@Nick Popplewell Rumour is, there are plans to have him stuffed and mounted at the tank museum when it's time to hang up his quill and ink. I wonder what the AFV's are like in the afterlife? Let's be honest, it wouldn't be quite so heavenly without them, would it.
That’s because he’s Old School: from a time when me were men and women were women; we didn’t need various ‘pronouns’ to address ‘non-binary people’; people said what they thought; we didn’t give participation medals; and virtue signalling was mocked as banal and tawdry. You know…. The good old days.
Still, better than being in the infantry. 14mm of armor is better than 0mm. And having a vehicle is better than marching. That's the highest praise this vehicle can hope for.
Only ONE of the several reasons why David's "chats" are such a delight is his ability to cast scorn upon a vehicle in his own special way. And, then, with his immense knowledge and experience, detail completely why he said so. Cheers from the other side of "The Pond", hard by Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Thoroughly enjoyable 'chat', David. I listened with amusement and early on heard the words "most of them were completely useless". Your bluntness is what makes these 'chats' so interesting.
Seventy BHP, mid-engined, double wishbones at the front and a legs-straight-out driving position? Well if Jerry catches us at Brands Hatch we'll show him a clean pair of heels!
Thank you for making the morning funny, Sir David. We are under COVID lockdown here in Adelaide, Australia, but your tank chats always make the day better, lockdown notwithstanding. The Morris armoured car reminds me of another one of their products: the Mini Moke. Useless as a proper car, but a favourite of some people.
I love these videos and never tire of them. This vehicle does remind me of the Dads Army upside down bathtub and shotgun though! In fairness off road is good, the armour is OK and it does have a turret. It was probably quite a handy vehicle to have around!
I think Mr.Fletcher may have went a bit hard on this vehicle. With the AT rifle and Bren provided, along with its speed and armor enough to stop small arms, it seems like quite a reasonable scouting vehicle. It could reasonably engage pretty well any infantry or light vehicle (a hanomag or an opel blitz) it encountered (since there were only so many panzers, especially in 1944) and scoot away fast enough. If it had a radio equipped and a nicer arrangement for the driver, I imagine it would be quite good.
Was the Boys rifle truly useless? The Soviets seemed to like their PTRD, and a Sdkfz 222 isn't going to appreciate being shot by one. It's not a tank killer, but Germany had plenty of lighter armored vehicles.
@@alessiodecarolis very true - getting hold of them in 1940 was a bit tricky though, and the AT rifles of the UK, USSR, (and Finland, and Switzerland) and Nazi Germany endured until hollow charge weapons took over.
And to this day we have - antimateriel rifles to deal with vulnerable elements of vehicles and infrastructure, and the Boys was not at all truly useless... you have to go a long way into 1941/1942 until the Axis could field a tank in numbers that the Boys could not take from the front OR the flank. It's David's way... black and white, and as outdated as some of the vehicles he reviews.
@@alessiodecarolis Sure an M2 would have been more capable, but considering the situation it may not have been practical. The Boys (and it's ammunition) was available, in service, and on production in Britain. M2s (and the .50 BMG) were not in British Army service at the time this went into production, they were using the .50 Vickers which was being replaced by the 15mm Besa for heavy machineguns, and those were allocated to better vehicles like the Humber Armoured Car. M2s would only arrive in numbers for the Army in 1942 with lend-lease Shermans. They were also only in production by Colt in the US (with FN in Nazi hands) and presumably in short supply due to the demands of the expanding US Armed Forces. The M2 is also physically a lot bigger and heavier than a Boys and would consume a lot more ammunition, so it wasn't all better. And even if the wasn't ideal it doesn't mean the Boys was useless. This whole vehicle was made on the idea of "something is better than nothing" while new, better things were being put into service.
If the Germans had attempted Operation Sealion in 1940, they would have come ashore with no armour and no antitank artillery. Even poor armoured cars could have had some play then.
quite right; the Bren gun alone makes it useful, let alone the antitank rifle. Not every target was armoured, not every armoured target could withstand the antitank rifle, even if it took a flank shot.
