Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "German Thoughts on the Churchill Tank" video.

@filipmisko9363 it also was the period which earned KV-1 reputation of "mobile bunker" ie it spent 90% of the time being broken down mess. Which was fixed by KV-1S that did the opposite, lowered armor thickness to lower weight and had a new transmission type installed, the one that would be inherited by IS series. People still argue if KV-1S deserves to be called heavy tank or if it was de facto heavily armored medium like Jumbo, considering it brought KV series even closer to T-34 in terms of armor and mobility. This is where KV-13 project started. Ironically enough, just like Tiger is basically a german KV-220 being a year late to its grave designed without knowing about one another, both Tiger and Panther copy timeline of problems encountered by KV and T-34 themselves. The more you read on them, the more of a deja vu you have about different people running into same trouble caused by same sources.
5
@watcherzero5256 problem is, presence of Mk.III ruins that. IF they've sent only Mk.I-II and in the meanwhile ordered all Mk.III+ to be uparmored to 100-120mm frontal THEN it would have looked like what you've said.
5
@ken0272 why is it called that on english then? It's as if someone would suddenly start calling Battle of Moscow as Siege of Moscow just because their language doesn't have a differentiation.
4
@thomasellysonting3554 yes on most of it except on comparison to heavy tank. It's a medium infantry tank. It doesn't need high speed to begin with, it doesn't need huge operational ranges because it's not operating independently and it doesn't need high penetration gun. But most importantly, it is cheap and easy to mass produce... relatively. You can try to argue that it was neither cheap, not produced in enough numbers by the british, BUT any actual modern heavy tank was just going to end up even more expensive to produce and would face even smaller production numbers. It was a bottleneck resulting in deficiencies of british tank industry, that was getting a fifth flute to all other services and for a good reason(at least they thought so). Infantry tanks aren't marvels of bleeding edge technology by design. The only downsides were 1)retention of small turret ring from Matilda which was useless since Matilda has no backwards compatibility with Churchill I turret due to suspension and transmission inability to survive added weight and lack of any modification reserve; 2)initial lack of reliability typical for new vehicles. Design reached Vauxhall too late and even then they've improved it considerably before production; 3)question of armament. I can see the point in calling NA75 as probably the best armed one even above 17 pounder of Black Prince prototype due to different priority(once again, for infantry tank penetration isn't that important), however I can also see why 2 pounder might have also had a point with its high RoF. But all of Churchill's armament lacked an ability to fire at upper levels of tall buildings, something that would highly benefit infantry tank.
4
@thomasellysonting3554 I agree with you on that. However I notice a weird lack of thermite charges left behind on tank engines and breeches.
4
Probably misunderstood it as heavy tank instead of infantry tank because of its size and weight.. before going back to calling Panther a medium tank because doctrine matters more then your tank being heavier and taller then IS-2. So I guess, something about weak gun(which was required to have high rate of fire to be able to suppress MG positions) and slow speed(on tank that is supporting foot infantry) for a "heavy" tank?:D
3
So all in all it was similar to deployment of Bazooka's before D-Day? Undermining Allied war effort by giving away new equipment to the enemy in situation when it wasn't exactly needed.
2
@thomasellysonting3554 it is great to have high operational range(especially considering thing like constantly running out during Battle of El Alamein), however it isn't such a high problem for infantry tank that keeps close to allied logistics. And even Centurion was infamous for short operational range, with many trailers being proposed and not adopted. It was still a good tank. And Matilda had double the range of Churchill if I recall right, not just 50%.
2
@abellseaman4114 Dieppe isn't in Italy and neither were US involved in the raid, Captain Obvious. I was talking about invasion of Italy which left bazookas in german hands which allowed them to develop panzerschreck by the time of D-day and panzerfaust later on. While bazooka itself provided NO overwhelming advantage in Italy above what allied mechanized units and aviation already provided there due to opposing mechanized force being significantly weaker in terms of both quality and quantity.
2
@mikepette4422 and we aren't. He talked about German perspective and why they underevaluated Churchill armor. Why germans also hadn't considered a weight reserve for modernization is still a mystery. But that's the point, we see it differently as we have more info from diversified sources.
1
@TheChineseCommunistPartyOwns TheMedia Hi. Yeah, what about it?
1
@yulu803 they actually are VERY effective. The secret is just in sending 200 times more HE shells to same place some time later;) On a more serious thought, maybe it was at least an ATTEMPT to make civilians leave. For a long time soviets had to fight in their own cities and assaults that were meant to retake them usually took the form of completely turning the whole city to dust with artillery and then moving in(unlike movies:)). The problem is that I don't think germans were keen on allowing anybody to leave:(
1