the approaches to their positions which they occupy. Combat is a thinking game trying to out think your enemy by using stealth, speed, good communication, coordination, and firepower. All units and soldiers doing their jobs properly under stressful condition is what it takes to take an objective. During my time in the Army's infantry we did reverse roles as playing the enemy and employing Soviet infantry tactics and combined arms tactics. They do make sense once you start to understand both US/NATO and Soviet Doctrines. At Ft. Irwin California at the National Training Center the OPFOR a US Army unit dedicated to only using Soviet Doctrine and only allowed very limited in initiative but to follow their order of battle have beat the best US brigades coming from the very best units of the US Army and Marines as a combined force in some instances. There are instances when even unit commanders are officially relieved of command for being incompetent.
A funny thing about the open half-tracks being vulnerable to grenades is that it works both ways. In the German manuals, they specify frag and smoke grenades should be thrown from within the half-track to give cover or assault positions. In the familiarisation manuals, they describe the half-track as a "mobile foxhole" and clearly state it doesn't offer protection from direct or overhead hits. They wanted the open top to allow the riflemen to fight from within the vehicle and quickly dismount to assault, compared to the infantry being couped inside more modern fully closed APCs. The modern APCs were of course also meant to be sealed off from the expected nuclear battlefield.
The manual is Merkblatt 18b/38 from 15th September 1944 called "Panzer hilfen Dir! Was der Grenadier vom gepanzerten Kampffahrzeug wissen muss". It has sections on tanks (Panzer), Sturmgeschütze, armoured cars (Panzerspähwagen), half-tracks (Schützenpanzerwagen), tank destroyers (Panzerjäger), and self-propelled artillery (Selbstfahr Lafetten). The following is the full section on half-tracks translated into English. Note that the manual explicitly uses "gepanzerte Grenadier" (armoured Grenadier) instead of Panzergrenadier (armour grenadier), since the latter does not necessarily use half-tracks. [Square brackets] are notes added by me:
First of all: The half-track cannot fight like a tank.
It’s not there to support you, but to protect and make the armoured grenadiers mobile. Because the armoured grenadier must be able to follow the tank-attack. It’s their task to exploit the success of the tank strike lightning fast and immediately secure it. Also, the tank cannot fight without grenadiers. So that the grenadiers can follow its pace and striking power, they’re accompanied by half-tracks. Also, the special vehicles (gun vehicle, mortar vehicle, flamethrower vehicle) have no other task but: Protecting the infantry weapons and their operations and make them mobile. Notice: The medium half-track [Sd.Kfz. 251] is the vehicle of the armoured grenadiers. Only the armoured reconnaissance have light half-tracks [Sd.Kfz. 250] for the lightning-fast exploitation of the reconnaissance.
What does a foxhole serve? It protects against infantry weapons [the illustrations make it clear they strictly mean small arms, not mortars or infantry guns] and shrapnel. It contains the firepower of the grenadiers. But: It doesn’t protect against direct hits. It doesn’t protect against dangers from above. What does a vehicle serve? It provides mobility. It spares energy and quickly brings you to the target. But: it’s big and many people are crowded together in a confined space. What does a half-track serve? It’s both: A foxhole and a vehicle: a drivable foxhole. Thus: It protects against infantry weapons and shrapnel and many mines. But: It doesn’t protect against direct hits (especially AT gun hits). It doesn’t protect against dangers from above (most importantly ground-attackers). Thus: It brings the fire power of the squad quickly to the enemy. But: It’s a big and quite tall target, a whole squad is crowded together in its belly. Although it drives quickly on roads; But: In terrain it cannot drive everywhere the tanks go through.
When you have to reinforce the attack of the tanks and half-tracks, remember a couple of rules:
You must keep connection between the half-track and the dismounted grenadiers in infantry combat for smooth cooperation.
