BRITISH Tanks of WW2

We're talking about (and seeing) some of the most significant British tanks from World War 2!
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ the-kentuckian
Rumble:
rumble.com/use...
Gab:
gab.com/groups...
Instagram:
/ the.kentuckian.podcast

[@BruceFJRay]

The Churchill tank always reminds me of the man it was named after. Winston Churchill. Short, squat, not fast, but determined, won't give up. AND, wearing a 'boller' hat(it's turrit).

[@thekentuckian3015]

Nicely put haha!

[@alanmcentee9457]

The Churchill tank was named after the Churchill family. They were well known in British aristocracy, starting with the 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill. The family had many notable persons including Sir Winston Churchill and Princess Diane Spencer. While many would believe it was named after Sir Winston, British tradition was to not name military projects after living people. (Monarchs excepted)

[@Chris-ev7xo]

The 2 pounder was a 40mm or 1.6inch the 6 pounder was 57mm or 2.2inch & the 17 pounder was 76.2mm or 3inch and the 25pounder was 87.6mm

[@thekentuckian3015]

Thanks!

[@g8ymw]

The Matilda 2 saw action at Arras in the Battle of France. The German anti tank guns could not stop them. Rommel had to run back from the front line and he turned the 88mm anti aircraft gun downwards. He knew about the Matilda and made sure he had plenty of 88s when the Afrika Korps went to North Africa. The Matildas and Valentines had diesel engines which was one reason we sent them to Russia. According to Jeremy Clarkson, during his documentary on the Arctic Convoys, 75% of the tanks defending Moscow were British Cruiser tanks and infantry support tanks, I think that was down to engine power. Most of our tanks had around 300-350 hp so you could have good armour or decent speed. The advent of the Rolls Royce Meteor (a de-tuned Merlin) gave a reliable engine with 600hp giving a bit more armour for cruiser tanks (Centurion had a Meteor in the back)

[@michaelpielorz9283]

this myth was created to not call the british cowardsrun for home leaving their ally France alone fighting the germans.

[@g8ymw]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Stop telling porkies.

[@alanmcentee9457]

@@michaelpielorz9283 It is easy to see that English is not your first language nor thinking any type of instinct for you.

[@georgelukach6637]

Tiger 131 was the German tank used in the movie Fury...

[@georgelukach6637]

The nickname also came from the breach block had a tendency to leak "flag" burning powder ..

[@georgelukach6637]

Sorry I meant flash ...

[@butterman6872]

The “crusader” looks almost like a sci fi tank

[@thekentuckian3015]

Oh for sure, get rid of the rivets to give it a smoother surface, give it a new paint job and a few other minor changes and you could easily make it a sci-fi tank.

[@billythedog-309]

Dunkirk was a retreat rather than a defeat. The French campaign overall was a defeat and the British made up as much as 15% of that allied force which was under the overall command of the French. But of course the Kentuckian is American so he can't not call it a British defeat.

[@johncrimmins1540]

I scale model a lot of ww 1 and ww 2 british tanks mainly because they are fun to do. You did a great job of describing them. Thanks K-man

[@georgelukach6637]

Atomic Annie is the only tank to survive an atomic blast and still function... Aussie centurion

[@thekentuckian3015]

I've heard a little bit about her! The Centurion is a great tank!

[@Evilroco]

Nice presentation , The Valentine was designed as a cheap alternate to the Matilda 2 having nominally the same armor , gun and speed but utilizing already existing parts ,it was a private venture by Vickers so it was never issued an "A" designation. it is one of my favorites and did ell alongside Matilda's and later Grants and Sherman's in Africa as well as the defense of Moscow. I would say though that saying America "gave" Britain tanks is not true ,Britain purchased tanks from America and only finished paying in 2006 at the conclusion of the "Lend Lease" agreement.

[@georgelukach6637]

The whole reason that the Grants had the different turret is the British wanted the radio in the bustle....

[@martinkineavy9039]

The Australian didn't make any tanks used grants

[@alamore5084]

What a GREAT new channel. I've subscribed. Best regards Kentuckian from England👍

[@thekentuckian3015]

Thanks! I reallly appreciate it!

