Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M3 Grant. Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Part two of the two-part tour of the tank. A lot of crew positions to go through, so it's going to be a long one.
Americas Forum thread: forum.worldofta...
Asia: forum.worldofta...
Console: forum-console.w...
Have to admit, despite it's faults, its one of my favorite tanks. Why you ask? simple, as an ex-tanker I remember the countless hours having to work on the M48 and having usually only two crew members handy to do the work. Seven on the crew sounds great to me, lots of hands to keep the vehicle in shape!
'Significant emotional events'.
Cracked me right up!
Dedfaction The Brits have a way of putting things!
Reagan James I take it that you haven’t ever realised that Ireland is a part of the British isles thus making him partly British
@@stevenpilling5318 It's an American military expression. As a Jumpmaster when your parachute doesn't open, it is a S.E.E.
I was stationed at Bragg for three years and I just don't recall that term. Well... it's been a while!
@@xclonejager6959 No, we are significantly different to the British
I read some interesting comments about the M3 Lee/Grant and it's effectiveness in Burma. Those who used it found it performed "admirably" and worked well in supporting the infantry. They liked its heavy armament and the ability to provide fire in many directions.
You'd probably enjoy the book Tank Tracks to Rangoon by Bryan Perret. Covers the use of allied tanks in that theatre quite well. Including a mention of that parking brake when trying not to slide off of ridges and such things.
@@thequeensowncameronhighlan7883 Thanks for that note on the book. I will indeed seek it out.
Your comment about the parking brake reminded me of an incident when I was in the Army. A tank company was parked on a hill when a senior officer, possibly the brigade commander, landed in a chopper on the level terrain below said hill. One of the drivers didn't set the parking brake properly and as you probably guessed by now, it rolled down the hill and into his chopper. He was not terribly happy about that.
I have never heard anything but good about the M3 from the people who actually used it. It's the ones looking at it from today and laughing because it doesn't look the way they expect a tank to look who say most of the nasty things about it.
My uncle Russell served in the pac theater in ww2. He started in a lee (blown out of service by a satchel charge), another lee (same fate), another lee (ditto), a Sherman (ditto again), and finally a Sherman "zippo" model. He was the only survivor in each loss, being blown out through the commanders hatch. A tough little dutchman, old uncle Russ, lol
Very lucky to survive so many destroyed tank. Repect to your uncle and all others who fought in ww2.
Death be like: I am not risking my chances
So he never learned to keep infantry support?
@Kenneth he did what he was told. Every example ran the same, sapper in a spider hole, tossed bomb through belly hatch as the offending tank rolled overhead. Russ got his next flying lesson. In the zippo he saw the same set-up, and treated the young Japanese fellow to a cozy bonfire.
@@ludditeneaderthal zippo huh, late in the war? Hmmm
Well the wipers are obviously for wiping infantry off your tank! :P
I would not be surprised it they just used a dash from a higher production vehicle that had a windshield with windshield wipers, and it was cheaper/faster to just utilize a module already in production with a useless switch than it was to create a custom dash for it.
The M3 had an optional windshield to be mounted in the open hatch which did indeed come with an electric wiper. To close the hatch it had to be removed first, which was probably a bit inconvenient when suddenly coming under enemy fire. Photo: pbs.twimg.com/media/DrSd6Q3U4AAycnA.jpg
I can't praise this channel enough. Really must have 100x more subscribers and views.
Also would love to see more "mythbusting" lectures like you did on M4. That really helped me to understand WW2 tank warfare much better.
which lecture was that? i think I missed that.
I LOVE that pause when pondering the possibility of using the 37mm gun and canister ammo vs a airplane. These videos are always the best.
This was the tank that Humphrey Bogart commanded as Sgt. Gunn in the WW2 film "Sahara.' If you remember, in one scene they used the 37mm to shoot down a German fighter. This was said to be Bogie's favorite movie.
@@marty362 i do genuinely enjoy that movie
I love how The_Chieftain refers to the some of the really awful aspects of being a tanker as "significant emotional events"!
Chieftain has a quite a few of these. Another one is "should you be inclined to do so".
I think more specifically, the Chieftain refers to being shot or having something critically, dangerously malfunction as a significant emotional event, since it definitely would be. :D
@@TemenosL Obviously....
He IS from the UK. They tend to under state things in an elegant manner!
Without the graphical details
I don't play WoT anymore, but I try to watch every single video by the Chieftain!
