British Armour Doctrine & Tactics World War 2 with David Willey of
David Willey the Curator of the Tank Museum at Bovington explains British Interwar and World War 2 Armour Doctrine and Tactics. Especially, about the Infantry and Cruiser tank "concept". Additionally, we talk a bit about the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, Montgomery and Rommel.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
Upcoming Interviews and videos where I am on camera will be published on my Second Channel: kzhead.info/tools/hImwmytehS5SmlqMkXwoEw.html Military History Vlogs, be sure to subscribe.
very nice job, thanks for going through the effort to arrange these special talks
So when are they going to let you drive the Tiger? 😅👍
Let's all take a moment to appreciate how wonderful it is that there are tank curators in the first place.
This video was extremely informative, you can tell the man really knows what he's talking about. Griff
Fashionable scarf/10. Would dress again. - IGN
yeah, the first one I ever bought, a few days ago, sadly, I didn't have a mirror...
Don't let the naysayers undermine you, it looks fine on your ludicrously-long gangly neck!
with didn't have a mirror I meant before the recording, since the scarf is not covering my collar, I love that scarf.
Joe Bloe: He is Austrian, so he smells like apple strudel
With cinnamon?! (btw apple strudel is common for Austria, Bavaria, and Czechia, so....)
I think fatigue is something that most people forgot. Soldiers, officers, commander and generals don't want to fight major battles over major battles one after another. It makes soldiers tired and equipment suffers. Replacing soldiers and equipment along with fuel and ammunition and rations takes time especially when you're in a desert.
You are a great interviewer, so glad Professor Willey and the Tank Museum is getting more attention. Though that scarf...
I know, I came 30 seconds in and couldn't watch the rest of the video. To hot for me to focus.
Oh, let the poor chap off. We’ve all seen FAR worse dress sense than that. Socks with sandals. Tank tops (no pun intended). Most of Noel Edmonds’ sweaters. Giles Brandreth. The list goes on...
Very nice! If one just lets David Willey speak the most wunderful stories come out. Well done!
I admit i spent the first minute trying to get that smudge in the wall off of my screen..... but it clears some stuff up. Thank you.
Fascinating to have this conversation between a German and British tank expert. Very well done.
He isn’t German, Osterreich.
That scarf is on FIRE !
Tank Museum=awesome, military history visualised=awesome, military history Visualised+Tank Museum=Kreygasm, great video!
Agreed!
Mr.Willey has an amazing beard
He's like Father Christmas, but with tanks.
My willy has a beard too....
David doing guest appearances left and right. What a good dude. You could listen to him talking for days
I don't know which one of you two is the most fascinating, passionate, and awesome. Nice video! Constructive comments: maybe for noobs it could have been interesting to put a picture/silhouette of the tanks you talk about for a few seconds on the side of the screen (Churchill, Centurion, etc.)
yeah, probably in the future, main issue is, I don't have any high quality images for them yet, also I am and was under the weather, this video should have been a visualized on Kamikaze, but that won't happen probably until 2018... :(
SNOUPS4
SNOUPS4 Tbh for someone who doesnt even know how a Churchill or Cruiser looks it wont really help much to know its silouette.
Here are some links to give the curious a bit more information about some of the mentioned tanks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Medium_Mark_II en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_Mk_I en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_I_(tank) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein
Got a Stellaris advert. What impeccable taste Paradox have to advertise here.
Neil Wilson they know their audience
Hoi 4 historical division templates
Great interview. Thank you!
Really great interview! Loved it!
Love their channel. It's good to see all you guys making videos together
Nice! I enjoyed that chat more than most I've seen in a while. Keep up the good work!
Great idea to go with this interview! I have been enjoying your videos for over a year now. Keep up the awesome work!!
Wonderful conversation. Thank you.
This is my favorite new video you've created this year, +Military History Visualized. This had lots of great information in it. I love this new format, I'd absolutely love to see more interviews with experts in various fields of military science and history. Keep up the great work, and my Patreon support shall continue! :D
This was very interesting to watch. It is amazing how much David Willey knows about tanks. Listen to him talk for hours, and I have.
Excellent discussion. Thank you. I visited Bovington a couple of weeks ago. Well worth the time.
wonderful to see the 2 of you together
Wonderful show. Thank you both.
I've been enjoying your channel. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you!
very interesting info especially about how the old methods developed in 1944 with the newer tanks . thanks for the meeting
I could listen to this discussion for hours. I wish I could be in on it too.
