No video :(

M103 - The Complete History of America's Last Heavy Tank

Подписаться 101 тыс.

Просмотров 208 тыс.

50% 1

Play War Thunder NOW on PC, Xbox Series X&S and PS5.
Use my sign-up link to get FREE premium vehicles, account time, boosters and more:
playwt.link/re...
War Thunder is a highly detailed vehicle combat game containing over 2000 playable tanks, aircraft and ships spanning over 100 years of development. Immerse yourself completely in dynamic battles with an unparalleled combination of realism and approachability.
The M103, just like the British Conqueror, was a (slightly rushed) response to the Soviet Union's newest heavy tanks following the Second World War. Fearing an escalation in Korea or a full-scale Soviet invasion into West Germany, America adapted it's existing super-heavy tank designs to create the T43, the 120mm armed behemoth that would evolve into the M103. M103 was one of the most formidable vehicles ever to enter service, but was proved to be obsolete within 10 years, replaced by a new generation of vehicle. This video will take you through the design, development, service history and fate of America's last heavy tank.
DISCORD: / discord
Sources:
Firepower - A History Of The American Heavy Tank, R.P.Hunnicutt
afvdb.50megs.co...
tanks-encyclop...
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Early Designs
2:10 T43
5:00 War Thunder Sponsorship
5:54 M103
7:20 M103A1
8:12 M103A2
8:55 The MBT Takeover
9:58 M51 ARV
10:35 Outro
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by it's copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".
Music by Epidemic Sound

Опубликовано:

15 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 373

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Thanks to War Thunder for Sponsoring(!) this video. Play War Thunder NOW on PC, Xbox Series X&S and PS5. Use my sign-up link to get FREE premium vehicles, account time, boosters and more: playwt.link/redwrenchfilms

@LogoMasterWT Год назад

jokes on you i was playing war thunder when watching this

@user-op8fg3ny3j Год назад

@@LogoMasterWT I think the majority of viewers on the videos they sponsor already play the game 😆

@paul.facciolo6985 Год назад

Great video!! Unfortunately war thunder sponsorship. Take this👎

@beaumontgile5886 Год назад

Marines take anything and make it better

@danielspoon1234 Год назад

@@LogoMasterWT it's like that

@Irish37 Год назад

I first saw the M-103 serving as a lawn ornament on Fort Knox, Kentucky when I was a kid. It's one of the things that inspired me to return to Fort Knox as an adult and train to be a tanker.

@Themanfuhreal Год назад

What a story, could I get what tank you served on?

@StupidPerson-dh9bj Год назад

Dirty rotten tanker

@sinisterisrandom8537 Год назад

M103 -design isn't used. Only for experimentals.

@zachnar0125 Год назад

Lucky! We all joined to do that same thing but............ Too tall was always the answer, whether it was MEPS or the recruiter. Sooooo 13 bravo was the next best choice....... Wasn't going to pick Chaplains assistant lol even though probably should have.

@gmckemie4281 Год назад

I remembered seeing that same tank on the corner when I arrived at Fort Knox in 1983. I thought to myself that was a M48 on steroids.

@dragonfusilier9173 Год назад

Im not sure why, but I've always had a soft spot for the M103 tbh. I just wish I could see one myself so that I can visualise the dimensions better

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

I think there’s about 25 dotted around the states and 1 in Bovington (if you’re near haha)

@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 Год назад

I saw one at some outdoor museum in Washington State about 25 or 26 years ago, and jumped up and hanged from the gun by my ankles and hands...the things are just impressively huge.

@AustinSmith-gq5gc Год назад

There is one on outdoor display in Radcliffe Kentucky, it’s just sort of sitting there

@tacomas9602 Год назад

It’s such a great looking machine.

@mikecook317 Год назад

@@AustinSmith-gq5gc Can you st where in Radcliffe? I'm only a few hours away, I might be able to go look at it.

@JerryTheTankYank1776 Год назад

Every time I see a new educational video about the m103, I get excited. Edit: I would love to see a video of the T-10, to complete the Cold War heavy tank trio.

@Mark3nd Год назад

Conqueror, T-10 and M103? Figured it's interesting since both are last heavy tanks

@luciusvorenus9445 Год назад

The Chieftain did a two part series on the M103 with a retired USMC Tank Officer. It was very cool to have a first hand account of the 103.

@c3aloha Год назад

Ken Estes!

@daffyduck7336 6 месяцев назад

L t.Col Kenth Estes, also Professor of modern Europen history and author of 16 books on military history and author for U S Army and U S Marine corps unit operational history.

@daffyduck7336 6 месяцев назад

And there is one factor the M103 introduced to the world of tanks , this the electronics fire control over hydraulics, this was a totally new and new fire control concept! The system was known as "ampadine" , there was no mechanical connection between the gunners controls or the tank commanders controls and the hydraulics turret /fire controls, the connection all by electronics signal! The electronics current was was produced by a pair of "ampadine generators" the electric that these generators produced was (AC current) this current in turn fed to a control/ test module and then to two amplifiers, one for elevation/depression and one fortravering , each of the fire control handles contained a potentiometer, these signals were in turn fed to hydraulics pump controls. This system before solid state electronics, it all test tube ,Picture trying to keep a system like that operating with 6,000 lbs gun tube recoiling at 65 mph! And now you have some idea of what the technicalities could be! And "the US Congress ordered the U S Army to turn project over to the US Marines (all 300 M103s ) along with a bunch cash and the instructing to "fix it", and that's how the M103 heavy tank program ended up in the lap of the USMC! Oh and the elevation/equiaberator cylinder for the main gun was a modified "main landing gear cylinder from the "B29 bomber!

