It really is amazing, how David Fletcher puts on such a perfectly-distinguished, knowledgeable chat... And then in the middle he says "if someone hadn't nicked it," and yes, my sides died laughing, too.
I've never quite put my finger on why, but there is something very 'right' and pleasing about the Chaffee, despite the fact that it's utterly conventional in layout. The 90mm gun in the Norwegian vehicles was the GIAT F2 from the AML-90 armoured car.
It's efficient. Not as tall as a Sherman, not as long as a T-34. Plus it's a light tank, with a gun substantially more powerful than what its own armour can take. In many movies it was a sort of repacement PzKpfw. III (in grey and with crosses), which, if you squint (and keep squinting), is kind of proportional.
Yeah, it's definitely one of my favourite tanks aesthetically, it just looks really nice. The other mid/late-war US tank designs had a similar style, like the Pershing or T28/T95, as opposed to the more "bleh" 1930s designs. Interestingly, I feel the same thing happened with US aircraft too.
@@vaclav_fejt It also 'played' Shermans in the Battle Of The Bulge movie, with M-47s played Tiger IIs. The choice of tanks was pretty much dictated by the fact that he movie was made in Spain with the cooperation of the Spanish Army, and that's what they had.
The conventional nature is what makes it so pleasing--the Chaffee, the Pershing/Patton family... if you just say the word "tank," those are the generic image that springs to mind. The proportions are right, they're conventional in layout, and they're simple, purposeful designs where you can see how everything works together to be a good solid machine.
I would have to add a 3rd key use of the M-24. When used by the Japanese Self Defense Force against Godzilla. Unfortunately the 75 was not very effective. :) Another excellent overview.
Those poor Japanese Self Defense Force tankers being sent against Godzilla. I've always imagined that when the commanders got their orders they yelled back, "Has this _ever_ worked?"
I think that, perhaps, the only "flaw" in the Chaffee was kinda like the WW1 Royal Navy Battlecruisers, some idiot heard 75mm cannon and basically wanted a light scout tank to do the duty of a MEDIUM tank!
@@timengineman2nd714 is it really a flaw? if it did run into some infantry or light-medium tanks it had to deal with it could. Compared to the other guns in service its a very viable gun. It's a lot better as the 37mm used on earlier lights. Using the same ammo as the 75mm shermans saves a lot of logistical hassle as well, compared to for instance using a british 6 pounder. For a light tank however it was tough having a decent amount of effective armor for its weight. The way it was build did allow it to fight if needed, sometimes an assault comes your way or a unit needs quick support. Better to have the gun to do the job in those situations, even if they don't appear very frequently. In terms of size it's not that much larger as the M3 and M5 stuarts either. Its 5.56m long (with gun) compared to the M5's (4.62m), 3m vs 2.39m wide, 2.77m vs 2.33m tall. So yeah its about 20% larger as its predecessor, but much more lethal. If it has any flaws its that the engine is weaker as the M5 while being heavier (18.4 tons with 220hp vs 16.5 tons 296hp, although things like the transmission can still make it more mobile).
It really was the pinnacle of 'light tank' design and technology for World War 2. It did literally everything very well and nothing poorly. I don't know if it was expensive compared to M5s or M4s
It was more expensive for sure, but the gained capability over the M3/M5 line made it worth the increase in materials and money. It could go more places at better speed thanks to its wider tracks tied to a better suspension, and the 75mm was capable of destroying any enemy scout vehicles, unlike the 37mm. Its high-explosive shell also was definitely better for engaging the infantry and anti-tank guns that represented the other major problem for scouts. So long as M24 was used a scout, it was indeed the best light tank.
@@genericpersonx333 Well, I guess by late ww2, there wasnt much in the way of enemy armour left.... so its main targets would have been anti tank guns and infantry. In which it excelled at.
Don't take these as authoritative rather than mere guesstimates; but the average cost of a Sherman medium tank was probably around: ~$20,000 in manufacturing the weight in armor, plus $35,000 for everything else Cost of a light M24 Chaffee was probably ~$10,000 in manufacturing the weight in armor, plus $??? in everything else. ____ I can't find actual order prices for Stuarts or Chaffees, or I would have given those...
