With so many designs and plans to hand at the time, and uncertainty as to the future of armoured warfare even was at the time, one can imagine why Centurion was for some time seen as a stopgap. (like various classes of train in history) As it was she was considered for replacement by 1947, then 1949, then the 1950's, then by 1969 (Chieftain debuting in 1966), and partially was, yet special Cent' variants soldiered on until 1994 (Army) & 2003 (Navy), and the South-Africans *still* operate heavily modified Centurions today. Though the only WWII era Tank design that could claim to still be in service anywhere (as a full on manned gun tank, rather than improv' artillery operated by pullstring), it'd be rather unfair to those back in the 1940's to say they should have known they had such a winner on their hands, nor that she'd be relevant for so long. (especially as wartime developments had often made one year's latest stuff entirely irrelevant by the next) Is funny though to think of Centurion as the Tank equivilant of *MRCA* (Must Replace [the EE] Canberra Again).
I am looking forward to when you get around to the Valentine. For some reason this is a favorite vehicle of mine. I saw a photo of my aunts in front of new ones coming out of the factory. So it had to be the Angus Works in Montreal. I have no context, as the war was never discussed. They all married veterans, and dated them before they went overseas. Their brother was killed in the Merchant Navy. My grandfather pined and died within 3 years of his son being killed. Yes, growing up one would not have known that our family had any involvement because it not only wasn't discussed, it was avoided. But, based on photos I found after they died, my aunts all had war production jobs. One appears to have had some role in Valentine production.
It's a funny thing . Here we see that the Cromwells 75mmgun was considered utterly inadequate to engage soviet armor, principally the T34 , in the late forties and fifties. Yet , at the same time , on different threads and in different comments sections , you will see people argue that this gun was perfectly adequate to deal with the heavier German armor deployed in Normandy against the British , British Commonwealth and Polish forces a few years earlier.
So back to two man in the turret, when the emphasis shifted from being able to withstand enemy shots to spotting the enemy first. Which is a job for the commander. Who shouldn't be doing other stuff at the same time... like having to point and fire the gun.
Thank you for your hard work to bring us the history of this tank and searching out photos to show us all. Whilst enlightening, the mix of roles of tank destroyers and tanks is as you say very confusing. The distinction of whether the FV is supporting infantry seems pointless as this must ultimately be the case in order to hold territory and win. It is also the case if a battle becomes defensive, because armour would be expected to cover a withdrawal.
boom - i see new video, i immediately hit like. oh, i forgot to say that i am here because of the the chieftain's recommendation. and yes, you do good work! hm, as for a suggestion, perhaps a vid on the classic 8 rad sdfkz 23x series? cheers!
Im pretty damn sure that the turret on the Charioteer used in the Thumbnail is actually at the Australian Armour and Artillery Mueseum. theres a few videos on their youtube channel where you can see a Charioteer turret with the exact same decals [214 and the Austrian Air Force Roundel] in the exact same place. its just up on a turret stand.
Great video - just for the fun of it, have you ever come across the words tank destroyer in any British sources? No one ever used the phrase much outside of its proper use to describe USA doctrine in WWII until World of Tanks hit us and now we have fights over what's defined as what!
it’s mentioned several times in parliament to describe Conqueror in questions, but it’s pretty clear the politicians mean it in a different sense to the American class of vehicle. Charioteer gets a mention in one of them too (I just stumbled on) which may be the origin of the confusion.
Was the use of fixed viewing devices in the turret roof - rather than a cupola such as on the Comet - a result of the doctirnal use of the vehicle? Hearing about any Comet parts making their way to something Cromwell based was very interesting to find out.
Fascinating video about a little known British afv. Nice to know the Cromwell lived on in this version.The 20 pounder gun would have been useful in WW2 !
