The tour of the Cruiser Tank Crusader MkIII continues. There's an old phrase which says "If it looks right, it probably is right". Unfortunately, there are exceptions to every rule...
That kind of hatch would have been nice on the M10 and M36. Lets them cover up during inclement weather and artillery then open up when working the gun.
@@mysss29 The concept of the cruiser tanks was also that "speed is armour", so it was supposed to have been able to outrun any tanks they came up against. Before the war the doctrine was infantry and cruiser tanks. So you'd be right to point that out. Infantry tanks were very slow, about 13mph, but had very thick armour. They continued into the late war, because they could be upgunned and could take on heavy tanks. Cruiser tanks not really, however they were intended to be used very much in a screening and light area denial or temporary capture sorts of roles, while the infantry tanks were used in assaults. By the time we get to the model above, they were already trying to upgun the type to make it at least have a credible punch against other tanks it might come across, why they did not really make it out of the desert was that the cruiser type was pretty much done by then.
@@Oscuros david fletcher also made a point of being confused by the british need for smoke and many times it was far more than HE. The Chieftain has the whole thing up on his channel i think, it's like 12 parts and somewhat older. I would really like to see a new one done with a vetted Russian historian.
@@davidmiller9485 Based on what I've read from British and Canadian tankers, the need for smoke rather than HE was that so many German AT systems could kill them so easily. I'm a bit surprised that David Fletcher isn't, or at least wasn't, up on this sentiment. I really have to watch that - was it Tankfest ? For those who aren't familiar with the use of smoke it's pretty obvious of course. You put smoke out in the general area the shooting is coming from, it doesn't have to land anywhere near them - just between the two of you, and try to get on with what you're trying to do. Given how small a lot of the British early war guns were smoke was probably a better choice in many ways anyhow. HE, on the other hand, you actually have to land close enough to hit the enemy. That can be tricky when you're so badly outranged, and you have to attack across a wide valley or bald assed mostly flat ground, and an "88" or whatever has a well camouflaged position that you can't even spot. So, a Crusader in the desert running up against dug in 88's firing at him, at their maximum range, while they have the sun behind them blinding the tank crew, is going to want an awful lot of smoke to get close enough for that Besa to do anything much useful.Or the 6 pdr HE for that matter.
Just got around to this gem of a show! I dig the “ And a pistol port, just in case he’s feeling particularly courageous” ! Fantastic stuff from the Chieftain. Pity the poor gunner.
Regarding the breach marking. The British 75mm gun was derived from the 6lbr gun. The cases were almost exactly the same size so it was a fairly easy job to up gun existing tanks. See David Fletchers books.
If I remember right, didn't they start with a 57mm 6pdr, then bore some of those barrels out to take the American 75mm ammo for its improved HE performance, resulting in the 75mm 6pdr?
James Peterson exactly, though it was then called something like Gun 75mm MkV. Any reference in literature to a 6lbr gun will mean the 57mm version, whether towed or vehicle mounted. British built vehicles with the 75mm gun would have the 6lbr derived gun, unless it's a Churchill Mk4 NA75. In which case it mounts the entire mantlet, gun, ect from a Sherman 2/3 (M4A1 or M4A2). The 75 could not chamber the 57mm round or vice versa, and the 57mm was actually a better Anti Armour weapon than the 75, but yes, the 75's better HE round was a deciding factor in its adoption. I guess the ability to buy, beg, borrow or steal ammo from our American cousins didn't hurt either.
They converted 57mm guns to 75mm? By boring the barrel? I'm skeptical about the boring part. Maybe they just reused the breech blocks? (Or maybe they just put them in backwards? 5775 lol.)
To be fair, as Mr. Moran himself has noted, the majority of threats a tank encounters are soft targets such as anti-tank guns and infantry, where those extra grams of high-explosive filler in the 75mm simply work much better. However, the Germans clearly had the better compromise between HE and AP with their 75mm weapons of 48 calibers because that meant they could effectively engage all common enemy armored vehicles with only modestly inferior HE performance whereas the Allies had struggle more against armor than necessary.
Twirlip Of The Mists the 75mm was lower in velocity than the 6pdr, the 6pdr barrels are really thick if you ever see the bore , although I expect they started making 75mm barrels from scratch later on
Gypsy 122 Be that as it may, I like his drill. Still think he could do with some pads so he can exit a little more vigorously as a real crew would without hurting himself
I can't say with 100% certainty, as I'm not part of Nick's crew, but from the last few vehicles we, his viewers, have seen of the drill, there's been a significant increase of dangers/injuries to Nick. The one with the Stuart seemed (at least to me) wrought with a lot of hazards with the really heavy hatches and, while not even doing the OBTTIOF Drill for it, on the M43 Ambulance he got hurt. It might have become a safety/insurance factor for him and the museums. But again, I cannot say that is the actual reason. It seems like it's a worth while test, but then again he seemed to do it to prove the Sherman wasn't a mobile crematorium. I can't say why he's stopped, but I'm just as disappointed as everyone else. Those were some of the best parts.
