Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch –  Achilles Part 2

Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch – Achilles Part 2

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


And welcome back to part two of our tour of the 17 pounder M10 Achilles. Right, so I mentioned at the beginning of the first part that the mantlet showed a significant difference between the original 17 pounder M10 and this particular example. Well, the reason is, because that this is an ex-Israeli vehicle and the Israelis, never happy with anything they get, modified it a little bit. So, imagine if you will, please, the gunner was originally located in a frankly quite cramped position, on the left hand side of the turret. Well the Israelis moved him over to the right. Instead of the gunner’s sight, they replaced it with a co-axial machine gun. Well, again, remember, the original vehicle was, at least the British considered it a self-propelled anti-tank gun. There is no need for a machine gun, and the US Army didn’t have any great need for a machine gun either. The only machine gun they needed was ‘Ma Deuce’ the caliber 50. This was a purely hand cranked turret. There was a large wheel here which was a simple cog system that you simply cranked very quickly to get the gun to point whatever way you wanted it to point. Well of course, now on the other side, the Israelis changed that as well, however, we’ll get to that in a minute. This position is simple enough as befits the rest of this very simple vehicle. He has no turret platform. He also doesn’t have a whole heck of a lot of room. The 17 pounder is a very big gun. This is part of the reason why the Americans did not like Firefly. If you can imagine, this big breech inside of a Sherman turret, didn’t work out too well for them. He has six ready rounds available to him in the turret. Three on the left turret wall and three on the rear. Also on the turret rear, we have the mounting point for the caliber .50 machine gun. Additional stowage for the 17 pounder ammunition is found in the hull sponsons, stored horizontally on both sides. So I’ve now come over to the gunner’s position and there is a couple of points here. First is my seating position is angled inwards a little bit. There’s a little bucket for my feet to make sure they don’t get caught when the gun is traversed around. We can see that one of the oil gear traverse systems looks just like that out of an M4 Sherman. So this is obviously power traverse. Now with that said, there is no power traverse controller here. What there is, is a cable that runs back to the commander’s position. It looks like the commander does the power traverse to slew onto a target and then the gunner takes over with the hand cranks. Now, again, the original vehicle is going to be fairly simplistic. Both the M10 and the 17 pounder version have a simple screw for elevating the gun. Large hand wheel on the side here. Now the original M10 had a gun depression of about 10 degrees. The 17 pounder; five. And, I’ve measured it. I’ve taken this vehicle, put the gun all the way to the bottom and taken a quadrant. This is 5 degrees. Now, with that said, there are people who have seen some photographs and if you measure the photograph it looks like 10 degrees for the 17 pounder. What’s going on? Now the best I’ve been able to find is there is a removable stop on the elevation system that stops the gun from depressing more than five degrees. Now I haven’t found it myself, but it is possible that it is behind the canvas bag that sheaths the system from debris and dirt. Now as for why the British did this, I’m not entirely sure. My suspicion, however, is that the recoil of the 17 pounder was so much greater that you didn’t want to have the additional upward impulse caused by the greater depression. So, my guess is, that for safety or mechanical reasons, the gun depression has been limited in this vehicle. Now some of the lads, particularly the Brits on the EU forums, seem to think I have this issue against the 17 pounder. I don’t. I have an issue against Firefly, because of the huge gun in the small turret, and the accompanying problems. I also have an issue with the SVDS ammo, which everyone says ‘Hey this is a great ammunition’, and true on paper. If you hit something at point blank range it will go through a very remarkable 9 inches of armor. The problem was, it pretty much had to be at point blank range. Repeated tests, a couple of years apart, by the US proved that it was very inaccurate at any range. Even British documentation from late ’44 indicated the same thing. At this time of writing, although we all agree that the British did fix the accuracy problems with the 17 pounder sabot, eventually, there is some dispute as to when exactly they did it. Anything I can find indicates that this was some time after the war. The first actual solution was the Canadians with their ‘Pot Sabot’ in about 1946. Now, that said, this gun fired more than just sabot. Obviously, by the end of the war, there was a very useful HE round, reduced charge, so it was nice and slow. You could see the tracer on that very easily. The other ammunition was your standard APCBC round which could pierce a very respectable 7 and a half inches of metal at 30 degrees, and was reasonably accurate. As a result, it is probably fair to say that the Achilles 17 pounder was probably the best self-propelled anti-tank gun of the war, at least until the M36 Jackson came along. Of the various types of ammunition the gunner had available to him, there are about 50 rounds stowed around the vehicle for him to choose from. Back to the operation