Tank Chats #4 Vickers Armstrongs Type E | The Tank Museum

Tank Chats playlist • Tank Chats from The Ta... The fourth in a series of short films about some of the vehicles in our collection presented by The Tank Museum's historian David Fletcher MBE.
Alongside their work for the British armed forces Vickers-Armstrongs produced military equipment for foreign buyers. Their earliest commercial tank designs failed to sell but in 1928 they produced a masterpiece. Known as the 6-ton or 'six-tonner', it was a remarkable design, with a rear-mounted, air-cooled engine driving to a gearbox and track sprockets at the front of the tank. There were two main variants; some tanks were supplied with two machine-gun turrets (Type A) while others carried a larger single turret (Type B) like our exhibit.
Following trials the British Army turned it down but the tank was a major export success. It sold all around the world, from South America to Japan and was even studied by the United States Army. It was built under licence in Russia (see our T-26 exhibit) and influenced tank design in many other countries. Our exhibit is displayed in the fancy camouflage style adopted by Vickers for their commercial offerings; it is seen at a mythical army equipment exhibition some time in the thirties.
Shortly before World War II Vickers built a new version, powered by a Rolls-Royce engine (the Mark F) but this failed to sell. Subsequent to this the government of Siam (Thailand) placed a repeat order but specified the original Armstrong-Siddeley engine. These were completed closer to the Mark F design but few, if any, reached their destination. With the outbreak of war the British Government impounded all commercial tanks still in the factories and the remaining stock of six-tonners, of which this is one, were used by British forces for training.
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum KZbin channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Follow The TIGER Tank Collection on FACEBOOK
: ► / tigertankcollection
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank...
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/ #tankmuseum #tanks #tankchats

[@olandewgamers9573]

"Which is one of the stupidest things the British Army ever did really" XD Gotta love David Fletcher!

[@player101player101]

...but nevermind... LOL

[@Skull-in-the-house]

I love when older gents are straight to the point lol

[@hotep3662]

Straight to the point and so bloody right. It was probably the most succesful interwar tank design with huge potential for modification. I mean, soviets did produce 12000 tanks based on this design. In Poland, based on Vickers E we built 7TP tank. It had diesel engine, thicker armour, 37 mm gun and Gundlach Periscope.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

And a 9TP version with even more armour.

[@charlesinglin]

A lost opportunity. Armed with a two pounder these would have been better than the PZKW I and II and about equal to the PZKW 35(T) and 38(T) that made up 2/3rds of the German tank strength in 1940. Beyond that, though, if the British had begun buying these in the mid-30's they'd have had time to train brigade and division size units and work out tactics. The Germans' real strength in 1940 wasn't so much the quality of their armor but good armored warfare doctrine and well trained crews.

[@Stripedbottom]

There was a Vickers-on-Vickers tank battle already in 1940, during the Winter War. Finland had bought a number of Vickers E's before the war as cheaper export versions without armament, optics, radios etc.; these were to be armed with the Bofors 37mm anti-tank gun. The Soviets of course were wielding the T-26, a licence-built version of the Vickers E. The battle itself was a disaster to the Finns as due to poor training and tactics, mechanical problems and being severely outnumbered, the few Vickers that actually made it to the battlefield were slaughtered by the Soviet tanks (some of which were T-28 with bigger gun and better armour). This was the sole tank battle of the Winter War. During that war and later in 1941, dozens of repairable T-26 and even more wrecked tanks were captured by Finnish troops. Those with the twin machine-gun turrets or flamethrowers were promptly re-equipped with gun turrets from other tanks if in good running order, or used for spares if not. In the interests of standardization, the remaining Vickers were also re-armed with the Soviet 45mm tank gun (some taken from BT tanks that had the same turret and gun) and re-designated as "T26E", the "E" standing for "English". Though their engines were far more reliable, they were otherwise a bit of a headache logistically as they were built to imperial standards while the Soviet tanks were in metric, so after the war when the T-26 were slowly scrapped (some used for training until 1961 which incidentally is the last recorded use of the Vickers E anywhere), the T26E, by now in the minority anyway, were among the first to go.