@daffyduck7336 6 месяцев назад

And that 120mm gun could take out any tank any on any battel field at 4,000 +meters , the AP round tipped the scales at 51.1 lbs with a muzzle velocity of 3,200 fps.! The shape charge round could penetrate over 9 inches of homogenous steel armor out to 5,000 yards!

@slate4687 6 месяцев назад

@@daffyduck7336meanwhile in war thunder it has a difficult time penning a Panther at point blank 😂😅😂

@FirstDagger Год назад

8:14 As the Chieftain said in one of his videos the M60 was never officially named Patton and isn't part of the Patton series of tanks.

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

It had no official name but there's simply no question that it is of the M26/M46/M47/M48 family. There are some (trivial) parts that are interchangeable and lots of M47 & M48 have been upgraded with M60-type components such as 105mm guns and powerplants.

@AlanRoehrich9651 Год назад

"official" The thing is, the M60 is still part of the Patton lineage. It's still a Patton tank.

@kenchristenson7548 Год назад

We called it the Patton when I served in a mechanized unit in the 1980s. It was the next stage of the M48 and the chieftain was mistaken.

@FirstDagger Год назад

@@kenchristenson7548 ; Notice I said official name.

@daffyduck7336 6 месяцев назад

Well having served for 22 years in tracked vehicles in the USMC, mostly "tanks" M48, M103,and M60s and I got to "dabbled" with the prototype M1, I never called the M48 "Patton" it was " tank,full-tracked 90 mm gun M48"! OR JUST M48, and the M103s 120mm gun was used as the standard for performance comparison while researching for main gun for the M1 Abrams!

@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 Год назад

I've actually seen an M103 in person, at an outdoor display in Washington state, back in the late 1990s. Somewhere there's an old photo of me, dressed like Kurt Cobain, hanging from it's massive 120mm gun...omg, if you've never seen one up close, I recommend it if you can ever get the chance to...the M103 is just absolutely huge! Probably one of my personal favorite tanks of all time.

@diltzm Месяц назад

I've been to that same display outside the museum at JBLM. Unfortunately all the tanks hatches have been welded shut so you can't see inside of it.

@petesheppard1709 Год назад

Excellent! I've always had a soft spot for this bruiser. I've climbed on the VFW lawn ornament in Anniston, AL, and often wondered what the ride was like for the TC as the turret swung around. Sited outside the turret ring, it had to be interesting.

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Thanks for sharing!

@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 Год назад

If I were to marry a tank, it would probably be the M103... she's just a bbw, with a massive gun!

@ndinoguy6845 Год назад

The M103 is my most favorite tank of all time. Idk, something about a bulked up M48 with a big 120mm gun just clicks with me. I went to a tank museum in Virginia during Christmas Break and my favorite part of it was when I got to climb inside the M103A1 they had.

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

I love it too - that 50s/60s aesthetic is just so nice

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

It's more like the M48 is a trimmed down M103, lineage-wise.

@slate4687 6 месяцев назад

It has to be one of the best looking tank of all time...that sloped turret is just amazing

@MrChainsawAardvark Год назад

That point at about 4 min in about being adapted from a navy AA mount makes me wonder why more ship equipment was not adapted to tanks. I want to say that for the IS-2, the choice was between a 100mm naval gun (which lost, but was eventually refined into the D10T of the T-54/55) and a 122mm artillery piece. Why not adapt the Mark 12 5"/38 caliber gun used on so many ships to tank form? The complete naval turret weighs as much as a tank, but the barrel and breech alone...

@Orinslayer Год назад

Well the soviets did that. The IS7 uses a 5 inch naval gun as its main armament.

@CharliMorganMusic Год назад

Well, there really wasn't a 4-inch gun in the US Navy and the 3-inch guns didn't become popular after the war except as anti-air weapons, and even then, that was a very short period before the missile replaced the 3 inch guns. So there really weren't any weapons used by the US Navy that weren't 20mm, 40mm, and 5/38.

@mrhamneggs5295 Год назад

@@CharliMorganMusic The Clemson class DDs had 4" guns

@jefferydraper4019 Год назад

The M728 was an M-60 with a naval gun inside it adapted used as an engineer support vehicle.

@Maritimesgestein 11 месяцев назад

@@mrhamneggs5295 and the clemson were build in 1918. The guns and ammo for the clemson 4" wasn't in production anymore.

@PitFriend1 Год назад

There are two reasons that heavy tanks disappeared for a while. The first was the improvements to tank guns made the need for large bore cannons redundant. High velocity guns like the British L7 had virtually the same penetration as the bigger guns but were much lighter and didn’t require two loaders which meant the tank turrets could be much smaller. The second was the advent of ATGMs against which thick and heavy plain steel armor was about useless against. There was no reason to build a large and slow vehicle with lots of armor when a smaller and lighter vehicle could do just as well and you could make more of them for the same costs. It wasn’t until improved 120mm guns came around and composite armor reduced the threat of ATGMs as well as improved engines to give them decent mobility that heavy tanks like the Abrams not only became viable but successful again.

