The most important thing about the locust is that since it can be transported by air you could drop it on enemy tanks. This increases its anti-tank effectiveness by at least 200%
4:33 "Having forgotten he was in the tank, they discovered poor chieftain the next morning, cold, stuck contorted and babbling and ranting on about how Shermans are much easier to get out. With the help of some staff, some crispy bacon and a promise that he can go in the Abrams, the Chieftain is now recovering fast - although an advert 'Wanted: Short person, for slight physical work' has circulated"
Honestly, anyone of "modern size" will be uncomfortable in WW2 armor. Most of the vehicles I dealt with, I could not close the driver's hatch, with the seat fully lowered. I am 6' even.
True Ballew, but I met Chieftain at Tankfest and is above me by quite a margin - I'm 6ft (well, 5 ft 11 and a half grr). And indeed Fryer, shorter people do tend to be assigned more to certain roles...An ex RN sailor told me all harrier pilots are short arses because if you weren't and had to pull the ejector seat lever you'd leave your knees behind
*THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE A PLANE AND A PARA SHOOT SO THEY CAN DROP SHERMANS STRAIGHT INTO COMBAT!!!!!!!!!* Enough with the combustible lemons, para shooting Shermans is the next step!
...Meanwhile, in War Thunder, the angry swarms of the these buggers are a mythical plague that comes and punishes tier V and VI tanks for their sins every forth-match on a particular night when things go horribly wrong.
In WoT when you could fail platoon a Tier X team brought one of these in on the first iteration of Murovanka. The Locust went to yolo thru the magic forest and was weaving in and out of the enemy tanks with several tanks shooting each other in the process and one red even managed to do a TK. He kept the reds lit up until he was finally ram killed. He was the only tank we lost that match when 14-0 blow outs were extremely rare.
I know someone that has an M22 in his garage. Still runs and everything. I've been in it, and it's obviously cramped. As far as I know, it's not listed amount known survivors, since he restored it from a junk yard. Edit: btw, the barrel is just a steel pipe and the turret was removed last I saw it.
@@young_gorilla4370 Yep. I think he's sold it to a museum since I posted this. (He's like 85+ and doesn't want his kids to have to deal with moving tanks around after he passes)
There is something about him disappearing inside the Locust, hear the microphone being rubbed all about, expecting to hear something along the lines of I'm stuck, to hearing the squeaking of the driver's hatch lifing up to see him sitting somehow seemingly comfortably. Tickles a funny bone too much.
I think the noises when he was inside were the result of the wireless mic disconnecting and vis versa. Doesnt seem very narrow in there hence the thin armor and small gun breach
The British during varsity used it. I think there were about 7-8 used. They put in them in gliders and glided them in. They all pretty much failed and I think only 2 made it to actual combat in the field (might’ve only been one). I do know one got slapped by a Panther, that has to be war crime
OK, so yes, you fit in the tank, or I guess we could assume the tank fit on YOU.... I really expected you to stand on the turret and pull the tank on like a pair of trousers. Walking around the museum wearing it like some militant Fred Flintstone in his foot powered car.
The M22 Locust looks like a great light tank for doing recon in force. The problem is, the U.S. already had the M5 Stuart and the M24 was being deployed at the end of the war, so how did the M22 compare -- as a tank -- to the M24?
It was faster and smaller, though, it was far less modern. It had an okayish gun, but it would leave much to be desired. I think it could have been used as a "stealth" scouting unit, essentially just running around and spotting the enemies while remaining undected. I would still pick the Chaffee over it, though
It wasn't at all comparable. It had much weaker armor and gun. Closer to an M5. But it was air transportable, that was the entire point. A poor tank is better than no tank, just like airborne units using the 37mm AT gun after others stopped using it. A more powerful tank is useless for airborne troops because they have no way to get it in. It's like comparing a light tank to a PT-76. The light tank is better in every way as a combat tank, but it can't float in water. If you really need that ability, then it's worth the compromise. But you would be foolish to try to replace the tank with the PT-76.
I feel like they could have replaced the gun with a recoilless rifle without to much hassle.(cut a slot in the back of the turret and extend the back of the rifle out the slot to keep the crew safe)
They tried that with a number of tanks and it usually failed for many reasons, mostly because the backblast will kill any friendly troops near you, is extremely visible and raises a huge cloud of dust, how do you reload it, and how do you cut a big slot in the back of the turret without making the tank extremely vulnerable to enemy fire? For that matter, how do you cut the slot so the breech can drop far enough to elevate the gun to any meaningful elevation? If you're going to do that, do what the Japanese did and just don't use a turret, and mount the guns remotely controlled on top of the hull. It didn't work well for them anyway, for the reasons already mentioned. It's hard to make sure the area behind you is clear when you fire.
The M22 Locust is one of my favorite tanks! Okay, not because of any military value of combat record, but because of the engineering problems they tried to solve. I came frustratingly close to buying an M22 hull years ago. You must admit it would be cool to have a tank parked in the carport, and the Locust is light enough to be "easy" to transport. (More trucks can handle 7 tons than handle 30 tons.). Yes, I would love a longer looks at optics, track, track tension, gearbox, steering, cross country performance, etc., so a second video would be welcome. But hey, it is the Locust, and I'll take anything I can get!
Im thinking Locust was done on purpose. Think it was ment as a "small tank alone, lonely grasshopper that isnt much danger, small tank in a group, locust swarm that can strip a field bare in minutes."
The only thing more amazing than how easily he can fit in this is that he *could* have told us about the track tensioning system, but *didn't* for whatever reason.
