From personal experience. Extremely well. They're capable of self recovery and have pretty good climbing abilities. You can find plenty of videos online
@@Glepno How would the Abram go with the heat put out it exhaust, would it set the bush or brush on fire easily due to being a gas turbine ? Granted the Australian Abram was to be used with Diesel as a fuel, surely it still a shit ton of heat out the back.
@@wonniewarrior Have you ever seen a car that parks on the grass off a highway? They often set the grass onfire. Fortunately for most abrams used by the US army we have exhaust deflectors and unlike cars which have their exhaust systems mounted to the bottom (Forward mounted engines) tanks don't have any exposed parts on the bottom. They usually wont set fires as this would be disadvantageous if your hiding in a forest.
@@Glepno Thank you. I am aware of cars setting fire to long grass, in fact each year our motoring group reminds people in summer to avoid parking on long grass. Or if in a accident, turn the engine of quick. However, I thought the Abrams exhaust was out the back with the force of a jet engine so very hot and windy, a huge fire risk I thought. Was not aware they had exhaust deflectors though, do these aim the exhaust upwards or do they break it up to cool it down quicker like a diffuser ? To be honest, I have not seen a Abrams ever, but man I would love to experience it. Thank you for replying.
@@wonniewarrior No problem man, as a tankie I love teaching people about my job. The exhaust deflector is used to keep the back of the tank from creating a larger IR signature. Even without it, the hot air isn't direct enough to catch anything on fire. Otherwise infantry couldn't use the tank as cover which is an important use in the assault. The Abrams is great to operate, its as simple as driving a car and moves like a toy, huge powerful engines and incredible ground pressure helps.
Having watched the similar trails footage about the M24 Chaffee , the advantages of the lighter tank are obvious. It's not hard to see why the Chaffee became the post war tank of choice for South Vietnam .
@@spikydipple They sure did. However , the Army of the Republic of VietNam (ARVN) held on to it's M24 tanks even after the Americans equipped them with M41 tanks. And I can't say I blame them.
These were early Shermans with VVSS suspension and 16" wide tracks, which were considerably narrower than the 22" tracks used by the Churchills. Later Shermans with HVSS suspension used 23" wide tracks and had much improved traction for difficult terrains.
Interesting footage, thank you. Both tanks have relative merits. The Sherman (plus parts etc) being available in larger numbers for Australia I imagine.
They were never used by the Australians as they were rubbish in the jungle. The Australians used the Matilda infantry tank with a 3 inch howitzer (75mm). The Matilda had excellent traction and armour.
There is not 1 Australian accent. Yes we did sound more English back then but this guy is probably in this job because he sounds more "proper" compared to other Australians
According to the booklet 'A pictorial display of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps' printed by the Tank Museum at Puckapunyal (Fourth Edition 1989) the tests conducted by the War Office Trials Unit between the Churchills and the Shermans took place in North Queensland and Madang, PNG in late 1944 and concluded in mid 1945, with the Churchill being the clear winner. The single M4A2 Sherman had arrived in Australia in early 1943 and was first tested at Monegeetta, as the expectation was the Sherman would be filling the Australian Armoured Forces' requirements after the cessation of the Australian Cruiser tank project. The other two M4 Shermans in Australia and then the PNG tests were from the British War Office Trials Unit.
@Smartassdroid Churchill was excellent as an infantry support weapon. Could defend itself against Panzer 3 Panzer 4 and the Stug III. Had to avoid combat with the new generation of German armour.
This was exactly the conclusion of the Australian and British Trials Units that ran these tests late 1944 to mid 1945, clearly beating the Sherman in jungle capability.
the jungle sherman struggles more because its belly is to low down specially in the center, it scrapes and lift the tank, making the tracks lose traction. but overall, the churchill is better in worst terrain, the suspension and small multiple wheels, the lenght of the tracks supply a far greater area of contact too, but that along with the weight, made the churchill a slug in roads...
The Aussies would probably have ideally wanted the 75mm or 95mm gun. This was Japan they were supposed to fight, they didn't need crazy anti armor performance, and an HE shell as effective as the 75mm M48 or as big as the 95mm one would have certainly been good.
Lighter armor vs japan would be better. A mk7 with 1/2 the frontal armor and a lighter turret would go a long way. A Matilda was plenty armored for this theater, so a churchill 7 would be way overkill.
I love these old videos. Love the serious proper english. And love the how everyone was fighting together as one, well most everyone and now we are so close and friendly with japan. I really hope germany don't fall to the communist and break up the European Union's anymore than it already is. God bless 🇺🇸 and friends
what about the so called funnies, the avre would sort any bunker out or use the crocadile,and several others had bridges or road mats,and mk 3 onwards had its own winch as an extra.as a platform the churchill was used for 20 years,i think they were on the m50 sherman when the up gunned churchils(black princes)were still in service,
Is is pathetic to see that the Cromwell and Churchill tanks couldn’t get off the beaches in Normandy unless they had a tarp or wooden planks layer in front of them?
