The Tank Museum
Published 10 Oct 2025M46, M47, M48 and M60. They saw action in Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf and held the line in the Cold War. For almost 40 years the US produced a succession of good tanks — but they never seemed to be good enough for the top brass.
Time after time, designers sought a perfection that seemed to lay out of reach until the arrival of the step-changing M1 Abrams.
Up till then, you have what can be called “The Patton” family: a series of closely related tanks that are only intended to be temporary until the next big thing arrived …
This is the story of the “Patton” family of tanks; tanks that the US tried and failed to replace time after time, yet which despite this ended up becoming the armoured backbone of the Free World during the Cold War.
In this film, Tank Museum Historian, James Donaldson, walks us through the progression of US tanks from the M26 Pershing right up to the M1 Abrams. Commonly known as The Patton Family, this group of tanks were good… but never quite good enough. Always meant to be a stopgap, the Pattons persisted where their prospective replacements failed, leading them to become the vehicles that endured the Cold War around the globe.
00:00 | Introduction
00:58 | From Pershing to Patton
03:50 | Replacing the M46
06:25 | A Third Patton
10:01 | Yet Another Stopgap
12:44 | Irreplaceable?
(more…)
February 9, 2026
Keeping Up with the Pattons
January 19, 2026
King Tiger V2 – Inside The World’s Oldest Tiger II
The Tank Museum
Published 26 Sept 2025King Tiger V2. It’s the oldest surviving King Tiger in the world. And it’s also the only King Tiger that survives with the unusual pre-production turret. This has, in the past, been referred to as the “Porsche Turret”. But why? And why did they change the turret on later models?
There are many misconceptions and rumours about this tank – the most common of which that the turret was built by Porsche. It wasn’t. How did it end up on this tank? Well, that’s a bit of a confusing story, but it was basically down to Krupp and Henschel working on a winning design.
The production of King Tiger would begin with three prototypes: V1, V2 and V3 – and the V stands for Versuchs, the German word for trial. V1 was a mild steel prototype that was used for demonstrations, and V3 was used as an engine test rig. V2, however, was retained for testing by Henschel and was captured by the US Army before being handed over to the British.
V2 left Germany in one piece, but by the time it reached Bovington in 1952 a number of parts had gone astray – most notably, the gearbox! King Tiger V2 is now a star of The Tank Museum’s collection, and the team have now begun to assess whether a restoration might be possible…
00:00 | Introduction
02:37 | Is it a Porsche?
06:15 | Krupp Gets Lucky
12:52 | V2: Today and Tomorrow
17:34 | V2: The Future
(more…)
January 4, 2026
December 18, 2025
A 2025 Update from the Canadian Tank Museum
The Chieftain
Published 13 Dec 2025When up at the Canadian Tank Museum a whiles back, I caught up with Sam to find out what’s been going on up there and what’s coming soon.
December 4, 2025
M103: The Tank With No Name
The Tank Museum
Published 1 Aug 2025In 1950, the USA was facing a tank crisis … and the M103 was supposed to be part of the solution. But it would hardly ever be used.
After the Second World War, the USA made massive cuts to their conventional forces – declaring the majority of their tanks obsolete, with those left coming to the end of their service life. And the appearance of the Soviet IS-3 meant that the pressure was on. The US Army and the US Marine Corps wanted new tanks – and they wanted them fast. And the appearance of the Soviet IS-3 meant that the pressure was on. The USA declared a “Tank Crisis”.
The T-43 heavy tank was intended to be the response to new Soviet armour. But vehicles were being built before the bugs had been ironed out – and the delays began to mount up. Whilst the Army began to question the need for a heavy tank, the Marines went all in on the concept – ordering over 200 for their forces. But the T-43 was nowhere near ready to enter service, and the vehicles went into storage with 114 improvements needed.
Changes were made and eventually the Marines got their heavy tank – now named the M103. But its effectiveness was limited, and the M103 was only operationally deployed once. The Marines rejected replacement M60s in favour of the Future Main Battle Tank – a project that would end up being cancelled. Their existing M103AA1s were modernised using M60 parts, creating the M103A2 – which The Tank Museum has an example of in its running fleet.
The M103 is a heck of a tank: powerful, capable and incredibly imposing to be around. But did the Americans really need it? Was it the ultimate panic buy?
This is the story of the M103 Heavy Tank – and the panic that produced it.
