This series will be the first to document almost every model of tank that saw service in World War II in roughly chronological order. We will start with the Polish campaign of 1939 and work our way through until we reach the end of the conflict in 1945, with a tentative schedule of 90 episodes. The emphasis of each video will not only be a technical description of the tank, but more importantly, we will attempt to put the vehicle within its proper historical context.
We will try to explain how each tank came into being, looking at the various factors that went into its design and production. Questions such as how did a countries particular military doctrine influence the design of the tank they decided to build? How did their industrial capabilities, or perhaps more importantly, how did their industrial limitations affect the design? And of course, what larger political and strategic demands affected the design, production and introduction of these tank designs?
Gen. Patton's M3 half-track command vehicle, (W 402408) did have a roof! As for the rest, a very good overview but more importantly, no bias that usually unravel not-so-friendly RU-vid exchanges.
Israeli H39 were (at least partially) ex-Wehrmacht. The IDF also pressed into service a captured Syrian R35, used from a truck bed as it lost its mobility. Thank you for a very informative video essay!
At 19:00 you say the tank "often" had only a receiver. In fact it was designed with space for only a receiver, the receiver's power supply and the appropriate wiring. It would have been a big conversion to put a transmitter into a Panzer 1. For example, the commander had a headphone connection but no microphone connection in his turret. The remaining tanks got upgrades in about 1942, I don't know what happened then. Also, you say the driver was expected to operate the radio. Well, I'm not sure about that, but the radio set was located in front of the commander with the facia facing toward him, and he had the tank's only headphone connection socket in his turret, so he could certainly listen to the radio. Are you sure he wasn't responsible for it?
Unfortunately nothing was said about the tank's visor. I know a lot about this tank but I'm not properly informed about the visors. I read that the tank had a visor which allowed targeting well while the tank was moving. That would be a real advantage because all tanks at that time had to stand still in order to targeting at the enemy vehicles. So unfortunately the video didn't answer my question if it is true that this Polish 7TPjw tank really had such a visor that made it possible to aim and hit while moving. Incidentally, 7TPjw is the correct name for the tank. The addition "jw" is the abbreviation in Polish for one turret. Because the one with two turrets was called 7TPdw, which is "dw", the abbreviation for two turrets. By th way, it would have been better if the tanks had been given completely different names, because the tanks differed not only in the number turrets but also in various other areas. These were actually two different Polish tanks. But I still give thumbs up because it's anyway unusual that a video was even made about these Polish tanks. Because you have to be glad that it wasn't claimed that Poland didn't have any tanks in the fight against the Germans
The Sdkfz.251 is logically going to be the more capable offroad machine thanks to that massive advantage in overall powered contact patch area provided by the long track. The overlapping wheel design also make for a more even pressure distribution from the track, again improving grip and increasing ride quality as a bonus. That the front wheels aren't powered is a non factor when the tracks are providing the steering, which is much prefered offroad vs having to rely on the front wheels for this, esp. in deep mud or snow. As for the HP difference, that only really matters for speed, as both vehicles featured offroad gearing that meant in low gears they had far more torque available than they ever had grip.
Great video about a much overlooked tank, which like the M3 Lee or the PzKw38t, I appreciate mostly for its aesthetics. btw, "Luchs" pronounced like "looks" as in "If Luchs could kill..."and "Spähwagen" is more like "shpay wagon" (which I guess is what a veterinarian drives)
MAGAZINE, not clip. The differences are major. A "clip" just holds cartridge cases together for feeding in a weapon, a magazine holds the cartridges as well as contains part of the feed mechanism, example the spring and follower.
Thanks for the excellent video. The design and deployment of R35 tanks are the condemnation of the pre-war political instability of the 3rd Republic and the mediocrity of the French General Staff. Pathetic tanks specified by pathetic and clueless generals, enabled by self-serving politicians, a great number of whom were downright complicit in the defeat of France.
Nice. I'm doing a project right now that involves both Hotchkiss and Renault WW II tanks. Thanks for the video. : ) These matched up with Germany's Panzerkampfwagen I and III Ausf. E tanks.