^ Nope. It had more to do with: • Does the gun fit in the Tank? (with a few the answer was no; as the turret ring was slightly too small) • If yes: is the gun readily producable?. (in the case of 6 Pounder it was, while bigger stuff was either for use by other branches of the military, or still in development, like 17 Pounder) • If yes to both: Does it have the ammunition we want? (in 6 Pounder's case it did; with a great AP round, and an at least useful HE round that 2 Pounder had lacked) The British *could* have gone mad and strapped something like the 5.25" naval gun to a Tank chassis; but that would have been ludicrously overkill for most wartime opponents, and a waste of resources needed elsewhere.
@@jimtaylor294 if you are referring to my comment my point can be illustrated by the British consistently making the turret ring only large enough for their current gun/turret. Then there were items like inadequate armour and suspension good enough for more weight and speed upgrades.
*sigh* The Turret Ring size was dictated by logistics concerns, as having a Tank you can't transport is a bit inconveniant, as the Germans found out with their larger works of folly. Worth noting too that the Panzer' IV's turret ring proved only just wide enough to accept upgunning (and the suspension similarly only just capable enough), as did the Sherman (the T-34 needed more extensive modification); so it wasn't a UK specific problem.
@@jimtaylor294 One other problem we had was the risk of invasion, so development had to sometimes take a backseat to production. As far as the 6 pounder went, it was a useful gun right into the post war.
Pretty sure you got the elevation angles wrong. 12 degrees may have been the elevation angle, but that's pretty horrendous. It had just -5 degrees of depression, which is substandard for a British AFV
I’ve seen both values quoted unofficially but the 12 degree figure comes from an official document. Alas it’s not described in the gunnery manual so I’m going to have to wait until the turret is restored to see the limits on the real thing.
@@lkchild Very interesting if your claim is true, I always found it curious that British designers would have accepted such a lacking gun depression when basically all previous designs and future designs had better characteristics. I tended to explain it by Charioteer being an interim solution, which was lacking in quite a few departments
@@iangascoigne8231 Well there is the argument of repurposing older Tank stock as a stopgap, which the Charioteer did; though as the A22D had proved vs A43, a casemated mount was much easier to pull off than a turreted one.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan It was possible at least; but with a turret... impractical. (see A43 for why, as that required basically making the entire Tank bigger to fit the larger turret ring; basically what A34 was to A27M but less successful)
the gun could elevate and depress as normal just the recoil was absorbed into the turret face and not recuperators, thus she had a much thicker mantlet and pinions. Rigidity mounted guns can save sp[ace and weight which are key in tank development but also put a lot of stress and fatigue into their mounts.
@@edfrancis712 Much appreciated for the reply Ed. Been oddly fascinated by the 32-Pounder Centurion given the scant talk of how powerful the 32-pdr APDS was you see here and there (never seen much a full source on it though). Been loving this series of videos.
@@edfrancis712 Isn't part of the logic that with a bigger guns part of the problem that the length of recoil with recuperators, etc, for those that have been developed from non-tank guns, the recoil length can be longer than there is turret to have it recoil into. So many tank guns developed from others have ended up having radically altered recoil systems to make them recoil less. Perhaps there comes a point where relatively stiff recuperating systems might as well just be fixed?
@@wbertie2604 Hi. The video mentioned that the 32 pounder installation was casemated which means that the turret would have been fixed and not have been able to rotate. Usually, in a casemate the gun would be able to moved in elevation and by a limited amount in azimuth. However, in gun tests for other BA tanks I have noted that they are solid mounted by their trunnions and may only move in elevation. In this configuration they do not have recoil mechanisms,
because comets still in service when the project starts and they dont want to fade one out while it might be needed,, but crommy hulls are in surplus with spares.
The British at this point had been economizing their way to wind up spending more for less capable vehicles for so long it was a way of life. The hull was unsuitable so it could only take a 2 man turret with no armor but that's ok at that point guns had overtaken armor to such a degree it was all about who hit first. Which really plays to the strengths of a 2 man turret where the tank commander doubles up as the gunner. They really were doing their sincere best but always making short term rush job 'interim' decisions based on saving a few pennies generally ends badly. It's cheaper to buy right than to buy twice so it's a blessing they had Centurion but they weren't sure they liked it I guess.
