Тёмный

Cromwell | BEST British Cruiser Tank? 

Learning History Together
Подписаться 3,6 тыс.
Просмотров 22 тыс.
50% 1

The Cromwell was a British Cruiser tank which was used during the second world war by the British army, it superseded the Crusader in 1944 and was replaced by the A34 Comet later that same year the Crowells were ready early in 1944 but they all stayed on British soil for training, it first saw combat during the battle of Normandy, they were used extensively in the 6th airborne division, 7th armoured division, 11th armoured division, guards division and the 1st polish armoured division, they were also used by the 1st Czechoslovakian independent armoured brigade group as part of the first Canadian army, the aim with the Cromwell was to replace the Crusader Cruiser tank, which in 1940 was considered to be a good tank but it became quickly obsolete in protection and firepower.
Socials
Instagram: / collinhogenberg
Discord: / @learninghistorytogether

Опубликовано:

 

9 авг 2022

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 145   
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
My Socials :) Instagram: instagram.com/collinhogenberg/ RU-vid: ru-vid.com/show-UCuuigpHoTp5Q-qIT_dr8Jngvideos Discord: discord.gg/J7R8VSQjkG
@nighthawk8053
@nighthawk8053 2 года назад
Comet was the best British tank, which was basically an improved Cromwell, with a 77 mm gun.
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
And too late to make any difference.
@nighthawk8053
@nighthawk8053 2 года назад
@@rickden8362 yep
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
"Best British tank" is setting the bar very low ... 🙂 As we all know the best British tank was Mathilda II, and there is absolutely no room for discussions. 🙂
@nighthawk8053
@nighthawk8053 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Matilda 2 was a infantry tank ,not a cruiser tank .Yes Matilda was good but obsolete by 1943. Comet ☄️ was easily the best , but only saw service at very end of war .
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@nighthawk8053 My soft spot for Mathilda II is there for no particular reason. I think I developed it during my World of Tanks days, so whenever I mention Mathilda II, don't take me too serious. 🙂 The role and type of cruiser tanks was a bit blurred anyway. Valentine served in both roles, and it wasn't exactly a race car, M3 Stuart served as a cruiser, although being a bit light, so did Sherman and M3 Grant. Centurion was designed as a heavy cruiser. As you've already stated correctly, Comet was too late to have any impact. I go a step further and say it was already obsolete and technological one step behind international development. That Christie suspension ... Same for Cromwell; in 1942, even with the 6 pdr, it would have been a killer tank. By 1944 it was just a very fast Panzer IV, which was also obsolete then. I even dare to say that the excellent Centurion was no big shot in its Mk I configuration. It was just a sort of tank which Germany already had in service for two years. The 17pdr was not better than Panthers gun. It was better armored than Panther, but slow for medium tank standards. Centurion was very mobile off-road, but so was Panther. The overall production quality was totally on the British side for that matter, so they didn't need to deal with the shortcomings and shortcuts that hindered Panther.
@boomslangCA
@boomslangCA 2 года назад
That tank that jumped the canal is an interesting story. It was actually a training tank with ordinary steel instead of heavier armour plating. The commander wrote a very interesting book after the war, well worth reading. The real story is the tank accompanying it was a heavier armoured tank and seeing the first tank jump the canal tried the same thing... it teetered on the edge with the treads trying to gain traction until they bit and it barely made it. Still, you're right, one battle-Cromwell made the canal jump. Just thought I would mention the circumstances for those interested.
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
Sorry mate, but this story belongs to the same universe in which T-34 was a good tank and the USA won the war all alone. 🙂 There are simply too many flaws in that one story. Although I have to agree the book is most excellent reading stuff (I've read some passages), it's not a trustworthy source ! Serious, even if it was a monster truck, it couldn't have made the jump without a ramp. A big ramp. Or the opposing bank is much lower, which has the same effect. Either way, I don't even try to imagine the landing without seatbelts and crash helmets. There would have been badly injured people on board, like broken limbs, skulls and spines. Further, if the armor (that wasn't) was made out of ordinary "soft" steel, the thickness of the steel plates was still the same; so said tank wasn't any lighter than a "hard" Cromwell. Hardening steel plates doesn't increase their weight; it's about re-arranging the the crystalline structure. You don't re-tool your whole production lines just to make a few training vehicles with thinner plates.
@frankanderson5012
@frankanderson5012 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Having read the book myself, I’m curious as to why you think he lied about the events and the very experienced author and ex military, went along with it?