[@steveholmes11]

Matilda 2 driven by a pair of London bus engines. We were improvising heavily with our early war designs.

[@thekentuckian3015]

Hey, high quality improvisation can be the difference between victory and defeat! Thanks for the comment!

[@steveholmes11]

British Veterans will insist that the Centurion was the first Main Battle Tank, and the best in the world at its time. I was pleased to see it at the conclusion of your list.

[@thekentuckian3015]

The Centurion was an excellent vehicle, there's a good reason that variants served for so long and in so many countries, I'm glad you're pleased with it on the list! Thanks for your comment!

[@James-nl6fu]

Even Churchill said. They named it after me because it was "no bloody good. " The "Sherman" named and ordered by the British tank commission from Detroit 1941 (another British stopgap disaster)

[@andrewclayton4181]

British were very keen on making modified vehicles based on tank chassis. Bridge layers, recovery, assault etc. The valentine, and especially the Churchill were often used as they proved their reliability. Glad you quietly ignored the Covenenter. It was a heap of rubbish that is best forgotten.

[@thekentuckian3015]

There's also the factor that they couldn't afford to waste what they had, especially if they were good vehicles. The Covenanter is an interesting case, it seems like it should have been a decent tank, but that one huge design flaw, and it became effectively useless except for training. Thanks for your comment! I appreciate it!

[@g8ymw]

"Blame" Percy Hobart for that for the modified specialist tanks. Churchills and Shermans were his main starting points. Yes, Covenentor. designed by a brilliant locomotive designer (Sir William Stanier) but the radiator system kept air-locking

[@panza_danza]

amazing info and vids👍 gained a subscriber. keep up the good work

[@thekentuckian3015]

Well thank you very much! I really appreciate your support!

[@contagiosa2335]

Es raro que no hallas mencionado a los carros de combate ligeros (Mk VII, Thetrach, ...), a los carros crucero A9, A10,... o al carro de infantería Matilda I. Puestos a mencionar a CATP sobre chasis de carros ¿Bishop, Sexton Archer,...?.

[@timothystern5827]

The crusaders were very unreliable, the Brits enjoyed the reliability of the American lend lease types. The bofors 2 pounder guns fired a 1.9 lb projecile. The Brits used the weight of the round vs. The bore of the cannon. The Russians recieved from the Brits their less desired tanks and aircraft... albeit the Americans did similar. No the 2 pounder gun was 40mm, the reason the Valentines were able to upgun was becuse the turret ring could handle it, the Brits loved their Valentines. The engineers used a 95mm spigot mortar, or sometimes a short barreled 75mm CS ( close support ). The 6 pound gun aka 57mm American designation, the Americans copied this gun. The Cromwell's armor was heavily armored in British standards but it was flat armored. The 17pdr. Was a 76.2mm, the 17 pounder fit in the Sherman but the barrel was very long, the box in the back of the shermans turret was a weight and extra ammo stowage called wet stowage. Most people forget that the Sherman had a very well sloped frontal armor albiet only around 3". The comet used a slightly less potent 17 pounder. It was a good end of war tank. The Centurion used a 20 pounder after the war, the later marks used a 105mm. Im a military historian I enjoy your show thank you for your posts

[@thekentuckian3015]

Thanks for taking the time to comment! I'm still getting used to making videos, but this has been a great learning and refining experience for me!

[@Britlurker]

@@thekentuckian3015 You're doing fine mate.

[@thekentuckian3015]

@@Britlurker I appreciate it!

[@retepeyahaled2961]

Nobody has the guts to say that British WW2 tanks mostly sucked. And they developed an extremely large number of different tanks, which is very inefficient. The positive exceptions were the Mathilda II and the Comet. The Churchill was good as an infantry tank, so as a riding bunker to attack German dug in infantry. But no real match against contemporary Germsn tanks. Their most famous tank was the Firefly, an American Sherman tank equipped with a British gun.

