Most underrated British WW2 Tank?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- In this video I ask the curator of the Tank Museum at Bovington David Willey what he thinks is the most underrated British Tank of the Second World War.
Cover design by vonKickass.
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2022.
/ thetankmuseum
tankmuseum.org/
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:13 David's "Disclaimer"'
00:51 The Matilda II
01:51 The Valentine
02:59 Lend-Lease Tanks
04:14 Valentine Variants
05:00 Valentine IX & other variants
05:5 Reliability
06:30 Churchill Tank Why so liked?
09:08 Germans about the Churchill Tank
09:45 Cromwell
#underrated #tanks #british
7:50 Love the idea of a German complaining that the British use of a Churchill just wasn't cricket.
They said the same to the Royal Marines at Walcheren. They came from the wrong direction...
@@RO8s Just like the sneaky Japanese approach to Singapore. I believe That I read that their army advanced quite swiftly, on bicycles which, when their tyres had been shredded, created such a clattering racket that some defenders fled from what they misheard as oncoming tanks.
In 1940 a captured British officer complained to his German captors that he thought it was unfair to use the 88mm AA guns against tanks - the German officer replied he thought it was unfair for the British to use the Matilda II tanks which only an 88 could take out!
You may love the idea, but that doesn't mean it actually happened.
Not only did the Soviets like the Valentine, according to Peter Samsonov's book on the Sherman in Red Army Service the Soviets used Valentines to meet their needs until enough Shermans arrived. The Soviets even paired Shermans and Valentines in the same unit, which shows how much they liked the Valentine, I think, since the Valentine is not exactly the equal of the Sherman in terms of speed.
Did it have anything to do with the practical cruising speed on a tank on the move? You would rarely drive a tank at absolute top speed unless in an emergency (similar I imagine to WEP in aircraft. A great way to break something). The Valentine doesn't go very fast, so maybe its cruising speed IS its top speed. The Chieftan had an article about crew experiences with the M10 GMC, and how some didn't want the M18 Hellcat because the M10 went fast enough, with plenty of reserve speed they weren't even using. The crews didn't want speed, they wanted better armour and firepower.
In fact, the Soviets liked the Valentine so much, they remained in Red Army service until 1945.
Makes sense since the Soviets operated in ranks and echelons. The low speed and firepower Of Valentines matters less if you only use them in the early waves that don't have to go far to do their job of breaking the enemy's initial lines. Add in it is tough and durable, it really is great for leading Soviet attacks.
@@Mr_Bunk It might also be a case though of them needing every active tank in service that they got. They went through tanks like crazy. Most T-34's produced during the war ended up destroyed by the Germans. So maybe if it was still working and they had munitions for it, maybe keep it going was the motto.
@@a.rogers1403 I think that (at least early on when they were receiving Shermans with rubber-lined tracks) the Soviets liked the Valentine's handling on inclines and snow better than the Sherman, so they probably ran the Shermans slower than they otherwise could have because there is no point speeding a tank along if it's going to end up upside down in a ditch.
The Valentine was the 'Hurricane' of the ground forces.
To understand why the Soviets liked the Valentine, one need only look at the aborted T-50 tank. A light infantry tank intended to replace the T-26, less than 100 were built before production was halted while the Soviets moved their tank factories to the Urals and then did not restart production, instead choosing to churn out T-34s. However, the Infantry support role still needed filling by something more modern and capable than the T-26 and that gap was filled with lend lease Valentines. The Valentine was slower than the T-50, but much better protected and was optimised towards the same role, being otherwise quite similar in terms of weight and firepower.
It's not entirely accurate to say the valintine was better protected than the T-50, the T-50 had equal armour effectiveness to the T-34 according to both soviet and German records due it superior steel quality despite the thinner armour, and the Soviets considers the t34 better protected than the valintine.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Ah, German and Soviet records. Enough said🙃
@@DonaldoJTrumpetsure, western reports are 100% because “freedom” right?