@okeyezeilo6187
@okeyezeilo6187 2 года назад
Three Cromwells made the jump that day. Bellamy's was the 'training' tank with ordinary steel. Pritchard's & Howard's tanks were the usual battle configuration. Pritchard built up sufficient speed, and landed exactly where his troop commander landed. It was Howard who didnt build up enough speed and who therefore teetered on the edge before clambering out of trouble.
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@frankanderson5012 First of all, the book is excellent reading and I highly recommend it ! But as with all memoires, they are written years after the events. The more traumatising the event, the more blurry the memory. And of course memories are biased. Second, it is physically impossible. A tank is no BMX bike, so you can't make it jump over obstacles by muscle power. When it "jumps off" at a certain height level, it can't land at the same level on the other side. Gravity is in the way, there is no lift as on an aircraft. You either need a ramp or your jump-off point is substantially higher than your landing point to make that stunt work. Third, the landing would have been so brutal to the crew, they might as well have taken the 88 hit. (it was an 88 they discovered, right ?) So either he told a fabulous story or he left out some "minor" details, both of which declassify the story as a source from a historical point of view. I still stand to be corrected and if you would be so kind to re-read the passage (I haven't got it) to check for ramps or height difference, we could get some sense in it.
@4192362
@4192362 Год назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 given a choice between death or speeding at the canal I guarantee you would have hit the pedal to the metal. Remember the REME fitters used to remove the engine governors on the Meteors to increase the horsepower.
@lewis7315
@lewis7315 2 года назад
The Normandy hedges were often 15 or 20 feet high mounds of dirt that had hedges on them, so the classic hedge cutter was only somewhat effective.. going over these hedges exposed the thin belly armor of the tank with the expected results...
@rikulappi9664
@rikulappi9664 Год назад
Cromwells were operated by the Finnish Defence Forces, too. When they became obsolete they were reused as stationery bunkers around airfields facing inwards as a defence against airborne surprise attacks.
@anselmdanker9519
@anselmdanker9519 Год назад
Thank you. The Cromwell regiments were equipped with a mix of 6 pounder and 75 mm guns as the 6 pounder had better armoured penetration than the 75mm. Overall the 21st Army claimed 890 German tanks destroyed between D day and August 1944.this included 132 Tigers and 252 Panthers. The German army claimed to have destroyed 1935 tanks during the same period, although the British and Canadian army records indicate 1042 tanks destroyed. The German panzer units were drawn into an attrional battle often at ranges where they could be destroyed by 17 pounders, 75mm , 6 pounders and PIATs, supplemented by Ground attack aircraft and naval artillery. Looking forward to your other presentations.
@TTTT-oc4eb
@TTTT-oc4eb Год назад
Only 126 Tigers were present in Normandy. 69 of these were destroyed in combat; about 30 to tanks/tank destroyers, 10-15 by heavy bombers at the start of Goodwood, a few to infantry and the rest to AT guns. Source: Tigers in Combat 1 & 2.
@Dontwlookatthis
@Dontwlookatthis Месяц назад
There is a story about a Cromwell tank commander who noticed that his tank was always the first to arrive anywhere, and when he was called to ask about taking on an 88mm gun, it turned out that it was an 20mm anti aircraft gun. He reversed quickly and once around the corner, he looked and saw that the bullets which should have bounced off, had instead stuck into the armor. When he saw this he realized that he had accidentally been given a mild steel pilot model. He considered giving it back but realized that because it could move so fast and get out of trouble quickly, he decided to keep it. It proved useful just days later when the Cromwell company was ambushed from the left flank. The only way they could get out of it was to try to jump a canal to the right flank. It worked, because the Cromwells were able to disengage the transmission as soon as they landed and before they stopped, they immediately engaged the transmission and sped way. Of all the Cromwells, none were lost.
@randisgreen
@randisgreen 2 года назад
Always loved the look of the Cromwell
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
lt looks a lot like a Panzer IV. 😆
@randisgreen
@randisgreen 2 года назад
@@rickden8362 that might be why I like it so much! I love those early to midwar tank aesthetics.
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
@@randisgreen The Cromwell is more like what the Panther should have been, an ''expanded'' Pz IV. A bit wider, a bit longer, a slightly bigger turret, more HP, and a high velocity 75mm gun. That's the tank they needed instead of those Panther/Tiger monstrosities.
@jacobjonm0511
@jacobjonm0511 Год назад
@@rickden8362 Germans had a lot of Pz IVs. So there was a reason they developed Panther and Tigers. Because Pz IV was easy prey for Russian tanks.
