David's moustache is magical. It almost completely covers his mouth, and when he talks, its the only thing that moves, like a cartoon. I can only dream of ever having such a badass moustache
David Fletcher (MBE) - explaining the suspension system on an obscure tank (T14) by referencing the suspension on a slightly less obscure tank (M6 Heavy). He is my spirit animal...
Halinspark That's why the Americans don't call them Infantry tanks! How are you supposed to fight infantry if every single member of the crew doesn't have their own machine gun?
Seven?... That is a very conservative number of machine guns on an American tank. Probably only in Blue prints No less then 10 guns can be on an American Tank. Everyone must have a Machine Gun plus a spare in-case the first one jams and also a third just because.
Well it has 3, and 3 ports and a ring for a commander's hatch mount... so no, it doesn't have less than 7. Worst threat for an AT was always strafing planes. So American tanks almost always had hatch mounted machineguns or the option for one. The idea was, you can't expect infantry to duck for cover walking along the tank and fire a 50 caliber machinegun. Therefore give the busiest man in the tank a machinegun and see what happens. End of the day, the Germans preferred to strafe infantry rather than the tanks. While bombs were still a scary thing, they rarely scored direct hits even from a dive bomber, and the US didn't care about disabled tanks as long as the crew was fine. I think the Churchill had the same reputation, easy to damage by a bomb but quick to get back to action with the same crew.
David Fletcher is a walking tank encyclopedia!! Love the guy, very down to earth, with a subdue sense of humor, so British! The video's are very interesting, can't get enough of them/him!!
_Americans_ : "I hope this ain't another one of those daft infantry tanks". _British_ : "Of course not, old boy. It's an _assault_ tank". _Americans_ :" Now y'r' talkin', buddy !"
Which is funny because that's exactly what the M3 and M4 Sherman were 'designed' to be, U.S. doctrine being TD's and other AT gun platforms being used to specifically deal with enemy armored units, in the early to mid war. Yet, with nothing better, they mass produced Shermans with the hope of using numerical superiority over superior armor and firepower of German designs, when tank to tank combat was realized to be the norm.. Perhaps the reliance on mass production left a bad taste in their mouths for infantry tanks, esp. since their go at it used paper for armor.
@@KomamuraSajin Everything about this is wrong and clearly you have never read us tank or amour doctrine. What used paper as amour the Sherman? Its front amour was almost equal of the tiger. Please actually do some research and learn something
Chad Justice also AT gun platforms were only supposed to be used defensively and never used to pursue an enemy. That was the doctrine at least. So what did we use to kill tanks when attacking? TANKS!
@@KomamuraSajin they had something better, basically equivalent to a Panther all ready to go, developed, tested and everything but mass-produced the Sherman instead for "mobility" except with such narrow treads, the wider tracked pershing was the more mobile option as well.
Frontal armour ofnhe Sherman almost equal to that of the Tiger?? Which version of the Sherman are you talking about? Not the M3/standard version, that's for sure.
Nutz4Gunz45 big grats on a wounderful V10 on wheels! I actually missed the gas pedal on an Audi, pushing the brake pedal instead after driving a Viper for a while. Was quite an the moment. 😉 Driving that death machine messes you up man! Haha! 😍 fyi, the pedals in the Viper is way off to the right...
David has a TANK-COMMENTATOR'S moustache, and rightly so! By God, Sir! If some clean-shaven chap stood up and pretended to be an authority on tanks, then I would NOT believe him! Not one iota!
I saw a video of Americans advancing on St Lô this morning, and they had a couple of tanks going by, exactly like the T14 in appearance. David said they abandoned the oroject, so what were they, t 9:58 hey sermed to be quite smooth and speedy, so maybe its a cruiser version with thinner armour. Same shape hull though.
Great to see Mister Fletcher again, and in a long video about two very rare ranks. I had heard of these models but never knew what their stories were. Thank you!
Pretty good chat about Assault Tanks T14 and A33, thanks Mr. Fletcher. Nice info about this unknown models of AFV. Take a look at 6:17 guys, is possible to look at the right side of the A33 prototype a Panther without the turret and still with battle damage on the fender and the zimmerit with the iron cross. Pretty cool photo. Keep posting this amazing chats David with this wonderful pictures. Thanks
British MoD: Right, so we need a new medium tank! Vickers Armstrong: We already gave you the Cromwell... British MoD: Yes, but more medium! English Electric: *calls designer over and whispers* slap more armor on the Cromwell and call it something else! They'll never know the difference!
