Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 1 

Wow, no comments on this. Surprising. Hai Chieftan 🤗

Oh geez these olllllld videos

Jacob i was in Leopard tank

than fire mike

It never fails, even though you addressed the issue. There are still quite a few people, that still had to comment/complain about it.....

I'm interviewing him again on the WoT channel in a month.

Then, the grunt would leave the phone off the hook and the phone would get ripped off so tankers wouldn't have to deal with it after that.... Till PMCS, then the TC would get yelled at.

Jagdtiger hey

Indeed!! LoVe it!!

Oh, I imagine Wargaming cuts cost whenever they can.

The cheiften could do it himself. Its simple

It obviously isn't...

People have recorded themselves for a long time. Just get a Phone, and a good suction stand. Cheaper, but less effective.

Editor was a tomato

+Achatius1982 And he did all the editing on a potato.

+PaTROLLer Still sounds like it was recorded 100 years ago, not 4.

+Achatius1982 This is a mic issue.

Ilkka Karvinen yea it is so bad

The reason for the range improvement is 1. The 1790 diesel engine, this engine The coolers (both engine and transmission in stall on upper engine housing) the original 1790 engine (gasoline fueled with carbators) had the oil coolers mounted one on each the side of the engine assembly , each cooler were over 3 feet high and projected over 2 feet into the engine compartment, 2. The auxiliary generator was eliminated, this allowed the redesigning of fuel tanks (two per engine compartment , lift and right sides) to more than double the fuel capacity..or go from 90 miles to 300 miles..of course on an improved road! Across county your mileage goes to he'll and fuel consumption out of sight!..do-da-day!

AHAHHAHA

Play at 0,5 speed for maximum effect

+Tetsugiri Kun thats a smelly one

Ironic thing is your able to clearly hear that over all the static

Tetsugiri Kun XD

true. but everything else is AWESOME! that made up for the poor sound for me =]

but tht fart at 11:52 though xD

Tetsugiri Kun Who did it, that is the question.

+Leonard White it's pretty good. the armor is decent and heavily protected. but the gun elevation is not that great. once you get the top tier gun, then you'll dish out the damage that you want every 11 to 8 seconds (depending on how well your crew is trained).

i also heard that it has no armor on its belly so every time one drives over an ied it gets totaly fucked.... i also heard that after it drives over an ied and gets fucked that its rather hard for the crew to get out..... apart from that i havnt heard anything important regarding the abrams.

cocodog13 and you heard wrong...

jwenting Gun has to be traversed for the driver to get out....Theyre not mine proof at all, not a lot of crew injuries but they get knocked out...Thing is, every damaged abrams hull is rehashed into a new tonk so very few (exactly 1 purchased from the egyptians) have made it into private hands....Just what I read dont know if its 100% fact.

locknloadvideo "not mine proof" isn't the same as "having no armour at the bottom"... Nothing is mine proof, depending on the size of the blast. And no amount of armour plating will prevent a track being blown off.

jwenting I think it has more to do with the low ground clearance and squareness off the belly armor...More than just tracks lots of cracked hulls and split joints ect I think...I agree not trying to get into an arguement just trying to learn more about the abrams. It is poorly designed for groundborne threats.

its 2012 video what did you expect

Not a potato

"Smoke" is how it is announced in the fire command. "Gunner, Smoke, Troops In The Open" Result = crispy critters

Just need to stop swallowing the mic.

...and that hair!

When the M103 went to field tests with the U.S. Army (1954) they came back with list of 180 defects they were not happy about, one of which was there was no turret basket and the loaders had to fallow the gun around. The Army wanted to dump this project very badly . However the congressional over-sight committee said no way are you going to dump over 200 of these vehicles and the orders to make this vehicle operation was handed to the USMC. By 1957 the Marines had produced a workable heavy tank (M103 A1), it worked so well the Army took 80 some of them and shipped them to Europe and formed a Heavy tank unit, by 1963 the upgraded rebuild (diesel powered refitted rangefinder) M103 A2s were coming off the rebuild lines . As a footnote Ken Estes retired as a LtCol, and I know him very well, I should I built engines and trans for his tanks.

+Ole Sleepy I know I'm late by over a year, but that's amazing! You should contact him and have a chat sometimes.

It's not going to be a very extensive video since the T30 was just a prototype.

yes t30 was a prototype. With 3 made. But not put into production. They made 3 T30's, 1 T29, 1 T32, and 1 T34. T32 and T34 wore tore apart for parts all 3 T30's still exist and the T29 does as well. www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=353