British World War 2 Tanks That Need Adding to War Thunder

Toreno

In this 3rd episode of my series looking at World War 2 Tanks That Need Adding to War Thunder, we take a look at British tanks of the World War 2 period!  So join me as we take a look at the numerous British Cruiser tanks that have yet to be added, some heavy tank prototypes including the TOG 2's little brother, the TOG 1, varous Infantry tanks and a rather unique looking amphibious tank!  Also just to confirm tank destroyers, SPG's, armoured cars and anti air vehicles will be looked at in a future episode!  Support me at ⬇️ ☕Buy me a Coffee➡️ buymeacoffee.com/Toreno  Social Media ⬇️ 🦋Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/toreno.bsky.social 🌍Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Toreno4 📸Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/toreno170 🐘Mastodon: Toreno17@mastodon.social 🧵Threads: https://www.threads.net/@toreno170  Sources ⬇️ Armed Conflicts. (2025). Available at: http://www.armedconflicts.com (Accessed: 9 May 2025).  Beale, P. (2016). Death by Design: British Tank Development in the Second World War. History Press.  Canadian Military Headquarters, London. (2nd May 2025). C-5772. Available at: https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c5772/4547  Estes, W. K. (2014). Super Heavy Tanks of World War II. Osprey Publishing.  Fletcher, D. (2009). Crusader and Covenanter Cruiser Tanks 1939-45. Osprey Publishing.  Fletcher, D. (2019). Churchill Infantry Tank. Osprey Publishing.  Fletcher, D. and Harley, C. R. (2010). Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50. Osprey Publishing.  Oliver, D. (2018). Cromwell and Centaur Tanks: British Army and Royal Marines, North-west Europe, 1944–1945. Pen and Sword Books.  Tank Archives. (2025). Available at: http://www.tankarchives.ca (Accessed: 9 May 2025).  Tank Chats #67 Covenanter | The Tank Museum. (8th May 2025). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6j4aB5ekm0  Tank Chats #78 Cruiser Mark I A9 | The Tank Museum. (9th May 2025). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usetHzaET4I&t=82s  Tank Chats #79 Cruiser Mark II A10 | The Tank Museum. (9th May 2025). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bBq2CQTYBQ  Tank Encyclopedia. (2025). Available at: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025).  War Thunder. (n.d.). For in-game stats.  Why TOG II was BETTER Than You Think. (8th May 2025). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfhzhPJAw6g&t=324s  🎮 Game: War Thunder  ⬅️  #warthunder #british #uk #tanks #cruiser #tog #britain

Transcript

00:00Continuing my series looking at World War 2 tanks that need adding to War Thunder,

00:04it's now time to take a look at British World War 2 tanks, and like with the Germans, I will be just

00:11covering the British tanks in this episode, with British armoured cars, tank destroyers, SPGs

00:16and anti-air vehicles to be covered at a later date. As to be expected from a nation that was

00:22involved in World War 2 from the very start, Britain developed and fielded a large number of

00:27tanks, but bizarrely even standard British tanks that served in large numbers are still missing

00:33from War Thunder, giving us a large number of tanks to look at. However, the tanks that still

00:38need adding are rather lopsided, with most of these coming from the cruiser tanks that Britain

00:43deployed, these essentially being the fast, medium sort of tanks that were to exploit breakthroughs,

00:49while the tanks that were created to make those breakthroughs, the slower, more heavily armoured

00:54infantry tanks, are generally well represented in War Thunder. With that in mind, we'll start

01:00off by looking at the British cruiser tanks, or more specifically the Cruiser Mark 1 A9,

01:06the first of the British cruiser tanks to enter service with the British Army,

01:11and this was a 1936 design which came about from a requirement for a tank with a freeman turret

01:16and to be armed with the 47mm three pounder gun. The design was originally going to be called the

01:22Medium Tank Mark 4, and heavily resembles the larger Vickers Medium Tank Mark 3 design,

01:28including the two front mounted machine gun turrets, but the main armament fitted ended up

01:34being the excellent 40mm two pounder gun, which was one of the best tank guns of the time,

01:39and far superior to the three pounder, being capable in game of penetrating 52mm of armour

01:45at 500m with its stock AP round, while a coaxial machine gun was also carried alongside the two

01:51machine gun turrets. Speed was decent enough, maxing out at 25mph or 40kmh from a 150hp AET

02:00petrol bus engine, so not quite as fast as the current starting British A13 cruiser tank,

02:06but only by 5mph, so this tank should have no trouble getting around the battlefield.

02:12Unfortunately, its armour does severely let it down, maxing out at only 14mm,

02:18enough to stop small calibre machine gun fire but not much else, making this easy prey for

02:23virtually any vehicle that gets the drop on it, while the fact it uses riveted rather

02:28than cast or welded armour could cause additional spalling when hit in real life.

02:32However, the large crew count does give some redundancy for crew losses, with a total of

02:37six crew, the two machine gunners in the frontal turrets, a driver in the hull,

02:42and three in the main turret. In game, I could see this working at 1.0,

02:46perhaps as the new starting cruiser tank, replacing the A13, as this has the same gun,

02:53a larger crew, and the same maximum armour, while being marginally slower, and while not the best

02:58tank in the world, it would be nice to see the first British cruiser tank available in War Thunder.

03:04In real life, only 125 were built, being seen as a cheap stopgap tank until more

03:10effective designs could be produced, with the first A9s seeing combat in the Battle of France,

03:15attempting to halt the Germans or break the encirclement of Allied forces in Northern

03:20France, but they suffered horrendous losses for very little gain. They would see further service

03:26in Greece, where all of the A9s committed would be lost, but also in North Africa,

03:31where they would see some limited success against the Italians, but by the summer of 1941 they had

03:36been withdrawn from combat, and any survivors relegated to training tanks.

03:42The A9 design would quickly be followed by the cruiser tank A10, and this was actually designed

03:47as an infantry tank, being based on the A9 design but with much thicker armour. Interestingly,

03:54the prototype of the A10, the A10E1, was a radically different design to the production

03:59version, being fitted with sloped armour, in theory providing much greater protection for

04:04the tank. Unfortunately, this was referred to a more standard flat front, due to a requirement

04:10to fit a hull machine gun on the right side of the hull, somewhat weakening the protection for

04:15very little gain. As for the armour itself, it now maxes out at 30mm, a welcome improvement over

04:22the A9's 14mm, though this was done by attaching additional plates to the existing armour plates,

04:29which in real life doesn't provide as much protection as one 30mm plate does,

04:34but this wouldn't cause any difference in game, and like with the A9, the armour is riveted.

