Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M4A1 Sherman part 2 

'and paint ammunition' would have been the icing on the cake.

Off Topic - Loudspeakers...that reminds me of Paul, of Paul's Engine Machine Shop in Santa Cruz, CA. Paul liked to drive his Buick Toronado down to Mexico and give presents to the kids of a village down there. The kids knew his Toronado and would swarm around his car when he was trying to find a parking spot, so he had a loudspeaker installed on the car to tell the kid to get back. If you live in California, Paul was instrumental in pushing legislation to allow self-service gas stations.

"Always with the negative waves".

“Don’t hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning.”

+Chris Maillet Thanks for the info! This is very interesting!

You did watch the Inside the Chieftain's Hatch episode about the Panther, did you not?? That thing is an ergonomic nightmare. It's all well and good to talk about a Tank as it appears in a friggin' video game, it's a whole other thing entirely to live in the damn thing for weeks on end.

Tigers were plenty comfortable, the only problem is they could only build about 1500 of the things. The manufacturing process was enormously complex.

In my opinion, his heavy criticism towards the crew comfort in the Panther came from a very obvious reason: "what he's used to". He's used to drive American tanks, which are known for being rather roomy, compared to other countries'. And while he isn't as redundantly harsh towards russian vehicles, simply because everybody knows how horribly dreadful those weaponized cans are, he probably was critic towards the Panther from the point of view of a tanker used to American tanks all his life. German crews probably found their tanks adequate for what they had to do, just because that's what they had to work with and, frankly, they were pretty decent in that regard. As for the russians... Well, let's just say they had a lot less short people in the country after WWII.

I suspect it very well may be a case of not knowing any better. For a tanker coming out of a 38(t), StuG or Pz III and getting upgraded to a Panther, yes, it will be thought of as roomy. And for the gunner and driver in particular, I can't really find much to complain about in the 'roomy' category. But when you actually have the ability to compare the ergonomics of an American tank, to show what can be achieved if the designers consider it important enough, then failings in other vehicles are brought to light. Not a single round stored in Panther's turret? That could be a problem when shooting to the side. As to Firefly, it can come down to a cost-benefit analysis and opinion. Every now and then, a British crewman might be thankful that he's in a Firefly, as he can punch a hole in a Panther with greater ease at short range, for example. On the other hand, that same British crewman might be cursing that he's in a Firefly if he finds that his opposition is an AT gun, or Panzerfaust infantry, which are more common threats. For that advantage in penetration, Firefly loses rate of fire, fire-on-the-move capability, ammunition capacity, a machinegun, long-range precision, and a man to help with maintenance. The British made the decision that this was worth it. The US did not agree. You can't claim that either side is wrong, I don't think, but similarly, you can't ignore the 'intangible' benefits that the non-Firefly tanks had, as they were very definite benefits in battle.

now imagine the fact that the crew would be younger, not worried about damaging the tank, or hurting themselves. And the fact that there is a real fire. That'd probably cut the time by 25% maybe up to 50% due to the motivation

If crew managed to squeeze out of the hatches on the Comet and the T-34 in a big, big hurry, imagine what they could do on this thing. Shell goes in, crew pops out like (hopefully) five Jacks-in-a-box.

well 4 jacks-in-a-box because you know. Fuck the loader

Literally laughed out load at that! :)

Seems to me as well (I know this is an old comment, they all are, I'm late) that for all positions but the loader, the ability to reach in and pull out a disabled crew member is fairly simple as well. Two guys reach in, grab clothes at the shoulders and pull...

Agreed. Let's all go buy some gold and premium vehicles in World of Tanks so he can keep making these great videos :)

The factual history is so much better than a game ;)

hi

Tank Jesus should do a face off with Gun Jesus from forgotten weapons !

Derek Frankovich Stop, I can only be so erect.

Under LT Kellner's command?

@@peterson7082 I do not know off the top of my head.

Unfortunately I think this was true. Loaders can be relatively untrained, compared to commanders and gunners who need to be intimately familiar with their equipment and orders.

@@coaxill4059 bow gunner

you all prolly dont care at all but does someone know a method to log back into an instagram account?? I was stupid forgot the account password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.

