Tank Chats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- The Tank Museum’s Historian David Fletcher discusses the Churchill Mark IV, a British heavy infantry tank used throughout the Second World War. Armed with a 6 pounder gun, this Churchill is known for its thick armour and great ability to climb steep inclines. The chat also covers the Mark V variant, which incorporated a 95mm Howitzer for close support roles.
tankmuseumshop...
tankmuseumshop...
tankmuseumshop...
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum TH-cam channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP & become a Friend: ►tankmuseumshop...
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
Stay up-to-date with the latest Museum news, videos, and special offers. PLUS save 10% on your next online shop purchase: mailchi.mp/e6f...
#tankmuseum #tanks
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.89 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
Exceptionally British man talks about a tank for 11 minutes, and it's wonderful
*exceptionally British man talk about an exceptionally British tank
What what
WTF?!.
From afar he looks like a rookie make up artist tried to make a 25 year old look like a 70 year old.
Everything with these episodes are awesome. Tank shot in beautiful light with the presenter next to it for scale. Old scetches and photage. Tons of info. Just love these old gentlemen of the bovington museum. It's better than all tv war shows put together. I went to England once just to see the tankfest and it was totally worth it. Bring a camera!
There's something about the churchill tank that one can't help but like, it's so British. It is also backed up with the takings the old fellas used to say about them, never heard a bad word from them. Well loved by the crews. I remember one of our neighbours who crewed in Churchills telling my dad that round after round bounced off them until the track was blown off, & I quote ' then we became a bloody pillbox ' unquote. For me perhaps one of the best tanks of the war.
There's a bit of an unfortunate typo in there old chap 😂. Or maybe they did lol!!!
@@JohnyG29 knowing Mr Mr Matthews he did 🤣. I shall rectify ( spelling checked ) my error. Thanks for pointing it out 👍
It seems to be very popular amongst our staff too!
@@thetankmuseum I'm not surprised, it is a loveable ugly duckling.
warspot. ru /9660-britanskiy-premier-v-sssr
In August 1942, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill visited Moscow. However, a month before that, Churchill had already arrived in another Soviet city, Arkhangelsk, in a PQ-17 caravan, and even not in the singular. We are, of course, talking about the Churchill II and Churchill III infantry tanks. In total, 301 tanks of this type were sent to the Soviet Union, of which 253 reached their destination. Despite the relatively small volume of supplies, the namesakes of the British Prime Minister played a very important role on the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War. Suffice it to say that these vehicles, along with the KV-1s, were the main heavy tanks of the Red Army in the tank battle of Prokhorovka.
The largest supply in the amount of 121 tanks were delivered by March. In fact, these tanks arrived in the USSR at the end of February 1943, together with the convoy JW-53. At this point, deliveries almost stopped, only in August 1943, another 8 "Churchills" came through Vladivostok. In addition to these last tanks, all the others were delivered to the USSR by northern convoys. A total of 253 Churchill were received, 105 of them in the Churchill IV modification.
.............................
The 48th Guards Tank Regiment was the first to be recognized as combat-ready. On December 31, 1942, it was placed at the disposal of the commander of the Don Front. On January 16, the regiment's materiel arrived at the Kochalino station. On the 19th, the tanks were in the area of the Nursery station, where they were placed at the disposal of the command of the 21st Army. On January 21, the regiment supported the offensive of the 216th and 218th Rifle regiments on the Gumrak station. The result of the first day of fighting was the capture of the Gonchar farm, the trophies were 5 enemy tanks, 70 guns, 15 mortars, 20 motorcycles and about 800 cars. Own losses amounted to 4 damaged tanks, 1 person was killed, three received 3 injuries.
The next day, the regiment attacked German positions on the outskirts of Gumrak. Having lost 2 tanks burnt out and 5 destroyed, the 48th gv. tp retreated to its original positions. January 23 went to repair the previously damaged tanks, and the next day the attack was repeated. This time, the regiment, together with the 216th Guards Rifle Regiment, was able to complete the task and captured Gumrak. Building on the success, "Churchill" drove the Germans for another 9 kilometers.
On January 29, the regiment was assigned to the 93rd Guards Rifle Regiment, and the new task was to clear Stalingrad of German troops. Street battles ensued, in which the "Churchill" often crushed the German guns with tracks. For January 30, the regiment destroyed 4 German tanks, 20 guns, 45 machine guns and about 100 vehicles. In a similar way, the regiment operated until February 1. 9 tanks, 50 aircraft, 1,900 vehicles and 90 guns were captured. In total, during the battles for Stalingrad, the regiment lost 12 men killed and 29 wounded. The losses in the match were low: only 2 tanks were irretrievably lost, which burned down during the first attack on Gumrak. Another 6 tanks required major repairs, 13-current repairs. Given how difficult it was to master these tanks in the troops, such a large number of vehicles requiring routine repairs does not look surprising.
48th guards. TP was not the only regiment on the "Churchill", which fought in Stalingrad. Nearby, the 47th Guards ta operated, which since January 9 was used as part of the 65th Army. It operated in conjunction with the 91st Tank Brigade, 33rd Rifle and 67th Guards Rifle Divisions. By the end of January, the regiment was fighting in the area of the Barricade factory, with only 3 of its vehicles remaining fully operational. As in the case of the 48th guards. TP, most machines were not permanently lost, and in need of repair.
The next unit on the "Churchill", which entered the battle, was the 50th Guards Tank Regiment. On March 8, he made a march to the railway station in Gorky, and on the 16th, the train with a 50-gv. tp chasm arrived at the Voibokalo station in the Leningrad region. In the first attack, the tanks went on March 19, however, at first the tankers fought, rather, with their own chasm. The first tank broke down on the march, another burned the clutch, two got stuck in the swamp. During the attack, 12 tanks were stuck in the swamp, 2 of them were also blown up by mines. 2 tanks were hit by artillery fire. 2 tanks managed to reach the enemy positions, 1 of them was stuck in a trench, and later was burned by the enemy. The next day, the attack was repeated, at the same time, the stuck cars were partially pulled out. According to the results of the first days of fighting, the joint actions of tanks and infantry managed to push the Germans a little.
