@@tvgerbil1984 It's slow speed isn't a comfort when it is shelling you from a hull down position on top of some Italian mountain only infantry and mules should be able to climb. Or if it's just crossed for most vehicles is an impassable sea of mud after the spring melt of 1945 in the Reichwald, to give you the treatment. (as an asside, there is cool photos from the Reichwald of Churchills towing toboggans of supplies, as they were quite literally the only vehicles that could operate in the mud.)
I love these things so much just for the cool factor alone, but honestly, people don't realize just how good British tanks before the Centurion and Firefly actually were. Crusader was a fast, low-profile, cheap-to-produce light tank that could readily get lots of MG fire behind enemy lines. Churchill had lots of armour, great mobility on rough terrain, and the gun really wasn't as bad as people think, especially since it'd mostly be firing at infantry anyway and Tigers weren't really all that common. Valentine was very well-armoured for its time as well as being one of, if not the only notably reliable heavy tank of WW2. M3 Grant had the most powerful anti-tank gun of any tank at the time, as well being one of the first mass-produced tanks to feature a radio in standard configuration. The list could go on, but for the most part, British tanks designs were really quite good, as well as generally being put through much higher standards of quality control than their Russian and latewar-German counterparts. (which were generally not built to spec and made of much poorer-quality steel, hence why things like the 6-pounder QF could destroy them despite not being able to on paper) Kinda late, I know, but underrated video.
@@OscarOSullivan Kind of. At least as far as the North Africa campaign goes (I am less knowledgeable about the early-war Western Front). It definitely helped a lot. But it was mostly owed to the change in doctrine from the severely outdated, strict doctrine that the British were using before, where they were effectively treating their tanks as cavalry. Chasing down retreating enemies right into ambushes that ordinarily never should've worked. The M3 Lee/Grant (which really doesn't get the credit it deserves) and M4 Sherman definitely helped a lot. But if they hadn't change their approach, it hardly would've made a difference at all. As they still would've been running right into AA and anti-tank gun ambushes. Not to mention that the German tanks they were facing weren't necessarily that much better in any way before the new American tanks arrived, and were mostly in the same boat as far as reliability in the desert goes.
Lots of MkIIIs kicking around still (0:150:53, 1:301:20 maybe a Mk IVs and VIs with applique armour on the sides but it's really hard to tell 1:39 is definitely a Mk IV or VI with possibly applique armour on the sides .
Tag says Dec 18th 1944 but definitely Clipper area, yeah - signs for Bauchem & Teveren. Not sure if 18th is date of registering or date of filming. Two days after Ardennes Offensive started, hmm.
If you are talking about the churchill at 0:26 the vehicle was a Mk V - a close support model of the tank armed with a 94mm howitzer, in British doctrine every tank squadron had 2 vehicles armed with such a weapon to give the squadron(3x troops of 4-5 tanks + HQ troop) that extra HE punch and also to fire smoke shells should the squadron want a smoke screen. There was Cromwells and centaurs armed with the same gun in tank units that were not operating the churchill, before the 94 was adopted tanks had the 3'inch (76mm) howitzer to do the same with(it was mostly phased out at this point int the war).
It's all about the Sherman but by 1944 British tanks were at least their equal in many ways . Wish there was more info on them . Not enough appreciation for those who went through the war in these vehicles .
@@umt1cardiff since it was an early tank though I bet Germans struggled at taking these down especially against the 2 pounder which had a fast rate of fire and could pen many of the early German tanks. Nearing the end of the war it was just outdated but still has good frontal armor on the hull but not so much the turret.
Panzer fodder according to those who were there ,as was the Sherman etc etc . Cruelly and cynically sent out against murderous opposition . Read Tank Men by Robert Kershaw . Amazon .
Arthur Twosheds Jackson I wish people would stop reducing this to simplistic tank v tank arguments. Take your blinkers off if tanks were only meant to combat other tanks, someone would have found a cheaper and more effective solution. Tanks perform a variety of tasks and the British used them differently from the Americans. People who can’t grasp the nuances invariably end up believing in wonder weapons and living in amazement at how the Germans lost the war.
I always thought the Churchill tanks looked more intimidating without the frontal mud guards.
Good video you don't see enough of British tanks in WW2 films and documentaries.
Great footage- this really needs more views.
Billy Clement :v
Que carajo dice?
@@guillermoandresmarinelli9857 Espero que en esos 11 meses hayas aprendido inglés para no preguntar pendejadas.
these tanks are easily the most intimidating allied tanks of the war. i would be horrified to encounter one of these things on the battlefield.
I agree. They were pretty well armoured too. The Churchill Crocodile was the stuff of nightmares.
Brutal weapon of war!
Unfortunately, even an injured snail could have out-run it.
@@tvgerbil1984cross country speed, not top speed, is what matters and the Churchill was faster than many at that.
Given that basically nothing could go through the armor, you'd be pretty fucked if you were unfortunate enough to be a German soldier.
@@tvgerbil1984 It's slow speed isn't a comfort when it is shelling you from a hull down position on top of some Italian mountain only infantry and mules should be able to climb.