This reminds me of something I once read in the book "How to Make War." In the book were some of Murphy's Laws regarding warfare including: "The best defense against a tank is another tank which means the tanks will be busy fighting other tanks and will have no time to help the infantry."
I hope you aren't referring to David Willey. That's not a nice thing to say. Fletcher is great, but Willey's good too, he's also the Curator, which says a lot. I was delighted to brush into Willey briefly at the museum and he seems like a very friendly guy.
forgive me if I said something bad,I love david fletcher,of course.Fletcher started the tank chat series and introduced the "funnies special"(About the 79th armoured division and major General percy Hobart).
Honestly, the T14 seems far more thought out as a vehicle, the A33 just seems like a "Jumbo Cromwell" where as the T14 seems to be sherman based but with an entirely different armor layout, beefed up suspension, more heavily armored bow gun port and various other upgrades, plus the GAF was a legendary engine, it became the heart of the Pershing and all it's upgraded variants over the years till the diesel M48s started rolling out. Plus making use out of Sherman parts is a amazing idea. Like seriously, the Ford V8 was the best tank engine of WW2, eight cylinders, everything on it is so simple a average mechanically inclined person could work on it, where as the Germans and British both choose complicated V12s based on aircraft engines.....and thus suffered heavily to mechanical break downs.
"and British both choose complicated V12s based on aircraft engines.....and thus suffered heavily to mechanical break downs." Except not? The Meteor was very reliable.
Eventually role of T14 was fulfiled by even better design, M4A3E2, which was vastly superior by virtue of being near identical to "standard issue" Sherman. Number of mechanical changes was so small, tank was allowed into service without going through proper acceptance procedure.
Retrosicotte in the field though? I can imagine that the service intervals where different between planes and tanks. And I’m sure that on a domestic airstrip there would have been more spare parts, personel and in means to keep engines running reliably.
Retrosicotte other then then the fact it was not, the British motors where of dubious reliability all though their service life, while better then the German engines, the Russian V12 diesel (that engine is still around, albeit heavily modified) and the Ford V8, both did what the meteor could do with less moving parts and less maintaince. And if you want to keep going, British engines are the downfall of all UK tanks, do I even need to bring up chieftain?
It is amazing how two different armies developed two new tanks that follow a similar design philosophy of two distinctly-different tanks they were already using.
That's the case with every nation really. Everyone followed the tried and true methods and only changed what they had to, so there's a gradual evolution of vehicles over time.
7:30 who ever decided to place the exit there, why oh why did you make the hatch open in the oposite side of the direction of fire not only does this block your escape route but is doesn't provide cover either... so sad
Nicholas Moran ("The Chieftain", WoT) said once that he would love to do a "into the Chieftain s hatch" with the A33, but he can t because there is radioactivity from an broken radio set inside, so i think you can t really restore it :/
Naah only a very very little bit ... the plates from the tank are already enough that standing next to the tank is not dangerous. Chieftain explained it, you can look it up, i think it was one of his "a unoffical tour though the vehicle obsevation centre in bovington" or something like that, he makes very interesting videos.
+Harry Soar: Ha ha ha I was joking of course, but if you want to know something, say something wrong on the internet and someone will correct you :) Thanks for the info - who'd a thought that radium dials were that potent? I could swear that radium dials on watches were a thing, growing up.
What David Fletcher forgot to say is that the A33 Excelsior and the T14 were hastily designed in September 1942 because of the perceived failure of the Churchill I tank. The Churchill I was used in the disastrous Dieppe Raid on the coast of France in June 1942, and nearly all of them failed to get off the beach. But the reason for that was because the beach was a loose, deep pebble beach, not a sandy beach. The Churchill I’s tracks scraped the loose pebbles out from underneath them, digging the tank into the beach until the hull bottom grounded on the surface and it was stuck. This failure was blamed on the Churchill, when actually it was the fault of the planners of the raid itself, who should not have chosen a pebble beach as a landing point. A beach of loose, deep pebbles would have been an almost impossible obstacle for any WW2 tank, so actually the 2 Churchills that succeeded in getting off the beach did amazingly well. Anyway, as a result, the Churchill was out of political favour in summer 1942, hence the search for an alternative. The Churchill redeemed itself in the Battle of El Alamein, Tunisia, Sicily and in Italy, so by the end of 1943, the British Army had no need for the A33 or the T14 anymore.