On the 22nd, the attack was repeated again, turning into a real epic. Three tanks out of five were blown up by mines. Guard captain N. D. Belogub, who commanded the attack, remained with his crew in the tank. For 4 days, the crew fought in a damaged tank, causing great damage to the enemy. On March 26, the car was taken away from the battlefield, and Belogub received the Order of Suvorov III degree for his heroism.
As of March 25, the regiment had irretrievably lost 5 tanks, 2 were stuck in a swamp, 6 were under repair, and 8 vehicles remained in service. Later, the number of combat-ready "Churchills" was brought to 11, and the lack of materiel was replenished by obtaining 6 heavy KV-1 tanks. Later, the " Churchillies "of the 50th Guards participated in Operation Brusilov, which began on July 22, 1943. In general, the British tanks were evaluated very positively, they successfully interacted with the infantry. At the same time, their patency was worse than that of the KV-1, and the armament, consisting of a 2-pounder gun, was weak. At the end of December 1943, instead of the "Churchills", the regiment received KV-1 tanks, and later - IS-2.
On March 14, this regiment arrived at the Obukhovo station, although it went into battle much later. During 1943, he was in the reserve, the combat debut took place only on January 15, 1944. The 49th gv. tp (more precisely, by that time the 49th gv. ttp-Guards Heavy Tank Regiment) participated in the final lifting of the siege of Leningrad. To make up for the losses on January 25, the regiment received 23 BT-5 and 3 BT-7. In such an extremely strange composition, the regiment fought until mid-February 1944. By this time, it was composed of 13 "Churchill" and 16 BT. Then the regiment was sent to Tula to receive heavy IS-2 tanks.
A new wave of regiments armed with "Churchills" began to form in the spring of 1943. This was due to the receipt by the northern convoys of more than one and a half hundred vehicles. Tanks of this type were transferred to the 10th, 15th, 34th and 36th Guards Tank Regiments during the spring of 1943. In addition, in May 1943, there was a rotation of the materiel in the 47th and 48th heavy tank regiments. Two of the above regiments (the 36th and 48th) participated in the Kursk Bulge. 48th gw. The TTP entered the battle on July 6, 1943, losing 8 tanks during the day (one of them was destroyed by German attack aircraft), while recording 23 tanks and 13 enemy self-propelled guns. Acting in conjunction with the 21st Tank Brigade, the regiment withdrew to Prokhorovka the next day. During the withdrawal, he lost another 7 tanks, while the tankers recorded 5 tanks and 7 self-propelled guns on their own account. Over the next few days, the remaining 6 Churchills were transferred to the 21st Tank Brigade. Again, the regiment received the "Churchill" on September 9, 1943, with them he participated in the liberation of Kiev.
In the 36th Guards Tank Regiment, the situation was quite different. On July 9, the regiment moved into the area of concentration, with 5 tanks out of action. The regiment took up defensive positions north of Prokhorovka. On July 12, the regiment took an active part in the battle in the area of Prokhorovka. In the morning, the commander of the regiment was wounded in a raid by enemy aircraft. In total, by the beginning of the battle, the regiment had 15 combat-ready vehicles. For July 12, the regiment lost 7 vehicles burned and 4 hit, they recorded 6 German tanks, 2 of them "Tiger". According to the results of the battles of July-August 1943, 10 "Churchills" remained in the regiment. On August 23, they were handed over for repair, instead of them in October, 13 SU-152 and KV-1s were received. At the end of December 1943, the regiment again received the "Churchill", of which some were the same tanks that served earlier. In total, the regiment received 14 "Churchills". On them, he fought near Pskov until the beginning of April 1944. In June, the regiment was re-equipped with the IS-2.
Intensive use of the "Churchill" did its job: by January 1, 1944, irretrievable losses amounted to 160 tanks, by June 1, another 27 vehicles were lost. Of the 66 remaining tanks, 31 were in the units. They were mainly concentrated on the Leningrad Front, where they were most actively used in operations. For example, on June 16, 1944, the 260th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment received 6 "Churchills", which it used during the battles for Vyborg. In September 1944, the 82nd Tank Regiment, which had 10 Churchills and 11 KV-1s, participated in the liberation of Tallinn. By January 1, 1945, the troops still had 63 tanks of this type, of which 9 were lost during the remaining months of the war. By June 1, the Red Army had 54 "Churchill", but in the active parts there were only 3 pieces.
I believe he is the worlds most charming man. I could listen to him all day long.
I believe "charming" does him a disservice. he is much better than charming.
he's like the Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers of tank knowledge. A charming old man full of stories to tell; all you need to do is ask.
Him or mre. Steve. Or bob ross.
Ues
Brother could sell sunscreen to a polarbear
I think the Tank Museum should hold a Kickstarter 'Bobbly Head' campaign, so we could all buy our own bobbly-head David Fletcher, holding up one hand, to keep next to the computer and the Tank Museum coffee mug. You'd sell a ton...
Bobbly-head Fletcher? That would be EPIC! 👌
Count me in!
Oh, yes please!
Take my money! Take my money! I'm in👍
They should team up with Funko-Pop to make a range of bobble heads, including David Fletcher amongst other great personalities from the tank world; Bernard Montgomery, Erwin Rommel, Zhukov. Maybe have some tank crew members from various nations too.
They would sell like hot cakes
A magnificent leviathan moving across the battlefield terrifying his enemies with his huge proboscis - I mean David Fletcher not the Churchill
Lmao
they tremble before his knowledge of the battlefield, knowing they can never outsmart such a god
The splendid Mr Fletcher looks like he's had a fire - evidenced by his much reduced 'tache !
