What killed the Excelsior and the T14?

[@jsplicer9]

I always found it funny that the increased discomfort/danger the crew experienced due to the extreme sloping frontal plate of the T14 was actually noted and seen as unacceptable. The crew comfort in the Soviet T-34 however was not a limiting factor.

[@Paciat]

Early war tanks had frontal armor sloped for 1 reason. Ease to mount driver vision slits and hull MG. This never changed. Hull MGs were just deleted, and vision slits replaced with the Gundlach periscope. T-34 had a hatch on its frontal plate witch was a stupid idea. Whats the point of heavy armor if you then lower its effectiveness? Thats why this was changed in T-44 and crew comfort had nothing to do with it. Like with a lack of Shermans loader hatch this was a plain design flaw. And this is why Gundlach or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Tank_Periscope_MK.IV became so popular and unchanged for almost half of century of tank design.

[@jsplicer9]

@@Paciat interesting!

[@StrikeNoir105E]

"not a limiting factor" Actually it was. A lot of the Soviet tanks tend to perform worse than their design spec would suggest because of crew discomfort and bad ergonomics. Note how in recent years Russia has been trying to trend away from such, and indeed the T-14 Armata more resembles a NATO tank in its large and spacious design

[@fuckoff4705]

It was, it was THE limiting factor, that was the reason why the reload was so slow (more than a round a minute couldn't be expected of a t34), the reason why the first shot hit rate was so low, the reason the tanks had so little visibility, basically the reason the t34 was a garbage tank all came down to crew ergonomics

[@tvgerbil1984]

The M24 Chaffee had the same sloping angle of its hull front as the T-34. No M24 crew refused to man M24 due to discomfort, as far as we know.

[@BHuang92]

It is the same problem the Tiger 1 tanks had, a design made for a specific task which fails when utilized to other tasks that it was not built for.

[@TK421-53]

The Tiger I might have been a breakthrough tank from design, but it worked as a defensive / ambush tank, so why suggest it failed at a task it wasn’t built for? This is not about cost effectiveness, complexity and performance, but specifically about failing at a task it was not built for.

[@deanwood1338]

@@TK421-53 I think what they mean that it never did the job it was built for and was ok in the others and to be fair it was only really good in the defence…

[@executivedirector7467]

@@TK421-53 Agreed; if anything I'd argue the Tiger I (as you correctly said, designed as a breakthrough tank) was pretty good at other jobs.

[@nightshade4873]

if used disregarding cycles (maintenance checks) and subsequently broke down, then it failed but it's more on the side of the users, otherwise it did well enough, what made the tiger good was its design that allowed soft factors like crew ergonomics to fully realize it's potential allowed by the hard factors (armament, armor, mobility), what good is a weapon if its design prevents the users from doing their tasks, accounting training as well.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

That wasn't a problem with the design

[@andybelcher1767]

Actually the Dieppe raid did not show the Churchill as outdated and useless, what it showed was that no tank could operate on a shingle beach. The Churchill was an extraordinary hill climber, ascending gradients with ease that nothing else could. If it could not move at Dieppe then a completely different type of beachhead had to be chosen for the invasion of mainland Europe for the use of all tanks. I totally agree that Dieppe was a disaster but a lot was learned from it that made the Normandy landings the success that they were.

[@executivedirector7467]

How could Dieppe possibly have proven anything at all about any tank that wasn't a Churchill? No one tested e.g. an m4 there so we don't know anything at all about it.

[@executivedirector7467]

I can't think of any "lesson" from Dieppe that informed Operation OVERLORD. The usual 'lessons' trotted out were either known anyway or easily learned via less bloody methods.

[@The1Floyd]

I'm sure the Canadians disagree.

[@Dalesmanable]

Indeed. The Germans believed that the large shingle - actually chert, which is slightly different - would have stopped all tanks whereas half the Churchills landed got off the beach, none of which were knocked out, a testament to the Churchill’s fitting the brief for an infantry tank. They proved their worth in Italy, the Reichswald and hundreds of other actions.

[@anthonyhayes1267]

​@@executivedirector7467 The reputation of a certain well connected nonce was at stake. I suspect that's why they felt a need to justify Dieppe.

[@philo6850]

Another great one! I think by the time these assault tank prototypes were built they were already redundant. The Churchill AVRE which had tremendous effect during D-Day and Sherman Jumbo had satisfied the need for an assault tank.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

You're the best Phil!

