Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Cover is work in progress

Files

Previews only

Most underrated British WW2 Tank? @The Tank Museum

In this I ask the curator of the Tank Museum at Bovington David Willey what he thinks is the most underrated British Tank of the Second World War. Cover design by vonKickass. »» GET OUR BOOKS «« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - http://stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - http://sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - http://www.hdv470-7.com »» SUPPORT MHV «« » patreon, see videos early (adfree) - https://www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - https://www.subscribestar.com/mhv » paypal donation - https://paypal.me/mhvis »» MERCHANDISE «« » teespring - https://teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized » SOURCES « our brains 00:00 Intro 00:13 David's "Disclaimer"' 00:51 The Matilda II 01:51 The Valentine 02:59 Lend-Lease Tanks 04:14 Valentine Variants 05:00 Valentine IX & other variants 05:5 Reliability 06:30 Churchill Tank Why so liked? 09:08 Germans about the Churchill Tank 09:45 Cromwell #underrated #tanks #british

Comments

Volker Hartmann

Reliability is one aspect that is hard to perceive by just reading (gun calibre is one number, reliability is at best a statistic with many numbers or you even have to dig out reports...), but very much experienced and appreciated if you are a tanker yourself. Who was it who said that the very first factor to be able to win a fight is to be there in the first place (Chieftain?). On a bigger scale a tank can outrely other tanks, especially if the surrounding conditions are very harsh. I can imagine that it was precisely the reliability that the soviets appreciated about the Valentine, especially considering that in Russia the terrain was a major factor.

Military History Visualized

it is also hard to measure, e.g., how many German tanks were non-operable, because there was a lack of spare parts or shoddy parts were used/reused etc.? Was regular maintenance performed by the troops (tank crew)? Where the troops properly trained to do the basic regular maintenance? Where the maintenance crews properly trained & enough assigned? etc. etc.

Raul Ramos

The best reliability indicators that I know is operating hours divided by first echelon maintenence hours and second, third echelon maintenence hours. These vehicles might not drive much, but have their engines running, hence km is usually not the critical parameter. On designing the vehicle, according to the user's doctrine, some tasks might be shuffled from one echelon to other. This might seem inconsequential but it is actually critical to maintain the vehicle "active". Sending the vehicle back to rear echelons is undesired and is usually reviewed critically by the customer. The crew might be responsible to deliver the vehicle, there will be transport needs... It is a burden on the logistics, aside of the down time