@CommandLineCowboy Год назад

I was going to ask the question how the m103's 120mm compared to the L7 105mm, but you've answered. I assume the T123 120mm didn't have APFSDS like the L7?

@PitFriend1 Год назад

@@CommandLineCowboy No the M58 120mm the M103 used only had APBC (Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped), HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank), HE (High Explosive), and WP (White Phosphorous) shells.

@Psychonau 3 месяца назад

i dont think thats really the reason, because the l7 appeared around the same time, it was much more popular but the brits did a switch frm the l7 to the 120 mm l11 anyway and they never downgraded back.

@parrot849 Год назад

I first became fascinated with tanks at the fresh age of 12 when my father took me to an Armed Forces Day (remember when we actually celebrated that once upon a time) parade and event near our home town that included and later displayed for the public a Marine Corps M103 “heavy.” The massive bulk of that enormous vehicle trundling down our little Main Street was what truly amazed this young lad 😮. From that day forward I was totally hooked on all things AFV. When I was 18 I enlisted in navy. I had initially wanted to go into the armored branch of the army, but after a candid conversation with a surprisingly honest army recruiter, I was told that we being smack in the middle of the Vietnam War at the time, there was almost no chance even if he promised I could upon enlisting; that I’d be ultimately assigned to U.S.Army Armored Forces. It would be a 100 to 1 shot I’d be assigned an armor mos. He explained the army needed infantry replacements, period. I’d be sent straight into the infantry. So I went navy-and…, ended up in Vietnam anyway. But that’s not my point. My point is I never did get to serve in a tank; Grrrrr, but have never lost my fascination for everything armor, or as are British mates say, armour!

@jjcaron4381 3 месяца назад

It would honestly be so sick to be an American tanker in the 60's. Just rolling around in a steel behemoth protected by hundreds of millimeters of armor. No armor penetration, just vibes.

@Supernionra Год назад

The M103's gun still has the highest muzzle energy of any production tank at 17MJ

@BHuang92 Год назад

The M103 is America's first heavy tank to see actual service which is by itself an success when considering........

@Mthammere2010 6 месяцев назад

That goes to the T-26 Pershing my dude.

@exoticdachoo007 5 месяцев назад

@@Mthammere2010 If I remember correctly the Pershing's designation was always iffy, when it was first made it was considered a heavy tank, but soon changed into a medium because the armor wasn't up to heavy standard. Armor wise I think the M4A3E2 Sherman would probably be the first US "heavy tank" that would see combat, considering it had the same thickness as the Pershing but on an ever so slightly better angle I believe and its armor was actually perfect for the heavy tank standard at the time

@dubsy1026 3 месяца назад

Mk VIII?

@jackparker1197 Год назад

At 9:46 that M103 is at the museum I work at! Grave Digger is by far one of our largest tanks, only neat out by the Abrams and barely!

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

The Abram’s has a habit of beating everything… that’s so interesting though, I’d love to come visit someday!

@jefferydraper4019 Год назад

last M103 I saw was on a tank recovery training range at Fort Knox. It was rolled over on its side and we had to setup the recovery vehicles to get it back upright. Then roll it back over for the next class.

@colincampbell767 Год назад

"The gun controls were not ideal." Looking at the interior schematic at how the gunner's position was set up made me wonder: WTF were they thinking?

@roywoodrom9277 Год назад

There is an M103 in a park in Nacogdoches, Texas. We used to climb on it all the time when we were kids, but I had thought it was some donated foreign tank because I never saw the M103 in any books or movies.

@alexfortin7209 Год назад

In 1948, Western nations classified tanks by gun size: - light gun tank, light tank - medium gun tank, medium tank - heavy gun tank, heavy tank In 1957 the light, medium and heavy tanks nomenclature was pushed aside in favor of the universal/main battle tanks. This happened because of improved power packs making mobile, well protected and well armored tanks possible.

@MostlyPennyCat Месяц назад

Does anybody who's not me remember the 3D tank game from the 80s called Conquerer? It was a 3rd person game where you take control of a fleet of tanks and fight an opponent, there were British, American and Nazi sides. You could jump into any tank and the remaining tanks on the field would be AI controlled. You fought until all your tanks or their tanks were knocked out. You could also have two joy sticks control one tank, so two of you could be driver and gunner.

@EliteHistory117 Год назад

I don’t get how this guy doesn’t have more subs. He makes awesome videos Btw I love the M103 so very interesting vid, keep up the good work!

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

I appreciate that!

@nickhinx22 24 дня назад

The national museum of military vehicles in Dubois Wyoming has one sitting outside kinda by itself. Talked to one of the curators and they'd love to do something with it but the inside is virtually gutted, and it does not have an engine. It is extremely difficult to source any part for this tank. Interesting you mentioned the exhaust issue because you can see inside the engine bay and there are massive hoses on either side of the hull that I suppose would be for the deflection of the exhaust. The thing is an absolute monster, and I really wish this thing got the respect it deserved.

