I was an M60 Tank Crewman in the US Marine Corps back in the eighties. I never went to war but was ready if sent. I am 55 now and still have my tank manuals that were issued to me in Tank School at Fort Knox which is where Marines and Army personnel use to be sent to Tank School. The M1 Abrams Tank came out and was issued to the Army in 1980 but I never saw one while I was in Tank School. Fact is when I got out in 1986 I had never seen one but they were being issued out as fast as they could. I loved being an M60 Tanker better than being in Motor Transportation. Yes I had two MOS.
You must be combat arms (grin). War Story Time. When I was a young Eltee, our First Sergeant had started out 20 plus years earlier on M47's. The Assistant Driver was where you always put the new guy. He said his TC told him he had three jobs to do and if he failed, the Wrath of God would descend upon him 1) Maintain the bow gun so it fired when the TC told him to 2) Maintain the Little Joe (auxiliary engine) so it ran when it was needed 3) Most important of all, maintain the tank heater so it put out the BTU's at night (the tank heater on US tanks was a combustion heater that, in my experience, was notoriously difficult to keep running and spare parts for which did not exist). Outside of that, he was the understudy for the driver and assisted him in maintaining the running gear and power pack. The next step up was Loader / Radio Operator. Then the last year or so of your first enlistment, you moved into the Driver's Seat. Following your re-up and promotion to sergeant, you became the Gunner. If the TC was absent (getting orders, leaders recon, etc), the Gunner became the acting TC and was responsible for maintenance and resupply to be ready to move out when the TC returned. Towards the last year of your second enlistment, you made staff sergeant and moved to the Platoon Leader's or Platoon Sergeant's tank as the gunner because the PL and PSG were responsible for the whole unit and needed someone to take charge of their tanks (The PL would often be getting orders or doing a recon, which meant the PSG had to supervise the platoon in getting ready to conduct the next operation) Finally, after a year or so of this, the glorious day would finally come and you would become a Tank Commander with your very own tank and crew. That's when your problems really began....
As to why the 90mm breech operating handle was so difficult and dangerous for the loader to operate, he didn't. The handle was to be used by the TC and more often than not he stood up and used his foot on the handle because of the powerful spring pushing up the breech block. Add to the force of the spring the round in the chamber often became stuck effectively locking the breech block closed (up). Ive seen TCs having to jump on the handle to open it then using the Rammer/Extractor tool to try to remove the round, failing that having to use a bell rammer and hammering the round out from the muzzle, not a fun day for the TC as it was his job to catch the round as it came out of the breech.
Eyo, I apologize for the thread necro but if you've actually served in an M47 could you please answer a question for me: Could the M47 fire it's gun with a depression of less than -5 degrees. The manuals, and several images, show that the M47 could depress it's gun to -10 degrees but I've also heard that firing the gun at lower depression was somehow "dangerous". Thank you for your time.
The Crimson Fucker well I would expect the gun to hit the roof of the turret at that point, if it fired. That’d probably be why it was dangerous. The ejection of the spent round may have also been a bit unpredictable from higher up.
This is what I think of when I hear tank. I was a military brat in the Vietnam era. We had toy M47 tanks & my grade school even had a stripped M47 on the playground. The hatches & most everything was removed, I presume so kids couldn't lock themselves in, and it was pretty much a bare hull but boy was it fun to play on.
Very nice video. I think why the gunners controls had the left mg, main gun and right mg selection was possibly due to the whole T41,42 and 43 series of tanks (M41, M47 and M103) and its goals of some sort of parts comparability. I've read that early M103s actually had 2 coaxial machineguns.