Why anyone would watch this for WoT? It is more of an History Channel thingy than a Gaming thing
try WT more accurate
yawn
Cold start procedure with the radial should be:
Hand crank to clear oil.
Prime fuel some specified number of pumps.
Fuel booster on.
Engage starter.
This is where it's going to get weird, because it's a tank.
On a plane, you'd let the propeller swipe past a certain number of blades (IIRC, you count 7 blades on a DC-3/C-47 which means about 2 1/2 revolutions). So on a tank, you're going to probably hold the start switch over for about "two Mississippi" and then switch your mags to "both". You want to do this to get the engine up to proper RPM and prevent backfires that could start fires or damage the engine. Problem is, hold the starter over for too long before you hit the mags and you flood the engine and it won't start.
Moran showed the auxiliary engine and I thought I heard him say it would start the tank (if the battery was low) - once that itself was started using the hand-yanked rope. Is that true, can that little engine's magneto push enough current to turn the main engine's starter?
Would love to see a detailed video on the M4 and variants. My grandfather was a tanker in an M4 in Pattons 3rd army and had "3 tanks shot out from under him" ( his words). Lucky for him (and my family) he had also gone through coms school and by Dec 44 had been pulled from the tanks to be a radio man for a battalion FO, so he rode half tracks and jeeps into Germany with several of those being destroyed with him surviving.
Riveted tanks: providing ridiculous amounts of sharp sticking out thingies to bang your head on since 1916.
Hermann Fegelein
Riveted tanks: providing shrapnel for even the daintiest of anti tank guns since 1916
A rivet sticks out less than half an inch. If you are swinging your head that close to the solid armor plate of a tank hull that it might hit a rivet, you were already putting yourself in danger of smacking your head painfully. What, it takes a rivet head to hurt, the solid steel wasn't enough? That's also why they give tankers helmets to wear.
It's the things they stick out where you didn't expect them that you hit your head on. Like do you typically hit your head on the side mirrors of your car? The door handle to your house? The drawer pulls on your kitchen drawers? The corners of picture frames? No? Because they all stand up slightly from solid surfaces and you have no need to bring your head on close proximity to them. Inside the tank they are more flush and if you aren't wearing a helmet you are a fool, because you are guaranteed to hit your head, especially if the tank is moving.
@@justforever96
Imagine taking the time to type out such a long response to a joke comment from 6 years ago.
They really put an effort designing and building this tank.
This is by far one of my favorite UA-cam channels, cant wait for the next installment.
"Well....your fault for getting hit in the first place" xD
Put this quote in the game and play it when your tank takes the first hit!!
Your shows are great they provides information that would normally be unknown to most.
Keep up the good work.
OK...; I am seeing on many of this guys videos how cramped he is in a lot of these tanks. And then I saw pictured of a crew getting in and out of an M-3 Grant and the driver came out of the little drivers hatch like it was a barn door. Then checked and found out that the average solder of WW-2 was 6 inches to a foot shorter than a modern america. Average height being only 5ft to 5 ft 5 inches and a hundred and 30 pounds. mostly to lower callery food imput back then. They were just kids compared to year 2,000 adults. Damn. Oh and i do love this guys videos. Keep it up.
Really enjoyed this. Despite the fact that the Lee/Grant is a Turkey in WOT, historically it was an interesting and effective tank. Canadians only used them for training in England to the best of my knowledge
I remember reading a story about George B. Jarrett and how he machined the turning bands on some captured enemy ammunition so that it could be used by the allies (and ignoring the possibility of arming the rounds). He was later head or the Ordnance Museum in Aberdeen, MD.
A British soldier shooting French rounds at Italians out of an American tank in the North African desert really puts the world in world war
Really well done. Great presentation and well researched. And fun to watch. Fascinating all the weird in and outs of tank design...
Chieftain, about the German armour. Well the Germans by 1942 had thought up of a rather nasty trick to up armour there tanks. What they did was take there standard 30mm FHA plates on the Pz III aus H, 50mm on the Stug III aus G and Pz IV aus G and put another 30mm of FHA on top of this with bolts or welds. What they found out was that this made uncapped shells shatter. Not really strange that the Germans figured this out seeing as Krupp had done a lot of research into spaced armour in the 1930's for the German navy.
Later they switched to 50mm of FHA armour and stand-off 20mm of FHA on the Pz III and a solid 80mm for the Stug III and Pz IV. This turned out to be completely immune to Soviet 76mm APHE shells and really any AP shell that does not catastrophically over match like 152mm APHE or just plain HE.
