Hey all! Yes, I am alive, and yes, I still love tanks! This is a video I've been working on for WAY too long, but I'm super proud of the results, and I hope you all enjoy watching it as much as I did making it. The next few uploads on this channel will come quickly I promise, but definitely stick around for the "2023 Year In Review" live stream I'll be doing on THIS channel around the turn of the new year. More info on that in the coming weeks. Subscribe and join the discord to stay up to date on all that stuff! Join my discord: discord.gg/n9bMyt4uKM I Live Stream: ru-vid.com/show-UCB1iMnyrIYMz9Ft06pWOQVA I have a podcast: ru-vid.com/show-UCsYlkjyhtSHXuEsyZRExPpQ
Also just a little correction in 9:49 it isn't necessarly a G, because the panzer 4 was refereed as Ausf G (version G) when it had an additional 30mm armor on the front of the hull which would make it 80mm thicc, if you just add a long 75mm to a Panzer 4 Ausf F1 it would make it a F2 because the armor thiccness was 50mm soo you also needed to add the extra armor to make it a G.
10:28 The sandbags were actually pretty more effective than what people thought, because against heat shells or the ammunation used by bazookas and the panzerfaust which used heat warheads it would make soo that the explosion that resulted in the pentration happened when it hit the sandbags before hitting the armor, soo when it hit the armor it would be slowed down and could result in a non penetration.
@@gatoxd7544 Ausf G designation wasn't specific to the armor layout of the vehicle. The Panzer IV with the long 75 went by a few nicknames confusingly within the German army. To boil it down, the F2 and the G are pretty much the same vehicle just the Germans calling it something different. I usually go the War Thunder route and if I see a long 75 Pz IV with the more rounded muzzle break I call it an F2. But I will admit that it really doesn't matter.
@@gatoxd7544 Even the Germans were confused with the naming. Considering they also kept calling the StuG a StuG even after turning it into a TD (it should have been switched to a Jagdpanzer). And the stupidity with the Panther… Germany has had a history of changing names and being confusing just because they can lol
Sandbags weren't really there to stop tank shells... It was useful against infantry-carried AT weapons (for example: magnetic mines don't work on sandbags, and something like the panzerfaust would most likely lose most of it's penetrating power against sandbags)
HE and HEAT (shaped charge) rounds tend to lose a bit of bite, the more shit you throw in front of it before anything hits the armor. Not much, but it was the best they could do in the field. More extensive upgrades, like welded track segments and armor skirts, were also somewhat effective.
The sandbags did protect well versus the older "faustpatrone klein" but the later "gross" models as we all know them, the panzerfaust 30 and so on had little issues with sandbags. BUT one discovered thing is that sandbags Could help when the panzerfaust was fired at an offset angle. But in general, the downsides outweighed the advantages. The sandbags added weight and this reduced mobility. And it also worn down compoments faster, especially the transmission on the M4 (wich is why Patton forbade the usage of this armor) Magnetic mines were indeed affected by sandbags, and Hafthohlladung anti tank charges aswel, wich relied on magnets to properly angle the charge.
well, there's actually a bit of a deeper reason why it was there other than for stopping anti-tank shells i commented already on what they're for, but i'll just summarise here the americans and germans both conducted studies on what things like sandbags, tracks, logs, etc. did when they were put on tanks, and found they often made the problem worse rather than helped. however, they let crews put them on the tanks anyway because it gave the crew peace of mind - obviously the crews didn't know that was the case. so they weren't really there for functionality, but moreso for the psychological aspect, since the mental states of your crew is important if you want them to perform well, hence why tank designers care about the comfort of the crew.
@@hellohelloington9442 I've heard about that aspect of it too. Kinda funny how nowadays, there's jokes about the Russian MBT "cope cages" to stop ATGMs or RPGs fired from above, when the armor used by most nations back then wasn't very useful either. If you put extra crap on a tank, and it makes the crew fight better because they feel safer, that's an improvement nonetheless. It reminds me of the exaggerated stories of air support in WWII. In stories, movies, games, it's extremely effective and often turns the tide of a battle. In reality, most planes missed or didn't do much damage, because the majority were fighters pressed into ground attack, and it's really hard to hit targets on the ground from the air with such basic aircraft and ordnance. The biggest advantage was the morale boost it gave their own troops (when they weren't being accidently targeted) and the near equal drain on the enemy's morale.