00:00 | Introduction
00:30 | Meet the M103
03:06 | T-43 and the Tank Crisis
06:21 | Unfit for Service?
11:33 | In Service
15:26 | M103 In Retrospect
October 23, 2025
A39 Tortoise: The Forgotten Super Heavy
The Tank Museum
Published 13 Jun 2025The A39 Tortoise. The last complete survivor of a World War Two project that arrived just a little too late. Some have called it “The British Jagdtiger” – but is that actually a fair comparison?
Tortoise was a part of the strategy the Allies would need to defeat Germany during the Second World War. It was recognised that total victory could only occur on German soil – and that meant smashing through the imposing defences of the Siegfried Line. The Allies would need a Heavy Assault tank. Many designs were put forward for this role, including the Valiant, the A33 and the T14 Assault tank.
The A39 is extremely well-armoured. Its casemate construction could withstand a hit from an 88mm gun at close ranges. But at 78-tons, this lumbering beast was both slow and heavy – and is one of the largest and heaviest vehicles in the museum’s collection. In terms of firepower, the impressive 32pdr gun was extremely effective against both concrete and enemy armour. It even has room inside for 7 crew!
In the end, the Tortoise arrived too late to see any action on the battlefield. It was intended to form a part of the 79th Armoured Division – making it one of Hobart’s Funnies. Whether Tortoise would have become the stuff of legend, or a bit of a joke – well, we’ll leave that question up to you.
00:00 | Introduction
00:39 | What is a Heavy Assault Tank?
03:45 | Why a Heavy Assault Tank?
09:24 | The A39: As Good as it Gets?
17:55 | A Solution Without a Problem
(more…)
September 21, 2025
Chatham Dockyard – Half a millennium of supporting the Royal Navy
Drachinifel
Published 16 Feb 2022Today we take an overview look at the history of Chatham Royal Dockyard and some of what you can find today at in its preserved premises!
Visit the dockyard – https://thedockyard.co.uk/
(more…)
August 26, 2025
When Jagdpanther Fought Churchill
The Tank Museum
Published 18 Apr 2025Jagdpanther vs Churchill. Tank destroyer vs tank. New technology vs proven veteran. Who will emerge victorious?
It’s 6pm on 30th July 1944. Outnumbered 6 to 1, a platoon of 3 German Jagdpanthers is about to go into action for the first time. Facing them will be a squadron of 18 British Churchill tanks. Within 5 minutes, 11 tanks will be knocked out.
The Jagdpanther is the latest German armoured vehicle to arrive in Normandy. With a devastating gun, and a heavily armoured superstructure, this tank hunter is quick, reliable and deadly.
The Churchill has been fighting with Allied armies in North Africa, Italy and on the Eastern Front. The early marks struggled with a range of issues, but by 1944 it is an essential part of the British and Canadian tank force.
It’s during Operation Bluecoat where these two machines would come face-to-face for the very first time. The Churchills of S Squadron, 3rd Battalion, Scots Guards, have captured Hill 226 – a strategically important area to the south of Caumont. They are preparing for a German counterattack, but their infantry is yet to arrive – leaving their left flank dangerously exposed. And a platoon of Jagdpanthers is ready to take full advantage of their vulnerable state …
00:00 | Introduction
00:35 | The Jagdpanther
02:38 | The Churchill
05:43 | Operation Bluecoat
07:46 | A Turkey Shoot?
12:25 | Aftermath
17:40 | Roll of Honour
(more…)
August 23, 2025
T-55: 70 Years Old. Still in Service
The Tank Museum
Published 22 Aug 2025No tank in history has been produced in the quantities that the T-55 and its relatives have. Some sources suggest as many as 100,000 have been built since 1946, this tank is still seeing service across the globe. So how come this 80-year-old tank is still in service in 2025?
When looking at its predecessor, the T-34, the move to the T-55 looks like a massive leap in design. But there is a clear evolutionary progression – there is just a missing link. The T-44 laid the groundwork for future Soviet tank design – pioneering torsion bar suspension and a transverse engine.
It was soon decided that the T-44 would require a new 100mm gun to replace the 85mm. This new model would be called the T-54. While NATO classes both the T-54 and 55 as the same vehicle, the T-55 is a substantially better tank. A comprehensive series of upgrades made this an effective force on the battlefield.The T-55 would prove popular with forces around the world. It would even go head-to-head against itself in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Eventually the T-55 would become outdated as NATO technology became more and more advanced. But it is still in service in the conflict in Ukraine – why?