It has a very small area from the front, but overall it’s a lot bigger, so it all depends on angles. It’s surprisingly comfy inside, but the breach is massive in comparison with the width.
poundage has its origins in older cannons, particulalry naval ones whre precise calibres were not possible until later standardisation, so the weight of shot was used, which also helped with the logisitics of knowing how much shot could be carried. as tanks have naval roots not army the term carried over and so the briiths guns were done on weight of shot, although the calibre is often recorded as well, for example 40mm 2 pounder.
I think you need to explain why it would be reasonable for the 20 pounder to hit a tank with APDS at 1000 yards. After all, the 17 pounder had a maximum recommended distance of 450 yards. I know that the 120mm APDS round used lanolin to improve accuracy during the 50s.
Something about the higher muzzle velocity of the 17 pdr is likely to blame, as the 20 pdr never had the same accuracy issues despite the projectile being identical. The Chieftain has done a video talking about it. Would love to see these guys bring it up as well.
@@tarjei99 20pdr APDS? here is the british tests apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/159528.pdf 20pdr APDS has a 71.8% first hit probability at 1000yards (without range finder, 83.4% with one) similar tests for the 17pdr found in Mark Hayward's 'The Sherman Firefly', give it a 14.5% first hot chance with the APDS at 1000yards (and 56.6% at 400 yards). if the 17pdr is accurate to 450yards then then the 20pdr APDS is accurate to over 1500yards (with a range finder, has a 55.5% first hit probability at 1500yards) as to why? 1)greater mass (resulting in greater momentum, thus affected by wind and sucht to a lesser extent), 2)greater velocity (less time for things affecting accuracy over a given distance), 3) no muzzle break (considered to be one of the causes for APDS inaccuracy in the 17pdr), 4) a better-designed gun breach (tests found the 17pdr APDS to be suboptimal for its APDS ammunition, presumably this was solved for the 20pdr which was designed with APDS in mind) there are also probably other reasons '17pdr inaccurate thus another gun must also be inaccurate' is poor argumentation, especially when tests show otherwise.
Actually, the British didn't fix their production issues with the APDS rounds until the early 60s. And the numbers shown is slightly worse than a KWK43 from WW2.
@@Agilaz89 I believe it was sabot tip off issues related to the muzzle brake, plus issues with observing the fall of shot, and finally APDS was still arare enough to be kept for special occasions. This whole subject would make a lovely video so we can get the evidence rather than what goes the rounds on the forums?
Iron charioteer, be free in Jesus name I command you Jezebel spirit to leave this man and leave him alone you are not welcome, you are weak. Iron charioteer has a bright future as being a child of God remove yourself in Jesus name you can not have this man, tormenting his thoughts and controlling his life. Leave in Jesus name.
Looking at the pathetic attempts to produce a decent tank in the 30/40’s before we got flattened by superior German engineering, it is still interesting to trace the development of tanks until the superb Centurion emerged as the best British tank to emerge in the 50/60’s and even into the 70’s ( in some theatres).
Pz III, A13 Cruiser - pretty comparable. Matilida I and Pz I? Mathilda II - slow, but almost invulnerable. OK, the earlier cruisers with a million turrets were a bit iffy. It was 1940-5 that was the issue. Cromwell was 18 months too late.
Sorry your wrong a Coaxial MG is literally the defining thing to differentiate between the two. David Fletcher says this in his video when he reviews this very vehicle in person at Bovington. As well as how incredibly horrible it was and how thin the turret armor was and how so much smoke hangs after each shot the tank commander would get out and yell to the gunner where to aim lmao. That’s why they sold them all off as quickly as possible. David Fletcher is so far superior and respected compared to your CZcams channel I’m gonna believe what he says over your made in bedroom video
@@cryohellinc Fletcher is a pleasant man and knows a lot, but he tends to make small mistakes, especially on tanks he hasn't done work on. TANKS documentary series from the past is a particularly notable example of Fletcher talking out of his ass on several occasion
I think War Thunder saw your video 😅 Charioteer used to be labelled a Tank Destroyer and now it's under the Medium Tank category.