You must be a volunteer for the next war… 😂
Nail in the Valentine coffin, it was not modelled by Airfix.
That is the yardstick.
The Tank Museum David's are national treasures in the way HMS Victory is.
The Valentine was very effective especially in coordination with a box of chocolates.
Ur such a sweetie😱
That was Cadburys Milk Tray! BUT you also needed a Red Rose. That is why Roses Chocolates had the Red Rose on the Box/Tin.
Groan.
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤👍🎯
The Valentine, just like for instance the P-40, was all-right, cheap, rugged and useful. Not the star of the show - but the right vehicle at the right moment.
Nice comparison!
My Uncle Ted recently restored a New Zealand Army Valentine tank to more or less working order for the Army Museum. I think it was one of the ones with the 3-inch howitzer, a local modification for the Pacifit War where we used them with some success alongside Stuart's. As to whether that one was used in combat or for training I don't know, we used them until 1960 I think, and he did do compulsory service as an engineer before a truck explosion cut his time short. Didn't stop him, did amazing work all over the world as an engineer though.
He is one of those cool ones!
My Dad in 41 and 42 was a workshop foreman at Chillwell COD preparing tanks for Russia. He was an A vehicles man all his life. He ended up as head of scales branch after years at Woolwhich, Bordon, FVRDE always on mod and RandD. He told me his top five were:
Valentine (dependable)
Comet could go like one
Sherman with the five bank Chrysler. Ease of field maintenance and the lovely tool kit that came with one.
Centurion all marks. He went to Israel to chat to them about it and they really did put right a few things that were wrong with it. Keeping the ranging gun and so forth. Many Arab tank crews bailed out after hearing the knock of that!
Chieftain for what could have been. If you ignore that awful engine. Which he cautioned against.
Bottom five
Crusader
Covenanter
Early Churchill
Grant bolted armour and gun arrangement.
tetrarch - clever but pointless.
Could have been. Any Vickers export jobs. Indians loved them.
I loved talking to him. Starting as an Apprentice in 1930 and ending up as a Principle Technical Officer he got there through merit. However, he made no friends back in the days when, as he said, between the 2 pounder and the firefly you had to take your hat off to those tank crews.
In 44/45 he was attached up the sharp end to look at battle damage and so on.. So, I guess he should know. He took that with him to War Office and then Woolwich. So an all round career. The thing I remember most about him was his ability to explain technical matters simply and his drawing skills.
Of course it all started as an apprentice when he was told to file a square round and then back to square. Nice guy.
Love your work.
Great story, thank you!
Thanks for the memories of your Dad. Respect! When I was an apprentice, my worst skill was filing a cube to get 6 perfect flats. Took me ages and many hills and furrows and never perfected! And filing it round again? Wow!
@@stigmontgomery7901 Hi Stig, my Dad had similar stories of long stands, left handed screw drivers and sky hooks! One that did make me laugh concerned some old scrap tanks. Dad was sent to get something or other off one and given a key, spanner and large hammer. He stood next to the tank for ages looking dormant until the chap that sent him arrived. He burst into laughter and told Dad "The key is for the shed there (indicated it 20 meters away) the spanner is for the Oxyacetline and the Hammer to knock off the (whatever it was)" ! Typical Apprentice.
Big love to your dad
Got to like his lists...nailed it.
The Churchill and its variants - Crocodile! - remain one of my favourite tanks.
Thank you for the most interesting material. My grandfa rode a Valentine in 1942, Volkhov war theatre, Russia and loved the tank greatly. Later, since 1943 he served as coach for newly formed T-34 crews in Nizhny Novgorod, and after the war he used to say T-34 was the best tank of the war, nevertheless Valentine wasn't worse it.
Glad to see the Valentine getting some love. Also, I find a Matilda II tank named Greyhound to be .. optimistic.
(Yes, I know the British units named tanks based on having the same first letter.)