True. They wouldn't tremble in front of the Churchill guns, whichever one was mounted.
The Johnny Morris of tanks. Knighthood required if the boss is watching. 🇬🇧
endearing habit of falling over....is a much nicer way of saying "massive design flaw"
He has such a wonderful way with words
They couldn't make the tank wider because it had to fit through British train tunnels. When transported by rail they removed the air intake louvres from the sides.
Sorry i thought that was referring to the tank.
The guy posing with it in the photo certainly didn't look happy.
Not sure if they designed a new carriage or just slapped it on an existing one, or Frankensteined s carriage from existing parts. Seeing as the gun was created in way, this seems more likely to me. Then it's more designing by trial and error then calculating everything in advance and then finding out you miscalculated, or missed something.
They are always so well dressed lol. Makes me wonder what the tank museum curators of the future doing these videos will dress like doing these videos.
It's called having a real job, Matsimus 😅
Tweed is on the job description!
Nice to see one of my favorite content creators follows another of my favorite creators.
@@thetankmuseum ooh, I bet there aren't many jobs which have this
@@maxstr lol rude!
As always a wonderful and informative video - thank you! I love the chicken strung up on the rear of the Churchill at 9:23!
Chicken curry tonight, lads
Very mechanically reliable, well liked by its crews and could go places only men and goats could go.
And some places they couldn't!
"don't worry Hans, we're on top of a mountain, no tanks can get to us here"
"ummm.... Fritz, what is that sound?"
@@FieldMarshalFry Must be nerve breaking for a anti tank crew on a hill with a steep slope. Their gun simply could not get the depression to fire down the slope. Maybe with luck you could get in one shot the last moment. But mostly it's just praying the tank slides back at certain point, because of with HE and machine guns the tank is in the advantage..
aye and they'd get there eventua..... i mean safely
@@smolwavingsnail9028
Ha yeah.
Actually they had no problem keeping up with the rest of the army during offensives because tanks don't hurtle around the battlefield at top speed, Churchills may take longer to reach any given start line than Cromwell or Sherman but this could be mitigated by thorough staff work and planning but once advancing they went at the same pace as other types.
They couldn't have performed 'The great swan' as diligently as Cromwells and Shermans did but they were there by the time the German defences started to harden.
03:55 worth mentioning is the 200 or so “NA75” conversion of Mk IV’s, where the gun and most of the turret face was replaced with the entire mantlet and gun of a regular 75mm Sherman tank. A rather qualified, and ingenious, field workshop conversion by Captain Percy Morrell, utilising guns from otherwise wrecked Shermans. Perhaps the best suited gun for the Churchill , on the balance of things, and I find it very fascinating.
The 75mm M3 gun had better HE capabilities than the 6 pounders mounted on the Mk IV and Vs. Those conversions were limited but served all the way through the Italian Campaign until the end of the war.
@@BHuang92 Yes, and I'm a little sad that none survived. A fine example of field extemporization on an industrial scale. Worth remembering.
The opposite of a firefly... British Tank, American gun.
Thanks for this information. My Grandfather served In Africa and then Italy and i had never heard about this.
Always felt that given the Churchill's infantry support role the 75mm and its HE round seem a better fit.
Never knew that!
This man is one of those rare people that has that much passion and knowledge on the subject that he can keep anyone hooked while he is talking. Hard to find people like that these days
Again, a well informed 'chat' from David Fletcher. My late father was in 2nd Lothians and Border Horse during WWII. Before embarkation to North Africa, my mother (they were engaged) went to bid him farewell at Catterick and was given the 'top secret treat' with my father, by the Sergeant Major, of seeing a brand new Churchill under tarpaulins. She couldn't remember many details except it 'was very big and shiny'). Of course, my father spent all his time in Shermans ending up in his final tank (one or two had been knocked out) a 76mm gun Sherman, recently reviewed by David.
When Mr Fletcher speaks, I listen and enjoy his presentations so much.
Brilliant information and very interesting.
*new tank chats presented by Mr. Fletcher being uploaded*
Me: *Happy noises*
Fletcher is the definition of the word "chap".
David delivering as always. He is quite the treasure to us and the entire world.
The addition of the workshop footage when David talks about certain components was excellent.
Wow, a david fletcher video about a british tank and he doesn't simply spew vitriol. Truely a miracle
These guys are an absolute treasure! Their insights and observations to an old WW2 history buff like me are priceless. Every talk they give must be recorded, archived, and studied. Thank you, gentlemen!
9:20 , dinner hanging on the back of the Churchill.
The Churchill tank did its role of infantry support very well indeed. As the war progressed, it was frequently the case of the British going into the assault especiallythe infantry. When that happened the Churchill was indispensable.
"By the way, would the World,🗺 War,💥 Two, 2⃣ ✌ British,🇬🇧 Canadian,🇨🇦 🍁 Australian, 🇦🇺 New Zealander,🇳🇿 South African,🇿🇦 Jamaican,🇯🇲 Barbadian,🇧🇧 Indian, 🇮🇳 Singaporean,🇸🇬 Bermuda,🇧🇲 and the Commonwealth of nations built,🏢 Churchill Mark V crocodile,🐊 flamethrower,🔥 heavy tank go up,👆 against the world,🗺 war,💥 two,2⃣ ✌ Nazi German,🇩🇪 built,🏢 Panzer VI tiger,🐯 I heavy tank through the unarmored rear with its upgraded and more powerful 75mm 6 pounder gun,🔫 behind the tall bush hedges of the French, 🇫🇷 countryside of Nazi German,🇩🇪 occupied France,🇫🇷 during the D-day allied Beach ,🏖 landings of Normandy in the year of nineteen forty-four during the allied liberation,🗽 of France, 🇫🇷 the Netherlands,🇳🇱 Belgium,🇧🇪 Luxembourg,🇱🇺 Denmark,🇩🇰 Czechslovakia,🇸🇰 and Norway,🇳🇴 from the tyrannical oppressive Nazi German,🇩🇪 third Reich occupation, of western Europe in the European theater, 🎭 of the year of nineteen forty-four during the second world, 🗺 war,💥?"