The British weren’t certain of the future of the Centurion, one of the most successful tanks ever made. Priceless.
Weh have a track record of dislking stuff that would go onto become very sucesfull.
@@armouredarchives8867 and building and using the " less than adequate" ones
But 20/20 hindsight.
Or at the time, not putting all your eggs in one basket case
@@howardchambers9679 Where was hindsight needed with the Centurion? It had proved itself in combat.
With so many designs and plans to hand at the time, and uncertainty as to the future of armoured warfare even was at the time, one can imagine why Centurion was for some time seen as a stopgap.
(like various classes of train in history)
As it was she was considered for replacement by 1947, then 1949, then the 1950's, then by 1969 (Chieftain debuting in 1966), and partially was, yet special Cent' variants soldiered on until 1994 (Army) & 2003 (Navy), and the South-Africans *still* operate heavily modified Centurions today.
Though the only WWII era Tank design that could claim to still be in service anywhere (as a full on manned gun tank, rather than improv' artillery operated by pullstring), it'd be rather unfair to those back in the 1940's to say they should have known they had such a winner on their hands, nor that she'd be relevant for so long.
(especially as wartime developments had often made one year's latest stuff entirely irrelevant by the next)
Is funny though to think of Centurion as the Tank equivilant of *MRCA*
(Must Replace [the EE] Canberra Again).
Really enjoying this 'Drach' approach to such an interesting topic. Thanks.
The tank version of Drach never fails to impress.
this is refreshing seeing a youtube historical vid done in the old style documentary way. the voice helps to :P
cheers
I am looking forward to when you get around to the Valentine. For some reason this is a favorite vehicle of mine. I saw a photo of my aunts in front of new ones coming out of the factory. So it had to be the Angus Works in Montreal.
I have no context, as the war was never discussed. They all married veterans, and dated them before they went overseas. Their brother was killed in the Merchant Navy. My grandfather pined and died within 3 years of his son being killed.
Yes, growing up one would not have known that our family had any involvement because it not only wasn't discussed, it was avoided.
But, based on photos I found after they died, my aunts all had war production jobs. One appears to have had some role in Valentine production.
It's a funny thing . Here we see that the Cromwells 75mmgun was considered utterly inadequate to engage soviet armor, principally the T34 , in the late forties and fifties.
Yet , at the same time , on different threads and in different comments sections , you will see people argue that this gun was perfectly adequate to deal with the heavier German armor deployed in Normandy against the British , British Commonwealth and Polish forces a few years earlier.
So back to two man in the turret, when the emphasis shifted from being able to withstand enemy shots to spotting the enemy first. Which is a job for the commander. Who shouldn't be doing other stuff at the same time... like having to point and fire the gun.
Thank you for your hard work to bring us the history of this tank and searching out photos to show us all. Whilst enlightening, the mix of roles of tank destroyers and tanks is as you say very confusing. The distinction of whether the FV is supporting infantry seems pointless as this must ultimately be the case in order to hold territory and win. It is also the case if a battle becomes defensive, because armour would be expected to cover a withdrawal.
Great work, as always.
Thanks for the shout out :)
boom - i see new video, i immediately hit like. oh, i forgot to say that i am here because of the the chieftain's recommendation. and yes, you do good work! hm, as for a suggestion, perhaps a vid on the classic 8 rad sdfkz 23x series? cheers!
Im pretty damn sure that the turret on the Charioteer used in the Thumbnail is actually at the Australian Armour and Artillery Mueseum. theres a few videos on their youtube channel where you can see a Charioteer turret with the exact same decals [214 and the Austrian Air Force Roundel] in the exact same place. its just up on a turret stand.
Great video - just for the fun of it, have you ever come across the words tank destroyer in any British sources? No one ever used the phrase much outside of its proper use to describe USA doctrine in WWII until World of Tanks hit us and now we have fights over what's defined as what!
not directly, refered to as SP, though later it crops up with americanisms in the language
it’s mentioned several times in parliament to describe Conqueror in questions, but it’s pretty clear the politicians mean it in a different sense to the American class of vehicle. Charioteer gets a mention in one of them too (I just stumbled on) which may be the origin of the confusion.