@@ODST_Parker yeah, all of those stories are funny that reminded me of how those assigned to ground attack documented their kills. they didn't really have any way to tell if they destroyed a tank (or damaged or even hit it in the first place), so when they had to return to the airfield, they often just claimed "yeah we killed it", which led to a lot of bloated and exaggerated numbers on the tanks destroyed by aircraft. it's really funny, and totally explains why the amount of tanks that were lost in the war often didn't add up to the amount of tanks that were destroyed. but that's sort of what happens when you trust someone with that sort of thing, i guess. though, about cope cages, it is important to note that the cope cages do /sort of/ work. when people think of the cope cage they act like it's meant for javelins, but it's not. the cope cage was installed because of the russians' experience in the chechen war, where there was a lot more handheld rocket launchers, not atgm launchers. most people forget that and use it as an excuse to shit on the cope cage, when, in reality, not only does the cope cage give the crew peace of mind (like you said), but it can protect the top of the tank from unguided rockets like the RPG-7, which is what it's meant for. it makes even more sense when you consider the Russians thought they'd be in Kiev/Kyiv pretty much instantly, where there are a lot of buildings that provide vantage points on a tank like that. i'd say it's definitely better to have a cope cage than not to, just in case, because it's just a bit of steel that barely adds any weight to the tank anyway, but has at least a chance of saving you from something.
Bingo. I also reckon that’s why the entire British tree consists of the Valentine and the Churchill. And the US is missing all of its iconic TD’s and light tanks.
@@eta320 should add that ingame there is a Bishop artillery modeled but only as destroyed tank, plus a Marder 3 H(I think) for the trailer but also never introduced in game.
@@eta320 they had to prioritize, they probably knew at that point that the game’s time was short, because ea has a habit of putting games/series “out behind the shed” if they do very poorly for too long
This is interesting because it’s almost the reason the the StuG III was so prominent, the found that modifying the Panzer III chassis was better in certain circumstances than building another Panzer IV, but I’m sure most people have heard this history.
As a quibble, "panzer" literally translates to "armor" in German, and their tanks are called "panzerkampfwagen," which means "armored fighting vehicle." Nobody wants to say all that, so panzer is the slang term for tanks. In essence you were correct
Not to be rude but i think at this point everyone knows German tank designations that likes ww2 history it’s such a mainstream thing and the mainstream loves glorifying the Germans in ww2 so they talk about their tanks in heavier detail ect some of the first tank facts I learned were German naming conventions.
@@ilikeships9333 No, No they dont. Tons of people dont know the definition and still get it wrong. Dont make assumptions just because you know that stuff.
A Panzer is not armor in german. Its more translated to rüstpanzer or armored chestplate. But in german we often use one Word for two things. And Panzer is very much an independent Word. It just means Tank in that case
i speak german and i can tell you panzer really just means tank you got panzerung which is a word like armor but armor in german is "rüstung" and to panzerkapfwagen its really werid because you are right its literally translates but i think nobody calls them panzerkampfwagen only kampfwagen which means "fighting car" or called them short names like puma and if you know germans you know make everything more complicated then it should
You mention the Japanese air force at 25:04, Japan actually didn't have an air force in the interwar/ww2 period. Air power was split between the army and the navy with the allocation of aviation resources and responsibilities being one of the many things the army and navy liked to squabble over.
It was more akin to how the U.S had operated their "Air Force" by making it a branch of the army. They did have planes in the inter-war period, but a good number of them were foreign designs, most of which were by German or British engineers. Takeo Doi (a student of German aeronautical engineer Richard Vogt), Takao Yoshida, and Jiro Horikoshi were some of the first Japanese engineers to create a more mass-produced domestic design, with some of their designs being the Ki-10, A2N, and the 1MF10 (experimental; failed due to crash). All three were very good planes in their own respects and contributed to Japanese aviation design. But, yes. The IJN and IJA were very competitive for funds, and we can clearly see who won most of the time. *Cough* Two floating hotels *Cough* and a carrier-based fighter in land operations *Cough*.