British armed forces have/had a habit of giving people or vehicles sarcastic names, eg a very short man being called "Lofty"
The Maus
The valentine was far from perfect ,but it was available. It was there,not still "on the way"
The Matilda II needs more love. It's the only British tank to see service throughout the war, with Australia still using them in 1945. In fact the Australians tested other tanks for jungle warfare, like the US M3 Lee/Grant and the M4 Sherman and they still preferred the Matilda.
That's true the Matilda's were used in all Australian last campaigns in 1944 - 1945. The Aussies found them to be much more tougher and could survived in very hot humid and rugged conditions of jungle warfare.
@@barrythatcher9349 Matilda more tougher than what .. Sherman?
Yeah, the problem was for late war the turret was too small to be effectively up gunned. I don't know if the Matilda carried cannister rounds or not for dealing with brush and light buildings, as I feel like that would have been better for that kind of gun than an HE round.
@Guapo Returns The Matilda was a small tank with protected tracks, which might have made it better for the jungle. The Sherman was a larger tank with exposed tracks. Its hard to go fast in the jungle so the speed of the Sherman might not have been helpful. The main time you would want a Sherman was if you found a bunker and needed a 105mm howitzer, otherwise you wanted something smaller with side skirts I guess.
The actual armor thickness was less of a concern as was overall reliability as japanese armor and firepower was not up to par with allied or german designs, if simply due to the lack of manufacturing capacity and material supply. The pacific campaign was very much removed from the european and african campaigns.
@@BillMcD Yeah true.. Sherman was better though
@@guaporeturns9472 in jungle warfare frontal armour strength isn’t really that important(especially when the front armour of both Sherman and Matilda easily bests most Japanese weapons, the Matilda has far more side and rear armour than the Sherman, is smaller, and better on rough terrain
i hope theres a few more of these interviews with david
;)
Years ago I knew a Dutch lady who'd been a little girl at the end of WWII. She often talked about the day her village was liberated. What was the first British tank she saw as it rumbled passed her house? A Churchill.
Its always a joy to hear David Willey explain ups and downs of certain tanks
I'm a fan of the Churchill after hearing of some of its amazing ground crossing abilities and climbing, also hearing of the incredible frontal armour and the beatings some took and kept going, I read a report of a Churchill Crocodile causing a bunker full of German soldiers to surrender without needing to fire a shot, it was the slow determined and hard to stop advance of the Churchill while taking fire and never giving up that one soldier said was the embodiment of British determination. . . Also I heard the infantry loved them as they knew they wouldn't speed off and leave them behind unlike Shermans and Cromwells, you knew you had a mobile bunker to shelter behind for as long as you needed.
I love Churchill. To be it represents the British attitude, it's the British bull dog of tanks. Slow and steady, reliable and overcomes heavy obstacles and there at the victory line.
I think one of the reasons people love the Churchill is Hobart's Funnies.
A sober analysis and thoughtfull discussion which I enjoyed very much.
Yeeeess
Another allied tank in Russian service that the Russians quite liked was the Sherman. While it wasn't considered as tough as the Russian tanks, it reliability and creature comforts were much prized by the Russian crews.
I recall reading an account where a Russian Sherman was in combat with the Germans. The tank was hit and started to burn. The crew managed to bail out of the tank, but were forced to shelter under the tank for a time due to German fire. They were trapped there long enough that they were convinced a T-34 would have exploded due to the fire, but the Sherman just continued to burn. What I found amusing about the account is that once the crew had managed to escape from under the tank to a safer area, the driver was absolutely distraught. It seems that he couldn't handle the idea of his padded driver's seat, something that was unheard of in a T-34, going up in flames.
There are 2-British WWII tanks at the monument and museum to the Great Patriotic War. Both are Matilda II. The remains of the 609 tanks successfully supplied, initially used for training but thrown into the defence of Moscow in 1941
I'm glad he mentioned the valentine's reliability. The only thing worse than having no weapon is having an unreliable weapon. An amazing tank that doesn't work is just an embarrassingly expensive paperweight.
