The British Super Cromwells That Served Into The 1990s - Challenger, Avenger and Charioteer

How do you put the big gun in the relatively small tank? The Challenger, Avenger and Charioteer were 3 attempts to put 17 or 20 pounder guns into the Cromwell chassis, with mixed results. Challenger saw service in WW2 and was largely overshadowed by the Firefly, which it might even have been better than. Avenger largely faded into the books of history and Charioteer managed to serve in the Middle East until 1993. 3 attempts, 3 big guns, and a fascinating story.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
If you enjoyed the video please leave a like - and if you want to see more like it, I'd encourage you to subscribe!
Credit to these excellent articles:
www.tanks-ency...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.tanks-ency...
• A30SP Avenger and A30 ...
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by it's copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".
Music:
EpidemicSound - www.epidemicsound.com

[@Ulani101]

While Charioteer's 20 pounder might have struggled to deal with T-54s, not every Warsaw Pact tank regiment of the day had T-54s. It would have had no issue taking on a B formation's T-34s, and when Charioteer first went into service, there were still 40,000 of those in existence.

[@lkchild]

that’s exactly what it was made for - at the time the T54 hadn’t really come in, and T34-85 was the frontline vehicle alongside IS3, hence FV4004 Conway and FV4104 Charioteer to oppose them.

[@christiandauz3742]

The Brits wished they had the Charioteers back in WW1!

[@yamatokurusaki5790]

APCR , sabot

[@andrewwise6990]

Actually, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Saladin armoured cars had no difficulty in destroying T55s. Saladins were armed with the L5 76.2mm gun that fired HESH & HE rounds, as well as Canister Smoke and Illumination. The 20 pounder was more than capable of destroying the T44, T54 and T55 series of tanks. What-more, most of the Israeli Centurions were still issued with 20 pounders (87mm) during the six-day war. We all know how that ended! Oh, how do I know this? Well I was a Tank Commander and I well know the capabilities and effect of the L5 gun against armour.

[@christiandauz3742]

@@andrewwise6990 The Brits wished they had Saladins back in WW1. It would have made fighting and invading the Ottomans much easier Trench warfare is avoiding as the Brits simply crush the German Army

[@pyro1047]

"But somehow they only discovered very late on that the gun wouldn't fit in the Cromwell" Hey, could be worse. They could've built an entire Battleship reusing old unused guns, just to realize they designed the turrets too small and have to design an entirely new gun anyways...

[@ceilyurie856]

Which Battleship was that?

[@JevansUK]

@@ceilyurie856 Iowa

[@JevansUK]

It was meant to use the 16"/50 s ordered for the 1916 programme Lexington and South dakota classes.

[@Maritimesgestein]

Or they could have build a entire class of "large light cruisers" with 4 15" guns only to realise that they build a class of ships so useless in ww1 that didn't even bother trying to place them in a dangerous situation.

[@bdub1682]

​@@Maritimesgestein or worse, they decided to arm one of them with 2 18" guns

[@dudududu1926]

4:47 "A gang of rogue engineers..." How can one join this gang?

[@grahamwood333]

That's the gang culture we should encourage

[@AnimeSunglasses]

My thoughts exactly!

[@iatsd]

Remember, kids: the Cromwells served in the recce regiments (except for Guards Armoured Div during WW2), not the tank regiments and the Challengers were issued to the Cromwell regiments. Fireflys served in the tank regiments, as did the Comets. Avenger & Charioteer served with the Royal Artillery.

[@OddBallThe4th8382]

This is a great point that most people miss about the Cromwell, it was used as light tank despite its medium pedigree.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Cromwells were used by the 5th AD. By the Welsh Guards in fact.

[@rastas3742]

It was 7th Armoured that used Cromwells instead of Shermans. Guards Armoured used Shermans like everybody else.

[@iatsd]

@@rastas3742 My bad. :)

[@iatsd]

@@nickthenoodle9206 Which 5th Armoured Division? There wasn't a British 5th Armoured Div, and the Canadian 5th Division was a training division that never (I think) left Canada, and the Australian 5th Div was an infantry div. The Welsh Guards only had one armoured battalion, in the late war, and that served as part of the Guards Armoured Div, and they used Shermans, IIRC. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Guards#Second_World_War

[@gandsproductions5105]

An interesting modification I saw done to the cromwell was the installation of applique armor that boosted the effective frontal thickness to over 101mm. Also, I once saw a finnish comet that had been refitted with a 20pdr gun.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

“Super Cromwells, part 2”

[@iatsd]

The were 2 production models of the Cromwell with heavier armour up to 102mm, just as there were 2 production models of the Churchill that took the standard armour from 101mm to 152mm.

[@ravenouself4181]

@@iatsd And the best part is that the Churchill could take it, since speed is not an issue - it had none to begin with!

[@iatsd]

@@ravenouself4181 What I always find odd is the German fanbois keep banging on about how the Tiger and Panther were "better than the Cromwell", but they forget that the Cromwell mainly served as a recce vehicle, was faster and more reliable than either of the German vehicles, and in the uparmoured models, had the same armour levels (but better quality) as the Tiger. The gun wasn't as good, but it had better HE rounds, which is what was used more often.