You must not stick to the S.P.W. like glue, and expect mindless hurra-attacks from it. An AT gun, for example, must be attacked by the armoured grenadiers on foot. The armour of the half-track is not thicker than your thumb. In the vehicle, the grenadiers sit one meter above the ground. But you can crawl on your belly or lay down!
It's a very nice and well illustrated manual, in the typical German comic style, and the sections on the other armoured vehicles are in many ways even more interesting.
Thank you kindly for this excerpt, most enlightening of the tactical reasoning.
Well when it comes to NBC protection, the Hanomag is nearly in the same situation as the Bradley where the passengers must rely on their own NBC equipment.
Excellent overview, thank you! As an old Armored Cavalry trooper who served during the transition from the M113 series to the Bradley, I'd enjoy seeing more videos about how different countries approached the evolution of the battlefield and the vehicles that reflected their solutions.
I got pics I took of Bundeswehr 113s in 86. And our Toq in Kuwait in 91
Nothing more fun than bouncing about, in the back of an M113 or Bradley across the washboards in the Hoenfels bowling alleys...
Also, nothing more fun than driving a Bradley at full speed, skipping across the washboard.
Another excellent presentation Chris. So few presenters can speak English well enough these days but you go the extra mile and pronounce French and German very well also. Thank you, it's a pleasure to listen
Tjis is great timing for me personally, it dovetailed nicely with my obsession-of-the-moment. Also, as a Canuck, so happy to see the Ram Kangaroo! I'd love more videos on infantry transports, both super deep dives into specific vehicles, and also a midlevel thing going into detail on all or most of the vehicles used in a particular time and place.
Excellent video - absolutely loved it. Would love to see another detailing tank recovery through time - so plenty of Scammells, Thorneycrofts and Diamond T's possibly.
As the proud son of a man who served in the REME and talked about passing his driving test at 17 in a Scammell, I would defiantly agree with you.
Very good. Proud to be a Patreon member and get these early but I watch them again on You Tube anyway. Thank you!
Very interesting stuff about the BMP, I didn't realise it was so potent a weapon in its own right.
The evolution of armoured engineering vehicles would be really interesting! The roles and capabilities they have on the battlefield, how the army chooses what they want, what solutions they come up with to provide it.
Recovery vehicles would be interesting too, how they keep vehicles going in combat and even recover damages vehicles under fire.
I'd also love to see something about moving tanks away from the battlefield. How and why tank transporters came about, and how they've changed over time. I suppose you'd have to start with trains and flatcars!
Logistics are the key of operating this heavy equipment. Evolution of ammo trucks, engineering/recovery vehicles, train cars, trucks that move tanks.
An excellent presentation, thank you!
Warriors served us very well in Iraq. Especially in those places we couldn't get chally 2. Warrior will always get my vote for best battlefield taxi ever, but Spartan was also fun to drive.
This is a very informative and interesting video. Rather than discussing a particular vehicle in its chronological context, It shows the evolution of a whole branch of combat vehicles. A very good way of looking at the matter.
I like the Ram tank, you rarely see it. One of the few designs with a secondary turret that did not seem to interfere with the main armament.
The machine gun turret was ditched in the 2nd gen models in favour of a more Sherman-like ball mount. Neither version was deployed with the original turret, almost all were turned into Kangaroos or Sextons
Shout out to production and editing. Good job.
Indeed. Another video on wheeled; such as the Saracen, or half tracked personnel carriers would be very informative. 😊
You guys make the best UA-cam videos thank you !!!!!!
Thanks!
Love the tank museum's videos, keep em coming
Warrior was an amazing upgrade to the FV432. I loved this vehicle loved learning how to drive and gun it back in the early 90’s. Pretty much saved a lot of our asses back in the Day. In OP Grapple 2 in Gornji Vakuf these vehicles were incredible. Pretty much the only reason we came back without loosing any guys.
You’re the most gifted docent I’ve had the honor of listening to. I greatly enjoy your presentations.
Loved the video, maybe a mention of the Priest/Abbott Kangaroo would have been good as well as the Ram.