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 Год назад
@@jacobjonm0511 Go back an reread my comment...maybe you'll understand what I actually said the second time around. Try reading for comprehension this time.
@simongee8928
@simongee8928 Год назад
At Villiers Bocage, due to poor reconnaissance, most of the destroyed vehicles were in a sunken road with no chance to manoeuvre out of the way, especially as Wittman's tanks had hit the first and last vehicles in the column.
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 Год назад
It was worse, they thought that they won the war and quite a few officers and troops were veterans so they were just speeding up the French countryside. The Germans as well were very perplexed with their carefree attitude...
@cosmoray9750
@cosmoray9750 Год назад
An urgent warning to Aus... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ewb8fwtfMfw.html
@28pbtkh23
@28pbtkh23 2 года назад
A lot of good info packed into just under 7 minutes.
@julianpalmer4886
@julianpalmer4886 2 года назад
That was extremely informative, and i personally appreciated your Dutch accent; very humble, yet PROUD
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
Haha yeah apparently my dutch accent is very noticable😅😂
@julianpalmer4886
@julianpalmer4886 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether vive Hollander
@julianpalmer4886
@julianpalmer4886 2 года назад
Mon pleasure
@bigabdbob
@bigabdbob 2 года назад
even just looking at it you can tell it was one of the better british tanks during ww2
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
😂😂😂
@timothykelly7974
@timothykelly7974 Год назад
When the first Cromwell’s were delivered, the tank men were furious and wanted them sent back. They couldn’t believe that the designers had produced a slab sided, riveted turret when they would be facing the enemies sloped armor and fully welded construction.
@darioscomicschool1111
@darioscomicschool1111 2 месяца назад
Thank you!
@Ralphieboy
@Ralphieboy Год назад
Great film about an otherwise merely adequate tank. It would have been an outstanding tank had it come out in 1942 or '43. (English tip: "reverse gear" rather than "backwards gear")
@THINKincessantly
@THINKincessantly Год назад
🏆 Labeling the photos and providing isometrics of the armor values are two small additions that help separate these brief military history modules from the numerous others like it. Cant wait for the Panzer III & IV 🇩🇪
@johnlansing2902
@johnlansing2902 2 года назад
Thank you .
@SunKing968
@SunKing968 Год назад
Great job, thanks! Would LOVE if you could do something similar for the inimitably sexy Crusader ; )
@oisnowy5368
@oisnowy5368 Год назад
Angling the armor on the Cromwell wouldn't have made that much of a difference against Tigers or Panthers, let's be honest. The Germans knew all about angling, but they did boxy designs as well. It's about the ergonomics. The Cromwell's pretty awesome, just late to the game.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
It was introduced to late, if it was introduced in 1942 it could've been around the top of the food chain, but when it was introduced it was just, not anything special and if anything just a waste of resources
@tvgerbil1984
@tvgerbil1984 Год назад
The majority of the German armor at the time were Panzer IVs and StuGs. They were armed with 7.5 cm KwK 40. The standard German anti-tank guns were also the 7.5 cm Pak 40. Angling the front hull of the Cromwell might have given the Cromwell better chance to survive these guns at normal combat ranges.
@Krogulec1982
@Krogulec1982 Год назад
hi, thanks for interesting story, but i have a quesion, could you tell me from what source did you get this data (3:16)?
@okeyezeilo6187
@okeyezeilo6187 2 года назад
I'm afraid the presenter is mistaken. The earlier versions of the Cromwell had a top speed of 64kph, decisively faster than the 53kph of the T34. They were roughly similar in weight so the extra 100bhp of the Cromwell also meant decisively greater acceleration and I believe it cornered faster too. So, yes the T34 may have been a better rank overall but in terms of acceleration, speed and maneuverability it was nowhere near that Cromwell. [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank]
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
I believe i said that it had a 64kph top.speed but was restricted to 51 kph because it was deemed uncomfortable for the crew
@okeyezeilo6187
@okeyezeilo6187 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether You did indeed but I was just pointing out that only the later ones were so restricted. The earlier Cromwells retained their unprecedented top speed and remained decisively faster than the T34.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
@@okeyezeilo6187 ah yeah small misunderstanding there but all good haha👍
@michellebrown4903
@michellebrown4903 8 дней назад
It was OK . A bit of an improvement on the Panzer Mark 4 .