Nervously laughing in German...
@@lucagerulat307 (Nervously laughing in American...)
The reason I am fond of the Churchill is that over 50 years ago I made up an Airfix model kit. Now, with the Tank Museum on the web, I am learning all the time.
One thing they often overlook is the Churchills handling on bad/wet ground. The Australians trialled the Sherman vs Churchill in challenging trials to gauge how they would perform in jungle like conditions and the Churchill won.
Once you realize that the war winners are not the big fancy tanks with superlative firepower and armour, but the though workhorses with multiple uses that keep soldiering on and make life much easier for other troops rather than cling to the myopic idea of tanks dueling each other at the exclusion of everything else.
Yes, you only win a battle with tanks of they actually turn up.
I remember one Valentine being found in a mud in Poland a few years ago. It must have been used no earlier than mid 1944 to be laid to rest in the place. I think it is a nice testament to its reliability.
Glad to see the Valentine getting more love.
It's an adorable tank.
The Matilda II was in frontline combat service until August 1945…
The Japanese really feared them.
The Valentine is among my favourite tanks of the second world war. Although originally rejected for service in favour of the Matilda II, it would outshine it in the end. Plus I think it looks cute.
Valentine’s were deployed in the pacific theatre against the Japanese by NZ, with some locally converted to mount 3 inch howitzer, and the 2 pounder models having improvised 40 mm HE rounds (bofors AA rounds being crimped onto 2 pounder cartridges).
I straight away thought of the Valentine first, then almost Matilda II but went for the Cromwell second. And rather ironic the comment by a German officer that British tanks weren't fast enough!
Matilda remained in combat until the end of the war with Australian forces in the Pacific theatre. Modified for jungle combat. Its speed was less important than its off-road capability and good armor for close combat. Also, the Japanese had limited anti tank weapons. Often using improvised attacks including infantry carrying bombs and incendiaries to put on the hulls. The Stuart light tank was used effectively at times, but suffered heavy casualties. Importantly, involved a big factor in the bloody battles for Buna and Gona. Australian testing led the army adopting the Churchill to replace the Matilda, but did not arrive in time for combat. Australian experience showed that tanks were effective in jungle combat. And light tanks were not the best option for jungles.
I have wonder what Malaya might have been like if Canada had supplied them with say 100 Valintines. They were comaratively small but well armoured and superior to anything the Japanese had. Imagine an Australian regiment of valintine tanks. During the entire war the Japanese realy never had anything in numbers that could deal with one
I think the problem with the M3 in the jungle was the tank wasn't designed to idle at low speeds. If I am remembering correctly the M3s had an air cooled radial and they liked to be moving to improve the air flow.
The Matilda was designed to idle at low speeds, had better armour and became available, so sorry M3, your 12th man this match.
Nice video - well done! You should do more collabs like this!
My father made the newspaer in a Valintine. They were in a parade to raise money with what were called victory bonds in Canada. Dad was driving. The Valinetine did not have very good sight lines to the side. Driving down the street everybody started yelling and he stopped. He had driven lengthwise down the side of a car flattening one side that was parked on the side of the road and a picture of it made headlines in a major Toronto paper.
Some of the Valentines from the Desert Campaign made it to Tunisia and Italy, on the same engine they were built with. One unit of Free-French kept the Valentine for as long as they could before being ordered to change to Shermans, they liked the better all over armor protection. I think after the Normandy break-out the Cromwell came into it's own, it could roam the countryside at speed popping up against the enemy where they weren't expecting a tank to be.
I was one of those students of WW2 (my father being in the RAF) who thought German tanks good, British generally bad. Thanks for this five minute guide. And I've recently been to the museum!
Fantastic vid. I am so glad that this "in between video came. Its the story and the forgotten reality coming to life. Thanks a lot
The reason I like the Churchill is because I am born in the same town as the Churchill was builted
And that it can do anything
Must be the Valentine. Brilliant little thing that.
