"Panther, mate? You like the Panther? Woman's tank, mate. Only three jobs for a woman: Nurse, secretary and Panther tank crew. Centurion: Beautiful British tank."
(Germany 1943) Gunter - "Hanz, I just found out there are left handed people!" Hanz - (pulling crumpled plans for Hetzer out of wastepaper basket) "I'm back, baby."
Al Murray is a national treasure. What a lot of people might not know is that Al Murray actually has a degree in history from oxford uni. This often gets overlooked because people fall for his persona as a pub landlord who thinks he's just slightly funny. Al Murray. Great British name that,
@@zxbzxbzxb1 But what does that have to do with making Panthers? That was the argument at hand here in the first place. If they don’t have enough fuel for IVs, they shouldn’t make panthers either That’s not really an argument for or against a tank itself
@@Icetea-2000 Huh? It's an argument against making more of them, because there's no point if you can't fuel them. A Panther might use as much fuel as 2 Panzer-IVs but gives you 3 or 4 times the combat power, in that situation, common sense has to dictate that you build Panthers. Doesn't mean the Panzer-IV is bad, I never said that.
Allow me to balance out my complaining comment with a glowing one: I really like how Al mentions the T-34's crucial role in suppressing the Berlin uprising of 1953. That's a particular part of history that's not often talked about outside of Germany.
@@FixedPixelYT After Lenin's death, those who had spoken to Lenin personally were considered to have decisive power to interpret the teachings of Lenin. Walter Ulbricht belonged to this group, so it was possible for him to convince the leadership of the group of Soviet armed forces in Germany to deploy the troops in Berlin.
Absolutely brilliant. Some people do need to pay attention to the beginning: it is very much tongue in cheek and precisely to illustrate that it is possible to have a debate. The clue might have been the assertion Al made that his worst five were the same as his best five. The reference to James Holland at the end was, as you would expect, comedy genius.
Just you wait! Just you wait I am so annoyed right now I cant believe it this is ridiculous seriously not on at all I mean who does this Al think he is a tough guy I can't Adam and Eve it I don't come here to be made a mockery of this is absolutely an outrage a complete and monumental travesty the tank museum should be ashamed!
He was starting to crack up when he was getting into the debunked unsafety of the Sherman, so all's forgiven. And then that Panzer II being too good critique! =P
@@josiahricafrente585 Oh, he had me with the Panther... good thing I was too busy fighting an oncoming seizure while sputtering "FIRST MAIN BATTLE TANK."
Make more because others do more. Not because its a brilliant idea. Panzer IV was a dead end like the Cromwell. There were many tanks of size between PzIV and Panther not moved into mass production. Up-gunned, up-armored Panthers to offensive and lots of up-armored STuGs + VKs of 36-38t (or even these PzIVs) for defensive options. No Tigers apart from already made and Germans would work out some nice peace treaty. I wonder, how III Reich got into no oil no gas situation. Tha lands the occupied still have natural sources of oil. Its not only Africa, Syria and Kazachstan...
@@HanSolo__ Make more and have no tankers to crew them. Yeah, right. By the time they started developing Panthers there weren't many good tankers around, which is way (partly) Germany switched to fewer better tanks, to which they then transfered better tankers who still were alive while putting fresh recruits into Panzer IV's to die. History is a complex thing.
@@HanSolo__ yes but the Panzer IV gun was still more powerful than the 76mm put onto the Sherman... the problem the Panther had, it didn't solve a problem, the gun as slightly more powerful than the Short 88 on the Tiger 1 but it had less armour all around, Panther just shouldn't have happened, the King Tiger was coming, so just have the Tiger 1 fill the gap of the Panzer IV.
Yeah. The 3 piece/1 piece transmission cover was intentional for ease of maintenance. The ammo: The British tended to overstock stock on Ammunition. And Pz.IVs in North Africa were suffering from the same problem. The crew preferred the 75mm over the 76mm in some cases due to it's better HE shell and Tank on Tank engagements in the west were quite rare, about 14% is my source says correctly.
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvssalso the 75mm shermans gun can penetrate the frontal armour of a tiger at around 50 meters or less and that actually materd in the french country side
Me: [sees thumbnail, knows people will be angry about the Panther being badmouthed] Also me: [gets angry about the Sherman being badmouthed] Well played, you got me
God I remember it know, having to spent my 20 pence pocket money, to buy the it, covered in glue ,wheels stuck every where, glue melting the stupid track connection. 47 years later I still get flashbacks :'(
Let me add to the trauma, the way the wheels were attached to the sprue matches their position on the model exactly simply dab on the glue, put the wheels on and when dry snip them off ...
Oh, I dunno. My Airfix Churchill (built when I was 12) turned out fine. My Airfix Willys Jeep on the other hand looks like one of Salvador Dali’s paintings. No two surfaces parallel or at right angles. 📐LoL.
