While I like to enjoy a Tank Chat video, this one was a bit too long in my opinion, and would have been better as a three-part rather than two, to cover most of the digressions.
Great content, and a great place. Until I managed to make it back to Bovington in August 2019, I hadn't seen the place since I left Junior leaders Regt RAC in 1984. (To join The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards) I 'grew up' so to speak as a Cheifatin, Challenger 1, and Scorpion Gunner. I left the Army just before we got Chally2. It was truly moving for me to enter the Tank Museum (and Stanley barracks) after all these years. Thank you so much for your work in keeping the museum alive, it's an amazing asset.
Mae ! HESH is still very viable for thin skinned vehicles such as BMPs, BTRs and ZSUs and anything of lesser armour like Technicals, etc. Terrific for anti fortification. Much better at all those compared to APFSDS
@@Eli_G454 HESH doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective...it damages sights and other critical electrics, can destroy the tracks, knock the turret race out of place. A mobility kill can be just as effective as a K-Kill, if not more so because the vehicle and crew have to be recovered.
I'm still wondering.. What kind of individual could've downvote such a beautiful piece of lecture from a genius such as David here? It's really beyond me. Thank you Tank Museum for this. Have a nice Christmas time. Cheers!
Fletch and I served together last time I was in Bovi was 74 when I did B1 Radio ;I was already B2 gunnery, and the Reg held the record for 1st round hits on battle run and the most Hesh in the air from the same panzer, never been beaten ; UP THE SKINS; best tank regiment ever pity the Chiefy hadnt a better Pack.
XD! Still, to be fair, they worked hard at reliability during the war. Churchills eventually became pretty solid, Cromwells and Comets were good from the start. Compared to the Germans and Soviets, whose vehicles never really came up to scratch, particularly toward the end of the conflict, they didn't do all that badly.
I think the british tanks in WW2 had 5 problems: 1. The gun. The 40mm 2pdr was a good to very good AT gun in the early war, but that was all it was good for. The 6pdr was delayed and while it offerd better armour penetration at close range than the american 75mm, it had a much weaker HE shell, and its penetration at long range was inferior to the 75mm. So, they lacked a good general-purpose tank gun. 2. the engines. Yea, kindofa sore spot for british tanks up to the cold war.... That damn Nuffield Liberty... Just not quite up to the task. And untill the Metor finaly came around, they had few alternatives. I mean, that twin-Bedford.. 350 HP for a 40 ton tank?! 3. that Cruiser tank - Infantry tank thinking. The US had it right. Build one tank for all roles. Who cares if it is a little less good at either roll? You can build twice as many and your logistics are much simpler. And what good is a dedicated infantry support tank in the first place without a good general purpose gun that can knock out an enemy tank and lob a decent HE shell? Besides, that whole thing about exploiting a break-through with fast but all but unarmoured tanks without propper infantry support was probably doomed from the moment someone first dreamed about it... 4. the structure gauge of the british railways. It limited how wide a tank could be, and by that limited the diameter of the turret ring. The british railway net had many places where the space left and right of the tracks was extremely limited. Bridges, tunnels, ect. Thus they couldn't made the flatt-bed cars for the tanks wider. If only the engineers in the mid-19th century had had the foresight to anticipate the need for lager tanks a 100 years in the future. How shortsighted... 5. The adherence to the christie suspension. Realy, it was a neat idea, but in the late 30s it started to show its flaws... It just takes so much space on the sides. And if you are allready limited in how wide you tank can be, it only makes things worse.
@@Bird_Dog00 I think the Brits in WW2 had a great deal more than just 5, mate! :-) Still, since you've taken the time to post it's only polite to offer a counter. 1. You're right, the Brits needed a decent gun. The 2lber stayed in service far too long, the 6lber was limited in it's HE effectiveness and the US derived 75mm lacked penetration by the time it was available in decent numbers. Scandalous, really. The 17lber was a bit of a bonus for AT work, so the Brits weren't particularly outgunned from late '44, but the need for yet another tank type didn't do their logistics any favours. It's worth pointing out that other nations suffered much the same problem though, particularly our American Allies, who didn't start to receive decent numbers of 76mm guns until the middle of '45, by which point the show was almost over and the Brits were getting '77mm' armed vehicles to replace their 75s. 2. The Liberty was fine for the tanks it was intended for. Cruiser Mk III/IV were considered to be acceptably reliable and the Mk VI did well in trials in the UK. The Crusader's reliability woes were down to the inadequate cooling system, which wore out quickly in desert conditions, not any inherent flaw in the American designed engine. The problem came when the British moved from tanks weighing less than twenty tons to vehicles nearer to thirty tons. But the Meteor was available from '43, so even that wasn't a major concern. Large numbers of 6lb armed Cromwells were produced that year, but the Brits wanted 75mm guns, so they weren't deployed, Shermans were shipped out to Italy instead. The existing Cromwell fleet were up-gunned when the production lines began churning out 75mm armed Mk VIIIs. The Bedford's power was adequate. The Churchill's performance off road was similar to other tanks in it's weight class. Reliability was an issue in early models, which was a far greater concern to the British, but those had been resolved by the time the first Mk IIIs went into action in North Africa in '42. Fun fact, the British tested Panthers and Jagdpanthers during and after the war against the tanks they had available. The Churchill VII was marginally faster and considerably more reliable. 3. Cruiser/Infantry is just semantics, Bird. It didn't make sense to call tanks 'light' and 'heavy' when the vehicles being developed for those roles were going to be roughly the same weight. The Soviets had Medium/Heavy tanks, the Germans had the same. There were differences with employment, but the fact is it just wasn't possible to build do it all Main Battle Tanks with 1930s technology. It was possible to build a fast tank or a well armoured one, not both. The Americans weren't immune to that kind of thinking, they had a mix of light/medium and tank destroyer forces. When they faced heavy fighting in close country they requested a heavy /infantry/breakthrough (delete whichever is most objectionable) tank and were issued Jumbo Shermans. I think you're a little off the mark with the role of Cruiser tanks. They were light tanks that fulfilled a cavalry role. M3 Stuarts were employed as cruiser tanks in the Western Desert, for instance. They weren't unaccompanied, especially after a break out. Even before the war started both types of British tank were intended to support foot soldiers. In the Cruiser tank's case they would be mounted in the cavalry variant of what became the Universal Carrier. Later in the war our very generous American Allies leased us half tracks for the job. When technology moved on we got APCs and IFVs, but '30s technology really wasn't up to producing either. The best we could come up with was 'Kangaroos'. Worth a quick search, if you're interested? 4. Lol! Yeah, our railway network could do with a little loving, even now. You'll be happy to know we're still using narrow gauge track today, which means most freight in the UK is moved by road... 5. It's swings and roundabouts. Christie is cheap, mechanically reliable and gives the best ride this side of hydrogas, but you're right, it takes a huge bite out of the tank's available volume. It's not any worse than torsion bar though? No-one seems to complain about German tanks- and some modern ones- having a huge amount of space eaten by massive poles running the full width of the vehicle.