@ihategooglealot3741
@ihategooglealot3741 Год назад
75mm was only out of date is for tank on tank work, it was well up to snuff for anti infantry work and use against anti tank guns
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Well yeah like i said it had a decent HE so it would do the job against infantry but my channel is mainly a tank channel so most of the time i talk about anti-tank purposes
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 Год назад
The Cromwell was for me a strange tank that had very good performance, thanks to the Rolls-Royce Meteor but with vertical armour with a magnificent shot trap behind the cannon, a detail that both the Pz.Kpfw III and the Pz.Kpfw IV was already fixed after the invasion of Poland with a so so Ordinance QF 75 mm gun. It took years for England to produce a decent tank....
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Well i mean in my opinion the Churchill and Matilda II were decent tanks aswell but i see your point :)
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether thanks for replying but sorry for my bad grammar! Please keep on posting as I'm looking forward to see your new videos as I liked so much that I just subscribed 👍👍
@ronhall9394
@ronhall9394 Год назад
If tank engagements were conducted on a billiard table then vertical armour can be a distinct drawback, however very few engagements in western Europe were like this and a 'vertical' glacis/hull takes on a slope even on a modest incline. And that 'magnificent shot trap' behind the cannon is the same 'shot trap' that most other tanks had on the outside of the turret - the British preferred to keep the gun mantlet inside the turret. And probably on the the most globally celebrated AFV's - the Centurion, just missed WW2 by about a fortnight, being loaded on LSTs in Britain on 14th May - the Germans surrendered on the 7th May.
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 Год назад
@@ronhall9394 I could almost write a book on shot traps on various tanks, a glaring example was the rounded mantlet on the lower part of the Panther but also the T-34 had a shot trap on the front between the front chassis and the base of the turret, the list is long. Regarding the Tiger I if you read the manual of the Tiger it stated that the tank should always turn the front oblique already when it was published this booklet. This to say that tank manufacturers were aware of the deficiency their tank...
@josol_1547
@josol_1547 2 года назад
Nice video but now I’m wondering: what actually was the fastest tank if not the cromwell?
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
Google says the Fv101 Scorpion, which could go 72.5kph came into service in 1973 however i believe that this is false because the Soviet BT-7 (Which served in ww2) could go between 72-86 kph, but currently i am working on a video (if we get the 80 likes within 24h) and that tank, the M18 Hellcat could go 89 kph, i don't know if it is the fastest tank, but it is the fastest tank which served during ww2 to my knowledge
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether Scorpion is a scout, not a battle tank. If you consider scouts, 72 km/h are easily surpassed by wheeled armored vehicles even in WW2. Hellcat isn't a tank either, it's a tank destroyer. If you consider TDs, my money is on AH-64 Apache. 🙂 BTs were that fast, but not on tracks. Bro, you're Dutch, so check out your own army. 🙂Early standard Leopard 2 could do 80 km/h on road with a governed engine, which made it the fastest tracked battle tank of its time. Just for fun they tested an un-governed one on the Autobahn and clocked it at 120 km/h. (that part of the Autobahn was squared off, so no civilian traffic !).
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 but what makes it classify as a tank then? Since a lot of people have different interpretations of it, what i mainly hear is 'yeah it needs to have a turret, anti-tank gun and tracks' So i am confused😅
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether It is indeed confusing and simple at the same time. It was simple if you asked for "fastest armored vehicle"; but if you ask for tanks you have to be more specific. Tracked, wheeled, light, heavy, medium ... ? Scorpion is a tank as in scout tank or light tank. It is not a tank in the sense of battle tank, i.e. Centurion or Chieftain. If it was permanently deployed in the role of an MBT, it could be considered as an MBT. A battle tank is a compromise between protection, armament and mobility, thus very different specifications as for a scout or light tank, which have usually smaller guns and thinner armor for more speed and sneakyness. You can compare Scorpion to other tracked light or scout tanks of its time, i.e. AMX-75, PT-76, but you can't compare it to let's say T-34. The Swedish Stridsvagn 103 is by all common sense a tank destroyer. The Swedish say it's a battle tank and it is deployed as a battle tank so it is a battle tank, basta. 🙂 Speaking of tank destroyers, that's another can of worms. It's a branch. A Hellcat for that matter has the same role as a towed AT gun, which primarily is defense against enemy armor. But neither Hellcat nor towed AT guns were designed to go offensive as tanks do.