Tim Smith Bit of a myth about the Churchill and Dieppe there. 30 were to be landed, 29 got off landing craft but two drowned in deep water, so 27 reached the beach, 15 of those made it onto the promenade but could not get any further so 10 returned to the beach to continue supporting and provide cover for the infantry. Most of the 12 that failed to get off the beach were stuck because tracks or idler wheels were shot and damaged by artillery or AT guns. Few were stuck by chert build up and none bellied on it. The beach was covered in Chert a type of smooth pebble, this built up on the inside of the track and caused the track to come off the rear idler wheel. Only a few had this happen. No other tank of the period could have done as well as the Churchills. Most were destroyed by their crews after shooting off their munitions, one was destroyed by the Germans (direct hit from a Ju87), some were captured in good enough order to salvage a few running vehicles from the 29 left behind.
Actually a Churchill was responsible for knocking out the Tiger I in Bovington Tank Museum. A hit on the turret ring jammed the Tiger's turret, and the Tiger's crew panicked and bailed out without setting the demolition charge first. And that's how the British captured their first Tiger I, a coup of great value in early 1943.
Tim Smith Tiger 131 was actually the fourth Tiger to be knocked out by Churchills, the first to be captured in running order or as near as though. It was the 6th known to have been knocked out bý 6pdrs alone all firing standard APCBC as the SVDS (APDS as it was later called) was not around. Tigers at the time did not have a demolition charge in them, the crew was supposed to detonate the stored ammunition by setting a fire or grenades.
I wonder if they had sloped all of the A33's upper glacis (not gust the bottom bit) and put QF3.7inch AA gun/QF 32-pounder would it not have been the best heavy tank of the war?
I love these but to say you cannot do a tank chat from within the museum because of the noise just made me smile - now whilst I might have a problem shooting a broadcast quality video on an ordinary day at the museum I don't have the choice of doing that after all of the public have left like you do!
Milkydrink After the public have left you have the cleaners, alarm systems for external monitoring, costs of lighting, paying staff after hours etc etc etc. Its not just easy to do.
Imagine if the T14 was built with a 17pdr in that turret and ditched the ridiculous sideskirts for something lighter. The British would have probably loved it
I wonder why they didn't equip the T14 with a 105mm howitzer. If it's going to be an "assault" tank backing up infantry, I would think that would be more effective. It would seem to me that the extra weight of the tank would be able to absorb the recoil........just sayin'
But why not to try a 3" gun? Since it's a British project, a 20 cwt AA/16 cwt AT gun could be brought to use, with both good AT and HE capabilities and a short case for ease of loading (and mere 28 cm of recoil!). It obviously excels M3 in both roles.
There was a development of the A33 'Excelsior' known as the A37, which Fletcher briefly references in this video. It was a proposal to upgrade the armour from 114mm to 152mm, and replace the 75mm gun with the QF 17-pdr gun, making it a true Tiger-killing machine. Sadly these proposals never came to light and the A37 didn't make it past concept stage, as there was already a proposal to mount the 17-pdr gun in a development of the already successful Churchill Tank, in the form of the Churchill Black Prince.
Always thought the T14 was a missed opportunity. The British didn't have enough Churchills in practice, so many of their infantry support tank units had to make due with Shermans (hence Independent Armour brigades = Sherman and Independent tank brigades = Churchill). And the Jumbo Sherman showed there was a use in American service, but they only made a couple hundred of those.
Colin Kelly Army Tank Brigades were all equipped with Infantry tanks, they were the only units dedicated to infantry support, you had independent brigades equipped with cruisers/meds for general roles. In Italy some units swapped half their Churchills for Shermans as they had no 75mm armed Churchills (using a mix of 6pdr and 3" howitzer gunned tanks even into 1945), so swapped for better HE (they had higher losses in the Shermans as well with their worse off road ability and mine resistance).
Both Armoured and Tank brigades were infantry support units. The distinction came from there being ones equipped with Churchills and others with Shermans, but they should have all had Churchills had they had enough of them. They had the same task, just one had a heavily armored infantry tank and the other had to make due with a thinner armored cruiser tank.