Its same story for most tanks. Dieppe showed how French beaches proved troublesome. So to prevent it from happening again alot of specialised gear was developed to help allied armour.
sorry ? I think you are thinking of the Dieppe Raid ....there the Churchills struggled to get off the beach due to it being a pebble beach and not sand...the pebbles behaved rther like marbles under the tracks...and just about any tank would have struggled with those conditions ......I don;t know of any instances of them struggling to get off Sword , Juno or Gold beaches .....some got swamped in the standing pools of sea water but I don't think any got 'stuck' just because of the sand
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 90 | คู่เอก "ก้องไกล vs แอนตาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VugIvOstzRI/mqdefault.jpg)
I love that the Churchill becomes a giant bush monster.
No foe can stand before the charge of the bushmonster brigade!
It's an auto-camouflage feature -- a British engineering triumph.
Love these videos,showing old timer tanks being put threw there paces
I'd love to see how an Abrams deals with this type of testing. On one hand, 1,500 horsepower and a torque converter. On the other hand - 72 tons.
From personal experience. Extremely well. They're capable of self recovery and have pretty good climbing abilities. You can find plenty of videos online
@@Glepno How would the Abram go with the heat put out it exhaust, would it set the bush or brush on fire easily due to being a gas turbine ? Granted the Australian Abram was to be used with Diesel as a fuel, surely it still a shit ton of heat out the back.
@@wonniewarrior Have you ever seen a car that parks on the grass off a highway? They often set the grass onfire. Fortunately for most abrams used by the US army we have exhaust deflectors and unlike cars which have their exhaust systems mounted to the bottom (Forward mounted engines) tanks don't have any exposed parts on the bottom. They usually wont set fires as this would be disadvantageous if your hiding in a forest.
@@Glepno Thank you. I am aware of cars setting fire to long grass, in fact each year our motoring group reminds people in summer to avoid parking on long grass. Or if in a accident, turn the engine of quick. However, I thought the Abrams exhaust was out the back with the force of a jet engine so very hot and windy, a huge fire risk I thought. Was not aware they had exhaust deflectors though, do these aim the exhaust upwards or do they break it up to cool it down quicker like a diffuser ? To be honest, I have not seen a Abrams ever, but man I would love to experience it. Thank you for replying.
@@wonniewarrior No problem man, as a tankie I love teaching people about my job. The exhaust deflector is used to keep the back of the tank from creating a larger IR signature. Even without it, the hot air isn't direct enough to catch anything on fire. Otherwise infantry couldn't use the tank as cover which is an important use in the assault. The Abrams is great to operate, its as simple as driving a car and moves like a toy, huge powerful engines and incredible ground pressure helps.
These are great. They really put em to the test. Liked the M24 vid as well.
Having watched the similar trails footage about the M24 Chaffee , the advantages of the lighter tank are obvious. It's not hard to see why the Chaffee became the post war tank of choice for South Vietnam .
andrew woodhead Australian troops fought in Centurians in Vietnam.
@@spikydipple They sure did. However , the Army of the Republic of VietNam (ARVN) held on to it's M24 tanks even after the Americans equipped them with M41 tanks. And I can't say I blame them.
andrew woodhead well they didn't have many options.
@@spikydipple Perhaps. But you can see what a great job the Chaffee makes of terrain handling . Just awesome.
These were early Shermans with VVSS suspension and 16" wide tracks, which were considerably narrower than the 22" tracks used by the Churchills. Later Shermans with HVSS suspension used 23" wide tracks and had much improved traction for difficult terrains.
Between the 2, I would've prefered being in neither of them. Brave brave men. Forever in their debt.
Interesting thank for posting .
This is the type of film I like were in your shown all without concern to opinions.
The Churchill far exceeded the Sherman in hill-climbing ability in Korea, surpassed only by its replacement, the Centurion.
Interesting footage, thank you. Both tanks have relative merits. The Sherman (plus parts etc) being available in larger numbers for Australia I imagine.
They were never used by the Australians as they were rubbish in the jungle. The Australians used the Matilda infantry tank with a 3 inch howitzer (75mm). The Matilda had excellent traction and armour.
The Sherman wasn’t used as it’s jungle performance was poor. Instead the Australians used the Matilda with a 3 inch howitzer (75mm).
Now ask the fitters for maintenance. Especially against the Japanese the M 4 is a no-brainer.