[@igoros85]

Stripedbottom wow man, thank you very much for such interesting informations.

[@simokoistinen7470]

Stripedbottom Finnish T-26 at 0:42

[@carbonara2144]

Finnish Vickers tanks were planned to have Zeiss optics but Nazi-Germany had a secret deal with the Soviet Union to block arms and equipment transportation to Finland. Nazis were sure Finland would lose. Well, they were wrong just like Stalin and his bloodthirsty commie hordes. Would have been mightily interesting tank: Vickers 6-ton with excellent Bofors gun and best-of-class Zeiss optics. Finns had no experience with tanks in winter war 1939-40. Tanks were hurriedly taken to battle in extremely cold conditions and finns forgot to mix paraffine to fuel, so that it would not freeze. Finns were quick to learn though and continuation war brought better results. Impact was not huge as finns never had many tanks.

[@ericamborsky3230]

You know you've messed up when after a war, your enemies are able to standardize on captured equipment.

[@tomaszbukowski9091]

nice video. Poland bought 38 of these tanks, then based on its design they built upgrade call 7TP (37mm bofors gun, diesel engine). Both types fought in 1939 quite well. Vickers were used in 10th cavalry brigade motorized of general Maczek.

[@nickarooroo6397]

“They (the Americans) didn’t actually buy it, they tested it. Which is as close we ever got to selling them a tank.” 🤣

[@HO-bndk]

The USA was the biggest foreign buyer of the Centurion tank.

[@shabut]

@@HO-bndk uh?

[@MrArgus11111]

@@HO-bndk Explain this statement because it's lunacy.

[@badcornflakes6374]

@@HO-bndk so you're saying David Fletcher is a liar?

[@alanwilkin8869]

The US did buy centurion’s, they gave them to allies during the early part of the Cold War,

[@sophrapsune]

One of the best designs in its day... the army didn’t want it.

[@22emporerpenguin]

These tank chats are just awesome! Listening to David Flechter makes me want to travel to Britain and visit the museum and see the tanks for myself so badly.

[@maxpayne2574]

Love his honesty wish he had made longer videos about history

[@gunner678]

Mr Fletcher, a great and knowledgable man..i had the pleasure to meet him when based briefly in bovington! we made great tanks, its a shame we did not use them!

[@HanSolo__]

Polish engineers made a 14,5 tones version of the late version Mk IV Vickers Light Tank. The first incarnation of Polish 7t Vickers TP-7 was 9,5 tones and 37mm Bofors gun. Later one caller TP- 9 was over 11t, while cruiser tank made by Poles - TP-10 which weight around 13t.or in prototype 14,5 t.

[@overdriveactive5486]

What a wonderful series, I'm going to go back and enjoy the previous episodes. Thanks!

[@aestheticsaturn9689]

"The British Army took one look at it and decided they didn't like it", "which is one of the stupidest things the British Army ever did" but never mind lol I couldn't help but laugh. He's pretty humorous

[@MrBandholm]

these videos are near perfekt... we only need them to be longer and stat some of their combat history!

[@esejony65]

Great info and video keep it up please

[@derptank3308]

HEllo

[@penny7174]

i can't stop listen David Fletcher's stories about thanks, amazing!

[@theenigmaticgamer]

David Fletcher is a star! I agree with Dead End. I too could listen to him all day he is so interesting and honest in his opinions.

[@wildonemeister]

I could listen to David Fletcher all day! Says things as it is (or was) and it's informative and educational. Huge thumbs up for this series - I'm going to watch them all.

[@russwoodward8251]

I sure like hearing David Fletcher's thoughts on just about any tank (or anything with armour for that matter!).

[@jeremylavoie8495]

I love these videos, thank you!