@@Simon_Nonymous Yes, anti-tank rifles were certainly a significant threat to German tanks on the Eastern Front and were why many panzers were fitted with side skirts
@@user-propositionjoe It was not a good vehicle if German armour was around, but Operation Sealion would have only got infantry ashore, who could not have been resupplied without the capture of a British port. Forward ahead to 1944 and the Allies were able to land tanks in Normandy and brought over two of their own harbours.
Used to have one of the Mk 2 4 wheel drive versions and it was great fun to drive.It would easily do 50mph but there was no servo on the brakes so stopping was a bit interesting at times but other traffic would just get out of your way.It was registed as an agricultural vehicle in the old log book as ADX614. I think it was at The Tank Museum,don't know if it still is,was it the one that was taken to Holland? Still have the driver handbook,workshop manual some other paperwork and a blue print drawing from Morris.Loved it.
Noticed the AT rifle missing from the vehicles in the historical photos. I guess the engineers used them just because they were readily available, you don't need an effective fighting vehicle to carry stuff around behind the front and having some armor plating doesn't hurt, even if it's unlikely that you'll actually need it.
I recall reading that the British Army considered them "adequate" so kept them around to make up the numbers in secondary roles saving the proper armoured cars for front line duty.
That is sort of the irony of the British throughout most of WW2: despite having superior productivity to the Germans, most of the designs being produced were not very capable by comparison. You look at how many tanks the British produced compared to the Germans, the numbers are staggeringly in the British favor, but then you look at what tanks they were actually making...well let us say most of their designs weren't particularly impressive.
They made up for bad designs in WWII with the Centurion post-war. The Matilda was good for a pre-war tank and the Churchill was adequate for it's design as a infantry tank.
@@genericpersonx333 The British had plenty of good armoured cars , I'd rather get around in a damiler armour car than any German one, maybe the Puma competes but that's a way larger armoured car and then I'd rather the AEC if we're insisting on being in a large vehicle while trying to carry out reconnaissance. I'd also argue the army came 3rd for priority for England in ww2 after the RAF and RN
@@mathewkelly9968 Oh for sure, the proper British armored cars were perfectly capable vehicles, but the point I was making is that the British made a lot of bad vehicles in greater numbers than the Germans tended to make of any of their vehicles, good or bad. If you add up all the bad cruiser tanks Britain fielded before they deployed Cromwell, it is more than total production of Panzer III, with some 9,400+ vehicles, all deemed "unsuccessful" to use the official British term. Even the lousiest Panzer III variant was generally a better tank than any of the Cruisers up to Cromwell, but lord, did they make a lot of them in a hurry. The same goes for the Morris here: they made 2,200 of them! Here was a car that might have been impressive in 1935 being fielded in 1943, in very large numbers, when it was rather obvious that it could do little that could not be done cheaper by a jeep, which the British had plenty of. That is my point: the irony that the British were so good at mass-production that they could outbuild the Germans in most areas, and yet they put so much of that production in rather dubious products.
You don't know what you are talking about. After Dunkirk the Wehrmacht used thousands of captured Morris trucks, printed up parts manuals for them, and even rebodied large numbers as gun tractors and for other specialist roles; a large number were recaptured in France after D-Day, still going strong.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Of course I am thinking of BL Morris :P It's what we grew up with after all. That being said, british motor industry has always been garbage, from my understanding.
The Boys Anti-Tank rifle wasn't quite useless. The Finns found it useful fighting against the T-26, and it was capable of beat a Panzer I and II. But that was it's limit, and ATR quickly dated out of usefulness....
I've heard stories of it bet used against German planei at the beachy of Dunkirk...it would be a bad day out to have armour petrcing round through your engine.
@@roybennett6330 I'm not aware of that specifically, but there was a combat doctrine for shooting rifles at planes. During the Spanish Civil War it was discovered that on slower planes (most notably the Ju87) a well-timed volley of rifle fire had a decent chance of hitting something important.
