First part of a two-part tour of Australian Cruiser Mk1, "Sentinel" NA Forum discussion thread: forum.worldoftanks.com/index.p... Asia discussion thread. forum.worldoftanks.asia/index....
Even if the tank never saw service, this gives me a considerable respect that a country was able to develop it under the circumstances outlined in this video.
Heh, "Supplies Taken in Excess of Authorized Listing"... MY buddy once Tactically Acquired a complete canopy and bow set for our shop's LMTV off a broken down LMTV belonging to another unit in the motor pool... with the assistance of soldiers in that unit. Walked up to it and started working on tearing it down. Some helpful SFC saw him, asked what he was doing, and then detailed 4 more soldiers to help him...
So, if the tank has to do some deep fording of a river or perhaps an amphibious landing, do you have to place upon your armored machine gun port some sort of rubberized protection sheath? You know, to keep your rifle clean.
I imagine that when designing the hull machinegun the designer at first didnt even realize how it would look and when he finaly did he just took the piss and went the extra step to make it as cursed as possible.
Nice report. One thing to note. Australia did have heavy industry prior to WW2. Steam locomotive and steel mills in particular. In fact the US war department noted that per capita Australia was one of the top five war supply producing nations in WW2.
Thank you for all the amazing videos you put up for us to enjoy! Thank you for all the work and hard work you put into it! I can't wait to see more videos from ya! Keep up the great work! 😁
These videos are getting better and better (and longer and longer too)! Two thumbs up, can't wait for part 2 :) Shame the release schedule is so long though.
I have been waiting for an upload - thank you! I love Australia's efforts to develop their own tanks and their efforts to build their own British designed planes in WWII. Great video - thumbs up!
Keep up the good work chieftain. I enjoy all these videos and as a proud aussie am very excited to see this tank in more detail. I believe there were 3 marks of this tanks, with the 3rd having a 17pdr
This tank had a lot going for it, considering this was the first ever tank a nation of 9 million people produced I think it is a pretty good effort. With a bit of development I think it could have been a really useful tank.
It got that development. Mk1 had a standard Commonwealth 2pdr (40mm) anti-tank gun. Mk IV had a (standard-ish) Commonwealth 17pdr. In order to test whether or not the mounting could handle the recoil of the 17pdr they built a mantlet housing two (2!) short 25pdrs (the short 25pdr was an Australian development designed for weird high angle/low angle short distance engagements such as Papua New Guinea. Basically a mountain gun in British pattern, but utterly unnecessary in Western Europe.
The Crusaders weren’t a lot of help at Bardia due to their unreliability. By the second day, after the Australian infantry had led the British tanks into the battle, only five were operational. The next day three made it to the end. The British engineers were never able to develop a tank that could cope with desert conditions.
Really late to the party here, but on a minor technicality that's bugged me since I first watched this: Australia did have heavy industry by the late 1930s. What was lacking was light engineering. This was the sort of thing you'd find in automotive industries in the US and UK, but Australia had virtually no auto industry at this time. There was no car manufacture, but some manufacture of parts to supply the local market of imported vehicles. This is why the engines and transmission were a bigger challenge than casting the hull.
Steal is such a harsh word. When I was in the swedish military, it was called innovative procurement. BUT not by the higher ups, they were not used to be on the wrong end of the procurement
In military terms, "STEAL" stands for "Strategic Transfer of Equipment to Alternate Locations" - or, as the Chief has said: "Supplies Taken in Excess of Authorised Listing."
I think it would be awesome if WG would let their community contributors know when the Chieftain or the Challenger are going to these museums. They could all get together and climb around the tanks and be WG's official "Tank Crew". Or at least let The Mighty Jingles know when you're at Bovington. I'm willing to bet that he'd be more than happy to meet you guys.
+TheLittlestMig don't think i'll buy Challenger a pint. there be various rumours goin about on his incompetence in the EU region, and how he's deteriorating relations with museums
BK also supplied bolt on armour for M3s, mainly a large piece to beef up the transmission housing. I happen to own an anvil they made (more their usual line - rather than tank armour) Theres an ACIII "Thunderbolt" (same tank with 25 pounder) at the AWM storage facility in case you havent seen it
great vid. I wonder right now how the 3 engines worked together. I'm imagining that they ran like one engine, revving together on one shaft into the transmission. I think it's a great looking tank, I'm sure that MG housing was designed to look exactly like that. Someone saw the possibility and the team agreed. I'm sure that it's having fun with the enemy. Yes, it's got a function but no, it doesn't have to look like that. 😂
Having some of the weight being carried by the bogey-bracket itself is actually not a bad concept. If lateral loads could damage the four bolts, having some large pins welded onto the load carrying flange protruding into holes in the bottom of the tank would mitigate the risk of lateral bolt overload.
The blooper's are sorta cool, but I needed a spew warning when you described that "old army word and acronym" STEAL dang I about lost it, thanks for the memories ... 1/10th Cav, 4th ID was my first duty station back in 80-81
Btw, you're right about the colour being wrong. As best I recall, Australia used khaki (an equal mix of sage and buff) and olive green. That looks more like mud. :-P
Casted hull, was just quite well thought detail. Makes a lot difference when you just can push those ones out at as a big volume. Of course, theory works usually a lot better than in practice, especially when u are adopting foreign desing's, which you just wont produce at large scale. Idea is quite good, you just have to borrow good things for others. 23 gallons is a lot more than you could expect, also same time those old engines usually had some minor leaking's(that small sweating everywhere) so displacement in coolant and oil is mostly advantage, of course with 3 engines you are converting simple thing to too complicated package . Just food for thought.
+Fetisisti Yeah, as an engineer... I have to say all hats off to the chaps that built the system incorporating all 3 engines into a system that works even under heavy loads seen by a tank.
No love for its Commonwealth cousin, the Ram? There are several museum pieces still around, and unlike the Sentinel, it saw full production and some use (just not as a gun tank...)
@18:58... one thing strikes me... The turret bustle bin is designed to be opened from the front/via the turret. Living on tanks, in the field... it'll be accessed from the engine deck. Designers, before users?
As to the air inlet / Outlet vent could it be thermosiphon Cooling? although it's going to be a lot of heat in the turret for that too get enough air flow to make a difference just a thought.
Australia had some of the heaviest industry in the world. We had the largest foundries outside the USSR. That's why, like them, we were able to cast large segments of armour.
MortarRiding couldn’t build an engine though, couldn’t machine a decent turret ring either. We dug up a lot of iron and cast / rolled a lot of structural steel though.
To say the Sentinal never 'saw action' in not quite true. There was a Sentinal mounted on a plinth atop Mt Pleasant (appropriately named) above Duntroon Military College in Canberra that oversaw much backseat action in the 60s/70s. I, myself, carried out many skirmishes while the Sentinel stood guard. Ahhh, those memories. I wonder where that tank is now? The plinth is still there.
+james burt It's a premium tank... if they make it too competitive with normal tanks, they'll get accused of pay-to-win. And it is tier 4, possible the worst tier in WoT.
@@brucelamberton8819 the Australians went to US to look at M3 and a British tank expert went to Australia to help. Unsurprisingly that it would have design cues from US and British tank designs