04:39The main armament is once again the excellent 40mm two-pounder gun,

04:43while a machine gun is carried in the coaxial position, and another in the bow, though in some

04:48cases the bow machine gun position is plated off, but otherwise this tank is pretty well

04:53armed against enemy tanks and soft skin vehicles. Mobility is worse than the A9,

04:59with the same 150hp AEC petrol bus engine giving the 14.3 tonne tank a top speed of

05:0616mph or 26kmh, making this a pretty slow tank in comparison to the other cruiser tanks,

05:13though as mentioned this was originally designed as an infantry tank, so that is to be expected.

05:18Lastly, the crew is now five, due to the removal of the machine gun turrets,

05:22with three crew in the turret, and the machine gunner and driver in the hull,

05:26though interestingly due to the machine gunner's placement on the right side of the hull,

05:30the driver is placed on the left, which is a rather unusual arrangement for British tanks.

05:36In game I could see this being folded with the A9, or even being the starting tank in the

05:41infantry line, probably at 1.0, as this still has a great main gun and good crew complement,

05:47but the slower speed will let it down a little bit, and while the armour is now improved,

05:52it would still be fairly easy to defeat for most enemy tanks. In real life, 175 of these would be

05:58built, and as mentioned it had been intended to serve as an infantry tank, but the requirements

06:03for an infantry tank now required them to have much heavier armour than 30mm, so the A10 would

06:09be re-designated as a heavy cruiser tank, though 30mm of armour would become the standard for most

06:15cruiser tanks in the future anyway. Much like the A9, the A10 would see service in France and Greece,

06:21where they would suffer great losses in combat, but they would also serve in North Africa,

06:26where they would see far more success, but by the end of 1941 these were no longer used in combat.

06:32It should be noted that both the A9 and A10 had close support variants that were armed with what

06:37is called a 3.7 inch or 94mm howitzer, but it is actually a breech-loaded mortar,

06:44and is only capable of firing HE and smoke shells. Unfortunately, from what I can tell,

06:49the HE shells would have been rather ineffective against tanks having less than 1kg of high

06:54explosive, meaning it would have a lot of trouble defeating most existing tanks,

06:59especially those that are already in-game. That said, they might have some limited success against

07:04thinner-skinned WW1 or interwar tanks, so perhaps they could be added at some point,

07:09but currently I think they would struggle too much to consider adding them, and that goes for

07:13other close support tanks armed with the same weapon. So, the A9 and A10 served in the early

07:18part of the war alongside the A13 Cruiser Tank Mk3 and Mk4, but there was still a desire for

07:25a true heavy cruiser tank, which was to become the A16, however this was looking to be quite

07:31expensive, so a new, cheaper design was commissioned instead, this being the Cruiser

07:36Tank Mk5 or A13 Mk3, better known as the Covenanter, with 1,771 of these being built,

07:44more than the Tiger I. Originally, it was to have a maximum armour thickness of 30mm,

07:50but the General Staff increased this to 40mm, increasing the weight of the tank,

07:55but now design work could begin in earnest. The Covenanter would be designed by the London,

08:00Midland and Scottish Railway Company, or LMS, who hadn't actually designed or built any tanks

08:06before this point. This might seem like an odd choice then, but as British rearmament was well

08:11underway, getting various companies tooled up for manufacturing tanks was a necessity,

08:16especially if that company was already used to building large machines like trains.

08:21Having a company that hasn't designed tanks and going into the process with a fresh mind

08:25can also sometimes lead to some rather good designs. For example, Romania's first tank

08:30destroyer design, the Marichal, ended up being such a good design that it basically led to the

08:35German Jagdpanzer 38t, while many Australian WWII tank designs are to my mind superior to

08:41contemporary British ones, despite the fact Australia had never built tanks before WWII.

08:46In the case of the Covenanter, this led to a rather well-designed tank,

08:51set to make use of aluminium and well-sloped welded armour, improving protection and reducing

08:56weight, and it was to use a new more powerful water-cooled engine with a large fan for

09:01ventilation. Indeed, the only downside was the fact that the radiator was mounted at the front

09:06due to a lack of space in the engine compartment at the rear, meaning pipes would need to be fed

09:12through the crew compartment, which could be a problem if the tank engine overheated, but as it

09:17was a lightweight design this should have been something that could have been managed or improved

09:20in the future. So, with a good design seemingly in hand, and tanks being needed fast, it was ordered

09:26into production in April 1939, before a prototype was even built. Eventually, a prototype was built

09:33with the welded armour, and in testing in May 1940 proved to be a rather successful tank,

09:38surely a good sign of things to come. Unfortunately, due to factors outside of LMS's control,

09:45things quickly started to go wrong. First, the aluminium parts had to be replaced with steel due

09:50to the aluminium being needed for aircraft, increasing the weight, then a shortage of welders

09:56forced a return to riveted armour, decreasing the protection and, you guessed it, increasing the

10:01weight, bearing in mind it was already reaching its weight limit when the armour was increased

10:06to 40mm. To top things off, the engine ventilation fan had to be changed from the large fan of the

10:12first prototype to a smaller one, which combined with the radiator pipes in the crew compartment,

10:18caused the engine and crew compartment to overheat. This made the tank unsuitable for

10:23combat in anything but temperate or cooler temperatures, which was an issue when the

10:27fighting shifted to North Africa, but the Covenanter could of course still be added to War

10:32Thunder as these factors wouldn't be represented in-game. So, looking at its stats, the Covenanter

10:38had a top speed of 31mph or 50kmh from the 340hp Meadows engine, a pretty decent speed all

10:46things considered, while the armour of course now maxes out at 40mm, but instead of being one plate

10:52it's actually two, with the inner plate being made of high-quality steel and the outer layer of

10:57armour plate. Meanwhile, the main armament was the 2-pounder 40mm gun, along with one

11:02coaxial machine gun, while the crew was four, the driver in the hull and the three crew in the

11:08angled turret. In War Thunder, I could see the initial prototype and production versions being

11:14added at 2.7 to 3.0, with these being able to quickly get around the battlefield, deal with

11:20most enemy tanks, and be protected from most return fire, and they would be rather interesting

11:25tanks to have in-game. In real life, due to its various issues, the Covenanter was never used as

11:31a combat tank, though a few would be sent to North Africa for trials, and others would be

11:35converted to bridge layers and used by various allied armies. The rest however would remain in

11:41the UK, mainly used as training tanks, where they would give good service in this role,

11:47with one actually being destroyed by German aircraft at some point in the south-east of

11:51England. They were also doing a good job of just being available in the event of a German invasion,

11:56after all the temperature issues would matter less as Britain is far cooler than the North

12:00African desert, and these tanks would be on their own turf and near their own factories for quick

12:05repair and access to spare parts, and of course were around in large numbers, making them a deadly

12:11threat to any German force. However, with 1,771 Covenanters being built and kept in production

12:18until 1943, it does seem like production should have been curtailed far earlier, and while it did

12:24have that success as a training tank, it was overall a failed tank design.