@Billy Clement. A rather comprehensive reply. Cheeres. 2. You may have a point with the Liberty. Most issues I heard about were from the Crusader. You have pointed out something not unimportant though. They worked on very light tanks. Once they moved up, they had a bit of a gap until the Meteor came along. They had to fill it with some less than perfectly satisfying sollutions. Some of the Infantry tanks like the Matilda 2 and the Churchills worked, but were realy slow. Off course not allways an issue, but being able to move down a road at more than 20 km/h is nice if you have a need. 3. It may have changed quickly after they met the Wehrmacht in battle, but from what I heard, the idea of using cruiser tanks as exploitation vehicles after break-through was in the british inter-war doctrine. And since the infantry had no real means to keep up, they would have done so unsupported. I doubt that this wuld have worked. And If you compare a Cruiser MkIII with 14 tonnes and upt to 40km/h on road, with the infrantry tank MK2 with 27 tonnes and 25km/h on a good day, (both in service in the sime period) I don't think it was just semantics. Those were very different types of vehicles. I think too different. I personaly would have prefered a somewhat lighter armoured but faster Matilda instead of the two vehicles, but keep the even heavier Chruchill s a true heavy tank. Say, frontal armour down to 50mm, sides and rear 20-30, turret maybe 50-60 at the front but thinner at the sides and rear. Bring the weight down to maybe 20-23 tonnes? 5. Torsion bar takes afaik about 20-25 cm in the bottom. Makes the vehicle about that much higher. Not a big deal imo. Christie takes that much on both sides. So double the loss. And you can make the vehicle taler. If you are limited by structure gauge, you can't make it wider. So torsion bar strikes me as the superior sollution especialy if you suffer from restricted width. I get the use of Christie in earlier chruiser tanks, but why they didn't switch to something else with the Cromwell and Comet, I'm not sure.
@@Bird_Dog00 Again mate, I think you've been a bit misinformed. There was no gap between the Liberty and the Meteor. The last Liberty engined tank to enter service was the Cavalier, in 1945. The Meteor engined Cromwell had been in service for just shy of two years by that point. It's a big subject, but cruiser engines were generally fit for purpose, British cooling systems attached to them somewhat less so. The speed of infantry tanks was only poor on road. I reckon it's a reasonable trade off to have superb mobility off road, particularly given just how many Soviet and German tanks were lost to mechanical issues the moment they hit the mud. I can give you numerous examples of how the 'slow' Churchill kept moving across supposedly impassable terrain, waterlogged fields, submerged bridges, up impossible slopes and more. Panthers tended to break down reversing over mud. I hear what you're saying about it being nice to put in a burst of speed on firm going, but not if it cost them their proven off piste ability. I think you've been misinformed about the British Army Doctrine. Prior to 1926 they followed the Great War doctrine of Combined Arms Warfare, in which cavalry would break out, supported by 'Whippet' light tanks, after the infantry had broken the enemy line, supported by heavy tanks. The Experimental Mechanised Force, the Experimental Armoured Force and the Armoured Force that followed all refined that concept and looked at ways to integrate the three fighting arms of the army into a coherent whole. The need for transport to accompany the tanks was recognised from the start. As I said, the Cavalry Carrier was developed specifically to accompany the AFs Cruiser tanks, along with scout and Bren gun carriers taken from the general issue. The cash strapped inter war British army wouldn't have bought close to 700 scout and cavalry carriers and goodness knows how many Mk 1 and 2 Bren gun carriers if they didn't intend moving troops with the tanks. Wartime production of the Universal Carrier eventually made it the most produced military tracked vehicle in history. The Brits were never short of mechanised transports, Bird! :-) As for the two types of tank not keeping up with each other? Infantry and cavalry are different fighting arms. Why would you want them to keep up? The cav are tasked with recce, screening, exploitation, rearguard action and reserve counters. The infantry are required to take and hold objectives. They have very different roles and very different equipment requirements. That's not semantics, that's just the difference between how different arms are employed. It's also fairly common across Western Armed Forces. The German 'Blitzkreig' and the British 'Combined Arms Warfare' aren't all that different to the modern US Army Doctrine you can download from jcs.mil. What I meant by 'semantics' is that there's a habit of on line posters trying to make out there was some fundamental difference between the stoopid, old fashioned Brits and all the much better and more modern armies of the World. There were differences, but not anything like as drastic as some make them out to be. 'Heavy', 'breakthrough', 'assault' and 'infantry' are all describing the same basic vehicle role. The British tended to try and keep their size and weight down, the Germans went in for extraordinary giant machines, the US and Soviets fell somewhere in between. But people seem to get hung up on the terminology? Your thoughts on a universal tank pretty much dovetail with what the British actually wanted. Eventually it would result in the Centurion. The trouble was that a late 30s/early 40s compromise tank wouldn't have sufficient mobility to be useful as a cavalry vehicle, nor sufficient protection to be employed in main battle. It took numerous technological advances to make Centurion possible, many of them forced by the war itself. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning with the suspension. Christie and torsion bars take up about the same volume, but neither was seen as a problem to designers at the time. The British shift to Horstmann bogies on Centurion was driven by field maintenance and battlefield repair requirements. It's a real pita to get at Christie units, but bogies, as fitted to Shermans, Valentines and Churchills, amongst others, was a far easier task. Which takes us full circle- we're back to reliability again! :-)
I really enjoyed this. Thank you. A documentary on the Chieftain,with library footage and interviews with old crews, that would be a real winner in my opinion!