Don't get me wrong. If I ever got over to Europe. I would love to visit your Museum. But I'd also love to visit your storage facility even more. my God all that armor in one place gives me a chub lol
David's moustache is magical. It almost completely covers his mouth, and when he talks, its the only thing that moves, like a cartoon. I can only dream of ever having such a badass moustache
i can't unsee it now hahaha
A33 = chubby Cromwell
T14 = chubby Sherman
To be fair...the T14 was a natural american evolution..while the A33 seems..weird...there is no food that could make british people that fat^^
@@NashmanNash just ask what Clarkson has been snacking on
tea and crumpets with extra sugar and honey
I'd prefer THICC
David Fletcher (MBE) - explaining the suspension system on an obscure tank (T14) by referencing the suspension on a slightly less obscure tank (M6 Heavy). He is my spirit animal...
lol
In fairness it was also used on the more well known M4A3E8, but cunningly he didn't use that example ;-)
mihajlo olujic when you're as passionate as Mr Fletcher no tank is obscure
mihajlo olujic
mihajlo olujic
"The tank was designed with British use in mind." Hence, fewer than seven machine guns.
Halinspark That's why the Americans don't call them Infantry tanks! How are you supposed to fight infantry if every single member of the crew doesn't have their own machine gun?
Lol
Seven?... That is a very conservative number of machine guns on an American tank. Probably only in Blue prints No less then 10 guns can be on an American Tank. Everyone must have a Machine Gun plus a spare in-case the first one jams and also a third just because.
Well it has 3, and 3 ports and a ring for a commander's hatch mount... so no, it doesn't have less than 7. Worst threat for an AT was always strafing planes. So American tanks almost always had hatch mounted machineguns or the option for one. The idea was, you can't expect infantry to duck for cover walking along the tank and fire a 50 caliber machinegun. Therefore give the busiest man in the tank a machinegun and see what happens. End of the day, the Germans preferred to strafe infantry rather than the tanks. While bombs were still a scary thing, they rarely scored direct hits even from a dive bomber, and the US didn't care about disabled tanks as long as the crew was fine. I think the Churchill had the same reputation, easy to damage by a bomb but quick to get back to action with the same crew.
*laughs in T-35*
The A33 looks like what you'd get if a Churchill and a Cromwell had a baby.
Well, you can think of it as a baby of Churchills role and Cromwell's chassis.
Rob Ashton it looks almost like a baby TOG
no, no it doesn't
And the baby was twice their size.
Excelsior?
US: "Alright I'll put your stupid skirts on!"
British: "Alright I'll call it a bloody assault tank"
Fine! GREAT! YOU SATISFIED?! VERY! GOOD!
I can imagine that is sort of how it went down.
David Fletcher is a walking tank encyclopedia!! Love the guy, very down to earth, with a subdue sense of humor, so British! The video's are very interesting, can't get enough of them/him!!
Nice video yet again.
That old picture of the A33 with the TOG II photbombing in the background like a boss, since TOG does not care...
It was a decent long shot of the tog ii 🌝
At least put the time stamp 7:38
_Americans_ : "I hope this ain't another one of those daft infantry tanks".
_British_ : "Of course not, old boy. It's an _assault_ tank".
_Americans_ :" Now y'r' talkin', buddy !"
Which is funny because that's exactly what the M3 and M4 Sherman were 'designed' to be, U.S. doctrine being TD's and other AT gun platforms being used to specifically deal with enemy armored units, in the early to mid war. Yet, with nothing better, they mass produced Shermans with the hope of using numerical superiority over superior armor and firepower of German designs, when tank to tank combat was realized to be the norm.. Perhaps the reliance on mass production left a bad taste in their mouths for infantry tanks, esp. since their go at it used paper for armor.
@@KomamuraSajin Everything about this is wrong and clearly you have never read us tank or amour doctrine. What used paper as amour the Sherman? Its front amour was almost equal of the tiger. Please actually do some research and learn something
Chad Justice also AT gun platforms were only supposed to be used defensively and never used to pursue an enemy. That was the doctrine at least. So what did we use to kill tanks when attacking? TANKS!
@@KomamuraSajin they had something better, basically equivalent to a Panther all ready to go, developed, tested and everything but mass-produced the Sherman instead for "mobility" except with such narrow treads, the wider tracked pershing was the more mobile option as well.
