Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Panzer III Part 1 

As a toddler, The_Chieftain's stroller was fully tracked, of course. His mother was wheeling him out of a Tesco supermarket, turned a bit too quickly, and threw a track. Young Chieftain was scarred for life and monitors track tension the way I monitor tire pressure on my cars and trucks/lorries.

Dave Hopkin Tighter....TIGHTER.... NOT ENOUGH TENSION TIGHTER DAMNIT!!!

panzer 3's and 4's were the backbone of the Wehrmacht armored contingent

i blame STUG lyfe

Removing the three man turret was genius as it allowed for a decent gun and saved a by then failed tank.

@@2adamast In what way is the most produced and widely used tanks of the wehrmacht a failed tank? let me put this in perspective for every 1 tiger there were 12 panzer 3's next up is the panzer 4 with 10-1 ratio on the tiger, and was honestly the best tank germany made due to it being capable and able to be produced in higher numbers, and it was reliable and didn't massively overload the transmission, It's gun was adequate and so was it's mobility. Now if they would have improved the armor without increasing the weight by double it would have been much better. than the panther or either tiger as a wartime vehicle. maybe 60-75mm sloped (it had 50mm to start with) at about 60 degrees in the front It's armor would have been adequate as well

​@@zacht9447 By 1943 the Panzer 3 production is stopped because by then the it fails in its anti tank mission. The Stug 3 and its bigger gun will save the platform and be the most produced tank.

I had no idea PzIII came apart like a French Somua S35.

The more I've been looking at German tanks, the more it always confuses me that none of the engineers thought to make them easier to maintain.

@@johnnycab8986 Splitting transmission and engine moves the turret backward a little bit, which I think improves balance, so there's definitely an upside. I think the problem is that the Germans thought that, next time, they'd make a transmission that would be fit for purpose and would need replacing very rarely. This idea was nullified by the fact that german tanks were overweight every single time because of escalating armour and gun demands.

@@radioactiverat8751 Quite easy. Germans are engineers in the purest sense, great at inventing and making amazing things. However they were not good at "tinkering", making things easy to use. Americans on the other hand are the opposite: decent engineers, but great tinkerers. Their mindset was different: how to make a good enough thing, but make it so easy to maintain that even an idiot with a wrench can do it quickly. Perhaps another reason, and in my opinion the MAIN reason why that is so, is due to logistic lines. It said a good general studies tactics, a great general studies logistics. Logistics, logistics, logistics. Germans were fighting on the continent, very close to a factory that could fix the tanks. Americans were fighting 5,000 miles away from their supply base, if something broke, they had to ship that broken part 5,000 miles home, then another 5,000 miles back at the front. They couldn't afford to have a single tank waiting 2 months for the replacement part to arrive. So for each assembled tank, they shipped 2 more tanks worth of parts. Since they had no factories nearby, all the repairs, including major ones, had to be able to be performed in the field, so all their hardware was built around that concept.

Zamolxes77 I completely forgot that they have to ship their tanks back for repairs. Funny how such details completely escape the mind. You're completely right though, the Germans have factories not that far away, meanwhile the Americans have to go across the ocean to fix their tanks. I guess there really is no "perfect tank" in the second world war just whatever serve the needs of the country that made them. American tanks were made to be general purpose and easy to maintain, German tanks were really technologically advanced in design, however they didn't have the resources to just make tons of extra parts for the things so they were kind of made in a way that was a pain to maintain. Japanese tanks were made simplistically and light for their role in the conquest of the uneven Chinese terrain, and not really able to compare against the American tanks which were stronger overall. The Chinese didn't really have a tank as far as I know; Therefore, the Japanese tanks didn't need to be all that sophisticated. Just something powerful enough to break the Enemy Lines and keep up with the motorized/mechanized Infantry. I know very little about Soviet tanks, but my guess is that they could put a lot of them out because they were made very simply despite supposedly being a better tank than the German tanks of the time. They were just so hastily thrown together they didn't always compare. Every tank had its purpose and roll and there really is no definitive perfect tank in the era. Though I do agree that some do fit the criteria of perfect tank more than others. Personally in my opinion I think both the later Panzer IV's and later Sherman models best fit that definition. But I'm sure there's arguments against that.

Lmao

"Oh bugger, the tank's full." instead of "Oh bugger, the tank's on fire" or "Oh bugger, the tracks are chattering"?

@Breezy Mods What you find dull, I find interesting.