@roybaker6902 Год назад

My Marine Reserve unit in Rome, Georgia first received our M103s in mid -1967 to replace the ONTOS we previously had. The changeover actually occurred while I was at Parris Island for boot camp. Our unit was never called up, I guess the M-103 wasn't practical for Viet Nam.

@sys3248 Год назад

When even regular Sherman sinks and Hellcats become their main front lines IFV there's little hope employing heavy tank.

@HankDoolin 11 месяцев назад

I was in the Rome, GA reserve unit from 1964 to June, 1968. I still have a roster for 1st Platoon - A Company from early 1968. I was the headquarters section leader. Your name was listed as a member of my tank crew. We thought we were going to be activated when North Korea captured the Navy spy ship the Pueblo in January, 1968. We were put on one week notice for activation, but then nothing happened. Thanks for posting your comment, it got me thinking about my old unit. It had some good people and I was proud to be a part of it.

@Goober762 9 месяцев назад

From what I’ve heard “correct me if I’m wrong” the M103 was huge and if it was deployed it probably would have gotten stuck and have to be towed I’m pretty sure M48s had issues too with the terrain. Also thank you for your service.

@Goober762 9 месяцев назад

@@HankDoolinthank you for your service

@mrbaab5932 Год назад

My father was a Sherman tank commander in the last year of the Korean War, who said his tank fired indirect fire on a heavy JS3 tank with a forward observer. It was destroying a nearby unit and it's Sherman's. They fired a few smoke an white phosphorus rounds to get on target. They could hardly make out the target with their optics at that range and would have never detected on their own. They use the White phosphorus after running out of smoke. Once on target, the first heat round destroyed the tank. The forward observer kept ordering more rounds after the target was clearly destroyed. I think they fired 19 rounds in total. Dad is long gone to ask about the details. The were told it was a Russian tank with a Russian crew, but the Chinese copy of the Russian tank with a Chinese crew makes more sense to me. He and his crew were impressed that the Chinese or Russians were able to get a heavy tank up the steep mountains ⛰ of Korea.

@thesickrobot6924 Год назад

IS-3's were not used in korea.

@xignifect Год назад

Cool story would've been believeable in an alternate timeline where they used IS-3 in the Korean War.

@yi_hou3092 Год назад

IS-3s were never used in Korea your grandfather must've confused it for an IS-2M a decent chunk were given to China to bolster their Forces

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

@@yi_hou3092 And even the IS-2 was probably not used in combat. The only tanks we can be certain of the DPRK and PRC forces using in combat are the T-34-85 and anything they captured. China had a regiment of IS-2s on hand but as far as we know they were never deployed into combat.

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

China was not manufacturing tanks during the Korean war. They were lucky if they could manufacture a rifle in those days.

@darrenskjoelsvold Год назад

And when you consider the weight of a current MBT it really puts these things into context.

@MichaelSmith-ms3jw Год назад

We shot these up as hard targets in the 80s. The armor was shredded by 105mm APDS training rounds, the tanks eventually being reduced to unrecognizable piles of scrap.

@HIFLY01 Год назад

I wish the tank was more competitive in war thunder. Its supposed to have one of the most powerful guns ever on a production tank but still would bounce of a panthee hull lol

@Madduckk Год назад

5:24 can agree taking out sad little German mains never gets old

@matthewcuratolo3719 Год назад

One of my favorites as well. I think it's that massive turret and gun.

@JimmySailor Месяц назад

It’s kind of funny the M103 was phased out in 1972 when that’s the same year another 60ton 120mm armed tank began development, the M1 Abrams. So it seems more like the planners foresaw that the M103 platform was at a dead end and it was better to start from a blank sheet of paper.

@braydenwestcott6031 Год назад

There is a park about 2 hours from my house that has an old M103 on display. Always wondered what kind of tank it was

@iguanaamphibioustruck7352 Год назад

My patent 94 is on Low Impact Tracked Vehicles. The second one 96 is on Traction Improving Device, supporting the load with cone shaped rubber fingers that penetrate, bend and flip on exit. My R&D work, since 1991 includes building and testing 5 prototypes. I can say, based on empirical data, that short wide tracks are better than long narrow tracks. Tracks that can withstand a lot of tension can become structural elements in the system. This eliminates the need for the road wheels and the frame to support them. My latest design has two differential drive axles in the center of the system with pairs of tracks extending in either direction. Hence, I have four tracks instead of two, four axles instead of two. The axles can be either powered or idler, the bearings are running in oil. The possibility of a tank with four tracks instead of two, with angle control for ease of levering over obstacles and doing spin turns is exciting. Further, the standard drive tires can either be single or dual depending on the weight of the vehicle and the cargo. No more chain and sprocket where a little wear kills the efficiency. See more on my RU-vid channel Iguana Amphibious Truck. Iguana