The reason I call the Churchill the best ww2 tank, is because it's the (in by opinion) best ww2 tank that done its job, it was made as an infantry tank and done that job exceptionally great
German tanks: Bucket hanging on the back.
British tanks: Chickens hanging on the back. 9:20min
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That's the most British thing I've ever seen
Nothing like fresh rations 😋
Thats probably their dinner XD
Eggs for breakfast
Roast chicken for dinner
You just can't beat fresh rations.
"Being British they wouldn't make a new gun. That was horrible, wouldn't think of it."
That was a really patronising ignorant comment by Mr Fletcher. Developing a new gun isn't a trivial exercise even in peacetime. It's expensive & time consuming. Then you have to get it into serial production. Which is another whole can of worms. Taking what you have and amalgamating them into something usable makes practical sense. Might not be perfect, or what you really want but so long as it works...
@@leighrate i felt it went with a habit of British trying to recycle things all the time, and make-do with what they have, compared to US creating a new type of screw for anything new they come up with.
@@leighrate Seriously, lighten up a bit you absolute knacker. It was a bit of humour.
@@bigwezz I was just about to say the same thing, but you were first.
@@leighrate Also as the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce and Royal Artillery all had their own developing programs prior to the war there was more then enough to choose from. And more important then the time to design of a new gun, is the time to design and setup production. While with these frankenstein design technique al the production of the parts were already in place.
Imagine a weld that's better than the armor. Why didn't they just make the whole armor out of welds. That would be a meme and a half
I used to be a kind of tradesman called a boilermaker and this is true.
As part of our training we had to weld pieces of steel together and then break them apart with a hydraulic press and show the instructor.
We only passed when the weld was stronger than the steel. Or in other words the steel broke and the weld did not.
I'm imagining a 3d printer, but 1940s style with a huge rod of welding filler and axis movements being driven with huge belts.
@@gregoryclark8217 that's submerged arc welding
I would imagine that turret production would slow down to crawling speed then. Obviously that wouldn’t do either.
Memes aside, welding armored steel actually requires quite some skill and knowledge, I was told. Pre- an post-treatment may also be required. In fact I have seen some examples where the welds cracked over time without the plate even being shot at. In those cases it didn’t matter much, because those were range target. By definition those are perishables. But you really don’t want to see that on a production tank.
@@rebsredone450 when comparing with a casting, just hot rolled low alloy steel is much stronger. Doesn't need to be full Krupp or anything.
Just look at steel rebar. This is weldable but double the yield and tensile strength of class 250 for example. It does have a small amount of extra goodies though.
Hello tankers, you should get Mark Felton productions to do his top 5 favourite tanks!
That would be awesome.
Yes please!
YES!
YES. I WILL.
Great idea!
I would rather be inside a Churchill then any other tank in the war I think.
Would've rather have taken the Sherman Jumbo tbh
I'd rather be inside any tank as long as it's during its trials and I don't have to go to the front
Comet. As much armour, a better gun, and far, far more mobile.
@@iatsd The Comet had thinner armour than the Jumbo. The Comet ha 3 inches vertical on the hull front and 4 inches on the turret front, the Jumbo had 4 inches at about 40degrees giving about 5.5 inches frontal hull and about 7 inches over most of the turret front.
@@gregoryclark8217 How exciting for you. The question was what would you *prefer*.
I love these videos by David Fletcher. It's like watching a tank be explained by a highly knowledgeable Fraggle.
The design of the Churchill has been growing on me as I watch these videos. I always thought German and American tanks LOOKED better, and I've only ever seen museum-quality examples looking all clean and proper, but those Churchills at 6:06 all draped in tracks look MEAN.
Same here. That footage was impressive.
Imagine the Germans apprehension seeing columns of those things lumbering up with battalions of shock troops in tow. You would know your time was up as they innexorably advanced.
They were one of, if not the best tanks at climbing used in the war, which was decisive in the crucial battle for Longstop Hill in the North Africa Campaign.
@@indyrock8148 Especially if any of the Churchill’s advancing towards you were the Crocodile flame throwing version.
@@greva2904 LOL run away!
@@greva2904 The flamethrower was always good to make the gerries surrender. They would see the flamethrower and think of the horrible death they could have, so they surrendered. Also, if that didn't work, the crew squirted fuel at them and waited for them to surrender... Or else
Thank you , Mr Fletcher .
A very handsome tank and a veteran of decades of service.
My favorite British tank of all time. It just looks so darn clunky and mechanical, it has a beauty all it’s own.
Funny how we named a tank after the Duke of Marlborough, and the Germans named a ship after Prince Eugene of Savoy
Perhaps they wanted to emulate John Churchills march into Germany and the Germans wanted someone that beat the French.
@@inisipisTV Prince Eugen was and is a hero to Austrians and Germans as well. Mostly because he fought of the osman empire in front of Vienna and so ended the siege and later claimed Belgrade for the crown - back then there was a myth in Austria that he is an angel sent by god to punish the heretical Osmans. A statue of him stands in front of the main imperial palace in Vienna - the old Center of the Austrian empire.
Could be that one of his achievements was the reason for the Germans/Austrians (back then the same country) naming that ship after him.
(On the other side people who beat the french were also quite popular - both in Austria and in Germany)
Btw, the palace of Prince Eugen in Vienna is a art museum now and - when not in lockdown - a wonderful place to visit.
@@Rbk1510 AN art museum
Americans named a cigarette after Duke of Marlborough
A junior hockey team in Toronto, the Toronto Marlboroughs is popularly known as the Marlies.
