Cruiser Tank, Mk VI, A15 Crusader Mk III

Created as a new version of Cruiser Mk V "Covenanter" it was a fast tank but like other british designs suffered from a small gun only a 2pdr to alleviate this the Mk III was fitted with a 6pdr. One of these tanks was used to test the Rolls Royce Meteor, as used in the Centruion, and whilst being tested went so fast that the time keeper ran away.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Cruiser
• Tank
• Mk
• VI
• A15
• Crusader
• III
• tankfest
• 2006

[BritishEmpire4life]

my favorite tank in history(and yes i know it was a horrible tank)

[harry4468]

y is it ur fav when it was so horrible

[harry4468]

I have not altered the speed of the recording this is how it was on the day

[Diamachaerus]

Beautiful tank, rare for the Brits to actually design an aesthetically pleasing machine-of-war (Spitfire excluded).

[gilibran]

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.

[Dreachon]

@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.

[Tyco200]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[joesjoes20]

One of my favorite tanks just because it looks sweet, sure, it wasn't built well for desert conditions, but still had the potential.

[NearAbbeyRoad]

@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.