Thanks Al, we needed this. Tanks are just like any other tool, if your tank doesn't fit your circumstances it is just as worthless as a wrench that doesn't fit your bolt. If we want the 'Best' listing we need to define the circumstances. Nicely prepared tanks duelling in an empty field - give me a tiger. Mass produced tanks shipped all over the world, expected to work 'all right' in far Northen Europe and to crawl off an LST onto some god forsaken Pacific island - By all means give me a Sherman. Got an economy that is just crawling out of the 1800's? Give me a T34 doesn't even really need trained assemblers, just whoever was in bad enough shape to be undraftable - sounds like an excellent environment for the T34
Fun vid, except of course he did screw up with on numbers don't matter. Because it obviously worked for both the Soviets and the Allies. Whereas it didn't with the Germans, because what good is having a tank like the Tiger 1 when at any given moment during the war on all frontlines combined there's only a few dozen of them available for actions. Obviously it sucks for the poor fellows in a Sherman or T-34 who meets one, but on 99% of the German frontline you wouldn't encounter one. Fun historic fact, Japan bought one from Nazi Germany to produce them in Japan. It obviously never made it to Japan. Nor am I sure it would do them much good, as Japan had nowhere near the resources that Germany did.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 It's a fascinating argument. One can make the case for 'numbers don't matter' by looking at the campaign in the West in 1940 (where the Blitzkrieg myth comes from). The Germans have fewer tanks than the Allies and they're generally inferior as well but they still succeed. Or Rommel in Libya and Egypt up to August 1942 where he repeatedly whips the British despite numerical inferiority. It's a great notion to kick around. 😎
@@kevinjohnbetts But that argument falls apart when you realize that again and again the Allies (or the Soviets) deployed their tanks piecemeal, while the Germans concentrate theirs, creating numerical superiority where it matters. In all the battles where Rommel defeated the 8th Army the British had more tanks overall, but each time only a single British armored brigade would face 2 combined panzer divisions. And the moment the Allies realize this and start to concentrate their forces, from the winter 1942 onwards, the Germans get their asses kicked and their technical superiority no longer wins the day for them.
You don't argue with Al Murray, you don't discuss with my old mother and you don't start a war with Russia. Three simple rules to make life easy. I love it that he has chosen the same tanks for bottom 5 as he did for top 5. And he is absolutely right both ways.
@@johanrunfeldt7174 "This machine is worth three million pounds!" "Well, it isn't worth three million _pins_ if it isn't working properly, is it?" -- Doctor Who, "The Silurians"
Nah, the StuG is more the kind of tank you build when you’re losing. Cheap and highly effective - it had the highest kill score of all German AFVs. Except of course the Germans built the first StuGs in 1940, when they were winning.
I can see why you asked Al Murray to do his 5 worst tanks. He is quite knowledgeable, adds a touch of humour and his assessments especially on the M4A4 are spot on.
Another flaw with the T-34 was shown up when they were used in crushing the '56 Hungarian uprising. They could cruise threateningly up and down the main boulevards, but couldn't maneuver in the narrow side-streets, where a well-aimed Molotov thrown at the rear radiator would fill the crew compartment with burning petrol. Also, not so much a design flaw, but the banks of the Danube became no-go areas when the workers on Csepel Island quickly adapted the anti-aircraft guns they manufactured to fire horizontally. When a shell is designed to be fired 24,000 feet into the air, you can imagine what it did at a couple of hundred metres.
Russians never quite figured out that tanks don’t do well in cities. The Chechens were smoking T-72s in Grozny in the ‘90s & early ‘00s from the top floors of buildings…
I really enjoyed this, because there is a serious point behind the mild trolling; that almost every AFV will have positives and negatives and we should study both, even if it’s a vehicle we consider one of the best. I also love that it’s essentially a big unapologetic wind-up.
Brilliant, pure brilliance. Nice one Al you did it again, brought a smile to my face. When will we see the actual “Pub Landlord” do his top 5 tanks and will there be any french tanks in his list?
The Pub Landlord would choose all-British tanks, of course. Or claim that actual GOOD tanks were somehow British. And the sad fact would be, after a couple of pints, he'd be right!
T-34 was a well known pile of junk, there are pictures of T-34's with entire drive trains and engines strapped to the back of the tank on the deck... had the Tiger gotten a stronger final drive, it would've been perfect
Ironically enough the "just build more Panzer IV" is a serious misinformation on the Germans' error. The Panzer IV was anything but easy to make. For all intents and purposes the Panther was actually cheaper and easier to make in numbers. It has quite a few issues which is why nobody quite use Panthers and Tigers (except the French with the former but they gave up on them very quick). But yes, regardless of their faults aside from the amount of steel they actually were cheaper to make and considerably faster than the Panzer IV.
Not to mention the manpower part of it, which they were low in, one heavier panther with 5 troops is better than having to find 10 men for 2 panzer 4s.
From what I’ve done from a quick search is was the 115,000 reichsmark for a panzer IV and 144,000 reichsmark for a combat ready Panther. So whilst closer in price than one would think not cheaper than a mk 4.
@@alanb9443 it's not about cheaper per say, but they could manufacture them faster, meaning by the end of the Year 100 Pz IV's vs 150 Panthers... which are you choosing??