of the gun itself. To his from there would normally be a No.43 telescope. It’s a x3 optic. It was also possible to find a panoramic telescope that at least the commander could use as well. There is an azimuth indicator on his right. As mentioned there are the elevation and traverse controls. They are extremely close together, not ideal. But, if you have the power traverse from the commander’s override working, he’s only going to be doing fine lay. So I guess he’s going to be able to live with it. Moving to the gun itself, we’ve got the travel lock for the 17 pounder. Fits into here. They never removed the travel lock for the three inch. It’s further forward inside the turret, but I guess it’s not in anyone’s way. Firing system, simplicity itself. It’s a lanyard. Dangles down from here, connects through this, pull down, this level comes up, this moves, this bar over here sets off the firing pin. The safety is ingenious. It is a push rod, that is currently in the safe position. The rod connects to here and prevents the rod from moving. All you do to fire is pull it out, and rotate it to the side and now the lever is free to move up or down. Or basically it would be if it weren’t rusted into position. The breech; vertically sliding, and the recoil guard is huge. Basically to get from one side of the vehicle to the other, you have to climb over it. It does also kind of cramp the loader and commander a little bit as well. So this is pretty much the engagement position for the gunner, and my head is at an angle, My left elbow is hard in, to clear the gun, and my right hand is kind of interfering with my knees, as I rotate the traverse handle. So this shows how cramped I am if I have my head down in position to look through the sight. And you can actually see that the elevation wheel does not provide clearance against the traverse hand wheel. Which is a little bit of a nuisance. Get it out of the way, and, I’m still a little tight, but I guess the trick is that you better hope that the correct elevation for hitting your target does not require any more traverse. It’s not a great position on the Israeli modification, now if I sort of come back a little bit and think about what it was like with an original hand crank traverse with the big wheel, there’s not much room for that either. Crew efficiency; not ideal on this vehicle. One last thing while I’m here about the counterweights and traversing. The original gun was of a certain length, much shorter than the 17 pounder. Now because of the way the 17 pounder is mounted on the trunnions, they needed to add a counterweight on the far end of the gun, right behind the muzzle break to make it easier for the gunner to elevate and depress the gun. The catch is, this has made the turret even more front heavy than it would have been, without the counterweight at the end. I mean, the gun is heavy enough as it is. So, this does not bode well, I think, for the concept of traversing while the vehicle is not on relatively level ground. Unfortunately, I do not have unlevel ground to put this on to test it for myself, and I haven’t seen any reports specifically on it one way or another, so this is entirely speculation on my part. The commander’s position on this vehicle is located right rear. He’s got the typical round seat. Although I do note that it is located perfectly placed together with the rim of the turret. That I can simply relax and rest my leg upon the seat. It’s actually kind of comfortable up here. Bearing in mind also that this is an open topped vehicle. The whole point of the tank destroyers being, you’re going to see the enemy first and shoot them first. And historically, whoever shot first tended to win, probably for a couple of reasons. But, that’s the bottom line. If you see the enemy first, shoot the enemy first, you’re probably going to come out better for the deal. So you would have, in the Israeli modification the Commander’s override here. He has the caliber .50 to his rear. In the American version at least, there would be 300 rounds of caliber .50 ammunition available to him. There was an intercom system. It was the only electrical system above the turret ring in the original vehicles. Obviously, with the addition of the power traverse that has changed a little bit. Nothing much else for him to do here. He’s got a great view of the crew, great view of the world around him, and a nice big recoil guard to protect his legs. That’s it for the turret. Now we move forward. Right, so those contortions were because the gun mantlet was directly over the driver’s hatch, which was mentioned earlier, you can’t open or close the hatch if the gun is to the front at all. So, that said, the seat backs do fold, so it’s probably much easier to come in and out through the turret. Especially since there is no basket at all. So there’s nothing interfering unless the gun happens to be at that wrong angle where it’s at your access point. So, moving in, the seat does come up and down simply enough. So the Driver’s position will be our last one here, because the assistant driver simply has nothing to do. The radio would be mounted in the sponson to his right, but he has no driver’s controls, he has no hull machine gun, he is pretty much along for the ride. He does have the periscope to his front so he can look around and help spot threats. He also has the escape hatch, which is down behind him should he need it. Driver’s position is pretty much what you would expect on a Sherman type vehicle. Steering is done, of course, with the tillers, which also act as your brake. It is fixed radius steering, so five feet would be the absolute minimum in first gear, and in top gear it would be 26 feet. Speaking of gears, clutch pedal to the left, transmission to the right. Its five speed synchronized. First gear tops out at a whopping 2 miles per hour, and by the time you hit 17 you want to be in fifth. So that gives you an idea of the spread range. Speaking of clutches, we have the two clutches for the two engines, as opposed to the clutch for the transmission. And you could engage them or disengage them by depressing the clutch pedal and pulled one lever or the other out as required. Accelerator; there is the accelerator and the hand throttle. The accelerator is, of course, the pedal on the floor. The operator manual is quite descriptive on how to use it, ‘To go forward depress pedal.’ I guess it’s worth noting that back then not everyone had cars. Especially if, maybe, you’re an inner city boy. The hand throttle, out is more gas, in is less gas. Sometimes when I get in some of these vehicles, the diagram doesn’t match up with what I was expecting, but in this case I know this is true, because when I depress the accelerator I can see the throttle come up. Controls to his left, the typical panel, you would have seen something like this in the M4A2 if you looked inside one. So, obviously we have the panel lights. We have two sets of oil pressure, obviously one for each engine. Oil Temperature, fuel. You would select which fuel tank you wanted to look at with your selector. The manual does recommend that you use one fuel tank to dry before you switch over to the other. So, I don’t know if that’s a way of making the refueling process simpler, but that’s what the manual says. Speedometer, two tachometers; one for each engine. Starter button, one for each engine. These would be the main lights, black out marker, blackout drive, stop lights only, and full headlights. Also, and this is a toggle to select which engine’s temperature you would like to read. They are circuit breakers, and finally we have a warning light for water or low oil pressure. To get going, you start off of course with master power which is in its traditional position over the left shoulder. Lockout two engine clutches. Depress the accelerator half way, bring it back to idle. You’re not looking for the pressure warning lights. If all is good, go ahead and start one engine, using the starter. Once that is up and running, start the other engine. Let them warm up a bit. Depress the clutch pedal, put the engines into gear, of course you’re still in neutral. Release the clutch pedal, your engine is now connected and you can drive on. It is possible to start one engine with the other. Let’s say your starter motor is gone, or it’s really really cold, and you want to save on the battery. Once you have the first engine running, go ahead and with the clutch pedal depressed, put both of the engine back into connection with the transmission by use of the individual clutches. Give it a bit of gas, let go of the clutch. Now the one engine is mechanically connected to the other. It should start up. Of course compression system, no electricity required. Outside of that, nothing really in here. The transmission takes a fair bit of space to his right, but that’s pretty much standard. He does have a headrest to protect his head from falling back too much. There is cushion above him as well. So he doesn’t hurt his head. Usually the driver is just going to be wearing the soft plastic helmet, but that’s enough to stop you from getting the knocks and bangs. The position is comfortable for somebody who’s shorter than I am. I can drive this, which is saying something compared to some other vehicles I have been in, in the past. I’m going to digress. Yes, I am taller than most. My thinking is that if I am comfortable in a tank, then shorter people are really comfortable They’re going to have a lot of room to work, they’re going to be very efficient. If I am uncomfortable, but can still operate it, then shorter people are probably going to be okay, and if I can’t operate it at all, even if shorter people can operate it, then they’re still probably going to be a little bit cramped, a little bit uncomfortable, and they will be less efficient. Right, and we are done in here. Now I am not going to attempt to extricate myself again through the main door. They are actually called doors and not hatches in the manual. Instead I’m going to take advantage that there is no turret basket and get out the easy way. So that’s about it. 1648 M10s were sent to the British, and about two thirds of them were converted to 17 pounder. They were used in troops of usually four guns, and themselves in mixed batteries of anti-tank regiments. A battery consisted of mixed vehicles, a troop of self-propelled M10s, a troop of towed 17 pounders and a troop of towed 6 pounders all in the same battery. All these vehicles were manned by Royal Artillery personnel. Not tankers. The difference between British Anti-tank doctrine and US Tank Destroyer concept, is that although the Royal Artillery considered them anti-tank guns, they were not held purely in reserve. American Tank Destroyers were entirely a reactionary force. However, the British were aggressive with their guns, sighting them further forward along an expected enemy avenue of attack. The Americans would be more held to the rear, in order to respond en masse to whatever came up. Now at the corps level, the British anti-tank artillery did function very similarly to the tank destroyer concept. This is a matter of detail. They were more in effect the corps’ fire brigade. And that’s it! I hope you enjoyed your tour of the Achilles, and we’ll see you on the next one.