As per usual, the stug 4 being an absolute historical abomination in game is down to large companies keeping their teams apart like the plague. You have the art and design team who do insane amounts of research on all their vehicles and decide on using some more under-represented vehicles of the war, most likely designing them with full intention of them going into the game as a standard form. Then the dev team comes over and says “hey we’re actually putting a tech tree system into the game for the vehicles so players have something to work towards while playing”. This of course makes the art team throw an absolute hissy fit and now they have to shoe horn some cursed designs into their beautiful historically accurate tank for the sake of gameplay
For Germany you forgot about the Panzer 38t and the Puma, overall as a battlefield V player and avid tank fan I actually really enjoyed this! It’s very well done, you know way more than I ever could lol, Hope good things come for you! This channel has a very cool concept I’m sure people will like!
Friendly reminder that BF 1942 had finite ammo for land and air vehicles, machine gun overheating, and sluggish turret traverses on vehicles that weren't just tied to your mouse sensitivity, from tanks all the way up to battleships (seeing battleships in BF1 whip their turrets around at 10000 dpi always irked me).
i think that foxhole is the closest game to actually give you the sensation that you are in a war, more specifically that you are in some conflict of the inter wars/ww2 despite being a fictional setting. yea the grafics are not the best but the feeling of you being this small cog in the larger machine that is unmatched
Ima be honest on the Sherman sprocket From my great-grandfather... The people fixing the tank did NOT give an absolute shit where the sprocket came from. Just if it fit. He swapped a .30 cal coax with a .50 once, because they figured out a mounting system. The issue was more the ammo handling. They also mounted an MG42 in the hull, through some careful welding and cutting. The one thing he was most proud of doing, was in one tank, they put in a lot of shooting ports to take M3 grease guns. So imagine a Sherman... but any angle you attack it from, you get fucking shot at from an SMG out the ass end of the turret, or the side of it.
The Armory doesn’t actually show them but each faction actually has their own specific “super tank” that can be summoned with squad points. Germany gets the Sturmtiger, UK gets the Churchill Croc, USA gets the Calliope Sherman, and Japan gets a HaChi. (Also if you can I’d like to see you review the anime Girls Und Panzer)
I don't know if I know what this one is about, and I can't figure how the US gets a Calliope when Germany gets the Sturmtiger. I mean, what about the armor values on the thing?! How do you want a Callio to kill a Sturmtiger?
@@thedigitaldummy3098 I know the symbol was in the background, but it doesn't hurt to hear more people talk about the show, especially if they are enthusiasts of the craft lol
@@obamnaprismus The Sturmmöser (Sturmtiger if you want to go by BFV) is balanced out by it's reload. And you can't forget that this is BFV and not something like War Thunder, Hell Let Loose, or Enlisted. Armour values don't mean much if your survival is dependent almost purely on a hit point pool
A quick note about the UK line: The Valentine is a Mk.3 unless you use a 6Pdr on it, as the Mk.3 had a redesigned turret to fit a loader so the commander can focus. The Archer, as you said, is quite literally backwards. It was used mainly as artillery and not as a tank hunter, which might be why BFV adapts it to drive as the game intends it to be used. The Churchill 3-inch Gun Carrier was never deployed, and it sucked so badly they'd rather stuff a 76mm gun on the sherman and cromwell variants than use that. The Cromwell is missing for some reason, perhaps because it would be too mobile, and able to hunt tanks and infantry with ease due to being able to access extra armor, and switch between the 6Pdr and the 75mm QF for taking down defenses and infantry. The damn thing's only flaw was not being on the early landings due to its low fording capabilities, and lost equipment at Dunkirk causing a major hiccup on the UK's logistics.
I find it kinda funny that you didn't react at all to the "Valentine AA Mk I" considering IT WAS LITERALLY FICTIONAL. Yes it was a turret from the Crusader AA slapped on the Valentine hull.
Regarding the limited ammo capacity in Battlefield games, most recent games until BFV were remembered for having a sort of infinite, cooldown-based ammo system like BF3/BF4, but we can recall that the older games like BF1942, BF Vietnam and even BF2 actually had limited ammo for all its combat vehicles and specifically required their crews to return to base/checkpoints to designated resupply/repair points. Pilots in particular had to learn how to land their damn planes safely in order to refit and rearm; at least heli pilots only needed to hover as close to the ground to do the same, but you might as well land and rest your mouse-hand for a bit.
i think the reason they chose the StuG 4 is the "getting in the tank" animation is him opening a hatch to the driver's seat, which the StuG 3 didn't have (at least as visually prominent)
You should have seen the LVT in game, it can have a M24 Chaffee turret on it, a AA turret, and the only as far as I know real turret variant, a Howitzer turret from a M8 Scott
I'm guessing, the reason why they added the Stug IV is because they wanted to add the Stug III and maybe didn't have the time due to a schedule or budget to make a whole new Model for it. Also no Panzer 38t no sdkfz 234?