Nice. You have made real improvements! This video has great camera work and editing
Love the Ram and the whole evolution from of the decision, the original attempts, and leading to the model you have in the museum.
It would of course be great to see more in-depth videos about APC´s, wheeled IFV´s and that sort of thing from the Tank Museum. 😃
one of the nices tricks I have heard of was a Armoured infantery company that should assult a positon. the APCs rewed their engines. they could be heard for miles. so the unit that should defend the position. staired at the woodline infront of them. it must have been totaly worth it for the infantery portion of the assult. to track a few miles in the woods. making a flanking movement.
*_"...big metal bullet magnets..."_*
😊😊😊
{Great video...👍}
I second an “excellent video”! I loved it, in part, because it covered the history with far fewer vehicles. It made it very accessible and “digestible”, i.e., perfect amount of information in a short video format. It also plays well to the professional (almost professorial) no-nonsense, military veteran persona of the presenter. Bravo Zulu!
Great video. Shame the British Army is getting ride of Warrior IFV to replace it with a wheeled vehicle that isn’t as protected. Maybe updating Warrior would have been the right thing to do!
Yeah. Or buying CV90s
Interesting as always.
I’d love to hear more about post-WWII air-portable armor! M113 and Wiesel spring to mind immediately but I’d love to learn more!
Many thanks. I enjoyed this and reading the comments.
Excellent overview!
Can't wait for a long tank chat on the BMP/BTR series!
Playing with Bradley's was the thing that I missed most when I transitioned from a cav scout to a medic.
Great overview. Thank you.
Great video, really enjoyed watching.
In many ways, armoured battle taxis of all types act as a type of disposable personal armour for the infantry. They ride these vehicles into battle, firing their vehicle-mounted weapons, and if/when they get hit by a disabling shot the infantry can still dismount likely all still alive. Everything from Bradleys to the various Humvees used in Ukraine has fulfilled this role of taking the first hits, and leaving the crew alive to keep on fighting.
It looks like TTM has gotten enough funding to produce slicker, more sophisticated posts with music, graphics, et. al. Kudos, men.
Another video expanding on this topic would be cool! Maybe a tangent about today's "heavy" IFVs many nations are leaning towards (ex Singapore, Germany, Korea)
Fantastic series. Please carry on with it.
Excellent video!
Thanks for mentioning Canadian kangaroos. I spent a significant amount of my time in the infantry in M113s.
Wooo0oW!! Such an amaaaAazing general introduction of the evolution timeline!!!
I can still recall my own mind-blogging experience, the very first time I spotted a box of "Double Stars" (how we called Japanese manufacturer "Tamiya" in our language locally) with a jaw-dropping illustration of a strange-looking vehicle at the only plastic scale model shop in my neighborhood decades ago😋😋😋!!!!! I was extremely intimidated by those mysterious foreign languages (back in those those days I didn't even know those foreign characters and alphabets are called Japanese, English, and Germany) printed on the box 🤯🤯🤯!!! Our local unwritten shopping rules are, shopkeepers will only answer limited questions about merchandises before customers pay for it 😭😭😭!!! On top of that, all sales are final!! 😱😱😱So this obsessive nightmare had been traumatized my innocent modeler childhood for many years!! 🤣🤣🤣
Would you like to take a guess of what vehicle possessed me back then?!! 😜🤭🤪
Good presentation Shane the ww2 Bren carrier missed out
Love the chock on the FV43 in front of the first road wheel. I guess there is a power train issue.
Also thanks for the "water training" flashback in the M113 segment.
This channel is so well done. 👍
One thing you did mention was that M-113 was very lacking in NBC protection for most of it's working life. Kind of hard to do that when they were the TOW variant which required the open top for the sort of pop up mount of the 70's and 80's. Oh and lord help the TOW crew if the damn copper roll springs failed! As an old 27E (Tow Dragon repair tech) those things were a pain to replace and offered us the best chance for an injury in some combat unit's motor pool. When asked by newbies just arriving why I liked staying in the shop rather than running around Germany in a Dodge Power Wagon (m-880 sries) pick up I just said springs dude.
