@@RO8s Just like the sneaky Japanese approach to Singapore. I believe That I read that their army advanced quite swiftly, on bicycles which, when their tyres had been shredded, created such a clattering racket that some defenders fled from what they misheard as oncoming tanks.
In 1940 a captured British officer complained to his German captors that he thought it was unfair to use the 88mm AA guns against tanks - the German officer replied he thought it was unfair for the British to use the Matilda II tanks which only an 88 could take out!
My Dad in 41 and 42 was a workshop foreman at Chillwell COD preparing tanks for Russia. He was an A vehicles man all his life. He ended up as head of scales branch after years at Woolwhich, Bordon, FVRDE always on mod and RandD. He told me his top five were: Valentine (dependable) Comet could go like one Sherman with the five bank Chrysler. Ease of field maintenance and the lovely tool kit that came with one. Centurion all marks. He went to Israel to chat to them about it and they really did put right a few things that were wrong with it. Keeping the ranging gun and so forth. Many Arab tank crews bailed out after hearing the knock of that! Chieftain for what could have been. If you ignore that awful engine. Which he cautioned against. Bottom five Crusader Covenanter Early Churchill Grant bolted armour and gun arrangement. tetrarch - clever but pointless. Could have been. Any Vickers export jobs. Indians loved them. I loved talking to him. Starting as an Apprentice in 1930 and ending up as a Principle Technical Officer he got there through merit. However, he made no friends back in the days when, as he said, between the 2 pounder and the firefly you had to take your hat off to those tank crews. In 44/45 he was attached up the sharp end to look at battle damage and so on.. So, I guess he should know. He took that with him to War Office and then Woolwich. So an all round career. The thing I remember most about him was his ability to explain technical matters simply and his drawing skills. Of course it all started as an apprentice when he was told to file a square round and then back to square. Nice guy. Love your work.
Thanks for the memories of your Dad. Respect! When I was an apprentice, my worst skill was filing a cube to get 6 perfect flats. Took me ages and many hills and furrows and never perfected! And filing it round again? Wow!
@@stigmontgomery7901 Hi Stig, my Dad had similar stories of long stands, left handed screw drivers and sky hooks! One that did make me laugh concerned some old scrap tanks. Dad was sent to get something or other off one and given a key, spanner and large hammer. He stood next to the tank for ages looking dormant until the chap that sent him arrived. He burst into laughter and told Dad "The key is for the shed there (indicated it 20 meters away) the spanner is for the Oxyacetline and the Hammer to knock off the (whatever it was)" ! Typical Apprentice.
Not only did the Soviets like the Valentine, according to Peter Samsonov's book on the Sherman in Red Army Service the Soviets used Valentines to meet their needs until enough Shermans arrived. The Soviets even paired Shermans and Valentines in the same unit, which shows how much they liked the Valentine, I think, since the Valentine is not exactly the equal of the Sherman in terms of speed.
Did it have anything to do with the practical cruising speed on a tank on the move? You would rarely drive a tank at absolute top speed unless in an emergency (similar I imagine to WEP in aircraft. A great way to break something). The Valentine doesn't go very fast, so maybe its cruising speed IS its top speed. The Chieftan had an article about crew experiences with the M10 GMC, and how some didn't want the M18 Hellcat because the M10 went fast enough, with plenty of reserve speed they weren't even using. The crews didn't want speed, they wanted better armour and firepower.
Makes sense since the Soviets operated in ranks and echelons. The low speed and firepower Of Valentines matters less if you only use them in the early waves that don't have to go far to do their job of breaking the enemy's initial lines. Add in it is tough and durable, it really is great for leading Soviet attacks.
@@Mr_Bunk It might also be a case though of them needing every active tank in service that they got. They went through tanks like crazy. Most T-34's produced during the war ended up destroyed by the Germans. So maybe if it was still working and they had munitions for it, maybe keep it going was the motto.
@@a.rogers1403 I think that (at least early on when they were receiving Shermans with rubber-lined tracks) the Soviets liked the Valentine's handling on inclines and snow better than the Sherman, so they probably ran the Shermans slower than they otherwise could have because there is no point speeding a tank along if it's going to end up upside down in a ditch.
I'm a fan of the Churchill after hearing of some of its amazing ground crossing abilities and climbing, also hearing of the incredible frontal armour and the beatings some took and kept going, I read a report of a Churchill Crocodile causing a bunker full of German soldiers to surrender without needing to fire a shot, it was the slow determined and hard to stop advance of the Churchill while taking fire and never giving up that one soldier said was the embodiment of British determination. . . Also I heard the infantry loved them as they knew they wouldn't speed off and leave them behind unlike Shermans and Cromwells, you knew you had a mobile bunker to shelter behind for as long as you needed.
The Valentine, just like for instance the P-40, was all-right, cheap, rugged and useful. Not the star of the show - but the right vehicle at the right moment.
I love Churchill. To be it represents the British attitude, it's the British bull dog of tanks. Slow and steady, reliable and overcomes heavy obstacles and there at the victory line.
There are 2-British WWII tanks at the monument and museum to the Great Patriotic War. Both are Matilda II. The remains of the 609 tanks successfully supplied, initially used for training but thrown into the defence of Moscow in 1941
The Matilda ! you forgot to mention that this tank was possibly the ultimate unit for the Australians in the Pacific campaign. Mediam weight, great close action back up for the troops, and had so many applications eg., the Crocodile flame thrower, which was ideal for the jungle ware fair.
I remember one Valentine being found in a mud in Poland a few years ago. It must have been used no earlier than mid 1944 to be laid to rest in the place. I think it is a nice testament to its reliability.
Valentine’s were deployed in the pacific theatre against the Japanese by NZ, with some locally converted to mount 3 inch howitzer, and the 2 pounder models having improvised 40 mm HE rounds (bofors AA rounds being crimped onto 2 pounder cartridges).
I straight away thought of the Valentine first, then almost Matilda II but went for the Cromwell second. And rather ironic the comment by a German officer that British tanks weren't fast enough!
My father made the newspaer in a Valintine. They were in a parade to raise money with what were called victory bonds in Canada. Dad was driving. The Valinetine did not have very good sight lines to the side. Driving down the street everybody started yelling and he stopped. He had driven lengthwise down the side of a car flattening one side that was parked on the side of the road and a picture of it made headlines in a major Toronto paper.
I like the Churchill tank. It's kind of quirky but ultimately the hull was used in so many different ways, successfully no less. The only thing that's really odd that I don't like is the road wheels. The only thing that the US built that had road wheels like that was the lvt.
The road wheels were certainly a major pain when building the old Airfix kit. However, on the real thing they reduced the ground pressure, improved traction and allowed the vehicle to continue operating even after mine strikes.
I as a Brit have always loved the Cromwell tank... although for me that's in spite of it's namesake. It was rough and ready and fast, good for swanning around North France and the Low Countries!
It also seems like the Brits were looking fairly closely at the Panzer IV when designing their Cromwell, it has a very similar "stepped" front and at least from the front (there are way too many roadwheels on the panzer to mix them up from the side) or in stark side silhouette would be have been easy to confuse the two.