100 thoughts on “Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch – Achilles Part 2

  • Dodge Post author

    Why does he say "Caliber 0.50" rather than 0.50 Caliber?

  • Jan Knuutinen Post author

    Täällä haisee vitun silli

  • FLAK_GOD Post author

    What museum is this?

  • Fiaura The Tank Girl Post author

    Hmmm…wonder if I could drive it then, I'm smaller than the chieftain for sure.

  • Bluefleet OC Post author

    well can't wait for the t-95

  • Ethan Rowland Post author

    does anyone know what music this is i love it 🙂

  • wimmisky Post author

    Chieftain I just want to say that I really appreciate these videos. They're always well researched, professionally presented, informative, and a bit humorous. Thanks and please keep up all the good hard work you do!

  • Nigнтsтер The cover music Post author

    We love tank ♥ ♥ ♥

  • BdrLenny Post author

    What the heck is pot sabot?

  • ChrispyAngel Post author

    strange that a tank destroyer has manual traverse

  • ThatWolffe Post author

    This and the firefly are a good example of the british "if it doesn't fit we will make it fit"

  • krakonošzkrkonoš Post author

    OMG wot malé video about real tanks

  • Tom Noack Post author

    Do the Kingtiger for pete's sake! 🙁

  • ApexPredator_ Post author

    How do Achilles and M10 tank crews dealt with winter?? Since it's open topped.

  • Jimmy McGill Post author

    Could you do a inside the Chieftans Hatch IS-3? I really would like to see what the IS-3 looks like from the inside

  • 0YouCanCallMeAl0 Post author

    This series is the only reason I'm still subscribed to this channel. I don't play WoT anymore. Keep it up guys 🙂

  • San_ Post author

    Thats one way to add 30 minutes to a project I am doing for school about Tank efficiency in WW1 and WW2. lol

    Cheers Nicholas.

  • Spearfisher1970 Post author

    Absolutely a great two-part episode. Thank you!

  • lkchild Post author

    nice one! I guess the large breach explains why they went for such a big turret on the Challenger compared with this and the even smaller Firefly turret.

  • Lucas K. Post author

    Would be awesome if you actually drove the tank 😀

  • Ruben Mooij Post author

    My PC broke can someone call an ambulance!?
    Wii U Wii U Wii U!!!

  • Meredtih492 Post author

    Do the IS-3

  • Daniel Byrns Post author

    Thank you Sir! Nicely done

  • Zach Glen Post author

    Keep doing British vehicles!

  • Spartans5499 Post author

    please do a video of the M3 Lee/Grant

  • Lafeel Abriel Post author

    That engagement position does not look comfortable at all..

  • Lafeel Abriel Post author

    Also, Nick, I am kind of surprised you didn't take the chance to debunk on camera the long standing myth that is this tank's nickname of Wolverine.