@@roadsweeper1 I seem to recall reading somewhere that use of high explosives in support of infantry, taking out positions, dealing with things other than armored fighting vehicles made up majority of the work for American tank crews during the conflict. Maybe it was a piece by Steven Zaloga? But, the Americans didn't see much tank vs tank warfare in Italy, nor in the early days of Overlord.
@@michaeldunne338 Absolutely, it was all about tactics. The 75mm H.E. was well suited for taking out bunkers and machine gun emplacements in support of infantry. By D-Day the the USAAF had total control of the sky and any German Armored Vehicle that moved during daylight was just asking for it.....
Always loved the opening scene in “The Bridge at Remagen” which used these both in the movie and the actual battle. One of the best opening scenes in a movie ever. They drove those Chaffees full out and really showed how those those tanks can move!
It's a terrific opening scene and counterposes the Americans, with tons of motorised and mechanised units, versus the Germans, reduced to chugging along on sluggish trains. And as you say, those Chafees go like stink!
Just an interesting piece of knowledge: as the movie was filmed in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and East German government did not agree with the way politics was developing in there at that time, their newspapers spread a hoax saying that american forces started to occupy Czechoslovakia - in fact, those "occupation forces" were these tanks needed for the cast...
Thanks for sharing that 👍 I had never seen that before, and while viewing it a moment ago, I first assumed the footage *must* have been sped up. But then compared to everything else in the shots, I quickly started to appreciate how it was legit.
something that disappointed me but I understand why they didn’t is there weren’t any Pershings or Sherman’s in the movie only greyhounds and Chaffees when I was hoping they’d recreate the part where the Pershings were providing cover fire and go to cross the bridge but realise they’re too heavy so the Sherman’s have to go across leaving the heavy armour behind.
The Japanese self defense force was a major recipient of M24 based combat vehicles after the war. I've seen footage of Japanese Chaffees and their M19 "Paleo-Duster" cousins on several occasions. Something perhaps worthy of mentioning is the Chaffee spawning a whole combat vehicle family. The M37HMC (a mini-Priest), the M38 Mortar Carrier (for the 4.2"), the M19MGMC (twin Bofors guns . . . I mean, who wouldn't?), the T77 (armed with 6x .50cal MGs), and the T41/M39 ACV/APC. Of these, the Chaffee and the M19 saw quite a bit of service. The idea behind the Combat Vehicle Family is the ease of maintenance and logistics earned from the use of a single basic chassis and drive train.
We ignored the 75mm gun M7 Light/Medium, waiting two more years for the "right tank" which arrived too late for real duty in the war as a result. I'd've rather had M7s in '43 than all the Chaffees in the world in '45.
I'm one of the fortunate few outside of the military and historians to have heard of Adna Chaffee. My family is from Orwell, Ohio (Chaffee's family hometown) and the village park is named after him. For being the middle of nowhere, Ashtabula County sure spawned some colourful figures.
Norway was occupied by Germany, and they bravely fought for their country, but loss many good men, the Norwegian resistence movement (incl.SAS) also contributed to slow down/stop Hitlers acces to "heavy water" to make the atombomb.
@@derekmills1080 AND the coward sweden did contribute to over 10000 Norwegians soldiers death, this you did propably not know, -- i am a Finn, and both my parents did participate in WW2, not as refuges, - but both at the front, hence my interest in war history, Levi
@@MrKeys57 dear Levi, I've always been puzzled how endless documentaries brush Sweden's behaviour in WWII aside. Incidentally, I have a particular interest in this channel in that my late father was in the Royal Armoured Corps in WWII. Fighting in Sherman tanks in N Africa and Italy. He didn't say much about his horrendous experiences, but luckily escaped his tank being knocked out soon after crossing the Rapido over Amazon Bridge in the Cassino battle. I have a picture of him in front of his later marque Sherman with the American 3" or 76.2mm gun (with enhanced frontal armour as a casting - there aren't the usual bolts to be seen as on M3 and early M4 tanks) described by David in an earlier 'chat'. After victory in Europe, his unit was disbanded and he served in various areas in Europe but never, ever talked about what he saw there. Derek
"between 18 and 20 tons" *Depending on whether or not you're American or British I took it both ways as you talking about the different measurements of tons and the different weights of the crew 😭
There's still at least one M-24 at Dien Bien Phu, forming part of a memorial to the battle. It was remarkable how they were transported in pieces and reassembled in the field. Great tank!