@Ares Vincent Instablaster ;)

@Enzo Nikolai Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm. I see it takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.

Skystalker no ration is good for consumption...

+Matt Thew well someone has a week gut.

There are people on youtube who actually consume such old rations.^^

ZoidFile yeah like steve 1989 MRE info

ykhm Steve1989 :D

Adam Mann hello Adam. Didn't expect to see you here. Your videos are the best

Thanks very much. Chieftain is a very legit armor historian, so even though I don't play WoT these videos are fantastic. I even plan to somethign similar with a few near me at some point.

These 2 were very good, I thought it was because I am American.

Would be fun to see him squeeze into the turret of the Firefly since he keeps refering to how cramped it must be =)

Lavrentivs Yea good point. I would love to see that from inside too

I was expecting to wait weeks like usual!

He finally got around to doing an Inside The Hatch on the Pz IV.

1000 days later...

Woof Woof

The Ghost of the Flying Dutchman "it's a mark 6 and we got it by the ass".

Knock with them Negative Waves, Moriarty !

only way to kill a tiger is to hit it in its ass

The Ghost of the Flying Dutchman we have special ammo , its filled with paint, and when it goes off it makes beautiful colors

The song is The Foggy Dew

@Celtic Resistance You misspelt foresters.

@@collinfreese2987 Sinead O'Connor and the Chieftans did a fabulous cover of it.

*titanic 1912* hay look a new episode of cheftons hach. Cool. Oh a icberg. Huh.

logan Random last name this is the Internet Hahaha

Trex Dave No modern vehicles.

He's done some more modern vehicles. There's an older model of the Merkava that could fit the bill. It's more a question of being allowed to do a video on one, my guess.

@Alasdair Stewart lol. There'll always be an Ireland

It actually changed depend on what took out the tank. The average was closer to 20% but gunfire was about 24% casualty rate.

I don't bother choosing 'favorites', because what's the point? I like them all for their good points, and their interesting points. The world doesn't care into what order I personally rank them, and it's almost certain to be wrong anyway, since it all depends on what the situation is, what factors you are counting, how you weigh your priorities. That said the Sherman, T-34 and Pz IV all appeal to me, because they were the real war winners, plain workaday tanks that did their duties in every battlefield. They weren't the "best" by metrics others use (it seems that most people rate the "best" tanks as the ones that "kill other tanks the best", but that was really a secondary duty for most tank units, except the Germans who badly needed to kill lots of tanks). That and these are the tanks that people are always badmouthing and talking down about, based on whatever books they've read, their "stats", etc. The M4 may be the most appealing of the bunch, because it doesn't even get the credit that the T-34 gets. PLenty of people claim the T-34 was "the best tank of the war" without any real reason, almost no one says that about the M4. Yet the M4 was at least as good as the T-34, and was at the very worst still on of the top ten best tanks in the entire world in 1945. Almost all of the negative stuff people say about it is just because it was at a disadvantage against the Tigers and the Panther. As if tank-to-tank fighting was the only reason that tanks existed. The M4 was a wonderful mobile, cheap, easy to repair armored vehicle, good at fire support, infantry support, able to cover a lot of ground in a hurry. It was not meant for going out and fighting enemy tanks (although it was meant to be able to handle itself). I think the M4 was an excellent design overall, when all the factors are weighed. Even if it wasn't as good as some German tanks (which is only true if you are only counting tank-killing ability and nothing else), it's stupid to say that it was a "terrible" tank. Not being as good as the very best does not make something "terrible". Japanese and Italian tanks were terrible (and even that is a dubious statement; each should be viewed in context). Most nations didn't even HAVE tanks, or if they did they were relics from the 30s, 20s, or even WWI veterans. IN terms of numbers produced, the M4 was better than 95% of the tanks in the world, by number. And that is, again, assuming that the "best" tank is the one that kills other tanks the best. In fact, that was ALL the later German tanks did well, at the cost of effectiveness in all other roles. And while a tank-killing tank may be a big deal in a game where all you do is go around and blast other tanks, in real warfare there are other more important things to worry able. Also, in a video game the tank rarely breaks down in the middle of nowhere, and you don't need to spend hours and hours maintaining and repairing it keeping it running. These things matter in real warfare.