Some of the best totally informative commentary ive listened to ...but you can only start and describe a story like this by knowing your stuff..nice work thank you.
I live on the grounds of what used to be Royal Ordinance Leeds, I remember the Challenger gate guard when I was a kid. Only evidence it ever existed is a Blue Plaque near the entrance saying the factory built Bofors 40mm, Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger tanks. Most of the streets are named after the girls who died during the Barnbow explosion when the site was used as a filling station for artillery shells.
Absolutely loved working on this tank. Done us very proud during telic. I love listening to all the arm chair warriors and tank professional's comment's. Until you've crewed this beast and seen first hand what it can do and is capable of, keep your trap's shut. What the book say's (remembering that it is still top secret) to what she can actually do is two different things.
I've always adored the Challenger 2. The sound the engine makes has to be the best mechanical sound on this planet. Might have to pick up that Haynes manual hehe
Man, British Defense Procurement is just a recurring tragedy of having good ideas and then cutting costs to not quite get what they need. It's better now, but in the 1970s-1990s, things got dire.
Procurement has been plagued in many countries by pet projects and career advancement. Major projects usually have a Col as project chief and their whole career gets in the balance. The development of the Bradley in the US has become the meme of this phenomenon.
I always asked my self why the loaders periscope on german tanks from panther to leopard 2 was mounted at an angle to the side. Now I got the answer, thank you. 7:50 Driver looking forward, gunner to the left, loader to the right and there you go, 180° covered by six eye's. Commander of course 360°, but only one pair of eyeballs.
Interesting talk; In my early career my family engineering business worked prototype runs for aviation, armoured vehicles, warships and weapon systems. One of the projects worked on was the MBT80 multi sight system described in this video and spent some time on the testing tracks and ranges in Dorset. Vickers was mentioned but what I think needs a mention is Ferranti who provided the system of multi sighting as hardware and the electronics specialist boards and software for the original systems. Ferranti was a unique player in the world for specialised equipment sadly forced into a shadow of its former self due to HMG cancellations and dithering about with procurement. I do not think that their early contributions in missile, radar, computing and targeting should be forgotten by a company which was founded by an Italian immigrant to the UK in 1905. Its demise was the result of various HMG's perfidious actions during the 70s and 80s. I eventually worked closely with Vickers which became Bae Systems from which I retired at 70 in 2018 as an SME (subject matter expert) on submarines. I enjoyed the museum on my visit and it brings back memories having visited the museum shed with a REME officer in the 60s. KInd regards
@@olliefoxx7165 Do you mean the Congrieve rocket? James Hargreaves was the inventor of the spinning jenny and we worked on textile machinery before defence industries. ? Regards
So sorry. Must put my memory in the shop and blow off the Cobb webs. Have you ever thought of writing an autobiography? Sounds as if you have lived an interesting life.
@@olliefoxx7165 the bio bit has been mentioned before as some people know quite bit of the other interesting work I have not mentioned like Sellafield, Chernobyl and other innovative scientific/engineering adventures over the last 50-60 years (I started young). Regards
@9:38 "People that want to buy a tank but they don't need the top end product". More like a family tank, space for some shopping in the back and plenty of legroom for the kids.
I like this fellas tank chats,the sort of bloke you could chat to in the pub, but Mr fletcher wins through with the cuddly grandfather look and magnificent moustache 👍
Christmas came early with this fascinating Study of the Challenger, historic context, technical development & service use. Brilliant summary. Thank you.
Sadly his job as a HESH salesman will soon end. The coming Challenger 3 will use the smoothbore Rhinemattel gun that is used in the Leopard 2. The smoothbore doesn’t use HESH.
@@atinofspam3433 and HESH is pretty bad at anti fortification duty, HEAT-MP does the same job better. HESH is obsolete from the 70´s onwards as anti tank round, everything you can kill with HESH, you can also kill with HEAT-MP while retaining the ability to fire ALOT more powerful APFSDS rounds
I recently bought this book that I can really recommend if you are interested in the Challenger 2! Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual
Israeli defense procurement employs abt 1000 people. UK defense procurement employs 21,000 people. It takes a lot of people to make a big, expensive mess of things.
Amazing to see how much time and effort go into tank innovation. This has been very informative. I am tempted to use some of it, if the Tank Museum is willing, as material for some of my MBA courses at university.
You know a company is good when they put aside their greed and difference, to join together, and make the best products they can ever make while maintaining it at a low cost AND use their own money to further improve it.
If you do like these Tank Chats, please subscribe and support the Tank Museum. If you DON’T like these Tank Chats, then it’s out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
There were 4 British armoured divisions, however none were fully manned. We had 3 tanks per troop, instead of 4, due to defense cuts, .a number of pieces of equipment were removed from Chieftain, due to defense cuts. Regiments were being amalgamated, you guessed it, due to defense cuts. With the introduction of Challenge they shrunk the size of a tank regiment, yup defense cuts. So we had a great new tank, but not enough crews to be effective. And experienced crews were leaving in droves. So we ended up with nice shinny new tank, in insufficient numbers, few experienced crews, a smaller force, and along comes the Gulf war. It was estimated the British should have been required to deploy 1,000 MBTs, we probably had a third of that. We got lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
3:18 - you mean T-64B. Regular T-64 and T-64A was in production for years already. And i can`t imagine how Chieftain can penetrate frontal armour of T-64B from 2500 meters.
Excellent talk. The explanation of why the German 120mm smoothbore gun wasn't adopted was very illuminating. HESH rounds sound very interesting and effective but are they so important that they're worth sacrificing standardisation of main gun tank ammo with every other NATO country ?