I had to cut out a LOT of stuff. I rambled for well into 3 hours reviewing every tank in the game. The Pz 38(t), the AA Valentine, and the Wirblewind/Ostwind. The amphibious tanks also had to be cut. Maybe I'll make a part 2 :)
ngl with that suspension and that drives i think its more like a stug 3 because it looks more with the suspension of a panzerkampfwagen 3 instead of a 4.
The Stug 4 was added later in the life cycle of the game, when the Panzer 4 already existed. That way they managed to reuse assets instead of having to remodel the entire vehicle ground up
The reason they used the Stug IV is most likely to reuse the Pz IV model. Same with Valintine and Chrurchill. As for why the short 75 gun, gameplay, so everything had these upgrades.
the weird tan for the tiger can be seen in the tank museum on a early semi-prototype tiger 2 used for testing, alongside the fact that it has no markings and is as you said an early model we can assume that it is a pre production test variant
36:00 as a WoT player, I have to wonder if you’ve played WoT. Modules exist in WoT almost the same as how I understand them in BFV (I haven’t played the game so idk for sure) where your tank has HP but getting hit in a certain spot can cause damage to modules and crew. In WoT, for the modules, you have tracks, engine, viewports, gun, turret ring, ammo rack, and fuel tanks.
When it comes to the sand bags, i have always heard the same from the elders, the shell goes right through, but the sand bags we’re just to stop any ricocheting machine gun rounds or fragmentation into the troops on, to the side, back or front of the tank.
I think they also used them to try and stop machine gun fire from being loud af and also effecting the electronics. Something rarer in Shermans but still very much possible. The electronics issues would however massively effect panzers more..
31:32 The British tested the solution with magazines, but after the tests it turned out that the soldier reloaded only slightly faster, but he paid with mobility and the number of ammunition, as a 10-round magazine weighed more than two cartridges with 5 bullets in each. This meant that the soldier had less ammunition, moved slower and carried more weight. To sum up, it was better to use 5-round cartridges than to replace the entire magazines
Kinda refreshing hearing someone talk positively about Battlefield V, it's FAR from perfect. But it's still a fun game, and retains that cinematic battlefield energy in it somewhere despite all its flaws.
very cool video, and pretty interesting to listen to; enjoy the sub. i have a single gripe that i wanted to comment on: you mentioned that the german and american armies frowned upon shoving random stuff on the tank, but that's kind of semi-untrue from what I know both the germans and americans independently conducted studies on what happened when you strapped things like logs, sandbags and tracks to your tanks for 'additional protection', and it was found that they didn't do anything at all, and sometimes even made the problem worse (in the case of tracks), as you said. however, in the case of americans (idk about the germans, but i assume it'd be the same), they didn't really tell the crews that, and allowed them to put things like logs, sandbags and tracks on their tanks like that because it gave the crews peace of mind. they didn't tell them that it was useless, but it made the crews feel better about being in those tanks, so they allowed them to have it just so they'd perform better. i believe the british /did/ frown upon it though. so, it wasn't exactly frowned upon for the sole reason that it helped the crews mentally with how they felt about being in that tank. of course, they didn't tell the tank crews it wasn't helpful, and the average infantryman on either side wouldn't have known either, so when they see this tank covered in sandbags, they're probably going to shit themselves a little bit more - tank enthusiasts weren't really a thing back then, so noone knew this stuff. it's pretty interesting to delve into nicher topics like this in regards of tanks in my opinion, which is why i know this. might be inaccurate here and there, in which case, someone correct me please
Make a pt2 with the “light vehicles” of the game ie Staghound, 38(t), Greyhound. Also include the exclusive faction tanks you can earn throughout the match.
As the only fan of the Churchill gun carrier in existence, I must admit to nobody in particular that I was very excited to see it in a mainstream game spotlight.
So the reason for all the re-used hulls and chassis' was cause DICE just wanted to save money on making lots of unique vehicle models, so they basically recycled as many as they could. This is why we have so many variants of the same chassis or tank hull in game. This is why they chose the StuG-IV cause it has the same chassis as the Panzer IV, and thus saved them money (i mean if you're gonna use a Panzer IV hull, use the Jagdpanzer IV if anything!). And even created some non-realistic hybrids like the Valentine AA (which is literally a Crusader AA Turret on top of a valentine hull).