[@samspeed6271]

@@iatsd that's because the wehraboos are thinking of tank on tank combat more than anything else. You can't use the tank if it broke the transmission halfway to the battlefield. That's why reliability, speed and fuel consumption are important, because as soon as you run out of fuel or you break down, you're now a metal pillbox. And you're not always going to be shooting at tanks, sometimes it'll be infantry or AT gun emplacements. The Cromwell may not be as tough or as powerful as the Tiger or Panther, but it's more reliable and its unique ability was absurd speed. During the Allied advance into the Netherlands and the low countries, a group of Cromwells (I can't remember how many) found an 88mm Flak battery that they couldn't deal with. They made a very fast retreat by jumping a 20 foot wide canal.

[@lonelyone69]

A30 challenger was probably one of the underated tank designs in WW2. If they could fill more scout regiments with them big cats would've been a non issue.

[@leopoldthedigger7062]

Some of you might not know this but the first 17 pounder to be fitted into a turret was into an Australian Cruiser 4 turret, before the Brit’s!

[@MrSaerrock]

But to check to see if the vehicle could stand the recoil from the 17 pounder they fitted a dual 25 pounder howitzer turret...

[@no-legjohnny3691]

What amazes me is, considering how cramped and tight the turret already was with the 40mm 2-pounder, how on earth did they manage to shove in the 17-pounder _and_ retain the 3 crewmen in that turret?

[@dudududu1926]

@@no-legjohnny3691 2 of the crews basically ride each other.

[@matheusg.8177]

Ah yes, the D*ck tank w/ better pen capabilities

[@ausaskar]

@@no-legjohnny3691 The ACIV's is kinda like the T-34/85 turret it bulges out slightly and overhangs to make more room.

[@LegoGuy_Productions]

0:41 Matilda tank spotted in Ukraine?1?!!?1! Amazing video!

[@panzerofthelake506]

Lmao

[@tymag]

Russian army's best tank

[@antoniostamndley8272]

Prob did not last long

[@tompiper9276]

😅

[@zaleost]

You know something I read about recently is that to this day Myanmar apparently still has a batch of Comets that were sold to them. Not sure if they're still in active service or would really be any good if used but it still interesting just how long they seem to have lasted for.

[@Winterm00n333]

I think they only use them for parades like how russia uses the t 34 today

[@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS]

They were utilised in that recent failed presidential coup ngl.

[@joshuakyawswar9576]

"Recent". Mate, it started in 2021; now it's already 2023

[@ushikiii]

They should reserve them. Beautiful tanks.

[@thefather9447]

Finally an unbiased, short, concise, and informative tank video that focuses solely upon production and history. You’re producing quality content far beyond that of many main stream channels. Keep up the good work… and hit me up if you want any tank parts or military souvenirs!

[@Redgolf2]

In Ireland we fitted them with 20mm from a fighter plane rather than buying ammo for the gun! 😅

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Hahaha I’d never heard that before - always up to no good.

[@carterjones8126]

Backyard BTR right there.

[@darnit1944]

Slap a random ATGM on it and you'll have a Low budget BMPT Terminator

[@aregularperson7573]

That does sound like something that the Irish army would do

[@aregularperson7573]

That does sound like something that the Irish army would do

[@stigmontgomery7901]

Enjoyed the interesting video. One point of fact though, the earlier East Africa/Abyssinian campaign and then the N Africa campaign were not fought in the Sahara desert. The N African campaign was fought along the northern coastal littoral adjacent to the Mediterranean. The Quattera Depression in Egypt prevented tanks and similar vehicles from moving more south.

[@LeadingMole058]

Been playing War Thunder recently so really came here to learn. I was not disappointed.

[@eruantien9932]

Tiny note (not really relevant to the Cromwell line); "Achilles" was the name given to both kinds of M10 in British service, with 3 inch armed vehicles named Achilles I or Achilles II, and 17 pdr armed vehicles named Achilles Ic or Achilles IIc. The Achilles name wasn't much used in the war though (it was supposed to be the name, but even in official reports it didn't gain much traction) - the most common name was 3 inch M10 or 17 pdr M10 (sometimes with "SP" between the gun name and "M10"); informally the 17 pdr armed vehicles would occasionally be called Firefly, due to the association between the gun and the name.

[@deeznoots6241]

Anything with a really reliable and mobile Chassis will end up getting used for 50 years even if only as a way to make a big gun more mobile

[@TypeKK]

Finally, T-34/150

[@lonelyone69]

@@TypeKK I mean t34 even post war wasn't fast nor reliable 😂

[@PilotTed]

The Challenger is a fairly good tank, great turret traverse, great reload rate, great gun, and great mobility. It had everything a medium tank needed really. It lacked sufficient armor for the guns it faced and a reverse speed barely faster than snail's pace (I think its capped at 4kph in reverse, which is horrible) but other than that, was a solid choice.