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 this is the thing. There’s so many unnecessary angles and extra bits of welding on the Panzer IV that aren’t needed. One angled front plate is far easier to manufacture than the 5 smaller plates welded together at the front of the Panzer IV. And that’s AFTER they simplified the production design of the IV. Yes the panther is heavier and more expensive, but at full capacity they’d probably churn them out just as quick as Panzer IVs
My uncle along with it's crew were killed in a Sherman in February 1945 . My understanding they ran over a mine. They had to bury them 2 to a casket . They are buried in Chattanooga National Cemetery. They wanted them buried at Arlington but one of the men had an elderly mother living close to Chattanooga. I think he was 38 years old . If only he could of held out a few more months.
Ayeeee, it's Al! Oh this is gonna be good. I havent watched it yet but bet I know where things will go. A good alternative title would probably be: "Al Murray trolls as many tank fans as he can in 8 minutes" xD Edit: He really had fun with this one lol
Speaking of British designs - the finest automobile I have ever driven is a Jaguar XKE - with a 350 CU American engine installed. I have actually spent a weekend tuning the V12 the XKE came with - wonderful when running right, for the 2000 miles it would stay tuned. Maybe, on odd leap years.
There’s a hot rod shop in Florida called JTR (Jags That Run) that got its start by installing Chevy small blocks in vintage jags. Lovely car, terrific suspension, terrible drivetrain…😁
Thankyou Al for putting a different spin on the list of tanks. For every positive feature built into these tanks there is a trade off of something that couldn't (or shouldn't) be done at the time.
That was quite entertaining actually can we get maybe a longer one with more tanks? Like a fletcher bottom 5 but more like 10-15 since Al is quick about it. 😂👍
Starting with your comments about the Tiger 1, and I have been wanting to ask for an episode on this, but even today, tanks do the majority of their travels aboard trailers, rail cars, ships or aircraft. As for the Tiger, and other vehicles, bridges were used, but they also had snorkels. The request is for a historic outline of what kind and when the transports were used. I have wanted to ask this since watching an episode of Sofilein where she said that a certain tank using a prefab bridge, the mechanics had to rework the tread and support wheels if they wanted to cross it. On the small size of Russian tanks, during the Soviet era I know that to save metal, the tallest a tank crewmen or mechanized infantrymen could be was 5ft. 2in. (1.57m)
I think he makes good cases for them all, except maybe the Sherman which was never a tommy cooker. Sherman crews had some of the lowest casualty rates of any fighting branch of the war.
@@TheMasterOfCornedy That it's not particularly representative of the comparative qualities of the Sherman in the class of vehicle it was. They were generally reliable, crew protection was reasonable by the standards of the time and the gun was adequate for much of what it would actually spend its time doing, which was not fighting other tanks at long range. Being able to access the transmission without having to remove the turret and strip out half the interior fittings seems like sort of a good idea to me. There are plenty of examples of 75mm Shermans performing well against their nearest peer opponents, if you really need to you can stick a bigger gun on it that is capable of dealing with heavier opposition, the yanks could and did make lots of them and it has to be remembered that for most of its service during WW2 the allies were on the offensive, which inevitably means they're more likely to incur losses than they would be sitting in picked defensive positions and just having to defend.
@@jonprince3237 nah man not trying to questiom his argument, but the lad in the video also said that the blitzkrieg (or bewegungskrieg really) strategy doesnt work even though its basically in use still today
@@TheMasterOfCornedy I'm pretty sure that most of what was said in the video was meant tongue in cheek. And to be fair, Blitzkrieg didn't ultimately work so well for the Germans in the Soviet Union as they spent half the war not Blitzkrieging, but the core principles are still around because they were around before Germany developed the doctrine. Blitzkrieg was an evolution, not a revolution, it was just Germany going for the style of warfare that it thought it could sustain long enough to achieve its goals, which has a lot in common with how many countries now hope to fight, not getting bogged down in protracted, static attritional warfare. Whether it's the Russian steppe or the mountains of Afghanistan, planners need to remember that if your brilliant plan for a quick, overwheling victory fails then you'll probably be in it for the long haul so you better be prepared for the sort of conflict you specifically wanted to avoid or you'll just end up losing.
Check out his podcast (with author James Holland) - “We have ways of making you talk!” (Free from all good places you get podcasts from.) Not only is Al a tankophile, he’s very well read on all aspects of WW2. Recently celebrated its 300th episode.
I loved this view of the bad side of good tanks! It gives even more perspective since he isn't stating the silly basics. He has no hubris here, just finding the flaws from the other perspective. Could you do more videos like this! Try and find the bad in the top 5
I find there's a difference between having a positive opinion on a tank and liking it. You could think the Cromwell was the best tank of ww2 but still hate it
This is the man you meet in the pub who tells you your car is rubbish no matter what car you drive.
One reason I stopped going in pubs.
If I met him in a Pub, I would have to agree... He is the Pub Landlord after all. :) (And my car is rubbish.)
@@lokey85 "It's been a year!"
Yep, that's basically the shtick.
"Panther, mate? You like the Panther? Woman's tank, mate. Only three jobs for a woman: Nurse, secretary and Panther tank crew. Centurion: Beautiful British tank."
"No one is left handed, certainly not in nazi Germany"
- dead
(Germany 1943)
Gunter - "Hanz, I just found out there are left handed people!"