12:30After the Covenanter, we have the A-15 Cruiser Tank Mk VI, more commonly known as the Crusader,

12:37and we already have the Mk II and Mk III variants of this tank in War Thunder,

12:41but we could of course still get the initial Mk I. Now, I thought looking at the Mk I was going

12:46to be quite easy to deal with, as the Crusader Mk I is just a Mk II with less armour, or more

12:52specifically, the turret front should have 10mm less armour, the turret top and side plates 3-4mm

12:58less armour, and 6mm less for the nose. Unfortunately, it seems like the Crusaders

13:04already in-game have the wrong armour thickness, because while in real life they used composite

13:08armour like on the Covenanter, in-game it often seems to only have the outer layer modelled.

13:14This isn't always the case, as the side armour is modelled correctly,

13:18but it seems the whole front and rear only have the outer layer modelled.

13:22In-game, the Mk I could go at 2.3, filling the battle rating gap between the A-13 Mk II

13:29and the Crusader Mk II, with the Mk I having a good gun and mobility, and while now a little

13:34bit more vulnerable, it is not drastically so, and I could see it having some success in-game,

13:40while the Mk II and III should have their armour thicknesses corrected,

13:43improving their capabilities in-game. There is also a test bed of the Crusader

13:48that could be added, this having been used to test the new Meteor engine,

13:53that would later be used on the Cromwell tank. With the original Crusader engine having a top

13:58speed of 26mph or 32kmh on a 350hp Liberty engine, while in testing the two Crusaders

14:06fitted with the 600hp Meteor engine could achieve speeds of at least just over 50mph.

14:13Unfortunately, we don't have an exact top speed, as this wasn't measured very accurately in testing,

14:18but either way the top speed has now at least been doubled, making this one of the fastest

14:22tanks that could be added to the game. The armament would be the 40mm 2-pounder gun,

14:27and all of the other stats would remain the same. And in-game, I could see this being added as an

14:32defence vehicle at around 2.7-3.3, with the massive speed increase making this perfect

14:37for getting around the map and escaping from bad situations, as well as getting to cap

14:41points early in the match. In real life, Crusaders of all types would be built and

14:46serve in the North African campaign, but once the campaign was over due to various issues with the

14:51design, these were generally converted to other roles, such as self-propelled anti-aircraft tanks

14:57or artillery tractors. So the Crusader became the pre-eminent cruiser tank of the British Army in

15:03North Africa, but even as the first of these were coming off the production lines, development was

15:08well underway on yet another cruiser tank, this time taking into account the lessons learnt in

15:13the fighting in France, namely that the frontal armour should be up to 75mm thick, and a larger

15:19turret ring should be installed so that a larger gun could be fitted. In January 1941, Lord

15:24Nuffield's company, Nuffield Mechanisations and Aero, had their design for this new tank chosen,

15:31with a requirement for production to start in the spring of 1942. This tank was originally called

15:37the Cruiser Tank Mk. VII or A-24 Cromwell, but due to later developments that we'll get into,

15:43it would be re-designated as Cavalier, and it was to reuse components from existing tanks like

15:49the Crusader, allowing for the design to be ordered into production without any prototypes

15:53yet being constructed. The Cavalier, as you can see, looks very similar, but not identical to

15:59the Cromwell, and it was to be armed with the excellent 57mm 6-pounder gun, giving an in-game

16:05penetration of 82mm at 500m with its stock AP round, making this a very good anti-tank weapon,

16:12while a coaxial and bow machine gun were also carried. Armour is actually better than the

16:17Cromwell, coming in at 76mm versus the Cromwell's 64mm, making this a better armoured tank by

16:25comparison, though this protection is reduced due to the flat nature of many of the armour plates,

16:31especially around the turret. Speed is also not the best, with its 410hp Mk IV Nuffield

16:38Liberty engine giving a top speed of 24mph or 39kmh. Certainly not the slowest tank in the

16:45world, but hardly the fastest either, and it's much slower than the later Cromwell I, while the

16:51crew carried us five, a driver and machine gunner in the hull, and the rest placed in the turret.

16:56The Cavalier could work at a better rate in 3.7, as despite being far slower than the Cromwell I,

17:03it does have better protection and is still armed with the same excellent 57mm gun,

17:08allowing this lesser-known tank to have some success in War Thunder. In real life,

17:13the Cavalier project would be hit with delays, and by the time things got rolling again,

17:18it would be dealt a mortal blow, as a partnership between Leyland Motors and Rolls-Royce had

17:24resulted in the latter modifying its V-12 Merlin aircraft engine into the 600hp Meteor engine,

17:31which in testing would prove to be a far better engine than the Liberty,

17:35and would result in the famous Cromwell tank design. The new engine made the Cavalier the

17:40clearly inferior tank, so you would think they would redesign the tank to take the Meteor engine.

17:46Well, unfortunately Lord Nuffield was completely unwilling to do this,

17:50sticking with the Liberty engine. Despite this, the government didn't overrule him,

17:55and so despite being an inferior tank, 500 Cavaliers would still be produced.

18:00160 as gun tanks, 12 of these being given to France in 1945, and the remaining 340 were

18:07built as observation post tanks. Making this yet another failed tank design, that was still

18:12produced in significant numbers, yet not redeeming itself in an important secondary role like the

18:18Covenanter, and like that tank it never saw any combat service. So despite some hiccups in getting

18:24there, Britain now had a good cruiser tank in the form of the Cromwell, now ready to go into

18:28production and replace the Crusader. Unfortunately, things now took an odd turn. Basically, Leyland,

18:36who had spurred the development of the Meteor in the first place, now got cold feet about the

18:41Meteor engine, worrying that there wouldn't be adequate cooling for the new engine, and

18:46subsequently left the project. Eventually a compromise was made where the Birmingham

18:51Railway Carriage and Wagon Company, or BRC&W, would take over production of the now A27M Cromwell

18:58with its Meteor engine, while Leyland would build the A27L Centaur with the Liberty engine,

19:05this being a similar tank to the Cromwell, but fitted with the now Mk5 410hp Liberty engine.

19:12Thankfully some common sense prevailed, as they were designed to take the Meteor engine at a

19:16later date. The Liberty engine gave a top speed of 24mph or 40kmh, again far slower than the

19:23Cromwell tank, while still having a 5-man crew, maximum armour of 76mm, and it was armed usually

19:30with either a 57mm 6-pounder gun or the quick-firing 75mm gun, as well as two machine guns.

