Wow, it carries Polish markings. Incredible story how the men and women of the Polish army fought on whenever possible even after the loss of Poland. I think this is probably my favourite British tank.
As I understood from a BBC documentary, some veteran drivers of this tank were (in the nineties) still upset about this tank and thought the ones who designed it ought to have stood trial for high treason. I just cannot find that documentary anymore. It used to be on You Tube somewhere. Anyone?
+Ronald de Rooij Killer Tanks - Cromwell I think is what your looking for I believe, ...and by killer tanks, the title implies they was game/history changing, ..like the KV-1 was when 1st encountered, but yes the the lies told & the lives lost should've been an thing, but when the Crom' was still an improvement on the garbage we had before it, and it being an improvement, I think hindsight was a natural part of those veterans anger.
Richard is there Military Specialist I know because one of my grandsons served in his Regiment the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, they were in Iraq together and Bosnia and I belive Richard was his Gunnery Instructer. He has a lot of experience as I think he only left the British Army recently. He has certainly had a lot of time and operational experience on Tanks.
The irony is that the British really started to make good tanks when the war was almost over. Their earlier tanks were either unsuited for fast, mobile warfare (Matilda) or had loads of mechanical problems (Crusader), due to the British clinging to the concept of a fast cruiser tank, which would substitute armor with speed. The A34 Comet finally gave the British a tank with the capability of taking on German tanks and the Centurion was an amazing allround design, but both came too late to really impact the war in any meaningful way.
They wanted a tank to support the infantry not tackle the German armour. They used AT guns and TD 's Arty and later planes to destroy the german armour and sometime the poor infantry had to use a PIAT
Filip Ziętek A match for the Panther in armour, firepower and mobility but ahead in reliability and maintenance. The two year gap was simply down to the unwillingness for the decision makers to push it out earlier as they believed that the existing tanks were ‘good enough’ to do the job. They also wanted to get the design right, unlike the Panther that was rushed into combat and suffered as a result, they felt the first Centurions so good that the prototypes were sent for combat experience, arriving just weeks too late.
Interested to find this. My dad, who died just a couple of weeks ago, was a Normandy Veteran who drove Cromwells in France, Belgium and Holland. Was wounded at Villers-Bockage when ambushed by Tigers, and again later in Holland by an air strike. Told me that compared to what they'd had before, the Cromwells were a vast improvement and that the engines were superb and got them out of trouble on many occasions, but they were poorly armoured and their guns coudn't do much against the heavier German tanks. Their shells would just bounce off the big Tigers! Can hardly believe how small and cramped they are inside - doubt I could even get into one.
If I remember correctly the Desert Rats were very unimpressed with this tank. They thought it was a backward step in terms of lacking sloped armour and having tiny escape hatches. Apparently some of them complained so much that they were threatened with court marshall unless they shut up.
Yes they came back from Italy and had their shermans replaced by cromwells and were rightly not impressed. With the exceptions of the engine and the suspension the cromwell is an example of how not to build a tank circa 1942.
exactly, I'm telling you to do that. It's really very simple stuff to analyze; look at the tank, its stats, and then look into historical anecdotes so that i don't have to write a small book on the cromwell here, and neither does WG. This is just a visual guide to the tank. Useful to anyone who has an interest in the cromwell. One more tip: The gun is everything in a tank, don't worry so much about the rest. If it can't perform its offensive role, it's a hunk of steel.
I saw some special on British tanks, where a vet, when his Company was issued Cromwells to replace their Shermans, state, "Didn't anyone LEARN anything from the Sherman?", noting how cramped it was compared to the Sherman, how difficult it was to escape from when needed, etc. Apparently, he despised the Cromwell.
Which is ironic as the British tankers main complaint about the Sherman was its high profile/silhouette. The Sherman had more interior space but had high straight sides and the turret was very high up and the gun suffered with bad depression. So learning from the Sherman wasnt all about how good it was, it had its weaknesses too.
Maybe they picked vertically challenged troops for this tank? Men in those days were about 2-4 inches shorter than now, so finding little guys wasn't hard. Makes sense to me.