[@AlexDonnett]

I can't imagine this guy ever being young

[@Briselance]

Here's the challenge. Find a picture of Mr David Fletcher in his twenties or thirties. :-P

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Im pretty sure Mr Fletcher was born old....back in the early Middle Ages at least.

[@BarrettPvP]

the camo on the tank looks very good on it, good quality.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

Funky looking but also pretty functional and advanced for its day.

[@DanBray1991]

Gotta Love David Fletcher!!! Can't wait to visit over the summer! Also for the love of god get him to talk about the Rota Trailer!!!

[@robertkobuszewski4363]

Father of Polish 7TP.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

And 9TP

[@VonRammsteyn]

...And soviet T - 26

[@sgtpepper3161]

This tank "got around" Many children lol

[@allensteiner1]

@@sgtpepper3161 Naughty little fella.

[@paulkosoff8851]

@@piotrmalewski8178 there was no such thing as 9TP ;)

[@johnlansing2902]

Love honesty...... God bless

[@Drewscipher]

Awesome as always. Love these. I think it would be great if Mr. Fletcher could team with The Mighty Jingles as Jingles loves the Tank Museum and has a solid viewer base, for a tank talk. I imagine he would jump at the chance to do something with the TOG considering Jingle's adoration of that tank. It might go long though as Mr. Fletcher will likely be correcting Jingles on inaccuracies throughout the video which will be amusing to Jingles' fan base.

[@mawi2988]

and another great video. Always a pleasure to watch. Keep it up David !

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

Siam did buy a considerable number of this tank. the first purchase order was AFAIK during the last years of its Absolute Monarchy regime (before the 1932 Revolution), it's the first 'true' tank Siam has been bought (Carden Loyd Tankette bought earlier is not quite considered a 'tank', rather a different vehicle), its first saw action during the revolution (dunno but I've saw a book said that the revolutionary government assigned ones in BKK during the Prince Bavorndej Rebellion... and an actual picture of this tank photographed with an entire squad of doughboys)... so no doubt this one got its baptism by fire in 30s. This one shown here originally a purchase order earmarked there.. originally intended to join its 'revanche' wars against the (Vichy) french in Indochine Francaisse.

[@Twirlyhead]

So we all know that the British adopted some not very good designs but here we see that they compounded that failing by rejecting at least one excellent home grown design as well.

[@Stripedbottom]

What's even funnier is that in it's first real test of fire, the Spanish Civil War (as T-26), it immediately proved it's value and pretty much wiped its ass with any and all enemy tanks thrown against it. That was in 1936 when most countries were rearming like crazy, so one would think there would have been plenty of time to put it in mass production for British use, but...

[@Twirlyhead]

Yes, and such a move might have changed the whole evolution of British tanks for the better and could have led to better British tanks all round - ie. start with a good tank and go forward from there instead of the cruiser series the British actually did evolve. In turn that could have impacted how ww2 panned out.

[@charlesinglin]

It's an interesting thing to consider what might have happened in May 1940 if the British had two fully trained armored divisions equipped with decent (for the time) tanks. Abbeville might have been where the German advance stopped.

[@Stripedbottom]

I don't think that changing the equipment of the BEF or adding a division or two here or there would have made any big difference to the outcome. The French had plenty of armored divisions and some pretty impressive tank designs and a fat lot of good that did them. The German tanks were overall worse than the British or French and the bulk of them especially were no better than the worst allied designs. Actually, the Germans did not enjoy any overwhelming technical superiority in any military field at the time. They won not because of what they had, but what and how they did with what they had. In a what-if scenario I think you have to throw a pretty massive amount of manpower, materiel (and quality of materiel) to the allied side before it even starts to threaten the outcome by sheer weight of volume alone, and making up for their many C&C, tactical and strategical shortcomings.

