I completely enjoy Mr. Fletchers honesty when it comes to these vehicles. I have to chuckle when "Complete waste of time" and "Complete waste of money" come round. Thank you, Sir and Merry Christmas!
Painless Black Wolf As a fighting vehicle it was indeed a complete waste of time. Against troops or light skinned vehicles it remained dangerous, a 30 cal water cooled,or a 50 cal Vickers water cooled was deadly if enough ammunition stowed. Against trained troops with combined arms approach,stukas, radios,88 mm,maybe 50 mm cannon, it was a deathtrap. But it was built at the height of the great depression and as a training vehicle for all ranks,invaluable when the alternative was mounting a cardboard cutout on either side of a truck. If you personally were born after perhaps 1965 to 1970,you absolutely cannot imagine no repeat absolutely no social safety net. My mother,her first full time job was at the end of. And still,she would get off the streetcar and walk past a dead body twice a week or so. Starvation,disease,drink,hopelessness,mental illness. You name it. Canada did not reach full employment till 1941 or 1942. Tens of thousands of young men,the best and brightest,and still 2 to 3 years of war,still not full employment. That tank was the response to the reality and the mindset created by that terrible reality. Ten years of endless suffering during that depression. Fletcher is right there was willful blindness ,British high command focussed on WW1 mentality. Horses and cavalry at Sandhurst. David Niven in Moons a Balloon writes a few sentences. As a training vehicle,invaluable. In combat,hopeless.
Mr. Manson, Thank you for the informative, thoughtful reply, sir. I was born in 1959 but my family made sure I understood what the Depression and the following Global War had done to our family and the World at large. I agree with you. Everything has it's purpose, the tragedy ensues when the envelope of it's usefulness is stretched beyond its limitations. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Painless Black Wolf Dear Mr. Wolf. If there is a prize for the most gentlemanly reply on TH-cam,you win hands down. Given the regular nonsense found in the comments section,a thoughtful and civilized dialogue is very rare. This is modern life. Actually a contemporary of Chuck Yeager.I think Bud Anderson,made an invaluable observation. I paraphrase, but he said things were just as screwed up,even after Pearl Harbour,then as now. Finding the right guy to just get it done and with appropriate resources and time is something humans find difficult. The more complex,the more debate. Cheers and have a great season.
As a training tank and stop gap it was better than nothing, well armoured for its time. In its only real action it made up the majority of armour and succeded in panicking German troops including the fabled SS (although in 1940 they were not comparable to later years). Rommel reported he was under attack by several British armoured Divisions (the British had one at the time and Rommel never faced it, not bad for a small hodge podge force lacking support units and an effective command with the French). Passed up to higher command, which responded to the threat by halting the advance and planned attack by 3 Panzer divs and sending them back to deal with the threat. Such a diminutive poor combat vehicle did a lot in its small combat life, for a waste of money and construction, it still served well.
Completely agree. The honesty helps analysts so much! Get so tired of lying and rose glasses and nostalgia. I want to know the facts! :D I love this so much!
I'm amazed at a tank that, based on appearances alone, looks like one of those interwar super-fast light tanks like the BT-series, but it's actually a super slow infantry tank.
What we have is basically the British equivalent of the Renault FT with slightly better suspension, less of a gun and 17 years too late. Joking aside, yea it seems pathetic as a tank but we have to remember that other countries were still building stuff like this at the time, the French had the AMR 33 and 35 the US had the M1 Combat Car (thus named because by decree of Congress the Cavalry couldn't own something called a "Tank") various others like the Japanese, Italians, Soviets, Poles, and Czechs had their Tankettes; so everyone figured stuff like this had a role, even the Germans had their Panzer I and Panzer II which in Poland outnumbered their better remembered Panzer III and Panzer IV (and even their oft forgotten Czech made Pz 38s). These were going to get tossed in to battle at some point before everyone would realize they were useless and that just slapping the machine gun on a half track, universal carrier or APC that was an organic element of the infantry unit while making the heavily armored vehicles be proper tanks with cannons was a better idea. Unfortunately it was the British and French who history selected to learn this lesson during the Battle of France.