Hanz - (pulling crumpled plans for Hetzer out of wastepaper basket) "I'm back, baby."
. . that was so funny. . . .
It took me a little while, but now i get the joke - brilliant ^_^
hahahahaha
I'm left-handed.
Tank Museum: " Hey Al, could you do a bottom five tanks?"
Al: "Suuuure" *rubbing hands together with evil grin*
1:39 SHUT IT DOWN!
It's Trigger time.
So being a Troll is the best anyone can do these days.... meh.
@@johnwolf2829 He's a skilled and rather witty troll. That's a lot harder.
"Unless of course you didn't enjoy this, I'm James Holland"
Bloody brilliant sir 😂
Hey Turny!!! Lmao i found you
👀
not heard of either of them... I don't think I'm missing much
@@Simon_Nonymous Al & James Holland do a podcast together called 'We have ways of making you talk" and yes, you are missing something.
James Holland confirmed.
Al Murray is a national treasure.
What a lot of people might not know is that Al Murray actually has a degree in history from oxford uni. This often gets overlooked because people fall for his persona as a pub landlord who thinks he's just slightly funny.
Al Murray. Great British name that,
"just make more mk4s you muppets" 😂😂
The fact that he attached the "mark" suffix to the German panzer IV is the most British thing I’ve seen this week
They didn't have enough fuel for them, so I disagree with that point
It would've been funnier if his next worst tank had been the Panzer IV.
@@zxbzxbzxb1 But what does that have to do with making Panthers? That was the argument at hand here in the first place. If they don’t have enough fuel for IVs, they shouldn’t make panthers either
That’s not really an argument for or against a tank itself
@@Icetea-2000 Huh? It's an argument against making more of them, because there's no point if you can't fuel them. A Panther might use as much fuel as 2 Panzer-IVs but gives you 3 or 4 times the combat power, in that situation, common sense has to dictate that you build Panthers. Doesn't mean the Panzer-IV is bad, I never said that.
The guy looking round at being called a hobbit. XD
That was funny.
Allow me to balance out my complaining comment with a glowing one: I really like how Al mentions the T-34's crucial role in suppressing the Berlin uprising of 1953. That's a particular part of history that's not often talked about outside of Germany.
In that case it is also important to remember that the decision to use Soviet troops in Berlin was not made in Moscow but in Berlin.
@@herosstratos In that case it is also important to remember that whilst those decisions were made in Berlin, they were made by communists.
Turns out that the t-34 is the perfect tool for crushing fascists, great tank.
@@FixedPixelYT After Lenin's death, those who had spoken to Lenin personally were considered to have decisive power to interpret the teachings of Lenin. Walter Ulbricht belonged to this group, so it was possible for him to convince the leadership of the group of Soviet armed forces in Germany to deploy the troops in Berlin.
@@herosstratos famous Walter "no one has the intention to build a wall" Ulbricht.😁
Absolutely brilliant. Some people do need to pay attention to the beginning: it is very much tongue in cheek and precisely to illustrate that it is possible to have a debate. The clue might have been the assertion Al made that his worst five were the same as his best five. The reference to James Holland at the end was, as you would expect, comedy genius.
*Clacking sound of thousands of keyboards belonging to haughty tank enthusiasts who can’t have a laugh at themselves*...
They might even crash the internet (although the local keyboard store will make a fortune with all the broken keyboards)
Just you wait! Just you wait I am so annoyed right now I cant believe it this is ridiculous seriously not on at all I mean who does this Al think he is a tough guy I can't Adam and Eve it I don't come here to be made a mockery of this is absolutely an outrage a complete and monumental travesty the tank museum should be ashamed!
He was starting to crack up when he was getting into the debunked unsafety of the Sherman, so all's forgiven. And then that Panzer II being too good critique! =P
I was almost that person, I am willing to admit.
@@josiahricafrente585 Oh, he had me with the Panther... good thing I was too busy fighting an oncoming seizure while sputtering "FIRST MAIN BATTLE TANK."
"Cheap as chips and just as bad for you"
I am dead
Ahhh .. chips ... It's been a chippy chips desert in our house since covid. Talking to someone t'other day and they turned into a big chip.
Some Soviet gear is a hazardous to the user as the recipient!
Dead from eating too many T-34s?
@@tomtom21194 No. Dead from the auto loader craming your arm and shoulder into the tanks main gun along with the round.
@@scoutdogfsr ahhh, dead from a T-34 eating him! I get it now
I absolutely love this gentleman's energy and enthusiasm
Al: “just make more of them you muppets!”
Also AL: “just because there’s lots of them doesn’t make them any good”
:-)
Make more because others do more. Not because its a brilliant idea.
Panzer IV was a dead end like the Cromwell. There were many tanks of size between PzIV and Panther not moved into mass production. Up-gunned, up-armored Panthers to offensive and lots of up-armored STuGs + VKs of 36-38t (or even these PzIVs) for defensive options.
No Tigers apart from already made and Germans would work out some nice peace treaty.
I wonder, how III Reich got into no oil no gas situation. Tha lands the occupied still have natural sources of oil. Its not only Africa, Syria and Kazachstan...
@@HanSolo__ While I believe you may be chasing an actual point, your rambling diatribe really shows a lack of geographical reality to your world view.