Fascinating. Thank you
Great interview, great video.
I got a question about that. If they where never meant to face enemy tanks why did they give them the 2 pounder gun? A AT gun which never got a HE round. So your tanks best anti infantry weapon was the machine gun. When they changed from the 6 pounder to the 75mm it actually had less ability to penetrate but got better HE. Edit: I just learned the 2 pounder had a HE round. But the doctrine was artillery was the ones shooting HE. So they never gave the tanks high explosives. Even the 3 inch howitzers only had smoke.
I've often wondered that. I guess the answer is that it was to deter counter-attacks from enemy tanks. Also they may not have realised that firing solid AP shot against anti-tank guns would be so ineffective.
It may have just been the 2 pounder was cheaper. They first started making tanks in the middle of the great depression so designed them as cheap as possible. See Matilda 1 which was super cheap. Then the matilda 2 (senior) accommodated it. The next infantry tank they developed had a 3 inch howitzer in the hull which they abandoned quite quickly. But still why did it take them so long to put 75mm guns on instead of the 6 pounder? Latter ones had 95mm howitzers as CS variants. If they started out with CS initially I would see it. Have the AT guns and CS mixed together to support infantry. But the 95mm came much later.
The two-pounder was there to kill emplacements. Bunker systems and fortified emplacements of reinforced concrete would need a heavy strike to kill, and had proven hard to defeat in WWI even with artillery support. A heavy gun with AP shells would be the appropriate tool.
It's also worth noting that they were supporting Infantry. The infantry had their own ability to deal with soft targets, but that that point (and really right up until the end of the war) the infantry had no way to reach out and touch enemy tanks themselves. Since lugging around a tower anti-tank around wasn't easy.
But the guy said they where not meant to take on other tanks. They where meant to support infantry assaults against prepared enemy positions. I am just wondering why they are in a AT role primarily and not a direct fire support howitzer. Like the early panzer 4 or stug for supporting german infantry assaults. The Churchill designed to destroy bunkers was the engineering or crocodile. Engineering one had a 290mm petard mortar. The crocodile had a flamethrower. The bunker busting KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer. 12:00 ish minutes for Sherman and Churchill test. It has a test against a Japanese log bunker. This was a 95mm and a 75mm so latter versions. The 75mm AT rounds where "not too satisfactory". The 95mm HE was "desirable". The 75mm HE if they had delayed fuses would have been similarly effective. www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07352/
As always, a brilliant video.
Fascinating. Really enjoyed this.
Excellent. The_Chieftain, it was about British tank doctrine. ;) What came out was how on the fly they had to introduce totally new equipment (by the month) and learn to adapt battlefield tactics to suit. Nice of David to mention the 1919 plan. This was so far ahead of anything at the time to be out of sight.
Thanks a lot for your efforts dear
Notifizierungsdivision Truppe II reporting here!
Can I be apart of it?
MrGuySnailz HERE!
bereit, obersturmbahnfuhrer!
Obersturmbahn? Where does that go to?
Blödi Blödmann bann*
that was a bloody good vid. i really feel too many people underestimate just how quickly warfare changed from the older style to the modern style, ww1 was over in 1918 and ww2 was around 1940, so in a rough 40 to 60 year war and how it was fought changed completely and that is reflected in the decisions made and is a real part of why there was so many bad high level decisions. i dont see the split between infantry and cruiser tanks as foolish because if i remember correctly the engines of the time were of a much poorer quality then even a few years later, so a cruiser would have needed lighter armour and weapons while the infantry carried the heavy stuff. now since you don't generally design and put into production a new tank every year i can understand how it came about when coupled with the experience from the last war where break outs were so very hard to make.
Loved the video. Been fascinated with tanks since I was very young.
A major aspect to the British doctrinal problems in N Africa are mentioned only in passing. That the initial British experience against the Italians seemed to justify the headlong "Cavalry Tactics" as there had been no carefully laid Italian anti-tank gun lines. The Italians had in fact set up a series of divisional and brigade lagers that were neither connected or even within range of mutually supporting artillery. Consequently the much smaller British force was able to defeat them in detail. Had not Churchill insisted on stripping the British forces to supply the ill fated Greek intervention, the war in N Africa would have ended before the Germans could have hoped to intervene. The fiasco on Crete and the severe British naval losses prevented the remaining forces from receiving desparately needed supplies by sea and so the war in N Africa would drag on another two years. Unfortunately for the British Rommel arrived in country having already used 88's in an anti-tank role against British armored counter attacks during the German drive to the channel in France with great success. For him what became known as the PAK front tactical deployment of 88s was baked into the cake of his tactics in terrain perfect for their use in that role.
and the BEF (including Monty) in France did not report on that nor study about its devastating role ? And there were no spies in El Algheila , to see the 88guns unloaded ?