@Oggy Same reason they couldn't get German planes for Dunkirk and had to use large RC models, not as many remaining and those that have them are loathe to give them up
True stereo vision range-finders, where you adjust the target forward and back in seeming distance from you with your control until it seems to be directly between two notches etched into the lens, adjusts the entire view, target and background. The coincidence range-finder cuts the view in half horizontally and you adjust one side until some vertical edge of the target is lined up perfectly into one line. True stereo works under all conditions and is more accurate, BUT many people have impaired visual acuity and do not know it since their brain automatically uses the size of things to measure distance, which works almost all the time in regular life, but NOT with the stereo kind of range-finder. The British always used coincidence range-finders for their naval warships since WWI as "good enough" (which is correct for slow-firing naval guns that use spotted fire and then correct the next aim to supplement the range-finder inputs), but the US Navy always used true stereo range-finders (they had a larger number of people to select from, I assume). I know of no case where this made much difference in slow-firing, multi-salvo naval battles, but it might in a "first hit wins" tank battle.
Concerning the pro and cons of stereoscopic versus coincidence range-finders, this was a big deal in naval gun cross-turret (as with the M47) and elevated gun director range-finders, since they were very much needed at the huge naval gun battle ranges in post-1900 warships (26,000 yards was the longest-range hit known, but lots in the 10-20,000 yard range interval). When you lost range-finders, you became almost helpless. Stereo range-finders worked in all weather and even at night as long as you could see any part of the target. but, as noted, you had to have very good TRUE stereo vision (many people simply use how big things are to get distances at any real range and this is good enough for most purposes, but not long-range naval gunnery!!) to use it properly, so the number of of crewmen capable of this were limited. US and German warships in WWI and WWII, however, used it exclusively. The coincidence type used by the British exclusively and by some other navies sometimes, sliced the image horizontally with the upper half being from one eye and the lower half being from the other. All the user had to do was line them up to form a single complete image without a zig in the middle. It turns out that you really need sharp-edged vertical lines in the target to be able to do this properly, since the angles in the range-finders were so tiny at any long range that even a slight zig messed up the range considerably. Thus, coincidence range-finders lacked accuracy in anything but optimum viewing conditions, which most definitely were rare in naval battles (weather, smoke, waves, the ship tilting due to pitch and role, vibration from the engines at full power, etc.). Thus, while stereo systems could give you good ranges (with good people using them) at all times that the target was in view, you usually used coincidence range-finders to get a "close-enough" first approximation to fire at the target and relied on spotters correcting your shell splashes from then on, with the range-finders being reduced to backup duty. In a tank with very flat-trajectory fire, a coincidence system would probably work at all but the longest ranges.
I watched this video for the second time tonight because I had been reading about their use during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, by the Croatians in particular, and some by the Bosnians as well. Yugoslavia received 320 of the vehicles between ca. 1952 and 1953 when Eisenhower was worried the Sovs. would invade due to a tiff between Stalin and Tito. All they said about the use of the tanks was that they "performed poorly" compared to crews equipped with the T-54/ T-55. I suspect that this was partly because of the relative complexity of the M-47's fairly sophisticated fire control system and stereoscopic range finder (especially for its day) as compared with the much simpler one on the T-54/ T-55. "Flying the Geese" no doubt took some skill, practice and patience to get the best results out of it. Also, the loader's cramped position probably slowed down the rate of fire. Otherwise the vehicle could have fairly easily defeated any of the T-54/55 vehicles in the hands of a good crew as the 90mm gun could penetrate any of those vehicles' frontal arc. In '92-'95 Croatian and Bosnian crews would not have had the luxury to train in the conditions of the war, so we're unfamiliar with the vehicles, most of which had been in storage for years.
The loader's safety switch can be used to fire the main gun too. The gunner gets on target and mashes the trigger, and as soon as the gun is up and the loader clear, the loader switches to "fire" and the gun goes BOOM. This can cut a second or so off your engagement time. (ex 3d armored cav gunner)
at least twice Wile watching your video I said the word "your amazing" you are absolutely amazing with your knowledge your ability to speak so well and your opinions and points of view… I've never seen this tank in real life but after watching you describe it this is better than if I was really there. Why because your amazing , thanks for the video
Just saw this video. Very informative. The .50 cal co-ax was not really for defense. It was part of an early sighting/ranging system that fired a marking bullet of some sort . When it hit the target, the round disintegrated in a white cloud, you knew you were on target. My dad served in those old Pattons in the Guard. I remember him complaining about how hard they were to see from inside a tank at any distance, and nobody used them, so they were usually removed.