From ones I met when younger they were a different breed. Depression era lack of food but older men who I had six or more inches on were stronger than me by far. A lifetime of hard physical work does that. We used to say that they were wiry. Not heard that recently but rarer to see it I suppose. I've seen it in Mexican workers who come from rural areas. Small stature but a lot of strength, stoic ability to take pain. It's really impressive.
So, was the engine a good engine? was the size to it's advantage or disadvantage, how effective was the flat armour, why wasnt sloped armour used? More analsis would be nice, but overall an enjoayable video.
I think it's because both of them served on those tanks, the Chieftain and the Challenger respectively. Mr. Moran is (or was, not sure) a tanker for the US Army but I think k he was also a tanker for the Brits before that.
My personal view is anything like this is fantastic whatever others believe and with remembrance day approaching my thoughts are else where. All the best.
What were the engineers thinking when they made this and the other cruiser tanks? Flat, construction, no angling whatsoever, bolts and rivets instead of welding, too fast for the supplies to keep up with. Pretty sure the UK was the farthest behind when it came to tank production. Even their most effective tank was a Sherman with a reworked turret and gun.
TheKsalad Hi Ksalad, Like anything tanks our compromises, the trick of making a good tank is to minimise the compromises. Angled armour has its downsides and if you look at modern tanks angling is very carefully done and not just thrown on every surface. As far as the Cromwell and the other cruisers (Though the cromwell has more in common with the late war tanks like the comet and Cent than the earlier cruisers) are concerned angling would make no difference since its far to thin to have any effect on anything but the weakest anti tank gun. Angling also makes an awkward internal space (a problem for small tanks) and can increase weight and silhouette and make it harder to produce. The British learnt this the hard was with 4 marks of cruisers before they gave up angling (often 12mm) of armour. Plenty of successful tanks where mobile boxes and their designers where well aware of angling. Go and do some research, start here with the thank tank series and Richards other lectures. Go the tank musumn and look at the tanks. HTH Kev
You guys need to go read up on the subject, not getting into a debate on You tube comments. But basically the tanks you mention where designed before WW2 so did not have luxury of hindsight. The first tank to be designed and produced with the lessons of 1940-41 was the Cromwell. These was severe issues and shortcomings across all aspects in the British Tank programme without a doubt. But to label designers stupid is inaccurate,life is seldom that simple.
Cromwell was designed to fight the PzKpfw III and IV, to which it would have done great against. But the Germans already had the Panther and Tiger II before it even went into production.
im comparing my cromwell scale 1: 76. on the front of it its a 40 and seas TAURC II and has a bull under. but in thes vidio its a 45 on the left and a eagel and to the left has a wight triangel. but it doesn't have a A or B. sorry for the bad grammer!
So how did that translate to the success of the tank? Why was the speed usefull, did the square armour give it a disadvantage against enemy shells, making room for the crew. why is it bieng smaller the better, when the germans were going for bigger tanks the cromwell couldn't penetrate (King Tiger) All you just did is put the stats in a context, you didn't analyize anything
Interesting and good sights but a bit in a hurry !! Too much music and image jumps and too little time to really see what is being pointed and also would be interesting some conclusions, comparissions with other british tanks, etc
No the suspension system was the same Christie suspension used on the bt 7, t34 and the crusader the drive was just to the rear sprocket to the tracks. There is a you tube vidio (by The_Chieftain ) on the BT 7 which will explain how the road wheels were driven which was pratical'ish on a light tank but not on a medium.
Excelente serie de vídeos sobre tanques, el diseño del Cromwell es muy bonito, lo que no entiendo son esas protuberancias en las planchas de blindaje de la torreta. Cuál es su motivo?
The good news? Your tank is fast and maneuverable and has decent armor and armament for a cruiser tank. The bad news? Any man over about 5'4 and 120 pounds will have to grease himself liberally to fit through the hatches! Say what you will about the Germans; they actually understood ergonomics, specifically getting in and out of their tanks, better than anyone else of the era. My Dad was an electrical engineer who was instrumental in the development of disk drives going back to the early 50's. He worked with people from many countries and he had a favorite saying. "German engineers will spend years in development and testing and then produce something that is overbuilt, overpriced, and overly-complicated but will beat anything in the world if it's maintained properly. The British engineers will sit around a table making sketches for a few hours then someone will look at their watch and say; "that'll do nicely, let's go to the pub!" NOTE: Dad liked Germans and Brits and even Japanese, despite being a navigator and bombardier in B-17's in WW2, but he also liked to rib people he liked. He had several British roadsters and liked them all the more for their sometimes quirky solutions to engineering problems.