Aslong the Models of WoT are correct and those of Tanks gg are too, the Driver is Dead. See for your self there are not many Angles for the Turret to secure the Drivers exit.
Nice review of what looks like a miserable tank for the gunner and commander. I agree they are a nice looking tank, but seem sadistic in design for the turret crew.
More or less sadistic than limiting them to the 2-pdr gun in 1942 when the Germans were fielding quite a lot of tanks with 50 to 80mm of frontal armour?
The tank is a pre-1940 design and had a 2 pounder (40mm) gun (and a three man turret) which at the time was about par for an anti-tank gun. That and the Germans were using the 37mm and their tanks were mainly panzers 1 & 2 35t and 38t with some 3's and 4's which only the panzer 4 had a 75mm gun. The fitting of the 6 pounder was a quick fix the valentine also got a similar "upgrade" to fill in before the M4 became available in numbers. Possibly it would have been better to have reviewed an earlier model with the 2 pounder then compared it with the later set up if there is a mk1 available. There would still have been plenty wrong with the tank but I think it would have given better idea as to what the tank was about.
Imagine the hot ambient temperature, the blazing hot turret steel from the sun and the noise, heat and fumes from the engine. A wee dust storm to stick dirt to the dirt on your sweaty skin. Oh and then Jerry starts shooting at you. A long way from the comfort of my computer room.
I heard that the crusader originally had a 2 pounder and they converted them to the 6 pounder as a temporary and quick solution to new german tanks while they developed their next cruiser tank (that being the Cromwell). The development of the Cromwell however, proceeded to be an extremely long and convoluted affair. I am not 100% sure however.
Makes me wonder how often ww2 vehicles were lost because a crew member got deadleg or numb arm and literally couldn't move when the time came to do their job. Looking at that gunnery position, I would be absolutely immobile within fifteen minutes tops.
Early oqf 75mm tank guns were six pounders bored out to 75mm after it was found out that 75mm ammo for the M3 grant had the same diameter shell casings as six pounder shells, would explain interchangeability, especially if the swap was done in a pinch
3:46 Early 75mm British tank guns were just bored out 6 pounders with necked-up shells. That gun actually looks like a 75mm, so perhaps Mr. Moran has been misled.
Nice, shows what a bodge the Mk III was. Would love to see the inside of a Mk 1 for comparison, also if you could squeeze your way into an Italian M13/14/15 and film it so we can see what its opposition was like.
The the OQF 75mm was a rebored OQF 6pdr to begin with (Similar to the 20pdr - L7 105mm). It was mounted very similarly and could be fitted (in theory) anywhere a 6pdr went As for the firewall (or lack of a full one) that was to aid with the cooling. It was noted to pull dust through the fighting compartment, though the airflow did also help keep the air cooler in the desert days so that was good at least
So the turret hatch was large, yet the commander and gunner were so compressed that it is doubtful if they could move fast enough to use the hatch in an emergency. Fish canneries don’t spare much thought to the sardines when they design the cans.
The Crusader is a classic example of a civilian designing a tank without, apparently, taking things into consideration like, the terrible location of the air cleaners, the commander basically facing backwards, etc. The designers really should have talked to actual British tankers and got their input, but I guess that was too radical a thought back in the 1940s. The Germans actually sent their Tiger crews to the factory to learn how to maintain and fight the new tank, the British should have done the same.
I understand that many museum tanks no longer have the optics installed. I just wish a consistent comparison about the specs/style was included. I have learned so much more about the ergonomics and deficiencies of specific tanks and how the optics have mitigated or exacerbated those issues.
I do wonder how these would pan out if we had a couple of 5 foot 6 guys doing it rather than a basketball player sized guy? I'm not convinced in this case the ready bin is in the correct place and that the TC would indeed face front. Love the videos, have done over some considerable time but I often feel we need some 1940 size tankers to get a more realistic view of the insides.