I very much enjoy these casual Q and A sessions! The only improvement I can suggest is the addition of Fin. That charming energy and charisma would be a compliment to how friendly you both are.
Love these collaborations, keep up the awesomeness...
Awesome!! You two together great!
The problem with talking about tanks in WWII is that people can’t see past Tigers and Panthers, but the reality tanks like the Matilda, Valentine and Churchill were more than capable against the vast majority of standard german armour.
I've yet to build a decent model of a German tank but when I do, I'll build one that's being repaired. Us Brits seem to love doing ourselves down when in reality we had some extremely capable kit and some very clever people.
@@richardsawyer5428 Indeed - take Nederwetten (Eindhoven) in September 1944 where a single Cromwell from the King's Royal Hussars knocked out two Panthers, the first with one shot and the second with four shots in quick succession - all of which penetrated. It then went on to take out several German half-tracks.
More Panthers were built mid 1943-45 than any other German tank. So Panther WAS the standard German tank, and more Panthers than Panzer IVs were in the west from June 1944 to May 1945.
After the war Australia tested Churchill's, Sherman's and Chaffee's in the jungle and found the Churchill superior in most aspects so until the Centurion came along the Churchill was Australia's battle tank.
I as a Brit have always loved the Cromwell tank... although for me that's in spite of it's namesake. It was rough and ready and fast, good for swanning around North France and the Low Countries!
Cromwell was slower than a snail, but is fine in all other aspects.
@@Tecmaster96 Cromwell could do 60+ kph. You must be refering to its bigger cousin the Churchill tank
Cromwell and Centaur were bloody fast tanks. One was used to jump over a river. :)
It also seems like the Brits were looking fairly closely at the Panzer IV when designing their Cromwell, it has a very similar "stepped" front and at least from the front (there are way too many roadwheels on the panzer to mix them up from the side) or in stark side silhouette would be have been easy to confuse the two.
Fabulous, thank you.
Interesting opinions from the experts . Totally agree with the idea of certain tanks being useful at a particular moment in time .
Not a candidate for underrated imo but I really like the Comet. Fast, powerful gun, in that weird late-war design spot being half Cromwell and half Centurion.
I have always had a soft spot for the Churchill. The thick armour and it's climbing strengths. The 2 pounder was an OK gun at the start of its career but something heftier was quickly required, and they upgraded to larger calibres. They were always constrained by maximum transportation dimension limits. If they hadn't been they might have produced something akin to Tiger 1. It wouldn't have been a better tank though.
Thank you both
I like seeing David Willie in more of your videos. You should do a top 5 or bottom 5 tanks on the The Tank Museum's channel.
> You should do a top 5 or bottom 5 tanks on the The Tank Museum's channel.
uhm: czcams.com/video/RlJy18c4xdw/video.html
So true about the need to look at the tank when it was used and how well it did in its prime. OMG! You mean tanks did things other than fight other tanks?? Inconceivable! LOL
I love Steel Division 2! I am just playing now!
Good short interview. looking good DW❤️ 😍
I like the Churchill tank. It's kind of quirky but ultimately the hull was used in so many different ways, successfully no less. The only thing that's really odd that I don't like is the road wheels. The only thing that the US built that had road wheels like that was the lvt.
I think it was originally an American design, made by none other then a race car driver.
Mark 8 flame thrower Churchill best infantry support in the war
The road wheels were certainly a major pain when building the old Airfix kit. However, on the real thing they reduced the ground pressure, improved traction and allowed the vehicle to continue operating even after mine strikes.
@@samb2052 Also allowed the Churchill to climb really steep grades.
Thank you for the video. Please bring the curator again; he always has something interesting to say. ^^
Great conversation!