[@still_guns]

It was World of Tanks that introduced me to both of these vehicles. I always feared the T14 when playing lower and equal tier tanks because I didn't know where to shoot it. A33's flat armour made it a lot easier to penetrate.

[@PanzerChicken69]

Press 2

[@still_guns]

@@PanzerChicken69 Shit advice, especially since I know where the weakspot of the T14 is now.

[@deskmat9874]

How many of that did you seen Exelsior is premium tank right

[@still_guns]

@@deskmat9874 Both T14 and Excelsior are premiums, yes.

[@wildnugget1675]

@@still_guns Nah, you're still shit buddy.

[@trevormenard7889]

I wrote the article on the A.33 for tanks encyclopedia, the vehicle was something I always found interesting and the more I dug, the more interesting it is as a curiosity. If anyone had any more specific questions related to the vehicle that I might have answers for, feel free to ask.

[@Honor_and_Steel]

Why the flat faced turret?

[@ukgamer2817]

A33 would be a little strange with a 6-pdr, it's high explosive isn't great and the AP shell would be better at fighting tanks. Imagine a late war A33 with the comet turret that would be an interesting tank.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

They tried it! A third prototype was to be built with 6in frontal armour and the Comet turret with the 75mm HV gun. Then another version was for a lengthened A33 hull mounting the Challenger turret and the 17 pdr.

[@nightshade4873]

with a QF 75mm possibly good, as that could fire US 75mm rounds made for their 75mm M3

[@nightshade4873]

@@RedWrenchFilms when you said Challenger turret, i first imagined the turret from the Challenger MBT, then i remembered there's an older tank also named Challenger.

[@Haaton-of-the-Basement]

@@nightshade4873 The father Challenger. Which didn't had the best reputation, but at the end did serve well.

[@smoketinytom]

Love how these tanks look. They might have been failed in development, but they’re great for base materials for modelling and Warhammer 40K tanks.

[@zahylon5993]

3D printing or recycling model kits to be retrofitted with WH40K imagery? that sounds like a nice way to give the imperium more practical looking tanks

[@LittleNala]

Very interesting video. But I have to say, if I was in a burning tank, I'd love the idea of an extra side escape hatch, and I don't think I'd quibble about it being a bit narrow!

[@executivedirector7467]

But the very existence of the side hatch would make it more likely that you'd find your tank on fire.

[@LittleNala]

@@executivedirector7467 Yes, very probably. But I was addressing the point made in the video, which was that it looked uncomfortable to use.

[@brianzhang349]

I love the T-14’s design. It’s like a Sherman, but more sleek (I think I’d the right way of describing it)

[@zzgonnazz6893]

T14*

[@ushikiii]

The "Excelsior" is so good looking. Such a clean looking tank. Cool video.

[@kkkrhtkhkll]

Also its fun to pen its back or side with HE in WOT

[@lucaswallace7476]

"Used as a range target." I mean.... At least that's an opportunity to test the armour!

[@leopoldthedigger7062]

Another great video yet again, exploring things not often talked about!

[@c.j.1089]

The fact the Allies tested and rejected an assault tank and the Germans tested and put their prototypes into the field is the perfect example of why the Allies won the war. Germany had a tendency to focus on winning battles, and the Allies focused on winning wars.

[@AmirDarkOne]

no , difference was that us and uk had to ship their tanks to battlefield but Germany only had to bring them out of factory , so instead of scraping failed project (like Porsch tiger) they just send them to front line fact is that uk and us already had to many tank at front, but germany needing anything they can get (including old french tanks)

[@tonyromano6220]

Yep - overkill.

[@TinyBearTim]

Or it’s that they were being bombed to shit had no resources and for some ungodly reason invaded Russia

[@lostonearth7856]

​​@@TinyBearTim Or maybe it was because no matter what, Germany would have never won the war as even if the British lost to kept on fighting, the Soviets planned to invade Germany anyways. Not to mention every German commander was egotistical to an incompetent level causing the already terrible logistics system worst? What about infighting between the SS and Army over resources? Oh and what if Germany never had the resources for a half-a-decade-long war if you didn't know why lighting was so important for Germay. And they would have done a better job not wasting all of their already non-existing resources not helped by bombing?

[@lostonearth7856]

​​@@TinyBearTim Actually Germany could never have won as by 1943, all fighting age men were dead in the sands of Africa, the mud of Ukraine, and drowned over the North Sea.