Frontal armour ofnhe Sherman almost equal to that of the Tiger??
Which version of the Sherman are you talking about? Not the M3/standard version, that's for sure.
I need an audiobook of this man just rambling about tank stuff. I'd listen to it every night to put me to the most delightful sleep.
New Tank Chat? This is a good day!
Yes, yes it is a very good day when another Tank Chat arrives demanding Immediate Viewing.
Tremendously enjoyable series, Big thank you to The Tank Museum
Thanks Mr Fletcher!
The only time The Mighty Jingles lets me out of the salt mines is to watch the new Tank Chats. Keep up the wonderful videos.
Bought a 1994 Viper today, got it home without wrecking to find a new Tank Chat with David Fletcher. Best day ever!
Nutz4Gunz45 yeah and I just got a Ferrari on trade for my PT cruiser!
Viper is legend. Not Autobahn Car, the Tranni gets too hot, but cool car.
partikelsmusic it’s your stereotypical American car. Great in a straight line. In all seriousness they are neat cars but really more of a novelty.
Nutz4Gunz45 big grats on a wounderful V10 on wheels! I actually missed the gas pedal on an Audi, pushing the brake pedal instead after driving a Viper for a while. Was quite an the moment. 😉 Driving that death machine messes you up man! Haha! 😍 fyi, the pedals in the Viper is way off to the right...
Beware of the oil pump failing.
Please do Tank Chats more often!
We don't get enough of your tank chats, mr. Fletcher! :-)👍
*Insert comment about the wonderful moustache of David Fletcher*
David has a TANK-COMMENTATOR'S moustache, and rightly so!
By God, Sir! If some clean-shaven chap stood up and pretended to be an authority on tanks, then I would NOT believe him!
Not one iota!
In truth, David Fletcher is the life support system for the mustache.
His mustache is under The Official Secrets Act.
David Fletcher's moustache vs. Chuck Norris's beard: Discuss.
Stalin's moustache is it's cousin
clicked for the tanks.....stayed for the mustache. Both Bloody Marvelous !!!
A 10min David Fletcher video? Damn that's nice
I saw a video of Americans advancing on St Lô this morning, and they had a couple of tanks going by, exactly like the T14 in appearance. David said they abandoned the oroject, so what were they, t 9:58 hey sermed to be quite smooth and speedy, so maybe its a cruiser version with thinner armour. Same shape hull though.
This is one of, if not the most informative series of videos on the subject of armored vehicles of the early 20th century. Very entertaining.
7:39 tog wanted to be in the photo
The second I saw that I yelled out "TOG!!!"
@@Lockbar ITS tOOOOG
Why is everyone picking on TOG?!
Thanks Dave, and the museum. Always a pleasure to watch, listen, and learn from you.
Great to see Mister Fletcher again, and in a long video about two very rare ranks. I had heard of these models but never knew what their stories were. Thank you!
when I ever get around to visiting England the tank museum is my first stop
Same
You sir are the most stereo typical Brit I've ever seen... I love it
So a Sherman and a Cromwell went to McDonald’s.
Oh no that won't do. You'd never see a Cromwell in a McDonalds, they're far to sophisticated. One too many scones at afternoon tea perhaps?
Lol!!! Your right....it was a burger king.🤣
No, Cromwell would go to Burger Lord Protector.
L G 😂😂😂😂😂
Oh! I know this one! The punch line was "rectom,,,, it nearly killed him!"
Another great Tank Chat by Mr. Fletcher.
Ah Mr Fletcher is back :). We have missed you!
Great video Mr Fletcher. Thank you for all your hard work.
Great information Mr Fletcher!always love hearing you talk about tanks!
With the armored skirt the general silhouette reminds me a bit of the M2 Bradley IFV.
Nice to actually see them on video, the A33 looks like being the model for "Excelsior" in WOT.
Pretty good chat about Assault Tanks T14 and A33, thanks Mr. Fletcher. Nice info about this unknown models of AFV. Take a look at 6:17 guys, is possible to look at the right side of the A33 prototype a Panther without the turret and still with battle damage on the fender and the zimmerit with the iron cross. Pretty cool photo. Keep posting this amazing chats David with this wonderful pictures. Thanks
"Infantry tank!? What nonsense! Assault tank sounds way cooler!"
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945
I really want to go to the tank museum now, also fetchers mustache is solid.