  • FD Mackey Post author

    Great video(s) on a variant of the M10 I had heard of but never seen (or at least known what I was looking at). On the day Part 1 premiered I happened to catch a program on one the "History Channels" about the Battle of the Bulge and Patton's drive to relieve the 101st. Just to show you that some folks don't edit or at least don't know or perhaps even care what they are including in their program content, I saw three Achilles TDs (identifiable by their muzzles) engaging a barely visible German Panther platoon and knocking out two in short order…..Hmmmm….And the TDs in question were identified as Hellcats belonging to Patton's 4th Armored Division by the voice over dude!!!!…..Of course in the very next episode B-29s, flying out of bases in Italy,  were shown and identified as supposedly bombing Frankfurt in 1944…..Yeah, I know….Let's not go there…History Channel…You so silly….Keep up the great work sir! Ready and Forward!

  • uberdice Post author

    "Israelis, never happy with anything they get."

    Cheeky bants m8

  • Kevin Sissons Post author

    Thanks for the video. As usual, it was saturated with information that I wouldn't get just by climbing around in any AFV. I enjoy these videos immensely.

  • Doomlock Post author

    If you can do the Panther next!

  • john derdak Post author

    Please do the M3 Lee

  • Sleepy .Time Post author

    love these look at real tanks the Chief does

  • Sergi0 M. Post author

    panther? pls XDD

  • Blockhaj smash Post author

    Could u do a video for a japanese tank?

  • ZeKeR BaNaaG Post author

    question though: what made the early 17 pdr APDS(?) that terribad? it lost velocity easily?

  • Paolo Viti Post author

    Interesting indeed! I can understand that the M-10 was built with economy in mind but why the turret was not powered as it was easily available as it would have made the life for the gunner much easier? I didn't know how difficult it was to climb up this vehicle! Good job again!

  • shifty24 Post author

    0:27 shots fired 😀

  • Chris Hiss Post author

    Gj Moran!

  • K. Al Asad Post author

    Wargaming can you please do an episode on Object 279, the nuclear proof tank 😊

  • Zach Glen Post author

    What is the theme song used in these videos called?

  • R1GEL Post author

    Why does he say caliber 50. Isn't it better to say 50 cal.

  • coolboykan Post author

    What's the BGM

  • Daehawk Post author

    Might really consider lowering the volume or removing that annoying repetitive music.

  • The Crusading Slav Post author

    isnt the Achilles a British tank?

  • tekis0 Post author

    I really, really, really love this series!! Having said that, did he really say that this was, "the best self-propelled anti-tank gun of the war…"? Does that count the Russian and German models?

  • Daniel Hammer Post author

    APCBC= armor piercing capped ballistic capped

  • William Cox Post author

    Fun!

    The gunner is an integral part of the weapon system, so it's strange that the ergonomics are so unfavorable for his position. One might expect the designers to be especially careful when making sure that turret traverse is easy to accomplish and that the gunner's traverse controls do not interfere, one with the other.

    On the plus side, the manufacturers made an awful lot of money, so who cares about the crew? They're just people . . . it's not like they're more valuable than profit.

  • Jedi5150 Post author

    I notice it's got the green interior paint in the driver/ co-driver compartment.  Is that just an Israeli thing?  Most US TD's I've seen photos of had white painted interiors for the driver.  In fact some even had the entire hull interior painted white, with only the turret itself green on the interior.

  • Henry Leighton Fulmer Post author

    5:59 What about the Hellcat? 🙁

  • Spyronite913 Post author

    04:34 “Huge gun in the small turret“ The 17pdr was the only Allied gun able to destroy a Tiger from the distance until the IS-2 was produced, so even if the gun was too big it's a good thing people managed to mount it on the M4 ^^

  • Caleb N Post author

    After playing World of Tanks, referring to armor thickness in the Imperial system means nothing to me.

  • herringchoker01 Post author

    Nicholas: I really enjoyed the thorough treatment you gave this vehicle. What's often missing is a sense of what a piece of kit was like to work with, day-in day-out. Strengths and weaknesses of the vehicle, crew ergonomics and maintenance. Thanks for outstanding coverage of all of those.