Thank you - I really enjoyed that video!
great shot with the T-72, Cheiftan and Leopard 1
Would love to see a presentation on the CV-90, that thing is just about as cool as it gets, the Razors edge.
Thank you. An excellent video. You might want to do a video on maintenance issues. Lottie-aka Lottie the Tank Whisperer-the apprentice mechanic from the Australian Armour & Artillery Museum in Cairns, Queensland has mentioned a number of design/modification issues with British military vehicles; including the excrescence added to the left side of the FV432 which blocks a critical maintenance hatch. Her gentle sarcasm appears to be well founded. She would make an excellent remote guest presenter, in a similar vein to Stefan from Arsenalen.
I hope this channel covers the emerging remote controlled ground fighting robots starting with the German Goliath
"so we are not looking at wheeled vehicles for instance"
*looks inside*
Half-tracks!
It is strange how Japanese with their meager tank forces developed and fielded the only fully tracked APC if we aren't counting modifications such as Kangaroo.
The Type 1 Ho-Ki was very simplistic. It could be described as tracked lorry with minimal armor and seats at the back. At the very least it was light and had an adequate engine.
LOVE all your videos... well done indeed! before watching i thought i knew a bit about armor; now i actually do .... THANK YOU!!
Perhaps a discussion of tracked vs wheeled vehicles. It seems a lot of new systems are coming out in a wheeled configuration instead of tracked, light tanks, TD.s, recon, APCs and artillery all going this way.
Wheeled is much cheaper to build and operate, and cost effectiveness is a main factor, especially in low intensity conflicts where you can afford to stick to the roads most of the time (what NATO has been doing in the past 30 years). Tracked has much better off-road performance, and in high intensity conflicts concerns about damaging road surfaces and such go out the window.
Good job, nice information. Love Historical stuff.
Determining the actual drop off point for infantry is the hardest thing. Today an MICV can continue forward as a mini tank with some powerful weapons of its own. Auto cannon, missiles etc.
Cool video thanks!
I do not know about firing ports on soviet vehicles, but on BVP М-80, that I commanded, there are small devices we call kidneys, because of their shape, that you attach to the barrel of the M70 AB2 or M72 AB2 rifles, that then attach to firing port of the BVP. Infantry can then use their rifle very effectively out of a very stable mounting, but most importantly, you have more eyes observing every possible direction, including back doors. This feature is not really imagined to be used for active fighting, more for additional vehicle protection when traveling through terrain that is not secured.
I like the wheelies and would love to hear more about wheeled AFVs
Great presentation, thank you
Гарний аналіз, дякую за допомогу народу України.
These lectures are sensationally good. 🌟
Really very interesting, thank you
Great video - thanks!
I have fond memories of when I lived in Bovington Camp and use to play on the tanks that was in 1948 my father served in the tanks in World War 2 . I went back in 1972 I enjoyed the day .
I was lucky enough to get a driving experience in an FV432. I'd highly recommend it
Would love to see an in depth from the hatch on the M113. Just like the tanks. This IFV is probably one of the most numerous & would make a good topic
Excellent video ✌️
Excellent video and presentation. Wheeled APC/IFV next?
I love your show but would like to learn more. Thank you.
Excellent work, but a short dive into the israeli modified heavy IFV such as Achzarit(T55), Nagmachon, and Namer can be in order. These are direct reaction to extreme powerful IEDs and 2/3 Gen AT systems used in the modern battelfield, and quite successful ones.
Another great video.
Excellent video. I think another piece on wheeled APC 's would be a good subject.
This is a great video. But it leaves one question unanswered. Why did the MBT and APV evolve into the MBT and IFV rather than MBT, APC, and Light Battle Tank?