19:37However, some were fitted with a 95mm howitzer, which carried a heat round capable of penetrating

19:43110mm of armour, which would be an interesting variant to have in-game. This could probably be

19:49added to the main tech tree at 3.3, possibly even folded with the Cavalier and maybe even some

19:55variants as event vehicles, depending on which gun is used. And while it would be nice for this

20:00tank to be included, I don't think it will play too differently to the Cavalier, except for the

20:05howitzer versions. In real life, the Centaur was more of a stopgap tank until enough Cromwells

20:10were produced, which thankfully was achieved before D-Day, so production was cut back,

20:16although exact production numbers are a little bit difficult to get a hold of,

20:19often figures anywhere from 950 to 1,821, because of course a lot of them were converted

20:25to take the Meteor engine. However, a number of those fitted with the 95mm howitzers did see

20:31combat with the Royal Marines during the Normandy invasion and fighting in the subsequent weeks,

20:36while 52 Centaurs would be given to Greece in 1946, though these wouldn't see much use due

20:42to a lack of trained crew. So, having looked at the Cavalier and Centaur, we now come to the

20:48Cromwell, which first went into production in January 1942, with 2,492 being built,

20:55the vast majority of which were riveted, with 126 being welded. Of course, there were many

21:00Cromwell variants, but for the most part these variants are just Centaurs with the Meteor engine

21:06fitted, so hardly noteworthy. But there are a few unique Cromwell variants, for example the

21:12Cromwell Mk VI, which is a re-engined Centaur armed with the 95mm howitzer, and the rather

21:18interesting Cromwell Mk VII W, which is essentially the ultimate version of the Cromwell, being fitted

21:24with wider tracks, heavy-duty front axles and a welded hull with a maximum armour of 101mm,

21:32making this far better protected than current Cromwell tanks and better at going cross-country,

21:38and this could be added at 4.0-4.3, while the Mk VIII is a Centaur I or III with thicker

21:44frontal armour and the 95mm howitzer fitted. So, the Cromwell did turn out to be a decent tank,

21:51especially with the Meteor engine, but what had been a decent design in 1942,

21:56was a bit outdated by 1943 when the first units in the UK started receiving their first Cromwells,

22:02and was seriously outclassed when first sent into combat in June 1944 during the invasion of

22:08Normandy. If it had managed to actually get into combat in 1943, I think the tank would have done

22:13far better. Luckily, an improved cruiser tank was soon available, this being the A-34 Comet,

22:20which had began development in 1943 and entered service in January 1945, barely 6 months after

22:27the Cromwell, which kind of goes to show that even people at the time knew that the Cromwell

22:31was going to need replacing pretty quickly. And this was essentially an improved Cromwell,

22:36with a new turret with a 77mm high-velocity gun, which is actually just a shorter 76.2mm

22:44pounder gun, but this is still a massive improvement over the quick-firing 75mm gun.

22:50Only two variants of these would be made, the Type A and B. The Type A is already in-game,

22:55while the B's only real difference is the use of twin fishtail exhaust pipes at the rear.

23:00However, in addition to its turret-mounted smoke dischargers, the Comet also had a smoke

23:06discharging system at the rear of the tank that the driver could operate, but these are missing

23:11in-game, so adding these would help improve the survivability of the Comet somewhat.

23:17So finally, after much development and hardship, Britain had a good cruiser tank in service.

23:23However, the Comet was itself to only really be a stopgap tank, quickly being overshadowed by a new

23:29tank, the A-41 Heavy Cruiser Tank, better known as Centurion. Of course, this tank is famous for

23:36in the Cold War, but it was developed in WWII, with the specifications being laid out in February

23:421944, and the first prototypes were built in early 1945, so it does qualify for this video.

23:49This time, instead of no prototypes being made, a number of pilot models were made,

23:5316 in fact, though some were made out of soft steel, and these did so well in testing,

23:58that 6 were sent to Europe in May 1945, this deployment being named Operation Century.

24:05This was after the Germans had surrendered, but would give some data on how they would perform

24:10when deployed in what had very recently been a combat theatre.

24:14One of the big differences between these pilot models and the production versions

24:18is the weaker armour, coming in at 57mm for the frontal glappies, versus 76.2mm for the

24:25production version, making this far more vulnerable to enemies than the Mark 1.

24:30Armament was also slightly different, with the last prototype to be built being fitted with the

24:3577mm H3 gun from the Comet, which again is technically just the 76.2mm 17 pounder with

24:42a shorter barrel, which again makes this a slightly worse performing weapon than the

24:46regular 17 pounder.

24:48For the rest of the pilots, 14 of these were to be armed with the 17 pounder gun,

24:52but instead of a coaxial machine gun, they had 20mm Polston cannons.

24:57The same is used on the Skink anti-air vehicle, and these can fire either HE or AP rounds,

25:02with an in-game penetration of 23mm at 500m,

25:06making these lethal against soft skin vehicles, and a minor threat to some armoured ones.

25:12These cannons might prove useful in-game, but were not well liked in real life,

25:16with a regular machine gun being preferred instead,

25:20though only one of the prototypes had a machine gun fitted.

25:23There was also an idea of mounting a machine gun on the rear of some of these tanks,

25:27but this was thankfully dropped pretty quickly as it interfered with the 2-inch bomb thrower,

25:31which was used for launching smoke rounds.

25:34Lastly, one of the prototypes was fitted with a Sinclair Meadows Powerflow gearbox,

25:39with four forward gears and three reverse gears,

25:42giving an improved reverse speed of 14mph or 22.5kmh,

25:47compared to the reverse speed of 8mph on the Mk1,

25:50but this was ultimately only tested on one vehicle.

25:54I could see the 77mm variant being added at 5.3 to 5.7,

25:59as it has a weaker gun and armour compared to the Centurion Mk1,

26:03while the variants with the 17-pounder could be added at 5.7,

26:07as these tanks would still have the worse armour, but better guns,

26:10while the 20mm Polston cannon would be a unique feature of this tank,

26:14and it would be nice for players to experience these unique pilot models

26:17of what would become the world-beating Centurion tank.

26:21In real life, these pilots would do very well in testing,

26:24with various minor issues being found and fixed,

26:27but for the most part, these performed very well,

26:29and the Centurion would go into production in November 1945,

26:33though with wider tracks and 76.2mm frontal armour,

26:37and it would go on to become the premier British tank of the early Cold War period.

26:43So that is all of the British cruiser tanks, which brings us to the infantry tanks,

26:48and as mentioned at the beginning,

26:50nearly all of the infantry tanks are already represented in-game,

26:54and to my mind these do seem to represent the more successful British tank designs,

26:58at least with regards to their development not being a total nightmare.