The modified Valentine fitted with the firefly 77mm conversion made a superbly mobile and inconspicuous anti tank gun. The British Army still had them into the mid 1960s
So true about the need to look at the tank when it was used and how well it did in its prime. OMG! You mean tanks did things other than fight other tanks?? Inconceivable! LOL
Its my favorite. Build with 1/3 of man hours needed to build a Matilda II. One of most reliable British tanks. Cheaper than T-34 but has similar armor. Gets up gunned twice. And its less than 20 tons so transpiring it is easy.
I have always been frustrated by the fact that so many Valentines were sent to Russia. Imagine the battle for Malaya and Singapore if the British army there had been given just 200 Valentine Tanks
Yes, but Britain could afford to lose Singapore, it couldn't afford to lose the Soviets as Allies. Just a few anti tank guns would have helped in the Far East, or bofors guns with AP rounds (if that was possible), but anything good went to the Western Desert or Soviets. The other thing was that the British (& Americans) just didn't think the Japanese were capable of what they actually were.
@@eze8970 Tanks and decent AT guns might have improved things a bit in Malaya, but wouldn't have changed the result. The Japanese advantage was in doctrine and mobility, not weaponry.
@@eze8970 The fall of Singapore and the inadequate British defence changed Australia's defence strategy from reliance on Britain to reliance on the U.S. It destroyed any trust that Britain could defend its Empire and is a sore point with Australians to this day
@@williambrooks6629 Britain was overstretched & bankrupt, a legacy of WW1 (& not helped by the U.S economic & political policies which undermined Britain in both wars). That said, British arrogance over Japanese capability & incompetence helped Singapore fall. The US emerged as the world's biggest superpower, Australia were right to look there for protection. Sadly, Britain couldn't do it any more.
My 2 favourite tanks! They also did things that mattered. Battle of Arras for the matilda 2 and the valentine was one of only 2 tanks to serve in every theatre,, including Britain's most important battle of Imphal and Kohema
For me at least, part of the cool thing with the Churchil was the funnies that came from it. Crocidile, especially, with heavy armour, a regular tank main gun, oh, and fire just for a bit extra. The AVRE I find an ammusing concept too, on a beast of a tank.
My father worked on valentines and rated them as well built and serviceable. The Churchill could climb a very steep gradient and the variant’s were awesome. The croc was a fearsome weapon. The Cromwell was very underrated .
I appreciate the fact that "anything is better than nothing", but performance means everything when it matters most, and the Jerries seemed to have the superior gun technology for the majority of the war. There was a video game match where I managed to "kill" a Pershing tank with a Hetzer (a total mismatch). I simply used superior tactics to get into a flanking position on the two Pershings that I engaged (only successfully killing one of them), but afterwards everyone on my team saw the kill announcement "Player X (Hetzer) 》Player Y (Pershing)" and they were all trying to do it too. In the next 15 minutes or so, our team lost like 10 - 20 Hetzers to Pershings because everyone was trying to duplicate my effort (but didn't know how I did it). Technical performance overcomes personal skill and in real life, tanks are a crewed weapon system too...
About same tech at war start, but after the shock of heavy British & French tanks in 1940, the Germans went to Russia & found the KV's & sloping armour, which made them think far more radically than the British. The American 75mm was deemed good against German tanks in the Desert (which didn't have that much armour & it wasn't sloped), in 1942-1943 & even up to Italy 1944. Being lower velocity, the Sherman gun barrels wore out far less quickly than the high velocity German ones (tho this might be a moot point if tanks usually got destroyed before their barrels wore out), so when the Allies started attacking, & they fired far more HE shells in close support & indirect artillery fire roles, it was without issue. The Americans did look at heavier tanks (with bigger guns), but weren't prepared to put unreliable/not fully tested tanks into the field, & thought their medium tanks were still doing a good enough job, which results seemed to bear out as the Allies were still knocking out German tanks, & always advancing (although the Allied tanks crews would have disputed this). American tanks weren't really supposed to meet enemy armour, that was the job of their tank destroyers & anti tank guns. There was also the economics issue - the Germans had a closed economy, so development costs didn't mean as much as the end result (or Hitlers own plans), the British & Americans on the other hand, constantly were looking at budgets, which is why they went for quantity not quality a lot of times. This shows up in a lot of British tanks being riveted, as they were cheap & easy to make, & could use riveters/industry from shipbuilding yards. They were never going to put a 'big' gun (say 88-90mm) until they felt they were absolutely forced to. I'd agree that if the Allies changed their thinking slightly (in the 75mm or so category), it may have saved a lot of brave crews lives in tank engagements.
the chieftain said it perfectly, and i always knew this but he put it into words i never bothered to profess. don't ask what the tank will do to you, ask what the tank will do to the enemy.
Davids point that people don’t understand the full context is so wide it’s irritating. For example, people shit on the Challenger 2 for being too heavy and having it’s rifled gun, without understanding the reasons for those design choices and the doctrine of how the tank is supposed to be used. This applies to pretty much any tank out there.
What is the sound reason of rifle gun? Everybody switched to Smoothbore already. Even Challenger was forced to replace its gun already. By the time of Challenger 2 introduction, rifle gun were on the way out already.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 The round no other big powers used. So it is more like Brit chose wrong thing to focus on especially When everybody else satisfied enough with HEAT.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 HEAT did the same thing but not restricted by rifling. Also by the time of C2, anti spalling method rendered HESH near useless. Other than HESH, smoothbore get much better qualities like not restricting APFSDS, longer barrel life. The smoothbore is simply superior choice. Somehow Brit designers chose the outdated choice.
Totally agreed. Valentine and Churchill are truly underrated. Cromwell (Comet and Challenger included) is/are not a 'best tank' simply because it was too late. The Allies were already going to win by then, and the war was more often like WW1 than is often portrayed. This is why lighter tanks were better in the beginning of WW2, and infantry tanks in the latter half.
The majority of tanks the British had/used in WW2 were American made Sherman tanks. In fact, there were slightly more then 50 thousand Sherman tanks made in WW2. And many were shipped around the world, even to Russia. Currently, 2924, the British field less the 300 tanks, in total.
An example of British humour. Got a midget in your platoon? What shall we call him? "Lofty" of course!!!. Got a tank that you can run faster than, then naturally its got to be "Greyhound" though "Lightning" or "Thunderbolt" would also be considered suitable..
I think British tanks that were fielded in general were good. Usually they weren't outstanding but the British did pretty well when you consider that they were an Air and Naval power, the army was the 3rd wheel.
Australian had success using the Matilda in the jungles of south east Asia. Immune to the Japanese anti tank weapons it had to face. In the jungle it's low spead didn't matter and being small it was easier to navigate amongt the heavy vegitation. Half had a flame thrower located in the main gum barre. In this theater it was more usefull than the M3 Lee/Grant. A Japanese soldier unable to see it but hearing it appoaching with it's machine gun and flame thower would have been terrijied.
Difficult to imagine that there were any rated ones. The Churchill perhaps for steep hills, infantry support and flame-throwing bunkers. Otherwise, we British didn’t excel in armour - even though we invented the tank. The war was over by the time we back engineered German tanks for successful post-war models. It appears we didn’t use tanks too smartly, either. The Valentine was ok - but ...
You forgot one thing, Stalin did not care much about the lives of his people, so a light tank without much protection is fine with him , he did not have to fight in it. Just like the Japanese with the Zeros. No armor or self sealing fuel tanks. A Valentine is much better than no tank, and later, the Russians did introduced the very good T34. It was such a threat to other tanks even in Korea until the Americans had to ship in heavy M 26 Pershings to tame the T34. The Sherman is not as unprotected as some think, it is just fall short when they came up against Germans with 88mm guns. I think the Sherman is quite comparable with the German Mark 4. and greatly inferior to the Tiger 2. But they had numbers on their side and they owned the sky.
Of all the features of a tank, I think reliability is the most important. If it is not running, it is no good. If that is true, then the German tanks are among the worst, because they were not very reliable, from what I have read. The Sherman, on the other hand, was very reliable. (see Chieftain remarks).
Why were the British Military so quick to realise that the idea of having three types of 'carriers' didnt work, instead reducing them down to the 'Universal Carrier', but not so quick to wake up to the fact that having Infantry and Cruiser tanks operating seperatley was a flawed practice?
Prewar British army doctrine decided that infantry needed support against enemy tanks, which the 2pdr was superlative at through the late 1930s and upto 1940-41, as supporting HE fire would be delivered by field artillery. It was only when combat in WW2 began that it became apparent that having tanks with an independent HE capability was desirable.... which was why the first Churchill A22 models were hastily fitted with 3in howitzers mounted in the hull front.
All our ww2 tanks did not have a gun with enough power to take on the Germans Look at how many of them got smashed in the battle for Caan and in the desert campaigns. Pure weight of numbers got them through. The Tommy cooker the shermans made the difference
In the Russian movie "White Tiger" (th-cam.com/video/soRIjIJAUfA/w-d-xo.html) there's some nice footage of a knocked out 6-pounder armed Matilda II at the 1:24 point. Knocked out Matilda II on a flatcar at 10:30 and 12:12. knocked out at 51:30 plus other knocked out tanks. M3 at 16:55 and 49:30 although it might be mock-up. That movie is well worth watching.
To understand why the Soviets liked the Valentine, one need only look at the aborted T-50 tank. A light infantry tank intended to replace the T-26, less than 100 were built before production was halted while the Soviets moved their tank factories to the Urals and then did not restart production, instead choosing to churn out T-34s. However, the Infantry support role still needed filling by something more modern and capable than the T-26 and that gap was filled with lend lease Valentines. The Valentine was slower than the T-50, but much better protected and was optimised towards the same role, being otherwise quite similar in terms of weight and firepower.
It's not entirely accurate to say the valintine was better protected than the T-50, the T-50 had equal armour effectiveness to the T-34 according to both soviet and German records due it superior steel quality despite the thinner armour, and the Soviets considers the t34 better protected than the valintine.
The infantry support role in the Red Army was filled mostly by the SU-76s instead. The Soviets built over 14,000 SU-76s, compared with about 3,800 Valentines they received from Britain and Canada. The SU-76s were poorly armored but carried main guns far better suited for supporting infantry than the Valentines or the T-50s.
My Uncle Ted recently restored a New Zealand Army Valentine tank to more or less working order for the Army Museum. I think it was one of the ones with the 3-inch howitzer, a local modification for the Pacifit War where we used them with some success alongside Stuart's. As to whether that one was used in combat or for training I don't know, we used them until 1960 I think, and he did do compulsory service as an engineer before a truck explosion cut his time short. Didn't stop him, did amazing work all over the world as an engineer though. He is one of those cool ones!
Excellent point. "The best tag" for a tank might fit into the scene for three or four months or even three or four weeks. What could be accomplished during many such repetitive brief intervals over time was how wars were won.
Glad to see the Valentine getting some love. Also, I find a Matilda II tank named Greyhound to be .. optimistic. (Yes, I know the British units named tanks based on having the same first letter.)
Thank you for the most interesting material. My grandfa rode a Valentine in 1942, Volkhov war theatre, Russia and loved the tank greatly. Later, since 1943 he served as coach for newly formed T-34 crews in Nizhny Novgorod, and after the war he used to say T-34 was the best tank of the war, nevertheless Valentine wasn't worse it.
Another allied tank in Russian service that the Russians quite liked was the Sherman. While it wasn't considered as tough as the Russian tanks, it reliability and creature comforts were much prized by the Russian crews. I recall reading an account where a Russian Sherman was in combat with the Germans. The tank was hit and started to burn. The crew managed to bail out of the tank, but were forced to shelter under the tank for a time due to German fire. They were trapped there long enough that they were convinced a T-34 would have exploded due to the fire, but the Sherman just continued to burn. What I found amusing about the account is that once the crew had managed to escape from under the tank to a safer area, the driver was absolutely distraught. It seems that he couldn't handle the idea of his padded driver's seat, something that was unheard of in a T-34, going up in flames.
The Matilda II needs more love. It's the only British tank to see service throughout the war, with Australia still using them in 1945. In fact the Australians tested other tanks for jungle warfare, like the US M3 Lee/Grant and the M4 Sherman and they still preferred the Matilda.
That's true the Matilda's were used in all Australian last campaigns in 1944 - 1945. The Aussies found them to be much more tougher and could survived in very hot humid and rugged conditions of jungle warfare.
Yeah, the problem was for late war the turret was too small to be effectively up gunned. I don't know if the Matilda carried cannister rounds or not for dealing with brush and light buildings, as I feel like that would have been better for that kind of gun than an HE round. @Guapo Returns The Matilda was a small tank with protected tracks, which might have made it better for the jungle. The Sherman was a larger tank with exposed tracks. Its hard to go fast in the jungle so the speed of the Sherman might not have been helpful. The main time you would want a Sherman was if you found a bunker and needed a 105mm howitzer, otherwise you wanted something smaller with side skirts I guess. The actual armor thickness was less of a concern as was overall reliability as japanese armor and firepower was not up to par with allied or german designs, if simply due to the lack of manufacturing capacity and material supply. The pacific campaign was very much removed from the european and african campaigns.
@@guaporeturns9472 in jungle warfare frontal armour strength isn’t really that important(especially when the front armour of both Sherman and Matilda easily bests most Japanese weapons, the Matilda has far more side and rear armour than the Sherman, is smaller, and better on rough terrain
Matilda remained in combat until the end of the war with Australian forces in the Pacific theatre. Modified for jungle combat. Its speed was less important than its off-road capability and good armor for close combat. Also, the Japanese had limited anti tank weapons. Often using improvised attacks including infantry carrying bombs and incendiaries to put on the hulls. The Stuart light tank was used effectively at times, but suffered heavy casualties. Importantly, involved a big factor in the bloody battles for Buna and Gona. Australian testing led the army adopting the Churchill to replace the Matilda, but did not arrive in time for combat. Australian experience showed that tanks were effective in jungle combat. And light tanks were not the best option for jungles.