The Russian army, despite the stereotype of having unending stockpiles of weaponry, have been struggling to keep up with the astounding loss rate the Ukrainians have been able to inflict on them. This has resulted in older and older vehicles being dragged out of those large storage depots across Russia, mainly being used as mobile, protected artillery.
The T-55 has endured partly due to its sheer numbers, availability and upgradability. Its performance on the battlefield has varied, but its basic but effective design has proven itself again and again throughout the decades. It is worth reiterating how remarkable it that a vehicle conceived at the end of the Second World War is still even a consideration for armies 80 years on.
In this video, historian James Donaldson explores the history of the most-produced tank in history – the T-55. This Soviet design has its roots in the iconic T-34, evolving through the years to become an effective fighting machine that was sold around the world. Despite manufacturing ending in the 1980s, this tank is still a feature on the battlefield, with both sides making use of T-55s in the current conflict in Ukraine. It may not be engaging in tank-on-tank combat as initially intended, but the T-55 is still providing a useful, effective and relatively cheap addition to the arsenal of many armies in the 21st Century.
00:00 | Introduction
00:43 | The Missing Link
02:31 | Making the T-55
05:24 | Upgrades
08:34 | A Numbers Game
12:51 | In Action
16:41 | T-55 Today
(more…)
August 21, 2025
Six Reasons Operation Market Garden FAILED
The Tank Museum
Published 3 April 2025Operation Market Garden failed because the tanks of XXX Corps did not reach the Paras in Arnhem in time. Many historians have argued that the British armoured column “let the side down”. But is this actually true?
We reckon there are six reasons why the operation was a total disaster. It was a poor plan from the get-go, relying on a rate of advance that would outmatch the German invasion of France in 1940. Bad weather prevented the deployment of badly-needed reinforcements, and the terrain Guards Armoured were expected to traverse – a single road with impassable conditions on either side – significantly hampered the efforts of the tank crews.
Poor intelligence also meant that the British column was not prepared for resistance from a retreating and desperate German Army. It was a combination of all these factors that caused Market Garden to unravel completely.
Despite the complications, many acts of valour were carried out by both the airborne and armoured divisions, including the legendary assault across the Waal by the US 82nd Airborne.
So, join us as we explore these six reasons why Operation Market Garden failed and decide for yourself whether XXX Corps could have done anymore.
00:00 | Introduction
02:23 | #1 – A Bad Plan
06:22 | #2 – Poor Intelligence
07:51 | #3 – Difficult Terrain
11:27 | #4 – Determined Resistance
13:45 | #5 – Bad Weather
14:38 | #6 – Loss of Surprise
19:45 | What Went Wrong?
(more…)
August 11, 2025
Speed vs Armour: The Unexpected History of Fast Tanks
The Tank Museum
Published 21 Mar 2025Would you rather go to war in a tank that was quick but lightly armoured – or heavily armoured but slow?
The concept of fast tanks has existed since the First World War, but making a tank fast is easier said than done. You can increase the speed, but only by compromising the other two sides of The Iron Triangle.
Whilst a good power to weigh ratio is key to making a tank go fast, there are other factors that need to be considered. J Walter Christie pioneered the innovative helicoil spring suspension system – an invention that allowed tanks to cope with travelling at high speeds across country. Although not picked up by the US Army, the brilliance of Christie’s suspension was recognised by the Soviets and soon made an appearance on the BT-Series of tanks – and most effectively on the T-34.
Back in the UK, the newly mechanised cavalry was making use of some brand-new Cruiser tanks. Whilst these were fast vehicles, this was coming at the cost of effective protection. Some military thinkers advocated for the concept of “speed as armour” but results were mixed – with the Crusader and Cromwell both proving to be capable tanks.
After the war, the British Army finally moved on from “speed as armour” and settled on sacrificing a bit of speed for the sake of better protection. This was incorporated first into the concept of Universal Tanks and remains a fixture in the modern Main Battle Tank.
So, we’ll ask again. Would you rather go to war in a tank that was quick but lightly armoured – or heavily armoured but slow?
00:00 | Introduction
00:51 | What Makes it a Fast Tank?
02:39 | What is a Fast Tank For?
04:39 | Suspension of Disbelief
06:34 | Speedy Soviets
08:29 | Cruisers Replace Cavalry
11:20 | The Second Wave
13:19 | Cruising in Europe
19:08 | One Tank to Do It All
(more…)
July 13, 2025
Tiger II: What was the point?
The folks at the Tank Museum at Bovington put together a video comparing the Tiger II to the earlier Tiger I and the typical allied tanks they faced on the battlefield. On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, historian Jonathan Ware posted a long thread about both the topics the Tank Museum’s video raised and where he feels they should have added more context:
And here’s the Tank Museum’s video itself:
FEATURING FOOTAGE OF TIGER I AND TIGER II RUNNING TOGETHER AT TANKFEST 2025 – with thanks to Musée des Blindés and World of Tanks.
It’s absurdly large, heavy, expensive, and difficult to build. So, you have to ask; what is the point of Tiger II when you already have the biggest, toughest and meanest beast on the block – Tiger I.
Whilst the Tiger I has maintained a legendary status since its appearance on the battlefield, there were many aspects of this tank’s design that were pretty much dead ends. The turret couldn’t be resized to fit a more powerful gun. And adding extra weight in the form of armour would put a huge amount of strain on the internal mechanics. So, a new tank was needed to ensure the German’s could maintain their edge against Allied armour.
Enter the Tiger II, otherwise known as the King Tiger. Heavily armed, the Tiger II could take on any Allied tanks that it faced, with its KwK 43 able to penetrate the frontal armour of a Sherman at 1,800m. Its thick sloped armour was incredibly dependable, and no Allied tank commander would willingly engage a Tiger II in a head-to-head fight.
The Tiger II’s battlefield presence came at a significant cost. A single Tiger II could take up to 400,000 hours to build at a price of RM 321,500 – up to 100,000 more hours than a Tiger I, and over twice the cost of a Panther. A while the Allies were churning out tanks that were “good enough”, the Germans were committed to quality and ensuring their tanks would always have the edge against enemy armour.
The Tiger II has often been described as a tactical success for its battlefield prowess, but a strategic failure for being so resource-hungry, expensive and relatively low in number. Given their cost, it forces us to question whether the German war machine should have dropped Tigers altogether in favour producing tanks that were cheaper and easier to build
00:00 | Introduction
00:55 | Durchbruchswagen
06:15 | Tiger I vs Tiger II
12:52 | The Numbers Game
17:34 | Was Tiger II a Success?This video features archive footage courtesy of British Pathé.
In this film, Chris Copson breaks down the differences between two legendary tanks – the Tiger I and Tiger II. Whilst Tiger I was an impressive tank, certain areas of its design were an evolutionary dead-end. Its boxy turret couldn’t be enlarged to fit a bigger gun, and the hull couldn’t be up armoured without adding stress to the drive train. So, Tiger II ordered in 1943, including even thicker, sloped armour and a much more destructive gun. With mixed success on the battlefield, difficulties in maintaining its complex mechanics and reliance on dwindling supply lines, the Tiger II ended up being a tactic success, but a strategic failure.
Want to learn more about the Tiger I and Tiger II? Here are some of the sources we used to make this film:
Panzer Tracts No.23 – Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945 by Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle, 2011
Germany’s Tiger Tanks, DW to Tiger I: Design, Production and Modifications by Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle, 2000
Germany’s Tiger Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications by Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle, 1997
Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, Revised Edition by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, 1993
Tigerfibel. English translation by The Tank Museum, 2022
Panther and its Variants by Walter Spielberger, 1978
Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II by Steven Zaloga, 2015
www.tankarchives.com
www.forum.axishistory.com
www.achtungpanzer.com
www.feldgrau.net
June 17, 2025
The Crewless Tank Experiment | Project Crazy Horse
The Tank Museum
Published 31 Jan 2025This might just be one of the greatest missed opportunities in the history of tank development. Project Crazy Horse: a full-sized, crewless, remote-control tank – developed 35 years ago.
Being shot at is as unpleasant as it is dangerous. But in the 1980s, the Ministry of Defence needed to trial the cutting-edge TRIGAT missile system with a mobile target. The MOD approached the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) with a unique challenge – design us a tank that can operate by remote control.
With a limited budget, the project team selected an old Mark I Chieftain as the test bed for their vehicle. Stripping out any unnecessary components and piecing together the needed parts from a range of tech, Crazy Horse was successfully trialed in 1988.