@@HanSolo__ learn the language and grammar first, then come back to the comment section eh? help make the youtube comment section a better place : )
@@HanSolo__ Make more and have no tankers to crew them. Yeah, right. By the time they started developing Panthers there weren't many good tankers around, which is way (partly) Germany switched to fewer better tanks, to which they then transfered better tankers who still were alive while putting fresh recruits into Panzer IV's to die.
History is a complex thing.
@@HanSolo__ yes but the Panzer IV gun was still more powerful than the 76mm put onto the Sherman... the problem the Panther had, it didn't solve a problem, the gun as slightly more powerful than the Short 88 on the Tiger 1 but it had less armour all around, Panther just shouldn't have happened, the King Tiger was coming, so just have the Tiger 1 fill the gap of the Panzer IV.
That was one of the most entertaining videos I've seen in a long time. He spared no one.
"4. M4 Sherman"
Chieftain has joined the chat.
I was gonna say as soon as he brought up the Ronson line that Moran would have a slideshow ready to go.
Yeah. The 3 piece/1 piece transmission cover was intentional for ease of maintenance.
The ammo: The British tended to overstock stock on Ammunition. And Pz.IVs in North Africa were suffering from the same problem.
The crew preferred the 75mm over the 76mm in some cases due to it's better HE shell and Tank on Tank engagements in the west were quite rare, about 14% is my source says correctly.
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvssalso the 75mm shermans gun can penetrate the frontal armour of a tiger at around 50 meters or less and that actually materd in the french country side
@@pigeon.and.pigeon There is also a report of a British Sherman ammo-racking a Toger fromtally at around 100m or so
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss oh i have not seen that report my self. What part of the tigers armor was penetraded in that case?
when he said he chose the panther because it would make people mad, I knew I'd like his list.
Me: [sees thumbnail, knows people will be angry about the Panther being badmouthed]
Also me: [gets angry about the Sherman being badmouthed]
Well played, you got me
You comment is pure gold. I take my hat off to you 🙂
"The Sherman"
The Chieftain:
"War were declared."
"Take that Joe Exotic" absolutely murdered me.
I love a man who is willing to "poke the bear" right at the begining.
The worst tank is the Churchill tank. My kid brother was crying to clue the pesky wheels of the Airfix model. I never forget that drama.
God I remember it know, having to spent my 20 pence pocket money, to buy the it, covered in glue ,wheels stuck every where, glue melting the stupid track connection. 47 years later I still get flashbacks :'(
The Ministry of Tank Design obviously didn't take into account the convenience of plastic kit sticker-togetherers 80 years later.
Let me add to the trauma, the way the wheels were attached to the sprue matches their position on the model exactly simply dab on the glue, put the wheels on and when dry snip them off ...
and 47 years later still can't spell :(
Oh, I dunno. My Airfix Churchill (built when I was 12) turned out fine. My Airfix Willys Jeep on the other hand looks like one of Salvador Dali’s paintings. No two surfaces parallel or at right angles. 📐LoL.
(Sees Panther and Tiger)
"Heh, take that wehraboos"
(Sees Panzer II)
"Hans! Get ze flammenwerfer!"
As long as he spared the 38t
@@eidechsentyp1236 also spares the tiger II and jagdtiger lol
wehraboos*. weeaboos are people obsessed with anime/Japan
@@DocSeal ah, I always confuse the two. Thanks!
As long as he doesn't dis the StuG III!
Excellent bit of trolling sir! 👍👍
Can't not love the tank museum, and can't not love al Murray
So happy days
The trolling is exquisite!
I respect the premise. And I love that he basically grilled everyone's favorite tanks to boot. Well done.
8 minutes is criminally short. More Al please!
Thanks Al, we needed this. Tanks are just like any other tool, if your tank doesn't fit your circumstances it is just as worthless as a wrench that doesn't fit your bolt. If we want the 'Best' listing we need to define the circumstances. Nicely prepared tanks duelling in an empty field - give me a tiger. Mass produced tanks shipped all over the world, expected to work 'all right' in far Northen Europe and to crawl off an LST onto some god forsaken Pacific island - By all means give me a Sherman. Got an economy that is just crawling out of the 1800's? Give me a T34 doesn't even really need trained assemblers, just whoever was in bad enough shape to be undraftable - sounds like an excellent environment for the T34
Would love to see al Murray do an entire sketch about ww2 tanks but as the pub landlord
The Pub Landlord is hilarious
I think it was called the Brexit referendum Vote Leave Campaign.
@@MrTreacletime Showing that famous remoaner lack of humour...
@@Matt_Alaric And yet it's exactly the sort of joke Al Murray would make, in fact it's almost the basis of his act
@@cesar7429 The Landlord character peaked about a decade before the brexit vote even took place...
"No one's left handed, certainly not in Nazi Germany." :D :D
Attacking the Tiger fanboys, Panther fanboys, T-34 fanboys and Sherman fanboys.. balls of steel right here. Lol.
Having just listened to Al Murray read James Holland's book on the Sicily Campaign, it was extra entertaining to hear the disguise
Comments are balanced evenly between people with no sense of humour and people telling us what a great sense of humour they have.