@michaelnaven213
@michaelnaven213 2 года назад
M-18 Hellcat
@gar6446
@gar6446 Год назад
Horribly delayed it entered service just as the campaign it could have excelled at in North Africa was finishing. Not the sort of tank you want to be trapped in column in with towns hedgerows panzer faust 88mm and pak about let alone tiger tanks ! But the engine was a gem and once the gun was sorted a really good follow up was produced in the Comet and culminated in the centurion.
@markrunnalls7215
@markrunnalls7215 Год назад
Cromwell looked right and it was right, I GET SICK OF PEOPLE STATING THAT Brit armour was rubbish.. With regards to the losses at Villiers Bocage, it wasn't such a defeat as some think, ie losses were not that bad, check out Paul woodich at ww2 TV.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
British armour isn't rubbish, the matilda II was great in early ww2, just ask the L3/35 or the M11/39 crews, the Centurion in my opinion was easily the best tank for 30 years after ww2. And the comet was alright. Just some are outdated when they hit the battlefield, most of the time interms of firepower. For example the churchill 1's 2 pounder isn't gonna cut it in 1941 or cromwell's 75mm in 1944 i mean it'll get ugly quick if it encounters a Tiger 1/2, Panther or Ferdinand
@mikereger1186
@mikereger1186 Год назад
No!!! Centurion was a completely new project, *not* a continuation of Cruiser tanks. That line ended with Comet. Check any number of David Fletcher’s books on the topic.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Yeah i've had this chat already w someone 😅
@sinisabalentovic9617
@sinisabalentovic9617 Год назад
I must say,they performed much better than sherman aguess
@paullyon-vv9tb
@paullyon-vv9tb 4 месяца назад
Tank had lots of good points. But simply said it should of been a comet 77mm tanks would of made a difference in a big way 😂🇬🇧💥💥💥
@bigblue6917
@bigblue6917 Год назад
The Cromwell did kill a Tiger and another one killed two Panthers. The 95mm was assigned as a support to other Cromwells but only fired smoke shell not HE rounds.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Where did you get that later information from?
@bigblue6917
@bigblue6917 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether I originally came across the information sometime ago when reading an article about a modeler who converted a model of a Cromwell. But if you check Wikipedia and the section on the turret and armament the line second from the end say that the 95mm howitzer was to fire HE rounds but its primary role was to deliver smoke shell. I have not come across a reference to it doing either. Hope that helps.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
@@bigblue6917 ah yeah alright, after what you said i decided to check up on the main armaments wikipage and so on but i didn't find anything out of the ordinary😅 My main source of information is generally speaking tank encyclopedia, i believe that they said that they needed a more powerful close support weapon and they found that in the 95mm but they can always be wrong, the thing is obv i am also always still learning about this and a couple of lads said that they generally speaking are right about a lot of stuff but yeah they are humans aswell. It might also be that i misquoted them but tbh i doubt that, anywah thanks for the additional information, i always try to learn from people who are commenting so if i made a mistake i wont make that same mistake again😅👍
@bigblue6917
@bigblue6917 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether that's what many of us go to channels like yours for. We can learn and pass on what we know. The Royal Marines had eight of the 95mm tanks for D-Day but I seem to remember them being used either. The biggest problem for the Cromwell was the as a project it was badly served. At one point it was to have had the Liberty engine but was saved from that fate and got the Meteor engine instead.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
@@bigblue6917 yeah so i've read, really gave it a boost interms of mobility which could make it still a bit useful haha
@retepeyahaled2961
@retepeyahaled2961 Год назад
The British took way too long to come up with a descent tank. By the time the war was nearly over, the British started to learn how to build a good tank. To me the Cromwell seems on the same level as the much older pantzer IV - and the Sherman. In the end they finally learned the job; the Centurion was a world class tank, but that one only appeared just after the war.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Depends on what version you compair the cromwell to but yeah i agree 👍
@ogukuo97
@ogukuo97 Год назад
I think both the Sherman and the Cromwell are superior to the Pz.Kpfw. IV. It's more accurate to see them as evolutionary steps above the Pz.Kpfw. IV, but one step below Pz.Kpfw. V. But as many have already pointed out, at the end of the day, crew experience and skill were just as important.