He didn't mention one of the most obvious, and characteristic identifiers of the tank ... what are the 'bumps' on the turret armour? An explanation would have helped us non-tankies. Have they bolted armour to the turret?
Actually i can find out any of the stats i want by looking at the plethora of books available on technical stats. I would prefer an analysis of it's battlefield capabilites, how did those stats translate to battlefield performance? Did the armour, engine etc make a succesfull tank or not? A King Tiger is an excellent tank if you look at it's stats but its pretty useless in reality. I'd rather see a researched analysis than just regurtitagion of stats.
+Death thumbs That's the white triangle of an 'A' Squadron vehicle in an unbrigaded British Armoured Regiment (British Army at this point also included the Poles). Nothing to do with Canada, I'm afraid.
1st Armoured, jesli już, Pancery to Niemcy mieli ;) Byłem w Bovington 5 lat temu, pamiętam jak dziś, jak zobaczyłem polską "wiewiórkę" na czołgu, to cieszyłem się jak małe dziecko =) Z tyłu na ścianie był jeszcze krótki opis poszczególnych oznaczeń 1 Pancernej.
You can figure those things out for yourself. Obviously looking up stats tells the story. It was very fast and manuverable, the smaller the better, and then sloped wasn't used because the british had obsolete design philosophies. Sloped also makes things a tad more cramped in such a small tank.
+DrPapaPenguin ALL tanks are bloody uncomfortable for the crews!!!! even the modern designs while better are still hot, cramped and throw you about all the time
o ___ o Spitfire engine = Aircraft engine (orly? ok nothing new here) = highly volatile fuel right? So it was like a rolling highly volatile petrol tank with tiny scape hatches... o __ o kinda reminds me how brave those men were.
I didnt mean it that way, i know that it was the Polish army tank for some time, i ment it like that its a British m8 a great british m8 that can pack a punch, sorry if i ofended you somehow
You young man need to stop referring to Wiki so much (its wrong) and ensure before you say something publicly that your facts are correct, all the facts stated are correct ( I should know I wrote a book and spent two years researching it) where is the ref to 7th Armoured Division he clearly states 7 Armd Brigade (unless its on captions perhaps) I refer to his forums and facebook page a lot for useful and interesting articles and he has served a long time on Tanks, you still at School ?
It would be a pleasure, when my granson returns, I have no idea what PM means other than post meridian, didnt mean to sound patrionising initially so please accept my apology on that point,it is just as I am sure you understand something I am very passionate about.
Wow, it carries Polish markings. Incredible story how the men and women of the Polish army fought on whenever possible even after the loss of Poland. I think this is probably my favourite British tank.
Yep, this tank was in 1st Polish Armored Division, called the Black Devils. They showed their valour e.g at Falaise
My favourite WWII British tank is the Cromwell's big brother, the Comet.
So we don't get to see the drivers position?
He probably couldn't get into them. Most of the gunner's manual traverse mech was missing. 4:35
Really too short, i prefer the outside/ inside version with the "The Chieftain".
yea this guys seem rushed
As I understood from a BBC documentary, some veteran drivers of this tank were (in the nineties) still upset about this tank and thought the ones who designed it ought to have stood trial for high treason. I just cannot find that documentary anymore. It used to be on You Tube somewhere. Anyone?
+Ronald de Rooij
Killer Tanks - Cromwell
I think is what your looking for I believe, ...and by killer tanks, the title implies they was game/history changing, ..like the KV-1 was when 1st encountered, but yes the the lies told & the lives lost should've been an thing, but when the Crom' was still an improvement on the garbage we had before it, and it being an improvement, I think hindsight was a natural part of those veterans anger.
Great content, love the look inside the tank, but the editing and music are obnoxious. Less music; more talking.
Exactly
Yes, background music is unnecessary.
Never realised how tiny it really was, would have liked to have seen the driver's compartment.
Didn't come for the music video but fantastic look inside the tank. Thank you! It must've been a claustrophobic nightmare in combat.
Richard is there Military Specialist I know because one of my grandsons served in his Regiment the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, they were in Iraq together and Bosnia and I belive Richard was his Gunnery Instructer. He has a lot of experience as I think he only left the British Army recently. He has certainly had a lot of time and operational experience on Tanks.
That tank has the markings of the 1st Polish Armoured Division, which was a part of the Polish I Corps.
4:42 That look's alot like the James bond intro!
yes it does☺
XD
+the dutch mocmaker Both are British.
it's the rifling in the barrel as it catches the light that gives that effect
i look also to live of boris
The irony is that the British really started to make good tanks when the war was almost over. Their earlier tanks were either unsuited for fast, mobile warfare (Matilda) or had loads of mechanical problems (Crusader), due to the British clinging to the concept of a fast cruiser tank, which would substitute armor with speed.
The A34 Comet finally gave the British a tank with the capability of taking on German tanks and the Centurion was an amazing allround design, but both came too late to really impact the war in any meaningful way.
The same with the Americans, the centurion tank was a breakthrough on tank technology, it's a shame it wasn't made earlier
Early centurion were a match for a panther, thats not very impressive considring 2 year gap.
***** it was still the most popular tank of all time and the basis for the modern tank
They wanted a tank to support the infantry not tackle the German armour. They used AT guns and TD 's Arty and later planes to destroy the german armour and sometime the poor infantry had to use a PIAT
Filip Ziętek A match for the Panther in armour, firepower and mobility but ahead in reliability and maintenance. The two year gap was simply down to the unwillingness for the decision makers to push it out earlier as they believed that the existing tanks were ‘good enough’ to do the job.
They also wanted to get the design right, unlike the Panther that was rushed into combat and suffered as a result, they felt the first Centurions so good that the prototypes were sent for combat experience, arriving just weeks too late.
Interested to find this. My dad, who died just a couple of weeks ago, was a Normandy Veteran who drove Cromwells in France, Belgium and Holland. Was wounded at Villers-Bockage when ambushed by Tigers, and again later in Holland by an air strike.
Told me that compared to what they'd had before, the Cromwells were a vast improvement and that the engines were superb and got them out of trouble on many occasions, but they were poorly armoured and their guns coudn't do much against the heavier German tanks. Their shells would just bounce off the big Tigers!
Can hardly believe how small and cramped they are inside - doubt I could even get into one.
If I remember correctly the Desert Rats were very unimpressed with this tank. They thought it was a backward step in terms of lacking sloped armour and having tiny escape hatches. Apparently some of them complained so much that they were threatened with court marshall unless they shut up.
Yes they came back from Italy and had their shermans replaced by cromwells and were rightly not impressed. With the exceptions of the engine and the suspension the cromwell is an example of how not to build a tank circa 1942.
exactly, I'm telling you to do that. It's really very simple stuff to analyze; look at the tank, its stats, and then look into historical anecdotes so that i don't have to write a small book on the cromwell here, and neither does WG. This is just a visual guide to the tank. Useful to anyone who has an interest in the cromwell.
One more tip: The gun is everything in a tank, don't worry so much about the rest. If it can't perform its offensive role, it's a hunk of steel.
Thanks Richard!
I saw some special on British tanks, where a vet, when his Company was issued Cromwells to replace their Shermans, state, "Didn't anyone LEARN anything from the Sherman?", noting how cramped it was compared to the Sherman, how difficult it was to escape from when needed, etc. Apparently, he despised the Cromwell.
Which is ironic as the British tankers main complaint about the Sherman was its high profile/silhouette. The Sherman had more interior space but had high straight sides and the turret was very high up and the gun suffered with bad depression. So learning from the Sherman wasnt all about how good it was, it had its weaknesses too.
The cruiser tanks always had nice, sleek lines.
Yeah, it's impressive how the Cromwell manages to look so sleek despite being composed almost entirely of right angles.
Maybe they picked vertically challenged troops for this tank?
Men in those days were about 2-4 inches shorter than now, so finding little guys wasn't hard. Makes sense to me.