Commenter is a turd
The cleaning crew is a nice touch. Oh and the glares
I found the premise of this presentation interesting, he does make fine points and considerations, regardless of their overall historical relevancy.
Fun vid, except of course he did screw up with on numbers don't matter. Because it obviously worked for both the Soviets and the Allies. Whereas it didn't with the Germans, because what good is having a tank like the Tiger 1 when at any given moment during the war on all frontlines combined there's only a few dozen of them available for actions. Obviously it sucks for the poor fellows in a Sherman or T-34 who meets one, but on 99% of the German frontline you wouldn't encounter one. Fun historic fact, Japan bought one from Nazi Germany to produce them in Japan. It obviously never made it to Japan. Nor am I sure it would do them much good, as Japan had nowhere near the resources that Germany did.
And what was that chicken doing crossing a public road in the first place, dangerous.
Obfuscation
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 It's a fascinating argument. One can make the case for 'numbers don't matter' by looking at the campaign in the West in 1940 (where the Blitzkrieg myth comes from). The Germans have fewer tanks than the Allies and they're generally inferior as well but they still succeed. Or Rommel in Libya and Egypt up to August 1942 where he repeatedly whips the British despite numerical inferiority. It's a great notion to kick around. 😎
@@kevinjohnbetts But that argument falls apart when you realize that again and again the Allies (or the Soviets) deployed their tanks piecemeal, while the Germans concentrate theirs, creating numerical superiority where it matters. In all the battles where Rommel defeated the 8th Army the British had more tanks overall, but each time only a single British armored brigade would face 2 combined panzer divisions. And the moment the Allies realize this and start to concentrate their forces, from the winter 1942 onwards, the Germans get their asses kicked and their technical superiority no longer wins the day for them.
You don't argue with Al Murray, you don't discuss with my old mother and you don't start a war with Russia. Three simple rules to make life easy.
I love it that he has chosen the same tanks for bottom 5 as he did for top 5. And he is absolutely right both ways.
There will be so much salt in comments we can erase Carthage again.
"It *is* the world's only running Tiger I.
*Take that, Joe Exotic!"* 😂🤣😂
It's the world's only runnng Tiger I.
How do you know it's running?
It's constantly at the workshop for repairs.
@@johanrunfeldt7174 "This machine is worth three million pounds!"
"Well, it isn't worth three million _pins_ if it isn't working properly, is it?"
-- Doctor Who, "The Silurians"
I was so happy to see the Cromwell on your top 5 list, not sure I can bare to see it on the bottom 5!
The “TOP 5” & “BOTTOM 5” according to guest presenters.
What a brilliant & fun concept!
What a very clever man Al Murray is. A very amusing video and also thought provoking. Well done all for putting this brilliant post together.
This was brilliant! Good thing I put down my coffee before watching. To quote Oliver "Please sir, can I have more"
The Panther is the kind of tank you make when you are losing a war but you don't know exactly why.
Nah, the StuG is more the kind of tank you build when you’re losing. Cheap and highly effective - it had the highest kill score of all German AFVs.
Except of course the Germans built the first StuGs in 1940, when they were winning.
The Panther was designed when the Germans were at their zenith, in mid 1942. Before Stalingrad and El Alamein.
This video triggers me on so many levels...I love it 💜🤣
"Just build more Mark Fours, you muppets!"
Ah, a man after my own heart.
“You want the crew to be in a good, safe , and reliable tank” YOU ARE LITERALLY DESCRIBING THE M4 SHERMAN.
That was awesome! It's good to see some lighthearted content every now and then.
I can see why you asked Al Murray to do his 5 worst tanks. He is quite knowledgeable, adds a touch of humour and his assessments especially on the M4A4 are spot on.
And the same guy who bribed, bought and cheated on Taskmaster.
@@nickdanger3802Al “Moneybags” Murray!
that bit about believing their own propaganda is pretty good actually. My enemies believe theirs too, but they can never defeat me.
Only Al Murray's top 5 tanks are also his bottom 5. Classic.
Another flaw with the T-34 was shown up when they were used in crushing the '56 Hungarian uprising. They could cruise threateningly up and down the main boulevards, but couldn't maneuver in the narrow side-streets, where a well-aimed Molotov thrown at the rear radiator would fill the crew compartment with burning petrol.
Also, not so much a design flaw, but the banks of the Danube became no-go areas when the workers on Csepel Island quickly adapted the anti-aircraft guns they manufactured to fire horizontally. When a shell is designed to be fired 24,000 feet into the air, you can imagine what it did at a couple of hundred metres.
Russians never quite figured out that tanks don’t do well in cities. The Chechens were smoking T-72s in Grozny in the ‘90s & early ‘00s from the top floors of buildings…
@@grahamstrouse1165 There's a lesson there. Which is: 'learn the b--- lesson the first time round!'
From Taskmaster to the Tank Museum-Al is a man of many talents.
Lovely spot of open honesty with just a little touch of humour. In my opinion a good review. Thanks Al. 👍🏻
I was dying to hear Al say, "Beautiful British Tank!"