Watched this again today,thought of something funny that happened in fall of 1957.I was assigned to C company 123d Ordnance Bn 1st AD. We were assigned the job of processing a bunch of these M47 tanks for long term storage.Lots of processing,but one day a rather large SSG was working in the turret and the tank caught on fire.The SSG popped out the loaders hatch like a jack in the box landed with both feet on top of turret,then down the side of the tank.We did not time him but we called him speedy for while.Funny now.
The one remaining T-28 / 95 is at Ft. Benning, without it's outer Tracks. no idea if anyone has been inside it since it was moved to Ft. Knox after it was discovered at Ft. Belvoir. If there is a good video, and story in it, and one asked ever so nicely, the Curator at Benning might allow Chieftain to pay a visit.
they did provide some armour protection but the tracks provided the movement thru the water..still inial landing across the beach provided some protection plus a modified tank turret added extra firepower against strong points.
@memikel Another reason for the breech operating handle on the right side: When you open the breech with the handle it is important to move the handle back into the normal position. If you forgot this, the handle will be beat back when the loader put a cartridge into the gun. If the handle is on the left side it will hurt the loader.
A great thing would be if you could do an "Inside the Chieftains Hatch" about a modern Tank (Abrams, Leopard 2, Challanger 2 or such). This way one could compare between tanks now and then concerning the work load of for example a loader or a T.C..
It's possible that those were moved to the Fort Benning Armor Restoration Museum. In fact I'm surprised he hasn't done any videos at that particular museum. They have many prototypes and such that you simply will not find elsewhere. They recently found an M8 Buford that had been a range target somewhere and are trying to patch it up.
The ~26-lb T-33 90mm AP Shot projectile (no HE charge, no windscreen, and no AP cap) was the big-brother of the US Army WWII 15-lb 76mm M79 AP Shot. The "T" designation means test (development). Was there ever a final "M" (Service) designation given for this widely-used US Army 90mm AP projectile? If not, why not?
Mr. Moran described the coincidence rangefinder of the later M-48 tank; the two target images were overlapped and bingo there's was your range. The M-47 used a stereoscopic geese pattern where the gunner had to visually move the pattern over the target with required depth perception; a real pain especially under pressure. It was a very complex vehicle and not very well liked by either U.S. or foreign purchasers.
25:40 answers your question as to why the turret rain rail was added. It diverts away from the turret top near the driver and prevents the rain from dripping into the open drivers hatch.
Lol the part talking about the sextant, the "tant" was lost so it sounded like you were describing some weird oddly specific sex act using millimeters etc 😂 very British
figured id add, as per its TM manual the maximum depression and elevation can be adjusted. its TM manual on its turret drive also states -10 figured id add that
Depression is only 5 degrees in the prototype and early production (1952 manual). The mechanism itself allows for 10 degrees of depression (TM9-1730E) and later production M47s seems to be capable of 10 degrees of depression.
You mentioned movie credits, "Patton" comes to mind and my frustrations back then even as a young novice modeler at those American tanks painted up to look like German tanks. But you did fail to mention how the Japanese used many of these tanks to effectively keep "Godzilla" at bay for many years. Your "OMG/OB the tanks on fire" demonstrations are great. QUESTION ! WHAT DOES/WOULD IT SOUND LIKE INSIDE A TANK FROM A NON-EXPLOSIVE, NON-PENETRATING HIT ON A CAST TURRET SUCH AS THE PATTON.. ENQUIRING MIND'S NEED TO KNOW !
Of course what I really wanted to know was size, weight, armor thickness, what kind of steel used, or how did it measure up against the Soviet tanks of the times.