  • night owl Post author

    Apart from the object 268, IS-6 and Maus tanks does anyone know if there is any other tier 10 tanks he can have a look at around the world

  • foorene duh Post author

    The tank it self well become bath top, if heavy rain or run into deep lake hehe

  • charles woods Post author

    Your  mentioning both the LA and LC engine used in this vehicle leads me to a question.First, as you know, Detroit Diesel engines can be set up to run clock wise or counter clock wise,so do you know if the engines in this vehicle were set up that way? That may explain why the parts were labeled for LA or LC engine.There is a lot of parts commonality between the two engines but there are also parts that are only used on an LA or LC engine.

  • Pershing611 Post author

    I'd love to buy that Pershing. How does $20 sound?

  • Atomik Post author

    Ill guess you are 6'5" maybe

  • Dave Duffy Post author

    For those of us with bad hearing (mine mostly due to military service), turn up the music at the beginning and the end. Turn off the music when the guy is talking! Background noise is distracting and pointless.

    Why do you need music if someone has something interesting to say? It's like a guy who takes a date to a loud restaurant because he knows he's boring and doesn't have anything a woman wants to hear (to remedy that, practice a few interesting life stories, learn a few jokes, and listen more in a quiet restaurant).

  • N Garrity Post author

    These are great! I'd really like to binge-watch but I can't!

    BEE-da-da! BEE-da-da! Dah-da-da-da!

    The same music loops through ALL the videos!

    BEE-da-da! BEE-da-da! Dah-da-da-da!

    PLEASE! Mix it up a bit!

    BEE-da-da! BEE-da-da! Dah-da-da-da!

    I want to hear more Englishisms!

  • SPaMuRai GRaNaTaBRu Post author

    American tank.
    Modified by British.
    Bought by Israel then modified.
    Bought by museum and painted American colours.

  • 0Zolrender0 Post author

    I really love The Chieftains talks. Very informative and through. I only like David Fletcher's "tank chats" better, but only by a smidgin.

  • Tom Meakin Post author

    It's always kind of embarrassing how he always coming down on the "side" of the US, trying to show how much of true American he is lol. Is that one of the terms and conditions when immigrating to the US?

  • Marcus Post author

    5:00 that gunner is having too much fun…

  • DC Post author

    You have forgot Archer which replaced it, 44/45. I think you are under playing the 17Pounder, and the APDS round which was also available for the 6 pound AT gun, in Normandy it was the only Allies gun on para with the German long barrel 75 and the tigers 88. I think there was more to leaving the 76mm behind, than the message didn’t get to them. 1,678 M10 were delivered to the Commonwealth forces, who change out the 76mm for the 17 pounder. The 76mm you have to get within 500m to engage a tiger 1 or panther. They can be engaged by the 17 pounder 1200 meters, but accuracy drops beyond that. You don’t go to that trouble if there is nothing significantly wrong. The US did not rush in the M36 with the 90mm after Normandy if everything was rosy. I think it is the old not invented here syndrome from both sides. The numbers confirm, whilst the Panzer IV was the most numerous in Normandy about 900, followed by the Panther 650 and Stug 600. Total for all Tiger I and II in the Normandy Campaign: Tiger I – 123 received, 122 lost Tiger II – 47 received, 40 lost. We also know these faced the 21st army of the Canadians and British who faced 6 Panzer divisions whilst there were 2 in the US sector. So the 17 pounder was not half bad, given the number of Firefly’s went from 86 early June to over 200 by 31 July. The Northamptonshire Yeomanry engagement, 3 Tigers in 12 minutes by, a Firefly at range. The Firefly, is British mentality, make do and mend, the Cromwell version Challenger was not an overwhelming success, the Sherman solution not fantastic worked, the comet was better but too late, but the issue was not solved until Centurion which quickly went 20 pounder.

  • Spear Shaker Post author

    I only do fine lays.

  • Joe Gatt Post author

    8:22..is this what makes it "the best tank destroyer of WW2"….oh! but "it's only a bit of a nuisance".