I was just reading about this yesterday, linked in an article about the Geschützwagen 39(H)f which was the 10.5cm howitzer on the French Hotchkiss 39... apparently people were getting names/numbers mixed up and it was a side note. [Solo]
I wonder why they didn't make a pact with Czechoslovakia? They could have used their tanks against the Germans! If they had been allies Germany may have still won that battle but it may have been so bloody that the Germans took out Hitler?
Oh dear. There are so many fallacies in this video. France didn't lose because of their tanks, that's ridiculous. French doctrine isn't as you claim it to be and the idea of a beeswarm, as you put it, it's not how it was intended to be.
It's been four years since I made this video, but I do not remember arguing that France lost in 1940 "because of their tanks". I do recall pointing out flaws in French tank design as well as flaws in their armor doctrine and the organization of their armored units that made them less effective than their German opponents. This most certainly was a factor in French defeat, although certainly not the only factor. As to the bee swarm, It is noted in many sources that Estienne came up with the idea of massing light tanks in large numbers (i.e. a swarm) to overwhelm the enemy defenses rather than rely on a small number of more expensive heavy tanks, hence the development of the Renault FT.
@thetanksofworldwarii-tanka4368 you allude to it in this very video. Also, the massed tanks was to support infantry. If you have a doctrine that says infantry is supposed to be everywhere, then tanks need to be everywhere too. In addition, Estienne advocated for fewer, heavier tanks, not more, lighter tanks. The exact opposite of what you seem to think. The source is his paper on 'the importance of tank tonnage' dated 15 November 1933. So much for your swarm.
I always liked this little tank, it just looks cool. And I always wondered if there was some connection between the round hatch at the back like the one on a T-34. Both products of Russian designers.
After getting two books, I found very interesting photo of Ostketten on page 65 of this book. It shows very rare chevron patterned Ostketten which I was looking for ! 😄
I happened upon the tank website by reading the New York Times story about the museum. I thought you might be interested that Robert J. Icks is/was my father's brother. We grew up with him and know the stories. Our name is pronounced with a "short I," not a "long I," as you did (like Ike), Caroline Keenan Icks Torinus.
It is important to say, that significant number of those tanks were sabotaged on purpose. By late 1930 czech steel works VMaIC start experimenting with double treated armor plates. It was advanced technology back then. One side of the plate was tempered, to make it elastic. And the outer side was hardened, to stop penetration. After that, the armor got excellent properties, acting like double width armor. (BTW: The same armor was sold to UK and used on HMS Illustrious deck, and it probably save the ship). However, during the production of LtVz.38, the tempering was not performed, and the armor became so brittle, that the tank practically imploded after being hit from high velocity gun. Angry reports from the front caused GeStaPo to act, and about 1700 CKD and SkodaPilsenWorks workers and designers were captured, some shot on the spot, and some sent to concentration camps. Quite ironically, one of the sabotage group lead member escaped, and was later on, as important engineering and design figure, drafted and sent to Porsche tank design center in the Reich, where he successfully continued to sabotage and resist the nazi war efforts. At the end, from his testimony we know, that the F. Porsche was actually not a Nazi - but rather crazy opportunist and gold digger..
Good video. constructive criticism: raise your paper or prompter so you are looking at the camera while you read. change your lighting to reduce or remove the reflection in your glasses. get a green screen to highlight some of you cool models or other interesting historical backgrounds. Best of luck!
1:72 scale, 1:76 scale and 1:100 scale are popular historical wargaming scales, which is what these models are intended for. 1:72 scale is 4mm. = 1 foot (OO guage) with no rounding of drawing measurement conversion fractions. Figures are between 20 to 25 mm. tall. 1:76 scale is 4mm. = 1 foot (OO guage) with rounding of drawing measurement conversion fractions. Figures are 20mm. tall. 1:87 scale is 3.5mm. = 1 foot (HO guage). Figures are 15 to 20mm. tall. 1:100 scale is 3mm. = 1 foot. Figures are 15mm. tall.