I’ll eat any cake being baked by Rommel.
Look at the Bright side, losing Creta forced the Germans to help the Italy in NA does wasting time, supplies and manpower on a theater the probably never could have won.
ODDBALL SOK I imagine any observations regarding 88s were lost in the chaos following the catastrophe of Dunkirk. And Monty wasn't present at the failed Arras counter attack and would have had no knowledge of the 88s role.
Also, the usage of the 88 in that role in France was very limited. Essentially it was an impromptu field test. And since it worked well it is likely that the victims didn't have much to report. Either they were not there to say it, or they were decidedly incapable of reporting anything beyond "significant and heavy AT gun fire" because of the ranges they were engaged. I think this is important as it took the British some time in N. Africa to understand exactly what it was that hit them. On the German side it was naturally different since it was the right men that saw the guns in action. They were the ones that could apply them again on a larger scale.
Just discovered this channel. I'm hooked. Excellent content.
Fun stuff. Thanks for posting.
I could listen to Professor David Willey all day. Fascinating. I think you made a great interview. Thank you very much, awesome video in my humble opinion. edit : Note how even the wall have tanks impacts... or blades, or chairs ;)
I kept staring at the fraction of a picture on the wall in the upper left, figuring a real tank expert could tell what tank it was just from the road wheels shown. Wondered if MHV aligned the camera like that on purpose, an Easter egg of sorts.
Great episode
A historical perspective. Not hindsight. Nice. Good interview. Have an interesting subject, ask a thoughtful question, shut up and listen. Everything you do is top shelf. More please.
great discussion
I love the tank museum I live quite close to it
It is interesting that Mr. Willey projects British ideas to the American design. He speaks of a Sherman tank as if it was a Cruiser tank, beeing fast and not heavily armoured and saying that Tank Destroyers were used to deal with tanks (From what I know tank destroyers were used as reactionary force and were rarely used as tank hunters, rather as a QRF that would go where enemy tank push occured.). From what I've read and heard the M4 Sherman was that middle ground between mobility, firepower and armor he described and ( especially made in a country that had almost 0 tank development before the war) only a year after joining the war. Sherman was a medium tank by doctrine and even in 1942 the US was trying to fit the 3-inch cannon (76mm from M10) into the tank but had very similar issue as British with 17pdr and Soviets with 85mm, which made the gun hard to operate and a hazard to the crew, so the US went for longer development time to get the M1 76mm cannon and get a new turret for it. That development also lead to T-20, T-25, M26 which lead to the MBT concept, but that also required the technology to catch up. With 1942 technology one cannot make an MBT. I would also like to point out that Germans also had a concept of two tanks Anti-Infantry (Panzer IVa-F1) and Anti-tank tank (PzIIIa-M) one sporting a short 75mm cannon and the other 50mm cannon (early models had 37mm cannons). And only after getting a lesson from T-34/76 and KV-1 they put a long barrel on the PzIV (F2-J) that realy transformed the PzIV into a true multi-purpose medium tank.
great video, thanks for the insights
T David Willey, the Tankurator!
This is greatly explained
Wonderful collaboration. I would love it if this were to happen periodically.
Thank you .
Great stuff.
I genuinely love how the Tank Museum bends over backwards to do interviews with vloggers. This is awesome. That's why I donate to the museum. I really wish the US would do something similar to what the Brits & Russians (think Kubinka) have done. We simply don't have anything inthe same league.
Wow this guy was fascinating, would love to see more of him.
Great video!!! We/I want more :-)))))
This was really insightful thank you. Never really understand British tank doctrine. Please continue with these!
Nick Johnson Neither did the British really. In North Africa trying to use Light tanks and Cruisers in the Infantry tank role, the A12 Matildas and Valentines in the Cruiser role.
I've been gearing up to write my thesis on British armoured doctrine, so I hope I can add something to the discussion and understanding that things like this video have produced.