The Churchill tank was the unsung hero of the 6th Guards Tank Brigade. Despite their slow speed they advanced 50 miles with paratroops from the US 513th PIR to capture Munster in April 1945
Before I started watching this channel I had always wondered at the Churchill. It seemed so WWI-ish. All those road wheels, the track going over the hull, small gun on a big tank, etc... Now I understand it's function much better and British tank doctrine is becoming clearer. Thanx for the education!
Weight limit considerations meant that you couldn't use 100mm armour all over the front. So they did the smart thing & used it to protect the ammunition storage in the turret basket from a frontal hit.
The panther didn't seem to suffer from having a long gun barrel, an the benefits outweigh the the fear of driving the gun into the ground.
So the British gave USA cavity magnetron, computers, jet engines the atom bomb and a 60 year loan.......the UK got welding lol
lol
The UK didn't give the US plans for an atom bomb?
@@LmgWarThunder sorry it was a joke peeps take things a bit too seriously eh?
@@TheLastSterling1304 a person on my wave length rock on
You failed to mention the mighty contribution by the US: SPAM. Where would Monty Python have been without it? A true war winner, because war wieners were out of vogue of course. I'll see myself out.
a classic tank from the golden era of tanks
For my b day I want to come here and see the last working tiger
Good choice 👍
Good luck with that during covid
I got an Access All Areas Experience Day for my fourtieth from my wife 😀 Had to postpone it twice already because of travel restrictions 😞 The next appointment is for July, let’s see how that goes.
Kinda FIRST at the same time since three such Tigers are on their way to full restoring, working order.
You can go to any zoo.
Only the British would manage to build a tank that looks like the grandfather of tanks!
Not just "look", the did built the Grandaddys of Tanks.
They forgot mahogany tea tables and crumpet compartments.
@@V8_screw_electric_cars that was in the TOG.🤣
And remember, that 102mm of frontal armour was the minimum for the type. 2 versions of the Churchill had 152mm of armour - and the armour quality itself was superior to everything else out there from 1942 onwards.
German tanks: What do you mean this one is only 70mms???
No ?
@@juliansickmann9379 what do you mean no? use your words
@iatsd the Churchill was a god tank and at some parts it had 152 mm but often only 102 or 85 mm and a Tiger or panther could easily deal with it
@@juliansickmann9379 The original comments was about the thickest frontal armour and the differences in that from model to model. They were either ~102mm or 152mm. EOA. It's obvious and a given that armour on different faces was different. Whether X or Y gun could go through it is not relevant in the slightest to the point being made. You may as well have said that the Panther was faster than the Churchill for all the relevance that has to the max frontal armour thickness and relative quality of it.
My grandfather told me stories about his time as a Churchill driver in World War 2 until it was destroyed and he ended up driving a Sherman for the remainder of the War.........
Concerned about weight of the turret the archive photos show tanks absolutely covered with track links.
Beautiful museum and beautiful tank! Thanks for the great video 👌👍
Design wise, the Churchill is of its era, however the King Tiger is much more like the modern tanks of today Challenger 2 / K2 Black Panther etc. Although the turret is considerably taller on the King Tiger, it would not look out of place in a modern battlefield
WW2 British tankers: We need a big gun. The bigger the better.
WW2 British tank designers: We need a short gun. A long gun might get stuck in the ground!
I'm as proud of an American as you can get, my grandfather was a sherman driver, later loader with the 17th Tank Bn, 7th Amd during the war. I love the M4...but I got to say if I had my choice of allied tank to have to had to have fought in...it would have been a Churchill. And it goes without saying...Mr Fletcher deserves his own display in the museum..he's a treasure
I believe it is time for The Tank Museum to try an "Adopt a Tank"
My response "Curb your enthusiasm and take my money!"
Ah yes the brillaint british rectangle.
I'm happy to find this channel since tanks are my #1 thing to research anytime in wars.
The endearing habit of a gun to fall over,.. wonderful ;-)
Having two types of tanks means you never have enough of either when you need them. Thus the main battle tank
Enter… the Centurion.
Only zwei typ...?? *laughs in German*
The suspension system always intrigued me. The overall appearance was like something from the 20's.
Just put a camera in front of Mr. Fletcher and let it roll. I could listen to him talking about anything. Tanks in movies? His days in Australia? Bicycles? Hot water bottles? Anything!
One of my favourite tanks. Especially when I think of the bravery of the crew sitting in the middle of a battlefield, fairly immobile and relying on the thickness of the armour for protection.
Easily my favourite tank.
Now the interesting thing is David Fletcher's mustache was bit by a snake and after 5 days of pain and Agony the snake finally died
David Fletcher is the best Kind of British
We have one in Latrun Tank Museum
David Fletcher: pathetic for a howitzer
Howitzer: 😥 I'm sorry
The Churchill Mk 4 was the most numerous variant but it had a 57mm gun with limited HE effectiveness. Of course later variants had the 75 mm gun which fired an effective HE round. You would have thought that after earlier experiences in the war,when British tanks could not effectively engage enemy anti-tank guns with main guns that could only fire solid shot,the British Army would have prioritised the fitting of the 75 mm gun to the Churchill.The Churchill was an infantry support tank ,and the best way to support infantry is to liberally suppress the enemy with HE.In the later part of the war,did Churchill units have a mix of 57 mm and 75mm armed tanks ?
awesome
The Royal Navy wanted a more powerful gun than the 6pdr. in coastal forces craft in mid 1944.They looked at using the 95mm howitzer. It lost in trials to another gun cobbled together from bits by MD1, the 4.5" 8cwt.