Very cool video, always enjoy listening too
Was the use of fixed viewing devices in the turret roof - rather than a cupola such as on the Comet - a result of the doctirnal use of the vehicle? Hearing about any Comet parts making their way to something Cromwell based was very interesting to find out.
Funnily this "not tank destroyer" was put into corps level tank destroyer battalions in Finnish service.
Thank You.
Fascinating video about a little known British afv. Nice to know the Cromwell lived on in this version.The 20 pounder gun would have been useful in WW2 !
The British had a habit of not looking ahead when making decisions on armour. Like, let's use the 6 pdr, it's comparable with what X is using now.
^ Nope. It had more to do with:
• Does the gun fit in the Tank?
(with a few the answer was no; as the turret ring was slightly too small)
• If yes: is the gun readily producable?.
(in the case of 6 Pounder it was, while bigger stuff was either for use by other branches of the military, or still in development, like 17 Pounder)
• If yes to both: Does it have the ammunition we want?
(in 6 Pounder's case it did; with a great AP round, and an at least useful HE round that 2 Pounder had lacked)
The British *could* have gone mad and strapped something like the 5.25" naval gun to a Tank chassis; but that would have been ludicrously overkill for most wartime opponents, and a waste of resources needed elsewhere.
@@jimtaylor294 if you are referring to my comment my point can be illustrated by the British consistently making the turret ring only large enough for their current gun/turret. Then there were items like inadequate armour and suspension good enough for more weight and speed upgrades.
*sigh*
The Turret Ring size was dictated by logistics concerns, as having a Tank you can't transport is a bit inconveniant, as the Germans found out with their larger works of folly.
Worth noting too that the Panzer' IV's turret ring proved only just wide enough to accept upgunning (and the suspension similarly only just capable enough), as did the Sherman (the T-34 needed more extensive modification); so it wasn't a UK specific problem.
@@jimtaylor294 One other problem we had was the risk of invasion, so development had to sometimes take a backseat to production.
As far as the 6 pounder went, it was a useful gun right into the post war.
Thanks mate.
I would love to see a video on what all the symbols and markings mean on British AFV's
added to the list - ty
@@armouredarchives8867 cool
Pretty sure you got the elevation angles wrong. 12 degrees may have been the elevation angle, but that's pretty horrendous. It had just -5 degrees of depression, which is substandard for a British AFV
I’ve seen both values quoted unofficially but the 12 degree figure comes from an official document. Alas it’s not described in the gunnery manual so I’m going to have to wait until the turret is restored to see the limits on the real thing.
@@lkchild Very interesting if your claim is true, I always found it curious that British designers would have accepted such a lacking gun depression when basically all previous designs and future designs had better characteristics. I tended to explain it by Charioteer being an interim solution, which was lacking in quite a few departments
Just sold it for the conway, I will reaquire it but for now the 5.5 inch beckons.
These videos are excellent
Glad you think so!
You mentioned a 20pdr Churchill, Did this go anywhere or was it just something that they said they'd do but didn't?
nah thyat was a a dead end, but the cromwell ideas went ahead
@@armouredarchives8867 Well that was sad and predictable.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan Well when you can put the gun in a centurion, a much more modern and capable tank, why bother?
@@iangascoigne8231 Well there is the argument of repurposing older Tank stock as a stopgap, which the Charioteer did; though as the A22D had proved vs A43, a casemated mount was much easier to pull off than a turreted one.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan It was possible at least; but with a turret... impractical.
(see A43 for why, as that required basically making the entire Tank bigger to fit the larger turret ring; basically what A34 was to A27M but less successful)
Looking at the turret of the Charioteer, it looks similar to the Saladin armoured car turret?
In world of tanks, this charioteer is a TD
In world of tanks the clown cars top 100kmph kind of says it all.................
wait, it has -12 depression? in war thunder they only has -5..