This armour was intended to stop Soviet projectiles, them being either uncapped AP or APHE but it also worked wonders against the M72 AP shell. The reason the M61 worked was because this was an APC shell with a penetrating cap which could defeat the first plate, either 30 or 20mm thick and also defeat the second plate in most cases. Against such shells or against the rather excellent Pz.Gr.39 APCBC shells this type of armour actually is less effective than a pure 60 or 70mm thick plate or either FHA or especially RHA. FHA a was less effective against capped projectiles in general which helped out the Allies a lot until the Germans basically stopped making FHA somewhere in the summer of 1943 and went for RHA, mostly 80mm. By that point you get Pz IV and especially Stug III because of the lack of a turret with only 50mm who have just enough armour to cause issues for the 75mm armed M4's while sill being virtually immune to Soviet 76mm.
Well for the Panzer III the Ausf H was the first model to get the Zusatzpanzerung (additional armor), it was also the first model intended for the 50mm gun (the earlier models where retrofitted during production which caused delays), This was desided in late October of 1939 after Poland showed that 30-35mm of armor was not adequate to deal with 37mm AT guns.
So the Panzer III Ausf H was modified to have an extra 30mm bolt on armor (among many other improvements). The first of these was done in October 1940, at around the same time orders was placed for all existing Panzer IIIs to be back fitted with improvements, including the 50mm gun and extra bolt on armor. Many Panzer IIs also got this Zusatzpanzerung around this time as well.
In mid 1940 it was decided that the 8th series of the Panzer III (Ausf J) should be started as soon as possible and that the 7th series (Ausf H) reduced in numbers as much as possible, the 8th series was to have a "organically" strengthened armor plate (in the end only some 285 Ausf H were built of the original intent of 760). Though the decision to up armor the Ausf Js with 50mm of armor came a bit late for the earliest models.
In mid 1941 with some reports from Africa and the use of tapered bore guns, Hitler directed that Vorpanzer should be installed (Vorpanzer = spaced armor), this was a 20mm armor plate placed some 14cm in front of the main armor, the first units being installed around November 1941, though production delays caused that the installation to be spotty until late spring early summer of 1942.
From March 1941 to May 1942 some 1,600 Ausf Js where built, from December 1941 to October 1942 some 1,500 Ausf Ls where built, the major difference from early Ausf Ls and a Ausf J is the gun, all Ausf Js had a 50mm L42, all Ausf Ls had the L60 (like the Panzer IV F2 all Ausf Js with the L60 where retroactively relabeled Ausf L in May 1942)
Hey .. Bogart took out a 109 with the 37mm ! Go Lulabelle !
The .30 helped. But yeah, it hadnt occured to me that the turret looks like a dual purpose turret on a cruiser until I thought about that scene. So maybe that was intentional. Maybe someone actually thought at one point that would work. Probably not to actually shoot down aircraft, but at least to discourage them. And that would help explain why they wanted the 37mm at all. Although I think the 37 wasn't as useless as people like to think. They say the coax MG was actually the most used weapon in most tanks, so I feel like there ought to be plenty of uses for a 37 if you have it, things that don't require a full sized shell but could benefit from something more than a .30. doesnt mean that the 37 is worth it, but use it if you have it.
Great video, thanx so much. Now I'm gonna go watch Sahara with Humphrey Bogart again. That's a classic. Shot in B and W. If you folks haven't seen it you dont know what you're missing. And Lu Lu Bell the M3 Grant is the star.
The remake wasn't terrible either.
Great video as usual . IRC the Lee / Grant had a plexi glass / glass window insert for the driver which had a wiper that you could plug in to the electrical system . The Sherman / M5 Stuarts had the same type of thing on their driver foul weather hoods . The Sherman used the same transmission only the driver sat on the left side . I think siting over the tranni in a M3 might have been a lot easier back in the 40s , remember a lot of those guys where farm boys used to spending hours at a time sitting like that on a farm tractor
Great view of the interior -- huge in there.
I love the little history/story bits you throw in there.
Fantastic, loved the "emotional event" line :)
"You don't want to have a 75mm round bouncing around inside your tank, regardless of whether it explodes afterwards or not"
YOU DON'T SAY
Great episode! This was my first time viewing your channel. I will be checking in on more of your videos.
I was wondering if you might be willing or able to do a tank review on a modern tank like an Abrams or Challenger 2 ect? Just so we know what a WW2 tank compares? Since you often mention things like the size of tankers in WW2 vs now, or how what looks like to us civees a horribly cramped space, you say is not bad vs modern. Thanks for your amazing videos and your work in making the WoT game awesome as well. (Although I think your videos might live on quite a bit longer than current videogames.)
