Japanese were not really known for their tank prowess. No. I think that's fair. (Laughs) I mean some of them, a good Vickers will go through them, the inside and the outside. But, as we were saying another time, if you've got the only tank that actually shows up, well this thing is small enough that it'll go through the jungles not bad. You have a problem when you start going up against Matildas, or Grants, or Shermans. Yes, this little pop-gun is not going to do much harm to the front of the Matilda. And the armor's certainly not going to do it. But here's a kind of weird little feature. So, the turret is a loose, rotating turret. (ah, come on!) There we go. Oh right, yes. And, ah! That's what happened. But, inside you can move the gun independently to the turret. So a fine adjustment, and perhaps for being a little bit more stealthy... ...you're slightly more likely to draw attention to yourself if you rotate the whole turret perhaps? I have no idea. I really don't know why they did this. I can't think of another tank that does that. Um, there are some of the Czech tanks, the 38t, if I recall, could do a little bit of independent traverse. Okay. And you could do it with a coax on some French tanks if I recall, which is a bit odd. So, partly I would imagine, I would have thought that all the tanks that have that feature probably have a small gun. Yes. Because it's another thing that you've got to engineer to be strong enough to withstand the recoil and the weight of the gun. Well in fairness, this is a mighty recoil on this gun here (sarcastically). Right. Well, no. So but, ah, the, the, he's using what sometimes people call "body english" (laughs) He's in that. . . He's in that. . . He's in that turret on his own, one man and he's got to aim the whole gun pretty much just using his body weight. And hopefully your turret is well balanced, but I don't think this is a balanced turret because you've got the frontal armor, but there's no bustle balancing it out on the back end, so this is nose heavy. Which is fine if you're on flat ground. Right. Now tilt over to one side a little bit. What's the turret going to do? Ah, something very convenient, sort of that. Yes, and then, you've got to use your upper body strength to try to lug this thing around. Right, but if you were using your body strength to..to aim the gun left and right, you might not want to have to move the entire turret, so moving just the gun and a little bit of mantlet might make it less tiring and more precise. (questioning gesture) I'm not going to say you're wrong. I. .I'm.. Tell you what, let's just say that I don't know why they did it, and we'll leave it at that. Okay. And I don't either, but I've come up with a conjecture! Hey, prove him wrong! Don't (facetiously). Ha ha! Now, I do of course, have viewers in Australia, and I don't want them to feel left out, so don't, because this is a tank produced by Australia! It's the Sentinel! The pride of the Australian army(sarcastically), and it's actually an engineering feat. Oh, yes? Strategically, it was a very bad idea because Australia was not a large country at the time, and didn't have manpower to devote. . (mm hm) to building tanks when you had other countries that theoretically could build tanks for you, like the Americans. But, in terms of what they achieved, this is fantastic! I mean, this is the first tank to have a fully cast hull. Is it? It is. You mean in one go? Correct. It's not top. . . ah!, 'cause the French stuff like the Somua 35's (all bolted). . . it's two pieces bolted together. Four two MAIN pieces bolted together. Okay, so umm Well, three. This is. .(mutual laughter) . . but this is all in one go? It is. That is impressive because one of the reasons that you might not expect the Australians to produce a tank is that they didn't have the massive steel industries, the massive shipyards, and all the rest of it, so... for them to have achieved that particular feat is doubly impressive! Right! And if you look in the. . the records of it, they got the engineering and the metalworking companies are going "Well no one's ever done this before, but we don't see any technical reason why we can't, so let's give it a go." And it did. Their big problem was the engines. Because the Australians didn't have any heavy motive industries, so they didn't have any engines that were powerful enough to move a twenty ton tank, Right. or the transmission systems to do it. uh huh So, if you can't make your own engines, what do you do? You go shopping. Well, what's available? Cadillac V-8's from cars. (okay) Not very powerful, so they put three of them in the back of this. Well, that ought to do it! Yep, you just had to get all three working together. And then you put a two-pounder on it and one of the most God-awful turrets I've ever been in in my life! (Oh!) Unfortunately, yes. Ergonomically, this thing is quite possibly the worst turret I've ever been in. Okay, so that probably didn't get copied by others then. No, not so much. But is there some legacy then? Is there