@colincampbell767 Год назад

Tanks don't have axles. And it is much mechanically simpler to have drive sprockets connecting the transmission to the tracks. And did your two smaller tracks have the same surface area as only one track and evenly distributed weight? And without road wheels - what kind of suspension will it use? (Note: the road wheels are attached to torsion bars which are attached through the hull of the tank. There is no 'frame,') Also - those differentials add complexity and weight, as well as taking up armored volume. Which means that you have to either have less of something else under the armor - or you increase the amount or armor needed. Adding armor means that you need to beef up your drive train and suspension - which adds more weight to the tank. Also running the drive train under the turret basket means that the turret has to be higher so there is enough room for the crew - which means more armored volume and more weight. And traction is rarely an issue on a tank - unless you did something stupid. And even then, you can attack the tow cables to the tracks and use them to get yourself out. And I wonder just how long those rubber cones are going to last when used under field conditions. BTW - a 'little wear' has no real effect on the efficiency of a drive sprocket. And it would take more wear than I've ever seen to cause the track to slip.

@edwinsalau150 Год назад

We had one at Quantico, Virginia. Our tank platoon in Schools Demonstration Troops. First cake Battalion at camp Pendleton had an entire battalion of them. Remembering from 61 to 63 when I went back to Okinawa. Don’t know how much longer they kept them in service.

@hamster-wh3ws 28 дней назад

Short and sweet version (if you don't want endless detailed discussion on trivia): Heavy tanks sacrifice mobility and maneuverability for benefits in armour and firepower. It's a concept that no longer exists today. Most likely modern tanks are so well powered they can keep the armour and heavy guns and still have great mobility and maneuverability. That is all.

@terrified057t4 Год назад

Well darn, now I want the A1 and A2 in WT...

@andrewhaddock7996 Год назад

My 3 all time favourite tanks, conqueror, tortoise, and m103.

@jasonpatience8255 Год назад

I loved his tank on WoT, so glad you did a vid to get the history behind this beast 😍

@1cowboyr512 Год назад

Two things I wish that would return: Heavy Tanks and Battleships. They are just awesome.

@thegamingzilla6269 5 месяцев назад

Id say that heavy tanks were killed, less by the rise of MBT's, as these were really just medium tanks with heavier guns. What killed them was the rapid rise of stuff like sabot ammunition as well as HEATFS which made lumbering armored behemoths useless as both of these ammunition's could easily penetrate even the Maus from the front. More modern construction of these ammunitions also made previous generation versions, such as the HEATFS developed for the M103 redundant as they could penetrate more armor while also being smaller, lighter, and more accurate. Missiles also played a part in the death of the heavy tank concept as despite early missiles being horrendous to control, could still pretty easily and precisely mission kill a heavy tank

@RedWrenchFilms 5 месяцев назад

Yes, but fired out of the “heavier guns” that were put onto the medium tank. A medium tank became an MBT, which could kill a heavy, therefore rendering heavies useless.

@thegamingzilla6269 5 месяцев назад

@@RedWrenchFilms it would still be the ammunition which killed them, because eventually light tanks would also get the same guns and ammunition as the MBT's

@RedWrenchFilms 5 месяцев назад

@@thegamingzilla6269 Ammunition allowed guns to be smaller/lower calibre, which allowed them to be put in MBTs, which killed the heavy.

@CMDRFandragon Год назад

M103 is the sexiest Cold War Heavy.

@Genuinespaceman Год назад

I saw a M103 in the Dubois Wyoming museum. One of my favorites💪

@Katzbalger001 Год назад

Saw one in a tank park at Camp Lejeune back in 1983--definitely an imposing vehicle.

@YippingFox 3 месяца назад

At some point it is no longer about penetrating. If you hit a tank hard enough, you'll, literally, knock out a crew from the impact alone.

@SWEArcher Год назад

Yet another great video from my idol!

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Thanks again!

@germanpanzer38t Год назад

Well hello there red wrench

@philo6850 Год назад

Learned something new today, never heard of this tank before. I think this project was a good lesson in how sometimes less is more with the pursuit of the MBT concept superseding it. Too big, the size of the 120mm ammunition must have been horrendous to handle anywhere, let alone in the turret. What can I say but another awesome video, a most enjoyable Cold War history lesson, thank you again!

@katrinapaton5283 Год назад

And yet here we are with the M1, a 68 ton tank with a 120mm gun, which is also a fuel hog.

@StrikeNoir105E Год назад

@@katrinapaton5283 That's more due to the fact that the MBT became heavier, with the M1 being as large and heavy as it is due to all necessary hardware. Unlike the M103 though, the M1 is significantly more mobile being faster (M1's 70Kph compared to the M103's 40Kph) and more agile, thus fulfilling the criteria to be a "main battle tank" instead of a "heavy tank".

@crocidile90 Год назад

@@StrikeNoir105E and the fact that APFSDS means you get more penetration per shot and advancement in chemical science meant better powder so shells are lighter and more powerful. Also helps that if the Abrams didn't have its side skirts on, it would lose about 5-6 tons, still on the heavy side but not near the 70t mark as a Sepv3 is with all the armor packages.

@SilverStarHeggisist 6 месяцев назад

I sucked at playing this tank till I researched how it was supposed to be used. If you sit across the map, you bounce most shots and your HEAT deletes shit. Your long reload isn't a issue at 2000 yards because only a R3 will flank in less time then the reload. But if you try to slug it out at close range, good luck

@tschoero12 3 месяца назад

And of course the 300HP 7.0 FOX

@johnchambers2996 Год назад

Impressive on paper but a maintenance nightmare and requiring the heavy M-51 retrievers. At any given time, half would be down due to broken torsion bars or fire-control issues.