[@charlesinglin]

A couple things to consider. The Germans had inferior (mostly) tanks, but better communications, better doctrine and better air support. By the later stages of the Battle of France the German armor was at the far end of long, vulnerable supply lines and their strength in tanks and aircraft had been considerably reduced by attrition defeating the French armor. The textbook solution, which DeGaulle attempted but was unable to pull off, was an attack against the supply lines to cut off the German armor. A couple BEF territorial battalions with a handful of tanks also gave Rommel a busy afternoon. The German senior commanders were already extremely nervous about their exposure and were trying to rein in the panzers. Guderian essentially continued his advance by lying to his superiors about what he was up to. A stronger BEF armored force might have been enough to make the German advance stall out. Then who knows what happens.

[@gilanbarona9814]

Sir David, hats off to you. I learn a lot even as I laugh at your incomparable wit. By the way, this tank resembles a Japanese Type 97 Ha Go. Did Japan copy this design? My grandfather fought in WW2 and faced Type 97s. He said they were frightening when you had nothing but small arms.

[@ctw30002000]

Great series, keep it going!

[@valentinmarinescu6445]

The T-26 was the most mass produced tank of the interwar years.

[@Astor4o]

Brilliant as always!

[@robinbrowne5419]

Not really my favourite tank, but definitely the coolest paint job 👍

[@georgemcdonough5039]

"A bit long in the tooth..." that is definitely a saying I never heard! Funny!

[@Snabben2]

Awesome video series, keep up the good work!

[@Paveway-chan]

Britts favour a rear drive, 'eh? That's why the Mighty Jingles is so fond of the rough handling from behind in WoT ;)

[@mikeh7860]

Great videos guys. Awesome tanks! Love it!

[@peppermintbutler9059]

Fletcher......lord of the tanks

[@rparker069]

awesome vid as always. Just wondering though, are you going to do one on the Australian Cruiser Mk. I-IV? Seeing as they're the only things we ever developed ever I'd love to see some info on them c:

[@landfair123]

I love how he is kind of annoyed with America. lol

[@Daniel-S1]

Thanks.

[@Autumn_Able]

Oooh, how about the Tetrarch and/or Harry Hopkins?

[@dubsy1026]

Aleš Sinčič I thought it was made during WWII

[@emizerri]

Not sure if the museum has them tanks

[@fortawesome1974]

Your museum is missing a tank which I am so pround to say Many Australian Engineers risked their lives to recover in WW1. The German A7V called Mephisto. The last surviving one in the entire world. Only 20 made. They went into no mans land to tow it out of a shell crater in the middle of the night and I've had the privelidge to see it. It's quite awe inspiring to see something which is the only one of its kind left on Earth. As most of the men who saved it were from Queensland in went to a Queensland museum. If you ever come to Brisbane in Australia and love tanks, I highly recommend seeking it out.

[@madseavets]

Bugger! I've been to Brisbane a couple of times and didn't even realise it was there! doh.......

[@ant4812]

It's at the south bank, within walking distance of the maritime museum. At the moment I think it's on loan to the war museum in Canberra.

[@Boskov01]

The Italians did a tank based on this design too, didn't they? They made the top turret a set of twin machine guns while adding a 37mm limited rotation gun on the main chassis. I think it's the M11/39? Might be wrong.

[@paulkosoff8851]

it was partially patterned upon Vickers Mk E, but was an original design. They couldn't copy a patented suspension, but made a similar one.

[@Tounushi]

0:41 :) See you at the square! 2:28 From the SA-Kuva archive? The commander's wearing an m/27 field cap (summer), and I think he's a captain, if I saw the collar right.

[@sl06bhytmar]

Tounushi Tried to find picture from SA-kuva but vickers, t-26 with general tank serch terms didn't have that picture etc but didn't find it. Might be from German archives? To me cap doesn't seem to be m/27, it seems more like to be japanese cap but i am not sure.

[@Tounushi]

Markku Hyttinen m/27 had a tapering structure, a long visor, a leather chin strap and flaps for ear protection. As far as I can tell from the image, it's an m/27.

[@sl06bhytmar]

Tounushi Any links to cap? Tried googling but found only M/22 and later models. Only finnish m27 I found was for officers and it looked totally different.