Sir, I respectfully submit to you that while this was clearly inferior to anything like a tank it would remain utile for anti-infantry duties even today if not for modern IED's. A friend of mine died in Iraq in 2ØØ5 when he was forced to try to move a vehicle blocking the road with his HMMVV- The car was a car bomb intended to destroy a _TANK,_ but the M-1 Abrams couldn't get down the alley as it was too narrow, so the bomb exploded taking the Humvee instead. This thing, your Morris Light Recon Car, would probably have been destroyed in the blast but the crew would have survived (if they were inside the vehicle at least). It's old technology, but not "daft" sir.
Flat underside is also cited as the reason why the VW Kübelwagen had good cross country performance. It would would propel itself much like a motorised sled when its wheels were sinking into sand, snow, or mud.
hehe "Parthian Shot" that will be puzzling for some as a lot of people today would say "parting shot" not even know who a Parthian was or what they were shooting :) in any case fun video I'm glad David thinks this was the best car ever made its clear in his tone of admiration that he's so happy this war winning vehicle is here in the museum ! right ? errrr
Possibly more limited than you think. The Bren could be dismounted and carried by one man, the Browning cannot. The Bren and the Boys together give more options than Browning alone.
I believe I've seen one of these in pictures from the Malayan Emergency in use with the Special Constabulary while they were goofing off with some British civilians
It does not surprise me them still being in service after the war!! I was driving Bedford 4ton trucks that were brand new when my dad joined the Army 25yrs earlier!! 😂😂😂
Like most of us, I daresay, I view david fletcher as something of a legend. But this was a strangely damning critique of a vehicle that clearly did have a use - not in combat but in policing duties.
@Real Aiglon i think they were made after the Islands got ocupied. But on the bright side: no Anglo French disputes back then. So big suckcess for the german erm "peacekeeping effort"
Compared to the other two vehicles shown this one is a lot more attractive. The others look old and thinly veiled as armored cars. This one looks purposefully built.
David says the Boy's anti-tank rifle was useless, and he's not the first person who I've heard express that sentiment. However, the Russians found anti-tank rifles quite useful on the eastern front. I've heard a number of armor experts say that the armor skirts (Schürzen) on German tanks were fitted expressly to ad extra protection against anti-tank rifles. Does anyone know off the top of their head what the difference was? Did the Russians just build a better anti-tank rifle or what?
Yes the Russian anti tank rifles were much more powerful, something like 50% more muzzle energy. Nothing special about them, just developed later in the war with a more realistic idea of what it takes to actually penetrate a tank even up close.
The Russian PTRD (14.5x114mm) ATR was penetrating the vertical 40mm side armor above the road wheels of panthers in 1944. The Wehrmacht had to upgrade Panthers with "schurzen" (5-6mm spaced armor on the sides) to defend against them. PTRDs are still used in conflicts in Donbass and Syria today. So no, the Boys (about 14mm) wouldn't have been useless. It was not as good as the PTRD, but a simple search will tell you that it penetrated 23mm of armor at 100 meters. That would be enough to penetrate all the SDKFZ 250s, 251s, 222s, 223s, and so on.
Quite roomy and with space to attach gear on the rear, they would have been ideal for engineers. But they would also probably have worked well as staff cars where there was the danger of snipers.
I'll bet that what kept them going for so long might well have been reliability. I have absolutely no evidence for this, but nothing endears a piece of kit to an owner like dependability. That's what my wife tells me, anyhow.
yup - cheap, reliable, easily mass manufactured on existing tooling... did what they were expected to do (reconnaisance, general liaison, NOT go head to head with a PzKpw IV H) but that's useless is it?
David Fletcher's sarcasm and damning with faint praise is just what makes these videos so wonderful to watch.
He has a distinctive and amusing way of tiddling on the AFV designers chips, while remaining partly concealed under facial hair.
@Nick Popplewell Rumour is, there are plans to have him stuffed and mounted at the tank museum when it's time to hang up his quill and ink. I wonder what the AFV's are like in the afterlife?