Good comment man. I suppose it's easy to laugh at tanks like this in the knowledge of things to come like the Tiger and Panther. This was doomed as a frontline tank, though the designers had no idea of that of course. But if things had been different and this vehicle had simply been issued in numbers as an infantry support vehicle rather than an armoured vehicle it might have been more successful.
To be fair to the French, they knew the FT was not up to snuff long before the war and, by the time the war came, their most numerous tank was the R35 (and later variant, the R40), which the Germans later used as late as 1944 in Normandy (possibly with some upgrades). Also, the Soviets, when they entered the war in 1941, already had operational T34s and KV1s, not in sufficient numbers to make too much of a difference, but still, it's obvious that not everyone was clueless to what an effective tank should look like before the war broke out.
Verry good coment! I tend to agree! This very reason can be given for american M4 Shermans and M3 Lees dominating the japanese Type 97 chi-ha, ha-go, Type 89, and others
The mark 1 panzer is so small, I was surprised when I saw it. I'm used to footage of mark 3's, 4's, Tigers and Panthers, it's easy to forget they had to start somewhere
Thank you Tank Museum ... 97 of them were lost after the evacuation of Dunkirk troops. The remainder was removed from British service in 1941, but the captured vehicles remained in the German service in internal security roles. Exactly like the French B1 - B1-bis and B3 tanks, were recovered by the German service. Left with Marshal Rommel for Afrika Corp in Egypt and Libya from 1941 to 1943 ... Merry Christmas to everyone !!
Can you imagine being a German tanker. "Hans, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we have your replacement tank, the bad news?"
ptonpc Imagine facing an early Grant tank. Maybe it happened. You had better hope your radio worked really well and that the 88s were nearby. Otherwise,surrender or die. Too slow to run,cannot fight back. No good choices. On the other hand,they look relatively easy to fix and it does beat marching. Add a sunshade(camouflage netting) and it might even be enjoyable. For a while.
Patrice Lechevallier In 1940 the Germans could not pen it with their standard AT weapons or tank guns, I would not call that weak armour. It had many faults but weak armour was not one of yhem
that's exactly it, after boarding Dunkirk, the English engineers built stronger and more resistant tanks to enemy shells, the Matilda of 30 tons in 1942 for example
Fletcher you are exactly the kind of guy I want to learn this stuff from. Going back to the Bob Caruthers series in the early 2000s I have learned many many things from that Mustache.
One other point about the Matilda mk 1 - it could manage 8mph flat out. Since it was supposed to advance in support of infantry, no-one thought it needed to go any faster.
There are very few people these days with the knowledge that David Fletcher, M.B.E. has. I love watching and more importantly, listening to this man. I thank him for recording his memories and knowledge of these mechanical monsters. He is always able to portray his idea that war and warlike vehicles were a waste of life.
The new Tank Museum videos are the only thing on TH-cam that i get excited about when they pop up on my suggested videos. Thank you for your work! And i have to say that if there were ever anyone i would love to sit down with and share a bottle of scotch while discussing history it would be David Fletcher.
Such a funky little bugger -- the Matilda I not Mr. Fletcher. He's the gem of the Tank Museum. There is something very fascinating about the interwar year tanks. Yes it is true the Matilda was utterly worthless but it did see battle! So it has that for bragging rights!
My father was i the 4th RTR and drove a Matilda 1 at Arras and he appears on several of the photographs in the RTR History. He escaped after Arras via Cherbourg some time after Dunkirk and after his tank had been hit in a skirmish at Boos just outside Rouen . I did read that there were 179 Matilda Mk I's in Northern France and that none returned. I know that having made his way back to the 4th RTR at Fanborough he was told there were no tanks and sent to join new unit being formed at Lechlade, Gloucestershire called the GHQ Recconaissance Unit which eventually became know as "Phantom". . In 1992 I took my father to the hamlet of Acq near Mont St Elois where he was billeted and as we drove through he shouted Stop as we arrived at the farmyard where the tanks were assembled.
I can't help looking at this and thinking how small it is could be an advantage. I wouldn't be surprised to see drone versions of this size on a modern battlefield soon enough.
To David and all the staff and volunteers at the Tank Museum in Bovington, Have a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!! Many thanks for the brilliant videos throughout the year and I am already looking forward to more in 2018. Joe
Great little chat about this tank. Much of the UK military at the time suffered from lack of investment which put uk at a server disadvantaged against the Germans.
If I was an infantryman I'd be quite happy for this thing to be providing me with some mobile heavy MG support....consider how the WMIKs and Jackals are used now...and they've got barely any armour. It was an infantry support tank and clearly wasn't intended to take on other tanks....so moaning about the lack of big guns is daft. The experts always snear at the idea of infantry tanks and cruisers but it was a logical idea at the time until better technology enabled them to build do-everything tanks. Other pet peeve...'experts' telling us that a tank without a turret isn't a tank.....but really you should say a tank with a turret isn't a tank as the first real tanks didn't have turrets did they.
Were talking about a raise from 10mm penetration to 17mm @ 100m, thats pretty marginal considering that even a Pz I had 13mm of armor and if the german tanker didnt find it in his generosity to park his tank straight towards you, you were helpless either way. Any other tank you could forget entirely, even the front of an armored car would have been to much for the Vickers .50. Now if we talked about the M2 Browning, that thing has around 26mm @ 100m, so against contemporary 30s tanks it was at least reasonably effective in comparison, but even that was phased out in favor of 37mm guns.
RULERofSTARS but we're not talking about anti tank weapons. British doctrine was for infantry tanks to support the infantry. They don't exist to engage tanks. That's the job of the Royal Artillery. The tanks are there to engage infantry, cavalry, and field guns.
Then explain to me how a slightly larger bullet might help with that then? Because it really only puts larger holes into people while .303 sized bullets are usually enough to kill people.
Daniel C it would have only been good against tankettes and maybe the M11. The world war 2 channel has a video talking about the vehicles used in Africa.
I came here intrigued by the “wall” / “bunker” on tracks behind Fletcher and wondered if the camera might change angle at all to get a better look at it. Hilarious to see this little Matilda in front of such a mammoth that exceeds the video frame!
David would it be fair that this little tank was designed to fight the Great War in much the same way as heavy Mk IV, V, and VIII {obviously smaller size and crews} of 1917-1919. It was an "infantry" Tank ie designed to support Infantry out of their trench and assist them to the opposing trench line. Tackling enemy Machine Gun positions and be proff against known anti armour weapons. It was a War too late. Ver much in the same vane as the French FT 17.
I'm sure it was fine against infantry and truck columns. I am sure the .50 cal MG would be a better choice. More useful against pillboxes and such too. A flamethrower version would have had some uses as well. Sounds like it would have good staying power with its armor also.
"We left them for the Germans to play with" priceless.
I completely enjoy Mr. Fletchers honesty when it comes to these vehicles. I have to chuckle when "Complete waste of time" and "Complete waste of money" come round. Thank you, Sir and Merry Christmas!
Painless Black Wolf As a fighting vehicle it was indeed a complete waste of time. Against troops or light skinned vehicles it remained dangerous, a 30 cal water cooled,or a 50 cal Vickers water cooled was deadly if enough ammunition stowed. Against trained troops with combined arms approach,stukas, radios,88 mm,maybe 50 mm cannon, it was a deathtrap. But it was built at the height of the great depression and as a training vehicle for all ranks,invaluable when the alternative was mounting a cardboard cutout on either side of a truck. If you personally were born after perhaps 1965 to 1970,you absolutely cannot imagine no repeat absolutely no social safety net.
My mother,her first full time job was at the end of. And still,she would get off the streetcar and walk past a dead body twice a week or so. Starvation,disease,drink,hopelessness,mental illness. You name it. Canada did not reach full employment till 1941 or 1942. Tens of thousands of young men,the best and brightest,and still 2 to 3 years of war,still not full employment. That tank was the response to the reality and the mindset created by that terrible reality. Ten years of endless suffering during that depression. Fletcher is right there was willful blindness ,British high command focussed on WW1 mentality. Horses and cavalry at Sandhurst. David Niven in Moons a Balloon writes a few sentences.
As a training vehicle,invaluable. In combat,hopeless.
Mr. Manson, Thank you for the informative, thoughtful reply, sir. I was born in 1959 but my family made sure I understood what the Depression and the following Global War had done to our family and the World at large. I agree with you. Everything has it's purpose, the tragedy ensues when the envelope of it's usefulness is stretched beyond its limitations. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Painless Black Wolf Dear Mr. Wolf. If there is a prize for the most gentlemanly reply on TH-cam,you win hands down. Given the regular nonsense found in the comments section,a thoughtful and civilized dialogue is very rare. This is modern life.
Actually a contemporary of Chuck Yeager.I think Bud Anderson,made an invaluable observation. I paraphrase, but he said things were just as screwed up,even after Pearl Harbour,then as now. Finding the right guy to just get it done and with appropriate resources and time is something humans find difficult. The more complex,the more debate. Cheers and have a great season.
As a training tank and stop gap it was better than nothing, well armoured for its time.
In its only real action it made up the majority of armour and succeded in panicking German troops including the fabled SS (although in 1940 they were not comparable to later years).
Rommel reported he was under attack by several British armoured Divisions (the British had one at the time and Rommel never faced it, not bad for a small hodge podge force lacking support units and an effective command with the French). Passed up to higher command, which responded to the threat by halting the advance and planned attack by 3 Panzer divs and sending them back to deal with the threat.
Such a diminutive poor combat vehicle did a lot in its small combat life, for a waste of money and construction, it still served well.
Completely agree. The honesty helps analysts so much! Get so tired of lying and rose glasses and nostalgia. I want to know the facts! :D I love this so much!
David Fletcher is a planetary treasure.
Based Fletcher. His voice and charm can make even the stupidest, most mundane things seem enjoyable.
I know what you mean, I could listen to Mr Fletcher talk about toasters, and still enjoy it.
I'm amazed at a tank that, based on appearances alone, looks like one of those interwar super-fast light tanks like the BT-series, but it's actually a super slow infantry tank.
Merry Christmas to everyone at the Tank Museum, thank you for these great videos. HUZZAH!
You were still Bismark when this comment was made. Gruesse!
Hats off to Mr Fletcher for telling it like it is! I could listen to him all day.
Atheist Orphan shame he got so many bits wrong
iatsd Like what? Care to enlighten us!
Hurrah for David Fletcher.
Hurrah with highly polished brass knobs on!
Jim lastname it did.
"Not very clever at all." Mr. Fletchers Britishness and charm is absolutely priceless. Keep these videos up!
Merry Christmas to everyone at the tank museum!
and a happy new year!
Who is that dapper proper gentleman there? None other than Mr Fletcher of course!
Have a merry Christmas Tank museum members!
YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. PLEASE STOP LEWDING KANNA OF I WILL HAVE TO REPORT YOU TO THE AUTHORITIES
Carlos Rios I'm late but RAVIOLI RAVIOLI
Awww, who's a cute widdle tank? You are! Oh yes your are!
Your are ...?
Tisk ... but still love your comment ...
Thank you British Tank Einstein for this lovely video.
I see. So the whole "Dunkirk thing" was to lose all the A11's so the Tank Corps could get better tanks. ;-D
It was a genuis plan all along.
Well the tanks remained rubbish for the entire war anyway.
@@Camcolito Churchill MkIII would like to know your location
@@UtopiaV1 Being able to destroy my house does not a good tank make.
@@Camcolito But... the engine torque! It could climb shallow slopes! Think of the possiblities :)
Dear Tank Santa,
I’ll be good for rest of this year. Please send me a Matilda.
lol
Great video. You have to admire the bravery of the poor crew of these things! The performance of tuning the radio is unbelievable.
Poor little tank.
I can imagine it being sad now lol.
Lt Gruber would have loved it though!
It might be suitable for pulling around artillery, or rescuing damaged tanks.
Tank’s just got bullied :(
What we have is basically the British equivalent of the Renault FT with slightly better suspension, less of a gun and 17 years too late.
Joking aside, yea it seems pathetic as a tank but we have to remember that other countries were still building stuff like this at the time, the French had the AMR 33 and 35 the US had the M1 Combat Car (thus named because by decree of Congress the Cavalry couldn't own something called a "Tank") various others like the Japanese, Italians, Soviets, Poles, and Czechs had their Tankettes; so everyone figured stuff like this had a role, even the Germans had their Panzer I and Panzer II which in Poland outnumbered their better remembered Panzer III and Panzer IV (and even their oft forgotten Czech made Pz 38s). These were going to get tossed in to battle at some point before everyone would realize they were useless and that just slapping the machine gun on a half track, universal carrier or APC that was an organic element of the infantry unit while making the heavily armored vehicles be proper tanks with cannons was a better idea. Unfortunately it was the British and French who history selected to learn this lesson during the Battle of France.
Good comment man. I suppose it's easy to laugh at tanks like this in the knowledge of things to come like the Tiger and Panther.
This was doomed as a frontline tank, though the designers had no idea of that of course. But if things had been different and this vehicle had simply been issued in numbers as an infantry support vehicle rather than an armoured vehicle it might have been more successful.
Good analysis.
To be fair to the French, they knew the FT was not up to snuff long before the war and, by the time the war came, their most numerous tank was the R35 (and later variant, the R40), which the Germans later used as late as 1944 in Normandy (possibly with some upgrades). Also, the Soviets, when they entered the war in 1941, already had operational T34s and KV1s, not in sufficient numbers to make too much of a difference, but still, it's obvious that not everyone was clueless to what an effective tank should look like before the war broke out.
Verry good coment! I tend to agree! This very reason can be given for american M4 Shermans and M3 Lees dominating the japanese Type 97 chi-ha, ha-go, Type 89, and others
The mark 1 panzer is so small, I was surprised when I saw it. I'm used to footage of mark 3's, 4's, Tigers and Panthers, it's easy to forget they had to start somewhere
Thank you Tank Museum ...
97 of them were lost after the evacuation of Dunkirk troops. The remainder was removed from British service in 1941, but the captured vehicles remained in the German service in internal security roles.
Exactly like the French B1 - B1-bis and B3 tanks, were recovered by the German service.
Left with Marshal Rommel for Afrika Corp in Egypt and Libya from 1941 to 1943 ...
Merry Christmas to everyone !!
Can you imagine being a German tanker. "Hans, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we have your replacement tank, the bad news?"
ptonpc Imagine facing an early Grant tank. Maybe it happened. You had better hope your radio worked really well and that the 88s were nearby. Otherwise,surrender or die. Too slow to run,cannot fight back. No good choices. On the other hand,they look relatively easy to fix and it does beat marching. Add a sunshade(camouflage netting) and it might even be enjoyable. For a while.
Matilda ... In fact, it is a light tank and a little weak armor. A sardine box.
Patrice Lechevallier In 1940 the Germans could not pen it with their standard AT weapons or tank guns, I would not call that weak armour. It had many faults but weak armour was not one of yhem
that's exactly it, after boarding Dunkirk,
the English engineers built stronger and more resistant tanks to enemy shells, the Matilda of 30 tons in 1942 for example
I have always found these simple tanks armed with a single mg turret fascinating. Tankettes are also awesome.
Fletcher you are exactly the kind of guy I want to learn this stuff from. Going back to the Bob Caruthers series in the early 2000s I have learned many many things from that Mustache.
Adam Mann this is a no thumping zone
David Fletcher ist ein cooler Typ. Ich mag seine Art zu erklären sehr. Hoffentlich komme ich bald auch Mal nach Bovington. Cheers
Yay it’s Christmas and David Fletcher is on Tank Chats.
The rest were left for the Germans to play with. Love it!
One other point about the Matilda mk 1 - it could manage 8mph flat out. Since it was supposed to advance in support of infantry, no-one thought it needed to go any faster.
Finally tank chats are back!
Have to agree with other comments that listening Mr Fletcher is a joy.
There's literally no video series on youtube that I'm looking forward to more, than the Tank Chats :D
Love that the crew at 02:37 seem to have named their Matilda "Dreadnought."
The name is part of 4th Royal Tank Regiment tradition and was first used in the First World War on a Mark IV heavy in 1917.
There are very few people these days with the knowledge that David Fletcher, M.B.E. has. I love watching and more importantly, listening to this man. I thank him for recording his memories and knowledge of these mechanical monsters. He is always able to portray his idea that war and warlike vehicles were a waste of life.
Great to see you again, David Fletcher! Thanks for taking the time to create this. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
The new Tank Museum videos are the only thing on TH-cam that i get excited about when they pop up on my suggested videos. Thank you for your work! And i have to say that if there were ever anyone i would love to sit down with and share a bottle of scotch while discussing history it would be David Fletcher.
I love the honesty. Unlike many others.
Such a funky little bugger -- the Matilda I not Mr. Fletcher. He's the gem of the Tank Museum. There is something very fascinating about the interwar year tanks. Yes it is true the Matilda was utterly worthless but it did see battle! So it has that for bragging rights!
My father was i the 4th RTR and drove a Matilda 1 at Arras and he appears on several of the photographs in the RTR History. He escaped after Arras via Cherbourg some time after Dunkirk and after his tank had been hit in a skirmish at Boos just outside Rouen . I did read that there were 179 Matilda Mk I's in Northern France and that none returned. I know that having made his way back to the 4th RTR at Fanborough he was told there were no tanks and sent to join new unit being formed at Lechlade, Gloucestershire called the GHQ Recconaissance Unit which eventually became know as "Phantom". . In 1992 I took my father to the hamlet of Acq near Mont St Elois where he was billeted and as we drove through he shouted Stop as we arrived at the farmyard where the tanks were assembled.
I can't help looking at this and thinking how small it is could be an advantage. I wouldn't be surprised to see drone versions of this size on a modern battlefield soon enough.
To David and all the staff and volunteers at the Tank Museum in Bovington,
Have a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!!
Many thanks for the brilliant videos throughout the year and I am already looking forward to more in 2018.
Joe
Yet somehow this is a beautiful machine.
No matter what David Fletcher talks about, I could listen for hours.
I like this bloke. No BS narration. :)
Great little chat about this tank.
Much of the UK military at the time suffered from lack of investment which put uk at a server disadvantaged against the Germans.
Thanks, Mr. Fletcher!
If I was an infantryman I'd be quite happy for this thing to be providing me with some mobile heavy MG support....consider how the WMIKs and Jackals are used now...and they've got barely any armour. It was an infantry support tank and clearly wasn't intended to take on other tanks....so moaning about the lack of big guns is daft. The experts always snear at the idea of infantry tanks and cruisers but it was a logical idea at the time until better technology enabled them to build do-everything tanks.
Other pet peeve...'experts' telling us that a tank without a turret isn't a tank.....but really you should say a tank with a turret isn't a tank as the first real tanks didn't have turrets did they.
DF is an absolute legend
Wonderful, I've missed the Tank Chats.
Thank you....Merry Christmas Tank Museum!!
Delighted to see these continue.
Love the comparison of the A11 parked in front of Chieftain.
I'm so excited to go here!!!
Thanks for that video! Very interesting.
A new tank chat is a great pre Christmas present.
Great job as usual, thank you.
The British Pzkw I.
I like it. Nice little runabout, pop down to Aldi in it.
The Renault Twizy of tanks
BIG UP David Fletcher! Ma main man REPRESENT!
This one’s definitely in better quality than the one outside
I love watching David Fletcher. He calls this tank a waste of money. My opinion is that it was the worlds most expensive machine gun.
Thank you I enjoyed that.
3:22 saying that the Vickers .50cal is only slightly better than British .303 is a bit of an understatement
when you're talking about anti-tank weapons they are both pretty awful though :)
Were talking about a raise from 10mm penetration to 17mm @ 100m, thats pretty marginal considering that even a Pz I had 13mm of armor and if the german tanker didnt find it in his generosity to park his tank straight towards you, you were helpless either way. Any other tank you could forget entirely, even the front of an armored car would have been to much for the Vickers .50.
Now if we talked about the M2 Browning, that thing has around 26mm @ 100m, so against contemporary 30s tanks it was at least reasonably effective in comparison, but even that was phased out in favor of 37mm guns.
RULERofSTARS but we're not talking about anti tank weapons. British doctrine was for infantry tanks to support the infantry. They don't exist to engage tanks. That's the job of the Royal Artillery. The tanks are there to engage infantry, cavalry, and field guns.
fake news. we're talking about a gun on a tank that's powerful enough to fight the tanks assaulting Dunkirk.
Then explain to me how a slightly larger bullet might help with that then? Because it really only puts larger holes into people while .303 sized bullets are usually enough to kill people.
The tank museum at Bovington is definitely on my list of places I have to visit before I kick the bucket! :D
You must go its a brilliant museum.
I love Mr. Fletcher's videos
It was a good tank against Panzer I and Italian tanks at the beggining of the war...
Daniel C it would have only been good against tankettes and maybe the M11. The world war 2 channel has a video talking about the vehicles used in Africa.
I got a lot of information there thanks again mr fletcher by the way happy Christmas
love these videos
I've been looking forward to this
Thanks
"Left for the Germans to play with." Brilliant!
That moment when you notice that the decorated wall behind the person actually has tracks
Same here.
A7V Sturmpanzer, baby !
Came for the tank. Stayed for the mustache.
-ßЯҢ- Commando
B U S H Y S T A C H E
knowing nothing about tanks , and seeing the picture. I thought it was something from the first world war , not the second !
I came here intrigued by the “wall” / “bunker” on tracks behind Fletcher and wondered if the camera might change angle at all to get a better look at it. Hilarious to see this little Matilda in front of such a mammoth that exceeds the video frame!
That is a German A7V from WWI.
it really look like a valentine prototype, it's amazing :D
David Fletcher rocks the house!
It's adorable and I want one!
What a cute little toy ☺
If that's a Rover V8, would love to hear it in this!!
This man seems like a relic from a Britain that doesn't exist anymore, or is disappearing very quickly.
Great video.
I think that (thankfully) it still exists, but the BS media does not pay them any attention as they have other 'values'.
@@Zoydian That's a good point.
i missed my wedding because a new tank chat was coming out
in fact now i regret it.
It looks nice.
God I wish I had the money to come visit the tank museum
All the best narrators are called David. David Attenborough, David Fletcher to name a few
I can imagine how hard the Germans were laughing at them lol. I do love how the driver's hatch lowers at 01:33 though.
what is that absolute behemoth he is stood in front of?
A replica A7V
The German WW1 Tank, iirc the A7V, it was the German response to seeing the British MK tanks and as usual for such things it was a but of a dud
ONe of these also waas involved in the first tank vs tank battle.
You could go as far as saying that it won if I remember correctly.
Headdie on TH-cam no it wasn’t
It's a replica as there is only 1 original left.
I want to have his voice when I grow old and wise.
seems like it was an updated Renault of the first world war and a bad update at that.
Tank Museum drinking game: take a shot every time someone says "Neither here nor there."
I love this old Brit he is soo cute.
David would it be fair that this little tank was designed to fight the Great War in much the same way as heavy Mk IV, V, and VIII {obviously smaller size and crews} of 1917-1919. It was an "infantry" Tank ie designed to support Infantry out of their trench and assist them to the opposing trench line. Tackling enemy Machine Gun positions and be proff against known anti armour weapons. It was a War too late. Ver much in the same vane as the French FT 17.
David Fletcher says it best.
🙌🏼david🙌🏼
It looks kinda cute.
Zafran Orbian "It" has a name. Fletcher. David Fletcher.
I meant the Matilda.
Zafran Orbian
Ft-17 more cute
Fite me m9
See how cute you think it is when you are trying to hold back the blitzkreig of 1940 in it . . . lol
he's talking about my little sister's pussy
Fascinating little 1930s tank.
Bring us a full A7V review, please!
R4GOK Learn English.
Teach me, god!
the A7V in the background is just a replica.
I'm sure it was fine against infantry and truck columns. I am sure the .50 cal MG would be a better choice. More useful against pillboxes and such too. A flamethrower version would have had some uses as well. Sounds like it would have good staying power with its armor also.
What an insane piffiling little tank...
it would be nice to have on your garage for entertainment that modified tank!
"We left them for the Germans to play with" the sound 😂
Ayy it's Mr.Fletcher! :D
it would do me to go to Tesco,s in.
The British had an odd fascination with big armor and teeny tiny guns.