I have wonder what Malaya might have been like if Canada had supplied them with say 100 Valintines. They were comaratively small but well armoured and superior to anything the Japanese had. Imagine an Australian regiment of valintine tanks. During the entire war the Japanese realy never had anything in numbers that could deal with one
I think the problem with the M3 in the jungle was the tank wasn't designed to idle at low speeds. If I am remembering correctly the M3s had an air cooled radial and they liked to be moving to improve the air flow. The Matilda was designed to idle at low speeds, had better armour and became available, so sorry M3, your 12th man this match.
After the war Australia tested Churchill's, Sherman's and Chaffee's in the jungle and found the Churchill superior in most aspects so until the Centurion came along the Churchill was Australia's battle tank.
Years ago I knew a Dutch lady who'd been a little girl at the end of WWII. She often talked about the day her village was liberated. What was the first British tank she saw as it rumbled passed her house? A Churchill.
The problem with talking about tanks in WWII is that people can’t see past Tigers and Panthers, but the reality tanks like the Matilda, Valentine and Churchill were more than capable against the vast majority of standard german armour.
I've yet to build a decent model of a German tank but when I do, I'll build one that's being repaired. Us Brits seem to love doing ourselves down when in reality we had some extremely capable kit and some very clever people.
More Panthers were built mid 1943-45 than any other German tank. So Panther WAS the standard German tank, and more Panthers than Panzer IVs were in the west from June 1944 to May 1945.
Once you realize that the war winners are not the big fancy tanks with superlative firepower and armour, but the though workhorses with multiple uses that keep soldiering on and make life much easier for other troops rather than cling to the myopic idea of tanks dueling each other at the exclusion of everything else.
The Valentine is among my favourite tanks of the second world war. Although originally rejected for service in favour of the Matilda II, it would outshine it in the end. Plus I think it looks cute.
I'm glad he mentioned the valentine's reliability. The only thing worse than having no weapon is having an unreliable weapon. An amazing tank that doesn't work is just an embarrassingly expensive paperweight.
The reason I am fond of the Churchill is that over 50 years ago I made up an Airfix model kit. Now, with the Tank Museum on the web, I am learning all the time.
One thing they often overlook is the Churchills handling on bad/wet ground. The Australians trialled the Sherman vs Churchill in challenging trials to gauge how they would perform in jungle like conditions and the Churchill won.
Some of the Valentines from the Desert Campaign made it to Tunisia and Italy, on the same engine they were built with. One unit of Free-French kept the Valentine for as long as they could before being ordered to change to Shermans, they liked the better all over armor protection. I think after the Normandy break-out the Cromwell came into it's own, it could roam the countryside at speed popping up against the enemy where they weren't expecting a tank to be.
I was one of those students of WW2 (my father being in the RAF) who thought German tanks good, British generally bad. Thanks for this five minute guide. And I've recently been to the museum!
I have always had a soft spot for the Churchill. The thick armour and it's climbing strengths. The 2 pounder was an OK gun at the start of its career but something heftier was quickly required, and they upgraded to larger calibres. They were always constrained by maximum transportation dimension limits. If they hadn't been they might have produced something akin to Tiger 1. It wouldn't have been a better tank though.
Not a candidate for underrated imo but I really like the Comet. Fast, powerful gun, in that weird late-war design spot being half Cromwell and half Centurion.
The Centurion entered service in April 1945 and was immediately dispatched to Germany when they arrived the war was over, later testing against a Tiger`s armour proved it to be at least equal to the Tiger if not superior. It later served in many armies around the world but Israel put it to its best in 1973, they loved the tank.
Best tank of WW2 to be fair. The centurion was so good it outclassed everything else. Had it been ready just a few months earlier it might have seen combat.
YES! This book was my introduction to World War 2. Got it from a teacher who was clearing out his classroom reading rack when I was eleven. I read it over and over till it fell apart. Sparked a life long interest in history and reading for pleasure. Thank you for reminding me, and thanks Mr. Kelly, wherever you are.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
7:50 Love the idea of a German complaining that the British use of a Churchill just wasn't cricket.
They said the same to the Royal Marines at Walcheren. They came from the wrong direction...
@@RO8s Just like the sneaky Japanese approach to Singapore. I believe That I read that their army advanced quite swiftly, on bicycles which, when their tyres had been shredded, created such a clattering racket that some defenders fled from what they misheard as oncoming tanks.
In 1940 a captured British officer complained to his German captors that he thought it was unfair to use the 88mm AA guns against tanks - the German officer replied he thought it was unfair for the British to use the Matilda II tanks which only an 88 could take out!
You may love the idea, but that doesn't mean it actually happened.
My Dad in 41 and 42 was a workshop foreman at Chillwell COD preparing tanks for Russia. He was an A vehicles man all his life. He ended up as head of scales branch after years at Woolwhich, Bordon, FVRDE always on mod and RandD. He told me his top five were:
Valentine (dependable)
Comet could go like one
Sherman with the five bank Chrysler. Ease of field maintenance and the lovely tool kit that came with one.
Centurion all marks. He went to Israel to chat to them about it and they really did put right a few things that were wrong with it. Keeping the ranging gun and so forth. Many Arab tank crews bailed out after hearing the knock of that!
Chieftain for what could have been. If you ignore that awful engine. Which he cautioned against.
Bottom five
Crusader
Covenanter
Early Churchill
Grant bolted armour and gun arrangement.
tetrarch - clever but pointless.
Could have been. Any Vickers export jobs. Indians loved them.
I loved talking to him. Starting as an Apprentice in 1930 and ending up as a Principle Technical Officer he got there through merit. However, he made no friends back in the days when, as he said, between the 2 pounder and the firefly you had to take your hat off to those tank crews.
In 44/45 he was attached up the sharp end to look at battle damage and so on.. So, I guess he should know. He took that with him to War Office and then Woolwich. So an all round career. The thing I remember most about him was his ability to explain technical matters simply and his drawing skills.
Of course it all started as an apprentice when he was told to file a square round and then back to square. Nice guy.
Love your work.
Great story, thank you!
Thanks for the memories of your Dad. Respect! When I was an apprentice, my worst skill was filing a cube to get 6 perfect flats. Took me ages and many hills and furrows and never perfected! And filing it round again? Wow!
@@stigmontgomery7901 Hi Stig, my Dad had similar stories of long stands, left handed screw drivers and sky hooks! One that did make me laugh concerned some old scrap tanks. Dad was sent to get something or other off one and given a key, spanner and large hammer. He stood next to the tank for ages looking dormant until the chap that sent him arrived. He burst into laughter and told Dad "The key is for the shed there (indicated it 20 meters away) the spanner is for the Oxyacetline and the Hammer to knock off the (whatever it was)" ! Typical Apprentice.
Big love to your dad
Got to like his lists...nailed it.
Not only did the Soviets like the Valentine, according to Peter Samsonov's book on the Sherman in Red Army Service the Soviets used Valentines to meet their needs until enough Shermans arrived. The Soviets even paired Shermans and Valentines in the same unit, which shows how much they liked the Valentine, I think, since the Valentine is not exactly the equal of the Sherman in terms of speed.