The book The Noise of Battle by Tony Colvin makes an interesting argument that at the end of the war, the operational speed of the heavy Churchill’s was actually greater than that of the Sherman’s and other mediums because they worked better with the infantry and were able to fight the German AT defenses without the heavy losses of the lighter tanks. The divisions supported by Churchill’s advanced farther faster than the more speedy armored divisions, who had to wait for artillery and air to suppress the AT defenses. I don’t know just how true this is but Colvin makes a cogent case. Anyone else read this?
warspot. ru /9660-britanskiy-premier-v-sssr
In August 1942, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill visited Moscow. However, a month before that, Churchill had already arrived in another Soviet city, Arkhangelsk, in a PQ-17 caravan, and even not in the singular. We are, of course, talking about the Churchill II and Churchill III infantry tanks. In total, 301 tanks of this type were sent to the Soviet Union, of which 253 reached their destination. Despite the relatively small volume of supplies, the namesakes of the British Prime Minister played a very important role on the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War. Suffice it to say that these vehicles, along with the KV-1s, were the main heavy tanks of the Red Army in the tank battle of Prokhorovka.
The largest supply in the amount of 121 tanks were delivered by March. In fact, these tanks arrived in the USSR at the end of February 1943, together with the convoy JW-53. At this point, deliveries almost stopped, only in August 1943, another 8 "Churchills" came through Vladivostok. In addition to these last tanks, all the others were delivered to the USSR by northern convoys. A total of 253 Churchill were received, 105 of them in the Churchill IV modification.
.............................
The 48th Guards Tank Regiment was the first to be recognized as combat-ready. On December 31, 1942, it was placed at the disposal of the commander of the Don Front. On January 16, the regiment's materiel arrived at the Kochalino station. On the 19th, the tanks were in the area of the Nursery station, where they were placed at the disposal of the command of the 21st Army. On January 21, the regiment supported the offensive of the 216th and 218th Rifle regiments on the Gumrak station. The result of the first day of fighting was the capture of the Gonchar farm, the trophies were 5 enemy tanks, 70 guns, 15 mortars, 20 motorcycles and about 800 cars. Own losses amounted to 4 damaged tanks, 1 person was killed, three received 3 injuries.
The next day, the regiment attacked German positions on the outskirts of Gumrak. Having lost 2 tanks burnt out and 5 destroyed, the 48th gv. tp retreated to its original positions. January 23 went to repair the previously damaged tanks, and the next day the attack was repeated. This time, the regiment, together with the 216th Guards Rifle Regiment, was able to complete the task and captured Gumrak. Building on the success, "Churchill" drove the Germans for another 9 kilometers.
On January 29, the regiment was assigned to the 93rd Guards Rifle Regiment, and the new task was to clear Stalingrad of German troops. Street battles ensued, in which the "Churchill" often crushed the German guns with tracks. For January 30, the regiment destroyed 4 German tanks, 20 guns, 45 machine guns and about 100 vehicles. In a similar way, the regiment operated until February 1. 9 tanks, 50 aircraft, 1,900 vehicles and 90 guns were captured. In total, during the battles for Stalingrad, the regiment lost 12 men killed and 29 wounded. The losses in the match were low: only 2 tanks were irretrievably lost, which burned down during the first attack on Gumrak. Another 6 tanks required major repairs, 13-current repairs. Given how difficult it was to master these tanks in the troops, such a large number of vehicles requiring routine repairs does not look surprising.
48th guards. TP was not the only regiment on the "Churchill", which fought in Stalingrad. Nearby, the 47th Guards ta operated, which since January 9 was used as part of the 65th Army. It operated in conjunction with the 91st Tank Brigade, 33rd Rifle and 67th Guards Rifle Divisions. By the end of January, the regiment was fighting in the area of the Barricade factory, with only 3 of its vehicles remaining fully operational. As in the case of the 48th guards. TP, most machines were not permanently lost, and in need of repair.
The next unit on the "Churchill", which entered the battle, was the 50th Guards Tank Regiment. On March 8, he made a march to the railway station in Gorky, and on the 16th, the train with a 50-gv. tp chasm arrived at the Voibokalo station in the Leningrad region. In the first attack, the tanks went on March 19, however, at first the tankers fought, rather, with their own chasm. The first tank broke down on the march, another burned the clutch, two got stuck in the swamp. During the attack, 12 tanks were stuck in the swamp, 2 of them were also blown up by mines. 2 tanks were hit by artillery fire. 2 tanks managed to reach the enemy positions, 1 of them was stuck in a trench, and later was burned by the enemy. The next day, the attack was repeated, at the same time, the stuck cars were partially pulled out. According to the results of the first days of fighting, the joint actions of tanks and infantry managed to push the Germans a little.
On the 22nd, the attack was repeated again, turning into a real epic. Three tanks out of five were blown up by mines. Guard captain N. D. Belogub, who commanded the attack, remained with his crew in the tank. For 4 days, the crew fought in a damaged tank, causing great damage to the enemy. On March 26, the car was taken away from the battlefield, and Belogub received the Order of Suvorov III degree for his heroism.
As of March 25, the regiment had irretrievably lost 5 tanks, 2 were stuck in a swamp, 6 were under repair, and 8 vehicles remained in service. Later, the number of combat-ready "Churchills" was brought to 11, and the lack of materiel was replenished by obtaining 6 heavy KV-1 tanks. Later, the " Churchillies "of the 50th Guards participated in Operation Brusilov, which began on July 22, 1943. In general, the British tanks were evaluated very positively, they successfully interacted with the infantry. At the same time, their patency was worse than that of the KV-1, and the armament, consisting of a 2-pounder gun, was weak. At the end of December 1943, instead of the "Churchills", the regiment received KV-1 tanks, and later - IS-2.
On March 14, this regiment arrived at the Obukhovo station, although it went into battle much later. During 1943, he was in the reserve, the combat debut took place only on January 15, 1944. The 49th gv. tp (more precisely, by that time the 49th gv. ttp-Guards Heavy Tank Regiment) participated in the final lifting of the siege of Leningrad. To make up for the losses on January 25, the regiment received 23 BT-5 and 3 BT-7. In such an extremely strange composition, the regiment fought until mid-February 1944. By this time, it was composed of 13 "Churchill" and 16 BT. Then the regiment was sent to Tula to receive heavy IS-2 tanks.