[@Tounushi]

Markku Hyttinen swat.fi/image/cache/data/KohtiVoittoa/Koko%20n%C3%A4yt%C3%B6n%20kaappaus%2013.3.2015%2092457-500x500.jpg swat.fi/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=4736 www.palasuomenhistoriaa.net/kuvat/sotahistoria/slides/sktakkim22.html

[@volksgrenadier]

The Tank Museum where can I get a hi res picture of the plans you have on the title screen? the one with the Mk.IV(?) tank? Thanks! and keep with this videos!

[@ajivins1]

You ought to see Guy Martin's WW1 Tank. It was a C4 show in which they built a near perfect 'new' one.

[@VonRammsteyn]

Why are those ropes there? The tank is about to be shipped?

[@bestestusername]

Pablo Astini yep the british army realised thier mistake and want them now

[@binaway]

The USA paid for the Centurions that went to the European NATO members and Jordan making the USA the largest foreign purchaser of that tank.

[@troy9477]

I wonder if the army's rejection was due mainly to high ranking officers who know little or nothing about tanks. We learned that here in the US before WW2- have some ground level people involved in the T&E, especially good experienced NCO's, and listen to their feedback. They did that with the M1 rifle and many other things. Plus, if it has a weakness or is breakage prone, soldiers will find that out, often in very short order (like hours). The result is better-engineered weapons and equipment that are soldier proof. Kind of the same reason an engineer or designer works closely with a master machinist. The machinist can tell them what is and is not feasible from a fabrication and production standpoint.

[@charlesrichardson4032]

Thx

[@MynameisMoises]

Nice small tank for WW1

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

So is this Vickers 6-Ton Mark E a prototype to the things like the M4 Sherman and Stuart?

[@alritedave]

I want one! :3

[@kiele218]

Один из лучших танков Британии, который она не стала принимать на вооружение.

[@Wabaanimkii]

Is there a reason they didnt place the turret in the center? Given the extra space available on the right side would it be hypothetically possible to increase the diameter of the turret ring? Perhaps allow the addition of a loader position so the commander can command instead?

[@paulkosoff8851]

an original Mark E had quite short combat compartment, and in twin-turret version the commander was right behind the driver's back. With larger single two-man turret its crew would kick the driver's left arm if it was in the center. So they moved it to the left. Late tanks had longer combat compartment. Interestingly, tanks made for Finland (but only those, not the one in the museum) had turrets moved to the right then (I guess it was because the Finns wanted to have additional space on the left for SMG gunner).

[@TPubbie]

What are those things protruding out of the front of the turret, next to the gun barrel?

[@brandonyuan6542]

Gun recoil and sight

[@Stripedbottom]

Imagine the BEF and 8th Army being equipped with 2-pounder Vickers E's, in numbers, instead of the Mark VI and the awful cruisers...

[@dubsy1026]

Stripedbottom the cruisers weren't bad.

[@dubsy1026]

what advantages does this thing have?

[@Stripedbottom]

It was fairly simple and reliable, and lent itself well to economical mass production. Good cross-country characteristics too. By all accounts the cruisers were pretty terrible mechanically, OK for some limited purposes and definitely better than something like Vickers VI, but overall a disappointment. They represented the 'cavalry tank' concept which was pretty soon proven to be not very practical in modern (by WW2 standards) warfare. (Thinking again they maybe would not have been so great for North Africa, in the original configuration at least, as the engine tended to overheat already in milder climates.) Most importantly, like Twirlyhead said they most probably would have been a much, much better starting point for British wartime tank design. The cruiser line did eventually produce an excellent tank - the Centurion - but the road was unnecessarily long and painful. The Soviets took their T-26 and BT-7 (another cruiser, for all intents and purposes) experience and produced the T-34 already in 1940...