[@The-Clockwork-Eye]

Great on paper, not the choice of the tankers of the day though. They were dismayed they didn't have an equivalent tank to field against Panzer V & VI. So many were lost in Normandy, proving their trepidations correct.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Interesting point about armour: no armour could withstand 88s - so the US tank destroyers swapped weight for speed with very thin armour: the result being no more vulnerable than a Sherman/ Cromwell. (apart from the open top turret)

[@PilotTed]

@offshoretomorrow3346 I mean you could build a tank that can withstand an 88, depending on the 88 your talking about. The 88 found on the Tiger I, primary found in the Africa campaign and the Eastern front, had the 8.8 cm KwK 36, much shorter than the KwK 43 found on the Tiger II, Jagdpanther, and Nashorn, which were seen in both fronts. The shorter 36 had similar pen to the American 76 but could hold more explosive filler and had better angle penetration performance due to being wider. The KwK 43 on the other hand, had nearly twice the penetration. The US's Pershing could withstand the KwK 36 but not the 43... not like it really ever had a chance to go up against then though as it was deployed too late. The super Pershing was up armored and theoretically could withstand a shot from the KwK 43, but there is no conformation for that as far as I am aware. In the end, both Pershing lacked the speed and mobility the M18, M36, and Cromwell varients had while being more heavy and costly than it's predecessor the M4A3E8 Sherman, which could already take out most of the tanks it faced and could be mass produced.

[@PilotTed]

@offshoretomorrow3346 Not to mention the logistics of bringing over heavy tanks. It's why the T29, 30, 34, and 95 projects never went anywhere near production, especially the T95, which couldn't drive over any existing bridge at the time.

[@lonelyone69]

@@The-Clockwork-Eye what are you talking about British crews loved A30 it was spacious and offered good ergonomics with an extra 2 crew men... Not to mention they were put in scout regiments not tank regiment's so they wouldn't have faced cats a lot.

[@alanelesstravelled8218]

The Challenger used the same engine as the Cromwell (RR Meteor). The Challenger weighed more than the Cromwell. The power/weight for the two tanks is 18.8hp/tonne vs 21.4hp/tonne. The Challenger only had a top speed of 32 mph vs 40 mph for the Cromwell, not the same speed, but still faster than the Firefly. The Challenger, due to the lengthened hull wasn't as maneuverable as the Cromwell.

[@sammni]

Keep the videos coming... You cover the different and odd. That's what keeps me coming back

[@Dreska_]

I never realised the Challenger was still shorter than a Sherman lol. It always looks enormous in photos

[@SMGJohn_Secondary]

Sherman was a massive tank, tall as a King Tiger, but albeit thinner than a T-34, which ironically made it absolutely pathetic for tipping over.

[@simonbarnes7620]

17 pounder needs a big turret! Firefly hold my beer!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Deploy the cube!

[@kuddles29]

Just turn it sideways, no one will notice.

[@ushikiii]

Is it actually not possible to fit the 17 pounder in the Cromwell.... I dunno how they managed to fit it in the Sherman but not the cromwell, I bet it can fit it's just that the crew would have been cramped. I dunno just imagination.

[@simonbarnes7620]

@@ushikiii should be, the Cromwell turret is slightly larger than the Sherman for internal space! That being said I suppose the gun mounting positions are further back than the Sherman where the trunnions is mounted outside and the Cromwell has internal trunnions, the Comet turret is only slightly larger than the Cromwell but the trunnions have been moved forward.

[@deangoldenstar7997]

I believe Lindybeige said it perfectly, the first time the British ever encountered a tiger it was promptly destroyed... By a 6 pounder on the back of a lorry.

[@mugbug5]

I've actually seen the comet in action at the Bovington Tank museum on April 22nd

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

The Comet is a reminder the British messed up with the Centurion.

[@agentjohnson3973]

One of the best Tank Channels on youtube.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you so much!

[@nikoclesceri2267]

Could you talk about the centaur, a Cromwell fitted with a 114mm howitzer that entered production before the actual Cromwell

[@lkchild]

Heya, The Centaur and Cromwell are almost the same tank - the Centaur had a different engine. They both had the same guns (6pr, 75mm, 95mm) but the Centaur only saw combat with the 95mm as part of the RMASG. Cromwell actually beat Centaur into production, but there weren’t many Meteor engines at the time so Centaur continued to be made with the Liberty engine even though it wasn’t as good.

[@billbarton9046]

I used to do the gardens of a man who was a driver of a A30 Challenger of the RAR he fought around Kleves.

[@Dontwlookatthis]

I'd love to see a video on The Black Prince, the effort to make a newer Churchill.

[@charliemyres5450]

A most interesting, fascinating and enjoyable series of movies. Not too long, not too short and most of it I had never heard, or read of before. Top work!

[@tommeakin1732]

I recently saw a simulation showing 20 pdr APDS at the front of a T-55, and while it's obviously a simulation and might not be a perfect analogue for real life, it was fascinating how the round very quickly oriented itself so it was inline with the angled plate and bored extremely deeply along its length. I've never seen a sim like it tbh. The round very likely bored through more than 300+mm of armour, just basically inside the plate along it's length. If it was able to keep it's initial course, it'd easily have enough energy to blast through the plate.