something from this that the world of tank design did take away, saying: "That's a good idea! We'll do that forevermore!" Um. . they know what not to do. Could this design... (talking simultaneously) of mantlet for instance for the front of the machine gun. . (for the Vickers) so yeah, (it's. . it's) this. .this. . look at that, how beautifully balanced that is, you see. It goes left, it goes right, it goes up and down. You could. . you could. It certainly is an attention-getter. Right! I mean, just think of the amount of heat that could be taken away from the gun with that mass of metal there. So yeah, I mean it was a water-cooled machine though, that was why it was so big. Right. And of course you got the coax up there. Now eventually, they came up with the bigger concept, the AC4. They were going to put a seventeen-pounder in this thing. Ha! Good luck! And they said that they made it. . they designed a version with a seventy-inch turret ring, which would be the same size as the Centurion. I do not know how you get a Centurion sized turret ring onto this thing. I remain to be convinced that was such a good idea. Yes, it's clearly wider than the actual thing, so they were lying. Yeah. But anyway, so they built about 60 of them. They never saw service. They decided, "You know, the Americans are going to give us lots of Shermans (yeah), lets use Shermans." But, well done Australia, even so! Fully cast hull! Oh wow, look! It's a Valiant! Another great British tank! With a name that begins with "V", like. . like. . like. . like valentine, and "V" for victory! Tell us about the Valiant! Well it was a valiant effort perhaps. This was arguably the worst tank ever built. I do have a copy of the test report. Remind me, I'll send it to you. And this tank was so bad that the officer in charge called it quits after thirteen miles. After that, it's sole purpose was that they would leave it in the workshops and then drag it out every now and then and they would give the officers in training a notepad and say, "Find as many faults as possible as you can on this tank." So it did have a use then?! It did have a use, granted, but yeah, no. I mean it had some interesting design features, like this piked nose you see on the IS3 later. Oh, yes. So this was a highly influential design then. Very much so. Now, part of the problem was that, ah, the back of the hatch here was so located as to grab you in the back of the neck. Right. If your foot accidentally slipped off the clutch, you'd be stuck there. You'd have to chop off your foot to get it out. Ah. Getting it into reverse, not so easy. Ah. . Right. you might lose your hand. The gun on the turret actually seemed to work relatively okay. But, it was in no danger of ever ending up in the right place to be fired at the enemy? No, no. Ah. . the engine and suspension were questionable. Ah. . I mean, if it only ran thirt. . if it only ran thirteen miles and they're already talking about the questionable powertrain, that probably tells you something. Ah. . yes. I think if . . if a tank gets thirteen miles, think "Right, lets abandon that.", they've sort of. . it's almost as though they're looking for an excuse, don't you think? Yeah, it's called "We're miserable, lets go home!" Ah, right. How do you pretend. . how do you pretend. . do you turn around and wait for someone to come with a loader? Actually, I don't . . I don't think the tests expressed how it got back. So I think maybe the thirteen miles was after the out and back and they just decided to stop it there. Oh, okay. But, ah, I mean, it's not as if the British were afraid to try interesting and unusual things. No, and to point. . they weren't actually doing this during the war. Yes. There was a war on, and they had a go at producing this. So, you know, fair play to them for that, surely. Yeah, I mean this is one of the assault tanks going up against the Excelsior or T14 in that role (uh huh), which are substantially bigger, heavier tanks. So it might have been a bit optimistic. Wh. . wha. . why did they see a need for this tank? What... what role did it have that wasn't filled by other tanks? Effectivly it's the role that was filled by Churchill in the end of it. I mean, it wasn't really an infantry tank as much as. . there was a very subtle difference between an infantry tank and an assault tank. Right. And this was going to be an assault tank. But the general concept is heavily armored mobile firepower. Okay, so, ah. . not so good on the armor, or mobility. But, hey, It had a mediocre gun! So, you know, that's something, right?! (breathy chuckle) And it was good for training. The Valiant! Lindybeige!
Lindybeige and The Chieftain are the Laurel and Hardy of tank history.
"Two pieces bolted together."
"Four"
"Okay, two main pieces bolted together."
"Well, three, actually."
Comedy gold!
I wish that the Valiant is in the game
I've stood next to a Type 97 TeKe tankette at Camp San Luis Obispo. It's really small.
Here's a picture of a slightly smaller Type 94 TeKe tankette being carried by a M4 Sherman.