Just started learning tanks and found your channel. Now binge watching. ;-) I've ordered a few Hunnicutt volumes, but can you recommend good modern tactics references?
We used up a lot of M47's for targets in Germany. 1st AD C Co 1/35. A 105mm heat round from an M60A1 would go thru the front slope all day long. They were in mint condition to.
a 105mm HEAT round could cut thru any cold war armor...period...and a 105mm sabot can probably cut thru quiet a few modern tanks,especially the garbage russian and Chinese designed tanks.
@@hunterdolgener5634 At Fort Knox in the mid 70s, instructors told us they lined up a bunch side-by-side on the range. A tungsten sabot round went through 9 hulls and then ricocheted off the back-drop safety berm. Never found it.
Some of the 47 of the German Bundeswehr endet up as APCs... remove the turret, fit two MGs on the turret ring, put a handful of infantrymen inside and give them a tarp as a roof.Seats? What for?Fight from the tank (crowded as hell) or dismount over the top. You can see why we eventually built real APCs.
>> To be honest, many studio prop departments placed false (boxy) facades on these rounded U.S. tanks. They actually did a convinsing job to make them look WWII German.
Yeah, that American confusion. Because when I'm having a conversation about a tank gun and someone says M36 I always think they mean there's a Jackson mounted to the front of the tank... as the gun. Kappa
The U.S. Army typically under armored the post war tanks. The Sherman was deeply flawed with thin armor, but jeez did the armor planners learn anything? The M46 and M47 should have had at least 6 inches of frontal armor. Instead of 4 inches. The Centurion was the tank I would want to go to war in.
Actually the Abrams will neutral steer or pivot steer. Why this is or what the difference is I never knew. There is a gear for pivot on the selector switch but the tank will still steer in neutral. On the Bradley you must engage the pivot gear.
It seems that no matter who designs the vehicle that one particular occupant suffers for the relative comfort of the rest, although not nearly as bad as the interior configuration of the jagdpanzer 38. Horrid!
Don't get me started on neutral and pivot steer. They are two distinct things, and the amount of guys who don't know how to ground guide a tracked vehicle is staggering. As far as escape hatches go, I'm sure that the four men who burned to death in a rolled over Centurion in CFB Gagetown sure wished they'd had one in their final moments.
I'm still confused on "neutral steer" vs. pivot steerSo does Chieftain mean that in "neutral steer" one track will go forward while the other track goes in reverse so you pivot around a central point? Can somebody clarify please?
Correct. That is indeed neutral steer by the traditional definition, and pivot steer locked one track, around which tank would turn as the other track moved. However, the term 'pivot' often is used to refer to neutral steer because, as you said, the tank pivots on its axis, and almost all modern Western vehicles have neutral capability, making it the default
I've often wondered that and the only thing I can think of is that the Pacific needed them more. They were designed to crawl across reefs and such where standard landing craft couldn't go. Some were used, I think at Utah, but more for transport of supplies than assault.
Its a big, beefy tank, but that made them a death trap, the Soviet T-54 was more than a meter lower, and that made it a lot harder to hit on the field, while the Pattons were sticking out from a mile and was impossible not to spot.
Would the breach operators handle being on the gunners side be chosen to require the gunner to stop what he was doing & the entire turret crew to be focused on extracting the misfired round?
I saw a YT video recently about the M26 Tank in the Korean War. The vid claimed the M26 had a great kill ratio Vs the T-34 tank. However it claimed the M47 had a much poorer kill ratio. Did the M47 have some bigs it had to work out? Could it have been by the time the M47 was deployed there were not as many available T34 targets to shoot?
If I remember right the north Koreans lost most of their tanks in the first year of the war. The Chinese didn't use tanks and the M47 was used mostly as mobile artillery. Plus Korea is poor tank country
majority of the amtracks got as far as the beaches then went no farther, troop transport and supplies, that's all I would of expected them to do on the Normandy beaches
I don't get it! I thought that the pivot steer in modern tanks is when one track goes opposite of the other thus making the tank rotate around the vertical axis, not the locked track!...