It's a British design, that's what they do. They go their own way until there's a problem & then blame the rest of NATO for not being as good as British.
No. HESH was totally obsolete when Chally 2 was made. It doesn't work vs composite armoir anywhere near as well as raw steel, and is mostly used to blow up bunkers these days. FYI, a HEAT round will do that just as well.
Gozza : in fairness the Brits were the only nation to build the Chieftain engine to NATO spec multi fuel, which no one else did then NATO dropped the requirement. NATO is pretty hit and miss.
@@Arkantos117 HEAT is superb vs concrete.... It has about 150-200% the effective penetration vs concrete compared to steel, and HEAT rounds are already sitting at around 1000mm of penetration vs steel as it is. When it penetrates it vapourises and kills occupants. HESH kills them with shrapnel from the concrete wall. Big difference... both rounds do the job.... difference is HEAT works from a superior smoothbore gun. HESH doesn't.
Excellent, excellent talk!!!! But I must ask.....Am I the only Veteran "Cold War Tanker", who wonders what the height difference, from where the track touches the dirt to the tip of the tallest radio antennae, really is between the WWII Panther or Tiger (I and II) and current serving "box tanks" such as the Challenger, M1s, and MBTs of very similar external design?....And what about combat loaded weights?
I would absolutely love to see Mr. Wiley talk about the development of Soviet tanks and the main milestones such as IS-2, T-55, T-64, T-72, T-90 etc. I'm not sure if they have them at Bovington, but maybe they could cooperate with Moscow's Kubinka museum. I'd be glad to help as the translator!
The super top secret Manchester armor is made of a weave of dragon heart stings set within a matrix of proton degenerate matter. Its awesome 75mm long fin AP round is fired with incredible accuracy from it's highly up to date RIFLED (smoothbore cant compete!) barrel... And more it can boil water for lipton tea with milk (gross you weirdos). Add your own stale meme of le tea maker here. The chally is the single GREATEST tank ever made!
Damn, David about Challenger II, it’s like the Tank Museum wanted to give a Christmas gift after his brilliant telling of Challenger I
Yes, this is very sweet christmas gift indeed :))
Liking these longer chats! Keep it up!
Didn’t know you are a Tankie
Yep, a really good format and incredibly intresting.
While I like to enjoy a Tank Chat video, this one was a bit too long in my opinion, and would have been better as a three-part rather than two, to cover most of the digressions.
Great content, and a great place. Until I managed to make it back to Bovington in August 2019, I hadn't seen the place since I left Junior leaders Regt RAC in 1984. (To join The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards) I 'grew up' so to speak as a Cheifatin, Challenger 1, and Scorpion Gunner. I left the Army just before we got Chally2. It was truly moving for me to enter the Tank Museum (and Stanley barracks) after all these years. Thank you so much for your work in keeping the museum alive, it's an amazing asset.
Bruce MacAllan
Were you stationed in Warminster?
"It's not just Top Trumps".Tell that to the WOT AFV "experts"
HESH is not an obsession, it’s a way of life
Tacticalsquad 5 HESH is love, HESH is life
Mae ! HESH is still very viable for thin skinned vehicles such as BMPs, BTRs and ZSUs and anything of lesser armour like Technicals, etc. Terrific for anti fortification. Much better at all those compared to APFSDS
Mae ! How about a p1000 ratte but for HESH
until u run out of AP and find another armoured target that ur hesh cant penetrate
@@Eli_G454 HESH doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective...it damages sights and other critical electrics, can destroy the tracks, knock the turret race out of place. A mobility kill can be just as effective as a K-Kill, if not more so because the vehicle and crew have to be recovered.
I'm still wondering.. What kind of individual could've downvote such a beautiful piece of lecture from a genius such as David here? It's really beyond me.
Thank you Tank Museum for this. Have a nice Christmas time. Cheers!
sometimes stupidity knows no limits.
You too!
@@Dockhead if stupidity knew any limits ever, it wouldn't be stupid.
It's probably just because it's not presented by the Moustache. (no offense, David ;-))
Obviously Russians from the 1980s 🤣
That the excellent suspension and stabilisation system lets you aim the gun better is just a happy accident, its really there to prevent tea spillage
I can listen to David Willey and David Fletcher all day, both have a great insight into armoured military history.
Great work gentlemen.
Fletch and I served together last time I was in Bovi was 74 when I did B1 Radio ;I was already B2 gunnery, and the Reg held the record for 1st round hits on battle run and the most Hesh in the air from the same panzer, never been beaten ; UP THE SKINS; best tank regiment ever pity the Chiefy hadnt a better Pack.
1980's British tank development: We need reliability to be a major factor.
WWII British tanker: Oh, now it's a priority!
XD! Still, to be fair, they worked hard at reliability during the war. Churchills eventually became pretty solid, Cromwells and Comets were good from the start. Compared to the Germans and Soviets, whose vehicles never really came up to scratch, particularly toward the end of the conflict, they didn't do all that badly.
I think the british tanks in WW2 had 5 problems:
1. The gun. The 40mm 2pdr was a good to very good AT gun in the early war, but that was all it was good for.
The 6pdr was delayed and while it offerd better armour penetration at close range than the american 75mm, it had a much weaker HE shell, and its penetration at long range was inferior to the 75mm. So, they lacked a good general-purpose tank gun.
2. the engines. Yea, kindofa sore spot for british tanks up to the cold war....
That damn Nuffield Liberty... Just not quite up to the task. And untill the Metor finaly came around, they had few alternatives. I mean, that twin-Bedford.. 350 HP for a 40 ton tank?!
3. that Cruiser tank - Infantry tank thinking. The US had it right. Build one tank for all roles. Who cares if it is a little less good at either roll? You can build twice as many and your logistics are much simpler. And what good is a dedicated infantry support tank in the first place without a good general purpose gun that can knock out an enemy tank and lob a decent HE shell?