Or if it's just crossed for most vehicles is an impassable sea of mud after the spring melt of 1945 in the Reichwald, to give you the treatment.
(as an asside, there is cool photos from the Reichwald of Churchills towing toboggans of supplies, as they were quite literally the only vehicles that could operate in the mud.)
They sure are quite tanks.
I love these things so much just for the cool factor alone, but honestly, people don't realize just how good British tanks before the Centurion and Firefly actually were.
Crusader was a fast, low-profile, cheap-to-produce light tank that could readily get lots of MG fire behind enemy lines.
Churchill had lots of armour, great mobility on rough terrain, and the gun really wasn't as bad as people think, especially since it'd mostly be firing at infantry anyway and Tigers weren't really all that common.
Valentine was very well-armoured for its time as well as being one of, if not the only notably reliable heavy tank of WW2.
M3 Grant had the most powerful anti-tank gun of any tank at the time, as well being one of the first mass-produced tanks to feature a radio in standard configuration.
The list could go on, but for the most part, British tanks designs were really quite good, as well as generally being put through much higher standards of quality control than their Russian and latewar-German counterparts. (which were generally not built to spec and made of much poorer-quality steel, hence why things like the 6-pounder QF could destroy them despite not being able to on paper)
Kinda late, I know, but underrated video.
The 75mm gun is what won the tank war on the western front and North Africa campaign.
@@OscarOSullivan Kind of. At least as far as the North Africa campaign goes (I am less knowledgeable about the early-war Western Front).
It definitely helped a lot. But it was mostly owed to the change in doctrine from the severely outdated, strict doctrine that the British were using before, where they were effectively treating their tanks as cavalry. Chasing down retreating enemies right into ambushes that ordinarily never should've worked.
The M3 Lee/Grant (which really doesn't get the credit it deserves) and M4 Sherman definitely helped a lot. But if they hadn't change their approach, it hardly would've made a difference at all. As they still would've been running right into AA and anti-tank gun ambushes. Not to mention that the German tanks they were facing weren't necessarily that much better in any way before the new American tanks arrived, and were mostly in the same boat as far as reliability in the desert goes.
Beautifull tank
Lots of MkIIIs kicking around still (0:15 0:53, 1:30 1:20 maybe a Mk IVs and VIs with applique armour on the sides but it's really hard to tell 1:39 is definitely a Mk IV or VI with possibly applique armour on the sides .
1:39 is a III/75, at 0:25 and 1:42 there are Mk.Vs (with a 95mm howitzer) and at 0:42 you can see a Mk.VII "Super Churchill"
Operation Clipper? It looks to be in the Geilenkirchen area.
Tag says Dec 18th 1944 but definitely Clipper area, yeah - signs for Bauchem & Teveren. Not sure if 18th is date of registering or date of filming. Two days after Ardennes Offensive started, hmm.
Good quality footage, might have been a AVRE one in there 🤔 K
Sure was.
If you are talking about the churchill at 0:26 the vehicle was a Mk V - a close support model of the tank armed with a 94mm howitzer, in British doctrine every tank squadron had 2 vehicles armed with such a weapon to give the squadron(3x troops of 4-5 tanks + HQ troop) that extra HE punch and also to fire smoke shells should the squadron want a smoke screen. There was Cromwells and centaurs armed with the same gun in tank units that were not operating the churchill, before the 94 was adopted tanks had the 3'inch (76mm) howitzer to do the same with(it was mostly phased out at this point int the war).
Maybe cold stream gaurd guys.
It's all about the Sherman but by 1944 British tanks were at least their equal in many ways . Wish there was more info on them . Not enough appreciation for those who went through the war in these vehicles .
What did they have that was equal?
@@chadjustice8560 cromwell .churchill had beter armour but was slower
@@umt1cardiff since it was an early tank though I bet Germans struggled at taking these down especially against the 2 pounder which had a fast rate of fire and could pen many of the early German tanks. Nearing the end of the war it was just outdated but still has good frontal armor on the hull but not so much the turret.
The Churchill has better armour and was much better off road
HERPY DERPEDY This was an _infantry_ tank. Tank v tank was never its primary purpose, irrespective of its gun.
Panzer fodder according to those who were there ,as was the Sherman etc etc . Cruelly and cynically sent out against murderous opposition . Read Tank Men by Robert Kershaw . Amazon .
But yet the Sherman and Churchill had the highest crew survival rates of the war. Crazy and the Sherman was agruable the best tank of the war
Arthur Twosheds Jackson I wish people would stop reducing this to simplistic tank v tank arguments. Take your blinkers off if tanks were only meant to combat other tanks, someone would have found a cheaper and more effective solution. Tanks perform a variety of tasks and the British used them differently from the Americans. People who can’t grasp the nuances invariably end up believing in wonder weapons and living in amazement at how the Germans lost the war.
@@chadjustice8560 He is clearly a troll or a wehraboo. Either way, no need to respond to him.
Ugly tank
They look chunky.
Shut up its looks better than those german tanks
I think you meant the Matilda 1