[@andrewclayton4181]

That was interesting. I've seen videos about these vehicles individualy, but this one links up the development thought process and joins the dots.

[@ProfessorPesca]

Really good presentation, and the perfect length for me, thanks.

[@ddraig1957]

Really interesting. I've read hundreds of books about WW2 but I've never come across any accounts of the A30 Challenger in action.Maybe this was because so many more Fireflies were produced .

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I was also surprised at how many seemed to be produced - before researching this video I'd sort of assumed they were just prototypes! Glad you found it interesting.

[@simongee8928]

The six pounder, due to it's higher muzzle velocity was a better a/t gun than the 75mm. medium gun fittet to the M4, Cromwell, Churchill etc. which is why it stayed in service longer than maybe it should to be replaced by a better gun. The 17pdr. was an excellent weapon, but much depended on the ammunition supplied at the time as accuracy varied rather alarmingly.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Yeah! I’ve read the 6 pdr was a better AT while the American 75mm had much better HE rounds.

[@sean640307]

the 17pdr was a very accurate gun. It was only with the early forms of the APDS rounds that the gun became inaccurate. The issue was the outer casing breaking up prematurely on exiting the muzzle brake, which would potentially send the sabot off on a different trajectory. Using standard armour piercing ammunition, the 17pdr was perfectly fine. The US tests appear to have been a little contrived to achieve the result they wanted, which was that their 76mm gun was better. However, in actual battle, the 76mm gun showed it was not as effective as the 17pdr. Another interesting aside is that the APDS rounds for the 6pdr never suffered from the same issues as the early British ones. I believe the Canadians sorted out the APDS rounds for 17pdr use but this was too late for the war.

[@simongee8928]

@@RedWrenchFilms Indeed. The techno aspects of gunnery is much more complex than many folk realize.

[@Ulani101]

The Americans did finally admit the superiority of the 17 pounder, and make arrangements to license build it. Then the war ended, reducing the need for better guns. Or so I read somewhere, quite a while ago.

[@alfnoakes392]

Which is why the Americans were so keen to licence-build the 6 pounder/ 57mm AT gun. It was apparently accurate enough for skilled crews to score 'mobility kills' on heavily armoured opposition by taking out tracks/drive wheels from great distances.

[@madkoala2130]

Am I the only one who thinks Charioteer is really sexy looking tank when it has upgraded 20 pounder mounted on it (hell it was my favorite vehicle in wot back when i played that shit of the game)

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I actually really like the look of it! Shame it was a bit rubbish - also played it in WOT back in the day.

[@lkchild]

@@RedWrenchFilmsfolks get a bit mixed up on what makes it good or bad. As a weapon it was great - 20 pounder plus the speed of cromwell darting around in a defensive position against a potential soviet threat BUT the commander was way overloaded as the size of the gun meant you lost a crew member position in the turret. That was its downside. At the time most of the current generation of tanks were vulnerable to the latest weaponry as gun technology had moved up, so armour was less tank vs tank and more tank vs other unless you were armoured like a Cent or a Conq. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in one, but I wouldn’t have wanted to be in any of them. Hats off to the crews. You could either go big, or go fast. Either way the preference was not to be in the same place when the return shot came in. The power of the guns by that point had outstripped a lot of tank sizes - modern tanks are much bigger, That meant the muzzle flash was a problem for a lot of tanks. In Charioteer it’s small and thin which made it more problematic, so they added an external observer to view the shot landing and call in directions if you were in an ambush type of role.

[@jaex9617]

I'm thinking every crew member in that airborne Cromwell at 01:55 eventually went on disability for back problems.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Hahaha yeah it’s fun until you land!

[@gz3zbz]

In Bill Bellamy's memoir serving in a Cromwell he said the important thing when jumping was to push the clutch in before landing, otherwise it would try to stand on its nose. He also tells the story of being fired on by an anti-aircraft vehicle with 20mm cannons. His tank looked like a porcupine afterwards, with 20mm shells protruding from the armour, although none of them got all the way through. This was peculiar because steel armour is hardened and the shells should have bounced off. It turns out his crew had been driving around in a test vehicle which had been made with regular steel, non-hardened, and wasn't intended to go into battle. I believe they stayed with that vehicle rather than swap it for a properly armoured version!

[@mrflibble9783]

Troop Leader, by Bill Bellamy (iirc) had a first hand example of troop of cromwells jumping a 20' Canal.

[@jaex9617]

@gz3zbz Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing! I looked up the title of his book. May read it myself and, for anyone interested, it's called "Troop Leader, A Tank Commander's Story."

[@C0MMAND3R_ZER0]

In World of Tanks, the Avenger turret can equip a 32 pounder cannon.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Very good work on this Cromwell redesign work.Nice photo showing Ritchie and Gott in the western desert! Are any Challanger claims against German tanks in Normandy tabulated somewhere? The description of challanger that I have read previously is somewhat derogatory. Thank you for shedding more light on this subject

[@lllordllloyd]

I'm not sure Challengers made it to Normandy... perhaps VERY late. None were available to help Cromwells facing Tigers near Vire during 'Operation Bluecoat' in early August. Challengers of the Welsh Guards did knock out Koenigstigers on the North bank of the Waal at Nijmegen during Market-Garden.