27:03However, before we take a look at the main infantry tank designs,

27:06I want to take a look at the various heavy tank designs that didn't make it into service,

27:11these being the A-20 Heavy Tank, the Valiant,

27:14and the TOG II's less famous predecessor, the TOG I.

27:18So we'll start off with the A-20, also known as the A-20 Shelled Area Tank,

27:23which makes sense considering it was expected to operate in battlefields

27:26reminiscent to those of World War I,

27:28but was also bizarrely known for some reason by the French-sounding A-20 Char de Fortress.

27:34This began development on the 1st of September 1939,

27:37with Harland and Wolff leading the effort and Vauxhall Motors helping.

27:42The design specifications envisioned operating in World War I-style battlefields,

27:47so filled with trenches and shell craters in muddy conditions.

27:50As a result, the A-20 does somewhat resemble World War I tanks,

27:54with its track running all around the hull.

27:57Other specifications were also somewhat archaic,

27:59with an unditching beam to be carried,

28:02eliminating the possibility of having a turret,

28:04while the main armament was to be carried inside mounted sponsons.

28:08Luckily, the requirement for an unditching beam was ignored,

28:11and a Matilda turret was fitted which was to carry the 40mm 2-pounder gun,

28:16while the sponsons themselves were also eliminated.

28:19However, a weapon was to be mounted at the front of the tank,

28:22but it took a while to decide what weapon that was going to be,

28:25as it was originally intended to be a 57mm 6-pounder gun,

28:29then a cut-down 6-pounder,

28:30then various British 3-inch and 3.7-inch guns,

28:33and a French 75mm howitzer were all suggested and rejected,

28:38before finally it was decided that a 2-pounder gun was to be fitted.

28:42This would give good firepower for the front,

28:44allowing the tank to essentially cover two areas at the same time,

28:48though it seems unlikely that the weapons were actually fitted to the prototype.

28:52In addition, three machine guns were to be carried,

28:55one in the turret and one on each side of the tank,

28:58with a 90 degree angle of fire along the sides.

29:01The armour was pretty good, being 60mm thick for the whole front,

29:05while the Matilda turret would be 75mm thick all round,

29:08meaning you could park behind cover and allow only the well-protected turret to take fire,

29:13while still being pretty well protected if caught in the open,

29:16though I'm sure the side and rear armour would be less well protected,

29:20and the tracks are completely exposed, thus vulnerable to enemy attempts to detrack you.

29:26For the engine, while Harland and Wolff hoped to fit one of their diesel engines,

29:30this wasn't ready in time, so a Meadows DAV was to be fitted instead,

29:35as despite fears it would be underpowered, it was at least available.

29:38However, Vauxhall, who had been designing the suspension and presumably had done a pretty good

29:43job of it, was then asked to fit their Bedford Twin-6 engine, which was essentially a pair of

29:49lorry engines combined, though there's some confusion on which prototype received which

29:54engine. Either way, the 40-tonne A-20 had a top speed of only 10mph or 16kmh,

30:00making this a very slow tank, and likely painful to use getting across the map,

30:05though an unditching tow is fitted to help cross trenches, and lastly a crew of seven was to be

30:11carried, three in the turret and the rest in the hull. I could see the A-20 working at around 2.3,

30:17having a pretty good armament and being well protected, with a large crew to boot,

30:22but its slow speed will make it easy to outflank, and it would quickly be left behind by other

30:26tanks, meaning you would have to be slow and methodical when using this tank.

30:31Ultimately, two prototypes would be built of mild steel in Northern Ireland in early 1940 by

30:36Harland & Wolff, and immediately problems cropped up, with the Royal Engineers saying the 40-tonne

30:42tank was too heavy for their bridges, and that it turned out to be too tall for the railways,

30:46so when sent to Vauxhall in Bedfordshire, the turret had to remain in Northern Ireland,

30:51which wasn't too bad as Harland & Wolff were making Matildas, so it was just used on a regular

30:56tank. However, the killing blow was the invasion of France, which showed that the sort of trench

31:01warfare it was designed for wasn't going to happen. The A-20 that Vauxhall received would

31:05be tested for a short time, but in June 1940 the project would be cancelled, with Vauxhall's A-20

31:12being relegated to ballast when testing various tank transporters. However, Vauxhall's time on

31:17the A-20 was not wasted, as they would be given the task of designing its successor, the A-22,

31:22or Churchill tank, which would carry over many of the A-20's design features,

31:27allowing the A-20 to live on in a sense. Of course, the A-20 wasn't the only heavy tank

31:33being designed in the early war period, as the TOG I was also being developed at this time.

31:38To give a quick background on its design, Albert Stern, who had headed the Landship Committee in

31:43World War I, which had designed Britain's first tanks in that war, had been invited to head up

31:48the Special Vehicle Development Committee, or SVDC, for designing a new tank. In aid of this,

31:54he invited many of his old colleagues from the Landship Committee to join the SVDC,

31:59and they soon got to the nickname The Old Gang, or TOG. Now, getting all of the people involved

32:05in the original tank development program wasn't necessarily the worst idea, as they already had

32:10experience with tanks, and now had an additional 20-odd years of experience on top of that,

32:15especially useful for those who were experts in engines or armament, for example. It also wasn't

32:21just designed with World War I fighting in mind, as of course there was the need for a heavy tank

32:26that would be capable of breaching heavy defences along the Siegfried Line, chewing any Allied

32:31offensive into Germany. The TOG Committee would work fast on their design, and by December 1939,

32:37a design was set out along with a wooden mock-up, and two prototypes would be ordered,

32:41the TOG I and TOG II. The TOG I and II were to be built by William Fosters & Co, the same company

32:48that had built many of Britain's tanks in World War I, with a delivery date for the TOG I of October

32:531940, and for tests to commence in November 1940. The resulting tank was heavily armed,

33:00with a French 75mm howitzer and mounting from the Char B1 bis fitted at the front,

33:06this having been bought back from a visit to France in 1939, and this is capable of penetrating

33:1150mm at 500m, though originally the more powerful Model 1897 was to be carried. It was also originally

33:19intended to carry the two 40mm Tube Hunter guns in sponsons on either side of the tank,

33:24but thankfully a Matilda turret was fitted instead, removing the need for the guns to

33:28be mounted on the sides. The sponsons themselves were still intended to be fitted and armed with

33:33two Biese machine guns each, but they don't appear to have ever been fitted to the tank.

33:38Armour was also pretty good, being 76.2mm all round, similar to the KV-1, making this a very

33:44well protected tank, though its unprotected tracks will make a very obvious target that can

33:49quickly be destroyed. When it comes to the mobility, the TOG I is rather similar to the

33:54later TOG II, in that it is powered by a diesel-electric drive, where the diesel engine

33:58powers a generator that in turn powers two electric motors to turn the tracks. This allows

34:03it to have a top speed of just under 9mph or 14kmh when going forward or in reverse.