I agree. People don't realize what a huge difference a few inches can make between "this is horrible and cramped" and "this is nice". Try moving your car seat forward just a couple inches and driving it that way all day, climbing in and out. It's unpleasant and difficult. Yet that same seat in the normal position is easy to use, comfortable. Its easy to say "I know I'm tall" but he probably can't imagine himself shorter any more than I can visualize what the world must look like to 6' guys. And it's something you need to feel. Also the troops in 1940 were mostly barely 20 yet, that makes a significant difference too, you can flex around and crawl into places at that age that would scare someone in their 40s. Me and my pals would cramp eight of us into a car and drive a few hours and think it was a great laugh. Crashed cars, fell down, wrestled and boxed each other, it was all great fun to us. Now I have to recover if a sleep wrong.
The same turret was on the Staghound MkIII armoured car. But used a ROF 75mm gun which used the same breech mechanism but with a new barrel/chamber for the 57mm 6 pounder necked up to 75mm to use the same ammunition as the Sherman 75mm.
Thanks. The Crusader was always one of my favorite WWII tanks, but having seen the insides I wonder how they expected men to affectively fight with them. It's ridiculous.
Given that the 75mm is based off the 57mm 6pdr shell, and the QF75 is based off the QF6 pdr, it stands to reason that parts may be interchangeable. Perhaps a refit put a 75mm breech into this vehicle for the 6pdr.
It performed sterling work in NW-Europe 44-45 after they, er, basically gutted it from end and end and created modded versions. Whole new wide, partially-open turret for the twin-AA gun variant and others were converted to what is basically a large Bren carrier for use as a gun tractor for the towed 17pdr.
Nicolas as a fellow Paddy you remind me of the famous story teller Ledmund Lennihan, I listen to you all day. Keep up the good work. A small wish list for inside the hatch. 1. Tiger 1 2. Abrams 3. Merkava 4. T34/76 I know you have done this one early on. No pressure. Keep up the good work
i just ried to imagine what that would be like:"Lets get inside" *tries to climb in* "Well i can only fit half of my body in here so we dont get to see the inside"
martin prince Well it would be awesome indeed to see onside at the driver position in the turret... but do you know if the one in the museum even does have an interior??
I ll give you one reason for comparison with M4. Crusader's siluete is much lower than M4's one. The 2/3 of sherman's turet will be visible if you put them side by side!
No documentation but since the 75mm QF was the same parent case as the 6 pounder i suspect the breech fit just fine. Heck it was the same barrel they just bored it out
Yo Chieftain, as much as we love these vids, is there a list of vehicles you’re following or do you take requests. OR do you just jump on what’s available?
You sure the 2"bombs were just smoke? Bc. it makes a lot of sense if there'd be some mills bombs for "omg! We outran our own infantry and the shrubberies are full of Gerries!"
Best line? That's a tough one... 'Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries! I fart in your general direction!' There's just so many :)
I have 2 good reasons why I'd want to be in a crusader over a sherman, they are both interconnected. Firstly, profile. You are less likely to be seen and shot because the crusader is lower. The British used crusaders in the recon squadrons of composite units for this reason. The ammo is stored low in the vehicle and not near the fuel tanks. In the sherman your ammo is in the sponson, therefore right next to the fuel tanks, and at that prime above 1.5m height where tanks tend to get hit. A hit to the side of a sherman is very likely to cause potentially both an ammo and a fuel fire and that whole side is a big target. What's more, if a round punches through the front on any kind of angle but straight down the middle(say you get nailed by an 88, it's going to potentially hit those ammo racks or fuel tanks). The same height on crusader is what? The top half of the turret?
The Crusader AA Mk I is my personal favorite. 40mm Bofors gun in a 2" thick armor turret. Since a good, reliable, small caliber "shoot-em-up" gun is always useful in support of the big gun tanks (AA capability possible, but impractical, considering the angular corrections needed for engaging modern aircraft moving across your FOV), it's worth to attach a few to your HQ . . . or assign one to each troop of tanks. I always look for the "Combat Vehicle Family" chassis; the one you can mount the three basic types of AFV weapons system on; these being: 1) Tank, 2) SPAA, and 3) SPG/Sturmpanzer*. That's what the Russians are working toward with the Armata, I think. We worked toward that end many times, but always fell short of the "Common Chassis" goal. Our comprehensive workup of the M24 Chassis** came closest, imho. To streamline logistics, however, we end up saying "one caliber, one chassis, one logistics train". Every mechanized force is struggling to achieve that goal . . . but funding is very tough to procure for what are deemed by the nonmilitary as "reinventing the wheel" sorts of vehicles. The process of reaching toward a vehicle suitable for homogeneous issue is a struggle never concluded. If achieved, imagine how efficient our support train would become! But here were are, with vehicles representing the progeny of dozens of different political and military fads and doctrinal flux. *Naturally, an IFV would be ideal. An ARV is nice, too, but not strictly a "Combat" vehicle. Same with Bridge Tanks. **These being the M24 Light Tank, M37HMC 105mm, XM38MC 107mm, M19 "Duster" SPAA 40mm, T77E1 "Bronx Cheer" (my name for it) SPAA .50cal, T41/M39 APC/ACV (doubles as a High Speed tractor). I don't know if the M18 GMC Hellcat fits in here, but those two chasses (one Buick and the other Cadillac) shared several salient qualities. Something for everybody . . . except for the paper thin armor. I should make mention of the M113, the German Marder IFV, the MT-LB, and MOWAG Piranha (and its derivative 8x8) in this regard. And do you remember the Saladin Combat Vehicle family?