@brayy__l0 Год назад

there’s one in front of my local library Edit: the first picture he showed of the m103s towards the end is the one I’m talking about )

@richardsuggs8108 Год назад

The M1A Abrams tank can weigh in at almost 67 tons. It depends on the version of the tank.

@zzgonnazz6893 Год назад

But is not a heavy tank its a mbt

@richardsuggs8108 Год назад

@@zzgonnazz6893 Don’t know about you sir but I think 67 tons is pretty heavy.

@kristianxoto Год назад

@@richardsuggs8108 if you think that is heavy then you have not seen my momma

@richardsuggs8108 Год назад

@@kristianxoto 😂😂

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

@@richardsuggs8108 The weight of the tank is only coincidentally related to whether it is classified as a "heavy tank". "Heavy" refers to the tactical role, not the weight per se. So the M1 is a "main battle tank" because it is the basic tank issued to all US Army tank units. There are occasional exceptions such as the Airborne tank bns that had M551s but those are exceptions. "Heavy" tanks are designed and employed to support other tanks, typically with bigger guns and thicker armor (thus the greater weight) and are almost always employed in much smaller numbers in specialized units. That's what makes them "heavy" tanks, not how many pounds they weigh in at.

@albertborgman859 Год назад

They had some parked at Ft McCoy, Wisconsin. With the heavy gun an effective tank destroyer.

@kasualmechanic4854 Год назад

Nobody seems to have stated this so I will: the M103 looks like something straight out of Warhammer 40k. Like, all that needs to be added is several more machineguns, a bow gunner in the hull and we are set.

@jcameronferguson 6 месяцев назад

The Marines passed on the M60 but cludged its engine into the M48 and M103... Only to wind up being the last branch to operate M60s, which they took to Desert Storm 🤔

@paulhunter1735 Год назад

I love the fact that the M-103 at 70 tons was said to be to heavy and impractical and now we have the 70 ton Abrams.........go figure lol.

@ReviveHF Год назад

The armour protection of this tank is still adequate for infantry support role even by today's standard. It can shrug off older variant of RPG-7 and 40mm cannon shells. Old tanks aren't useless, just look at the Russians bringing back the T-62 and T-34 tanks back into action, rumours says that they even bringing back the IS-3 heavy tanks.

@danielm.595 9 месяцев назад

Considering that there were variants of the IS-2 in service up to the 90s, I wouldn't be surprised if they appeared in Ukraine as more modern tanks are destroyed and Russian desperation grows.

@Paskalion Год назад

My fav tank in World of Tanks. Use hulldown tactic most of the time.

@Christopher_Giustolisi Год назад

The Abrams also weighs over 60 tons but strangely it´s not considered to be a heavy tank

@DeltaAssaultGaming Год назад

It’s a main battle tank, which rendered heavy tanks obsolete.

@Christopher_Giustolisi Год назад

@@DeltaAssaultGaming but it´s as heavy as the heavy tanks and since weight is the criteria, why isn´t the Abrams a heavy tank?

@jonathanallen3688 Месяц назад

@@Christopher_Giustolisikinda late but to answer your question weight alone was not the only designating factor for a heavy. Almost every nation has differing criteria for example the panther according to German doctrine was a medium but according to other nations it was a heavy. By WW2 classification for most nations most MBTs would be considered "Heavy" tanks but one that system of classification died out 60 years ago and most tanks are classified by their doctrinal use nowadays.

@ICECAPPEDSKY Год назад

The first Heavy Tank the US made in decent numbers was the M6 series M6/M6A1/T1E1/M6A2E1 but they never saw service just served as spectacles for war bond drives in WW2 and used as trial vehicles for the heavy tanks they tried to make later. The M6A2E1 led to the T29, then the T30, then the T34 ,and finally the M103 The M103 was the last and only heavy tank the US made that actually saw service. I mean the modern Abrams tanks are MBT’s but are definitely heavy enough tonnage wise to be considered a modern heavy if you want to consider them as such

@aksmex2576 11 месяцев назад

M103 was my first 3 mark tank in world of Tanks.

@rask906 Год назад

i am very exited for the next vid, very good btw great job on the editing

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Thanks!

@DK-ed7be Год назад

The US Army did borrow one battalion of M103A2s and accompanying M51s from the USMC and deployed them with 3AD in Germany during the 1960s into the early 1970s. Now the history of the M103 is a bit more complete.

@George_M_ Год назад

It's just too big, I've seen one. The is3 feels about as tall as it's hull. And going from WoT, it's armor really only works head-on, which is bad when you're that tall. Anyone know where 'Junkyard Dog' from the MVTF wound up?

@c3aloha Год назад

Ironic that the USMC at the time adopted the heaviest tank at the same time they also acquired the Ontos. Reflects the philosophical splits that have always existed in thinking about USMC role other then second land army. Manifesting today with Force Design 2030 and the retirement of Marine tanks.

