My father served in Comets during the Korean war sitting in Hong Kong defending the border. Or as he told it - sitting in a tank on a hill with a wornout barrel in a tank that was chosen because the bridges in the New Territories would not support anything heavier. After the war ended the tanks were sent home to be used as range targets. So dad and the regiment went through every tank and made sure that they were complete. That ment that all the good equipment and tools were replaced with any broke equipment and tool that they could find. Thanks, Dad. :)
A27M Cromwell was the first British Cruiser Tank actually designed in WW2. It was delayed because its Rolls Royce Meteor engine needed to be built in a new factory, and that took time to get into production. Production began in 1943 but by the time it arrived the 75mm gun was obsolete. Work continued to upgrade the Cromwell, leading to the A34 Comet, mounting the 77mm gun, actually a 17 Pounder with new shell case. This entered service in November 1944 and served with the British army up to 1960.
The QF 75mm was not obsolete. It fired an excellent HE and could defeat a Pzr IV, the main tank faced in NTO. HE was required over 75% of requirements so tank on tank was rarer. As the campaign went on allies, used their quantity to flank panthers. Tigers were rare, however another tactic was to fire rapid HE. This might not destroy the tank but would damage periscopes, stowage etc and cause the Cdr to lockdown, severely reducing SA and often forcing it to retire. That however is just the focus at the tactical level. When allies went into action they did so at something approaching full strength, against reduced strength German units where reliability and serviceability was a serious issue.
Unfortunately,only the last 10 mins is about the Cromwell , which is in no way a heavy tank anyway. I was hoping for an in depth analysts of this interesting but this is in no way that . Damn shame.
I am tired of hearing that the 88mm gun was converted for use against tanks. It was designed for use against aircraft AND tanks. Read what the Germans said when they were building them.
Uhuh... The British did not "flee the continent" and leave Churchill tanks on the beach of Dunkirk. That was Dieppe in 1942. If you are going to put information on YT, claiming to be a historical documentary, why not start with 5 minutes of research before you do? You might use AI to give a posh narrative, but accurate information is more important.
AVOID wasting your time on this video. Lots of filler material and not much on the Cromwell. I was immediately sceptical when during the intro they talk about the debacle at Dunkirk whilst showing film of knocked out Churchills from the 1942 Dieppe raid. A little later it talks about rushing cruiser tanks into battle too early, and shows film of an A34 Comet, which was by many accounts our best wartime tank! I hate mislabelled and badly researched material.
2:40 "By 1918 only the British have a workable battle tank as opposed to an upgunned armorted car." Tthe guy saying this not unexpectedly has a British accent. Neither the Schneider nor the Saint-Chamond were great tanks, but neither were the British ones. See ~3:50 & ~4:30 where this is sort-of admitted. And more Renault FTs (5:08) were produced than any other WW1 tank. And it even had a turret. 9:35 That's Brit equipment lost in the 1942 Dieppe raid (specifically a Churchill in the foreground), not the 1940 Dunkirk losses being talked about. And this Finch fellow is blithering. The German MkIII was better than any Allied tank, though the number was limited and some of those undergunned (37mm instead of 50mm).
Next time use try to portray tanks left at Dunkirk, you may want to NOT USE Canadian Churchill tanks left at Dieppe later in the war. Most British tanks in France in 1939/40 were Matildas and Light tanks, not Churchills.
I'm a bit confused about the consistency of the commentary. I hear at the beginning of the war, the British and French had superior tanks, but they were late to the battlefields. Straight from the production lines, they sustained more losses to mechanical breakdowns than to actual combat. How exactly were they better than what Germany had fielded? Sure sounds like someone's blowing smoke in an upwards direction directly behind me.
Everything they said in the first 3 minutes of this doc is bull. Renault FT was a French tank used in WW1 starting in 1917. This tank also had a turret.
The British never came up with a worthwhile tank until 1945, admit your mistakes. Don't pretend that you had anything worthwhile in the second world war when you only had death traps and obsolete vehicles. Arrogance and excuses doesn't change reality. The Sherman wasn't I great, it was however better than anything the British never built
@@billballbuster7186 And then Germans start reequipping panzer divisions with 44ton heavy tanks, while their infantry tanks - stugs are less than 25 tons.
