as far as you can call a tank beautifull considering it's purpose, this is the best looking tank of ww2. It had the looks of a killer unfortunatly not the engeneering of one. Low profile, but underpowered and undergunned.
@joesjoes20 It was the fastest tank of the day. Excellent speed? Yes. Good gun for anything Italian? Yes. Low on armor, but moderately armored for the day? Yes. Reliability? Well, unfortunately no. Crusader was a wonderful tank for Europe - Not for the desert. Hell, even American Grants, the best early 1940s tank, was affected by large quantities of sand!
The TIger came much later and was a heavy tank. The Tiger was too heavy. This tank was not a heavy tank. Compare like with like. In the desert it was equal to any German tank. It was well armored. It was advanced for the time (late 1930s) and quite fast.
@NearAbbeyRoad Finally. So was the Sherman, however. Most people don't realize that modern tanks like the Panther are much too state of the art to actually be compared to tanks such as the much earlier Sherman. Ironically, the Panther had inferior optics for all around vision, a very bad exhaust system that turned the tank into a Roman Candle and of course, unreliable, overly engineered suspension.
@NearAbbeyRoad Sherman during 1942 could destroy both the Panzer mark IVs and IIIs without a doubt. When the Tiger came out, it suffered the major design flaws of mechanical difficulties/hence lack of slopping armor. This made it easily outperformed with the Sherman M4A1 (w) 76mm, which featured the M1 76mm gun. Ironically, most historians ignore this claim. Some even show biased remarks of how "the guns weren't as good as the 17 Pounders"! Under 17Pd? Yes. But "underpowered"? Hell no!
@jasincl Well, actually, with the 6 pounder, the Panzer IV was a very lethal tank. The 6 pounder, despite by itself being highly under-powered, was up for the task. Also note that the Panzer IV was extremely low-armored. It was an anti-infantry vehicle. The 75mm L-24 gun was useless against all French tanks and just about anything British.
Sorry to say Tyco but that is just not tue, off all the tank monuted weapons during the 1940 blitz trough France it was actually the short 7.5cm of the panzer IV and StuG that proved to be best at knocking out enemy armour.
It could penetrate 45mm of flat armour at 500m, which is good enough for plenty of tanks including every british cruiser tank which and 14mm and 30mm max and good enough for french tanks with the exception of the Char B heavy tanks.
@harry4468 Well, it was an okay tank. 2 Pounder made it superior to the Italian equivalents. Against a Panzer III.... I'd 100% take the Sherman/M3 Grant. They kick ass, or kicked ass in 1942.
@BritishEmpire4life The MKIII wassent a horrible tank. It solved many problems of the MKI and II and also had a 6PDR gun wich at that time could fight any german tank in the field (minus the tiger, but it was still very rare)
i know a guy how drove these things in north africa poor guy had two of the tanks he crewed in destroyed and had to go to the hospital each year to get shrapnel out oh his head and never used his right hand again
Beautiful tank, rare for the Brits to actually design an aesthetically pleasing machine-of-war (Spitfire excluded).
Diamachaerus 1 month ago
as far as you can call a tank beautifull considering it's purpose, this is the best looking tank of ww2. It had the looks of a killer unfortunatly not the engeneering of one. Low profile, but underpowered and undergunned.
gilibran 2 months ago
One of my favorite tanks just because it looks sweet, sure, it wasn't built well for desert conditions, but still had the potential.
joesjoes20 6 months ago
@joesjoes20 It was the fastest tank of the day. Excellent speed? Yes. Good gun for anything Italian? Yes. Low on armor, but moderately armored for the day? Yes. Reliability? Well, unfortunately no. Crusader was a wonderful tank for Europe - Not for the desert. Hell, even American Grants, the best early 1940s tank, was affected by large quantities of sand!
Tyco200 2 months ago
@MultiMango72
The TIger came much later and was a heavy tank. The Tiger was too heavy. This tank was not a heavy tank. Compare like with like. In the desert it was equal to any German tank. It was well armored. It was advanced for the time (late 1930s) and quite fast.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad Finally. So was the Sherman, however. Most people don't realize that modern tanks like the Panther are much too state of the art to actually be compared to tanks such as the much earlier Sherman. Ironically, the Panther had inferior optics for all around vision, a very bad exhaust system that turned the tank into a Roman Candle and of course, unreliable, overly engineered suspension.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad Sherman during 1942 could destroy both the Panzer mark IVs and IIIs without a doubt. When the Tiger came out, it suffered the major design flaws of mechanical difficulties/hence lack of slopping armor. This made it easily outperformed with the Sherman M4A1 (w) 76mm, which featured the M1 76mm gun. Ironically, most historians ignore this claim. Some even show biased remarks of how "the guns weren't as good as the 17 Pounders"! Under 17Pd? Yes. But "underpowered"? Hell no!
Tyco200 2 months ago
although the crusader wasnt anywere near as good as a panzer IV it looked VERY Modern for the 40's
jasincl 1 year ago
@jasincl
It was equal to the panzer IV. The problem was that it had a poor engine (based on a US aero engine) and hence unreliable.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
@jasincl Well, actually, with the 6 pounder, the Panzer IV was a very lethal tank. The 6 pounder, despite by itself being highly under-powered, was up for the task. Also note that the Panzer IV was extremely low-armored. It was an anti-infantry vehicle. The 75mm L-24 gun was useless against all French tanks and just about anything British.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@Tyco200
Sorry to say Tyco but that is just not tue, off all the tank monuted weapons during the 1940 blitz trough France it was actually the short 7.5cm of the panzer IV and StuG that proved to be best at knocking out enemy armour.
It could penetrate 45mm of flat armour at 500m, which is good enough for plenty of tanks including every british cruiser tank which and 14mm and 30mm max and good enough for french tanks with the exception of the Char B heavy tanks.
Dreachon 2 months ago
This is a great example of the fact that the people who design weapons are very rarely the ones who have to use the things in battle.
digglyda 1 year ago
my favorite tank in history(and yes i know it was a horrible tank)
BritishEmpire4life 2 years ago
y is it ur fav when it was so horrible
harry4468 2 years ago
i like it because its actually a pretty good lookin tank and in the north african campaign it was the faster then all german tanks
BritishEmpire4life 2 years ago
Same here, that 6pdr gun looks really good in it
ArgentineDude 2 years ago
@harry4468 Well, it was an okay tank. 2 Pounder made it superior to the Italian equivalents. Against a Panzer III.... I'd 100% take the Sherman/M3 Grant. They kick ass, or kicked ass in 1942.
Tyco200 2 months ago
Although not my favorite tank, but its still a nice looking tank!
Taffer20 2 years ago
@BritishEmpire4life The MKIII wassent a horrible tank. It solved many problems of the MKI and II and also had a 6PDR gun wich at that time could fight any german tank in the field (minus the tiger, but it was still very rare)
F4Wildcat 1 year ago
@F4Wildcat the 6pounder gun couldnt destroy a Panther too but thats beacsue the panther hade slopped armour
jasincl 1 year ago
i know a guy how drove these things in north africa poor guy had two of the tanks he crewed in destroyed and had to go to the hospital each year to get shrapnel out oh his head and never used his right hand again
reuvbre 3 years ago
it seems much quicker when your driving it
colanshaz 3 years ago
It's a cruiser tank: it's suppose to be fast.
duikboot454 3 years ago
I have not altered the speed of the recording this is how it was on the day
harry4468 4 years ago
this video is too fast -.-
MuriloUK 4 years ago