@mikereger1186
@mikereger1186 Год назад
@@ogukuo97 are we really making a fair comparison there? The PIV was a design from the 1930s, much older, but due to its wide turret ring it had “stretch potential” permitting upgraded guns up to 75mm in common service, and it served through the whole duration of the war in one form or another. The only thing limiting it was its maximum weight loading, else it would have had appliqué armour bolted on just like the P3 “specials” seen in Africa. As designs go, it did its job really well. Cromwell was an overdue project from the early 1940s. The main impediments were: (i) Lord Nuffield (of Morris Motors) who kept pushing for an incremental upgrade of his company’s Crusader tank, using the obsolete Liberty engine - resulting in the wholly inadequate and underpowered Cavalier tank, and considerable wasted material and man-hours. (ii) Limited numbers of Meteor engines, due to Merlins being almost exclusively produced to continually replace Bomber Command losses. Also because dedicated Meteor production wasn’t organised until very late into the war. So, some “almost Cromwell” models were versions modified to take either the Liberty or Meteor engines - Centaurs. (iii) Delayed R&D to produce 6pdr and then 75mm tank gun mountings. The Ministry of Supply (?) kept producing obsolete 2pdr guns over a year longer than it should have instead of upgunning. Basically, it took until 1943 just for British industry to pull its finger out and catch up with an equivalent tank.
@ogukuo97
@ogukuo97 Год назад
@@mikereger1186 I believe I was making a similar point.
@ogukuo97
@ogukuo97 Год назад
@@mikereger1186 Fair point. Neither is comparing a medium tank to heavy tanks.
@stuthhamster
@stuthhamster 6 месяцев назад
That image you used for the thumbnails makes it looks goofy as hell lmao
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
By the time the Cromwell/Centaur was introduced in June 44 the Allies had such massive tank imbalance against the Germans another model was hardly going to make a difference.
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
There was such an imbalance in every aspect; tanks were actually Germany's smallest problem ... In no particular order: no domestic resources except for coal, not enough trains to move the coal or run any other supply line, shortage of manpower everywhere, badly trained soldiers, badly equipped units, literally non-existent air support, Allied sovereignity of the seas, by far not enough trucks, not enough tires for the few trucks, no spare parts, not enough artillery, ammo shortages for the few artillery, not enough reserves, fuel crisis imminent etc. Let's also say that the overall leadership wasn't the best either. How they ever made it this far is one of the great mysteries.
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Well...dah. Aren't you the clever one stating the obvious.
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@rickden8362 I guess ... yes ... ? 🙂 Edit: But I'm defending my point that tanks were Germany's smallest problem in Normandy. In fact them and Flak were the only things that worked properly for Germany there and then, on a tactical level that is. Sure, there weren't enough armored formations to cover both the US and the British/Canadian sector (hello Estern Front !), but this was due to the strategic limitations. Back on topic. I am just guessing here, but I say that a better tank than Cromwell - i.e. Comet or even Centurion - would have led to less British/Canadian/Polish losses and would have inflicted more damage to German forces.
@rickden8362
@rickden8362 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 But not clever enough to know when you're having your chain pulled.😆
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@rickden8362 Where's that middlefinger smiley when you need it ... 🙂 Cheers mate !
@roybennett9284
@roybennett9284 2 года назад
Must have been ok,as they went to Korea.
@alexstewart5893
@alexstewart5893 3 месяца назад
Yeah probably the best tank made by Britain before we got it right with the comet.
@Ordagn
@Ordagn 2 года назад
Now it is 80 Likes 👍
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
I should probably raise the target next time!😂 but as promised. The video is ready for it to be released the 12th
@steffenrosmus9177
@steffenrosmus9177 Год назад
Have there ever been an best British tank?
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Uh, i guess the Centurion for a very long time during the 2nd world war it is a bit more different since at that time there were a lot of different uses for these tanks so there isn't nessesarly a 'Best' tank during ww2 and before
@dennisswaim8210
@dennisswaim8210 Месяц назад
The Comet was the best British tank, the Centurion came in too late to see action
@dehliachairaalyssia
@dehliachairaalyssia 2 года назад
Did you know that the cromwell was a tank ?
@jamesvandemark2086
@jamesvandemark2086 Год назад
Michael Wittman? They had no chance........
@frankanderson5012
@frankanderson5012 Месяц назад
Rather than getting your history from sensationalism videos about ‘how great’ you hero Wittman was and the Nazi propaganda that glamorised him, educate yourself about the actual event, leading up, during and after. Or you could remain ignorant and continue to make stupid comments like the one you have. How about Sherman Firefly? Micheal Wittman had no chance…..