When an English man says their tanks is better than German tanks, but still got embarrassed in the war, that's just a big a lie!!!! Too many excuses by the British
The fact was that as an Island tanks were not needed for survival, ships and aircraft were. So tank development was on the back burner until 1943 when development was given more resources. The Germans were also lagging behind in tank development until they were spurred on by the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 in 1941. They caused the Tiger 1 and Panther development by up-armouring and remodelling designs on the drawing board.
In WW2, just like WW1 the British upper class arrogance ruined any adaptation and adjustments to reality. That was what the 1940 defeat happened. The French and British did NOT adapt the strategy promoted by intelligent British w to itings. Admitting mistakes and learning from them is enlightened. 80 years after the fact making excuses is lame.
let us dick around for 6 years and stick our head in the Libyan sands and refuse to up armour and up gun tanks. Only getting a decent tank in the last 2 weeks of the war. Well done chaps.
The British tanks were totally worthless in WW 2. According to ever source I have read since the 1970,'s. Sure some specialized tanks had an impact. In general every British ,WW 2 tank was a disaster. I detestisrs and blind patriotism. Give it up. Your empire died 80+ years ago.
My father served in Comets during the Korean war sitting in Hong Kong defending the border. Or as he told it - sitting in a tank on a hill with a wornout barrel in a tank that was chosen because the bridges in the New Territories would not support anything heavier. After the war ended the tanks were sent home to be used as range targets. So dad and the regiment went through every tank and made sure that they were complete. That ment that all the good equipment and tools were replaced with any broke equipment and tool that they could find.
Thanks, Dad. :)
A lot of those images are featuring Churchills standee on beaches with raised exhaust pipes, which were deployed at Dieppe IIRC?
😮 to be clear for viewers who get to read this before they view it. The actual information about the Cromwell doesn’t start until 32 minutes in.
A27M Cromwell was the first British Cruiser Tank actually designed in WW2. It was delayed because its Rolls Royce Meteor engine needed to be built in a new factory, and that took time to get into production. Production began in 1943 but by the time it arrived the 75mm gun was obsolete. Work continued to upgrade the Cromwell, leading to the A34 Comet, mounting the 77mm gun, actually a 17 Pounder with new shell case. This entered service in November 1944 and served with the British army up to 1960.
I always judge the historical value of an article by how much emotive words are used. " Crushed, merciless etc" gives me an immediate idea...
The QF 75mm was not obsolete. It fired an excellent HE and could defeat a Pzr IV, the main tank faced in NTO. HE was required over 75% of requirements so tank on tank was rarer. As the campaign went on allies, used their quantity to flank panthers. Tigers were rare, however another tactic was to fire rapid HE. This might not destroy the tank but would damage periscopes, stowage etc and cause the Cdr to lockdown, severely reducing SA and often forcing it to retire. That however is just the focus at the tactical level. When allies went into action they did so at something approaching full strength, against reduced strength German units where reliability and serviceability was a serious issue.
This a really old, and out of date, video. Still enjoyed it.
Nuts that the Centurions first combat kill was on a North Korean Cromwell.
I worked at Farington works, Leyland Motors, in the 70's and 80's in "Comet Shop" named for obvious reasons.
Starts at 32:00
Blitzkrieg was a British invention. That the British totally dropped the ball on.
Unfortunately,only the last 10 mins is about the Cromwell , which is in no way a heavy tank anyway. I was hoping for an in depth analysts of this interesting but this is in no way that . Damn shame.
Recycling the old "Battlefield" documentaries from 1997 are we?
I am tired of hearing that the 88mm gun was converted for use against tanks. It was designed for use against aircraft AND tanks. Read what the Germans said when they were building them.
Uhuh... The British did not "flee the continent" and leave Churchill tanks on the beach of Dunkirk. That was Dieppe in 1942. If you are going to put information on YT, claiming to be a historical documentary, why not start with 5 minutes of research before you do? You might use AI to give a posh narrative, but accurate information is more important.