Can you expand a little on what "rigidly mounted" means for the 32-pdr Centurion? Was in the gun was incapable of elevation/depression on the testbed?
the gun could elevate and depress as normal just the recoil was absorbed into the turret face and not recuperators, thus she had a much thicker mantlet and pinions. Rigidity mounted guns can save sp[ace and weight which are key in tank development but also put a lot of stress and fatigue into their mounts.
@@edfrancis712 Much appreciated for the reply Ed. Been oddly fascinated by the 32-Pounder Centurion given the scant talk of how powerful the 32-pdr APDS was you see here and there (never seen much a full source on it though). Been loving this series of videos.
@@Retrosicotte thankyou! the channel is growing slowly. hopefully, once corona lifts il have more archive stuff
@@edfrancis712 Isn't part of the logic that with a bigger guns part of the problem that the length of recoil with recuperators, etc, for those that have been developed from non-tank guns, the recoil length can be longer than there is turret to have it recoil into. So many tank guns developed from others have ended up having radically altered recoil systems to make them recoil less. Perhaps there comes a point where relatively stiff recuperating systems might as well just be fixed?
@@wbertie2604 Hi. The video mentioned that the 32 pounder installation was casemated which means that the turret would have been fixed and not have been able to rotate. Usually, in a casemate the gun would be able to moved in elevation and by a limited amount in azimuth. However, in gun tests for other BA tanks I have noted that they are solid mounted by their trunnions and may only move in elevation. In this configuration they do not have recoil mechanisms,
Another video of a Charioteer battle coming out on our channel. Will give a link to your marvelous video as always.
If it looks like a tank, walks like a tank, and talks like a tank.... well, who hell knows what it really is?
Its a duck!
A little hiccup: the challenger has no mark no.s on it. Its just called Challenger.
heya, in this we refer to the A30 Challenger whihc indeed did have a 1 added to it, ive enclosed a pic here of the workbook: i.imgur.com/cvnb80I.jpg
If you want to put a 20pdr on a tank, and you have the choice of Cromwell or Comet, why not Comet as it was was the Cromwells successor?
because comets still in service when the project starts and they dont want to fade one out while it might be needed,, but crommy hulls are in surplus with spares.
The British at this point had been economizing their way to wind up spending more for less capable vehicles for so long it was a way of life.
The hull was unsuitable so it could only take a 2 man turret with no armor but that's ok at that point guns had overtaken armor to such a degree it was all about who hit first. Which really plays to the strengths of a 2 man turret where the tank commander doubles up as the gunner.
They really were doing their sincere best but always making short term rush job 'interim' decisions based on saving a few pennies generally ends badly. It's cheaper to buy right than to buy twice so it's a blessing they had Centurion but they weren't sure they liked it I guess.
Is it just me that thinks the Charioteer turret looks a bit like a Panther Schmalturm front on?
i have this tank in wot ps4 and i would love to see the model B or 105 in war thunder
That turret looks impossibly small...
It has a very small area from the front, but overall it’s a lot bigger, so it all depends on angles. It’s surprisingly comfy inside, but the breach is massive in comparison with the width.
What’s the authors opinion on the Ajax vehicle lol
soon-ish
I´m still confused about the xx-pounder versus yy-mm gun. What is the correlation between pounds and bore size?
poundage has its origins in older cannons, particulalry naval ones whre precise calibres were not possible until later standardisation, so the weight of shot was used, which also helped with the logisitics of knowing how much shot could be carried. as tanks have naval roots not army the term carried over and so the briiths guns were done on weight of shot, although the calibre is often recorded as well, for example 40mm 2 pounder.
@@armouredarchives8867 Thx for the explanation. Now it makes sense.
As AA says, there’s no direct correlation, but a few examples:
2 pounder: 40mm
6 pounder: 57mm
17 pounder: 76.2mm
20 pounder: 84mm
32 pounder: 94mm
@@matthayward7889 Thx.