@THINKincessantly
@THINKincessantly Год назад
🇬🇧 I wouldn’t expect England or Britain being an island commonwealth to be masters of Tanks, maybe a very terrain specific defender of the homeland if need be....war is war true but think about that for a second...what is your nations foreign policy? Sounds to me like an aggressor state..Landlocked nations should surely have a fighting doctrine including mission specific machines.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
To be fair to them they did do invent the first tanks, i'd only makes sense for them to be the masters at it, al though i cannot blame them if their priorities lie elsewhere
@THINKincessantly
@THINKincessantly Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether well, its like Gunpowder, China more or less discovered the recipe and then Europeans refined it for war...developing a nice following and a fan base Sir! Videos are getting better! Keep on trucking!
@michaelnaven213
@michaelnaven213 2 года назад
The Crusader was not a good tank. Crews hated it because it was unreliable and poor armor. The Cromwell did fix many of the defects and because of the Cromwell’s speed and range the British were able to exploit breakthroughs to cover vast amounts of territory in Europe. It was the perfect tank for that.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
Yeah.like i said it was very quickly outdated interms of fire power and armour😅
@michaelnaven213
@michaelnaven213 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether yes you did
@RayyMusik
@RayyMusik 2 года назад
Just looking at it, I can‘t believe that this was a usable tank in 1944. No sloped armour, no gun mantlet (WTF?), angular turret, narrow tracks - nah!
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
Honestly the only thing what made it relevant was it raw speed and mobility but yeah it was basically a snack to a experianced Tiger / Panther Crew
@simongee8928
@simongee8928 Год назад
Unfortunately for the tank crews, that was the military thinking at the time. Very hidebound and suspicious of anything different.
@nerdyali4154
@nerdyali4154 Год назад
It had thicker frontal armour than the Sherman, so the lack of slope made it about equivalent. Sloped armour is a weight saving measure, with internal space penalties. It isn't a magic solution and the lack of it in many later tanks shows that. It wasn't meant to be heavy tank it, was more of a cruiser tank and it performed it's job well. Tank-on-tank combat was the exception, not the norm, so a big hulk like the Tiger was a waste. If the Tigers and Cromwells had had their positions at Villers-Boucage reversed we would be talking about a row of Tigers and Panthers being destroyed. Wittman had spotted the advancing tanks from a church tower and worked out an ideal spot for an ambush. The simple fact is that the defenders have a big advantage in tank combat. They can hide and know more or less where the enemy will appear. The attacking tanks will probably never even see the tank that gets them.
@nerdyali4154
@nerdyali4154 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether It was a tank designed to do a job in a war, which it did, and that's what made it relevant. Tigers were hardly ever encountered, and when they were they could easily be destroyed from the right angle. The most crucial factor in tank combat was who hit who first and the Cromwell had a lower profile than the Panther. That, and it's speed made it far from a snack. A Panther was about as vulnerable as a Cromwell or Sherman in anything other than front-to-front engagement.
@brucenorman8904
@brucenorman8904 Год назад
@@nerdyali4154 nope. The M4 after taking slope into account was around 92mm whereas the Cromwell was what 64mm.
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
6th Airborne certainly had no tanks at all. Where did you get that from ? Crusader wasn't in service until 1941, so it wasn't obsolete in 1940 ! Maybe you mean the Mk III Cruiser ? Top speed (on road) and cross-country speed are two completly different things. Even today you won't go above 30 km/h (I stand to be corrected !) over a cratered field, because the squishy things inside the tank (aka the crew) wouldn't thank you ! Neither would your suspension. Cromwell wasn't exactly an off-roader to begin with; the tracks were way too narrow and the crews didn't wear helmets. You have no idea how many sharp edges and knuckels inside a tank only wait for you to bang your head against ! I've seen people vomiting after a short off-road trip in an M113, not mentioning the bruises. 🙂 That story about jumping Cromwells: this stunt only works if you have a ramp or the opposite bank is considerably lower. Otherwise gravity puts a very abrupt end to it. It doesn't work with busses either (as in "Speed"). I put this in the myth section. Cromwell led to Comet, which was essentially an upgrade, but neither of which had anything to do with Centurion. Centurion was a completley independent development which was already underway before Cromwell came out. And I won't say that Centurion was the first MBT. Sherman, T-34, Panzer III, IV and V all filled that role at some point. It only was the first British MBT when they finally got rid of the idea of dedicated infantry and cruiser tanks.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