Let's be honest, it wouldn't be quite so heavenly without them, would it.
He's a bit of a one off isnt he.
That’s because he’s Old School: from a time when me were men and women were women; we didn’t need various ‘pronouns’ to address ‘non-binary people’; people said what they thought; we didn’t give participation medals; and virtue signalling was mocked as banal and tawdry. You know…. The good old days.
It looks like David is the kind of person you want nearby on a hot, sunny, day since he seems to have all kinds of shade to throw around. ;)
His mustache is a natural umbrella.
So true! 😅
Savage 😹
He just tells it like it is haha
Harsh...but fair!
"... and it was utterly useless."
Mr. Fletcher, you're an absolute ace.
Still, better than being in the infantry. 14mm of armor is better than 0mm. And having a vehicle is better than marching. That's the highest praise this vehicle can hope for.
But in a vehicle you cannot hide in a trench or foxhole, you can be heard from afar, and you will attract a lot of attention and fire.
Bullet magnet with 14mm armour.
@@sergiojuanmembiela6223 So what your saying, is you want it to get to the frontline, breakdown, then use it as a decoy or cover
You can jump into a ditch if you are on foot. In a thinly armoured vehicle, not so much.
For sure! A bad ride is always better than a good walk! I prefer a ride over the GP express anyday :)
This armored car's service life is a good example of nothing is as permanent solution as temporary solution is.
Yep. There's a "temporary" WW2 Bailey Bridge been in place here in Cumbria since 1968.
"It meets minimum requirements, we've already paid for it, and you're cheaper to replace than it is."
And every armoured vehicle designed for "training" has been used in actual conflicts.
Another excellent, amusing and insightful video from the incomparable David Fletcher! Thank you.
Only ONE of the several reasons why David's "chats" are such a delight is his ability to cast scorn upon a vehicle in his own special way. And, then, with his immense knowledge and experience, detail completely why he said so. Cheers from the other side of "The Pond", hard by Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada.
I somehow get the impression that David is not impressed with this vehicle...
I am not too sure but you may well be correct..
"it's in good condition otherwise."
Nope Sir, he just said it's completely useless which means... Well, Maybe you are right
@@yolanda231000 "it's in good condition otherwise." Best ranking mark of any tank/armored vehicle ever.
He was trying to come up with some positives of the vehicle but couldn't.
Thoroughly enjoyable 'chat', David.
I listened with amusement and early on heard the words "most of them were completely useless". Your bluntness is what makes these 'chats' so interesting.
"It's an example you wanna keep quiet about" Someone should compose a David Fletcher quote book.
I look forward to David's tank chat on the Ajax :)
Hilarious 😂. We may not have to wait long!
The shade David's closing remarks is a thing of beauty.
David truly is the treasure of this collection.
Seventy BHP, mid-engined, double wishbones at the front and a legs-straight-out driving position? Well if Jerry catches us at Brands Hatch we'll show him a clean pair of heels!
Not only that, but the driving position is in the middle, just like a McLaren F1!
And the rear wheels are shrouded! That's some forward thinking aerodynamics there 😂
Thank you for making the morning funny, Sir David. We are under COVID lockdown here in Adelaide, Australia, but your tank chats always make the day better, lockdown notwithstanding. The Morris armoured car reminds me of another one of their products: the Mini Moke. Useless as a proper car, but a favourite of some people.
I love these videos and never tire of them. This vehicle does remind me of the Dads Army upside down bathtub and shotgun though! In fairness off road is good, the armour is OK and it does have a turret. It was probably quite a handy vehicle to have around!
I think Mr.Fletcher may have went a bit hard on this vehicle. With the AT rifle and Bren provided, along with its speed and armor enough to stop small arms, it seems like quite a reasonable scouting vehicle. It could reasonably engage pretty well any infantry or light vehicle (a hanomag or an opel blitz) it encountered (since there were only so many panzers, especially in 1944) and scoot away fast enough. If it had a radio equipped and a nicer arrangement for the driver, I imagine it would be quite good.