  • iskandartaib Post author

    Any idea of what they did with the 1000 or so 76.5mm guns they took out of the 17 pdr. conversions? Sounds like a waste to just melt them down…

  • Bochi42 Post author

    Love the series but god that music is annoying.

  • Fruitninja Zero Post author

    M10s might not be the Best Tanks/Tankdestroyers around and it has a few too much flaws for my taste (Lacking Turretdrive, Mg, bad hatch placing) but dam it looks so cool! Especially with the 17-Pounder.

  • Marie BCFHS Post author

    lol I remember the bootleg M1 panther hahahaha

  • Marie BCFHS Post author

    why do you have to use 2 engines?

  • Flynn88MN Post author

    ugh everry video has the same obnoxious song looping over and over again

  • soppybp Post author

    My father was a radio operator/assistant driver in an Achilles (75th ATR, 11th Armoured Division). I'm not sure he would describe his experiences as being "along for the ride".

  • James Miller Post author

    I'd guess the crews were glad most of these were held in the back generally. 1.5 inches of armor? I think grannies handbag provides better protection than that. I could see though with a 90mm gun these would be lethal weapons.

  • Legion Of The Dammed Post author

    Dam he is one big man, look how small that driving position is

  • Mr. Bread Post author

    It’s not a long way off, before WG decides they want to put a 17 pdr on a hellcat with a stock turret.

  • John Price Post author

    Wow a turret I could actually get in . PS normal tanks are a no no for someone of my …. generous dimensions shall we say .

  • Thomas Linton Post author

    "Hach E" ?

    (It's Treaty of "Ver sigh.")

  • Thomas Linton Post author

    Driver Cooker. MK I

  • Lil' Legit Post author

    He said HE, but what i hear is HeyChi

  • Mike Townsend Post author

    Why do a lot of the older tanks have a siren?

  • benkovac boy Post author

    I think the Gunner used his hand the other way around,it seems more comfortable that way

  • Halinspark Post author

    Is there some sort of conversion we can use for the archaic measuring system of British gun sizes? 2pdr, 6pdr, 17pdr, etc. are quite difficult to compare to the other guns.

  • KingAlpaca Post author

    0:26 As Israeli, this is 100% correct.

  • Winston Churchill Post author

    Hwo on earth did the germans plan to get the long 88mm in a smaller panther turret?

  • Lucas Shahan Post author

    Did you know that the Canadians made the first walkie-talkie yeah back in 1936

  • Yeeren Post author

    Cool, didn't know we had M10s. Then again IDF equipment in those days was "whatever we could get our hands on" so I wouldn't be amazed if at some point attempts were made to see if the Reynault FT-17 could be up-gunned with an American M3 gun.

  • bob thompson Post author

    I'm glad someone can say sabot more closely than most. It should be said like sa-bow

  • bob thompson Post author

    The safety is like a mosin nagant lol

  • bob thompson Post author

    I thought it was who ever seen who first wins because that usually means you shoot first. At least that's how it works in aircraft

  • David Tampa Post author

    Could he act anymore disinterested?  This guy acts like a douche the entire time.

  • Bob theGrape Post author

    Tanks a lot (I just had to say that). I enjoy this series. I don't play Wot but I do enjoy your series. What happens when you have done all the tanks?

  • Command Module 10 Post author

    Do video on grille

  • Robert Johnson Post author

    Good info

  • A E Post author

    Thanks for doing a video on the Achilles. Brits took our stuff and simply made it better. I wish that we took that same concept a lot earlier. In my opinion a lot of needless deaths happened due to lack of armourment.

  • GLEN Dooer Post author

    Hard to believe Humans are so messes up in the head we spend trillions and will continue to do so on wars and killing people..

  • david noone Post author

    Oi vey you noticed that Israelis are never pleased. You will be talking about Steven Spielberg buggering Heather O'Rourke to death next…

  • Trillock 1945 Post author

    I try to binge watch these videos, but usually give up after about 4-5, as that blasted guitar music, and constant pop ups of 'The Chieftain's Hatch after every segment gets very annoying…..quickly.

  • Gerry Post author

    Not sure I'll be around for the next one if its got 'music'.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *