I just love this one. I also like how clearly you can see features on this (and others, like the Churchill) that would carry over onto the Centurion and thus become one of the most successful tanks of all time
It was equal of the Panther or at least better than the Mark IV. It should have entered the war in Normandy but it didn't. It is a Cromwell with a Tank-Gun version of the 17 Pounder.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl I'd say it was half a step down from the Panther. Its' closest German relative is probably the Tiger, but swapping armour and gun calibre for speed and higher rate of fire. It is easier to make the comparison with the US or Russian tanks; it's a direct equivalent of the late-war E8 Sherman with the HVSS suspension, wider tracks and 76mm gun or the T34-85.
Great mobility,speed and one of the best guns in ww2.....in fact the gun was one of the most accurate fitted to a ww2 tank and powerful enough to take out tigers and panthers at long ranges. However,the panther and tiger also had fantastic armament and heavy armour protection.....a matter of who got the first good shot off would win out most probably.
Most tanks are this noisy, this had the Meteor V12 at 600hp, could go 51kph and that was limited to protect the suspension and crew. They're only going slow because they're maneuvering around a course, not going straight. Most other tanks of this period would go round this course at a similar or slower speed.
You do realize that even fast tanks have to slow down when going though turns right? Espcailly when there's a high chance of hitting a tree when going off the road.
we all learn by our mistakes, but sometimes not - this tank has no sloping armor the T34 pioneered in ww2 - even the Nazis copied the sloping armor into their war time tanks however this is another example of major defect in out military leadership - sometimes wonder if the Russians hadn't won the Eastern front where we would all be today
The advantages of sloped armour on tanks was well known way before the t-34. The germans designed the Panther before they encountered the t-34 aswell. The Crusader had a sloped upper front plate, but the engineers didn't need the Comet or Cormwell to have as much protection as it was a cruiser tank and it greatly simplified construction. The Tiger had vertical front plate and no one complains about that. If the British and the commonwealth hadn't beaten germany in north africa, the russians might not have won the eastern front
@@RileyLawrence8 - the concept of sloping armour goes back centuries ie used for deflection of arrows etc but the T34 was the first tank to use the concept of added thickness by sloping armor to decrease weight and penetration - this was later copied by the Germans who began to incorporate it into their tanks for those reasons so you are wrong - you are also wrong about Africa which on the scale of things was only a skirmish when compared to the massiveness of the Eastern European front - this is where the Nazis met their defeat - don't forget Stalin had massive reserves on the borders of Chinaand Manchuria which he needed just in case the Japanese decided to invade Russia - he brough more and more of these forces into the main battle with the nazis so I don't believe the Nazis ever stood a chance against the Russians even on their own - quite frankly we in the west were a side show and a distraction to the real war that was on the eastern front
@@majorrgeek yes the T-34 was the first production tank to use a fully spoled upper front plate, but it wasn't the first to use the increased protection a sloped plate gives because every tank since the mkIV in 1917 had thinner sloped plates with the same effective armour as the vertical plates. For example the sloped plate on the comet gives the exact same protection as the upper verical plate. The British engineers didn't think the added complexity of hull machine gun mount and drivers vision port was worth the extra protection especially for a cruiser tank which is meant to not get hit in the first place. Engineering isn't always about playing top trumps you have to consider actually building it quickly and cheaply. The Allies prevented the nazis's from getting access to the oil fields in the middle east therefore preventing them from fighting effectively. Also the allied bombing prevented a huge amount of resourses being available for the germans to fight the russians aswell. Yes the Russians did the majority of the fighting and dying to defeat germany but the British and Americans did a good amount of strategic damage aswell. Especially keeping half the german army occupied in france waiting for d-day
@@RileyLawrence8 - the Comet is no example in fact immediately above the bit of sloping armor is a vertical plate so no the Brits did not incorporate sloping armor with the calculated intent of the T34 - all the numbers support the Eastern front played a greater role than Western Front in German memories while we in the west have created a false history to glorify ourselves - the action of land battles on the Eastern front began June 22, 1941 and represents 1,420 days of fighting compared to action on the western front D Day June 6, 1944 only 335 days when you factor in not just numbers of divisions but total numbers of soldiers committed to actually fighting on both fronts over that duration according to a presentation by Alfred Jodl the Wehrmacht was up to 7,849,000 personnel in April 1944. 3,878,000 were deployed in eastern Europe and 1,873,000 in western Europe when you factor in the days of active fighting you arrive at a total in the vicinity of 11,180 million soldier-days committed to action on the Eastern front and 469 million soldier-days on the western front - these figures speak for themselves - also the Russian Army proved much more lethal against the Germans killing 5.5 million (includes Hungarians, Italians etc) compare to western front total of 700,000 German killed in action - Russian Army was 8 times more lethal than Western allies - so yes it is fair and reasonable to say the Russians almost singlehandedly won European WW2
@@majorrgeek the T 34 was definitely not the first tank to use sloping armour. Looking back even to the M3 stuart you can see sloped armour on the lower plate.
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
I just love this one. I also like how clearly you can see features on this (and others, like the Churchill) that would carry over onto the Centurion and thus become one of the most successful tanks of all time
If it had just been ready 6 months earlier!
Looks like stock engine and 50% crew.
HAHAH it was
Mine didn't move that slow
More bloody noob tomatoes, eh ?!
My Grandad drove these
Well then your grandad is sooo cool. Thumbs up to him.
My Uncle Don was in 29 Armoured Division, and he commanded a Comet across the Rhine and into Germany. He later took part in the Berlin Victory Parade.
Какими героями были те, кто воевал на этих танках
Love this tank is it possible to rent it
Nice looking tank I wonder how it fared against the German Panzers.