Very interesting video, thank you.
Great video
Hi Bernhard Kast - being a staunt onlooker to your program "Military History Visualized" - I must agree this interview with David Willey of the Bovington Tank Museum, is a Winner, Mr. Kast more of the same with other; Americans, French, your own Generals if possible, Russians if possible. It sheds a much more understandable light on this "Conflict" -: WWII. I was more or less lucky, born in Denmark, Aug 15th 1941, so I have only the History to listen to - but people like, make them come alive. Thanks
That was brilliant cheers to your gest he's really cool
love this interview. I learned about tactics. btw, is the interviewer german? love the accent of both
This channel is great. You should think about doing maybe a round table discussion with experts in all major axis and allied power military tactics and how they evolved throughout the war. I would definitely watch that.i don't know where your located, i assume Germany. Hello from Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Interesting lessons here! I never understood much about Allied (rather British) tank-doctrine and operational procedure until this video, with two men knowing what they're talking about, and know what they're asking about. And this "Conservation of Force" kind of operations makes quite a lot of sense in desert warfare, and also for Britain in general, since it doesn't have the large land-army that Germany had, not the tradition. Also interesting to remind people that you've got to build Doctrine and Tactics around what you have and the reality this stuff places you in, not the other way around. Nowadays it's "oh well, why didn't they just increase armour, decrease gun size" etc etc while in reality changing a whole production line of tanks, and starting from scratch in the middle of a war is sheer madness for all sorts of economical and strategic reasons. I don't know how long the average "development cycle" (meaning from inception of concept on drawing board to first units being used on front-line service) is for tanks in the 1940s, but I think it was pretty long. In fact, if we look at all Armies of WW2, they are ALL fighting with a PRE war design as the main force. For Germany the unsong heroes of the Panzer IVs, the Soviets their T-34 and the British with Matildas, Churchills and the lot. Yes, better tanks like the IS-2 and Tiger did come along, but they were almost always fielded in much smaller numbers, and kept out of harms way whenever possible. After all they cost a huge amount of effort, and their Doctrinal concept is entirely different too. Very good content, as usual, enjoy prying out this channel, never unsatisfied after a video. By the way, love the shaven look, I was wondering if it was you Bernhard, till I saw your nameplate LOL :-) Regards
I do feel its important to point out that the M3 75mm on the sherman was selected specifically due to its anti-tank capabilities. And while the sherman was designed to exploit gaps in the enemy line, tank units were often attached to the infantry divisions to help support their attacks against the enemy. Supporting the infantry included killing enemy tanks! US doctrinal manuals even in the tank destroyer branches all said that tanks should fight tanks if they come into contact. It's a common mistake that many people fall into and overall I think that David Willey did a great job. I don't doubt his expertise on british doctrine but his knowledge of US doctrine in this particular instance feels a little bit off. As for tank destroyers The Tank destroyers were supposed to be held in reserve to counteract a german armored spearhead, the TDs would rush to the point of crisis and lay ambushes against german armored columns. Seeing as the US was on the offensive most of the time however, this left the tank destroyers with little to do.
US Doctrine developed after the Battle of France. David was talking about developments prior to the war, and how they fared.
Mike and wood you should watch the video again , especially around the 6 min mark ;) . Many miles away you are right but be prepared because you go against the official narrative.
Why u no make more war thunder tank reviews? :(
Mike and Wood, I hope you realize the US Tank Destroyer you are referring to, was a half track with a field gun in the back. Having half tracks rush forward to face enemy tanks, while the Shermans run away, is a stupid idea.
zettle 234 dude please don't. Don't go on about things you don't know. The M3 GMC with M1987A4 75mm gun was developed after the fall of France, in response to it. He is discussing prewar tactics.
Lucky I wish I could go to the bovington museum
You should try to make it to the next Tankfest if you can, definitely one of the things every man should do once. Link here: www.tankmuseum.org/whats-on/events/bovevt63380
It's quite doable. Driving to Calais is main roads. From there to Dover and the M3 towards London, then bend off west. It's best to take a day for the journey itself though, less stress to be on time that way. You can also take the boat from Normandy and arrive much closer to Bovington and not drive much in the UK, but that boat does take longer and is more expensive. There's several B&B adresses in the area. I myself stayed in Wareham at the time. Nice place, very close to the museum.
Dont know how I feel about the Fred flinstone tie man! But fantastic interview really interesting stuff!