[@dubsy1026]

What the russians did has little to do with Britian. The BT7 was a cruiser tank, as you say. I see little of the T26s DNA in the T34, but a lot more from the BT 7 (ie Christie suspension). The cruisers, on paper at least, were pretty fast, armed fairly well, and not to expensive. Their main failing was reliability and armour, the the reliability was still ok. They weren't the calibres of engineering a lot of people claim. The main problems were in North Africa with overheating engines. The Covenanter was the worst culprit in that regard. The Cromwell was a good tank, arguably superior to the Sherman. Armour made little difference against things like the long 75 and both 88s. The Cromwell had the same gun performance and was faster, as well as mechanically reliable. Even by the Crusader, things were decent mechanically.

[@taffwob]

One big problem with reliability with the early cruisers was the way they were made. They were built in small numbers with a lot of hand fitting of parts by artisans. They weren't churned out using modular, mass production techniques which led to problem when fitting & replacing of spare parts during maintenance, a lot of adjustment & hand fitting was required, not the best solution, especially in the field where you don't have the luxury of workshops & time.

[@herrajukka]

0:42 captured T-26 with BT-series turret...?

[@rubberwoody]

wait so the vickers medium v8 made 90 hp but half of the same engine made 80 in this tank?

[@caidtcq9339]

i am looking for more info on the vickers 6 ton type E. more precisely his gun. i want to know what was the gun model and what was his ammunition data (velocity/weight/type of explosive if there is)

[@caidtcq9339]

so far i hear there was a OQF 3 pdr 47mm short barrel using 47x351mm shell. i got some uncertain info of AP shell weighted at 1.5kg and with a mussel velocity of 488m/s. but my source is very uncertain.

[@ralach]

great video: i am a bit curious though..are they moving it? (it has ropes attached..but i think that lifting it would sound a bit odd?)

[@Staghound]

ralach I have seen it in person and it is just showing how the loaded it aboard ships for transport to other countries

[@ralach]

Staghound Thank you (have never been to Bovington myself so i have never seen it in person). Much obliged :)

[@opmdevil]

Is that the actual camo? If so, what is the point of having the black liner between the main camo-colors? Did they test that it would work better than a camo with blended fade or is it just that the tank would look nice?

[@Mr-Trox]

I would assume since it was sold to Thailand that camouflage was supposed to be suited to the terrain of where it was being sold to.

[@dukctape]

Yeah, jungle camos of the period (and even now, to an extent) tend to look a bit out of place with their odd palette

[@VaciliNikoMavich]

America trying the tank, is like someone eating free samples in a store, but never buying the product.

[@Fjasjdnwsussj]

Hey can you get me out of history class? I like you as a history teacher.

[@northumbriabushcraft1208]

0:22 elswick works is a 15 min walk from my house

[@MammothPaige]

Nice little tank, but if it took a hit to the front, it could lose it's running gears.

[@Hunter12396]

This was probably the most successful export tank. The only other that comes close in my recollection is the Leopard 1/2 The Russians loved them and produced their own T-26, the Polish made their own variant, the 7TP, the Germans and Finnish used captured Russian T-26s. The Japanese bought some, The Americans tested one, the list goes on.

[@ChristianThePagan]

The Brits did actually sell the Americans some MkIV and Mk.V tanks during WWI.

[@stevenpilling5318]

The AEF wound up using the Renault for its new Tank Corps.

[@carlwesternut2434]

shame us Aussies didn't have these when Japan started in the pacific, we could have given them a good kicking, until supplies came in from Britain and the u.s

[@duckman5642]

what was the export price per tank?

[@maxmccroskey1968]

Why did they always use aircooled engines? Why not just have higher hp engines with radiators

[@woooster17]

max mccroskey Simplicity and reliability I would presume.. take a round in the radiator, and the Tanks out of action.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

He didn't really get around to saying what made it so good though...

[@attilarischt2851]

Was there any difference between front and rear drive? Apart from height and weight distribution.

[@attilarischt2851]

I thought about mechanical stuff, like I don't know less stress on the tracks, or better grip or something. But thanks for pointing it out anyway.