[@lkchild]

nice video, but you have some of the facts a bit backwards. All of the A30s were cromwell based, not comet - they had upgrades that make them look similar, and there’s practically not much difference between the two in how they were made, so there’s crossover. DTD wanted to keep the Challenger as a better option than the Firefly, but time was of the essence. Avenger is close to what the designer originally envisaged (but with an open roof), but the Challenger turret had already been developed for TOG so it was reused to save time. Niether was a response to Tiger - initial reports showed the 6pr was capable enough at normal combat ranges (think Crusader III and early Cavalier/Cromwell development) but the 17pr was an excellent gun so it had been slated for installation in tanks for a long while. The Charioteer was made because Cromwell couldn’t penetrate a T35-85 frontally, and there weren’t enough Comets and Centurions to go around in the beginning of the cold war. Conway was the quick alternative to waiting for Conqueror. Charioteer continued because it offered 50/50 odds against T34 when tested, but Conway was dropped because it was more like 30/70. That’s also why Charioteer was only an interim tank, as Centurion was way better than that.

[@iatsd]

Not quite. The Challenger turret was *tested* ON TOG as the hull was readily available and was roomy for easily changing things during the tet cycle. It was designed *for* TOG as there was zero chance of TOG ever going anywhere near production. The main aspect they were testing was the Electrodyne/Metrodyne traverse system, which was a geared electrical system. It allowed for *very* fast slew times compared to preceeding tanks. Charioteer, with the 20pdr, would have gone through a T34 at almost any range out to 2 km. The British Centurions were picking off T34's and ISU122's in Korea at 2km. There's no 50/50 about it. The 20pdr was a superb gun in terms of penetration and accuracy. It also had an amazingly low barrel life - as low as 80 rounds in Korea where it spent a lot of time firing canister.

[@lkchild]

@@iatsd The 50/50 is a measure of effectiveness - both T34-85 and Charioteer could carve a hole through each other without any real defence from armour, hence all things being equal a measure of 50/50. There’s a report in the national archives that explains it and goes into a lot more detail, but the that’s the end result :)

[@ushikiii]

@@lkchild true and I'd bet the charioteer would actually be at the disadvantage due to it's 3 man crew, the T 34 had the crews roles more spread out. Both are actually very similar tanks.

[@lkchild]

@@ushikiii No, it’s literally 0.5 for both. The only slight difference comes with range.

[@ushikiii]

@@lkchild u speak like it's hard and proven number... Whatever.

[@mattw785]

Great vid! Good balance and research. Please keep it up!

[@paauggie]

Absolutely brilliant! Thank you for posting this.

[@Adam-np9xj]

Congrats on the 5k subscribers

[@billballbuster7186]

The 2 Pounder was an excellent gun for the time, it out performed German and Italian tank guns until the PzKpfw IV Ausf F-2 in 1942. The 17 pounder was an excellent gun, but in 1943 no British tank was large enough to carry it. The A30 Challenger and Avenger were interim stop-gap designs that were far from ideal and built in small numbers. The first tank designed and built to carry the 17 Pounder was the 50ton A41 Centurion in1944. The Cromwell was given the 20 Pounder gun of the Centurion Mk3, to produce Charioteer, built in 1954 using old Cromwell hulls. However the design was poor with a turret of thin plate. It was used briefly by the Territorial Army, 1955-58, then sold off to Jordan, Finland and Austria. It was more accurately classed as a 20Pdr SP Gun rather than a Tank.

[@Ontos_M50]

For reasons I can’t understand myself I like the charioteer a lot I just think it looks cool I guess

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s a cool tank isn’t it - a shame it was a bit useless in the end.

[@kaing5074]

I love the charioteer so much. Warthunder gave me new appreciation for high pen high mobility over the slower overconfident Panthers and VKs

[@Average183Enjoyer]

I know you were joking with the missile variant of the cromwell, but the brazillian army once put 3 big ass rockets on top of a stuart and called it a day. A video on the brazillian modernized stuarts wouldnt be a bad idea.

[@TJ_GAming001]

Aircraft carrier on the Cromwell hull when?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It would be rude not to at least try

[@fivenine5905]

THEY ARE STILL SERVING NOW. myanmar army has them. cromwell serving in 2022 ;)

[@CenturionMkXIII]

Honestly the 2 ponder was actually very efficient in North Africa because you remeber Rommel on had 27 Panzer IV tanks. The rest of tanks consisted of Panzer I, IIs and IIIs which the 2 Pounder could make short work off. Until Tigers and Panthers came and didn't really reform as well as you may think.

[@patriciomassun]

Wooow! nice video man! You gain another subscriber!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks so much Patricio :)

[@Isaacthegamer123]

I love the Cromwell

[@swagmanexplores7472]

An excellent video sir !