Excellent video by two great experts👍
Glad you enjoyed it
Such good thought provoking video. Really good.
valentine had similar effective armor thickness to matilda (26t) but was ligther (had 16t)
I grew up in the U.S. during the 70s, and I don't believe there was the bias against British tanks that (ironically) the British had. The Matilda-II, Valintine (series) and Churchill (series) were all seen as decent tanks at least from the limited opinions of my friends, schoolmates and adults interested in the topic. Furthermore, I was particularly cognizant of the first two tanks near indestructibility against anything short of an 88mm Flak gun while playing the AH board game 'Tobruk' as a kid. While the Churchill stood out as a tough tank in the Squad Leader expansion game 'Crescendo of Doom.' But then again, this was long before the internet and social media, so this assessment may be distorted by my immediate environment at the time.
I played Squad Leader and Crescendo of Doom, still have them in the attic. It's not until you look at some of the tanks featured in computer games that you realise that their data is input by someone who doesn't really know what they are on about. A relative of mine plays these online tank games and thought the Soviet T28 and T35 were fantastic machines!
@@alanpearson7554 LOL - yeah I know!
You are not wrong about the British bias against British machinery, it's not universal but it's very frequent, you'll British people saying such and such a legendary British product is shit. Building negative hype. Of course they'll think they're proud as John Bull while buying Chinese tat (that probaby has a Union Jack on the packaging)
Lol, I played Tobruk as well. A bit of a nightmare of record keeping, keeping track of infantry casualties! What I always remember is the high rate of fire of the 2 pounder. It may have had only average penetration and range, but the ROF meant it had a fair chance if doing some damage.
5:10 haha, I like how you brought in Steel Division into this. Great Stuff, can't wait for the new stuff that's coming up for the game.
Its my favorite. Build with 1/3 of man hours needed to build a Matilda II. One of most reliable British tanks. Cheaper than T-34 but has similar armor. Gets up gunned twice. And its less than 20 tons so transpiring it is easy.
Also my uncle droves the Valentine. He bloody hated it.
Lad great interview with a true knowledgeable gentlemen; willing to share his expertise on English Tanks. Well done! 🤔👏💯👌👍👊
Interesting discussion! Thanks.
I have always been frustrated by the fact that so many Valentines were sent to Russia. Imagine the battle for Malaya and Singapore if the British army there had been given just 200 Valentine Tanks
Yes, but Britain could afford to lose Singapore, it couldn't afford to lose the Soviets as Allies. Just a few anti tank guns would have helped in the Far East, or bofors guns with AP rounds (if that was possible), but anything good went to the Western Desert or Soviets. The other thing was that the British (& Americans) just didn't think the Japanese were capable of what they actually were.
@@eze8970 well..not 200...20 would already be enough...even the old cruiser Mk 1 wld have done...
@@eze8970 Tanks and decent AT guns might have improved things a bit in Malaya, but wouldn't have changed the result. The Japanese advantage was in doctrine and mobility, not weaponry.
@@eze8970 The fall of Singapore and the inadequate British defence changed Australia's defence strategy from reliance on Britain to reliance on the U.S. It destroyed any trust that Britain could defend its Empire and is a sore point with Australians to this day
@@williambrooks6629 Britain was overstretched & bankrupt, a legacy of WW1 (& not helped by the U.S economic & political policies which undermined Britain in both wars).
That said, British arrogance over Japanese capability & incompetence helped Singapore fall.
The US emerged as the world's biggest superpower, Australia were right to look there for protection. Sadly, Britain couldn't do it any more.
I've loved the Matilda ever since reading Tramp in armour as a boy . Great book.
That was the second Colin Forbes novel I read, after 'Avalanche Express'
excellent book. Me too.
YES! This book was my introduction to World War 2. Got it from a teacher who was clearing out his classroom reading rack when I was eleven. I read it over and over till it fell apart. Sparked a life long interest in history and reading for pleasure. Thank you for reminding me, and thanks Mr. Kelly, wherever you are.
@@ihtfp01 I was at boarding school , ill in the sick bay . I found it in a locker. I eventually ended up as a soldier myself .