Dude your into is so slick, I know I talk about it all the time but… I just can’t help myself. Also you started with the British first so you get my thumbs up! ;)
@@eta320 You certainly did, and I appreciate it, despite the frankly bizarre selection of vehicles on offer here! I actually also really enjoyed the Enfield section, it was a great little change of pace to break up the video. Well done sir!
I found this video randomly and my goodness this has been quite the watch! Absolutely love your enthusiasm!!! BFV has been one of my few favorite games as well as tanks in general! You've notched a lot in detail and I also learned a lot too!
Otto Carius talks about the early Tiger models in his book "Tigers in the mud". He talks about how the early Tigers commanders cupola had a hatch that flipped up instead of rotating out. He talked about the disadvantages of that hatch and how it made their profile/silhouette even taller and made for a pretty easy target to take out vehicle commanders. Pretty interesting book if you're into tanks and ww2 history.
I really love your chanel, im from Brazil and I don't ever meet someone here that also likes tanks like me... some friends says that I have "tank fetish" because in every game that have a tank... this will be the first thing that I'm gonna rush to have/buy/steal...
Sand bags should work against HEAT grenades, like from the Bazooka or Panzerfaust. The Germans put the side skirts onto some of their tanks primarily to protect the weak sides against anti tank rifles, but again, they also work against HEAT.
I have never really been that interested tanks, but I am really enjoying your longer videos, so keep up the good work, you deserve all the attention this vid is getting!
The imagery of someone reloading a gun and as they pull a new magazine out, insert it, and chamber a new round, all the cartridges (or casings, in this case) are just flying out is hilarious.
the fact a Sherman with the stubby 75 can damage the Tiger 1 in the game, it makes my skin crawl and my mind race as it is incredibly aggrevating, as it was just not possible.
Eastern Front was gonna be added, but it got canceled. This makes me so sad. I imagine something like Stalingrad, Kursk (Prokhorovka), Kiev, and Smolensk, using the Mosin, PPSh-41, DP-27, the T-34, T-26, KV-1, or IS-2 with the BFV mechanics. Could’ve been some of the best shit ever.
Honestly the Tiger 1 model is really cursed. It's an amalgamation of the early production and late production Tiger 1 and just ends up looking like the Tigers used by Kampfgruppe Fehrmann.
The sandbags that were added onto tanks actually helped more with artillery shrapnel, shaped charges and mine blast protection (Some crews put sandbags on the hull floor). And the sandbags were quite effective against the 14.5x114mm anti-tank rifles the Soviets were quite fond of, since the hull sides were vulnerable to them in an ambush. Pretty much the same effect as the Schutzen plates on the sides.
People still think panzer skirts were made for shaped charge ammunition but in reality they didn't do anything against shaped charge ammunition because the metal was too thin to set off the charges.
I’ll admit I didn’t notice it during the recording, but yes, the tank in BFV seems to have the body of a Mk III or V, and the turret of the VII. Actually quite cursed
15:42 As cool as it would be to think that they did their research for a largely unknown model of the StuG, I have to say that I think it was an attempt at streamlining production of the model for the game based on how the British tanks are just Valentine and Churchill variants.(Except for the Staghound of course)
Bit of historical context, When it comes down to Japan adding more armor would have left their tanks being suck in soft terrain, which is often why they were lightly armored, most tanks in engagements were usually the Stuart at best. You did see some M24 and Shermans weren't as common as the Stuart were. So as they years go bye, there later war tanks were designed to engage at range rather than closer quarters like there Infantry support tanks.
If you ever do Enlisted, you will find that all tanks have some kind of Anti-Tank round or Anti-Infantry round, some tanks can get AP and HE others can get HEAT and HE, the game has Germans, Russians, Americans, Italians, and the British as playable factions, and I do believe that the game has the Lee Einfield No. 4. It has 6 campaigns: Battle of Moscow, Battle of Tunisia, Battle of Stalingrad, Pacific War, Battle of Normandy, and Battle of Berlin.
I really liked this video with all the information you shared people learn even more than a traditional history lesson about WW2. I hope you will do a Battlefield 1 tank reaction in the future!