From ones I met when younger they were a different breed. Depression era lack of food but older men who I had six or more inches on were stronger than me by far. A lifetime of hard physical work does that. We used to say that they were wiry. Not heard that recently but rarer to see it I suppose. I've seen it in Mexican workers who come from rural areas. Small stature but a lot of strength, stoic ability to take pain. It's really impressive.
oh this videos are way better than the ones in the us i like the way he explains better but then again its all good
Nope much explaining at all from Richard
In service 1944-1955 not 1942-52 as he says.
William Dashfield In service, first time used in battle--last time used in battle.
Sorry, I can be a smart ass. :P
+William Dashfield In service =/= in combat
I am 6'1" 200lbs. No way I could have been a Brit tanker during WWII!
I think this Cromwell served in 1st Polish Armoured Division as its their crest beside machinegun.
czołg należący do 1. Dywizja Pancerna I Korpusu WP
Tyle że oni mają nas gdzieś ;)
Kuba J murzyn zrobił swoje może odejść
+viking93ify tak tak * -_- stupid child
That is genuinely interesting. Great stuff.
So, was the engine a good engine? was the size to it's advantage or disadvantage, how effective was the flat armour, why wasnt sloped armour used? More analsis would be nice, but overall an enjoayable video.
why is it so short. it should all be at least 20 minutes.
4:08 that's the receiver not the stock
More! Please, more stuff like these
Looks it.
I like how both Chieftain's and Challenger's names correspond with two different names used for British tanks. :)
I think it's because both of them served on those tanks, the Chieftain and the Challenger respectively. Mr. Moran is (or was, not sure) a tanker for the US Army but I think k he was also a tanker for the Brits before that.
why this tank had the polish winged hussar sign on it? did it have a polish crew or was it in a polish tank unit in the british army?
+Laci Ihasz Polish units used them
+Laci Ihasz it was 1st Polish armoured division, lead by gen. Maczek. They fought along with Allies
Rewik cheers buddy!
+Laci Ihasz I'm polish so that's something I have to know :)
Rewik
all ways good to know ur own history!
respect from hungary!
My personal view is anything like this is fantastic whatever others believe and with remembrance day approaching my thoughts are else where. All the best.
I'd be so tempted to swing the turret round and point it at a museum-goer
please tell me what the name of the song at 1:45 ? i'm searching it since long time ago
Cromwell: Hello i am cromwell and it seems that you're having fun, i cannot let you have fun
#FuckCromwells
Those periscopes look identical to the one on the loaders side of the Centurion
What were the engineers thinking when they made this and the other cruiser tanks? Flat, construction, no angling whatsoever, bolts and rivets instead of welding, too fast for the supplies to keep up with. Pretty sure the UK was the farthest behind when it came to tank production. Even their most effective tank was a Sherman with a reworked turret and gun.
TheKsalad Hi Ksalad, Like anything tanks our compromises, the trick of making a good tank is to minimise the compromises. Angled armour has its downsides and if you look at modern tanks angling is very carefully done and not just thrown on every surface. As far as the Cromwell and the other cruisers (Though the cromwell has more in common with the late war tanks like the comet and Cent than the earlier cruisers) are concerned angling would make no difference since its far to thin to have any effect on anything but the weakest anti tank gun. Angling also makes an awkward internal space (a problem for small tanks) and can increase weight and silhouette and make it harder to produce. The British learnt this the hard was with 4 marks of cruisers before they gave up angling (often 12mm) of armour. Plenty of successful tanks where mobile boxes and their designers where well aware of angling.
Go and do some research, start here with the thank tank series and Richards other lectures. Go the tank musumn and look at the tanks.
HTH
Kev
You guys need to go read up on the subject, not getting into a debate on You tube comments. But basically the tanks you mention where designed before WW2 so did not have luxury of hindsight. The first tank to be designed and produced with the lessons of 1940-41 was the Cromwell. These was severe issues and shortcomings across all aspects in the British Tank programme without a doubt. But to label designers stupid is inaccurate,life is seldom that simple.
Cromwell was designed to fight the PzKpfw III and IV, to which it would have done great against. But the Germans already had the Panther and Tiger II before it even went into production.
Some Cromwells were of welded construction, others were of riveted construction. It depended on what factory the particular tank was made in.