Was the Boys rifle truly useless? The Soviets seemed to like their PTRD, and a Sdkfz 222 isn't going to appreciate being shot by one. It's not a tank killer, but Germany had plenty of lighter armored vehicles.
Quite good again trucks,and personal
Yes, but a M2HB is waay more useful/pratical/flexible, this is the reason that US Army (wisely) never adopted any AT rifle
@@alessiodecarolis very true - getting hold of them in 1940 was a bit tricky though, and the AT rifles of the UK, USSR, (and Finland, and Switzerland) and Nazi Germany endured until hollow charge weapons took over.
And to this day we have - antimateriel rifles to deal with vulnerable elements of vehicles and infrastructure, and the Boys was not at all truly useless... you have to go a long way into 1941/1942 until the Axis could field a tank in numbers that the Boys could not take from the front OR the flank. It's David's way... black and white, and as outdated as some of the vehicles he reviews.
@@alessiodecarolis Sure an M2 would have been more capable, but considering the situation it may not have been practical. The Boys (and it's ammunition) was available, in service, and on production in Britain. M2s (and the .50 BMG) were not in British Army service at the time this went into production, they were using the .50 Vickers which was being replaced by the 15mm Besa for heavy machineguns, and those were allocated to better vehicles like the Humber Armoured Car. M2s would only arrive in numbers for the Army in 1942 with lend-lease Shermans. They were also only in production by Colt in the US (with FN in Nazi hands) and presumably in short supply due to the demands of the expanding US Armed Forces.
The M2 is also physically a lot bigger and heavier than a Boys and would consume a lot more ammunition, so it wasn't all better.
And even if the wasn't ideal it doesn't mean the Boys was useless. This whole vehicle was made on the idea of "something is better than nothing" while new, better things were being put into service.
I always enjoy a presentation by David. He brings a smile to my face and educates me at the same time.
If the Germans had attempted Operation Sealion in 1940, they would have come ashore with no armour and no antitank artillery. Even poor armoured cars could have had some play then.
quite right; the Bren gun alone makes it useful, let alone the antitank rifle. Not every target was armoured, not every armoured target could withstand the antitank rifle, even if it took a flank shot.
@@Simon_Nonymous Yes, anti-tank rifles were certainly a significant threat to German tanks on the Eastern Front and were why many panzers were fitted with side skirts
Are you really triggered by him calling this thing useless?
@@user-propositionjoe It was not a good vehicle if German armour was around, but Operation Sealion would have only got infantry ashore, who could not have been resupplied without the capture of a British port. Forward ahead to 1944 and the Allies were able to land tanks in Normandy and brought over two of their own harbours.
@@tomgoff7887 The discussion here is 1940 and Operation Sealion, for which these armoured cars were rushed into service.
Used by the RAF Regt for base defence. Quite good for that.
What were they doing with it? A 5th rate ride beats a first class march.
2020 hindsight is really an afterthought.
driving forward ahead of the rest of the British Army to find the enemy?
Hope I live to see the day David gets enthusiastic about one of these old vehicles.
I don't think Mr Fletcher is an enthusiast for the Boys rifle.
A realist.
Used to have one of the Mk 2 4 wheel drive versions and it was great fun to drive.It would easily do 50mph but there was no servo on the brakes so stopping was a bit interesting at times but other traffic would just get out of your way.It was registed as an agricultural vehicle in the old log book as ADX614. I think it was at The Tank Museum,don't know if it still is,was it the one that was taken to Holland? Still have the driver handbook,workshop manual some other paperwork and a blue print drawing from Morris.Loved it.
Noticed the AT rifle missing from the vehicles in the historical photos. I guess the engineers used them just because they were readily available, you don't need an effective fighting vehicle to carry stuff around behind the front and having some armor plating doesn't hurt, even if it's unlikely that you'll actually need it.
my first thought on hearing the engineers were using them was "beats walking"
Thank you , Mr Fletcher .
I love these quirky little "armored" vehicles.
I recall reading that the British Army considered them "adequate" so kept them around to make up the numbers in secondary roles saving the proper armoured cars for front line duty.