I really enjoyed this, because there is a serious point behind the mild trolling; that almost every AFV will have positives and negatives and we should study both, even if it’s a vehicle we consider one of the best.
I also love that it’s essentially a big unapologetic wind-up.
What's the positive side to Angry French Vagrants? Seems like AFVs are mostly negative
That’s a great way of doing it, using your top 5 tanks as your worst 5. Brilliant! I love the arguments about of the Panzer 2.
Brilliant, pure brilliance. Nice one Al you did it again, brought a smile to my face. When will we see the actual “Pub Landlord” do his top 5 tanks and will there be any french tanks in his list?
The Pub Landlord would choose all-British tanks, of course. Or claim that actual GOOD tanks were somehow British. And the sad fact would be, after a couple of pints, he'd be right!
Pub landlord top 5 Matilda2, Churchill, Cromwell,Centurion and Sherman( Well the Firefly version of course)
Churchill Mk III, Churchill Mk IV, Churchill Mk V, Churchill Mk VI and Churchill Mk VII
He already has a video of his top 5 tanks, it's the same as here.
LOL! Funny as all get out. Thanks sir. Cheers from Texas.
I love that his bottom five is the same as his top five!
This man is a genius. He literally told everyone something I've been willing to tell anyone about the "mighty t34" and the Cromwell.
T-34 was a well known pile of junk, there are pictures of T-34's with entire drive trains and engines strapped to the back of the tank on the deck... had the Tiger gotten a stronger final drive, it would've been perfect
Ironically enough the "just build more Panzer IV" is a serious misinformation on the Germans' error. The Panzer IV was anything but easy to make. For all intents and purposes the Panther was actually cheaper and easier to make in numbers. It has quite a few issues which is why nobody quite use Panthers and Tigers (except the French with the former but they gave up on them very quick). But yes, regardless of their faults aside from the amount of steel they actually were cheaper to make and considerably faster than the Panzer IV.
Not to mention the manpower part of it, which they were low in, one heavier panther with 5 troops is better than having to find 10 men for 2 panzer 4s.
From what I’ve done from a quick search is was the 115,000 reichsmark for a panzer IV and 144,000 reichsmark for a combat ready Panther. So whilst closer in price than one would think not cheaper than a mk 4.
@@alanb9443 it's not about cheaper per say, but they could manufacture them faster, meaning by the end of the Year 100 Pz IV's vs 150 Panthers... which are you choosing??
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 this is the thing. There’s so many unnecessary angles and extra bits of welding on the Panzer IV that aren’t needed.
One angled front plate is far easier to manufacture than the 5 smaller plates welded together at the front of the Panzer IV. And that’s AFTER they simplified the production design of the IV.
Yes the panther is heavier and more expensive, but at full capacity they’d probably churn them out just as quick as Panzer IVs
"Most fighting is at walking pace"
GB: "Hold my Churchill"
Hi chaps, loving the podcast. I wanted to ask...... Oh wait, wrong format!!!
My uncle along with it's crew were killed in a Sherman in February 1945 . My understanding they ran over a mine.
They had to bury them 2 to a casket . They are buried in Chattanooga National Cemetery. They wanted them buried at Arlington but one of the men had an elderly mother living close to Chattanooga. I think he was 38 years old . If only he could of held out a few more months.
Mines are the often forgotten killer of tanks in ww2.
Outstandingly funny! :)
Al Murray is a legend. He has opinions and a great deal of history knowledge :)
The Sherman is only a “tommy cooker” or “Ronson” because British crews usually overstocked on ammo
The Sherman was never called either name and nothing to support they ever were
Man was asked to make 5 bottom tanks instead of best tanks, got mad, and sneaked 5 best tanks in the bottom ones video! What a mad lad!
So, let's do the three most popular tanks from WWII, and pad it out with a couple extra. That'll set the comments alight!
At least he led with the easiest targets
"I`m Al Murray and im here to talk about my bottom"... "5 tanks"
Why do I feel like it would be great to see Guy Martin present his top five tanks with as much enthusiasm?
That would be the best ever. Great idea.
Except that only 18 people in the world would understand what he said.
@@thekinginyellow1744 just make the video at 0.25 speed might give people a chance.
Al burning bridges, and i love it
CURSE YOU JAMES HOLLAND!!!
how dare you !
(oh i enjoyed this one :D)
Ayeeee, it's Al! Oh this is gonna be good. I havent watched it yet but bet I know where things will go. A good alternative title would probably be: "Al Murray trolls as many tank fans as he can in 8 minutes" xD
Edit: He really had fun with this one lol
I wish Al had done this in character as The Landlord.
Im impressed. As far as offending tank fans goes this is a pretty good speedrun.
I think no one should be offended by the Cromwell though. Literally a waste of every component and crew member put into one.
@@fingmoron hey man, dont be too harsh on it. At least it wasn't a ferdinand.
@@HANGING_SILVER The Ferdinand was just a repurposed chassis that would have gone to waste otherwise, the Cromwell was a serial priduction tank.
Judging by the comments I can see an Al Murray vs the Chieftain episode coming up, all in good fun of course! Support the museum!
Clown vs Irish American.