It was equal of the Panther or at least better than the Mark IV. It should have entered the war in Normandy but it didn't. It is a Cromwell with a Tank-Gun version of the 17 Pounder.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl I'd say it was half a step down from the Panther. Its' closest German relative is probably the Tiger, but swapping armour and gun calibre for speed and higher rate of fire. It is easier to make the comparison with the US or Russian tanks; it's a direct equivalent of the late-war E8 Sherman with the HVSS suspension, wider tracks and 76mm gun or the T34-85.
Great mobility,speed and one of the best guns in ww2.....in fact the gun was one of the most accurate fitted to a ww2 tank and powerful enough to take out tigers and panthers at long ranges.
However,the panther and tiger also had fantastic armament and heavy armour protection.....a matter of who got the first good shot off would win out most probably.
The comet had the great tactical advantage of being far more reliable than the Tiger or Panther.
@@Akm72 I disagree. I think it’s gun was definitely on par with the panther, and so was it’s speed and maybe even armour.
Quite good looking tank.
But it seems very slow even going forward.
And noisy
Dig... these old machines can seriously shift, very fast. In this vid it's being driven around only in first gear.
Steering depends on the gear that you are in. You have more control and a tighter turning arc in lower gears, which is important around people.
Most tanks are this noisy, this had the Meteor V12 at 600hp, could go 51kph and that was limited to protect the suspension and crew. They're only going slow because they're maneuvering around a course, not going straight. Most other tanks of this period would go round this course at a similar or slower speed.
Had to be limited DOWN to 32 mph! This thing was like .... well a comet
@@lloydellis5570 yep. It was simple reliable deadly and fast.
can you tell me what the maximum reverse speed for this tank is please?
probably about 15-20 mph in forward motion it went 30+
forward is 51kph and revers is about 18kph
The Italians had tanks in ww2 that hat six gears. One forward . and five were reverse
30 mph
Ahahahaa hahaa Hehehe Ahahahaaa... reverse he said.
so slow
You do realize that even fast tanks have to slow down when going though turns right? Espcailly when there's a high chance of hitting a tree when going off the road.
we all learn by our mistakes, but sometimes not - this tank has no sloping armor the T34 pioneered in ww2 - even the Nazis copied the sloping armor into their war time tanks however this is another example of major defect in out military leadership - sometimes wonder if the Russians hadn't won the Eastern front where we would all be today
The advantages of sloped armour on tanks was well known way before the t-34. The germans designed the Panther before they encountered the t-34 aswell. The Crusader had a sloped upper front plate, but the engineers didn't need the Comet or Cormwell to have as much protection as it was a cruiser tank and it greatly simplified construction. The Tiger had vertical front plate and no one complains about that. If the British and the commonwealth hadn't beaten germany in north africa, the russians might not have won the eastern front
@@RileyLawrence8 - the concept of sloping armour goes back centuries ie used for deflection of arrows etc but the T34 was the first tank to use the concept of added thickness by sloping armor to decrease weight and penetration - this was later copied by the Germans who began to incorporate it into their tanks for those reasons so you are wrong - you are also wrong about Africa which on the scale of things was only a skirmish when compared to the massiveness of the Eastern European front - this is where the Nazis met their defeat - don't forget Stalin had massive reserves on the borders of Chinaand Manchuria which he needed just in case the Japanese decided to invade Russia - he brough more and more of these forces into the main battle with the nazis so I don't believe the Nazis ever stood a chance against the Russians even on their own - quite frankly we in the west were a side show and a distraction to the real war that was on the eastern front
@@majorrgeek yes the T-34 was the first production tank to use a fully spoled upper front plate, but it wasn't the first to use the increased protection a sloped plate gives because every tank since the mkIV in 1917 had thinner sloped plates with the same effective armour as the vertical plates. For example the sloped plate on the comet gives the exact same protection as the upper verical plate. The British engineers didn't think the added complexity of hull machine gun mount and drivers vision port was worth the extra protection especially for a cruiser tank which is meant to not get hit in the first place. Engineering isn't always about playing top trumps you have to consider actually building it quickly and cheaply. The Allies prevented the nazis's from getting access to the oil fields in the middle east therefore preventing them from fighting effectively. Also the allied bombing prevented a huge amount of resourses being available for the germans to fight the russians aswell. Yes the Russians did the majority of the fighting and dying to defeat germany but the British and Americans did a good amount of strategic damage aswell. Especially keeping half the german army occupied in france waiting for d-day
@@RileyLawrence8 - the Comet is no example in fact immediately above the bit of sloping armor is a vertical plate so no the Brits did not incorporate sloping armor with the calculated intent of the T34 - all the numbers support the Eastern front played a greater role than Western Front in German memories while we in the west have created a false history to glorify ourselves - the action of land battles on the Eastern front began June 22, 1941 and represents 1,420 days of fighting compared to action on the western front D Day June 6, 1944 only 335 days when you factor in not just numbers of divisions but total numbers of soldiers committed to actually fighting on both fronts over that duration according to a presentation by Alfred Jodl the Wehrmacht was up to 7,849,000 personnel in April 1944. 3,878,000 were deployed in eastern Europe and 1,873,000 in western Europe when you factor in the days of active fighting you arrive at a total in the vicinity of 11,180 million soldier-days committed to action on the Eastern front and 469 million soldier-days on the western front - these figures speak for themselves - also the Russian Army proved much more lethal against the Germans killing 5.5 million (includes Hungarians, Italians etc) compare to western front total of 700,000 German killed in action - Russian Army was 8 times more lethal than Western allies - so yes it is fair and reasonable to say the Russians almost singlehandedly won European WW2
@@majorrgeek the T 34 was definitely not the first tank to use sloping armour. Looking back even to the M3 stuart you can see sloped armour on the lower plate.