That is sort of the irony of the British throughout most of WW2: despite having superior productivity to the Germans, most of the designs being produced were not very capable by comparison. You look at how many tanks the British produced compared to the Germans, the numbers are staggeringly in the British favor, but then you look at what tanks they were actually making...well let us say most of their designs weren't particularly impressive.
They made up for bad designs in WWII with the Centurion post-war. The Matilda was good for a pre-war tank and the Churchill was adequate for it's design as a infantry tank.
@@genericpersonx333 The British had plenty of good armoured cars , I'd rather get around in a damiler armour car than any German one, maybe the Puma competes but that's a way larger armoured car and then I'd rather the AEC if we're insisting on being in a large vehicle while trying to carry out reconnaissance. I'd also argue the army came 3rd for priority for England in ww2 after the RAF and RN
@@mathewkelly9968 Oh for sure, the proper British armored cars were perfectly capable vehicles, but the point I was making is that the British made a lot of bad vehicles in greater numbers than the Germans tended to make of any of their vehicles, good or bad.
If you add up all the bad cruiser tanks Britain fielded before they deployed Cromwell, it is more than total production of Panzer III, with some 9,400+ vehicles, all deemed "unsuccessful" to use the official British term. Even the lousiest Panzer III variant was generally a better tank than any of the Cruisers up to Cromwell, but lord, did they make a lot of them in a hurry.
The same goes for the Morris here: they made 2,200 of them! Here was a car that might have been impressive in 1935 being fielded in 1943, in very large numbers, when it was rather obvious that it could do little that could not be done cheaper by a jeep, which the British had plenty of.
That is my point: the irony that the British were so good at mass-production that they could outbuild the Germans in most areas, and yet they put so much of that production in rather dubious products.
Not to mention their decision to stick with the 2 pounder gun until pretty late in the war in the europe
The bad: its utterly useless, they should have scrapped it, they were daft to use it.
The good: its in good condition
Strangely enough, I've always rather liked the look of this thing, although don't mistake that for a second for any desire to go to war in one...
Fun video on a Morris Motors built vehicle. The only improvement I could have suggested would have been to drop a piano on it at the end.
"it's an example you'd keep quiet about, if you can"
"The front wheels are purely for steering..."
... and for stopping the front from making a scrapping noise as it rolls along.
I love David's concise summary at the beginning there, lol
8:05 Making cars that don't run was one of Morris Motor's specialities :D.
You don't know what you are talking about. After Dunkirk the Wehrmacht used thousands of captured Morris trucks, printed up parts manuals for them, and even rebodied large numbers as gun tractors and for other specialist roles; a large number were recaptured in France after D-Day, still going strong.
Morris built good vehicles but their military ones were nearly all under powered. Don't confuse Morris with the Donald Stokes era BL
Morris Mini and Morris 1000? With plenty of them still running on UK roads to this day!
@@davidjones332 The germans used large numbers of everything they could get their hands on because they were resource starved.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Of course I am thinking of BL Morris :P It's what we grew up with after all.
That being said, british motor industry has always been garbage, from my understanding.
If this was Thomas the Tank character I think it'd be called Morris. Looks like a Morris.
i see David Fletcher, i like xD, the man is great
Fletcher your brethren have miss you, your knowledge and your glorious moustache. Enlighten us on these triumphant steel beasts once more.
Interesting video as usual thank you for sharing.
Royal Engineers got the Morris hand me down no different then any other Engineers in any Army with equipment once the grunts wear them out
I love how Dave Fletcher says there is not a lot more to say about a vehicle and then says a lot more :D
What knowledge, what honesty.!! David , Perfect presentation .. Brilliant... Scott Somerset
Mr Fletcher never fails to make me laugh out loud. 😂Hope he´s enjoying his retirement!🤞
Outstanding as always
The Boys Anti-Tank rifle wasn't quite useless. The Finns found it useful fighting against the T-26, and it was capable of beat a Panzer I and II. But that was it's limit, and ATR quickly dated out of usefulness....