Challenger 2 definitely, Abrams I'm not too fussed tbh.
I think that might be a problem since a surprising ammount of stuff about modern tanks is classified.
I'm pretty sure the specific composition of the Challenger II's armor is still classified, among other things.
So yeah probably not gonna be easy.
He did do a commentary on the Abrams
Thank you for the great videos!! Very informative and some of the ONLY videos I'm always looking forward to watching! Keep up the great work!
Huh. What's the point of a rotating periscope when the whole cupola rotates? (scratches head)
I have no idea either.
well the cupola is slightly heavier, and larger, so in certain situations I guess it might just be a grown habbit
My bet would be on standard mountings for periscopes. Noone would bother to make it un-rotatable just for one spot if you need 4-5 same periscopes more on the same tank with rotating mounts.
Just a guess though.
Thorneyed considering manufacturing and all that's a really good assumption especially when it doesn't hurt to have it rotatable anyways
So you can see back in time.
the manual may say 'pistol port' but the crews , whatever else they may have thought about it.. had what was probably the best VENTILATED vehicle in allied service... hopefully all those openings were weather tight against water and cold but in hot weather this must have been a truly beloved beast.. especially if someone managed to add a fan to that circuits of that APU... and an actual water tank for the crew ? along with a heater for the cold nights?
Hey chieftain, dare you to go back to this and do a "oh bugger the tank is on fire" test from every position 😂
Here I go, probably my third binge watching of ItCH...
I think tanks of this type that have the main armament inside the tank hull are pretty cool they were just unique
Canister shot. My favorite.
They made canister shot for the 57mm recoilless rifle. I think its the only you can sholder fire. Making it the biggest shotgun you can sholder fire
that's the cleanniest interior I ever seen
Legs on either side of the transmission is just like on an old school farm tractor. Plenty of guys would have been at home with it.
It's the Party Tank.
I love the Grant. One of my favorite tanks. It's such a great example of, "What've we got? Okay, just put a bunch of guns on it. We'll fix it later, right now we just need something that kills bad guys." It's crude, ugly, and surprisingly effective when handled well.
This was a great tank for its time,so many good features compared to other tanks that were being made. Its high silhouette being the only thing working against it,thankfully the Japanese didn't have very good tanks.
Now to find the Hero Prop from the original production of "Sahara" starting Humphrey Bogart. It was a Lee however.
the moment when the shell was so bad to the point you need to steal some ammo from your enemies.
Actually, it was just the projectile, or bullet, modified and stuffed into US cases.
I've got such a soft spot for tanks with other guns attached to it. Like the Mark V landship, and the Char 2C.
Will you ever visit the museum at Saumur, France and take a look at the operational French tanks they have there such as the FCM 36, B1, or S-35? The FCM in particular I feel is a very underappreciated tank.
"You had spalling and significant emotional events..." LOL. Never been a tanker, but I bet that would be an emotional event!? And you have to be the tallest tanker I ever saw!
Good thing about a Grant in Australian service you could keep the hatches in the "I'm not getting shot at" position permanently , we never used them overseas ..... We where still using Matilda 2s in 1945 though
I've flown radial engined airplanes. You can spin the engine with the starter, mags OFF, to ensure there's no hydrostatic lock and after a couple of rotations just flip the mag switch to ON. No hand cranking needed.
Great! always wanted that in depth tour, built many of these models as a kid! Just wish your Real Tanks bumper wasn't so common in a video. Still love the info!
Have watched this video a number of times BUT just received the AirFix 1/35 M3 Grant with full interior , excellent kit so this video will be played a lot lol
I enjoyed this presentation.
Since I don't have access to Sahara or its remake at this time I admit to some excitement while waiting for your tour of the interior.
_Sahara_ is on UA-cam for free right now, I just watched it. My second Bogart film. Not quite as good as _African Queen_ but better than I expected.
@@justforever96 Thanks, m8.
Great video!
Oh I was wishing so much that from the outside I could have seen the maximum up and down and side to side of the 75 mm because it's hard to picture.
Obviously another beautiful video that's the only thing I was really hoping for that did not happen.
Thanks for this video, far more educational than the Humphrey Bogart film “Sahara.”
Russians called it : "grave for 6 brothers". The biggest problem was thin and reveted armor, angle of the armors make it even more easy to penetrate and size of the tank ,(make it an easy targed) . As Chieftain said, good in jungle against Japanese.