The British made a 75mm gun that was basically a 6 Pounder made in the caliber of the French 75mm in regards the breech & barrel, so there later tanks could come in 57mm (6 Pounder), 75mm or 95mm (25 Pounder Howitzer) & still look pretty similar outside
Than God that this soundtrack is no longer. Such a repetitive amateur production. (Unfortunately.. The Formula One channel started using the ******* soundtrack just as The Chieftain stopped using it. The curse cannot be avoided)
I think to Crusader is one good looking tank and has always been my favourite British tank despite all it's faults. At least it utilized sloping armour, if a bit thin.
I love this tank in War Thunder, such a speedy little bastard with a great gun. Plus it looks awesome too, shame the crew compartment wasn't the best but this seems to be a failing of a lot of the wartime tanks.
Regarding the 73 or 65 amount of ammo carried - could this be the difference between the tank being fitted or not fitted with the armoured ammo bins. I'm sure when I read P.M Knights crusader book this was certainly tested and implemented and reduced tank fire rates or at least speed at which it caught fire. But it could only be done with a reduction in ammo. But I can't remember if this "hotfix" is just for 2pdr tanks or if it applies to 6pdr as well.
After seeing him talk about the wireless, I think it would be great if we had voip communications in WOT with the whole team out to the range of our radios. It could really improve play.
@The_Chieftain When you will have tour around Europe in the future again, will you stop by at Lesany to make an LT vz. 38 review ? I am sure the guys at the museum will be helpfull to your review.
Platoon and Company commanders tended to keep the 2pdr armed tanks. As for the breach, I was once in a DD Valentine with what looked like a 6pdr gun that was actually a 75mm that had been bored out to some odd calibre for trials purposes.
Yes, I know - battery commander's vehicles for Archer units. This particular Valentine was a MkIX Duplex Drive - 6pdr, no co-axial BESA as built. At some point the gun was changed to a 75mm and then bored out to some odd calibre for trials purposes. It looked standard as the gun lacked the muzzle brake that a 75mm weapon would have.
I have to wonder based on seating arrangements if the Gunner (not the loader) was the Commander. Yes, the seat was more cramped but it was facing the correct direction and he could easily see forward while on the move while the loader would have to twist around while also performing loading duties. The gunner in my admittedly "none Tanker" mind would be the next most senior person with responsibility of operating the gun thus making him the obvious choice for a combined roll.
Donald Hill most of the time in WW2 the commander would have his head sticking out the top of the tank. I expect he was probably directly below the hatch most of the time and only went in if he was getting shot at or to load the gun. I guess the rear periscope must have some funky mirrors which means the commander can face backwards but see forwards the British copied some ?Czech? Periscopes which could do 360.
We used that Polish design of periscope for exactly that reason, wiki page on it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Tank_Periscope_MK.IV EDIT: Not Czech, Polish.
So that's explain a lot why the view range in the game is not so good for the tank. Because the commander is facing behind inside the turret. What was the designer thinking when they create the tank with the commander unable to spot target properly ?????. It's so ironic because the tank looks cool from the outside, but in inside, it doesn't even work that much....
I feel you miss the point, the Crusader is not meant to be well armoured, hard hitting or tolerable to be inside. It is meant for speed, how else do you catch the Italians and vichy French when they retreat from where ever you attack them?
Better guns...just no. The 47mm never exceeded the 57mm. Their "better armour" is irrelevent given the 6pdr wrecks them regardless, and reliability is in the Crusader pictured here's favour. As he said, they fixed it, just the reputation was tarnished.
Dubsy 102 yeah better guns the italian 47mm was one of the best guns of the war they later uprated it in the m15 and it could pen the front of Sherman's
It had approximately 70mm on the M15 at 100m, that won't pen a Sherman due to the angle, it was FAR from one of the best, that is actually worse than a 2pdr at short range and much worse than a 6pdr at any range, for perspective, the 6pdr could do 135mm in its stock configuration at 100m.