[@ushikiii]

Ik it's subjective but I love how the charioteer looks. Looks better than the challenger imo. But the avenger looks better than both imo.

[@dartskipper3170]

The Meteor engine was developed and manufactured by the Rover car company from the Rolls Royce Merlin. RR didn't have the capacity to do it themselves as they were busy with more powerful engines for the RAF. The Meteor was also the basis of the V8 engine used in the Thornycroft Antar tank transporter.

[@glynluff2595]

The Conqueror was not a favoured machine. The auto reloader caused unchecked REME intervention to maintain it in working order.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Conqueror didn’t have an autoloader - it used two stage ammunition instead. Maybe you’re thinking of a different vehicle?

[@glynluff2595]

@@RedWrenchFilms Oh, that is most interesting. When trying in REME at pass out of the ECE course we were lectured to by Tiffy’s upon FFR inspection etc and told to check and inspect the odd ball holding of equipment. A case in point from experience of instructors was the Conqueror. These were held in limited numbers by some armoured regiments who loathed them and hid them away on inspections while parading their Centurions. We had just finished the Chieftain training but the point was to beware of old equipment which still had to be serviceable. We were told the Conqueror had a chain driven rammer which caused problems and jammed to the consternation of the crews. Imagine my feelings on being posted to a gunner unit with Abbots with chain driven rammers! These were loathed by the gunners who reverted to mighty fist and heavy stick as usual. In fact there was nothing wrong with the rammers if maintained and used and I had no problem with them. However, the tale of the Conqueror always stuck in my mind.

[@lukefriesenhahn8186]

I like to think of the modern Challenger II as a modern descendent of the Cromwell and Crusader.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

"The 17 pounder won't fit!" "Put it in sideways!" "The radio won't fit!" "Cut a hole in the back and have it stick out the back!" "The engine's no good!" "Get five car engines and put 'em together!"

[@WanderlustZero]

9:49 this is what they took from us T.T Seriously these deserve to go in a Command and Conquer game

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Definitely Red Alert 2 inspired haha

[@pigpig252]

Great video!

[@LosCadaver]

Challenger and Charioteer were a direct result of the Soviet Union victory day parades unveiling of the IS/JS-3

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The first challenger was built almost 3 years before the victory parade…

[@lkchild]

You’re thinking of Conqueror and Conway.

[@LosCadaver]

@Red Wrench Films What? The IS-3 unveiling Parade was In the 40s.

[@LosCadaver]

@@lkchild every tank designed up until the 90s basically

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@LosCadaver The first challenger prototype was finished in 1942, how could it be a result of the IS-3 that was unveiled in 1945?

[@BHuang92]

It would a great find if anyone knows what happened to all of the Avenger tanks?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Absolutely! I could barely find anything on it. The real kicker is that Armoured Archives (link in description) couldn't find any record of what happened to these vehicles, and he has access to all the relevant archives. A mystery...

[@KidAmogusSussy]

probably scrapped

[@stevenbreach2561]

Range targets I expecct

[@iatsd]

Ellis & Chamberlain say that ~150 were built and, post war, equipped 2 RA AT regiments in Germany from '46 to '49-'50. They appear to have been replaced by the various recoiless AT guns such as the BAT at the same time that the Cromwells were disappearing from the recce regiments in BAOR in the late 40's/early 50's. What happened to them is indeed a bit of a mystery, but they weren't shipped back to the UK or sold on. It *should* be possible to track down which RA regiments used them in Germany and go from there to track down what happened, but I don't think anyone has ever done the work on that.

[@marksadventures3889]

I see armour going for minimal crew even full drone, which may present a mixed bag of pros and cons. Pros include better speed, manoeuvrability and fire power with more than one gun and automatic fire options, plus length of service and possible weapon platforms. Fails could be software issues, gun fails and maintenance in the theatre. Small autonomous platforms could carry anti-tank, anti-personnel options and infrastructure deletion capabilities as well as drones killing options.

[@nickellison2785]

7:57 that is not a centurion mark 1, it doesn’t have the 20mm cannon and the turret is the wrong shape.

[@lordwintertown8284]

Technically it's a Centurion Mk.I as a few didn't have the Polsten 20 mm but instead were fitted with the Besa 7.92 mm MG of the time.

[@ushikiii]

They should have made an self propelled howitzer cromwell just got the hell of it lol.

[@micheal6898]

Great video ,however there are quite a few inaccuracies here . Firstly it makes no sense that the challenger would be edged on in development by the tiger one as the tiger 1 was seen in Africa 2 years prior, I belive you mean the panther witch makes sense as it would have been seen on the Eastern front about that time and combined slightly better armour on a medium tank (more of them) also the poor performance of the 2 pounder is a bit overstated, it wasn't until 42 that I was truly useless.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Challenger and Tiger both appeared in 1942, no? The Tiger first appeared almost at the same time as the first Challenger prototype.