Besides, that whole thing about exploiting a break-through with fast but all but unarmoured tanks without propper infantry support was probably doomed from the moment someone first dreamed about it...
4. the structure gauge of the british railways. It limited how wide a tank could be, and by that limited the diameter of the turret ring.
The british railway net had many places where the space left and right of the tracks was extremely limited. Bridges, tunnels, ect. Thus they couldn't made the flatt-bed cars for the tanks wider. If only the engineers in the mid-19th century had had the foresight to anticipate the need for lager tanks a 100 years in the future. How shortsighted...
5. The adherence to the christie suspension. Realy, it was a neat idea, but in the late 30s it started to show its flaws...
It just takes so much space on the sides. And if you are allready limited in how wide you tank can be, it only makes things worse.
@@Bird_Dog00 I think the Brits in WW2 had a great deal more than just 5, mate! :-)
Still, since you've taken the time to post it's only polite to offer a counter.
1. You're right, the Brits needed a decent gun. The 2lber stayed in service far too long, the 6lber was limited in it's HE effectiveness and the US derived 75mm lacked penetration by the time it was available in decent numbers. Scandalous, really. The 17lber was a bit of a bonus for AT work, so the Brits weren't particularly outgunned from late '44, but the need for yet another tank type didn't do their logistics any favours. It's worth pointing out that other nations suffered much the same problem though, particularly our American Allies, who didn't start to receive decent numbers of 76mm guns until the middle of '45, by which point the show was almost over and the Brits were getting '77mm' armed vehicles to replace their 75s.
2. The Liberty was fine for the tanks it was intended for. Cruiser Mk III/IV were considered to be acceptably reliable and the Mk VI did well in trials in the UK. The Crusader's reliability woes were down to the inadequate cooling system, which wore out quickly in desert conditions, not any inherent flaw in the American designed engine. The problem came when the British moved from tanks weighing less than twenty tons to vehicles nearer to thirty tons. But the Meteor was available from '43, so even that wasn't a major concern. Large numbers of 6lb armed Cromwells were produced that year, but the Brits wanted 75mm guns, so they weren't deployed, Shermans were shipped out to Italy instead. The existing Cromwell fleet were up-gunned when the production lines began churning out 75mm armed Mk VIIIs.
The Bedford's power was adequate. The Churchill's performance off road was similar to other tanks in it's weight class. Reliability was an issue in early models, which was a far greater concern to the British, but those had been resolved by the time the first Mk IIIs went into action in North Africa in '42. Fun fact, the British tested Panthers and Jagdpanthers during and after the war against the tanks they had available. The Churchill VII was marginally faster and considerably more reliable.
3. Cruiser/Infantry is just semantics, Bird. It didn't make sense to call tanks 'light' and 'heavy' when the vehicles being developed for those roles were going to be roughly the same weight. The Soviets had Medium/Heavy tanks, the Germans had the same. There were differences with employment, but the fact is it just wasn't possible to build do it all Main Battle Tanks with 1930s technology. It was possible to build a fast tank or a well armoured one, not both. The Americans weren't immune to that kind of thinking, they had a mix of light/medium and tank destroyer forces. When they faced heavy fighting in close country they requested a heavy /infantry/breakthrough (delete whichever is most objectionable) tank and were issued Jumbo Shermans.
I think you're a little off the mark with the role of Cruiser tanks. They were light tanks that fulfilled a cavalry role. M3 Stuarts were employed as cruiser tanks in the Western Desert, for instance. They weren't unaccompanied, especially after a break out. Even before the war started both types of British tank were intended to support foot soldiers. In the Cruiser tank's case they would be mounted in the cavalry variant of what became the Universal Carrier. Later in the war our very generous American Allies leased us half tracks for the job. When technology moved on we got APCs and IFVs, but '30s technology really wasn't up to producing either. The best we could come up with was 'Kangaroos'. Worth a quick search, if you're interested?
4. Lol! Yeah, our railway network could do with a little loving, even now. You'll be happy to know we're still using narrow gauge track today, which means most freight in the UK is moved by road...
5. It's swings and roundabouts. Christie is cheap, mechanically reliable and gives the best ride this side of hydrogas, but you're right, it takes a huge bite out of the tank's available volume. It's not any worse than torsion bar though? No-one seems to complain about German tanks- and some modern ones- having a huge amount of space eaten by massive poles running the full width of the vehicle.
@Billy Clement.
A rather comprehensive reply. Cheeres.
2. You may have a point with the Liberty. Most issues I heard about were from the Crusader.
You have pointed out something not unimportant though. They worked on very light tanks. Once they moved up, they had a bit of a gap until the Meteor came along. They had to fill it with some less than perfectly satisfying sollutions. Some of the Infantry tanks like the Matilda 2 and the Churchills worked, but were realy slow. Off course not allways an issue, but being able to move down a road at more than 20 km/h is nice if you have a need.
3. It may have changed quickly after they met the Wehrmacht in battle, but from what I heard, the idea of using cruiser tanks as exploitation vehicles after break-through was in the british inter-war doctrine. And since the infantry had no real means to keep up, they would have done so unsupported. I doubt that this wuld have worked.
And If you compare a Cruiser MkIII with 14 tonnes and upt to 40km/h on road, with the infrantry tank MK2 with 27 tonnes and 25km/h on a good day, (both in service in the sime period) I don't think it was just semantics.
Those were very different types of vehicles. I think too different. I personaly would have prefered a somewhat lighter armoured but faster Matilda instead of the two vehicles, but keep the even heavier Chruchill s a true heavy tank.
Say, frontal armour down to 50mm, sides and rear 20-30, turret maybe 50-60 at the front but thinner at the sides and rear. Bring the weight down to maybe 20-23 tonnes?
5. Torsion bar takes afaik about 20-25 cm in the bottom. Makes the vehicle about that much higher. Not a big deal imo. Christie takes that much on both sides. So double the loss.
And you can make the vehicle taler. If you are limited by structure gauge, you can't make it wider. So torsion bar strikes me as the superior sollution especialy if you suffer from restricted width.