34:09Not particularly quick, but at least it gives it a decent reverse speed to escape ambushes.

34:14However, due to the issues with the electric drive, a hydraulic drive would later be added,

34:18which could be represented as another variant, or even as a modification in-game.

34:23Due to its 10.5m length, it was also able to cross 4.5m wide trenches, as well as climb various

34:30obstacles, allowing it to quickly get around the battlefield and defeat any obstacles that

34:35it encounters. Lastly, it was to have a crew of 8 when fitted with sponsons, but I suspect it would

34:40have a crew of 5-6 without them. I could see this being added at around 3.0-3.3, having a good mixed

34:48armament, decent armour and good crew count, only really being let down by its slow speed,

34:54but players used to the TOG II should be able to work around this. Ultimately, the TOG I wouldn't

35:00be complete until October 1940, with the first tests in November 1940, where it was quickly

35:06found that the steering was difficult due to its length, and the electrical drive was prone

35:11to overheating, which eventually resulted in a fire, and a conversion to a hydraulic drive system,

35:17becoming the TOG I-A. However, this wasn't done until 1943, and still issues persisted,

35:24so the TOG I was sent to Chobham in 1944, and seems to have been used as a testbed before

35:29being scrapped. So ultimately, while this was a fairly decent assault tank and had some novel

35:34features, I struggled to see why it was kept around as anything more than a testbed, especially

35:39after May 1940, when the Germans had literally shown that going around a big defensive line was

35:45a valid strategy, and much better tanks for assaulting heavy positions were now around in

35:50large numbers. And so I feel the TOG committee, while creating a pretty decent design for attacking

35:56fortified positions, could have been better used improving existing tanks over working on such a

36:01large behemoth as the TOG. So we're almost onto the regular infantry tanks, but there is one more

36:07heavy tank we need to look at, the A38 Valiant, often considered one of the worst tanks of WWII.

36:13Basically, this was an infantry assault tank that was intended to be used in the Far East against

36:18Japan, with an emphasis on heavy armour while also being as light as possible and having a

36:24three-man turret. The design specification was technically met, weighing in at 27 tonnes while

36:30having a maximum of 114mm of armour, but it did lead to some compromises, with the hull being

36:36rather narrow and the turret so large that the turret ring sticks out of the side of the hull.

36:41Hardly an ideal situation, while the driver position was incredibly cramped. That said,

36:47the turret did have a decent armament, being fitted with the quick-firing 75mm gun,

36:52though it's fault a 57mm 6-pounder gun was initially fitted, the latter weapon having

36:58better armour penetration, so perhaps we could have the option of which gun to bring,

37:02while a coaxial machine gun was also carried. Despite the weight being reduced as much as

37:07possible, the 27-tonne tank only has a top speed of 12mph or 19kmh, which wasn't a problem in

37:14real life as it was intended to operate with infantry, but could be an issue in-game, while

37:19a crew of four was also to be carried, three in the turret and the driver in the hull.

37:24So overall, while not an ideal tank, it doesn't sound absolutely horrible,

37:28so why is it considered one of the worst tanks of WW2? Well, it's basically to do with factors

37:33that wouldn't have any effect in War Thunder, but would be rather dangerous in real life,

37:37and were mainly to do with the driving compartment and its controls. For example,

37:42switching out of 5th gear resulted in the gear lever coming back so fast it almost broke the

37:46driver's wrist. While operating the brake theoretically had a risk of the driver's foot

37:50getting stuck, and the foot needing to be amputated in order to get the driver out.

37:55So as you can see, that is a bit of a disaster. However, like I said, those factors wouldn't

38:00affect it in War Thunder, and I could see it being added in-game at maybe 4.3 to 4.7,

38:05depending on what gun it is fitted with, and I could see this working like a slower Excelsior

38:10or Churchill Mk7. And while not a particularly good tank in real life,

38:14it would be nice to see it in War Thunder. In real life, this tank was tested in 1944,

38:20but due to the aforementioned issues, the tests were abandoned early for safety reasons.

38:25And while it might have been possible to fix these issues, with the end of the war it was

38:30decided to cancel the project, but the prototype was kept as a warning to future would-be tank

38:35designers. So that is the various prototype heavy tanks that never made it into service,

38:41which brings us to the regular infantry tanks that still need adding to War Thunder.

38:45As I mentioned at the beginning, we have nearly all major infantry tank types,

38:50but we don't have the original infantry tank design, the Matilda 1A11, and there is a very

38:55good reason that it hasn't, and in my opinion, shouldn't, be added. As while an interesting

39:00tank with a top speed of 8mph or 13kmh, a two-man crew and maximum of 60mm of armour,

39:07it is unfortunately only armed with a .303 or .50 calibre machine gun, with the latter having

39:12a maximum penetration of 10mm at 90m. Thus, while a rather interesting design, this tank just

39:18wouldn't work in-game, as practically every tank it would encounter would be immune to its fire,

39:24while in turn being an extremely tough tank to take down, making it impossible to balance.

39:30Moving on to the Matilda 2A12, we currently have the Mk2A Star or Matilda 3 variant in-game,

39:36and honestly, there isn't a lot of difference between the few other variants of this tank,

39:40with the initial Matilda 2 having AEC diesel engines and a coaxial Vickers machine gun,

39:46Matilda Mk2 having a BESA coaxial machine gun, the already in-game Mk3 replacing the AEC engines

39:52with Leyland engines, the Mk4 having slightly improved engines, and the Mk5 having an improved

39:58gearbox. So while in theory, all of these variants could be added, they wouldn't really add much to

40:04the game, so would have to be a very low priority. However, there was at least one Matilda fitted

40:09with what looks like a Cromwell turret, though I have also seen some suggestions that it is from

40:14the Cavalier, and this turret appears to be fitted with the excellent 57mm 6-pounder gun.

40:20The new turret and gun would give some advantages and disadvantages, with the 57mm gun having a

40:25greater penetration than the Matilda's existing 2-pounder gun, this being 82mm vs 52mm with AP

40:32shells at 500m, but the 40mm gun has access to an APHE shell, causing much greater damage after

40:39penetration. The turret would also be less protected than the Matilda's existing turret,

40:44with the current turret having 75mm of armour all around, while the Cromwell's is only 64mm

40:50at the front, 51mm for the sides, and 44mm for the rear. Lastly, as there isn't much documentation

40:56on this vehicle, I'm unsure if the turret actually fits in the Matilda's turret ring,

41:01so like with the Panzer IV turrets mounted on the Panthers that I've covered in a previous episode,

41:06this might only work as a tank destroyer, though like I say I can't confirm one way or another.