[@cabage786]

the crusader wasnt struggling against german tanks it could easily penetrate them at high ranges due to its 2pndr gun which for awhile outclassed its german counterparts until the long 75mm cannon was introduced on the pnz 4 but german troops in africa only received a handful of the 75 pnz4s. the crusaders main drawback in the desert was that its air filter was outside the tank and often was blocked by sand and dust which led to many of them breaking down and the germans had the same problem on many of their tanks too think why you dont see any stugs in the desert. Ik it was a very small part of the video but I just wanted to point this out since many people think this way

[@iraeis7267]

0:41 lmao that Matilda is marked with a white Z!

[@willampoole2449]

SHERMAN FIREFLY one of the best tanks (and hopes) for the allies

[@lonelyone69]

It really wasn't... It was a terrible tank.

[@wheely_boi_6846]

@@lonelyone69 it was cramped yes, but it was easy to maintain and was very effective.. so you are talking a load of bollocks.

[@lonelyone69]

@@wheely_boi_6846 easy to maintain 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 its engine was 4 Leyland car engines strapped together 😂😂😂😂😂

[@loydcarrier2197]

That was a well produced video, well done. Some factual faux pas on Avenger using Centurion hull but still a nice video on a little researched topic.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Using Comet hull?

[@loydcarrier2197]

@@RedWrenchFilms The initial prototype used the suspension used on the Challanger then they switched to useing return rollers like the Comet, it is a unique hull though, specific to the Avenger.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@loydcarrier2197 Ah yes - that’s correct of course. In your original comment you said Centurion and I thought I’d really messed up haha

[@Red19UK]

Interesting vid. subbed.

[@xmanhoe]

Interesting video 😎 is that a wee Northern Ireland accent I hear 😉😎 Hi from Belfast

[@kbutt5471]

I liked playing darkest hour and the Cromwell was the fastest and heaviest hitting tank there was

[@colvinator1611]

Very interesting video, thanks a lot.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

My pleasure Colin

[@warlordshaxx856]

the Charioteer is beautiful and also good firepower wise

[@paulroberts3639]

Next will be a death Ray on the Cromwell hull. You have to think big!

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks 👍 great work Sir

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you too!

[@carlbyronthompson]

They absolutely put the 17 pdr on the M4. Ever hear of the Firefly?

[@iatsd]

You mean the same Firefly he talked about for a few minutes?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Damn you’re right I wish I had put that in the video!

[@iatsd]

@@RedWrenchFilms Bet you feel foolish now, eh?

[@ethantaylor9613]

Calling the two pounder useless is unfair. Most of the things the British faced in the desert were self-propelled artillery and panzer ones twos it occasionally threes, two pounders were capable of killing these targets at ranges comparable to their German counterparts. People will often overstate the mechanical issues the British faced in the desert, while underplaying that the Germans suffered much in the same, it’s almost like putting early tanks in the desert was a rough situation all around. The main problem with the two pounder was honestly that I didn’t have very good high, explosive ammunition for dealing with infantry and support weapons.

[@fpvDRE]

great info brother enjoyed that 👏👏👏

[@Natale_Luca_98]

He said they failed to fit the 17 pounder onto the Sherman. But Was the 17 pounder not put into slightly modified M4 Shermans and designated the FireFly ?

[@ronhall9039]

Initially it was rejected but as the author says, it was revisited and used - although as far as I'm aware the 'firefly' title wasn't used, the Shermans that had the 17lber build had the 'c' designation - Sherman IIC and Sherman Vc. A lot of the terminology that we bandy about nowadays would have the squaddies of their day totally baffled.

[@nickwilkinson5849]

I really wish measurements were in Imperial, as built.

[@xmanhoe]

@6:12 that's one hell of a shot trap plate in front of the turret

[@user-hl7nt1og7k]

Is the Challenger turret based of of the earlier TOG II?

[@verydope7329]

1:28 just gonna put it out there that they where able to place the 17 pounder on the M4 Sherman which then gave birth to my boy the Sherman Firefly

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Keep watching :)

[@thelonewolf9866]

Mounting railguns and missile launchers on the cromwells?...Nah... They'll next be using the Cromwell chassis for making mobile water boilers... How else are all the lads going to get their tea ready in time?

[@Grace17893]

Great work buddy

[@Pantelis_Psaroudakis]

A less known variant of the Cromwell was the Centaur. Greece got some of them in 1947.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

the centaur wasnt really a varient it was more so like a sister to it iirc

[@keithgoh123]

Ah the Archer, great idea really.

[@englishrob8245]

Challenger failed because it had tall turret to fit four men in Commander, gunner, loader, radio operator along with driver down in the hull. this was rejected because they found out loader could operate the radio like the Cromwell. the time they took redesign the shorter turret. saw active service in January 1945 as the comet. when it could been ready for d day overlord landings.