I get the use of Christie in earlier chruiser tanks, but why they didn't switch to something else with the Cromwell and Comet, I'm not sure.
@@Bird_Dog00 Again mate, I think you've been a bit misinformed.
There was no gap between the Liberty and the Meteor. The last Liberty engined tank to enter service was the Cavalier, in 1945. The Meteor engined Cromwell had been in service for just shy of two years by that point. It's a big subject, but cruiser engines were generally fit for purpose, British cooling systems attached to them somewhat less so.
The speed of infantry tanks was only poor on road. I reckon it's a reasonable trade off to have superb mobility off road, particularly given just how many Soviet and German tanks were lost to mechanical issues the moment they hit the mud. I can give you numerous examples of how the 'slow' Churchill kept moving across supposedly impassable terrain, waterlogged fields, submerged bridges, up impossible slopes and more. Panthers tended to break down reversing over mud. I hear what you're saying about it being nice to put in a burst of speed on firm going, but not if it cost them their proven off piste ability.
I think you've been misinformed about the British Army Doctrine. Prior to 1926 they followed the Great War doctrine of Combined Arms Warfare, in which cavalry would break out, supported by 'Whippet' light tanks, after the infantry had broken the enemy line, supported by heavy tanks. The Experimental Mechanised Force, the Experimental Armoured Force and the Armoured Force that followed all refined that concept and looked at ways to integrate the three fighting arms of the army into a coherent whole. The need for transport to accompany the tanks was recognised from the start. As I said, the Cavalry Carrier was developed specifically to accompany the AFs Cruiser tanks, along with scout and Bren gun carriers taken from the general issue. The cash strapped inter war British army wouldn't have bought close to 700 scout and cavalry carriers and goodness knows how many Mk 1 and 2 Bren gun carriers if they didn't intend moving troops with the tanks. Wartime production of the Universal Carrier eventually made it the most produced military tracked vehicle in history. The Brits were never short of mechanised transports, Bird! :-)
As for the two types of tank not keeping up with each other? Infantry and cavalry are different fighting arms. Why would you want them to keep up? The cav are tasked with recce, screening, exploitation, rearguard action and reserve counters. The infantry are required to take and hold objectives. They have very different roles and very different equipment requirements. That's not semantics, that's just the difference between how different arms are employed.
It's also fairly common across Western Armed Forces. The German 'Blitzkreig' and the British 'Combined Arms Warfare' aren't all that different to the modern US Army Doctrine you can download from jcs.mil.
What I meant by 'semantics' is that there's a habit of on line posters trying to make out there was some fundamental difference between the stoopid, old fashioned Brits and all the much better and more modern armies of the World. There were differences, but not anything like as drastic as some make them out to be. 'Heavy', 'breakthrough', 'assault' and 'infantry' are all describing the same basic vehicle role. The British tended to try and keep their size and weight down, the Germans went in for extraordinary giant machines, the US and Soviets fell somewhere in between. But people seem to get hung up on the terminology?
Your thoughts on a universal tank pretty much dovetail with what the British actually wanted. Eventually it would result in the Centurion. The trouble was that a late 30s/early 40s compromise tank wouldn't have sufficient mobility to be useful as a cavalry vehicle, nor sufficient protection to be employed in main battle. It took numerous technological advances to make Centurion possible, many of them forced by the war itself.
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning with the suspension. Christie and torsion bars take up about the same volume, but neither was seen as a problem to designers at the time. The British shift to Horstmann bogies on Centurion was driven by field maintenance and battlefield repair requirements. It's a real pita to get at Christie units, but bogies, as fitted to Shermans, Valentines and Churchills, amongst others, was a far easier task.
Which takes us full circle- we're back to reliability again! :-)
Merry Christmas Challenger 2! I love you! ❤️🎄🎅🏼🇨🇦
I love your video as well as this
Matsimus Chally makes you Matsimoist
Favourite tank, being spoken about by the tank museum's David Willey 👌👌
Thanks
Thank you. Glad you're enjoying the videos!
It would be a pleasure to sit down over a cup of tea and discuss the history of the development of the challenger tank, it seemingly complexities.
I really enjoyed this. Thank you. A documentary on the Chieftain,with library footage and interviews with old crews, that would be a real winner in my opinion!
Some of the best totally informative commentary ive listened to ...but you can only start and describe a story like this by knowing your stuff..nice work thank you.
I've had a play in a chally 2. Good fun, the optics system is something else though. Glad to know it is on my side, that is for sure.
Such a great tank chat about a great vehicle, cant wait for part 2!!
I live on the grounds of what used to be Royal Ordinance Leeds, I remember the Challenger gate guard when I was a kid. Only evidence it ever existed is a Blue Plaque near the entrance saying the factory built Bofors 40mm, Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger tanks. Most of the streets are named after the girls who died during the Barnbow explosion when the site was used as a filling station for artillery shells.
Absolutely loved working on this tank. Done us very proud during telic. I love listening to all the arm chair warriors and tank professional's comment's. Until you've crewed this beast and seen first hand what it can do and is capable of, keep your trap's shut.
What the book say's (remembering that it is still top secret) to what she can actually do is two different things.
Legendary videos
I've always adored the Challenger 2. The sound the engine makes has to be the best mechanical sound on this planet. Might have to pick up that Haynes manual hehe
get it, it's a superb book.
This is....EXCELLENT...Thanks y'all very much...From across the pond...ln Kentucky from a vet of Nam onward....!
Tank Chats - the gift that keeps on giving.
I was a crewman in this tank, good memories when it all worked :)
So much passion. Couldn’t ask for a better presenter.
Brilliant video, think I could listen to David talk about tanks all day.
2:56 Massive.
Love the timing there
Thank you for talking about such a beautiful piece of machinery.
Great Tank Chat! This chat along with the Challenger 1 chat really helped me to understand British tank development during this period of time.
Man, British Defense Procurement is just a recurring tragedy of having good ideas and then cutting costs to not quite get what they need. It's better now, but in the 1970s-1990s, things got dire.