AVOID wasting your time on this video. Lots of filler material and not much on the Cromwell. I was immediately sceptical when during the intro they talk about the debacle at Dunkirk whilst showing film of knocked out Churchills from the 1942 Dieppe raid. A little later it talks about rushing cruiser tanks into battle too early, and shows film of an A34 Comet, which was by many accounts our best wartime tank! I hate mislabelled and badly researched material.
46 minute video and the Cromwell only begins to be discussed at the 32 minute mark, same old misleading title.
what model tanks are shown at 8:52?
I think Renault FTs?
2:40 "By 1918 only the British have a workable battle tank as opposed to an upgunned armorted car."
Tthe guy saying this not unexpectedly has a British accent.
Neither the Schneider nor the Saint-Chamond were great tanks, but neither were the British ones. See ~3:50 & ~4:30 where this is sort-of admitted. And more Renault FTs (5:08) were produced than any other WW1 tank. And it even had a turret.
9:35 That's Brit equipment lost in the 1942 Dieppe raid (specifically a Churchill in the foreground), not the 1940 Dunkirk losses being talked about. And this Finch fellow is blithering. The German MkIII was better than any Allied tank, though the number was limited and some of those undergunned (37mm instead of 50mm).
Next time use try to portray tanks left at Dunkirk, you may want to NOT USE Canadian Churchill tanks left at Dieppe later in the war. Most British tanks in France in 1939/40 were Matildas and Light tanks, not Churchills.
I'm a bit confused about the consistency of the commentary. I hear at the beginning of the war, the British and French had superior tanks, but they were late to the battlefields. Straight from the production lines, they sustained more losses to mechanical breakdowns than to actual combat. How exactly were they better than what Germany had fielded? Sure sounds like someone's blowing smoke in an upwards direction directly behind me.
In ww1 the reason the tank was shaped like it was because it was made to cross the trenches of whitch there were hundreds.
Everything they said in the first 3 minutes of this doc is bull. Renault FT was a French tank used in WW1 starting in 1917. This tank also had a turret.
The British never came up with a worthwhile tank until 1945, admit your mistakes. Don't pretend that you had anything worthwhile in the second world war when you only had death traps and obsolete vehicles. Arrogance and excuses doesn't change reality. The Sherman wasn't I great, it was however better than anything the British never built
It wasn't a heavyweight by any means.
No, it was a Cruiser (Medium), the A22 Churchill was the Infantry (Heavy) tank.
@@billballbuster7186 And then Germans start reequipping panzer divisions with 44ton heavy tanks, while their infantry tanks - stugs are less than 25 tons.
When an English man says their tanks is better than German tanks, but still got embarrassed in the war, that's just a big a lie!!!!
Too many excuses by the British
We don’t have excuses, only reasons.
The fact was that as an Island tanks were not needed for survival, ships and aircraft were. So tank development was on the back burner until 1943 when development was given more resources. The Germans were also lagging behind in tank development until they were spurred on by the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 in 1941. They caused the Tiger 1 and Panther development by up-armouring and remodelling designs on the drawing board.
Nobody has said that ever, English or British. Yes, there's a difference! Google it, you might learn something.
Sloped armor?
In WW2, just like WW1 the British upper class arrogance ruined any adaptation and adjustments to reality. That was what the 1940 defeat happened. The French and British did NOT adapt the strategy promoted by intelligent British w to itings. Admitting mistakes and learning from them is enlightened. 80 years after the fact making excuses is lame.
let us dick around for 6 years and stick our head in the Libyan sands and refuse to up armour and up gun tanks. Only getting a decent tank in the last 2 weeks of the war. Well done chaps.
Please pronounce properly Cambrai
say it as it is the cromwell was a shitty tank
Cromwell was a pile of garbage.
The British tanks were totally worthless in WW 2. According to ever source I have read since the 1970,'s. Sure some specialized tanks had an impact. In general every British ,WW 2 tank was a disaster. I detestisrs and blind patriotism. Give it up. Your empire died 80+ years ago.