British MoD: Right, so we need a new medium tank!
Vickers Armstrong: We already gave you the Cromwell...
British MoD: Yes, but more medium!
English Electric: *calls designer over and whispers* slap more armor on the Cromwell and call it something else! They'll never know the difference!
“Mom can I have a T-14 armata”
“We have a T-14 at home”
T-14 at home:
This reminds me of something I once read in the book "How to Make War." In the book were some of Murphy's Laws regarding warfare including: "The best defense against a tank is another tank which means the tanks will be busy fighting other tanks and will have no time to help the infantry."
New tank chat! And two rare vehicles!!
“Imfantry” am I the only one hearing that? ;) love these tank chats!! Big fan!! 👊🏼
It's hard to believe there were so many makes, and variants of tanks during the 2 great wars.
I really hope they revisit these two tanks and give them their own Reloaded Tank Chats, they're fascinating!!
David Fletcher is by far my favorite Military Hardware Historian and commentator.
The T14 and the Excel in the same video? Excellent!
7:40 I spot a TOG II*
This little man is so adorable.
The Tank Museum needs to do a world tour - that would be one heavy roadshow , man!
Awesome! Love the T14 and the Excelsior!
who else wants to see Maj. Moran “the chieftain” try to dive through the side hatch of the A33?
I think its a Moran incompatible orifice
The tank overflow one of my favourite places at the tank museum
Thank you for another great video
Can you do a video on Tiger 2?
I agree! I would love to see a chat on the Tiger 2.
Devon Opden Dries the idiot did it not Fletch
I hope you aren't referring to David Willey. That's not a nice thing to say. Fletcher is great, but Willey's good too, he's also the Curator, which says a lot. I was delighted to brush into Willey briefly at the museum and he seems like a very friendly guy.
forgive me if I said something bad,I love david fletcher,of course.Fletcher started the tank chat series and introduced the "funnies special"(About the 79th armoured division and major General percy Hobart).
Sorry John, I meant to reply to tiger cat.
great show David Pete. 🇬🇧
Love watching these vids then building a scale model of it
The T14 always reminds me of an M22 locust that had a heck of a round with a witchdoctor.
Honestly, the T14 seems far more thought out as a vehicle, the A33 just seems like a "Jumbo Cromwell" where as the T14 seems to be sherman based but with an entirely different armor layout, beefed up suspension, more heavily armored bow gun port and various other upgrades, plus the GAF was a legendary engine, it became the heart of the Pershing and all it's upgraded variants over the years till the diesel M48s started rolling out.
Plus making use out of Sherman parts is a amazing idea.
Like seriously, the Ford V8 was the best tank engine of WW2, eight cylinders, everything on it is so simple a average mechanically inclined person could work on it, where as the Germans and British both choose complicated V12s based on aircraft engines.....and thus suffered heavily to mechanical break downs.
With the 76mm gun it would have been quite interesting.
"and British both choose complicated V12s based on aircraft engines.....and thus suffered heavily to mechanical break downs."
Except not? The Meteor was very reliable.
Eventually role of T14 was fulfiled by even better design, M4A3E2, which was vastly superior by virtue of being near identical to "standard issue" Sherman. Number of mechanical changes was so small, tank was allowed into service without going through proper acceptance procedure.
Retrosicotte in the field though? I can imagine that the service intervals where different between planes and tanks. And I’m sure that on a domestic airstrip there would have been more spare parts, personel and in means to keep engines running reliably.
Retrosicotte other then then the fact it was not, the British motors where of dubious reliability all though their service life, while better then the German engines, the Russian V12 diesel (that engine is still around, albeit heavily modified) and the Ford V8, both did what the meteor could do with less moving parts and less maintaince.
And if you want to keep going, British engines are the downfall of all UK tanks, do I even need to bring up chieftain?
Excellent as usual!
Excellent vids, really interesting to learn all about those different tanks👍🇬🇧
Thank you for this film
I could listen to David talk about hot water tanks.
Wear your appreciation for David Fletcher with pride! tankmuseumshop.org/collections/clothing/products/david-fletchers-tank-chat-t-shirt
It is amazing how two different armies developed two new tanks that follow a similar design philosophy of two distinctly-different tanks they were already using.
That's the case with every nation really. Everyone followed the tried and true methods and only changed what they had to, so there's a gradual evolution of vehicles over time.