The T-34 did look impressive for being an utterly unreliable piece of crap that had major design and production flaws. They performed better after Stalin took US automotive engineers' advice to redesign some components, have trained machinists to manufacture critical parts, add shock absorbers and to have the engines and transmissions removed for inspection and repairs after ever 50 hours of run time. Stopping their tank armies to do the engine and transmission inspections/repairs caused delays that allowed the Germans to set up new defensive positions and bring up more supplies. The M4 was supposed to run for 200 hours before the users would start experiencing engine problems yet the Army decided to swap out the engine and front drives after 150 hours of use for refurbished ones to ensure those stayed operational at all times. The mechanics with their forward repair stations monitored the condition of all the tanks so would have that done after 50 to 80 hours of use to tanks that were being abused by inexperienced drivers and experienced drivers that tinkered with the engine speed governor so they could go faster in all gears by running the engine at higher RPM's.

The T-34 is a mechanical marvel The sherman is a Cadillac. The T-34 may have a nicer look and sloped armor but if the crew can't use it well that's not very helpful is it? the one thing that bugs me is that in warthunder the T-34's 4 man crew make it less survivable.....

That extra ammunition was the main reason why so many M4's burned up after being hit. The M4's fired a lot of HE rounds when advancing so their crews like to bring along extra rounds out of fear of running out of ammo during the heat of a battle.

The stabilization is implemented in-game: Not only do the different Shermans have generally superior gun handling compared to similar mediums, but last time I checked the tier 6 Shermans (E8, Jumbo and Firefly at least, dunno about premiums) have access to the vertical stabilizer-module. You otherwise don't get access to it 'till tier 8.

Not really referring to the tier 6 variants. The M4A1 featured here would be closest to the tier 5 Sherman, and simply look at the other tier 5 mediums. With the top turret and top gun (76mm) the Sherman has a aim-time of 2.3 seconds, which is tied for worst among non-howitzer guns. The better aim times are right at the 2 second mark, with the M7, Sherman III (with the 6 pdr), and G1R all being tied for that. With what Chieftan stated about being "turret down" and being able to very quickly engage a target, the M4 should have a faster aim-time than its fellow tier 5's to reflect this (or at least be on par with the class leaders). The Sherman already is not the most mobile, nor does it pack the most damaging gun, nor have the best pen (good all around however), but if it was able to snap shots off even better it'd be even better at working ridges which is its strong suit.

At the very least, the Tier 5 Sherman should get access to the V Stab upgrade.

Slayer Jesse That'd be pretty nice as well, and a fair way to implement what I'm referring to (faster aim time) since the Vstab makes your aiming circle 20% smaller.

It's called power creep. Back when the Sherman came out in the game, it was one of the best tanks at tier 5 outside the stupidly imbalanced KV, and 2.3 aim time was excellent, and most tanks didn't have anything better. Really, it still is one of the best tanks at tier 5, outside the silly, arcade 57mm machine-gun plink tanks.

The US Military actually listened to the end users opinions of the weapons and equipment that was introduced for testing so those could be modified or discarded if nobody liked them. In the 1930's the US Navy began installing HVAC systems in their new submarines after crewmen and commanders pointed out that would protect the advanced electrical and communication systems from high heat and humidity. That also made the living and working conditions more tolerable for their crews. The Gato-class subs were custom made for long range patrols with refrigerators and freezers for food, a large galley with a large mess, a laundry with washers and dryer along with showers for the crew thanks to having a desalination system on board that produced plenty of fresh water.

Chris VanOsdol: He did the M47, which is essentially the same less some upgrades. Have you seen that one?

Lots of turret difference.

Anolaana Seranaar the hull is much different as well.

+Donald Hill The U.S. Physiological Operations Division of the War Department actually fitted speakers to _M4's_ and _M5A1's._ Mostly playing propaganda messages, but is noted to have on one occasion played music. < www.psywarrior.com/LoudSpeakerPsyopTank.jpg >