We get many flavours of the Discovery and History channel sub-sets and indeed the narrative against the pictures is almost invariably wrong, the only pieces assured in accuracy occur when David Fletcher stands in front of something in the Bovvy Tank Museum.

The media people get far worse when dealing with German stuff and seem to perpetuate the inaccurate public myths; they seem to have the Titanic syndrome, invariably drawn to an iceberg and sinking themselves in out-of-sync inaccuracy. With few exceptions their now well worn stock of battle footage specifically German and armour, is generally Russian campaign.

It is surprising that people presented by the media as experts can be so misleading as we see here with a large gentleman from over the water. Statements like the Tiger B was specifically made for the Ardennes offensive cannot be true by simple logic of timescale; Pieper, he says, placed these at the head of his column because of their potency, whereas a little research will show he put them at the back where the interminable breakdowns did not impinge on the advance; and the main Tiger B problem was the supply of fuel, oil, ammo and spares, but I think the average observer might realise this applies to "tanks" rather than one specific type.

The Köln footage as presented here would seem to be with a M10 Achilles and not a "tank" per se, however, such is the disjointed way the makers present the material then anything is possible.

We should remember the prime aim of anything presented on Dis-Hist, or most other places for that matter, is to make money; everything else is subservient to that requirement and the overhead in accurate and cross-checked research is obviously unacceptable to the accountants, and let's face it, the programmes are intended for the mass interest so are usually just a veneer.

Now, Ballington-Spin (Mk.1*), two Centurions did make WWII in A46 guise but with just 2 weeks war service at the very end they never found anything in Europe to fire at or got fired on, you would have to look at Korea for Cent battlefield performance.

It is true though that Britain knew the tank rules but never really got the hang of firepower/mobility/protection until the A46/Centurion which was indeed too little, too late; even so the small (ish) turret ring concept and therefore gun limitation still persisted but for once industry was given a free hand with the understanding that the official spec, for another lumbering and under-gunned infantry tank, would not be pedantically enforced in much the same way as the well known Spitfire story.

Even so, there were many prophets of doom in military and political circles who foresaw a Centurion disaster in Korea and even had the matter debated in the House at length over some months. They were proved utterly wrong in the event and here was the first, true MBT as we know it today. Not perfect indeed and the propensity for the 27 litre Meteor to guzzle petrol at up to 15gpm is one of them, a problem latterly solved by the ingenious people in the Middle East who dropped a Teledyne diesel in it whereupon it fought a "modern" war with great distinction.

R.