Procurement has been plagued in many countries by pet projects and career advancement. Major projects usually have a Col as project chief and their whole career gets in the balance. The development of the Bradley in the US has become the meme of this phenomenon.
becaue eu runner our country
@@patchedupdemon7104 that might be the dumbest thing i have ever heard
you think the 70's where bad? remember the 40's? Half our country tucked tail and ran!
@@tomgarside480 I understand why you think that, when you're ignorant of the facts, it's easy to shout when your feelings get hurt
I always asked my self why the loaders periscope on german tanks from panther to leopard 2 was mounted at an angle to the side. Now I got the answer, thank you. 7:50
Driver looking forward, gunner to the left, loader to the right and there you go, 180° covered by six eye's. Commander of course 360°, but only one pair of eyeballs.
Interesting talk; In my early career my family engineering business worked prototype runs for aviation, armoured vehicles, warships and weapon systems. One of the projects worked on was the MBT80 multi sight system described in this video and spent some time on the testing tracks and ranges in Dorset. Vickers was mentioned but what I think needs a mention is Ferranti who provided the system of multi sighting as hardware and the electronics specialist boards and software for the original systems. Ferranti was a unique player in the world for specialised equipment sadly forced into a shadow of its former self due to HMG cancellations and dithering about with procurement. I do not think that their early contributions in missile, radar, computing and targeting should be forgotten by a company which was founded by an Italian immigrant to the UK in 1905. Its demise was the result of various HMG's perfidious actions during the 70s and 80s.
I eventually worked closely with Vickers which became Bae Systems from which I retired at 70 in 2018 as an SME (subject matter expert) on submarines.
I enjoyed the museum on my visit and it brings back memories having visited the museum shed with a REME officer in the 60s.
KInd regards
Thank you kindly for the back storey on a fascinating subject. Was your family the originator of the Hargreave rocket?
@@olliefoxx7165 Do you mean the Congrieve rocket? James Hargreaves was the inventor of the spinning jenny and we worked on textile machinery before defence industries. ?
Regards
So sorry. Must put my memory in the shop and blow off the Cobb webs. Have you ever thought of writing an autobiography? Sounds as if you have lived an interesting life.
@@olliefoxx7165 the bio bit has been mentioned before as some people know quite bit of the other interesting work I have not mentioned like Sellafield, Chernobyl and other innovative scientific/engineering adventures over the last 50-60 years (I started young).
Regards
@@johnhargreaves3620 I shall check that out, forgive my ignorance. Cheers
Awesome information. Thank you.
@9:38 "People that want to buy a tank but they don't need the top end product". More like a family tank, space for some shopping in the back and plenty of legroom for the kids.
As a Russian spy. I find this all very interesting. Many thanks.
I like this fellas tank chats,the sort of bloke you could chat to in the pub, but Mr fletcher wins through with the cuddly grandfather look and magnificent moustache 👍
20 years ago when in the ccf I drove one of these for 2 minutes - amazing machines - thanks to the queens royal hussars
This museum tops all others. It is my favourite place to go and is a great source of perfect information
That welding jig was an impressive sight!
Christmas came early with this fascinating Study of the Challenger, historic context, technical development & service use. Brilliant summary. Thank you.
Part ONE of TWO!? You guys are brilliant!
David has a second career as a HESH ammunition salesman. Looking for the affiliate link.
SueBobChicVid go to mecar.com and use the promocode TankMuseum for 10% off your first order
Even the HESH practice rounds are useful in combat. These rounds sell themselves. :)
Sadly his job as a HESH salesman will soon end. The coming Challenger 3 will use the smoothbore Rhinemattel gun that is used in the Leopard 2. The smoothbore doesn’t use HESH.
@@atinofspam3433 and HESH is pretty bad at anti fortification duty, HEAT-MP does the same job better.
HESH is obsolete from the 70´s onwards as anti tank round, everything you can kill with HESH, you can also kill with HEAT-MP while retaining the ability to fire ALOT more powerful APFSDS rounds
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 thanks for that
Love these educational chats. As a keen modelling hobbyist these videos are brilliant for any potential build. Keep it up .
Excellent talk. I always enjoy David's talks.
Wonderful chat cant wait for the next one. Thanks for making this a multi part to get into the details.
A two-parter for the Challenger 2. David, you spoil us.
Always wondered why keep the rifling in the gun, now I know thanks :D. Cool learning about the HESH round.
Always impressive tank chats from THE Tank Museum!
Perhaps after Part 2 you could do a chat on the FV101 Scorpion?
Best tank in the world coming from the best yt channel
*laughs in Leclerc*
@@nmspy before being disabled by an RPG
@@dingledooley9283 Leopard 2A7 would like to have a private chat with you
@@gaijinbot8135 not bad for a tankette,. But I was talking about mbts
@@gaijinbot8135 2a7 is the worlds best museum piece
Very elaborative and well explained, nice one.
challengers one of few British tanks we can be truly proud of
I enjoyed the prior video on the Challenger I. This is great as well. 🇺🇸🇬🇧👍
I recently bought this book that I can really recommend if you are interested in the Challenger 2! Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual
I need to change all the Frammis bolts and upgrade the steam buckets in my Challenger 2. This Haynes manual will probably be helpful there.
What a great early Christmas present, thanks so much for the great video!
An extra long tank chat? Nice early Christmas present from Bovington! Keep up the great work!
Israeli defense procurement employs abt 1000 people. UK defense procurement employs 21,000 people. It takes a lot of people to make a big, expensive mess of things.
The F-35 isn't bad, but it's not much of an improvement, and the development is 100% a scam.
Douglas Jones POTUS says it’s fantastic. That was after a meeting with Marilyn Hewson. Note the F35s parked behind him when he signed the NDAA
How many Merkavas lost in combat ? Loads
How many Challengers 1 or 2 lost to enemy fire ? Zero . Beat that
@@davidrobertson5700 here here
Israeli defence procurement is essentially what the US is prepared to subsidise and give the No need for for many people on chairs.m
Really enjoyed the development back story.
Great Tank 👍
Another great upload, Thanks chaps.