[@bladimirantoniorosasgonzal6478]

i was reading the book of american-british tank and both of them are mentioned

[@carlostommybaggs5763]

Unfortunately it seems like these tanks came along at about the same time as tank design was moving away from cruiser tanks and infantry tanks & towards the concept of the universal tank, a tank that could do both jobs but was neither. However, what we got instead at the very end of the war, was the MBT.

[@maxbradley4097]

awesome content man. nice to see your channel growing since last i checked!

[@CMDRFandragon]

Having played Mechwarrior, when I think "Assault" I thnk of a really big boy, more along the lines of a King Tiger or T29 T14, 24mph, it was slow? The Sherman was like 25mph lol.

[@philo6850]

What'd think about this idea for a video? The U.S. 75mm round was I believe the single most important tank munition in the Allied inventory. If we look at the North African campaign there's two stories which stand out, the Australian Major Northy with the Royal Ordnance Corps who utilized captured German 75mm APCBC projectiles on the U.S. 75mm cases prior to the M61 APCBC being available. The second is the story of British Captain Morrell with the REME who utilized guns salvaged from wrecked Sherman tanks to convert the Churchill to the NA 75 giving them a better HE round. Both stories represent innovative and unique solutions to effect much needed field modifications which proved very practical and successful. Jump forward to D Day and we now have all three of the major Allied tanks in Normandy using the same 75mm round, Churchill and Cromwell of course having had the 6 pounders bored out to accept the 75mm and of course the ubiquitous Sherman, the vast majority armed with the 75mm as well. I think we could say the U.S. 75mm M61 APCBC and the M48 HE along with the WP smoke round were perhaps the first "standardized" munition in the time prior to NATO, it surely eased supplied issues for the Allied armies in Normandy, and despite improved rounds, the 17 pounder and U.S. 76mm, it still proved very effective. Apologies if I'm telling you what you likely already know, I think with your superb presentation it would make for a great video. Thank you again, and happy new year!

[@1llusion_]

The rejection of both tank simply proved that rather build overpowered and superior tanks, effectiveness and efficiency is more important

[@nightshade4873]

just some thoughts i wonder if the tracks on the Pilot B of the A33 is the same specifications as that on later tanks like the A34 Comet, or possibly the Centurion with images in 6:45, with how wrecked the rubber linings like it has been chewed on by very strong dogs, i think the tank easily threw a track as there's no shock/dampers in the HVSS bogies like those on the M4 (W) HVSS, making them alot softer on travel and would probably grab onto the external track guide pins, that or the design on the tracks made it bend/yaw/curve sideways that even track tensioning could not remedy the issue. my vocab in these fields and in this language is quite limited so i do apologise if i may have confused anyone reading this.

[@aarondavies8486]

Some great videos mate about on par with armoured archives

[@Rastek19]

They knew they would never get the spotlight on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault

[@Tomcatntbird]

The T14 and Sherman Jimbo are 2 of my favorites in world of tanks, but my favorite is the T29

[@Ballistics_Computer]

Love the use of the Incredibles music

[@AshleyBlackwater]

I really love the look of the T14 visually. It's like an alt history M4 mixed with a panther or something

[@kkkrhtkhkll]

Widened Sherman

[@Haaton-of-the-Basement]

Curvy Sherman

[@EastGermany-pc2lw]

Sexy Sherman

[@garrettknox5266]

Excellent work and photos. Many I hadnt seen before.

[@gamedude412]

The irony is the marine corp on iwo and Okinawa basically made the t14 with there up armor m4

[@brunozeigerts6379]

The T14 is available for the Flames of War miniatures game. I wish games like Advanced Squad Leader would have some of these exotic vehicles... like the Maus.

[@cloaker2829]

The t14 is a heavy model

[@brunozeigerts6379]

@@cloaker2829 Heavy as in metal, not plastic? Yeah, bought a few of those that were metal, not plastic. Need a different glue and straightening barrels can be dicey... but they look neat when they're done. Got the Brummbar, M6, Elephant and Nashorne in metal.

[@cloaker2829]

@@brunozeigerts6379 i also got the m6, but i didn't build it

[@brunozeigerts6379]

@@cloaker2829 You should... it's an interesting addition to Flames of War, even if the type did not see action.

[@robertharris6092]

Just upgrade what theycalready have. The jumbo does more than fien in that role. And the king tiger can still pen even that. So by the time the t14 would be in production (assuming tge war doesnt end) itd be facing guns that can penetrate it.

[@chadjustice8560]

So what if king tiger could pen the jumbo? We already know from a distance the 88 would bounce off of jumbo which was the bigger worry because they rarely saw any tiger of any kind let alone a working one.