Did it have anything to do with the practical cruising speed on a tank on the move? You would rarely drive a tank at absolute top speed unless in an emergency (similar I imagine to WEP in aircraft. A great way to break something). The Valentine doesn't go very fast, so maybe its cruising speed IS its top speed. The Chieftan had an article about crew experiences with the M10 GMC, and how some didn't want the M18 Hellcat because the M10 went fast enough, with plenty of reserve speed they weren't even using. The crews didn't want speed, they wanted better armour and firepower.
In fact, the Soviets liked the Valentine so much, they remained in Red Army service until 1945.
Makes sense since the Soviets operated in ranks and echelons. The low speed and firepower Of Valentines matters less if you only use them in the early waves that don't have to go far to do their job of breaking the enemy's initial lines. Add in it is tough and durable, it really is great for leading Soviet attacks.
@@Mr_Bunk It might also be a case though of them needing every active tank in service that they got. They went through tanks like crazy. Most T-34's produced during the war ended up destroyed by the Germans. So maybe if it was still working and they had munitions for it, maybe keep it going was the motto.
@@a.rogers1403 I think that (at least early on when they were receiving Shermans with rubber-lined tracks) the Soviets liked the Valentine's handling on inclines and snow better than the Sherman, so they probably ran the Shermans slower than they otherwise could have because there is no point speeding a tank along if it's going to end up upside down in a ditch.
The Valentine was very effective especially in coordination with a box of chocolates.
Ur such a sweetie😱
That was Cadburys Milk Tray! BUT you also needed a Red Rose. That is why Roses Chocolates had the Red Rose on the Box/Tin.
Groan.
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤👍🎯
I'm a fan of the Churchill after hearing of some of its amazing ground crossing abilities and climbing, also hearing of the incredible frontal armour and the beatings some took and kept going, I read a report of a Churchill Crocodile causing a bunker full of German soldiers to surrender without needing to fire a shot, it was the slow determined and hard to stop advance of the Churchill while taking fire and never giving up that one soldier said was the embodiment of British determination. . . Also I heard the infantry loved them as they knew they wouldn't speed off and leave them behind unlike Shermans and Cromwells, you knew you had a mobile bunker to shelter behind for as long as you needed.
The Valentine, just like for instance the P-40, was all-right, cheap, rugged and useful. Not the star of the show - but the right vehicle at the right moment.
Nice comparison!
I love Churchill. To be it represents the British attitude, it's the British bull dog of tanks. Slow and steady, reliable and overcomes heavy obstacles and there at the victory line.
The Churchill was made by the American General Motors car subsiduary Vauxhall the gearbox was marvellous the armour was a lifesaver
There are 2-British WWII tanks at the monument and museum to the Great Patriotic War. Both are Matilda II. The remains of the 609 tanks successfully supplied, initially used for training but thrown into the defence of Moscow in 1941
The Matilda ! you forgot to mention that this tank was possibly the ultimate unit for the Australians in the Pacific campaign. Mediam weight, great close action back up for the troops, and had so many applications eg., the Crocodile flame thrower, which was ideal for the jungle ware fair.
I remember one Valentine being found in a mud in Poland a few years ago. It must have been used no earlier than mid 1944 to be laid to rest in the place. I think it is a nice testament to its reliability.
Valentine’s were deployed in the pacific theatre against the Japanese by NZ, with some locally converted to mount 3 inch howitzer, and the 2 pounder models having improvised 40 mm HE rounds (bofors AA rounds being crimped onto 2 pounder cartridges).
That sounds like a very kiwi thing to do
I straight away thought of the Valentine first, then almost Matilda II but went for the Cromwell second. And rather ironic the comment by a German officer that British tanks weren't fast enough!
My father made the newspaer in a Valintine. They were in a parade to raise money with what were called victory bonds in Canada. Dad was driving. The Valinetine did not have very good sight lines to the side. Driving down the street everybody started yelling and he stopped. He had driven lengthwise down the side of a car flattening one side that was parked on the side of the road and a picture of it made headlines in a major Toronto paper.
I think one of the reasons people love the Churchill is Hobart's Funnies.
Nice video - well done! You should do more collabs like this!
I like the Churchill tank. It's kind of quirky but ultimately the hull was used in so many different ways, successfully no less. The only thing that's really odd that I don't like is the road wheels. The only thing that the US built that had road wheels like that was the lvt.
I think it was originally an American design, made by none other then a race car driver.
Mark 8 flame thrower Churchill best infantry support in the war
The road wheels were certainly a major pain when building the old Airfix kit. However, on the real thing they reduced the ground pressure, improved traction and allowed the vehicle to continue operating even after mine strikes.
@@samb2052 Also allowed the Churchill to climb really steep grades.
I as a Brit have always loved the Cromwell tank... although for me that's in spite of it's namesake. It was rough and ready and fast, good for swanning around North France and the Low Countries!
Cromwell was slower than a snail, but is fine in all other aspects.
@@Tecmaster96 Cromwell could do 60+ kph. You must be refering to its bigger cousin the Churchill tank
Cromwell and Centaur were bloody fast tanks. One was used to jump over a river. :)
It also seems like the Brits were looking fairly closely at the Panzer IV when designing their Cromwell, it has a very similar "stepped" front and at least from the front (there are way too many roadwheels on the panzer to mix them up from the side) or in stark side silhouette would be have been easy to confuse the two.
Glad to see the Valentine getting more love.
It's an adorable tank.
The modified Valentine fitted with the firefly 77mm conversion made a superbly mobile and inconspicuous anti tank gun. The British Army still had them into the mid 1960s
@@stephenround3856
77mm? Superbly mobile?
I don't think you're talking about any of the Valentine variants. :P
The valentine was far from perfect ,but it was available. It was there,not still "on the way"
So true about the need to look at the tank when it was used and how well it did in its prime. OMG! You mean tanks did things other than fight other tanks?? Inconceivable! LOL
A sober analysis and thoughtfull discussion which I enjoyed very much.
Interesting opinions from the experts . Totally agree with the idea of certain tanks being useful at a particular moment in time .
Excellent video by two great experts👍
Glad you enjoyed it
Its my favorite. Build with 1/3 of man hours needed to build a Matilda II. One of most reliable British tanks. Cheaper than T-34 but has similar armor. Gets up gunned twice. And its less than 20 tons so transpiring it is easy.
5:10 haha, I like how you brought in Steel Division into this. Great Stuff, can't wait for the new stuff that's coming up for the game.
Awesome!! You two together great!
valentine had similar effective armor thickness to matilda (26t) but was ligther (had 16t)
I have always been frustrated by the fact that so many Valentines were sent to Russia. Imagine the battle for Malaya and Singapore if the British army there had been given just 200 Valentine Tanks
Yes, but Britain could afford to lose Singapore, it couldn't afford to lose the Soviets as Allies. Just a few anti tank guns would have helped in the Far East, or bofors guns with AP rounds (if that was possible), but anything good went to the Western Desert or Soviets. The other thing was that the British (& Americans) just didn't think the Japanese were capable of what they actually were.