Always great information always enjoy his discussions.
Amazing to see how much time and effort go into tank innovation. This has been very informative. I am tempted to use some of it, if the Tank Museum is willing, as material for some of my MBA courses at university.
Thanks, I have learned a lot from your videos. I hope someday I'll visit the museum
Do you play world of tanks
@@rebeccacooksey112 Nope, I don't like arcades
@@monikah.g1918 you mean Arcade styled games? Not physical arcades?
Chally 2 is hours of fun in Steel Beasts. "Action Fin Tank On...Fire...(Firing!)...BOOM!...Target!" And another T-80 bites the dust.
That was very interesting. Thank you.
Incredibly interesting and well presented, very good indeed. Great job.
Can't wait for the Challenger 3 video in 10 years haha :D
You know a company is good when they put aside their greed and difference, to join together, and make the best products they can ever make while maintaining it at a low cost AND use their own money to further improve it.
great work liking the longer videos thank you and your team for the videos
Absolutely fantastic video. Looking forward to part 2 :-)
Outstanding and well rounded lecture. Thank You!
Thanks for a very informative video! I’m looking forward for part 2!
If you do like these Tank Chats, please subscribe and support the Tank Museum.
If you DON’T like these Tank Chats, then it’s out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
Superb as always sir. Many thanks
What a fantastic video. Thank you for sharing
I'm meant to be working. Can you please stop making great videos?
There were 4 British armoured divisions, however none were fully manned. We had 3 tanks per troop, instead of 4, due to defense cuts, .a number of pieces of equipment were removed from Chieftain, due to defense cuts. Regiments were being amalgamated, you guessed it, due to defense cuts.
With the introduction of Challenge they shrunk the size of a tank regiment, yup defense cuts.
So we had a great new tank, but not enough crews to be effective. And experienced crews were leaving in droves. So we ended up with nice shinny new tank, in insufficient numbers, few experienced crews, a smaller force, and along comes the Gulf war.
It was estimated the British should have been required to deploy 1,000 MBTs, we probably had a third of that. We got lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Peter King , wasn’t it the collapse of the Soviet Union that led to defence taking a back seat
Don't we have 200 mbts now?
Damo2690 Which is well short of requirements
Fanfeck absolutely. Then the Gulf War broke out.
@@Damo2690 200 and 200 in storage I think?
3:18 - you mean T-64B. Regular T-64 and T-64A was in production for years already. And i can`t imagine how Chieftain can penetrate frontal armour of T-64B from 2500 meters.
In a word 'HESH"
@@Ubique2927 HESH do nothing to composite armor
@@TheSunchaster T64's did NOT have composite armour.
@@Ubique2927 are you kidding or what
btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm
armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T64/t64a.php
@@TheSunchaster The T64 had a sort of spaced armour useless against HESH. So I am not kidding.
Interesting watching this, iv just watched the Challenger 2 upgrades on Forces TV Channel just before this going through all the new mods
Excellent talk. The explanation of why the German 120mm smoothbore gun wasn't adopted was very illuminating. HESH rounds sound very interesting and effective but are they so important that they're worth sacrificing standardisation of main gun tank ammo with every other NATO country ?
It's a British design, that's what they do. They go their own way until there's a problem & then blame the rest of NATO for not being as good as British.
No. HESH was totally obsolete when Chally 2 was made. It doesn't work vs composite armoir anywhere near as well as raw steel, and is mostly used to blow up bunkers these days. FYI, a HEAT round will do that just as well.
Gozza : in fairness the Brits were the only nation to build the Chieftain engine to NATO spec multi fuel, which no one else did then NATO dropped the requirement. NATO is pretty hit and miss.
@@AllThingsCubey Heat is nowhere near as good as HESH at blowing up bunkers though.
@@Arkantos117 HEAT is superb vs concrete....
It has about 150-200% the effective penetration vs concrete compared to steel, and HEAT rounds are already sitting at around 1000mm of penetration vs steel as it is. When it penetrates it vapourises and kills occupants. HESH kills them with shrapnel from the concrete wall. Big difference... both rounds do the job.... difference is HEAT works from a superior smoothbore gun. HESH doesn't.
Great tank talk!
Looking forward to the next episode.
Simply Amazing content love these videos Thank You Tank Museum and Staff.
Another outstanding video! Thank you!
Excellent, excellent talk!!!! But I must ask.....Am I the only Veteran "Cold War Tanker", who wonders what the height difference, from where the track touches the dirt to the tip of the tallest radio antennae, really is between the WWII Panther or Tiger (I and II) and current serving "box tanks" such as the Challenger, M1s, and MBTs of very similar external design?....And what about combat loaded weights?
The Beard is very informative! Cheers!
Interesting so far, but it would have been nice to have an assessment how it holds up today and what the future may bring
Thanks.
Excellent information !
I would absolutely love to see Mr. Wiley talk about the development of Soviet tanks and the main milestones such as IS-2, T-55, T-64, T-72, T-90 etc.
I'm not sure if they have them at Bovington, but maybe they could cooperate with Moscow's Kubinka museum. I'd be glad to help as the translator!
I love this channel guys visiting soon
Love this video, and this tank! Thanks 👍
3:18: the T-64 went into service even earlier, i.e. in the mid-1960s
Can't wait for part 2 👍🏼
Thanks for Uploading.
GREAT VIDEO ON THE HISTORY . THANK YOU .
great chat
Great informative talk. Super Job! :-)
The super top secret Manchester armor is made of a weave of dragon heart stings set within a matrix of proton degenerate matter. Its awesome 75mm long fin AP round is fired with incredible accuracy from it's highly up to date RIFLED (smoothbore cant compete!) barrel...
And more it can boil water for lipton tea with milk (gross you weirdos). Add your own stale meme of le tea maker here. The chally is the single GREATEST tank ever made!
Great cover.
Happy Christmas to all & Peace on Earth🌲☮.
Thank you, a belated merry Christmas to you too!
Excellent, fascinating video, thanks.
Excellent, thank you.