41:12Lastly, the crew would likely stay at 4, and the speed might be impacted by the addition of the

41:16new turret, but not drastically so I would think. In-game, this could be added at 3.0 like the

41:21Valentine 9, as the Matilda would now have a more powerful gun but slightly worse armour,

41:26while still being quite slow, and I think this would be a very unusual Frankenstein tank to have

41:31in-game. So now we move on to the Valentine tank, of which we have three variants in-game,

41:38the original Mk1 with the 40mm 2-pounder gun, the Mk9 with the 57mm 6-pounder gun,

41:45and the Mk11 with the 75mm gun, so 3 out of 11 major variants. Of course, the reason for only

41:52having these is again the fact that they often had very minor changes. For example, the Mk2

41:57simply replaced the original AEC petrol engine with a slightly less powerful AEC diesel engine,

42:03potentially marginally decreasing its manoeuvrability, but not much else.

42:07But then you get variants like the Mk3 that have a new three-man turret fitted,

42:12which is quite an improvement as the previous and subsequent Valentines only have two-man turrets,

42:18for a total of three crew, meaning these vehicles are far easier to knock out via crew losses,

42:24while losing just one crew member means all weapon-related jobs are left to one man,

42:28decreasing their performance, so by adding an extra crew member, we now have four crew in total,

42:34slightly reducing these risks. I have also seen some sources stating that the side armour

42:39was reduced from 60mm to 50mm, though I haven't found any confirmation on this,

42:44and the main armament is still the 40mm 2-pounder gun. I could see this being added at 2.3,

42:50maybe 2.7 at a push, giving us a slightly more survivable variant of the initial Valentine tank,

42:56while still maintaining most of the advantages of the Mk1. 536 Mk3s would be built,

43:02with New Zealand converting 18 to carry a 76mm howitzer over the 2-pounder gun,

43:08but this can only penetrate 10mm of armour in-game with HE shells, so probably couldn't be added.

43:14The following Mk4 was essentially the Mk2, but with a new American

43:18GMC 6.71S diesel engine and Spicer gearbox, barely improving manoeuvrability, while the Mk5

43:26is the Mk3 but fitted with a new engine and gearbox as well, so again, barely any change.

43:32Then the Mk6 is just the Mk4 but made in Canada, but after the first 100 were built,

43:36a lot of the riveted armour was replaced by cast armour, while the 7.92mm BESA machine gun was

43:43replaced by a 30cal Browning. The Mk7 and 7a were again, not really changed, the Mk7 just being a

43:50Mk6 with a new radio, while the 7a had very minor changes, like protected headlamps, auxiliary fuel

43:56tanks and studded tracks, so again, very minor changes. The Mk8 was supposed to be a variant

44:01with the 57mm 6-pounder gun, but was never built due to being inferior to the already in-game Mk9.

44:07One last major not-added variant is the Valentine 10, which is essentially the Mk9,

44:12but with a coaxial machine gun added, as this was removed from the Mk9, and some were fitted

44:17with a more powerful GMC engine, making this a far superior Valentine to the Mk9, so would be a

44:24very good contender for being added to the game, probably at 3.0, while the last variant, the 11,

44:29is already in-game. So as we can see, there are still plenty of Valentine models to add,

44:34particularly the Mk3, 5 and 10, which all seem to be improvements over existing variants already

44:40in-game, and I hope to see some of them added at some point in the future.

44:45Moving on to the next infantry tank, we have the Churchill tank, and once again,

44:49while we already have quite a few variants, these being the 1, 3, NA75 and 7, this is still only 4

44:57out of 12, so quite a few more still need adding, but like with the Valentine, these variants often

45:02don't add much, with the Churchill Mk2 just being a Mk1 with the hull-mounted howitzer replaced by

45:08a machine gun, which could be represented in-game by a modification to the existing Mk1, though

45:13there is at least one Churchill Mk1 or Mk2 that does have both weapons but in opposite places,

45:19so the 40mm gun is now in the hull and the howitzer is in the turret, and this would

45:23have to play much like a tank destroyer due to the anemic anti-tank capabilities of the howitzer.

45:29By the Mk4, the most numerous of the Churchills is just the NA75 in its original state,

45:36with a British 57mm 6-pounder gun instead of the American 75mm gun, though I'd still like to see

45:42it represented because, like I say, it was the most numerous of all of the Churchill tanks.

45:47However, getting to the Churchill Mk5, we have a variant that is essentially the Mk4,

45:52with some very minor turret changes, and is now armed with a 95mm howitzer,

45:57capable of firing a HEAT shell with a penetration of 110mm, which gives it far better armour

46:03penetration than the NA75's 75mm gun, and not much worse than the Churchill 3's 6-pounder APCBC

46:12shell, while also carrying HE and smoke shells. However, its HE shell only penetrates 10mm,

46:19so only good enough for against soft-skin vehicles, and its lower muzzle velocity compared

46:24to other guns will make aiming this at longer ranges a more difficult prospect. That said,

46:29it could be added in-game at around 3.7-4.0, giving British players a good heavy tank for

46:34glow-scene engagements, while not being overpowered due to the shorter-ranged nature of the weapon.

46:40We then come to the Mk6, one of the rarest variants, which is fitted with a new lower

46:46profile cupola, applique armour plates of 20mm thickness for the sides, the quick-firing 75mm

46:52gun as used on the later Churchill tanks, and raised frontal periscopes, while some sources

46:58also mention additional protection around the turret ring. This could probably be added at 4.3,

47:03bridging the gap between the Churchill 3 and the Churchill 7, giving some minor improvements over

47:09previous Churchill vehicles, though the 75mm gun doesn't perform as well as the 57mm 6-pounder.

47:16The next major variant we will look at is the Mk8, which is essentially just a Mk7 but again

47:22fitted with a 95mm howitzer. This is an interesting variant as the armour is now 152mm thick for the

47:29front, and of course the 95mm howitzer's heat shell has far greater penetration than the 75mm

47:36gun of the 7, so in theory this should perform much better than the in-game Mk7, perhaps at a

47:41better rating of 4.7-5.0, with the weapon's lower muzzle velocity balancing the tank's performance.