But despite the innovations of both the team and the technology, the project was shut down due to budget cuts and issues of unreliability. The team was reassigned, and Crazy Horse was sent to The Tank Museum. There is currently no such thing as an unmanned, remote controlled main battle tank. But 35 years ago, we came tantalisingly close.
00:00 | Introduction
00:39 | A Moving Target
03:00 | Less Than A Million Dollars?
04:40 | Previous Attempts
07:47 | Creating Crazy Horse
10:16 | A Stormer!
13:47 | Slow Death of Crazy Horse
18:23 | A Missed Opportunity?In this film Chris Copson and Paul Famojuro explore the extraordinary story of Project Crazy Horse. This unique Chieftain target tank was developed in the 1980s, by an enthusiastic team that used their expertise to create the biggest remote-controlled tank in the world. Sadly, despite several glimmers of a resurrection, Crazy Horse would never see its full potential. Both Crazy Horse and its Stormer control vehicle were saved from scrap, and are now on display at The Tank Museum, where visitors can discover more about this revolutionary design.
(more…)
May 23, 2025
Yasukuni-jinja, Japan’s most controversial historical site
Nigel Biggar on the Yasukuni-jinja in the Imperial Gardens in Toyko, where the Japanese shrine to their war dead also celebrates fourteen convicted WW2 war criminals:
The Yasukuni Shrine in the Imperial Gardens, Tokyo.
Photo by Pierre Hazan
If ever you find yourself in the centre of Tokyo, make your way to the north-west corner of the Imperial Gardens, and turn left. A few minutes will bring you to the Yasukuni-jinja, Japan’s most controversial site. This is the national shrine to the war-dead, whose two and half million resident “glorious souls” include fourteen Class A war criminals.
A hundred yards to the right of the main shrine stands a museum, the Yushukan. Upon entering it, a visitor finds himself immediately face to face with a locomotive.
Now, when an Anglo-Saxon puts together Japan, Second World War, and locomotive, he arrives at one thing only: the “Burma Railway”. This is the railway that was hacked through the Burmese jungle partly by Allied prisoners-of-war, who were treated as slave labour and perished in their thousands. Over 12,000 Westerners died — about one in five — alongside perhaps 90,000 Asians.
So our Anglo-Saxon visitor beholds the locomotive with a mixture of disbelief, rising horror, and curiosity. He approaches the machine, looking for an explanatory text. Finding it, he learns that this locomotive is one of ninety that ran along the Burma Railway. He also learns the name of the military unit responsible for the railway’s construction. But of the Allied prisoners, the slave-labour, and the number of their deaths he learns nothing at all.
The Burma Railway wasn’t Auschwitz, either in genocidal intent or in murderous scale. But it was similar in its cruel contempt for human life. So the experience of confronting this Tokyo locomotive is analogous to stepping into a museum in Berlin and being confronted by one of the trains that shipped Jews to Auschwitz, and then reading an explanation that omits any mention of its cargo or the nature of its destination. If there were such a museum in Berlin, I’d have found it.
When our Anglo-Saxon ventures deeper into the Yushukan, he eventually discovers the exhibition on the 1930s and World War Two in the Far East. And here he learns that Japan’s imperial expansion was in fact a war of liberation, waged on behalf of subjugated Asian peoples, against Western colonial domination. And he learns that, even though Japan lost the war militarily, she won it politically, since the example of her early victories over the French in Vietnam, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, and the British at Singapore helped to inspire anti-colonial movements worldwide and so succeeded in ridding the world of European empires.
He also learns that what is known outside Japan as “the Rape of Nanking” (1937-8) is referred to demurely in the museum as “the Chinese incident”. And that whereas the “Rape of Nanking” is reckoned to have involved the indiscriminate massacre by Japanese troops of about 300,000 Chinese civilians, “the Chinese incident” only involved the severe treatment of Chinese troops who had violated the laws of war by disguising themselves in civilian clothes.
May 20, 2025
The Battle of Aquino
Canadian Tank Museum
Published 13 Jan 2025You may know about AQUINO Tank Weekend at our Museum, but what was the Battle of Aquino? When did it take place? What happened to the Ontario Regiment RCAC during that action?
Enjoy this short documentary with our Curator Sam Richardson as he gives you a detailed look at the situation in May 1944 during the Italian campaign of the Second World War. Learn more about the soldiers that took part, the battle that took place and why it remains important to our Regiment and our Museum.
(more…)