[@robertharris6092]

@@chadjustice8560 thats my point. Making anything that can resist the long 88 wouldnt be worth the effort. Esp considering how few there were. Just take the 10s of thousands of shermans you have and uo armor them to the m4a3e2 standard which can bounce everything except that one gun. Instead of taking the time to design a whole new tank that would never be made cause nobodys going to be iwlling to shut down the factorys to retool them for the new tank.

[@chadjustice8560]

@@robertharris6092 it's not though. There were so few and were hardly ever saw. So it would have been pointless.

[@tonyromano6220]

The Churchill was a good tank. Great for climbing hills and specials.

[@bwilliams463]

The M4 was not produced solely with the Ford engine. Many were equipped with a modified radial engine used in many aircraft. Among other configurations, there was a Cadillac power plant and a remarkable multi-bank with five Chrysler 6-cylinder engines arranged around the same drive shaft.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Yes of course - that’s why I specified M4A3.

[@bwilliams463]

@@RedWrenchFilms Oop. Missed that. My bad.

[@leondillon8723]

4:45)The tracks of the Christie could be removed. No need for tank transports. The tank could be driven on the road like the armored cars and recon vehicles.

[@اسكندرفكار]

Can you make a video about the revolution that the T-64 made in tank endustry

[@maxo.9928]

Excellent video 👏 Lmfao @ the Incredibles music at the 'fates' part of the video 🤣

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@SMGJohn]

Always so funny when a tank of US and Britain reached weights of 40+ tons, it was considered a heavy tank, meanwhile a Panther at its 44 - 48 tons was a medium tank, but Soviet IS-2 heavy tank had better armour than Tiger 1, bigger gun than anything out there and still only weighted in at 46 tons, LOL

[@markrowland1366]

Interesting to hear about these. The Jumbo is a tank i might like tp hear about.Than you.

[@remliqa]

I clicked on the video because my mind went "That doesn't look like the Armata" because of the thumbnail.

[@robertcislerjr2144]

In typical German fashion , over engineering hurts when the wolf is at your door. Although I am a proponent of quality over quantity. the Russian slapped together T34 vastly outnumbered German armor. Stun 3 had the most thank kills for Germany...because it was used properly and reliable compared tool the 2 tiger types. That being said kill ratios of the Tigers was pretty impressive , when they worked

[@thesnazzycomet]

The chonky sherman and the chonky cromwell

[@Ace-rp7vr]

They simply weren’t needed and plus they were a lot harder to ship to Europe and they were expensive. There’s more too it but basically those are the most important reasons

[@net53.]

What about a TOG I and TOG II video?🤔

[@arthurbrax6561]

wonder if the 17 pounder could have been added to the T14

[@jonsouth1545]

I wonder if the A33 could have used the 17lbr (or a derivative of it like the 77mm HV) and have been a more heavily armoured alternative to the early Centurians and the Comets, possibly getting into service around the same time as the 77mm HV armed Comets (late 44) and giving the UK a tank that not only had the firepower to match a Tiger or Panther but also have similar levels of protection but with a much more reliable engine.

[@mattbowden4996]

There is no way the Brits could have fitted a 17 pdr in the A33 without a major redesign, it had the same turret ring as the Cromwell so you'd need to widen the hull as with the A30 Challenger. It might have been possible to adapt it to mount the 77mm in a Comet style turret, however.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The Cromwell hull wasn't widened for the A30 project, it was lengthened! There was a plan to lengthen the A33 in a similar way and fit it with the Challenger turret but this never came to fruition.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@RedWrenchFilms My mistake - you are quite correct. Neverless, the pointb stands, the 17 pdr wouldn't fit in A33 without a major redesign.

[@mountainboardwales]

Great video :D loved in Incredibles reference 😂

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@darrellid]

That T-14 actually looks like a solid design ... IF it had been armed with the M3 90mm gun.

[@TinyBearTim]

It’s soft factors were a bit iffy

[@tasjan9190]

The American T-14 was the coolest looking American tank of that era, the troops deserved to have this tank developed further and put into service. It's a damn shame and criminal they got stuck with the garbage they did, England and America govt should be ashamed of what they forced their troops to face German armor with. They got slaughtered.

[@executivedirector7467]

Good video, thank you

[@drsaufproblem]

came for the tanks, stayed for the tanks.

[@The1Floyd]

Excelsior (yeah, sue me, I like the name.) Was probably still a better tank overall than the Churchill. They just took too long to finish it, I agree with the army. It was pointless spending money to replace the Churchill which had repaired it's reputation.