[@FinsburyPhil]

There's a few things that have to be taken into account here - the British had to develop and manufacture tanks under a tight war economy and whilst facilities in the early part in the war were being bombed. However, it is true that there certainly were a lot of competing egos and red tape that wasted a lot of time and energy. One of the biggest limitations that affected the effectiveness of British tanks was the loading gauge of British railways, which was narrower than both German and American railways. As movement of tanks from factories and to embarkation ports/frontline was predominantly by train this dictated the maximum width of a tank; this in turn dictated the maximum size of the turret ring; and the size of the turret ring decided how big a gun you could put in the turret. And just to emphasize what was said about how well armoured the Churchill was, the frontal armour was on early versions was comparable to a Tiger and in the later marks, much thicker - it just couldn't match the fire power because of it's width restriction.

[@retepeyahaled2961]

@@FinsburyPhil hi, you gave me some food for thought. I checked the width of various tanks. The Churchill tank is 3.25 meters. The Cromwell tank, a later design, is 3.05 meters wide. The Mathilda II was 2.59 cm wide. The Sherman tank is 2.60 meters wide. The Pantzer IV was 3.29 meters wide. The comet was 3.04 meters wide. My conclusion: the Churchill tank, which was rushed into service to give the UK as many tanks as soon as possible, was the widest british tank built during ww2. Later tanks were narrower but were very well capable of housing a bigger turret and s bigger gun! Next, I checked the track width of european railroads. Well, the British set the standard for most of Europe and apparently their railroad tracks were equally wide as the ones used by the Germans. So in the end, I think that track width was an excuse to cover up poor tank design. When the Churchill appeared, they had built a very wide tank with a big gun in the hull and a small turret on top. By the time they realised their mistake, they made the best of it. Which meant that it was too late to mount a big turret.

[@FinsburyPhil]

@@retepeyahaled2961 Good that you took the time to do research! It's not the gauge of the tracks that's the limitation, it's something called 'loading gauge' - that's the maximum permissible width of the train itself. Because Britain's railways were mostly developed in early Victorian times, things like tunnels, bends, stations are smaller than those built in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. How close together two sets of tracks are, limits the size of trains that can safely pass each other. Travel in a modern British passenger train and a modern German passenger train and you'll appreciate the difference in width of carriage. I agree that the Panzer IV and the Sherman are of similar size to British designs, but they were also only able to be gunned up to 75mm/76mm - I was really thinking of the German 88mm gun. Even then, the Panzer IV couldn't take the 75mm KwK42/70 that was in the Panther - it's not just about size but also strength of recoil that has to be absorbed. There was a planned development of the Churchill called the Black Prince - that was to be wider to fit the full 17pdr gun. Btw, if you look at the Churchill design, although it is quite wide overall, the hull is comparatively narrow - that's how it managed to have such thick armour and still only weigh 40 tons. The Tiger and the Pershing were 30cm wider than the Churchill.

[@toekneekerching9543]

@@retepeyahaled2961 Thats funny because i was thinking the same thing about American tanks, the Sherman sucked and was nicknamed the "Tommy cooker" due to its tendency to burn its own crew to death, Sherman's were a useless tank, they weren't well armoured, the gun wasn't powerful enough , it wasn't fast enough and it was massive and a very easy target. the only good thing about Sherman's were the amount of them, The British actually asked the Americans to produce British designs with AT capabilities or at least produce firefly's but the Americans refused on because they only wanted to produce American designed tanks. Most US equipment wasnt very good it was just a fact that Britain had no choice but to use it due to its own factories being bombed. By the way i would also like to point out the the US didnt give Britain anything, we paid for it all and bankrupted our selves paying for substandard equipment at over inflated prices.

[@retepeyahaled2961]

@@toekneekerching9543 Hi, maybe we should say that the Sherman was the best of the worst? I believe that it was on par with the Pantzer IV, which was a much older design (the same thing goes for the T34). The other German tanks were superior on the battlefield, except for their reliability. And yes, we Europeans fought two world wars amongst each other to ruin our position as world powers. All financed by the USA.

[@jpmtlhead39]

What is Astonishing to me,its the fact that the british had more than 30 years to developed tanks,and during the 6 years of WW2,with many lessons learn,all british tanks of WW2 were Rubbish....!!!! That's why the had to go for lend lease of American tanks,by the thousands. What was wrong with British tank designers...??!!! Unbelivable.

[@bogfd]

Ну зато у британских танков изумительный внешний вид😍