At least M3 and Crusader III are both interim 'emergency' tank designs rushed into service to fill a gap until better designs were available, so they have that in common.
I don't know if the M3 is better than the Crusader. More mechanically reliable probably, but a much higher silhouette and too many dudes in it (though I guess the crusader had too few). From a strategic standpoint at least losing a maximum of three guys when a crusader got knocked out, vs a max of seven when a lee did, probably looked good. In the desert, the crusader's flatness must have been appreciated. Having an actual turret also. But on the other hand the Lee's better visibility and amount of dakka, plus a bigger crew to do all the work and a more reliable powerplant keep it in the running.
The Crusader was liked for its speed, range, low profile, ability to hull hull down while still using its main weapon and with the 6pdr, it had the ability to deal with all armoured threats and finally they got HE back. Reliability with early vehicles was an issue that took too long to resolve really. The M3 Lee/Grant was liked for the 75mm and reliability. But disliked for its sponson mounted gun and huge size.
Sherman vs. Crusader: Height: Sherman, 9'-9"9 - Crusader, 7'4" Length: Sherman, 19'2" - 20'7" - Crusader, 20'7" Width: Sherman, 8'7"-9'10" - Crusader 9'1" Speed - Don't have exact comparable on road/off road and variant, but about the same. The Sherman has better armour, but is a much bigger target. I'd say you need to ask ex-Crusader crews which they would rather be in in the deserts of North Africa...
*I've always liked the look of this, and it's sister tanks, the gun was as as good as they get. However, it seemed as if 'The Crusader Mark III' was as redundant as it was improperly and needlessly designed. When you are outclassed by an M13/40+ you kinda know you've done something wrong. But, you've gotta give the English an 'E' for Effort.*
The problem was, the Cromwell - which should have appeared in 1942 - was massively delayed and wouldn't appear until 1944, by which time the Sherman had been adopted. So in 1942 and 1943 the British had no option but to churn out Crusaders (and Valentines). And it wasn't easy to retool and switch production, even if there was something else available. The Crusader III was a stop-gap which enabled the British to get some 6-pdrs into their tanks. No-one had expected it to be still in use in 1943 because it should have been replaced by the Cromwell.
75mm instead of 57mm inches equivalent? Maybe mistake of someone originaly trained on towed 75mm from 1938? But most likely this idea comes from my shovinistic feeling that every Crusider was on some point in gen. Maczek's Polish 1st tank division
regardless of the manual.. I'd guess the commander would choose to sit and work the gunners seat just to keep *some* situational awareness during a fight... (?) As to british pride... Lend lease was a wonderful thing but ... not something to bet the farm on until the tanks started actually showing up in your park so i could see why Britain would work hard to get production rolling on this and their successors not just for pride but at least have some good claim to being a full partner and not a dependent. (IE timing, risk and of course diplomatic reasons trumping pure hindsight and logic on 'just wait till your M4s get here')
That gun looked a bit beefy for a 6 Pounder. Combined with the 75mm marking on the breech could that instead be the same 75mm the Cromwells got? The ones which were bored out 6 Pounders?
Is it just coincidence or why do so many british tanks start with the letter "C" (Cruiser, Crusader, Covenanter, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Churchill, Chieftain, Challenger)? Or is there any reason for it or "that sounds bad-ass" factor, like we germans name our tanks after animals?
A lot of the British-built radios which have survived to this date were built for Lend-Lease to the Soviet Army, as a result, it is not uncommon for someone who was looking for an appropriate radio to put into their tank to wind up acquiring a Russian-marked one.
It was, actually. My producer who was on-site actually observed part way through the filming that I had provided no humourous bloopers thus far. I think I finally got some in the last tank.
@@DornishVintage however this was the final version of the Crusader (minus AA variants) that pushed the design to basically the limits of what it could do, and the Sherman was a brand new design that had just been produced. It's a bit like comparing say the Comet with the Centurion because they both entered the war in Europe at the same time and going "I don't see why you'd pick the Comet."
Just imagine what a monster this tank would have been if they had gone with the redesigned turret with an external gun mantlet, torsion bar suspension, and made it a tad wider to fit the engine filters. They could have fitted an M3 75mm in that thing.
@7:05 As if an early Crusader engine is going to go 600 miles without an rebuild/overhaul? @14:02 Because you were issued a Crusader not a Sherman and ordered to get your butt in it and move out?
Interesting fact, servicing and maintenance was never planned for Lancaster bombers. As they predicted each bomber wouldn’t last long enough, 25 to 30 missions at the most.