@@eze8970 well..not 200...20 would already be enough...even the old cruiser Mk 1 wld have done...
@@eze8970 Tanks and decent AT guns might have improved things a bit in Malaya, but wouldn't have changed the result. The Japanese advantage was in doctrine and mobility, not weaponry.
@@eze8970 The fall of Singapore and the inadequate British defence changed Australia's defence strategy from reliance on Britain to reliance on the U.S. It destroyed any trust that Britain could defend its Empire and is a sore point with Australians to this day
@@williambrooks6629 Britain was overstretched & bankrupt, a legacy of WW1 (& not helped by the U.S economic & political policies which undermined Britain in both wars).
That said, British arrogance over Japanese capability & incompetence helped Singapore fall.
The US emerged as the world's biggest superpower, Australia were right to look there for protection. Sadly, Britain couldn't do it any more.
My 2 favourite tanks! They also did things that mattered. Battle of Arras for the matilda 2 and the valentine was one of only 2 tanks to serve in every theatre,, including Britain's most important battle of Imphal and Kohema
For me at least, part of the cool thing with the Churchil was the funnies that came from it. Crocidile, especially, with heavy armour, a regular tank main gun, oh, and fire just for a bit extra. The AVRE I find an ammusing concept too, on a beast of a tank.
I spent a wonderful day at Bovington in 2011 on a trip to Europe. If I ever get back I intend at least another full day. Could do a week easily.
My father worked on valentines and rated them as well built and serviceable. The Churchill could climb a very steep gradient and the variant’s were awesome. The croc was a fearsome weapon. The Cromwell was very underrated .
I read somewhere that the frontal armourof the Matilda was the reason for the Germans developing heavier armour piercing guns
The Matilda II was in frontline combat service until August 1945…
The Japanese really feared them.
Agree on the Valentine. An efficient little tank.
1941 December 170 M3 light tanks in North Africa, 108 in the Philippines.
Great clip. Actually love the Cromwell, and even the Churchill. Agree the Valentine doesn't seem to get much visibility/recognition.
I appreciate the fact that "anything is better than nothing", but performance means everything when it matters most, and the Jerries seemed to have the superior gun technology for the majority of the war.
There was a video game match where I managed to "kill" a Pershing tank with a Hetzer (a total mismatch). I simply used superior tactics to get into a flanking position on the two Pershings that I engaged (only successfully killing one of them), but afterwards everyone on my team saw the kill announcement "Player X (Hetzer) 》Player Y (Pershing)" and they were all trying to do it too. In the next 15 minutes or so, our team lost like 10 - 20 Hetzers to Pershings because everyone was trying to duplicate my effort (but didn't know how I did it).
Technical performance overcomes personal skill and in real life, tanks are a crewed weapon system too...
About same tech at war start, but after the shock of heavy British & French tanks in 1940, the Germans went to Russia & found the KV's & sloping armour, which made them think far more radically than the British.
The American 75mm was deemed good against German tanks in the Desert (which didn't have that much armour & it wasn't sloped), in 1942-1943 & even up to Italy 1944.
Being lower velocity, the Sherman gun barrels wore out far less quickly than the high velocity German ones (tho this might be a moot point if tanks usually got destroyed before their barrels wore out), so when the Allies started attacking, & they fired far more HE shells in close support & indirect artillery fire roles, it was without issue.
The Americans did look at heavier tanks (with bigger guns), but weren't prepared to put unreliable/not fully tested tanks into the field, & thought their medium tanks were still doing a good enough job, which results seemed to bear out as the Allies were still knocking out German tanks, & always advancing (although the Allied tanks crews would have disputed this).
American tanks weren't really supposed to meet enemy armour, that was the job of their tank destroyers & anti tank guns.
There was also the economics issue - the Germans had a closed economy, so development costs didn't mean as much as the end result (or Hitlers own plans), the British & Americans on the other hand, constantly were looking at budgets, which is why they went for quantity not quality a lot of times. This shows up in a lot of British tanks being riveted, as they were cheap & easy to make, & could use riveters/industry from shipbuilding yards. They were never going to put a 'big' gun (say 88-90mm) until they felt they were absolutely forced to.
I'd agree that if the Allies changed their thinking slightly (in the 75mm or so category), it may have saved a lot of brave crews lives in tank engagements.
Matters such as crew comfort, ventilation systems or lack of, field repair are much more important than usually considered.
The silhouette in the thumbnail was the Valentine. Obviously.
the chieftain said it perfectly, and i always knew this but he put it into words i never bothered to profess. don't ask what the tank will do to you, ask what the tank will do to the enemy.
Such good thought provoking video. Really good.
Love the fact David likes valentine. I've always had a soft spot for it since seeing "Manchester" in the museum many moons ago.
More colabs with the tank museum please
Davids point that people don’t understand the full context is so wide it’s irritating.
For example, people shit on the Challenger 2 for being too heavy and having it’s rifled gun, without understanding the reasons for those design choices and the doctrine of how the tank is supposed to be used.
This applies to pretty much any tank out there.
What is the sound reason of rifle gun?
Everybody switched to Smoothbore already. Even Challenger was forced to replace its gun already.
By the time of Challenger 2 introduction, rifle gun were on the way out already.
@@huntermad5668 The use of HESH rounds.
@@neiloflongbeck5705
The round no other big powers used.
So it is more like Brit chose wrong thing to focus on especially When everybody else satisfied enough with HEAT.
@@huntermad5668 HESH has other uses other than for taking out other tanks, such as fortifications.
@@neiloflongbeck5705
HEAT did the same thing but not restricted by rifling.
Also by the time of C2, anti spalling method rendered HESH near useless.
Other than HESH, smoothbore get much better qualities like not restricting APFSDS, longer barrel life.
The smoothbore is simply superior choice. Somehow Brit designers chose the outdated choice.
Totally agreed. Valentine and Churchill are truly underrated. Cromwell (Comet and Challenger included) is/are not a 'best tank' simply because it was too late. The Allies were already going to win by then, and the war was more often like WW1 than is often portrayed. This is why lighter tanks were better in the beginning of WW2, and infantry tanks in the latter half.
Excellent question!
The majority of tanks the British had/used in WW2 were American made Sherman tanks. In fact, there were slightly more then 50 thousand Sherman tanks made in WW2. And many were shipped around the world, even to Russia. Currently, 2924, the British field less the 300 tanks, in total.
2024.
Bit ironic to name your Matilda II "Greyhounf" isn't it? --Bob Bailey in Maine, USA
An example of British humour. Got a midget in your platoon? What shall we call him? "Lofty" of course!!!. Got a tank that you can run faster than, then naturally its got to be "Greyhound" though "Lightning" or "Thunderbolt" would also be considered suitable..
I think British tanks that were fielded in general were good. Usually they weren't outstanding but the British did pretty well when you consider that they were an Air and Naval power, the army was the 3rd wheel.