[@ianbell5611]

Thanks great video

[@warhawk4494]

Though with some love and care the T-14 could have worked. Plus I low-key want one in warthunder with a 76mm gun. Lol

[@JustinTuthill]

it was designed for a 90mm

[@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn]

They Simply were NOT needed by the time they were developed and it would have been a waste of time and resources to fine tune the bugs out of them and put them into production.

[@mattbowden4996]

Interestingly, I heard the T14 turret was designed to accept the 105mm M4 howitzer or 76mm M1 gun without modification. So armed, I think the T14 would have been a much more appealing vehicle - but the author is correct that the real reason these prototypes were not adopted was that by the time they were ready, and in the case of the US Army by the time a requirement for them had been identified, the Germans were clearly on their last legs so there didn't seem to be any point to adopting them. The Allies went from D-Day to having total victory clearly in sight within the space of just six months. If the liberation of France had taken significantly longer then the Americans in particular may not have been satisfied with interim solutions like the M4A3E2 Jumbo and decided to manufacture something purpose built and essentially ready to go for the assault tank job. Instead the decision was to make do with the Jumbo whilst developing something "next generation" for the future based on the M26, which ended up being the M45 (and didn't get deployed either).

[@REgamesplayer]

They were ready for production in 1944. It wasn't due to war as allies were still producing a lot of vehicles. It was because these tanks were outdated by then. Things like Pershing and Centurions were not far out. Why in hell would you need something like T-14 or A33?

[@mattbowden4996]

@@REgamesplayer Yes, that was exactly my point. The current requirement was limited enough to be met by interim vehicles like the Jumbo and the future requirement was better met by vehicles based on the latest chassis.

[@REgamesplayer]

@@mattbowden4996 I was confused by this statement: "US Army by the time a requirement for them had been identified, the Germans were clearly on their last legs so there didn't seem to be any point to adopting them." It implies that the reason was how war was going. However, I'm not sure if those vehicles would had been put into production even if war would had lasted for longer. Time when allies would had been able to mass produce them would closely align when prototypes of far superior vehicles would be coming out. In addition, those vehicles were outdated by then and interim vehicles were just as good as these new vehicles.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@REgamesplayer Broadly I agree with you and I don't think the A33 ever had a chance once the better versions of the Churchill became available - it would always make more sense to either build the Churchill or start over and get something like the FV200 chassis - but I can conceive of a circumstance that might have got the T14 into service. If the US Army had got bogged down in Operation Cobra and remained stuck in bocage country then the US army might have decided they had an urgent need for assault tanks that couldn't be covered by the stopgap M4A3E2 alone - it worth remembering the Jumbo's suspension suffered considerably for the extra ten tons of armour it carried. Then the US Army might just consider ordering the T14 into production as a purpose designed assault tank to replace the Jumbo rather than waiting for the M45, which historically wouldn't be ready until after the war. However, considering their historical lack of interest in the T14, I acknowledge that would be pretty unlikely.

[@willumman]

T14 looks like someone mixed an m4 Sherman and a soviet t34

[@chadjustice8560]

It's just an upscaled Sherman. Nothing about it says t34 lol

[@ryszakowy]

what killed them? idea of more medim tanks? or the fact that british invented MBT making idea of extra heavy and slow tank obsolete

[@RedWrenchFilms]

They were “killed” long long before the advent of the MBT.

[@tvgerbil1984]

The British suffered from overthinking, creating a myriad of tank types and only managed to manufacture far too few to matter.

[@PedroCosta-po5nu]

Soo, the mystery of "did the Americans had Hvss since the M6" is finally over.

[@SkyWriter25]

Did they at least remember to get the tea and biscuits?

[@frankjimson8217]

Wish the excelsior had a reverse gear

[@anthonynicholich9654]

I watch a lot of videos and I rarely say this but you did a very good job. Neat.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Appreciate it Anthony! I’m glad you enjoyed. Hope you stick around.

[@archiebotten4061]

look mum I'm on TV

[@tasjan9190]

The T14 is a beautiful tank.

[@normally1728]

Son: mom can we have the T-14 armata? Mom: we already have T-14 at home *that one American T-14

[@zzgonnazz6893]

T14*

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Shopping list: - 8500 assault tanks - *tea* - *biscuits* Ah, yes. The usual bri'ish way of getting groceries

[@Intremental]

I just started the video and I don’t need to know the rest it’s basically fat Sherman and better Churchill

[@gavinjenkins899]

God moved them up in BR, cause they were OP

[@Madduckkk]

If the T14 got used by the us you already know they would put a 76mm gun on it

[@JustinTuthill]

The turret was designed to accommodate the 90mm

[@Madduckkk]

@@JustinTuthill really?