47:48This then brings us to the last three variants, the 9, 10 and 11, and these are a bit weird to

47:54cover because according to David Fletcher's book, Churchill Infantry Tank, the 9 and 11 don't

47:59actually exist. Basically, there was an idea of upgrading older Churchill models with the heavier

48:05turrets from the Churchill 7s, with the 9s to be armed with 6-pounder guns, the 10 with the 75mm

48:11gun and the 11s with the 95mm howitzer, but this required a full rebuild of the tank to take the

48:18new turret, so doesn't seem to have been carried out for the Mk9 and Mk11, though maybe prototypes

48:24were built, while at least 33 Mk10s were converted, with one still existing in India. There

48:30were also plans to upgrade them without the heavier turrets, these being the light turret or LT

48:36variants, but these are basically the same as the Mk4 through 6 variants, with applique armour

48:41attached to improve protection. In theory, the Mk10 could be added as it was actually built,

48:47maybe at 4.7 as an event vehicle, while I don't think the Mk9 and Mk11 should be added,

48:52as like I say, it doesn't seem like they were actually built. The LT versions could also be

48:57added in theory, but again, I don't think they would play any differently to some of the earlier

49:01versions, so could probably be skipped. In real life, the Churchill was eventually

49:06developed into the Black Prince, fitted with heavy 152mm of armour and the 17-pounder gun,

49:12but ultimately both infantry and cruiser tanks would be supplanted by a new design,

49:16the A41 Heavy Cruiser tank, which of course became the Centurion, and as mentioned earlier,

49:22is generally more famous for its role in the Cold War. However, before we finish off with the

49:27Churchill, we have a rather unique variant of the Mk3 that was fitted with the Ardeer Aggie

49:33Mortar. This was intended as a potential replacement to the Churchill AVRE, which was

49:38fitted with the Patard Mortar, and was capable of firing a 12.7kg projectile up to 91m, with an

49:45in-game penetration of 64mm, causing a massive amount of damage, but requiring the tank to get

49:51very close to the target. The Ardeer Aggie Mortar on the other hand was a massive weapon, with a

49:56calibre of 241mm and 3m long barrel, and was capable of firing a 24kg projectile up to 410m,

50:06a far greater distance than the Patard. It was also technically a recoilless gun, as at the same

50:11time the explosive projectile was fired, a cant weight of sand was fired out of the rear of the

50:16gun, in theory cancelling out the recoil. In order to fit the mortar into the Churchill Mk3 turret,

50:22the turret had to be altered quite drastically. With part of the turret front and roof removed

50:27in order to fit the mortar, then a new mantlet would be installed to cover any openings,

50:32while a hole was installed at the rear of the turret for firing the counterweight,

50:36though this could be covered by a sliding panel. Other than that, the rest of the stats are the

50:41same, though elevation and depression of the gun are much reduced due to the mortar having to stay

50:46aligned with the hole at the rear of the tank in order to fire the counterweight, but I could see

50:51it working in game as a premium or event tank, probably at 3.0 or higher, giving us a far more

50:56effective British demolition tank than the Churchill AVRE, and it would be nice for this

51:01rather unusual and not well known design to be included in War Thunder. In real life the design

51:06was not adopted, primarily due to issues with the limited depression and elevation, while if the

51:11turret was fully depressed, there would be an unprotected opening 8 inches long and 15 inches

51:16wide, not to mention firing a massive counterweight of sand towards friendly troops, which was

51:22somewhat considered a risk, and then to top it all off, while the gun itself could be reloaded in the

51:27turret, the counterweight couldn't, reintroducing one of the risks from the Churchill AVRE,

51:33so the project was ultimately cancelled as a result of all of these factors.

51:38So having looked at the British cruiser and infantry tanks, we'll round off this episode

51:42by looking at a British amphibious tank, namely the Medium Tank AT1, and this is basically an

51:48amphibious chassis fitted with the Covenanter turret, and came in a few variants, the original

51:52variant not having suspension, while the Star and 2 Star had different suspensions and gearboxes,

51:57and not much being known about the 3 Star variant, and overall this looks like a pretty normal tank

52:02in the water, however out of the water you can see this is a rather ungainly tank for use on land,

52:08being 3.3m tall, 7.3m long and 3.9m wide, making this a rather large and obvious target for

52:16enemies. Armour was to be a maximum of 40mm thick, so not the best protected tank in the world by

52:22any means, but it is armed with a 40mm two-pounder gun, meaning it is at least able to deal with most

52:28enemies it will meet. The top speed is a bit confusing, as it actually had a regular gearbox

52:33and an auxiliary gearbox given a high and low ratio. The former only intended for use on water,

52:39where it would have a top speed of 5mph, but theoretically given a top speed on land of 20mph,

52:46but in reality the low ratio is used on land to avoid damage, given a practical top speed

52:51of 10mph, but this might be ignored in War Thunder, given a decently speedy tank on land.

52:57The first variant of this tank also had no suspension, which wouldn't be great off-road,

53:01but subsequent variants did have suspension fitted and they could be added if needed.

53:06Lastly, it had a crew of five, three in the turret plus a driver and what is termed

53:11an extra hand, whose role was basically to do with the ballast tank carried on the tank.

53:16I could see this being added to War Thunder at 2.7, giving British players a rather unique

53:21looking amphibious tank, and I could see this being a popular tank in-game, if only due to

53:26its unusual looks. Ultimately, the AT-1 would be redesigned a few times, as the AT-Star,

53:312-Star and 3-Star, incorporating suspensions and different gearboxes,

53:36but ultimately it wasn't adopted for service. There were also attempts to create amphibious

53:42Crusader tanks by fitting pontoons to either side of the tank, and this could be added in-game to

53:47give us an additional British amphibious tank, though it would make the tank less useful when

53:51moving about on land, and again it wasn't adopted for mass service. Ultimately, Britain ended up

53:57adopting the Duplex Drive or DD system for amphibious tanks, where an amphibious screen

54:02is erected around the tank, and these were famously used on Sherman tanks on D-Day,

54:07but were also tested on Tetrarch and Valentine tanks. However, these would likely be unsuitable

54:12for adding in-game, as while this system allowed for amphibious tanks that could still fight well

54:17on land, when on water the flotation screen is so large that it completely obscures the turret and

54:22gun, making it impossible to use the armament when on water, which will probably cause some

54:27frustration when destroyed by enemies on land with no way of firing back, unless it's made that you

54:32can shoot through your own flotation screen, which again might result in players sinking themselves

54:37by mistake, so we'll just have to see if Gaijin considers those tanks for adding in the future.

54:43So that's it for this extremely long video looking at British tanks that I'd like to see

54:47added to War Thunder, and I'd be interested to hear your views on them and any others I

54:51may have missed. I will of course cover British armoured cars and self-propelled guns at some

54:56point in the future, but will probably cover American or Soviet tanks next, though this

55:01might change depending on how things go. So anyway, I hope you've enjoyed the video,

55:05hopefully you'll join me for the next one, I've been Teren0 and I'll see you next time.

Category

Transcript

Recommended