What do the little bolts on the turret do?
im comparing my cromwell scale 1: 76. on the front of it its a 40 and seas TAURC II and has a bull under. but in thes vidio its a 45 on the left and a eagel and to the left has a wight triangel. but it doesn't have a A or B.
sorry for the bad grammer!
So how did that translate to the success of the tank? Why was the speed usefull, did the square armour give it a disadvantage against enemy shells, making room for the crew. why is it bieng smaller the better, when the germans were going for bigger tanks the cromwell couldn't penetrate (King Tiger) All you just did is put the stats in a context, you didn't analyize anything
How can you play this game solo ? I mean, without having to join or create a clan ? I've just registered, and I can't figure it out yet.
I can see quite clearly now the rain is gone.
u r the best person in the world
The road wheel with holes in it, is this made in order to add some form of extra suspension or something?
(Irony mode) Yes putting holes into solid hardened steel wheels makes them nice n squashy, bouncy and soft.
@@Surv1ve_Thrive If you actually watched the video you would realize that my 7 year old comment refeered to the rubber around the steel rim.
finally good sound quality
Interesting and good sights but a bit in a hurry !! Too much music and image jumps and too little time to really see what is being pointed and also would be interesting some conclusions, comparissions with other british tanks, etc
Is that theme song available to download? I think it sounds badass, need it.
its like inside the chieftans hatch, or isthisthe EU version of that?
Can somebody tell me where the shooter sit at the turret and where the commander stand at the turret when watching the enemy
+Arvin thas driver in the hull right commander turret top right gunner under commander right loader left
+gaye mayles thx
no word about the armament or war contributions??? it was shit or was it used to haull soldiers on it ??
I really like this tank
Thank you!
Same
Because it has the same suspension as the BT-7, wouldn’t that mean it could drive without it’s tracks?
No the suspension system was the same Christie suspension used on the bt 7, t34 and the crusader the drive was just to the rear sprocket to the tracks. There is a you tube vidio (by The_Chieftain ) on the BT 7 which will explain how the road wheels were driven which was pratical'ish on a light tank but not on a medium.
Excelente serie de vídeos sobre tanques, el diseño del Cromwell es muy bonito, lo que no entiendo son esas protuberancias en las planchas de blindaje de la torreta. Cuál es su motivo?
QUE MOTOR TENIA ESTE TANQUE Y QUE VELOCIDAD ALCANZABA?
The good news? Your tank is fast and maneuverable and has decent armor and armament for a cruiser tank.
The bad news? Any man over about 5'4 and 120 pounds will have to grease himself liberally to fit through the hatches!
Say what you will about the Germans; they actually understood ergonomics, specifically getting in and out of their tanks, better than anyone else of the era. My Dad was an electrical engineer who was instrumental in the development of disk drives going back to the early 50's. He worked with people from many countries and he had a favorite saying.
"German engineers will spend years in development and testing and then produce something that is overbuilt, overpriced, and overly-complicated but will beat anything in the world if it's maintained properly. The British engineers will sit around a table making sketches for a few hours then someone will look at their watch and say; "that'll do nicely, let's go to the pub!"
NOTE: Dad liked Germans and Brits and even Japanese, despite being a navigator and bombardier in B-17's in WW2, but he also liked to rib people he liked. He had several British roadsters and liked them all the more for their sometimes quirky solutions to engineering problems.
He didn't mention one of the most obvious, and characteristic identifiers of the tank ... what are the 'bumps' on the turret armour? An explanation would have helped us non-tankies.
Have they bolted armour to the turret?
Actually i can find out any of the stats i want by looking at the plethora of books available on technical stats. I would prefer an analysis of it's battlefield capabilites, how did those stats translate to battlefield performance? Did the armour, engine etc make a succesfull tank or not? A King Tiger is an excellent tank if you look at it's stats but its pretty useless in reality. I'd rather see a researched analysis than just regurtitagion of stats.
Czemu wasze filmy niegdy nie działają bezpośrednio na YT?
So nice!!
that Cromwell was apart of a the Canadian army. cool. (white triangle was Canadian armed forces insignia)
+Death thumbs That's the white triangle of an 'A' Squadron vehicle in an unbrigaded British Armoured Regiment (British Army at this point also included the Poles). Nothing to do with Canada, I'm afraid.