In 2007 this wonderful man took my detachment on a tour of the Tank Museum. One of my favourite memories in uniform. Knew everything and loved talking about tanks.
Adna Romanza Chaffee Jr. (September 23, 1884 - August 22, 1941) was an officer in the United States Army, called the "Father of the Armored Force" for his role in developing the U.S. Army's tank forces. There’s a Fort Chaffee in the state of Arkansas named in his honor.
One of them still stands at the gate of a Norwegian army base today. It was picked up and shipped by trailer as part of the huge NATO exersize in 2018. We used a Chaffee and a WW2 german panser 3 of all things. I had time to go into both of them. They both stay outside, and not kept as nice as you guys do at Bovington sadly. I have always hoped they could display the old stuff. That can help pay for some of the work needed to preserve them better.
I snapped a picture of a modernized Chaffee standing outside the defence museum at Akershus festning (fortress) in Oslo. Really cool seing old and new fused together
I've always liked the M24 Chaffee , it just looks right . Plus i have always loved the film 'the bridge at Remagen' . I can't look at the M24 and not think of the opening scene where the American forces are racing to capture a bridge .
The lunge for the Oberkassel bridge? Some great shots of the column moving at apparently rather rapid speeds: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EbvIjYl9SU4.html
I love this channel, it reminds me of how HUGE tanks are, look at the size of these "light tanks". It also teaches the true story of tanks, reminding us that a lot of tanks were designed for fighting troops and not other tanks.
Chaffees are genuinely smaller than you'd expect standing next to them. There's an outdoor tank park/museum at Cantigny Park for the Big Red One. And they got WW1 - modern units there. The man with the mustache is pretty pint sized.
I put up a comment asking the purpose of the large removable hatch at the front, two kind people explained it was for access to the gearbox; yet that comment was removed somehow. I even paid tribute to Fletcher's epic moustache! I'd like to thank Nick Turner and Chris Long for explaining it to me.
These liberated my country. It's the most iconic tank in all the grainy archive war footage we saw growing up. I think I've been programmed to find it aesthetically pleasing in its lines and proportions
Hey, still serving a role. A tank is a tool of war, not an aesthetic piece of art, and as long as we have some examples of a tank available for tank developers to reference so they can make better tanks, I am not heart-broken if most of its fellows end their days training new soldiers. Better that than being scrapped to make razor blades or other trivial product.
@@genericpersonx333 That being said, I really wish these vehicles were saved and restored more, and not just from WWII, but other wars as well. It's an era that is fascinating, and it's sad so many vehicles simply don't exist anymore except in film. It would be great education for both school children, and hands on visual learning for upcoming engineers, and of course history buffs to truly see the differences, and advancements, pro's con's, and how lessons were learned, and being able to see these vehicles in person, and really compare them would be a huge benefit, and awesome thing.
Adna Chaffee Jr was the first Chief of the armor Branch (before this time the US Army had both cavalry tanks and infantry tank units)...His father commanded the US forces during The Boxer Rebellion...
@@thatfriggingbathroom2656 Just rechecked, it is a Chaffee. The wheels betrayed it. I got the DVD's, for me this is the perfect comedy, nostalgic and reminds me of my childhood, my parents and all. I regularly start crying... Another thing I looked up: It could play everywhere (well, everywhere in the Po delta), but in the movie you can see the name of the village. So I checked - yes, that is the real name! And it still looks the same, there is a site where a guy literally looked for all the sites in the movie. This market place with the church looks IDENTICAL, he found the place where Don Camillo went swimming, and so on. I am almost tempted to go there myself, is not so far away from me, after all. I can only recommend to watch it again. I can imagine you will have similiar feelings.
ARVN used them during the Vietnam war, too. Because of their participation in some of the coups within the South Vietnamese government, they were known as "Voting machines."