Good point about reliability issues as quite a few different tanks were being manufactured in different countries by companies that were far more familiar with building locomotives than tanks
Valentine was indeed very popular in Red Army. It get a nickname Valentinka - loveable form of popular name Valentina, like Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space. The main complain was unreelable gun with low amount of ammunition supplied. So tanks were refitted with Russian 45mm gun before sent to front . Extra layer of slope armour was also added to the front as German 57mm antitank can destroy it from almost any distance. From 1943 production in Canada switched to a new and better gun.
You mean 75 mm?
@@guillaumepare9651 Yes, sorry.
Very interesting,raised issues I was previously ignorant about.
Very good and interesting reappraisal.
My 2 favourite tanks! They also did things that mattered. Battle of Arras for the matilda 2 and the valentine was one of only 2 tanks to serve in every theatre,, including Britain's most important battle of Imphal and Kohema
I spent a wonderful day at Bovington in 2011 on a trip to Europe. If I ever get back I intend at least another full day. Could do a week easily.
Interesting discussion - there is a lot to be said about reliability and knowing the thing is going to work .
- The Valentine MK II - had a QF 2 pounder ( 40 mm ) gun - with a 2 man turret
- The Valentine Mk IX - had a modified turret to accept the QF 6 pounder ( 57 mm )
- The Valentine Mk XI - was up gunned with a 75 mm high velocity gun
Agree on the Valentine. An efficient little tank.
For me at least, part of the cool thing with the Churchil was the funnies that came from it. Crocidile, especially, with heavy armour, a regular tank main gun, oh, and fire just for a bit extra. The AVRE I find an ammusing concept too, on a beast of a tank.
The Centurion entered service in April 1945 and was immediately dispatched to Germany when they arrived the war was over, later testing against a Tiger`s armour proved it to be at least equal to the Tiger if not superior. It later served in many armies around the world but Israel put it to its best in 1973, they loved the tank.
more efficient armor than tiger 1 yes
Excellent question!
I agree with you about the Valentine, I pointed out in one video where they were talking about "obsolete" Valentines holding up Rommels advance, that the Valentine 9 had much better armoured and its 6 pounder the equal of the tanks it was facing down so the battle was not as one sided as they made out.
I just watched this one and your one on US tanks: it's nice to see two people having a nice conversation about a topic they're both very familiar with.
1941 December 170 M3 light tanks in North Africa, 108 in the Philippines.
The other Churchill variant than really worked and certainly has captured the imagination is Crocodile. Good video, well informed discussion.
knew the valentine would probably be the first on the list
For me, it is more forgotten than underrated tank.
About the Canadian-manufactured Valentines, railroads and locomotive manufacturers made them there. Notably, many were made at the Angus Shops of Canadian Pacific Railway (now CPKC) in Montreal.
Good points made. That David Willey knows his onions... and tanks.
My father worked on valentines and rated them as well built and serviceable. The Churchill could climb a very steep gradient and the variant’s were awesome. The croc was a fearsome weapon. The Cromwell was very underrated .
When you talk the 'Best Tank' you need to do two catagorories, 1) If you are in a demolition derby with tanks. 2) If you are running a country going into a major war and cane only build one tank.
Great clip. Actually love the Cromwell, and even the Churchill. Agree the Valentine doesn't seem to get much visibility/recognition.
Watching this for a second time. Still great!
Thanks!
I've dived on a couple of DD valentine wrecks off swannage then went to see one in Bovington . I've always had a soft spot for it
The Valentine is a lovely tank. The 2pdr early on is no slouch in the desert.
Is it just me, or do you think someone intended the irony when they name their Matilda Greyhound? If you matched an actual Greyhound against the Matilda in 100 yard dash. You could start with the Greyhound to sleep, let the Matilda starting forward wake it up, and the dog would still win running away. 😂. Love the dry sense of humor that named their Matilda Greyhound.
More colabs with the tank museum please
The silhouette in the thumbnail was the Valentine. Obviously.
Interesting Video.