0:58 'it was to replace the crusader which in 1940 was considerd to be a good tank, bur quickly became obsolete interms of firepower and armour' so that was a misquote on your part :)
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
Most of my information comes from 'tank encyclopedia' idk if you know that? I asked one of my friends if that was a trustworthy site and he said it was for internet standards, most of the information is kind of hard to verify but i check up on several sites to see if they have the same 'opinion' / Reports Near the end it also states 'The Comet would eventually lead to the Centurion in 1945, the world’s first MBT and one of the most successful tanks ever designed'
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether Indeed, sorry ! 🙂 It was British tradition that their tanks became obsolete the moment they entered service or they came too late to proove themselves. Churchill being an exception.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether 2 года назад
@@ottovonbismarck2443 and Matilda II🤔
@ottovonbismarck2443
@ottovonbismarck2443 2 года назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether I know tank encyclopedia from YT. They are trustworthy, but if they get the wrong information, they might as well do a mistake. Only human. Think about it: Centurion entered combat-near field trials in May/June 1945, roughly 6 month after Comet entered service. It was a program more or less parallel to Comet, but more complex. They had nothing in common and were built to different specifications. Comet was built to have firepower on a fast cruiser. Armor was still not up to modern standards, although not totally bad like on Challenger. Essentially they tried to quickly improve Cromwell, which turned out to be not as quick and easy thus Comet came late. Although being an upgrade to Cromwell, it still wasn't anything special and kept too many flaws. In theory, Cromwell was slightly better than Pz IV (only 2 years later !) and Comet was still worse than Panther (one year later !). But as we know, we can't really compare tanks on a 1 vs 1 base. Centurion was built as a fresh design with both killer armament and modern armor protection in mind. If Centurion owes to Comet, it is more in the way of "For once let's think this through". 🙂
@Will_CH1
@Will_CH1 Год назад
While the British were developing Cromwell, the Germans had completed Tiger and Panther and were developing the King Tiger. The tank was designed for the 75mm HV vickers gun. The Russians or Americans would have been able to fit it easily, but not the British. Cromwell failed at the administrative stage. It failed before it was even a tank.
@LearningHistoryTogether
@LearningHistoryTogether Год назад
Well the fact that it saw combat in 1944 and was already being replaced 6 months laters tells you what you need to know
@Will_CH1
@Will_CH1 Год назад
@@LearningHistoryTogether Comets were ready before the normanby invasion but witheld. Given the previousl debacle with the late introduction of the 6 pounder gun, it is almost as if the British war office wanted to maximize british tank crew mortality rates.
@bryanduncan1640
@bryanduncan1640 Год назад
Amazing! The Germans design the Panzer lll and lV in the 30’s and they lasted till long after the war, whereas we British took until the Centurian in the late 40’s before we could come up with a decent tank. Catch me in a slab-sided riveted box, not on your Nelly!
@lurch8111
@lurch8111 Год назад
Matilda II was from June '38 and better that the PZ III and on par with the PZ IV D. The Matilda is also the only Tank to fight in all theaters of WW2.
@john-xo9mg
@john-xo9mg Год назад
Can answere this question easily . The cromwell was crap, worse than that it was a death trap first modles it was a work of art for the driver bow gunner to actually get in the thing never mind get out, weak armour and well the gun not one of the best. Only thing going for it is it was fast.
@alexspielberg4090
@alexspielberg4090 3 месяца назад
you have to work on your unpleasant pronunciation...
@redseneastmkii
@redseneastmkii 11 месяцев назад
The British designed, produced, and fielded very inferior armoured fighting vehicles. The Germans and the Soviets were well ahead of the British in the A.F.V. department. So too were the Americans to a lesser extent. At least the M4 Sherman was mechanically sound and reliable and easily maintained and on the battlefield adequate and battleworthy.
Далее
Centurion - Tiger Tank's Nemesis
11:49
Просмотров 1,5 млн
We Fired the Martini-Henry | Rifle of the Zulu War
24:40
would you eat this? #shorts
00:23
Просмотров 1,5 млн
Top 5 WWII Rifles
11:11
Просмотров 4,1 млн
Tales of Cromwell tanks
12:16
Просмотров 897 тыс.
the Highland Brigade - Battle of Magersfontein
16:24
Просмотров 244 тыс.
David Fletcher's Top 5 British Tanks | The Tank Museum
26:34
Cromwell 2  - Tank Design & Development
10:07
Просмотров 28 тыс.
TAB Episode 43: QF 2pdr Anti-Tank Gun
17:59
Просмотров 33 тыс.
Why did the Celts Collapse?
10:42
Просмотров 1,7 млн
Huot Automatic Rifle: The Ross Goes Full Auto
19:27
Просмотров 1,7 млн
KMS Prinz Eugen: The Lucky Cruiser
16:59
Просмотров 36 тыс.