I've heard stories of it bet used against German planei at the beachy of Dunkirk...it would be a bad day out to have armour petrcing round through your engine.
@@roybennett6330 I'm not aware of that specifically, but there was a combat doctrine for shooting rifles at planes. During the Spanish Civil War it was discovered that on slower planes (most notably the Ju87) a well-timed volley of rifle fire had a decent chance of hitting something important.
"You think they would have done away with them, but OH NO!" LOL!
Bristish sarcasm is the best sarcasm...
EVEN IF IT HELPS TRAINING ITS WORTH SOMETHING 👌 .
Exactly.
Best Friday, ever!
Sir,
I respectfully submit to you that while this was clearly inferior to anything like a tank it would remain utile for anti-infantry duties even today if not for modern IED's.
A friend of mine died in Iraq in 2ØØ5 when he was forced to try to move a vehicle blocking the road with his HMMVV- The car was a car bomb intended to destroy a _TANK,_ but the M-1 Abrams couldn't get down the alley as it was too narrow, so the bomb exploded taking the Humvee instead. This thing, your Morris Light Recon Car, would probably have been destroyed in the blast but the crew would have survived (if they were inside the vehicle at least). It's old technology, but not "daft" sir.
Flat underside is also cited as the reason why the VW Kübelwagen had good cross country performance. It would would propel itself much like a motorised sled when its wheels were sinking into sand, snow, or mud.
hehe "Parthian Shot" that will be puzzling for some as a lot of people today would say "parting shot" not even know who a Parthian was or what they were shooting :)
in any case fun video I'm glad David thinks this was the best car ever made its clear in his tone of admiration that he's so happy this war winning vehicle is here in the museum ! right ? errrr
Don't hold back David, tell us how you really feel!.
whenver i see David Fletcher i imagine he should be talking about vintage lawn-mowers... am i alone in thinking this??
Wonderfull to see two of those 'non-sexy' vehicles that never made it into the movies, books, or miniature sets.
You'd be amazed what you can get a model of these days... www.hannants.co.uk/product/HLP72031?result-token=3ozot
@@MrHws5mp wonderfull site, and on miniatures you got me there 😋 shows that I'm about 20 years behind on modeling.
Abut 4 years too late. Interesting camouflage. The Boys would be a good anti-vehicular weapon but, yeah an M2HB would be a better option.
Possibly more limited than you think. The Bren could be dismounted and carried by one man, the Browning cannot. The Bren and the Boys together give more options than Browning alone.
It's almost a standard opening with British vehicles in this series: it was utterly useless but we'll take a look at it anyway. Love it.
I believe I've seen one of these in pictures from the Malayan Emergency in use with the Special Constabulary while they were goofing off with some British civilians
Well at least thats one Morris that didnt rust away like the rest did by design.
It does not surprise me them still being in service after the war!! I was driving Bedford 4ton trucks that were brand new when my dad joined the Army 25yrs earlier!! 😂😂😂
The architecture looks so much like a Panhard 178, any influence between the two vehicles?
It wasnt totally useless. Made a good subject for this video didnt it? :P
Like most of us, I daresay, I view david fletcher as something of a legend. But this was a strangely damning critique of a vehicle that clearly did have a use - not in combat but in policing duties.
Sir David on top form! One of his very best tank chats!
OMG you did NOT put Davis Fletcher on the thumb nail! I let this video sit for 21 hours not knowing he was presenting!
3:57 It looks cooler backwards than forwards.
That's basically my Chevy pickup ...
Minus the machine guns and armor . I mean I knew it was old-fashioned but wow 😂
Welded and 14mm plate are both pretty good.
Mk II is 4 wheel drive meaning it can arrive and start being useless sooner.
There is a picture of one in RAF colours in Tunisia, also they were used in the Malay Emergency
The Polish 1st Armoured Division used those in 1944-45 ;D
let's all be honest. Mr fletcher is the only person who we want presenting these vids.
As a matter of fact, this vehicles detered the german Invasion.