The Soviets (not "the Russians") had dark and humorous names for most of the equipment they served in. Men died in all of them. It doesn't imply that they considered it an especially terrible tank, it was a comment on how many crew it used, and how many would be killed in a catastrophic loss. They liked the T-34 just fine and thousands of those were lost.
It's "Seven Brothers" BTW, they used the American Lee version mostly. A bunch of their guys were still rolling around in BT-7s and T-26s, at least the M3 had a good gun and passable armor.
I had an awesome idea
M3 firefly...
Dunno which gun to change to a 17pdr. but it would be awesome....ly inconvenient and probably won't work.
Love your vids great information ya do on them. All I got to drive was a truck in the Army.
Yes, it's here!!!! Rabbit team charge!!!!
Heavy tank killer!
Just watch out for that IS-2.
Butterfly...
Butterfly....
Operation Mifune, commence.
I am wincing just thinking about all the opportunities to knock your noggin. Waiting to see a video where the Chieftain gives in and dons a skateboard helmet before climbing in. Nonetheless a fascinating channel! That music loop is stuck in my head.
I hate the wot music droning on in the background like after watching 3 videos its stuck in my head. gotta tune out
Any idea when there might be a Chieftain's Hatch on the Sherman? Love all the vids man.Keep them coming.
Check out this photo of an early version of the M3. It looks like the driver has a windscreen with wipers. www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/SC1666231.jpg
"If the 37mm and caliber .30 doesn't do the job" - As we all learned from Saving Private Ryan, the only way to penetrate the front of a Tiger is with the .45 from a 1911
That didn't happen. He shot out the vision block. And if we know anything from Internet wehrboos it's that if the Internet data boards say "the frontal armor on a Tiger was immune to American 75mm shells over 500 yards" it means that absolutely under no circumstances could an M4 penetrate the front of a Tiger at 600 yards, and that every inch of the front was completely immune to enemy fire. If not the entire tank.
@@justforever96 I'm annoyed by wehraboos as much as the next guy, but c'mon guy I was making a joke about how the scene in SPR was cut to make it look like Tom Hanks final pistol shot blew up the Tiger tank
Sounds like the early HE described was the USA MK I (copy of the French Mle 1900 or 1915 but TNT filled). Neither the USA fuses (M46? M47?) nor French fuses were bore-safe. Later USA 75 mm HE was the M48 typically w/ the fuse M48.
The standard American AP rounds, being just solid shot, would create “spalling and significant emotional events.”
Thus the intentional infliction of shell shock upon the enemy, or maybe a new type of 75 mm artillery ammunition, the Psychological Warfare round.
love these episodes!!!
Not a tank but would very much like to see a video on half tracks, my grandfather told a story about having come into a german village and running into several king tigers with infantry there, taking a panzerfaust through the grill and running the halftrack wide open for about 10 miles to out run the germans. He said the motor was glowing by the time they made it back to safety and when they shut it down it litterally melted into a solid mass. They couldnt even seperate it from the transmission it had gotten so hot.
Not to call your grandfather a liar but that is not how engines work. Not at all. There is no chance that an engine will keep operating for miles while catastrophically overheating. The bearings will seize long before that and the pistons. You might get the heads red hot for a while before the gaskets totally fail, and before the air/fuel mix just starts to spontaneously combust before it reaches the cylinders. But it's very unlikely it ever gets that far because the heat will wreck the lower end and throw your rods through the engine block way before that. The bearings are soft metal and will fail quickly.
What is much more likely is that they lost cooling liquid. The engine can run for a while that way especially when you are moving with air flowing, if you don't worry about wrecking it. And if the heat only reached the total failure point I can see the heads glowing dull red but the time they shut down, especially since they were mostly flathead engines at that time, which is just a solid metal block with valve seats in the side. The heat might have messed with the rubber insulators and , and it might have melted the bearings leading to a lot of knocking, but nothing close to "melting the whole engine down" or welding it to the transmission casing. Either he is telling tall tales (which old soldiers enjoy) or you misunderstood what he was saying, or both. Definitely didn't melt the engine into slag while it was still running.
i heard that the M3 medium was great at knocking out ferris wheels
"Stick your head out and let the wind blow through your...helmet." What helmet? I thought british tankers didnt have any?
I guess he forgot he was talking about the British or perhaps the Aussies had more sense than them.
They did have them.. they just usually didn't wear 'em. But I don't know what the Aussies did.
Aussies wore their akubras in the tanks, preferably at a jaunty angle XD
Could you possible do an episode on a japanese tank?