@Eta320 about 8:42 small correction: the word "Panzer" in german means something like an armored Shell, or Carapace , Tanks are called "Panzer" in german because the basically are an armored outer shell
From my understanding, the full phrase is “Panzerkampfwagen” which roughly translates to “armored fighting vehicle” with the Panzer being the armored part, as you say an ‘outer shell.’ Since Panzerkampfwagen is a bit of a mouthful, even for Germans, they just shortened it and referred to them as Panzers. And as this shorthand became more and more popular, it eventually just took on the whole meaning. I’ve spoken to a few native Germans who all say that “Panzer” is their word for tank in todays German language. (Now that I think about you could also be a native German so I apologize if it sounds like I’m speaking down to you lol)
You’re correct, it was a slip up on my part. Although the British developed their own Flame Sherman’s, those are the ones with the trailers, and I do believe the British called those crocodiles. But the US built flame Sherman’s were Zippos
I love battlefield 5 it’s just that I’m disappointed because they didn’t add somethings such as the Panzer 3, the Crusader, the M3 Grant (for the UK) and the M3 Lee (for the US), the Hummel, the M7 Priest, the M8 (the tank not the wheeled armoured car), a French faction or even an Italian faction, maybe more maps like Caen, Operation Torch, Sicily, Anzio (because there are tank camouflages named Anzio), a map in the Ardennes, Burma, Guadalcanal, the Type 1 Medium tank “Che-He”, Saipan, maybe Aircraft Carrier battles like in Battlefield 4, and more…
Considering your name I’m surprised you didn’t mention the lack of any USSR tanks. I also share your dissatisfaction with the small choice of tanks in this game. But as I asked myself what other tanks I wanted to see I also realized I was asking for every tank that’s ever existed. I had to promptly remind myself that this isn’t War Thunder.
@@eta320 Well I didn’t name anything of the USSR because it would be too cliché, I also really doubt that Dice and EA would want to add the Eastern Front to one of their WW2 games, I mean they did it with Bf 1942 but they mainly used the British equipment in that game and due to the fact it was a very brutal front in the war where there was little mercy shown to the enemy. And it may have started a controversy about if the Nazis we’re better than the Soviets or vice versa… But I would also appreciate it if they did add the Eastern Front because for me it is very interesting. But considering the fact that Dice and EA are really big companies and that Battlefield is know to have a lot of DLCs which I wouldn’t mind to buy if they included stuff like that. And since EA is a multibillionaire company they could have funded a little bit more money for the game. But nonetheless I still love Battlefield 5 for it is a good battlefield experience, sure there are some inaccuracies and more but I think it was all worth for the gameplay.
@@History_Nurd I do agree CoD WaW made the best depictions of the Eastern Front which I really liked but I doubt EA would make it a good depiction out of it.
@10:25 Im not sure if Germans really put extra armour to protect from tank shells, think they knew that it wouldn't help against large calibre tank shells. They were more interested in stopping the Russian Anti-tank rifles, namely PTRS-41. Almost all German tanks were vulnerable from the sides by this thing, that's why they came up with the schurzen (side skirts in hull/turret) and fitted almost all of their medium tanks with it, PZ IV's and Panthers mainly. Funny, most people have this misconception that the skirts were developed to stop HEAT type of shells which is wrong. Their only function was to give just enough protection to stop the AT rifle bullets. The small skirt was enough to absorb energy off the bullet and make it "tumble" so it wouldn't pen the main armour.
another reason why threaded barrels work better for hesh (i found out from another video) is that because of the spin, the explosive paste gets spread out more
Id like to point out another thing BFV gets wrong on the Chi-Nu at 26:24. The marking on the side of the turret is highly inaccurate as it was actually the tail markings of the 85th Sentai, 2nd Chutai Air Division in the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force. It was never used for tanks and it still bugs me to this day lmao
As someone who greatly enjoyed BFV from beta, launch, all the way until they stopped support for it (at peak hype, mind you) it brings me great joy to hear of someone finding love for the game, even after a bad first impression.
Thank you RU-vid for recommending me yet another random video that made me quite like, bit saddening to not see any talk of the others like the Wirbelwind, LVT, etc. Hopeful for a part 2.