@BARelement 6 месяцев назад

The T29 itself was 70.8 short tons, it was 64 metric tons. M103 was 65 short tons, 59 metric tons, 58 long tons. The M103 wasn’t near 20 tons lighter… Neither the Pilot model which was I think around 2-4 tons lighter.

@dennislemasters4339 Год назад

the allies really did fear the is-3 when they first saw it as at the time the best tanks the british and americans had the pershing armed with a 90mm gun and the centurion armed with a 17 pdr which would shortly be upgraded to the 20 pdr could not pen it's upper glacies plate, the is-3 was made to withstand hits from the 88mm gun of the king tiger and the 128mm gun of the jagdtiger

@callumbush1 Год назад

The Ukrainians would love 1000 of them!

@mohammadshehada267 Год назад

If USA send them M60 or even M48 it will by easier, cheaper, and more useful than sending the good old M103 😂😂

@Bryan_Kay Год назад

@@mohammadshehada267 M60 have better main armament imo.

@jamesharris4695 Год назад

This was the tank that had me in awe as a child

@franknord4826 2 месяца назад

This makes me wonder, with current iterations of MBTs like Abrams, Challenger and Leopard all sporting 120mm guns and comparable weight to the M103, what even differentiates the heavy tanks of yore from current main battle tanks?

@RedWrenchFilms 2 месяца назад

Mobility - composite armour has allowed MBTs to remain well protected without being prohibitively slow and ungainly.

@GSC-Operator-chan 10 месяцев назад

Great video, however one minor issue: The M60 is not part of the "patton series" of tanks. The name is reserved only for the M46, M47, and M48 tanks.

@ryanr1945 Год назад

Currently looking at my ground rb line up and debating on running my m103

@AlexRoivas Месяц назад

Blows my mind that it took forever for the USA to adopt diesel engines tanks

@kashawashatvop203 Год назад

Warthunder needs to add the latest version of this vehicle to the game

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

great video

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Thank you 🙏

@pixelnut3d950 9 месяцев назад

fun fact: objest 278 (stalins moonrover) and IS7 were successful and their prototypes aced the tests, but the inability to be transported by train and the cost set them back

@lt_cycloperstrike199 Год назад

Been imagining always if the T110 Concept Series especially my favorite the E5 been produced or even just a Prototype, it would be so amazing

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

I 3 marked that tank in WoT - loved the thing

@lt_cycloperstrike199 Год назад

@@RedWrenchFilms but what i hate about the E5 is it’s 6 Road Wheels instead of 7 like the M103

@jabloko992 11 месяцев назад

I don't get why people keep saying stuff like 'last heavy tank' or 'why did heavy tanks go obsolete?'. THE ABRAMS IS 60-70 TONS, depending on the type!!! It is heavier than the thing in this video! They are literally heavy tanks with a good engine and transmission system that fixed their past mobility issues. It's not the heavy tank that has gone out of style, IT'S THE MEDIUM TANK THAT DID! They call them main battle tanks not because they are lighter than heavy tanks, but because operating separate heavies and mediums became redundant with such powerful HEAVY TANKS.

@RedWrenchFilms 11 месяцев назад

MBTs are not heavy tanks. They’re heavy, yes, but not heavy tanks. Not all warships are battleships despite them doing battle. It’s a doctrinal term, weight actually isn’t relevant.

@jabloko992 11 месяцев назад

@@RedWrenchFilms I'm fully aware of this, I even pointed it out in the last bit of the comment. The point is that what we have today is a heavy tank in steroids, you can call it whatever you like, it's still the same thing at the end of the day: A big angry fucking tank. And because the army is very happy only running BAFTs, they just call them "main battle tanks", because the mediums aren't needed anymore (except in Russia where the medium lineage became their "main" battle tank). A "heavy" tank is only heavy as long as it's heavier than the rest. Nowadays there is no "rest". That doesn't mean it's not the same beast

@RedWrenchFilms 11 месяцев назад

@@jabloko992 MBTs are much closer in doctrine to medium tanks than heavies. Just because they’re heavier doesn’t mean anything. This is especially true because the first generation MBTs were used _alongside_ the last heavy tanks, replacing the medium rather than the heavy. Is Centurion a heavy? Is the M60? Leopard 1? No. These designs evolved into the MBTs we see today, the heavy tank died in the 60s. Just because MBTs have got heavier doesn’t make them heavy tanks. It’s like arguing that the Arleigh Burke or Type 45 class of destroyers are actually cruisers because they displace as much as cruisers did in WW2 - not the case.

@jabloko992 11 месяцев назад

@@RedWrenchFilms I'm not arguing about what a heavy or MBT means in proper military terms, but rather what a casual person sees: a heavy tank that can go as fast as a medium. Because of their speed, they can be used doctrinally similarly to a medium, that much is true, but as far as "cool big tank" is concerned, that stayed the same. My point is that people who are disappointed that heavy tanks are gone should not be, because they are still here, they just got faster and got a fancy new name and different doctrine (thanks to said speed). We are talking past each other I think, you're talking about proper military doctrine, I'm talking about dumbasses like myself for whom a tank is just something cool that appears in films and video games (and I bloody hope it stays that way).