Great video, not enough info out there about British tank tactics
British tank tactics were... shite
The 1919 theory is really similar to the Soviet doctrines for mechanised warfare in WW2: Heavy tanks (breakthrough tanks) would attack in order to create breakthrough points so the medium tanks (cavalry tanks) and the motorised infantry would penetrate exploiting the gap. All of those units would be in brigades belonging to an army corps (armored corps: 1 breakthrough tank brigade, 2 cavalry tank brigades and 1 motorised brigade, with some SP artillery battalions attached to those brigades).
they got the idea from WW1 just like the british
The British developed modern combined arms tactic´s through trail and error from 1916 - 1917. The fruition of all these various efforts came fully into effect during the final 100 days offensive in 1918. Both the German "Blitzkrieg" and the Soviet deep battle doctrine were formulated on the ideas of the British plans for an offensive in 1919 and the theories of the likes of J.F.C Fuller.... whose writings Heinz Guderian had translated into German and distributed at own expense. So the Soviets didn´t need to steal British doctrinal idea´s as these were readily available in Fuller´s writings and publications.
All armies in WW2 used the concept of creating a breakthrough into which more mobile units would race.
The tank museum in Bovington really stepped up its social media game in recent months, didn't it? I've been seeing them pop up on a lot of KZhead channels lately.
Looking good with that scarf
I envy the knowledge you both have. I'm very interested in WW2 but I'm only 17 so i don't know too much yet, but I hope one day i can have that kind of ability to discuss WW2 with someone and be able to talk about about not only general things like vehicle doctrine, but also right down to the specific things like how battles went and their results. It was a great video by the way, i loved listening to it.
Neat Noot Dont be put off by people who seem to know a lot and try and put people down, quite often online they are talking common myth rather than actual truth, sometimes the myth has a grain of truth but blown out of proportion. Always check multiple sources if you can, wiki can be good for that as it list references you can read. There are some great online resources now like 'Lone Sentry' which has copies of contempory WW2 US tactical trends publications, there arecalso various official historys, timelines, and field or technical manuals (mainly US), bayonet strength which has various equipment tables for allied and axis units at different parts of the war.
Wonderfully soothing voice, well educated, super knowledgeable and clearly took umbrage to any Monty criticism 😂
excellent!
From the points made in 9:00 onwards I can perfectly understand why Monty opted for a more cautious approach to taking on the Germans after he arrived in North Africa, he was well aware of what those Anti tank guns of Rommel could do and the blunders of the cavalry commanders who recklessly charged at them, overstretching themselves and getting destroyed.
Great video but a little gripe on the US tanks. Its not wrong but not entirely correct either. According to US archives(provided by the chieftain's hatch) did take in to consideration for the Sherman to take out tanks and in fact that was part of the whole exploitation role. The tank battalion was to exploit a breakthrough. That would be tearing up the rear lines and if that meant tanks it would need to take out tanks. They were also to be deployed to support infantry and if infantry encountered tanks, to support them the Sherman was to take them out. The field manual even states that if required the tank will purposefully engage the enemy tank even if not attacked. So it wasn't purely defensive. US didn't want their tanks to fight tanks but they knew pretty well(from the blitz years) that it was inevitable and was a requirement. The role of hunting the enemy tanks were definitely supposedly the tank destroyer's role but in many instances the tank was also to do this as the situation demands. Even if so the troops rarely listened to the doctrine of 'waiting for TDs to come.' The 75mm was chosen because it was capable of AT duties. The 75mm was a requirement for the M3 Lee due to appearance of the Panzer III and IV. Though I question the validity of this as the armor of early models was thin enough for a 37mm to penetrate. However the medium velocity 75mm was chosen due to both HE firepower and AP and not just one or the either as with previous tank guns with other nations which opted either having two guns(Char B1, Early Churchill) or two tanks (panzer III and IV, Type 89 and Ha-go). So the 75mm was definitley anticipated for AT duties. Another thing to note is that if AT was not a major concern, they could of chosen the 75mm howitzer instead of the longer gun. The howitzer could of been fitted on a smaller turret ring unlike the one used on the M3 lee. This would of solved the whole requirement of a sponson on the M3 Lee but they opted to not use the howitzer due to concerns of AP.
I love the job titles, "Tank Expert" and "Nerd." Great video.