Chieftain, in your opinion, what was the most successful tanking nation of the Second World War?
Think you'll ever do the ferdinand/elefant?
Did the Soviets actually refer to it as a 'coffin for 7 brothers' though? I've never seen a primary (I.e. ww2) source for this so wondering if you have. Mr Zaloga claims it's a made-up post-war phrase.
this is just awesome! with a capitol A!
Thank you so much, amazing as always :)
I can imagine the clock was necessary for navigation, as well. Maintain x speed, on y bearing, for, z amount of minutes, etc.
That was really informative and entertaining Nicholas. The Grant is still an ugly duckling IMO. Looking forward to a new tank exploration.
I think it looks kind of nice. The Scorpion (American, not modern), and plenty of other tanks take the list of ugly tanks for me.
It's always surprising to see how cramped the fighting positions are in the M3. From the outside it looks to be a roomy vehicle. Of course, if you weren't packing most of a baseball team inside one, it might be a bit roomier
I hope the Officer that worked out the AP round problem, got a Medal!
Love your content and not to hurt your officer feelings but most ideas credited to officers came from the enlisted. The officer would forward the idea up the chain and get most or all of the credit. The German HE round as a replacement in your story is a perfect example. This was actually discovered by an enlisted crew with a senior sergeant as the tank commander. They forwarded the info and the major got the credit even though he was just a go between. There was no US Major in the field messing with this stuff, at best he proof read the material and said "sure this could work".
Even assuming that's true in that specific instance and not just something someone made up (what proof?), that's a stupid generalization to make, all officers are useless idiots, only the enlisted know anything and the officers just steal the credit. How is this, they intentionally seek out the stupidest and worst people to lead? Or is there something about becoming an officer that drains your intelligence and decency from you? Even if that story was totally true, the officer is responsible for his men. He heard them out and recognized a good idea. He probably organized the tests to see if it worked. He made sure it went up the chain of command. He is literally responsible for making sure it happened, whoever thought of it first.
In practice you would have at least a score more 75mm HE rounds wedged in and just redistribute as rqd.
Pistol ports are handy for throwing junk out and passing ammo in.
Interesting metal coffin
All tanks are metal coffins in one case or another
@@peterson7082 not if crew stay alive...
Please do an episode about all the 75mm guns you mention here. A Yank gun that could fire WWI French HE ammo, and German AP with a bit of tweaking!? Where did the Brits get the French ammo? Captured in Syria? Left over when they were forced to use a few dozen in the the German offensive of 1918? Ian McCollum has a 75mm t-shirt already! Zoom collab!
American 75 mm M2 gun is a direct descendant of a French Canon de 75 modèle 1897 with the same 75x350R ammunition
They were still using the 75mm. He didn't say it was "WW1 ammunition". The French were still making and using hm the stuff and they owned a lot of the region.
great work
Are U sure about this turret ring size? 6 inches less than M4 would be 63inches I guess, AFVDB page gives M3 Grant turret ring diameter as 54,5 inches.
Regards
7 ??? ... crazy ! 4 at the most should be reasonable !!!
I love the videos by find the background music a bit annoying. Keep up the great work
+The_Chieftan - re the Grant's Inertial Navigation System - I seem to recall reading that at least some Australian Centurions were fitted with an INS. Or maybe more correctly fitted for, I read this in a 60s Australian Army Pam (Pamphlet, what you would call an FM or a TM). Have you heard of INS in other tanks?
My grandfather was a m3 driver he said the commander gets out of the hatch 37 gunner and loader out the side hatch the 75 loader out the side hatch 75 gunner through the roof hatch and driver out of the side hatch
Yeah the looping music is annoying, give me a feeling of urgency to turn sound off, and turn captions on.
Please could you do some French Tanks would great to see inside some of them, specially Char B1
A 40mm bofors turned slightly sideways toward the loader would have been a useful choice in the turret.
Is that an M7 Priest to the left of the M3? I'd love to see a tour of one of those.
😮😮😮😮!! I really like the grant in WOT btw. Despite the sponson gun.
Was there ever a "Firefly ' version considered? Looks like a bigger gun would be easier to put in this tank than In a Sherman.
There is one as a monument in India, though we're still not entirely sure if it was a service vehicle or a 'bodge for the sake of putting a gun on the tank for a monument"
Chieftain sir, so we can gauge the scale of things what is your height? Thank you.
Well made and very informative. One complaint: the music is annoying, but that is a matter of taste I guess...