@albertborgman859 Год назад

Last I saw we were parked up at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin.

@Train115 Год назад

1:32, that looks like a range finder.

@Brahmdagh Год назад

Its just SO BEAUTIFUL

@Storlans Год назад

you could say at the end of the dayu it kinda came back since the 120mm gun was needed in the end anyway.

@kallinfluaitt3983 Год назад

I know your videos few weeks old at this point and I sure as fuk didn't read the rest your comments to make sure no one else brought up this point but I disagree on why you stated heavy tanks throughout the world fell out of favor in my opinion it is due to the prevalence and perfection of shaped charges what a 90 mm gun can penetrate over 300 mm armor at any rains you can at least hit then it really doesn't matter how much armor you can put on conventionally but all-in-all I enjoyed your video and it was well put together

@MadaraUchiha55910 Год назад

Interesting how the whole point of the MBT was its ability to do everything a heavy tank could while weighing less but the MBT of today weigh’s near if not the exact same as the M103 did

@bluntcabbage6042 Год назад

It wasn't about weight, it was about mobility. MBTs didn't have to be lighter than heavies, they had to be faster. This originally meant lighter weight, because engines were not powerful enough to support more armor. Modern engines are plenty capable, so bolting on a ton of armor as well is a logical choice.

@MadaraUchiha55910 Год назад

@@bluntcabbage6042 So in theory, the JagdTiger could have worked in they had the engine tech of today

@bluntcabbage6042 Год назад

@@MadaraUchiha55910 Yes, there's just no point to doing it.

@MadaraUchiha55910 Год назад

@@bluntcabbage6042 What about the Tiger and Tiger II with today’s technology those would have worked in theory.

@thomasmitchell7645 8 месяцев назад

I enjoyed your videos on tank destroyers: the American Hellcat and Jackson, the German Jaghpanzers and the Soviet SU series. Why not do a video about why the tank destroyer disappeared as an armored vehicle type in the postwar world (except in Sweden)? Also a discussion on which type of tank destroyer was more effective the German-Soviet assault guns or the lightly-armored roofless American tanks. Also why the Brits never developed their own tank destroyers in WWII.

@BARelement 6 месяцев назад

Wait a dalmn minute, why is your super Pershing customized similar to mine -.-. Similar TASTE?!

@Appletank8 Год назад

tbf, there are very few tanks that weren't vulnerable from the side

@Maximilian7992 Месяц назад

Sad thing is, this is America’s only mass produced heavy tank.

@user-mp8pr8kn2h Год назад

Takom 1/35 scale M103A1/A2,cooming soon , i like this vidio

@m4shermanfan225 11 дней назад

Basically a Patton tank on steroids

@jamesocker5235 Год назад

Please explore tracks used on T69, they look like enlarged t93 tracks like bull dog but larger as whole chassis has a m41 on steroids look from m42

@jlawsl Год назад

I love the rationale, we don't need a 60 ton tank with a 120mm main gun and lots of armor anymore, and then we make a 60-72 ton MBT with a 120mm gun and lots of armor...derrrp. But, we don't call it a heavy tank. Mind blown.

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

To be fair the Abrams 120mm is a lot smaller and a lot better than that on the M103, and despite the tank being heavier it's also a lot faster and more nimble while having incredible armour protection. But I do see what you mean!

@executivedirector7467 Год назад

See above. The M1 is a main battle tank; the M103 was a heavy tank. Two very different concepts that are only coincidentally related to actual weight.

@02suraditpengsaeng41 Год назад

After I look every model I need to say fun thing They just a Sherman but in different physical dimension and tech

@afmo500 Год назад

Was convinced 'CIA' was stencilled on one of the Marine 103's for a few seconds. Somehow seeing 'CIA' on a tank was uniquely fear inducing.

@sinisterisrandom8537 Год назад

If were going by weight the M1A2 is definitely getting close to the old heavy tank classification. In terms of armor thats more of a confusing area to look at. Due to the different types and the depleted uranium thats utilized. (Not exported models those do not have it) If i want to be a smart ass for laughs and giggles it is technically a heavy tank of tye modern era.

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Heavy tank is more of a doctrine term - the Abrams is definitely an MBT through and through, both in design and deployment. Sure is heavy though!

@cloxurf9603 Год назад

Ill be honest with u, you arent gonna get famous very soon but god damn you have great videos dont stop making them

@NorthernNorthdude91749 Год назад

The early experiments with autoloaders are interesting. Since the tech is more mature now, I'm confident the next generation of US tank, be it the Abrams-X or a whole new tank, will use it. Manual loading is just objectively obsolete, and there's absolutely no reason not to include an autoloader in all further tank designs.

@RedWrenchFilms Год назад

Weight, cost and reliability are three big issues! One less crew member also makes maintenance that much more difficult.

@ravenoferin500 Год назад

@@RedWrenchFilmsIf you could make a configuration that had room for a "loader" that's just there in case the autoloader has issues and just give him an mg or something to play with and bam. Best of both worlds. Could give an extra set of eyes to look for targets or whatever. Hell give him a good view front low and could be on IED finding duty. But eh all hypothetical. Autoloaders are big makes shoving another extra bit of meat spaced armor harder.