A new wave of regiments armed with "Churchills" began to form in the spring of 1943. This was due to the receipt by the northern convoys of more than one and a half hundred vehicles. Tanks of this type were transferred to the 10th, 15th, 34th and 36th Guards Tank Regiments during the spring of 1943. In addition, in May 1943, there was a rotation of the materiel in the 47th and 48th heavy tank regiments. Two of the above regiments (the 36th and 48th) participated in the Kursk Bulge. 48th gw. The TTP entered the battle on July 6, 1943, losing 8 tanks during the day (one of them was destroyed by German attack aircraft), while recording 23 tanks and 13 enemy self-propelled guns. Acting in conjunction with the 21st Tank Brigade, the regiment withdrew to Prokhorovka the next day. During the withdrawal, he lost another 7 tanks, while the tankers recorded 5 tanks and 7 self-propelled guns on their own account. Over the next few days, the remaining 6 Churchills were transferred to the 21st Tank Brigade. Again, the regiment received the "Churchill" on September 9, 1943, with them he participated in the liberation of Kiev.
In the 36th Guards Tank Regiment, the situation was quite different. On July 9, the regiment moved into the area of concentration, with 5 tanks out of action. The regiment took up defensive positions north of Prokhorovka. On July 12, the regiment took an active part in the battle in the area of Prokhorovka. In the morning, the commander of the regiment was wounded in a raid by enemy aircraft. In total, by the beginning of the battle, the regiment had 15 combat-ready vehicles. For July 12, the regiment lost 7 vehicles burned and 4 hit, they recorded 6 German tanks, 2 of them "Tiger". According to the results of the battles of July-August 1943, 10 "Churchills" remained in the regiment. On August 23, they were handed over for repair, instead of them in October, 13 SU-152 and KV-1s were received. At the end of December 1943, the regiment again received the "Churchill", of which some were the same tanks that served earlier. In total, the regiment received 14 "Churchills". On them, he fought near Pskov until the beginning of April 1944. In June, the regiment was re-equipped with the IS-2.
Intensive use of the "Churchill" did its job: by January 1, 1944, irretrievable losses amounted to 160 tanks, by June 1, another 27 vehicles were lost. Of the 66 remaining tanks, 31 were in the units. They were mainly concentrated on the Leningrad Front, where they were most actively used in operations. For example, on June 16, 1944, the 260th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment received 6 "Churchills", which it used during the battles for Vyborg. In September 1944, the 82nd Tank Regiment, which had 10 Churchills and 11 KV-1s, participated in the liberation of Tallinn. By January 1, 1945, the troops still had 63 tanks of this type, of which 9 were lost during the remaining months of the war. By June 1, the Red Army had 54 "Churchill", but in the active parts there were only 3 pieces.
sorry to say but in my age i do not read fairy tales anymore!
The man, the myth, the legend! David Fletcher!
Pretty sure I saw the man himself at the tank museum last week, I was as giddy as a school girl 🤣 for me the epitome of British tanks is the Churchill followed very closely be the Cromwell. I know that time was of the essence and there was a lot of development trouble due to the ‘old brigade’ but imagine how awesome it would have been if they’d been able to get the 17 pounder in the Churchill would have been a pretty awesome machine. Sure I read something about the turret ring being to small . . . But that’s another story, keep up the good work gentlemen, hopefully I’ll be back for tankfest 🤞
Seems like Heath Robinson was in charge of Gun Design in Blighty !
Excellent video thanks!
But tank design in general has always mystified me in many ways, so regarding the Churchill, here's three questions:
1. Why were the guns so tiny looking, as on most British tanks - even the 75mm? Regarding their length it's interesting how he does address this by saying they were worried about a longer barrell getting stuck in the ground....fine, but surely not THAT short! These guns look rediculously too small, and way too thin too, especially alongside a Tiger's 88mm, or nearly all German and Russian tanks!
2. About that thick frontal armour: yea, great, but it was tucked waaaay back between the two protruding front ends of the tracks. Surely probability would dictate that a shell would more likely hit the tracks than the armour, especially if it was fired at from even a slight angle. (Which leads me to my perenial question as to why tank designers never seemed to bother about protecting the tracks at all! But that's for another time...)
3. Why wasn't the armour sloped? (another perenial question of mine of most tanks). Everyone goes on about how the T-34's (for example) sloped armour was such a good thing, so why NOT do that?
Any help with these questions would be appreciated thanks😊.
This has to be the most intelligent man on tanks
PERSONAL EXPLANATION (CHURCHILL TANK)
HC Deb 16 December 1942 vol 385 cc1934-41
The fact is that the existence of the German Mark IV tank was known before the war. This tank mounts a 77 mm. gun, firing a 13 lb. shell dead accurate at 2,000 yards, whereas the Churchill is only designed for a two-pounder gun which the troops are instructed not to fire until within 400 yards of the enemy. Further, so far as I know, there is no tank yet in production in this country equal to the German Mark IV. We are relying entirely on American production.
below 1937
The German Panzer IV Ausf. F2 armed with the long barrel 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 only started appearing in North Africa from August 1942. Churchill III's armed with Ordnance QF 6-pounders saw action in the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942. The German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 was not that much superior than the British 6-pounder as an anti-tank weapon. The 6-pounder had no trouble knocking out Panzer III's and IV's in normal combat ranges. What the British 6-pounder lacked was a decent HE round to support infantry and to bombard anti tank guns. The British had to rely on Shermans firing their 75mm HE rounds until they replaced their 6-pounders with Ordnance QF 75mm as well.
@@tvgerbil1984 Everything in your comment is correct to the best of my knowledge, however you left out a few items.
Number of Churchills on hand for Second Alamein was about 6 and a few of those had 2pdr guns.