Wonderful video as usual!
Pilot Model "b"would an 88 cut through it? it looks like depleted Uranium would bounce of it, 2 tonnes of mud and all.
T14 - The heavyweight medium
A33 - The lightweight heavy
I sometimes don't understand tank design...
7:30 who ever decided to place the exit there, why oh why did you make the hatch open in the oposite side of the direction of fire not only does this block your escape route but is doesn't provide cover either...
so sad
One of the only tier 2 American tanks that I ever get deflections off of. I love the look of it too.
I love this man
I really have liked the T14! Are you thinking about restoring it?
Nicholas Moran ("The Chieftain", WoT) said once that he would love to do a "into the Chieftain s hatch" with the A33, but he can t because there is radioactivity from an broken radio set inside, so i think you can t really restore it :/
+Lukse: What? Nuclear-powered radios? What will they think of next?
Naah only a very very little bit ... the plates from the tank are already enough that standing next to the tank is not dangerous.
Chieftain explained it, you can look it up, i think it was one of his "a unoffical tour though the vehicle obsevation centre in bovington" or something like that, he makes very interesting videos.
+Harry Soar: Ha ha ha I was joking of course, but if you want to know something, say something wrong on the internet and someone will correct you :) Thanks for the info - who'd a thought that radium dials were that potent? I could swear that radium dials on watches were a thing, growing up.
There we habe the exact reason of the radiation, thank you!
I need go for a few pints with David one day. Could absorb his wisdom for hours
I'd like to see the inside of the T14. It's got some kind of cool factor with me.
When fletchers time comes to go to heavens military museum every military historian will cry for 200 years
This is the baby m6. Slope armour . Didnt know existed. Thanks Sir
What David Fletcher forgot to say is that the A33 Excelsior and the T14 were hastily designed in September 1942 because of the perceived failure of the Churchill I tank. The Churchill I was used in the disastrous Dieppe Raid on the coast of France in June 1942, and nearly all of them failed to get off the beach. But the reason for that was because the beach was a loose, deep pebble beach, not a sandy beach. The Churchill I’s tracks scraped the loose pebbles out from underneath them, digging the tank into the beach until the hull bottom grounded on the surface and it was stuck. This failure was blamed on the Churchill, when actually it was the fault of the planners of the raid itself, who should not have chosen a pebble beach as a landing point. A beach of loose, deep pebbles would have been an almost impossible obstacle for any WW2 tank, so actually the 2 Churchills that succeeded in getting off the beach did amazingly well.
Anyway, as a result, the Churchill was out of political favour in summer 1942, hence the search for an alternative. The Churchill redeemed itself in the Battle of El Alamein, Tunisia, Sicily and in Italy, so by the end of 1943, the British Army had no need for the A33 or the T14 anymore.
Tim Smith Bit of a myth about the Churchill and Dieppe there.
30 were to be landed, 29 got off landing craft but two drowned in deep water, so 27 reached the beach, 15 of those made it onto the promenade but could not get any further so 10 returned to the beach to continue supporting and provide cover for the infantry.
Most of the 12 that failed to get off the beach were stuck because tracks or idler wheels were shot and damaged by artillery or AT guns. Few were stuck by chert build up and none bellied on it.
The beach was covered in Chert a type of smooth pebble, this built up on the inside of the track and caused the track to come off the rear idler wheel. Only a few had this happen. No other tank of the period could have done as well as the Churchills.
Most were destroyed by their crews after shooting off their munitions, one was destroyed by the Germans (direct hit from a Ju87), some were captured in good enough order to salvage a few running vehicles from the 29 left behind.
David did reference the bad name the Churchill got in the video, he just didn't spell it out in full
Actually a Churchill was responsible for knocking out the Tiger I in Bovington Tank Museum. A hit on the turret ring jammed the Tiger's turret, and the Tiger's crew panicked and bailed out without setting the demolition charge first. And that's how the British captured their first Tiger I, a coup of great value in early 1943.
Tim Smith Tiger 131 was actually the fourth Tiger to be knocked out by Churchills, the first to be captured in running order or as near as though. It was the 6th known to have been knocked out bý 6pdrs alone all firing standard APCBC as the SVDS (APDS as it was later called) was not around.
Tigers at the time did not have a demolition charge in them, the crew was supposed to detonate the stored ammunition by setting a fire or grenades.