Is this what the Australian accent used to sound like? It sounds a lot closer to the English one.
Educated Australians in the 1940’s often had English eductions. Plus the emphasis on diction etc leant heavily on the English accent.
Strine might not help with communicating information accurately 😂
There is not 1 Australian accent. Yes we did sound more English back then but this guy is probably in this job because he sounds more "proper" compared to other Australians
A very interesting comparison of the two tanks.
Its just a shame about the video timer numbers, which are rather distracting.
Recorded somewhere in the Pacific, probably in Australia or New Zealand, the topical region wasn't favorable to all Tanks.
According to the booklet 'A pictorial display of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps' printed by the Tank Museum at Puckapunyal (Fourth Edition 1989) the tests conducted by the War Office Trials Unit between the Churchills and the Shermans took place in North Queensland and Madang, PNG in late 1944 and concluded in mid 1945, with the Churchill being the clear winner.
The single M4A2 Sherman had arrived in Australia in early 1943 and was first tested at Monegeetta, as the expectation was the Sherman would be filling the Australian Armoured Forces' requirements after the cessation of the Australian Cruiser tank project. The other two M4 Shermans in Australia and then the PNG tests were from the British War Office Trials Unit.
I think I heard the narrator mention Guinea, was Papua New Guinea called just Guinea back then?
Churchill might have come into it's own a bit as a jungle war tank, actually..
Smartassdroid churchill turret is larger than sherman
@Smartassdroid Churchill was excellent as an infantry support weapon. Could defend itself against Panzer 3 Panzer 4 and the Stug III. Had to avoid combat with the new generation of German armour.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl the armour on a Churchill 7 was actually thicker than that on a tiger 1 or panther turret.
This was exactly the conclusion of the Australian and British Trials Units that ran these tests late 1944 to mid 1945, clearly beating the Sherman in jungle capability.
@@omnipotank To some degree in "potential" volume I think that's true. Though the turret ring was smaller by about 15".
Churchill a better jungle monster, which is why Australia chose it over the Sherman as its post war tank.
Yeah, and that's not much of a knock to the Sherman, it just wasn't exactly forseen to be used in these conditions.
the jungle sherman struggles more because its belly is to low down specially in the center, it scrapes and lift the tank, making the tracks lose traction.
but overall, the churchill is better in worst terrain, the suspension and small multiple wheels, the lenght of the tracks supply a far greater area of contact too, but that along with the weight, made the churchill a slug in roads...
And to equip them with 6 pounder guns as they main armament?
The Aussies would probably have ideally wanted the 75mm or 95mm gun. This was Japan they were supposed to fight, they didn't need crazy anti armor performance, and an HE shell as effective as the 75mm M48 or as big as the 95mm one would have certainly been good.
Churchill would have really excelled if it had grousers
Lighter armor vs japan would be better. A mk7 with 1/2 the frontal armor and a lighter turret would go a long way. A Matilda was plenty armored for this theater, so a churchill 7 would be way overkill.
У ШЕРМАНА гусеницы с резиновыми накладками, а почему металлические не поставили?
So different tanks have different capablities
I love these old videos. Love the serious proper english. And love the how everyone was fighting together as one, well most everyone and now we are so close and friendly with japan. I really hope germany don't fall to the communist and break up the European Union's anymore than it already is. God bless 🇺🇸 and friends
Admit it you don’t search this video 😬
You're right it found me
Hmmm GARY RAYMOND IS THE narrator
It does sound like him but he would have been too young. According to IMDB he was born in 1935.
So were they found guilty ? 😀
what about the so called funnies, the avre would sort any bunker out or use the crocadile,and several others had bridges or road mats,and mk 3 onwards had its own winch as an extra.as a platform the churchill was used for 20 years,i think they were on the m50 sherman when the up gunned churchils(black princes)were still in service,
Boy talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth ! If it weren’t for the Sherman they would be speaking German right now
And this isn't even difficult by PNG standards.
I don't like sherman!
I love the sherman!
Ah,bless!
Is is pathetic to see that the Cromwell and Churchill tanks couldn’t get off the beaches in Normandy unless they had a tarp or wooden planks layer in front of them?
Its same story for most tanks. Dieppe showed how French beaches proved troublesome. So to prevent it from happening again alot of specialised gear was developed to help allied armour.
sorry ? I think you are thinking of the Dieppe Raid ....there the Churchills struggled to get off the beach due to it being a pebble beach and not sand...the pebbles behaved rther like marbles under the tracks...and just about any tank would have struggled with those conditions ......I don;t know of any instances of them struggling to get off Sword , Juno or Gold beaches .....some got swamped in the standing pools of sea water but I don't think any got 'stuck' just because of the sand