Since I'm hear early I've got a question for the Chieftan. Do you think the M3 Medium would have been better if the turret had been omitted and it was essentially deployed as an Ameri-StuG?
Probably more efficient, but I don't know if it would have been much better. Of interest, I think in the Pacific, it was probably better than it would have been with just the 75.
Good point, I remember hearing (I think from another one of your videos) that the Canister rounds actually did do good work in jungles (I remember something about the Aussies using them all the way through vietnam) and the turret gun could still pierce japanese armor.
Some years ago, WoT had a design your own American tank competition. Even though I didn't enter the competition, I sketched a designed for an assault gun based on the M3 Chassis that I called the M23 "Pickett". At sort of looked like a cross between the Stug and the ARL V39. With the design I theorized you might accommodate a slightly larger gun by using one central hull mount. This wasn't based off of engineering, rather wishful thinking.
So the Tank Destroyer M9 in other words, better known to the WoT crowd as the T40. Ordnance thought it was too slow for the job. Of course, you could also take that M9 design and slap a 105mm gun on it (because go big or go home) and you get an M7 Priest, which was very widely used and successful.
As soon as I read the title I thought "Oh but can he fit?!" I could not have been happier! Since the museum opens tomorrow you should stay in the tank and scare small children.
Operation Varsity; the two Locusts that got into position with an infantry company attracted a bunch of artillery fire. Eventually, those two tanks left and things went back to 'normal' such as it were.
hey, thats pretty cool! i was actually at the american heritage museum this last weekend as a reeinactor for the "battle for the airfield" event that is put on annually. the locust has previously been in the battle for years with the British para driving it around. (if you look up previous years you can see it in action, you might also see myself on the 88mm flak gun that takes it out during the battle)
Chivalry never dies, so I've no doubt that the German soldiers would've gladly waited for your C-54 to land, and then for the troops to disembark, and detach the tank and install its turret, and warm it up a bit, and make sure it's systems are all working ok, before they began firing at you. Its only common courtesy!
Now, THAT'S a sound I haven't heard in a long time: the metallic clang of a human banging around inside a vehicle. Now... try it again wearing your gear... Last year, I got into a M113A1 at the Museum of the American G.I. in College Station, TX and could barely contort myself to go through the crew compartment and into the T.C. hatch. When I was a spry young man I did that, wearing full web-gear, every week.
For the same weight you could have 2-3 wheeled guns and heaps of ammo, 20 bazookas, heaps more ammo, more food, more medical supplies, even more ammo, and a dozen exotic dancers.
Your thoughts - Locust vs the Tetrarch. Both had similar functions, so I'd be interested in you doing an ITCH on both of them but I'd also like to just hear your opinions on the two
I've been to this museum, a very fun and interesting experience! Definitely worth visiting. Especially on those special occasions where they drive the tanks around. One thing that I really like is their rare pieces, but I won't spoil those. But anyway if you decide to go, enjoy your time there, and take in some history.
I was expecting some banging and clattering along with muffled muttering for comedy effect when getting in to the tank. A missed comedy opportunity there I think.
I found a website which archives a lot of old 1920s and 30s magazine articles. I actually read one published around WWII referencing the concept behind this tank, and even mentioned Walter Christie.
Three man crew. TC/loader. I see a problem there. Here's another case where I have to wonder why NO ONE put a Bofors 40mm in a tank turret. A chain-gun would be ideal but even if you needed to load 4 round clips this would be a better option.
Voron Agrrav Which begs an important question: how close were decent tanks to the airfield in question? If (intelligence thinks) they’re reasonably far away then you might be able to make it work. If they’re close, it’s a bad risk. If intelligence was wrong, you’re FUBAR. Best to give them to the Brits.
@@Imbeachedwhale intelligence has proven to be Quite wrong from time to time, Whoopsy we ran face first into a Fully equipped SS Battalion that intelligence classified as a Light garrison
Personally I think the threat of dropping a tank behind the lines is a more effective weapon than the tank itself. I mean yeah running into Stugs in this thing would be bad but the Germans would have to keep tanks guarding airfields far behind their front lines. I doubt the information exists anymore but it would be interesting to see how much the Germans reacted to the threat in comparison to the threat itself. I mean there only seems to be positives from these. If you face no tanks, you run amuck. If you face tanks then that draws tanks away from the front and it’s still better than not having the locust and just letting the german tanks run amuck.
Due to a failure of C3ISR (and pretty much everything else) this method of deployment was tried by the Germans in Norway. Two transports were destroyed, the rest aborted. A small number of fighters, to help the transports, did this and dismounted their rear machine guns, and changed MOS to infantry. This was not regarded as a good way to seize an airfield.
Having seen Mr Fletchers 5 worst tanks, I conclude the British didn’t have the monopoly on bad ideas, a Bren carrier is more effective. Did it ever fight. They did persist, ultimately producing the Sheridan 551, which was dropped and pulled out the back of the Hercules.
Then had to be quietly abandoned because all the gun sights had been banjaxed and were useless and if they hadnt been damaged in the drop they certainly would be the first time the gun fired. The only time they were ever used that way, on an unopposed landing against the Panamanians quarter of the force was lost through sinking on landing.
Hey Mr. Moran, I was there on Saturday for the morning battle for the airfield, and I saw you there. That was cool, and I just wanted to say that I love your content and wish all of your endeavors to succeed. I was in a hurry though and didn't really know what to say. But now I do. Now I have a question. Which were less reliable overall: WW2 French tanks, or WW2 German tanks?