+Death thumbs No not Canadian it's a Polish tank from 1st Armoured Division of General Maczek
I think the Canadians preferred the Sherman?
@@codyjolley6565 Didn't all western Allied tankers prefer the Sherman?
Musik is From Company of heroes
plz go on wikipedia and there write ,,1st Armoured Division (Poland)''
1st Armoured, jesli już, Pancery to Niemcy mieli ;) Byłem w Bovington 5 lat temu, pamiętam jak dziś, jak zobaczyłem polską "wiewiórkę" na czołgu, to cieszyłem się jak małe dziecko =) Z tyłu na ścianie był jeszcze krótki opis poszczególnych oznaczeń 1 Pancernej.
You can figure those things out for yourself. Obviously looking up stats tells the story. It was very fast and manuverable, the smaller the better, and then sloped wasn't used because the british had obsolete design philosophies. Sloped also makes things a tad more cramped in such a small tank.
PM means personal message, click on your username at the top of the screen, go to inbox, then click on compose and type in my name.
7th Armoured Division, not Brigade.
what about the comet?
please tell me what the name of the song 1:45 - 1:55
wats the music background name
No me imaginaba el Cromwell tan pequeño
the song in 1:42 please ?
nice Vids watching from the US
What gun does it have?
Vickers HV
QF 75mm, very similar to 75mm on Sherman even used the same ammo
SPS 75mm pretty much the same gun on the Sherman
And they called soviet tanks uncomfortable for the crew xD
+DrPapaPenguin ALL tanks are bloody uncomfortable for the crews!!!! even the modern designs while better are still hot, cramped and throw you about all the time
DrPapaPenguin trust me in a cromwell you have more space than a t34 but not as much as a Sherman
HEY!
That isnt very nice
Even if it is true
Ooooh a mini Churchill
o ___ o Spitfire engine = Aircraft engine (orly? ok nothing new here) = highly volatile fuel right? So it was like a rolling highly volatile petrol tank with tiny scape hatches... o __ o kinda reminds me how brave those men were.
1:32 jest i Husaria :D
Dokładnie to Cromwell 1 dyw. Pancernej gen. Maczka :d
Husaria - kiedyś to my mieliśmy broń atomową .
Tez zauważyliście ten emblemat husarii.
:)
This exact tank was used by 1st Polish Armoured Division look at the insignia on the front armour....
The Polish called their Horse Cavalry as Panzer Division??
Have it
Name of songs pls!
I didnt mean it that way, i know that it was the Polish army tank for some time, i ment it like that its a British m8 a great british m8 that can pack a punch, sorry if i ofended you somehow
You young man need to stop referring to Wiki so much (its wrong) and ensure before you say something publicly that your facts are correct, all the facts stated are correct ( I should know I wrote a book and spent two years researching it) where is the ref to 7th Armoured Division he clearly states 7 Armd Brigade (unless its on captions perhaps) I refer to his forums and facebook page a lot for useful and interesting articles and he has served a long time on Tanks, you still at School ?
My tank lust is pleased.
Fuck i love my Cromwell
you love me
It would be a pleasure, when my granson returns, I have no idea what PM means other than post meridian, didnt mean to sound patrionising initially so please accept my apology on that point,it is just as I am sure you understand something I am very passionate about.
guys you should download this game asap before it to late!
They say that 1/3 of all players on the European server are Polish, but what they mean is that 1/3 of all Polish play wot
just make sure to join into WW2 ONLINE for great fun and tanking game experience
Hello
Im dieing to wee the crusaider and covenanter
HA-HA! Time for Cromwell!
ja klar der hat ja grade mal 76mm panzerung da geht die 88er durch als wärs butter =D
hey i have that tank in wot blitz the best video ever
Why does this guy always talk about spaces. Did they not select small crew. He talks like its a family seadan
Neden türkçe altyazı yok
А русская версия есть?
I use the Cromwell in Blitz and it is so nice.
War Thunder Has Better versions of The Cromwell Including The (Cromwell V) &a The Crusader are My Favs✊🏾💯 Including the KV1
Lol, it's 1 more ton than the Matilda tier 4 medium xD
this thing is op in wot