And the Sherman is still not a good tank
Speaking of British designs - the finest automobile I have ever driven is a Jaguar XKE - with a 350 CU American engine installed. I have actually spent a weekend tuning the V12 the XKE came with - wonderful when running right, for the 2000 miles it would stay tuned. Maybe, on odd leap years.
There’s a hot rod shop in Florida called JTR (Jags That Run) that got its start by installing Chevy small blocks in vintage jags. Lovely car, terrific suspension, terrible drivetrain…😁
hahaha did he just call them "hobbitses"?! haha I muuust have heard that wrong, all 3 times I played it back haha
Thankyou Al for putting a different spin on the list of tanks. For every positive feature built into these tanks there is a trade off of something that couldn't (or shouldn't) be done at the time.
That was quite entertaining actually can we get maybe a longer one with more tanks? Like a fletcher bottom 5 but more like 10-15 since Al is quick about it. 😂👍
Everyone needs an Al in there life to keep them humble
Al posts some great short clips of his comedy on his channel 😊👍
As time goes by I find my self wondering why I watch the same episode again, then they let Al loose and all well again. Thank you.
Bottom line is, no tank is perfect.
Except the Stridsvagn 103 obviously.
Well, sure, but if the Chieftain can't have that one because Lindybeige got there first then you are definitely out of luck!
Oy you, Bob Semple!
Proper comedian being properly funny. Top class
This was superb!
LOVED THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Just make more mk IV's yeh muppets" - this should be on a T-shirt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd watch a video of Al Murray explaining why the panther sucks
this man got alot of balls to diss some of our favorites
Starting with your comments about the Tiger 1, and I have been wanting to ask for an episode on this, but even today, tanks do the majority of their travels aboard trailers, rail cars, ships or aircraft. As for the Tiger, and other vehicles, bridges were used, but they also had snorkels. The request is for a historic outline of what kind and when the transports were used. I have wanted to ask this since watching an episode of Sofilein where she said that a certain tank using a prefab bridge, the mechanics had to rework the tread and support wheels if they wanted to cross it. On the small size of Russian tanks, during the Soviet era I know that to save metal, the tallest a tank crewmen or mechanized infantrymen could be was 5ft. 2in. (1.57m)
This is a man who does not care if you like him. Love it.
This guy's over here pissing off every middle school "history buff".
There goes my hero.
This is by far the best one in the entire series!
I think he makes good cases for them all, except maybe the Sherman which was never a tommy cooker. Sherman crews had some of the lowest casualty rates of any fighting branch of the war.
thats your main issue with the stuff he is saying?
@@TheMasterOfCornedy That it's not particularly representative of the comparative qualities of the Sherman in the class of vehicle it was. They were generally reliable, crew protection was reasonable by the standards of the time and the gun was adequate for much of what it would actually spend its time doing, which was not fighting other tanks at long range. Being able to access the transmission without having to remove the turret and strip out half the interior fittings seems like sort of a good idea to me. There are plenty of examples of 75mm Shermans performing well against their nearest peer opponents, if you really need to you can stick a bigger gun on it that is capable of dealing with heavier opposition, the yanks could and did make lots of them and it has to be remembered that for most of its service during WW2 the allies were on the offensive, which inevitably means they're more likely to incur losses than they would be sitting in picked defensive positions and just having to defend.
@@jonprince3237 nah man not trying to questiom his argument, but the lad in the video also said that the blitzkrieg (or bewegungskrieg really) strategy doesnt work even though its basically in use still today
@@TheMasterOfCornedy I'm pretty sure that most of what was said in the video was meant tongue in cheek. And to be fair, Blitzkrieg didn't ultimately work so well for the Germans in the Soviet Union as they spent half the war not Blitzkrieging, but the core principles are still around because they were around before Germany developed the doctrine. Blitzkrieg was an evolution, not a revolution, it was just Germany going for the style of warfare that it thought it could sustain long enough to achieve its goals, which has a lot in common with how many countries now hope to fight, not getting bogged down in protracted, static attritional warfare. Whether it's the Russian steppe or the mountains of Afghanistan, planners need to remember that if your brilliant plan for a quick, overwheling victory fails then you'll probably be in it for the long haul so you better be prepared for the sort of conflict you specifically wanted to avoid or you'll just end up losing.
I knew Al Murray was a top bloke but now I know he is a tankophile I’m even more impressed.
Check out his podcast (with author James Holland) - “We have ways of making you talk!” (Free from all good places you get podcasts from.)
Not only is Al a tankophile, he’s very well read on all aspects of WW2.
Recently celebrated its 300th episode.
I loved this view of the bad side of good tanks! It gives even more perspective since he isn't stating the silly basics. He has no hubris here, just finding the flaws from the other perspective.
Could you do more videos like this! Try and find the bad in the top 5
I find there's a difference between having a positive opinion on a tank and liking it. You could think the Cromwell was the best tank of ww2 but still hate it
Yes, I agree. Any tank can be your favorite, but if you say one is the best, you have to back that up.
So the Best tanks in ww2 were the Italian- French and Japanese ones ? Loi
The Bob Semple tank is hands down the best tank of not only WW2 but all of history!
Imagine actually being the mechanic for the famous tiger 131 I would be honored