Australian had success using the Matilda in the jungles of south east Asia. Immune to the Japanese anti tank weapons it had to face. In the jungle it's low spead didn't matter and being small it was easier to navigate amongt the heavy vegitation. Half had a flame thrower located in the main gum barre. In this theater it was more usefull than the M3 Lee/Grant. A Japanese soldier unable to see it but hearing it appoaching with it's machine gun and flame thower would have been terrijied.
Really interesting. 3 under estimated British tanks certainly..
Interesting Video.
Finally Valentine gets some credit.
Difficult to imagine that there were any rated ones. The Churchill perhaps for steep hills, infantry support and flame-throwing bunkers. Otherwise, we British didn’t excel in armour - even though we invented the tank. The war was over by the time we back engineered German tanks for successful post-war models. It appears we didn’t use tanks too smartly, either. The Valentine was ok - but ...
You forgot one thing, Stalin did not care much about the lives of his people, so a light tank without much protection is fine with him , he did not have to fight in it. Just like the Japanese with the Zeros. No armor or self sealing fuel tanks. A Valentine is much better than no tank, and later, the Russians did introduced the very good T34. It was such a threat to other tanks even in Korea until the Americans had to ship in heavy M 26 Pershings to tame the T34. The Sherman is not as unprotected as some think, it is just fall short when they came up against Germans with 88mm guns. I think the Sherman is quite comparable with the German Mark 4. and greatly inferior to the Tiger 2. But they had numbers on their side and they owned the sky.
Of all the features of a tank, I think reliability is the most important. If it is not running, it is no good. If that is true, then the German tanks are among the worst, because they were not very reliable, from what I have read.
The Sherman, on the other hand, was very reliable. (see Chieftain remarks).
My choice? The Archer. Well, it was more of a tank destroyer.
Bernard Kast has the best channel on TH-cam barnone
First time I ever heard of it
Why were the British Military so quick to realise that the idea of having three types of 'carriers' didnt work, instead reducing them down to the 'Universal Carrier', but not so quick to wake up to the fact that having Infantry and Cruiser tanks operating seperatley was a flawed practice?
Why they used 2pdr. gun with no or poor he-shells in infantry tanks?
Prewar British army doctrine decided that infantry needed support against enemy tanks, which the 2pdr was superlative at through the late 1930s and upto 1940-41, as supporting HE fire would be delivered by field artillery. It was only when combat in WW2 began that it became apparent that having tanks with an independent HE capability was desirable.... which was why the first Churchill A22 models were hastily fitted with 3in howitzers mounted in the hull front.
So infantry tanks were actually more like tank destroyer units than classic idea of infantry support tanks or assault guns?
what if the UK would have had a good HE shell for its 2pnd anti tank and tank guns in 1939? would things have changed?
Not particularly, the amount of explosives you can stick into a round small enough to fit down the barrel of a 2pdr doesn't really make it viable.
All our ww2 tanks did not have a gun with enough power to take on the Germans Look at how many of them got smashed in the battle for Caan and in the desert campaigns. Pure weight of numbers got them through. The Tommy cooker the shermans made the difference
Well I was hoping for the Tog 2........
Can there actually be a best tank?
Or best tank for there situation and needs.
The other Churchill variant than really worked and certainly has captured the imagination is Crocodile. Good video, well informed discussion.
I wonder if the soviets ever mounted their 45mm gun in a valentine?
My answer would be TOG.
In the Russian movie "White Tiger" (th-cam.com/video/soRIjIJAUfA/w-d-xo.html) there's some nice footage of a knocked out 6-pounder armed Matilda II at the 1:24 point. Knocked out Matilda II on a flatcar at 10:30 and 12:12. knocked out at 51:30 plus other knocked out tanks.
M3 at 16:55 and 49:30 although it might be mock-up.
That movie is well worth watching.
Very thick armour for the time and very easy to upgun
I cause so much rage on World of Tanks and Warthunder with this boy
Nail in the Valentine coffin, it was not modelled by Airfix.
That is the yardstick.
To understand why the Soviets liked the Valentine, one need only look at the aborted T-50 tank. A light infantry tank intended to replace the T-26, less than 100 were built before production was halted while the Soviets moved their tank factories to the Urals and then did not restart production, instead choosing to churn out T-34s. However, the Infantry support role still needed filling by something more modern and capable than the T-26 and that gap was filled with lend lease Valentines. The Valentine was slower than the T-50, but much better protected and was optimised towards the same role, being otherwise quite similar in terms of weight and firepower.
It's not entirely accurate to say the valintine was better protected than the T-50, the T-50 had equal armour effectiveness to the T-34 according to both soviet and German records due it superior steel quality despite the thinner armour, and the Soviets considers the t34 better protected than the valintine.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Ah, German and Soviet records. Enough said🙃
@@DonaldoJTrumpetsure, western reports are 100% because “freedom” right?
You must be a volunteer for the next war… 😂
The infantry support role in the Red Army was filled mostly by the SU-76s instead. The Soviets built over 14,000 SU-76s, compared with about 3,800 Valentines they received from Britain and Canada. The SU-76s were poorly armored but carried main guns far better suited for supporting infantry than the Valentines or the T-50s.
My Uncle Ted recently restored a New Zealand Army Valentine tank to more or less working order for the Army Museum. I think it was one of the ones with the 3-inch howitzer, a local modification for the Pacifit War where we used them with some success alongside Stuart's. As to whether that one was used in combat or for training I don't know, we used them until 1960 I think, and he did do compulsory service as an engineer before a truck explosion cut his time short. Didn't stop him, did amazing work all over the world as an engineer though.
He is one of those cool ones!
The Valentine was the 'Hurricane' of the ground forces.
Excellent point. "The best tag" for a tank might fit into the scene for three or four months or even three or four weeks. What could be accomplished during many such repetitive brief intervals over time was how wars were won.
Glad to see the Valentine getting some love. Also, I find a Matilda II tank named Greyhound to be .. optimistic.
(Yes, I know the British units named tanks based on having the same first letter.)
British armed forces have/had a habit of giving people or vehicles sarcastic names, eg a very short man being called "Lofty"
The Maus
Thank you for the most interesting material. My grandfa rode a Valentine in 1942, Volkhov war theatre, Russia and loved the tank greatly. Later, since 1943 he served as coach for newly formed T-34 crews in Nizhny Novgorod, and after the war he used to say T-34 was the best tank of the war, nevertheless Valentine wasn't worse it.
Yeeeess
The Tank Museum David's are national treasures in the way HMS Victory is.
i hope theres a few more of these interviews with david
;)
Another allied tank in Russian service that the Russians quite liked was the Sherman. While it wasn't considered as tough as the Russian tanks, it reliability and creature comforts were much prized by the Russian crews.
I recall reading an account where a Russian Sherman was in combat with the Germans. The tank was hit and started to burn. The crew managed to bail out of the tank, but were forced to shelter under the tank for a time due to German fire. They were trapped there long enough that they were convinced a T-34 would have exploded due to the fire, but the Sherman just continued to burn. What I found amusing about the account is that once the crew had managed to escape from under the tank to a safer area, the driver was absolutely distraught. It seems that he couldn't handle the idea of his padded driver's seat, something that was unheard of in a T-34, going up in flames.