A point about flamethrowers on the Sherman: The variant with the turret mounted flamethrower was incredibly rare and saw (as far as I know) only limited service in the pacific theatre of WW2 but mainly later in the Korean war, yet somehow it made its way into mainstream WW2 games, maybe thanks to Company of Heroes (and because it looks cool). The other variant where the flamethrower replaced the hull machinegun carried the flame fuel internally. The variant with the fuel trailer had an externally mounted hull flamethrower - this conversion was done by the British for the Americans, the trailer was the same as used with the Churchill Crocodile.
I love the fact that japan designed stuff in the Interwar period that were really ahead of their time. I mean there was the Kaga and the Akagi aircraft carriers, completely finished in 1936, and their carriying capacity was comparable to the american's Essex class. I am not sure if it's counted with American vs Japanese planes (Since Japanese planes, especially the ones used on said carriers, lacked proper foldable wings, they took up more space than American planes, despite the size difference), because if that is the case, Kaga could get have an even better capacity. Like, Kaga was laid down in 1921, and if she was to survive, in an optional scenario, she could pretty much end up serving in the '50s. She also had better armor, torpedo protection and armament than contemporary carriers, and her speed, while not good, it was sufficient. I'm pretty sure she could not be upgraded like the Essex class, due to her high superstructure, an angled flight deck would make her top heavy and unstable. Anyways, there was the Shokaku class too, which was designed to literally be better than Kaga and faster than Hiryu (Hiryu was relatively smaller in all aspects, but she was very speedy, even faster than her sister, Soryu).........That did not happen. the first ship to actually majorly outclass her could have been Yamato-class Shinano. a 69 Thousand Ton Aircraft Carrier built from an unfinished Yamato-class hull, Shinano was too finished as a Battleship to actually be rebuilt properly in time (Since by that point Kaga has been sunk in Midway, and Japan was on the defensive). She was nearly finished, when she was moved out to be completely finished in another port, while carrying 47 suicide craft as cargo, but on the way she was sunk by a submarine, USS Archerfish. Since she was never properly finished, most sources will say that her full capacity was 47 aircraft, but that is pretty much falsified by her sheer size. I would say a 100 planes could be carried on her, and nearly 150-160 if she was properly rebuilt. All I'm trying to say, is that If only Japanese tank production went as well as their ships, then god damn, maybe the Weeabos would be a force to reckon with the Wehraboos.
25:10 Japan didn't have an airforce branch separate from army/navy. Army and navy had their own airforce kinda like the US. 26:00 the sherman killer idea as the Type 3 Chi-Nu wasn't towards the end of the war but as the name would suggest 1943. Granted they never saw combat because they held them back on the main island. Also something to mention here is that both Chi-Nu turrets would've been fit on the Type 1 Chi-He hull, not the Chi-Ha (which results in a slightly goofy look ingame because the turret looks too big for the hull). Japan didn't just stop tank development after the 30s and then resumed 45 way too late, already 1939 after the battle of Khalkhin gol against the soviets they realised the issue with the old 57mm gun, which would lead to the Chi-Ha Kai (Shinhoto Chi-Ha) and the previously mentioned Chi-He, latter also being up-armored and with a bunch of other improvements. The main issue in all of this was just the allocation of materials, not that Japan never thought of updating their designs before the Sherman showed up.
@@eta320 no worries :) maybe something to mention in a part 2. Japanese tanks (well any of their equipment) can be a bit tricky to research with lost records, wrong Intel during the war and myths post war, goes as far as entire books being based on misunderstood documents and wrong reports because of the limited access to the actual Japanese documents.
I would assume the reason for the mishmashed Sherman is that the designers probably used different Sherman reference photos for the sides and front and rear
The reason they had the Stug IV instead of the III is the same reason the Crusader SPAA was replaced with imaginary Valentine chasis SPAA. Laziness. They where too lazy to create a new model and it was easier to just copy paste the chasis of an existing one.
One more way I can see them excusing the sprockets is considering how the US Army was with Logistics it could have been those were replacement sprockets still not a good answer and doesn't excuse the direct Vision ports. Also, the coaxial flamethrower with 105 is for when your standard assault gun tank does not have enough assault for you
A note on the Sherman sprocket type. It could be explained away just by saying that the crew once the original sprockets where worn out, they pilfered a set from a broken down sherman that was of Chrysler production. Or it was their mechanics in the back line doing it either way.
Something that would have been completely broken is if they had the chi-ha LG Just drop a Navy gun onto a chi-ha haul make the whole double the size and give it a I think double engine and nothing survives