Great video. Many thanks and much respect for detailed and well-sourced knowledge throughout channel! This video touched a matter that I wonder you could look into - Montgomery. From what I know, he was not a good commander. But take it with a grain of salt, as you would say! What would you and your research say?
A darker backdrop would correct your contrast :) Good video
Weren't the Panzer III and IV designed as cruiser and infantry support tanks respectively?
Interesting! Clear, simple, Mr Willey is a real find. Thanks for this. I hadn't thought of infantry and cruiser tanks used as he described, hadn't thought much at all of tank doctrine. I gradually developed a concept which I later discovered was well-known in economics and elsewhere, which may as well be called wealth. If you are really poor, you have just one type of spoon. Get a little spare income, and you may want separate spoons for soup. Societies as a whole have levels of wealth; richer societies can afford to send spacecraft to Mars. Technology has its own inherent wealth: initial versions are very limited, no excess capacity, no room for variability, but as it improves, it allows variations and tradeoffs. Internal combustion engines were barely useful at first, so the first tanks were slow and unreliable. But as engine technology improved, you could choose bigger engines at the expense of armor and guns. Artillery and armor improved similarly, providing choices, and tanks could be designed for specific roles. And eventually, as all three aspects improved, the tradeoffs became less severe, the roles merged, and you have the modern main battle tank. Same applies to airplanes: first just slow unreliable recon planes, then add a machine gun and drop grenades, then two machine guns, actual bombs, then torpedoes or dive bombers, then fighters could carry bombs and bombers were only the heavy type, and today most fighters are also attack planes, with bombers reserved for intercontinental range and arguably obsolete. It fits in so well with this infantry / cruiser tank distinction, where it came from, how it evolved, which my brain can now understand thanks to both of you. It's so easy to forget that history is not frozen but a timeline of changes.
Like how you put "nerd" as one of your titles in the intro. Gotta love a laugh. Really enjoy your videos! You know, just realized i haven't subscribed. Consider it done.
good stuff. Main Battle Tank
Write a book MR. Willey
Nice video. Although, I think it should not be forgotten that the failure to exploit opportunities (as at Alamein) in the name of preserving casualties can itself lead to higher casualties in the longer run.
“Tank curator” is probably coolest job title.Ever :)
Marcin Wdowski Do you remember it offered by your school career counselor? Me neither.
Sr. Kast I had not seen this old vid, it just came up on My feed, great old vid Wow i had not seen You with hair
interesting dynamic....
David Irving wrote some in depth books on WW2 and Rommel
Thank you so much, more videos like this more interviews with super experts like this guy. He knows his stuff. Maybe an interview with a Russian expert, if they have those? I’m sure they do, they must, right?
That jacket is dapper af. I want one.
Interesting what he says about the specific-role-approach of the british. The USSR also had in the beginning the very same approach and thus produced the fastest tank of WW2 (the BT-7m) as exploitation tank, which only was successfull against the Japanese Army in Mandchuria
ooh nice!
Two additional reasons for the British cruiser tanks charging the enemy like the Light Brigade at Balaklava early in the Desert War: 1) The lack of cover in the desert. Open flat terrain with no foliage to hide in is an ideal killing ground for enemy antitank guns. The only defence against antitank guns in the desert is to keep moving and not stop. 2) The early British cruiser tanks had a small 40mm 2-pounder gun intended for antitank use only. It didn’t have high explosive shells for use against enemy antitank guns or infantry, because the 40mm calibre was deemed to be too small for an HE shell to make a large enough explosion to be effective. So the only weapon the cruiser tank had against enemy antitank guns was the coaxial machine gun. And for that to be effective against the enemy gunners, the cruiser tank had to get close to the antitank gun, within 200 meters, and then literally overrun it.
I love Willey.
who deosnt i loved his chieftain video
ie. Don't rely on the enemy fielding their army in a way that fits your tank doctrine and you can only use the equipment available when the enemy turn up.
It is a fine scarf, not quite a cravat but it'll do. Ignore them, people from the 21st century have no taste, you can go out in the street and determine that anytime. Nice chat with Mr. Willey, surprised that you were unaware of the reasoning behind the British tactical doctrine re: the use of tanks ( I am sure you did know, it was probably just nice to hear it from an acknowledged source )
Im thinking of tanks today, have a sheild heald away from the tank with one spring arm. Projectiles deflection.
I understand the Sherman "Firefly" role now.