Albeit because Jerry was afraid of having to use them as "Beutepanzer"
You win today's "best comment" prize! I bestow upon thee: 🏆
@@Kyle-gw6qp Thank You,
That's such an Honor. I realy don't know what to say.
So you will have to imagine my entire acceptence speach...🥱
@Real Aiglon i think they were made after the Islands got ocupied.
But on the bright side: no Anglo French disputes back then. So big suckcess for the german erm "peacekeeping effort"
Compared to the other two vehicles shown this one is a lot more attractive. The others look old and thinly veiled as armored cars. This one looks purposefully built.
Good revue and it is probably better than nothing at all, if it stops a bullet better to be in it than walking beside it.
The paint job is sweet.
Why would you have a David video without a David thumbnail?
This is like the armored car equivalent of the sten gun. Reliable and easy to produce, but outclassed by its more purpose built contemporaries.
Boyes was a perfectly good weapon for the time and served well in many places.
"Bois Rifle to the left of me, Bren gun to the right,
Here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Taken from Ode To A Steering Wheel by Cat Stevens
Has the Tank Museum ever did a piece on the vehicles used by the Special Air Service in North Africa?
I imagine after D Day any vehicle was useful if you needed transport, better than walking.
Try taking a drink every time he says useless! 🍺🍺
Frankly I expected a grand piano to drop on it any second.
It was fortunate to be inside. Had it been outside, a piano surely would've crushed it.
So how difficult would it be to actually get it running again?
David says the Boy's anti-tank rifle was useless, and he's not the first person who I've heard express that sentiment.
However, the Russians found anti-tank rifles quite useful on the eastern front. I've heard a number of armor experts say that the armor skirts (Schürzen) on German tanks were fitted expressly to ad extra protection against anti-tank rifles.
Does anyone know off the top of their head what the difference was? Did the Russians just build a better anti-tank rifle or what?
Yes the Russian anti tank rifles were much more powerful, something like 50% more muzzle energy. Nothing special about them, just developed later in the war with a more realistic idea of what it takes to actually penetrate a tank even up close.
@@frostedbutts4340 That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.
The Russian PTRD (14.5x114mm) ATR was penetrating the vertical 40mm side armor above the road wheels of panthers in 1944. The Wehrmacht had to upgrade Panthers with "schurzen" (5-6mm spaced armor on the sides) to defend against them. PTRDs are still used in conflicts in Donbass and Syria today. So no, the Boys (about 14mm) wouldn't have been useless. It was not as good as the PTRD, but a simple search will tell you that it penetrated 23mm of armor at 100 meters. That would be enough to penetrate all the SDKFZ 250s, 251s, 222s, 223s, and so on.
What's that circle on the front? The ones in the old photos had them too.
Quite roomy and with space to attach gear on the rear, they would have been ideal for engineers. But they would also probably have worked well as staff cars where there was the danger of snipers.
"... and most of them were perfectly useless"
I like this Man.
Are you guys planning on acquaring any ww2/cold war italian tanks?
Do like the way it's painted though
A bit of a quirky car. I imagine they made good battlefield taxis for the rear echelon.
I'll bet that what kept them going for so long might well have been reliability. I have absolutely no evidence for this, but nothing endears a piece of kit to an owner like dependability.
That's what my wife tells me, anyhow.
yup - cheap, reliable, easily mass manufactured on existing tooling... did what they were expected to do (reconnaisance, general liaison, NOT go head to head with a PzKpw IV H) but that's useless is it?
Still better than nothing. This 'car' would be better deployed in policing service or for security patrolling around air and other bases and whatnot.
I have a serious question, did UK tanks and armored vehicles use Lucas Electric components? If so makes me wonder how any UK tanks ever won a battle:)
Were they attempting to disguise it ss a cow? Re: spots on the body.
One of those camo pattern blobs looks a teeny bit rude
Mickey Mouse..Or maybe Minnie Mouse..
“...an example you might want to keep quiet about...”😂😂😂😂😂
Rumors tell this is the predecessor of King Arthurs chariot .