With MBTs, APCs, and LBT and MBTs can be supported by as many infantry as required carried by the APC battle taxis but the LBTs cover the combative role of IFVs with heavier fire power and armour.
Thank you very much for the work you have done. It was very interesting to watch this video. Greetings from Russia ! 🙂
Thank you for sharing
🏆🤗🙏🇺🇲🎖️
Looks like the Tank Museum is branching out. (The future Armour Museum?)
10:37 that’s definitely a Sapper 432, based on all the add-on top boxes that were necessary for us to carry the section’s engineer kit…
I would love a tank chat about the Ram Kangaroo
Hi Paul, David Fletcher did a Tank Chat on the Kangaroo a few years ago - enjoy!
ua-cam.com/video/-DjcNZWVa0w/v-deo.html
I want to know if the Aussies made one and called the the Goose.
Please do more tank doctrine videos and a video on evaluation of tank/armored vehicles view port
Great content
A review of wheeled scout cars and armored cars would be welcomed.
Someone might have already said this, but perhaps consider the far end of the range of vehicles, e.g. Saxon & Merkava?
A very good survey of APC 's 'and IFV's but a little surprised that there was no mention of the Oxford carrier.
I really like the evolution videos
The return of the "battle taxi" seems to be required in parallel to the "Infantry Fighting Vehicle", in that elite elements need to be delivered to the Schwerpunkt and assisted in their necessarily close combat by "Infantry Fighting Vehicles" that both deliver the troopers and provide artillery support for their activities.
The follow-on to those activities would be the voluminous troop numbers required to secure and hold the battlefield just secured, which requires an armored vehicle of considerable internal volume to deliver massed squads of infantry to the newly acquired positions, along with their associated logistics and support arms (Mortars, Combat Engineers, Medics, etc)
THANK YOU TANK MUSEUM!!!!
Good overview of the British IFV's, with a small mention of other similar vehicles......Sigh, no Bradley?
I would love a more detailed show on WWII on all personnel carriers used and there relative weakness and strengths. How many Kangaroo’s were used? I would like to hear more about the Bren carriers.
excellent video :-)
Excellent.
I think it should be mentioned that the design concepts were significantly different between the SdKfz 251 and the M3 halftrack series. German halftracks were designed from the ground up as halftracks, with the tracks supporting most of the vehicle and able to steer the vehicle; the wheels just added balance and more steering control. The US halftrack design was essentially a 6x4 cargo truck with the rear wheel assembly removed and replaced with tracks; the wheels supported a significant fraction of the vehicle load and handled all the steering. The shorter track length on the ground gave them a higher ground pressure than the German halftracks, giving them poorer cross-country performance. On the other hand, the German designs were overengineered and required more maintenance, often by specialist personnel; in the US army, someone trained to repair a truck could handle virtually all of the maintenance of a halftrack, and didn't require much additional training for the rest. It was another example of how the US built its hardware to be kept running at the bitter end of a transatlantic supply chain, while the Germans expected high-quality maintenance to be much closer and more readily available than actually wound up being the case.
0:56 I can't tell if he is saying Tanks for watching, if so due to my dad joke sence of humour that is brilliant.
😂👍
Would love to hear about how you think vehicles like the M10 Booker will play into combat.
I would like to see a off road comparison of a tracked APC versus say a 6X6 APC. What is the real difference in mobility here? How about a half track? or an 8X8?
One could argue that concept of apc is older than tank. Trojan Horse comes to mind and wood plank cladded wagons of Husites are well known. Even chariot troops in antiquity often had Infantry following them closely but in open unarmoured wagons but they relied on speed.
@thetankmuseum A tank with out fuel, maintence, ammo and so on is useless! Why not a video about the supply/maintence vehicles for the tank? Recovery? Service? Ambulance? Specialised NBC cleaning vehicles for cleaning the outside the tank? That would be really intressting. Thx you for some excellent and informativ videos - Sorry for any misspelling english aint my native tongue