@@matthayward7889 The 17 pounder does not measure 76.2 mm
I think you need to explain why it would be reasonable for the 20 pounder to hit a tank with APDS at 1000 yards.
After all, the 17 pounder had a maximum recommended distance of 450 yards.
I know that the 120mm APDS round used lanolin to improve accuracy during the 50s.
Something about the higher muzzle velocity of the 17 pdr is likely to blame, as the 20 pdr never had the same accuracy issues despite the projectile being identical. The Chieftain has done a video talking about it. Would love to see these guys bring it up as well.
I think it is more likely that the British kept quiet about any accuracy Issues.
@@tarjei99 20pdr APDS? here is the british tests apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/159528.pdf
20pdr APDS has a 71.8% first hit probability at 1000yards (without range finder, 83.4% with one)
similar tests for the 17pdr found in Mark Hayward's 'The Sherman Firefly', give it a 14.5% first hot chance with the APDS at 1000yards (and 56.6% at 400 yards).
if the 17pdr is accurate to 450yards then then the 20pdr APDS is accurate to over 1500yards (with a range finder, has a 55.5% first hit probability at 1500yards)
as to why?
1)greater mass (resulting in greater momentum, thus affected by wind and sucht to a lesser extent),
2)greater velocity (less time for things affecting accuracy over a given distance),
3) no muzzle break (considered to be one of the causes for APDS inaccuracy in the 17pdr), 4) a better-designed gun breach (tests found the 17pdr APDS to be suboptimal for its APDS ammunition, presumably this was solved for the 20pdr which was designed with APDS in mind)
there are also probably other reasons
'17pdr inaccurate thus another gun must also be inaccurate' is poor argumentation, especially when tests show otherwise.
Actually, the British didn't fix their production issues with the APDS rounds until the early 60s.
And the numbers shown is slightly worse than a KWK43 from WW2.
@@Agilaz89 I believe it was sabot tip off issues related to the muzzle brake, plus issues with observing the fall of shot, and finally APDS was still arare enough to be kept for special occasions. This whole subject would make a lovely video so we can get the evidence rather than what goes the rounds on the forums?
Iron charioteer, be free in Jesus name I command you Jezebel spirit to leave this man and leave him alone you are not welcome, you are weak. Iron charioteer has a bright future as being a child of God remove yourself in Jesus name you can not have this man, tormenting his thoughts and controlling his life. Leave in Jesus name.
Looking at the pathetic attempts to produce a decent tank in the 30/40’s before we got flattened by superior German engineering, it is still interesting to trace the development of tanks until the superb Centurion emerged as the best British tank to emerge in the 50/60’s and even into the 70’s ( in some theatres).
German enineering, superior? The Comet and any gun 17pdr gun at the time could easily knock out any German tank. This is a myth that needs to stop.
Pz III, A13 Cruiser - pretty comparable. Matilida I and Pz I? Mathilda II - slow, but almost invulnerable. OK, the earlier cruisers with a million turrets were a bit iffy. It was 1940-5 that was the issue. Cromwell was 18 months too late.
I can barely hear you speak :-(
are you listening to it on laptop speakers? Audio is fine on my end
@@cryohellinc likewise fine here on phones and speakers
Sorry your wrong a Coaxial MG is literally the defining thing to differentiate between the two. David Fletcher says this in his video when he reviews this very vehicle in person at Bovington. As well as how incredibly horrible it was and how thin the turret armor was and how so much smoke hangs after each shot the tank commander would get out and yell to the gunner where to aim lmao. That’s why they sold them all off as quickly as possible.
David Fletcher is so far superior and respected compared to your CZcams channel I’m gonna believe what he says over your made in bedroom video
"Because David Fletcher said so" .... a fair *thick* point my friend.
@@cryohellinc Fletcher is a pleasant man and knows a lot, but he tends to make small mistakes, especially on tanks he hasn't done work on. TANKS documentary series from the past is a particularly notable example of Fletcher talking out of his ass on several occasion
@@SerAkel another notable example is the Tank Chats series on youtube