[@Sp00kyV0id]

Chunky Cromwell and Sherman

[@Cam._S]

Allies trying to build big mean tanks: “Should we make the gun bigger at all?” “No”

[@Akm72]

Now imagine a T14 'Firefly' with a QF 17 pdr gun 😃

[@FangTheManokit]

What if the two tanks were used anyways?

[@ThePoptardedtj]

Speedy tanks

[@phineascampbell3103]

6:05 eeeh, you know your tank isn't very fearsome when you need to stick a sign saying that on it as part of it's frontal defences! They should probably have looked up the German for it, too, so the enemy didn't need to consult their English to Deutsch dictionary mid assault. Otherwise they might be jumping up on the glassis plate, the sign totally obsolete as a protector simply because Gerry didn't understand a, well, the correct language. I mean, ok, I know we shouldn't pander to all these foreigners not talking properly, insisting on stubbornly not knowing English, its bad mannered of them, i know. But a concession is maybe permissable when the ensuing faux pas comes with a grenade attached!

[@Ralphieboy]

Ginormous tanks mounting putzy little guns.

[@rileychurch1821]

T14´s a really sexy tank

[@micheal6898]

its only the early Churchills that where bad tanks , Churchill 3 onwards saw a juristic improvement in the vehicles reliability , and although it was slow it ended up being one of the best allied tanks of the war , with the highest crew survivability rate of the whole war

[@RedWrenchFilms]

8:20

[@theoutcastedsoul8532]

I just love the fat sherman

[@wogelson]

6:10 just the classic Bri'ish politeness there:)

[@boqndimitrov8693]

All British tanks of that time look like cans. Compared to them, the Soviet and German ones are like spaceships. And they even work!

[@tasjan9190]

Hahaha you are correct sir!! Hahaha

[@thepurplebandit3859]

​@@tasjan9190 partly

[@jberry1982]

It was doomed from the start all that weight and it was way too large and high profile same weak ass gun and same armor thickness for the most part plus bigger target to hit and it was only a little lighter than a Panther

[@MrJr289]

Lol I have the two of them in world of tanks

[@SuperBurgermister]

its a American engine please say "zee" not "zed" because the "zee" pronunciation is what we named it.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

And yet the English came up with the language and pronounce it Zed! ;)

[@SuperBurgermister]

@@RedWrenchFilms and the english purposely changed much of their pronunciations after the American victory in the revolutionary war to match a more aristocratic accent out of the embarrassment of loosing a war to a bunch of farmers, American english is closer to anything spoken on the kings island. But back to my original point, the British didnt make that tank the Americans did and we named it with a “zee” not some other sound chosen by some sore loosing aristocrats to make themselves sound fancy

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@SuperBurgermister It’s just a shame I speak English (English)! Zed lives forever. 🫡 Edit: Also with Zee and Zed I believe Zed is actually the older pronunciation - it’s zet in German and zede in French after all. Greek origins with zeta.

[@Farquad76.547]

You don’t speak English. You speak American.

[@TheMoistestNugget]

Excelsior looks like a crappy movie prop tiger

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I know what you mean haha

[@josephlopez4041]

Heavenly tanks uses in strategy is gain Ukraine to modify t-14 by modifying turret in background to find mines in frontal Unit tank detector detects and shoots it before it kills Ukrainian controlled by machine technology

[@davelauerman6865]

I will never understand why the US and UK always insisted on undergunning their tanks, which were otherwise well designed.

[@REgamesplayer]

Just another example how our leaders have no clue how to rule. It should be obvious with a simple choice analysis that designing and producing new vehicle would take so much time that war might be over by then. Simple upgrades to existing vehicles are a lot quicker and effective way in improving capabilities. New vehicles have to be significantly better than existing vehicles or otherwise they will get outdated by their release. In these cases, they started their design with an intention to make a vehicle they want to have right now. Really foolish decision both from British and Americans.

[@seashellguy9416]

the anti tanks killed these tanks

[@sparkling925]

no there was just not any need for them

[@rorysparshott4223]

"The T14 is terrible" "Which one, the Russian or the American one?" "Yes"

[@mustafayilmaz2997]

Churchill is heavyly armrmed ahahah what a joke