The Matilda II needs more love. It's the only British tank to see service throughout the war, with Australia still using them in 1945. In fact the Australians tested other tanks for jungle warfare, like the US M3 Lee/Grant and the M4 Sherman and they still preferred the Matilda.
That's true the Matilda's were used in all Australian last campaigns in 1944 - 1945. The Aussies found them to be much more tougher and could survived in very hot humid and rugged conditions of jungle warfare.
@@barrythatcher9349 Matilda more tougher than what .. Sherman?
Yeah, the problem was for late war the turret was too small to be effectively up gunned. I don't know if the Matilda carried cannister rounds or not for dealing with brush and light buildings, as I feel like that would have been better for that kind of gun than an HE round.
@Guapo Returns The Matilda was a small tank with protected tracks, which might have made it better for the jungle. The Sherman was a larger tank with exposed tracks. Its hard to go fast in the jungle so the speed of the Sherman might not have been helpful. The main time you would want a Sherman was if you found a bunker and needed a 105mm howitzer, otherwise you wanted something smaller with side skirts I guess.
The actual armor thickness was less of a concern as was overall reliability as japanese armor and firepower was not up to par with allied or german designs, if simply due to the lack of manufacturing capacity and material supply. The pacific campaign was very much removed from the european and african campaigns.
@@BillMcD Yeah true.. Sherman was better though
@@guaporeturns9472 in jungle warfare frontal armour strength isn’t really that important(especially when the front armour of both Sherman and Matilda easily bests most Japanese weapons, the Matilda has far more side and rear armour than the Sherman, is smaller, and better on rough terrain
Matilda remained in combat until the end of the war with Australian forces in the Pacific theatre. Modified for jungle combat. Its speed was less important than its off-road capability and good armor for close combat. Also, the Japanese had limited anti tank weapons. Often using improvised attacks including infantry carrying bombs and incendiaries to put on the hulls. The Stuart light tank was used effectively at times, but suffered heavy casualties. Importantly, involved a big factor in the bloody battles for Buna and Gona. Australian testing led the army adopting the Churchill to replace the Matilda, but did not arrive in time for combat. Australian experience showed that tanks were effective in jungle combat. And light tanks were not the best option for jungles.
I have wonder what Malaya might have been like if Canada had supplied them with say 100 Valintines. They were comaratively small but well armoured and superior to anything the Japanese had. Imagine an Australian regiment of valintine tanks. During the entire war the Japanese realy never had anything in numbers that could deal with one
I think the problem with the M3 in the jungle was the tank wasn't designed to idle at low speeds. If I am remembering correctly the M3s had an air cooled radial and they liked to be moving to improve the air flow.
The Matilda was designed to idle at low speeds, had better armour and became available, so sorry M3, your 12th man this match.
The Churchill and its variants - Crocodile! - remain one of my favourite tanks.
Its always a joy to hear David Willey explain ups and downs of certain tanks
After the war Australia tested Churchill's, Sherman's and Chaffee's in the jungle and found the Churchill superior in most aspects so until the Centurion came along the Churchill was Australia's battle tank.
Years ago I knew a Dutch lady who'd been a little girl at the end of WWII. She often talked about the day her village was liberated. What was the first British tank she saw as it rumbled passed her house? A Churchill.
It was probably crewed by Canadians, or Brits in Canadian 1st Army.
The problem with talking about tanks in WWII is that people can’t see past Tigers and Panthers, but the reality tanks like the Matilda, Valentine and Churchill were more than capable against the vast majority of standard german armour.
I've yet to build a decent model of a German tank but when I do, I'll build one that's being repaired. Us Brits seem to love doing ourselves down when in reality we had some extremely capable kit and some very clever people.
More Panthers were built mid 1943-45 than any other German tank. So Panther WAS the standard German tank, and more Panthers than Panzer IVs were in the west from June 1944 to May 1945.
Once you realize that the war winners are not the big fancy tanks with superlative firepower and armour, but the though workhorses with multiple uses that keep soldiering on and make life much easier for other troops rather than cling to the myopic idea of tanks dueling each other at the exclusion of everything else.
Yes, you only win a battle with tanks of they actually turn up.
Must be the Valentine. Brilliant little thing that.
The Valentine is among my favourite tanks of the second world war. Although originally rejected for service in favour of the Matilda II, it would outshine it in the end. Plus I think it looks cute.
I'm glad he mentioned the valentine's reliability. The only thing worse than having no weapon is having an unreliable weapon. An amazing tank that doesn't work is just an embarrassingly expensive paperweight.
Nervously laughing in German...
@@lucagerulat307 (Nervously laughing in American...)
The reason I am fond of the Churchill is that over 50 years ago I made up an Airfix model kit. Now, with the Tank Museum on the web, I am learning all the time.
One thing they often overlook is the Churchills handling on bad/wet ground. The Australians trialled the Sherman vs Churchill in challenging trials to gauge how they would perform in jungle like conditions and the Churchill won.
The reason I like the Churchill is because I am born in the same town as the Churchill was builted
And that it can do anything
Some of the Valentines from the Desert Campaign made it to Tunisia and Italy, on the same engine they were built with. One unit of Free-French kept the Valentine for as long as they could before being ordered to change to Shermans, they liked the better all over armor protection. I think after the Normandy break-out the Cromwell came into it's own, it could roam the countryside at speed popping up against the enemy where they weren't expecting a tank to be.
I was one of those students of WW2 (my father being in the RAF) who thought German tanks good, British generally bad. Thanks for this five minute guide. And I've recently been to the museum!
I have always had a soft spot for the Churchill. The thick armour and it's climbing strengths. The 2 pounder was an OK gun at the start of its career but something heftier was quickly required, and they upgraded to larger calibres. They were always constrained by maximum transportation dimension limits. If they hadn't been they might have produced something akin to Tiger 1. It wouldn't have been a better tank though.
Not a candidate for underrated imo but I really like the Comet. Fast, powerful gun, in that weird late-war design spot being half Cromwell and half Centurion.
The Centurion entered service in April 1945 and was immediately dispatched to Germany when they arrived the war was over, later testing against a Tiger`s armour proved it to be at least equal to the Tiger if not superior. It later served in many armies around the world but Israel put it to its best in 1973, they loved the tank.
more efficient armor than tiger 1 yes
Best tank of WW2 to be fair. The centurion was so good it outclassed everything else. Had it been ready just a few months earlier it might have seen combat.
I've loved the Matilda ever since reading Tramp in armour as a boy . Great book.
That was the second Colin Forbes novel I read, after 'Avalanche Express'
excellent book. Me too.
YES! This book was my introduction to World War 2. Got it from a teacher who was clearing out his classroom reading rack when I was eleven. I read it over and over till it fell apart. Sparked a life long interest in history and reading for pleasure. Thank you for reminding me, and thanks Mr. Kelly, wherever you are.
@@ihtfp01 I was at boarding school , ill in the sick bay . I found it in a locker. I eventually ended up as a soldier myself .