I wonder if they had sloped all of the A33's upper glacis (not gust the bottom bit) and put QF3.7inch AA gun/QF 32-pounder would it not have been the best heavy tank of the war?
I love these but to say you cannot do a tank chat from within the museum because of the noise just made me smile - now whilst I might have a problem shooting a broadcast quality video on an ordinary day at the museum I don't have the choice of doing that after all of the public have left like you do!
Milkydrink After the public have left you have the cleaners, alarm systems for external monitoring, costs of lighting, paying staff after hours etc etc etc. Its not just easy to do.
Imagine if the T14 was built with a 17pdr in that turret and ditched the ridiculous sideskirts for something lighter. The British would have probably loved it
Be still thy beating heart, a new tank chat!
I'd never heard of these tanks before. Thanks David I wish you were my uncle.
Tanks mr
Love this tank stuff
''...seems a strange way to go but its the only way they could think of.'' hahaha
I wonder why they didn't equip the T14 with a 105mm howitzer. If it's going to be an "assault" tank backing up infantry, I would think that would be more effective. It would seem to me that the extra weight of the tank would be able to absorb the recoil........just sayin'
faster reloading
Slower reload and 75 mm more multipurpose
They could have put it in the hull. And put extra machine guns in the turret to make up for lost bow machinegun.
But why not to try a 3" gun? Since it's a British project, a 20 cwt AA/16 cwt AT gun could be brought to use, with both good AT and HE capabilities and a short case for ease of loading (and mere 28 cm of recoil!). It obviously excels M3 in both roles.
Love the t14 on WOT working on my 3rd mark with it.
There was a development of the A33 'Excelsior' known as the A37, which Fletcher briefly references in this video.
It was a proposal to upgrade the armour from 114mm to 152mm, and replace the 75mm gun with the QF 17-pdr gun, making it a true Tiger-killing machine.
Sadly these proposals never came to light and the A37 didn't make it past concept stage, as there was already a proposal to mount the 17-pdr gun in a development of the already successful Churchill Tank, in the form of the Churchill Black Prince.
Tarix819 ah thank you. I was wondering why it looked so similar to the excelsior
Watch Wargaming come out with the A37 now. They’ve made tanks out of anything with a blueprint
Nick Rowe WG Don't even need a blueprint to make tanks. Most of their new ones have come out of thin air and are made-up
I like the picture of the tank with “KEEP OFF” written on the front; that’ll give Jerry a scare!
These two are very interesting vehicles.
Very interesting vehicles.
Super armor up a Sherman and Cromwell, you get a T14 and A33. Rival projects that were never needed. Sounds like most military projects
The T-14 is an awesome looking tank, it's a damn shame it wasn't developed further.
Thanks.
That three tone camo on the A33 I don't think I have seen before on a British vehicle.
Always thought the T14 was a missed opportunity. The British didn't have enough Churchills in practice, so many of their infantry support tank units had to make due with Shermans (hence Independent Armour brigades = Sherman and Independent tank brigades = Churchill). And the Jumbo Sherman showed there was a use in American service, but they only made a couple hundred of those.
Colin Kelly Army Tank Brigades were all equipped with Infantry tanks, they were the only units dedicated to infantry support, you had independent brigades equipped with cruisers/meds for general roles.
In Italy some units swapped half their Churchills for Shermans as they had no 75mm armed Churchills (using a mix of 6pdr and 3" howitzer gunned tanks even into 1945), so swapped for better HE (they had higher losses in the Shermans as well with their worse off road ability and mine resistance).
Both Armoured and Tank brigades were infantry support units. The distinction came from there being ones equipped with Churchills and others with Shermans, but they should have all had Churchills had they had enough of them. They had the same task, just one had a heavily armored infantry tank and the other had to make due with a thinner armored cruiser tank.
Just wondering if any significant pre-production vehicles being shared across the Atlantic, were lost at sea?
Like your new haircut David :)
I want to know about that yellow Churchill behind it
Will there be a tank chat about the M26 Pershing? (I don't know if you have it in the museum though)
Don't get me wrong. If I ever got over to Europe. I would love to visit your Museum. But I'd also love to visit your storage facility even more. my God all that armor in one place gives me a chub lol
At 6:18 the "Please Keep Off " stenciled on the hull . Seems to me something very British about that .