Number of M4's on hand was about 250 plus about 300 M3 mediums.
Top speed of 15mph (10mph practical due to noise) for Churchill putting it close to tiger I, but without the big gun.
@@nickdanger3802 Rommel could only field 30 Panzer IV Ausf. F2 (or Panzer IV Specials) in the Second Battle of El Alamein. That was 30 Panzer IV Specials in over 500 Axis tanks against over 1000 Allied tanks. So, neither the Panzer IV Specials nor the Churchill's were in sufficient numbers to make any impact to the outcome of the Second Battle of El Alamein.
I love that old man. He was the only reason that I watched these videos to begin with, now, I miss him, it's just not the same.
I don,t know whether it,s of interest to anyone at Bovington, it concerns the film "A Bridge Too Far." IMDb state the fibre-glass Shermans used in the film are based on the landrover chassis. I delivered one of them to a collector in the late 80,s, and the vehicle underneath the shell was an Austin Champ.
I think the incident I am recalling was in the 70's but was it you that was ,incorrectly, pulled by the Police for suspected overloading when doing this delivery?
@@books742 Haha, no it wasn,t me. But I,d like to have been there to see the look on the coppers face!! Was delivering a real T34 when I had a hydraulic leak on the trailer. Left it in the abnormal load bay on the M5/M50 island. Before I got home the Police were on the phone to my boss complaining the gun barrel wasn,t full of concrete. "What happens if someone gets hold of some ammunition?" Asked the cop, to which my boss replied " Well they can try, but we haven,t been able to find any!!"
The Irish Army used a number of Churchil tanks after the war to great effect. A number of Comet tanks were later purchased to replace them and lasted until the 1970's.
Great video. Buying is now a no go since brexit, due to Vat and customs, enjoy your sovrenty.
The crews loved the late model Churchills they were roomy and well protected. Just so long as they didn't have to shoot at any large German Tanks it was a great time.
Just wondering why it says Armagh on the side of it? I'm from northern ireland, so it interests me
Because of the unit it belonged to; the North Irish Horse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Irish_Horse#Tank_names
@@DrCrispycross and its how the Northern Irish pronounce 'armour' :)
Take a shot every time he says HA-WHIZZER ☺️👌
My favourite version of the Churchill been waiting years for you to review it , love it because of its anti tank capabilities & the fact it penetrated the tiger frontally in Africa , there’s German reports on it .
Welds done properly should be stronger.
The British taking lessons from the Americans? Heaven forbid. I imagine it started with something like, "First you take the casting and you split that sucker open."
"Right, but are you-?"
"Next you take the big sucker and fill it in there."
"I'm not sure this-."
"I'd appreciate it if you'd stop interrupting me, Edwards. And lastly you smother it well and there yah go. One genuine American Hot Dog."
"But what about the turret casting."
"Oh. . . . right."
And the British made perfectly casted hot dogs from thence forth and they still hated how it didn't go with their tea. . . .
It brings back many happy times when I was doing my National service and working on the Churchills which had a big flayal Used for land mines that was at the REME 27 Cammand Workshop Warminster. In 1957/59
9:23 Was that a chicken on the back of that tank? Lol.
Great video as always!
"The superiority of German armour was illustrated again when three Jagdpanther tank destroyers knocked out 11 Churchill tanks of 3rd Scots Guards on Hill 226."
IWM Tactics and the Cost of Victory in Normandy
9:24 Chicken tonight... 🐔😁
I’m planning to visit Bovington tank Museum.
Thicker armor than Tiger 1.
I like the Churchill Mk 7.
Great to see this one covered by the great David Fletcher. May the mustache live on strong in this channel
I’d want to see war thunder add the 95mm howitzer Churchill and the AVRE Churchill. Love these tank chats
Interesting! But why was making a new gun such a problem for the Brits?
Limited industrial capabilities due to all our convoys being at risk when it came to imported metals, and all our factories being bombed for much of the war, or just too overstretched to dedicate resources to experimental and often niche weapons.
Us British have always been good at cobbling things up.
If i had a choise i would like a churchil 202 armor hell yeah
David the gnome looks good without the beard. Man does he know his tanks!
Churchill would have made for a good tank, had it had a better gun. The 6pdr and the yank appropriated 75 were... anemic, to be kind. The Churchill had impressive armor, but no gun to back it up. This is in stark contrast to the Tiger, which had more or less the same armor, and a gun that performed better at both supporting infantry and tank fighting.
Tiger I was much heavier and much more expensive to produce. The 75mm Churchill was a very sensible tank for its primary purpose, supporting infantry attacks. Tiger was used to lead armoured formation attacks, but its reliability was always an issue. Also, Britain produced over 4 times as many Churchills as Germany produced Tiger Is.
The mighty mustache has been trimmed! Anybody else notice that?
Why didn’t they Up-gun the Churchill Tank to include one model that would support a 17-Pounder anti-tank gun too? If it worked on the Sherman Firefly why couldn’t it also work on the Churchill Tank too? A new, upgraded/upgunned Churchill Mark 5 Tank then?!!
They did it's called the black prince but the engine was to underpowered and they had centurion coming before they really got around to doing it.
I see a Churchill and I click like, then again I'm severely biassed ;-)
If it weren’t for the Churchill and the AVRE funnies using the Churchill chassis the Brits and Canadians may never have taken the beaches on DDay or Caen.
Unfortunately, the Churchills couldn't swim. Juno, Sword and Gold were taken by 121 Shermans with duplex drive which managed to swim through pretty tough current on D-day. The AVRE funnies were important but the DD Shermans were critical.
Bri ish commentary about Bri ish tanks is wonderful
wait, wait, wait...did he just admit that the Brits had to LEARN something from the Americans?
Never!!!
:D
Odd that the air intake covers on our MkIV are much flatter than on your version.
The 95mm wheeled howitzer was doing its best, okay? :(