(1) I understand that the 75 had a "concentric recoil system" in the Mitchell B25 bomber, giving it a much shorter recoil. This allowed it to operate within this relatively small tank turret. (2) The lack of a "turret basket" inside also allowed for more ammunition storage - usually asking for 70 rounds in most tanks. (3) The US armored divisions had battalions of 3 Sherman companies of 17 tanks and one company of M5 Stuarts. The Stuarts at the time of the arrival of the Chaffee were used mostly for rear-area liaison missions, held away from the chance of an encounter with German armor. When the Stuart tankers got the Chaffee, then went all-out to the front, with a chance to compete using speed, agility, and a good gun.
Basically a US requirement. All tanks had to have a bow machinegun. If you have that gun you need 5 crew. This combined with the minimum shell requirement (I think of 90 rounds) was one of the delays in deploying the M26 Pershing. The development board could fit the ammo or the bow gunner but not both in the tank.
I love the Chaffee. It's cool knowing it really was a good vehicle. Can't believe the Norwegians used it all the way into the 90's. That's pretty nuts.
Thank you for mentioning the French users. I remember a photo of Group Mobile 100 with M 24 tanks in a convoy. The M 24 tanks also were featured in The Bridge at Remagen movie. Were they Yugoslavian Army? I bet yes, as I'd find it hard to believe that Hollywood would fly tanks to Europe.
The M24 Chaffee is one of my favorite tanks from WW2. And i love the Norwegian upgraded one. Same goes for the Chilean upgraded M24. Armed with 60 mm HVMS gun.
Uruguay ( Uruguayan Army ) used the M24 Chafee with notable success until 2018, with good maintenance, repowering its communications equipment and diesel engines.
Of all WWII American tanks, this is my favorite. I must have put together 9 or 10 model kits of the M24 over the years in 1/35 scale, and this year have undertaken building one in 1/6 scale. For anyone who collects vintage 1960s G.I. Joe or Action Man, I think you can work out why I decided to do this. A tank commander shouldn't be standing around next to a huge jade-green radio set all day, he should be tearing around the back yard in style!
As an aside, I'm thrilled to see that the museum has so fully embraced their online fame and are giving people opportunities to support the collection in so many ways.
Except that there is 3 dam ad brakes baked into the videos now. To the point of not wanting to watch or give them a dime. Charity should not be begged for every 10 (or in this case 5) minutes.
Production value has increased substantially, it's subtle but wow. I've enjoyed these chats since some of the very earliest. They just get better. I noticed you've taken other people's comments about editing in "adverts" for the shop/patreon as well. They fit in perfectly now and the cuts to diagrams/the parts of the tank that Mr Fletcher talks about are as good as (probably better than) anything I'd ever seen back in the hayday of educational TV.
Noticed the footage from the Australian war memorial. Australia trialled these tabks in late 44 and 45 and found that the automatic gearbox was not suited to jungle warfare. It'd be hunting a gear whilst you're trying to do slow work.
The Stuart and Chaffee look worlds apart from each other. The former is typical of the interwar period, whereas the Chaffee already has that Cold War look. Beautiful tank.
I love it better in the movie Bridge of Remagen. The opening scene where a bunch of them where speed racing by the river Rhine while shooting at the Germans on the other was an awesome scene.
Dad was on Chaffee's. Yeah, they played the part of Shermans in "Battle of the Bulge". Oddly enough, I got assigned to M51a1 Sheridans. A light tank that was somehow not a tank, but that's a story in itself.
This, the M3 and M5 (or the British equivalent) are some of my favourites when it comes to the smaller, less glamorous tanks of WWII. (PS - saw this first time it was uploaded, couldn't comment in time before it was pulled)
Tank was so new and fresh and rare in last months of IIWW that some Allied soldiers have been openening fire on M24 because the Chaffee chassis was similar in look to German Panzer II and also Panther, specially from distance.
The main reason for the frontal transmission was to allow for better ease when shifting gears because you wouldn’t need a long linkage like the t34 had which made it incredibly strenuous to operate
A very good tank. Good at everything that one reasonably could expect of a light tank of that time. The only possible complain I have is a minor one, and that is that it came about late to the war and thus its short 75mm gun was perhaps a little too weak to deal with German armor. But its still a very impressive vehicle on paper. I dont think any other country had built a light tank with this good combination of mobility, armor and firepower. This togheter with hellcat is my favorite american tanks from this war.