[@lavrentivs9891]

+Attila Rischt One benefit of having a rear drive on a tank is that it's less vulnerable to fire from the front. There might also be a benefit to less loss of hp through the transmission etc. if the engine is closer to the drive. But that varies depending on the quality of the powertrain.

[@gogogomes7025]

This should be one of the best like dislike ratio on youtube

[@pierredecine1936]

Why is your T-26 "Russian" Tank marked Finland ?

[@EllisJohnstone]

It was captured by the Finnish, obviously

[@stijnVDA1994]

Hi, Does anybody know how the recoil was for this tank, im helping out the developers of the game tank mechanic simulator to make the game better..

[@juancarlosmonjecarrasco1595]

Tanque del Ejército Boliviano en la Guerra Del Chaco

[@10willdude]

Werent some of these sent to greece?

[@paulkosoff8851]

yes, one twin-turret and one single-turret.

[@nosuchthingasshould4175]

Three blokes in that turret? They must have all been from a public school eh?

[@hitfan01]

long in the tooth? you brits have the weirdest phrases. i like it

[@lambastepirate]

In the U.S. it is said a lot also along with the saying, {Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.} it means don't inspect the horses teeth to see how old it is. As the horse ages, more of the teeth are exposed due to receding gum line. probably all horse culture people have same basic saying. It probably not in much use with the younger generation though.

[@tacticalbattledroid]

interesting ';-)

[@seanmacuaiteir437]

Why does the T-28 have a swastika on the turret?

[@kmandafirst7874]

Shane Waters the T-26 light tank from Bovington tank museum has the swastika because it was a finish captured example. Used against it's former owners

[@thedarknight5714]

kman dafirst Ain't that a kick...

[@seanmacuaiteir437]

Oh yeah that explains it.I knew it was captured but the nazis would have put the Iron cross.And its not slanted.

[@numnut1987]

Shane Waters en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century

[@emizerri]

It is not a swastika it is a Finnish symbol used before Nazism was a thing please understand

[@alpteknbaser7773]

👍

[@IRELANDSELITE]

What are the ropes for?

[@sethjohnson8021]

Don't quote me on this because I've never been there to see for sure, but I think the rope is there because it looks like its gonna be loaded onto a ship to export it. That's all I could think of

[@kmandafirst7874]

Seth Johnson that's exactly what it's for, the ropes where only there to show how this tank could be hauled onto a ship or onto a flat bed rail carriage

[@nirvana3921]

Can this tank fire armor-piercing bombs? All I know is that Chinese bought many of these tanks before World War II in response to the Japanese invasion.

[@paulkosoff8851]

it had a short gun, but capable of destroying lightly armoured tanks of 1930s.

[@nirvana3921]

@@paulkosoff8851 Yes, in the defense of Nanking and the battle of Shanghai. This tank destroyed many Japanese Type 94 mini tanks and Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks. It also inflicted effective kill and wound on the Japanese infantry.

[@waynethesnowleopard324]

This made the russians the t26 creation

[@ReachForTheSky]

Three men fit in that turret??? and the Russians could only get two men in the T-34 turret?

[@paulkosoff8851]

Two men were in the turret, the driver was in the hull.

[@Ocrilat]

What, the tank doesn't constantly break down? Unacceptable! Export the bugger.

[@paullyon-vv9tb]

👍👍👍👍😁🇺🇲🇬🇧

[@loganater45]

Everyone loves to take a dump on Italian tanks but they were British designs!!!!!

[@ThomasFarquhar2]

The difference is, the British weren't fielding them in 1939

[@loganater45]

@@ThomasFarquhar2 True. As they said it was an export tank!

[@eemelilounela1212]

Who else is here because of Jingles?

[@ozzykulinski896]

British Army in general didn't like Vickers.

[@petethebastard]

Why the ropes on the display?

[@garrisonfellows7191]

Its meant to show it being unloaded from a ship.

[@WanderlustZero]

Experimental balloon-transported airborne reconnaissance tank.