I always notice so many of these levers and switches dont have labels or painted other colours, is this the factory style or is it just painted over for the museums?
+Jeremy W More often than not, the museums just paint over all the factory colours, when he flips the switch in the drivers compartment you will see the underside was red (it didn't get painted) so the entire switch would have been red
Another point about the T33 AP Shot (and the equivalent 76mm M79 AP shot, which looks very similar, though with a more pointed nose). It has a very blunt point, here only about as long as it is wide. This minimizes the glancing effect at higher obliquity against sloped armor without compromising the pointed nose's ability to wedge thicker armor aside radially at low obliquity (near right-angles) without breaking the shot's nose -- I assume that the hardness is adjusted to minimize the chance of nose breakage at low obliquity even without an AP cap (as had been used in the previous 90mm and 76mm APC projectiles). Caps can prevent nose breakage, but they also steal energy as they are destroyed on the plate face (they do not penetrate with the projectile except against rather thin armor) so they are not desired unless they are absolutely necessary (as against thick face-hardened armor, which cannot be sloped much and still give good protection, though);-- when sloped armor over 45-50 degrees is to be penetrated, a pointed nose can glance off, though the blunt point used here minimizes this somewhat. To further prevent glancing off at higher obliquity, the breaking of the nose is, somewhat counter-intuitively, a good thing. It REDUCES penetration by widening the hole SIDEWAYS but it INCREASES penetration by shortening the hole LENGTHWISE (along the trajectory) due to reducing the chance of glancing (no pointed nose still attached to the rest of the projectile, so no glancing of the entire projectile if the nose pieces bounce off), with the latter benefit overcoming the loss of the former and this benefit increases as impact obliquity and gouge length in the plate keeps going up, with the net effect being an INCREASE in relative penetration ability, compared to an intact projectile, more and more at the higher impact angles. Thus, another reason that you do not want a cap for nose protection in these rounds. For example, US Navy tests showed that a broken-nosed uncapped blunt-point AP projectile could reduce the needed striking velocity to penetrate medium-thickness nickel-chromium steel armor (STS, a somewhat softer equivalent to Army RHA) by an average of 24% (!!) at 55 degrees from right-angles; pretty good.
Just a quick question coming from a machinegunner. Did tank crews use T&E bars for thier machineguns or were they just expected to free-gun them? Because Im noticing a lot of stowage bars for the heavy machineguns on tanks of this era but if T&E bars were in use then those would be redundant.
The AP-T rounds say "T33" rather than the standard US Army in-Service "M" series ID. I have a blunt-point T33E9 AP-T Shot -- no windscreen or AP cap -- with an empty cartridge case, which weighs about 45 pounds (it would be rather more if it had powder in it, obviously), but I thought that this ID was just for initial testing and maybe some actual battle use when first developed. Was there an official US Army "M" designation for this projectile? Also, when was this projectile first used for experiment and for actual battle use?
This is what my dad cruised around Germany during the Korean war. Why Germany? Couldnt tell you. But i have pictures of that tank stuck in the mud up to the turret!
Ummm, no... Guess what an ASS Whoppin' X3 you'd get if you dropped the hatch, then pee'd and/or shat on it. It takes 2 people lying under the tank to lift back up into place & another inside to re-latch. (Escape hatches do not have a hinge) There were some AFVs designed with a "spent round/offal" tube, but we wouldn't dare use an escape hatch.
The co-driver's position is really just a holdover from the M26 Pershing, which DID have a mirrored set of driving controls. The M46 was really an M26 rebuilt with new engine/transmission, M3A1 gun, and other minor improvements. And, as part 1 noted, the M47 was the T42's turret on the M46 hull. No idea why the M46/M47 did no have extra controls like M26, nor why they couldn't have replaced the co-driver with an ammo rack.