Speaking as an ex-Armor officer of 25 years experience, stowage space is vastly underrated by civilians. In the field your tank is your rolling home - you work, eat, sleep, crap, write letters home and read the return mail, and any other task imaginable either in or on board the vehicle. You need a place to stow all you stuff so 1) it doesn't get in the way 2) it isn't oil soaked with ground in dust and dirt. That bustle bin would have been a godsend to a DAK tank crew. It gets COLD in the desert at night, so that would be where you stowed your greatcoat, gloves, scarf and sleeping bag, spare uniform items etc) And it would be where you stowed the little things you had accumulated along the way to make life a bit more livable. (Schnapps, vino, candy, tobacco, folding stove and fuel, etc)

On their turret monster ability

You'd be surprised how small the human body can become with minimal effort. There's actually a really extensive report by the US army on body mechanics for just such purposes. If you're talking about how best to cram a bunch of guys into an armored vehicle, it's good to know how tightly you can reasonably pack them

T32 no longer exists, and there are many other American heavy tanks with a T prefix. It was standard for all equipment to have a testing 'T number' before being approved for large scale adoption under an M number. T1 and T43 heavy tanks are ones that immediately come to mind. That said I'd love to see a T29, T30 or T34, whichever of the group can be found in the best condition.

@@Maus5000 Wait, all T32s were scrapped? Dang. I was aware of the T prefix referring to pre-production prototypes (such as T1 and T28 as well as the ones I had mentioned). I'd called them "T-series" because they never reached production status like the T1 (M6) and T43 (M103).

@@XtreeM_FaiL Mostly. They mainly differed in the gun: T29: 105mm T5E1. T30: 155mm T7. T34: 120mm T53. Such a difference may seem small, but they would create quite a difference in internal space to accommodate the differing breeches.

I'd go with the Panzer 4 as my favourite WW2 tank especially once it got the upgraded long 75mm gun and extra armor. My all time favourite tank though would have to be the T-72 I'm just wierd like that.

@@wetlettuce4768 Sit inside a T72 and you may change your mind. At 5'6 I fit perfectly in a tank and even I found the T72 cramped. More importantly auto load always make me nervous; God help you if something ever fails. Call me old school but I really like having a loader. On the other hand, a smaller tank is a smaller target...

I'm 6'1 I've been in a T-72 and the commander and gunner positions are a bit tight but useable for me the drivers position however is way too cramped for me I have no where to put my legs lol. Guess I have a soft spot for it becuase it's likely the oldest tank you can take onto a modern battlefield and not look like a complete joke to the enemy.

The entire war if you include the StuG variants on its chassis ;)

I agree but Poland and France were a Panzer II & I / 38t Operation as a whole, they just outnumbered the III's / IV's & StuG's

"early-war" lol they were using these till 1945

@@zacht9447 Not as a tank in 1th grade combat units.

@@henrikhilskov 1st* also yes it was panthers and tigers were incredibly rare not to mention they usually broke down before even reaching the lines

@@zacht9447 they didn't break down reaching the line... but leaving it... Reaching it was done using railroad

@@unknownip6741 railroads only go so far and usually they were the first thing the allies bombed also yes most didn't even reach the front before abandonment

They were crewed with highschool girls back then ;) watch Girls Und Panzer PANZER VOR!

Apparently LLenn size

they went hands first like you're diving into a pool head first from a diving board

They were considered small even back then and in winter wearing winter gear you weren't going to going out the side.

@@Anlushac11 there was no size difference except theres more fat fucks then there was

I wonder if that wood lining was mission specific. Was there equipment that a wood liner would better protect from either shock or quick changes in temperature?

Psiberzerker see Tank chats.

@@bobbylee2853 That's the Tank Museum. I want to see INSIDE the Hatch. Thank you. (That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed that chat, but he just stands there talking. So did Lindybeige. He doesn't crawl around in there, and show us all the positions.)

Andy Paine See Tank talk.

@@bobbylee2853 Thanks! I've seen it and don't get me wrong, but it wasn't like the Chieftain's videos. He talks about tanks from the crewman's perspective. When I was younger I spent quite a bit of time on tanks and I really appreciate hearing (and seeing) what its like to have to function on a tank.

+1

glad im not the only one driven mad lmao

Unless skirts are fitted...

Doesn't work with late Pz 4 Ausf. J, which had only three return rollers per side.

wow good catch there..not sure what it is myself but definately not the pz3

Adam Warnock look at the side skirts, that is probably a Valentine.

looking ta the nose of the tank, appears to be valentine. And skirt would cover a lot more on the Matilda.

Irony?

@@thomaslinton1001 What irony?

Hey i love your museum :)

You are not the first to mention that either.

The plethora of books published in the decades before WoT was even released would like to have a word with you. The "enormous wealth of in-depth content" has always been there, it has never been dependent on a videogame, something that those of us with an actual interest in these vehicles have long been aware off.

why waste time and money for film crew to do a video there actual are on the market you can just restat that. Please do reviews of tanks there is not current on youtube.