[@user-dv2cx5ri9j]

Один из самых легендарных танков это Центурион, пусть о нём уже забывают, но чем танк хороший - это его ремонтопригодность. Центурион имеет хорошую ремонтопригодность и надёжность, с учётом того как он себя хорошо показал в других странах в том числе в африканских, которые закупали Центурионы. А что касательно современных танков, Челенджер 2 машина региональная и самое то для островного государство, понятно что Великобритании танков много не нужно, но если брать в расчёт моменты с эксплуатацией и ремонтом, то больше всего по надёжности и дешевизне нравятся немецкие леопарды (В том числе экспортные, ибо немцы экспортные леопарды насыщают всем чем только можно и более современными пакетами бронирования, всё самое лучшее для потребителя), а также Российские танки, Украинские (Тут речь о Т-84 и Т-84Оплот, если что, это разные танки, это как если путать Т-90А и Т-90М Российские), и Американские (речь уже о давно отработанных машинах которые используются) с Китайскими. Так Кромвель и Центурионы одни из самых успешных танков, если говорить о платформе и модернизационном потенциале, Англичане молодцы.

[@kevinabbott3890]

Am I right in thinking the picture at 6.12 (hatch directly over driver) is different to Cromwell?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I think Cromwell also had this hatch directly above the driver. As for the type of hatch, I'm not sure. I know later Cromwells had a split hatch but I'm not 100% sure which versions of the vehicle were converted to Challengers.

[@lkchild]

Welded Cromwell hulls had that type of hatch, so when they made Challenger that’s what they went with. It’s a much nicer hatch than the side opening type.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@lkchild need to get you in as my resident Cromwell expert haha

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

What is it with the letter "C"? Cromwell, Churchill, Comet, Challenger, Chieftain, where did the trend come from?

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

@@Litten260 NEVER! Wow, you're such a clever guy. I bet the ladies love the sarcasm.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

pretty sure all the crusier tank names had a C in it.. post war idk

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

@@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953 btw you are missing the crusader, centurian, caernarvon and the conquere..... and the conway...

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 exactly, so many! 😄

[@ThomasFarquhar2]

British tank design circa 1946: Step 1: Cromwell Step 2: big gun Step 3: ?????? Step 4: it's shit, go back to drawing board Step 4.5: wait it's actually *_kinda_* good let's build a bunch and see what happens

[@kirishima638]

The designers of the A30 were concerned that incoming fire could hit and jam the turret ring so the entire turret was mounted on a sphere that could be raised up to clear any blockage. That’s why it was so tall. The turret basket was mounted above the sphere not inside the tank chassis. It was very over engineered. The Avenger did not have this arrangement which is why it’s so much shorter.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Ah! Not to be cheeky but how do you know this/ what’s your source? I saw so much about the turret mounting not being a traditional ring and being a ball Mount but I couldn’t find any diagrams or explanations or anything so didn’t include it!

[@kirishima638]

@@RedWrenchFilms Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50, Fletcher & Harley, p37: '...the entire turret assembly rested upon a large steel ball, held in a special cradle on the hull floor....this was the ability, from the inside of the fighting compartment, to jack up the turret by up to 25.4mm...the ideas was that risk of it jamming trough accidental damage or enemy action could be obviated by raising the turret sufficiently clear of the problem and lowering it again...' Great book, recommended.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@kirishima638 I would absolutely kill for a diagram of this - I can’t really wrap my head around it or why this would ever be a good idea. From my *limited* research this was the reason why the tank couldn’t deep wade - it had a big gap around the turret.

[@kirishima638]

@@RedWrenchFilms 1.bp.blogspot.com/-rOEvKJ6Wj_o/XQVDhJYXW3I/AAAAAAAAb5Y/mvZxJHlE6CokcTQxxTfiwGFM7RWdnoHmgCLcBGAs/s1600/challenger05-b8416c156fbaba5a4cf099018b11e7d0.jpg If you look very closely you can see the steel ball and the turret elevation jacks

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@kirishima638 just above the 3rd road wheel?

[@dartharpy9404]

Thanks

[@fruckles]

Maybe they'll build the Guntank from Mobile Suit Gundam and use the Cromwell as the base.... a man can dream. ☕🤔 Maybe I should get some model kits, Frankenstein them. [Solo]

[@TurbotheFurbo]

the only tanks boxier than Panzer III-s and Tigers

[@2Pzp]

7:40 I see what you done here, that Vsauce reference ;)

[@1985slipstream]

from 102mm armour the 30mm seems like a glass cannon..

[@AlexVanChezlaw]

Dont know an specific reason but i have a profound hatred towards the cromwell and its offsprings.

[@jplabs456]

MLRS Cromwell? Hell yes

[@mrdynamic8678]

What if the Cromwell developed sloped armour and side skirts

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Would be interesting! Maybe be a lot heavier than it was though.

[@stevenbreach2561]

Would be a lot heavier,and bigger.......oh! a Centurion!!!!!

[@lkchild]

Check out the A29 Clan tank that never made it to production. Sloped armour is its own story though.

[@ushikiii]

@@stevenbreach2561 yeah but it's a lot heavier probably because of it's armament I am guessing not rly it's sloped armour. I'd bet a cromwell with sloped armour would pretty much be the same weight. sloped armour does decrease crew space so perhaps they would slightly elongate the chasse to compensate but that shouldn't make too much of a difference. Also depends on how sloped the armour would be. Lots of variables, could be a lot heavier or could pretty much be the same weight.

[@Farweasel]

Good Vid - Cheers