This was a great new angle on the 'top5'. I appreciate the different angle, and how it allowed you to include some different Machines. More like/unlike this Richard!🙏
Pre WW2, the Renault FT, Carden Lloyd/Vickers light and the Vickers 6 tonner and their families of copies/derivatives seem to dominate most countries tank fleets. Maybe worth a deep dive on each (and maybe then a look at the multi turreted tanks inspired by the "Independent").
Now how about a list of top five dead end tanks? (Unconventional Tanks that entered service and served their purpose but didn't get any concept successors after their natural service life ended)
I'm surprised the Renault FT isn't on the list. First design of what we now know as a tank: transmission and driver at the front, engine at the back, 360 degree rotating turret.
Got to agree with that, the Renault FT basically gave us the modern tank design and therefor should have been on the list if not in the No1 position but at least at the No2 slot due to its influence on future designs.
@@johncartwright8154 During the epidemic Tank Chats I've come to love Mr. Smith, Mr. Willey and Finn as dearly as I was in love with Mr. Fletcher years in advance.
I'm just hugely amused and impressed by the way that Richard manages to use the 'clipboard-carrying-bean-counter' persona to disguise what a brilliant and highly knowledgeable communicator he is! Just superb...
Lol. I hear you sandroid. He looks like a bean counter, but a smart one. I like them all though, the way they present their own views, all experts in their fields.
@@stressedpanda7205 yeah I don't really get what OP means by "looks like a bean counter". I thought the term referred to people who miser over finances not how they look. Kinda low key prejudicial.
As former armored infantry I can only say that I am most pleased that the RAM Kangaroo gets some well deserved love. And agree completely; it should have been a game changer. I hope the Tank Museum will make a more elaborate video some time in the future about APCs, AIFVs or MICVs.
Well it was mostly because it lacked NBC protection. And when you are going to transport infantry it might have been better to use a dedicated design instead of an ad-hoc one like the Kangeroo which was field modification for tanks due to lack of half-tracks. The only reason it took until the T-14 for there to be another infantry transport variant of a tank was the simple matter that the Russians were finally making a new AFV platform that would perform in every single role they would need.
@@emberfist8347 Over head cover was important, but senior staff did not worry about it until nuclear warfare became a concern during the Cold War. Then they wanted sealed AFVs that could protect soldiers from inhaling NBCW dust as they drove across a contaminated battlefield. Kangaroo was invented to address a rapidly worsening shortage of Canadian infantry during the summer of 1944. Something like 40 percent of infantry casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire before they advanced to within sight of the enemy. The Black Watch of Canada Regiment suffered 350 percent casualties during WW2 and no where near enough new recruits were coming up the supply lines, which meant the wounded soldiers were rushed back into the front lines before they were fully healed. This shortage of fresh infantry also caused the Conscription Crisis when word got back to Canada during the autumn of 1944. The Conscription Crisis was a political scandal - doubly so in Quebec - but never produced enough replacement infantrymen so under-strength infantry regiments were repeated thrown back into battle until the war ended in May 1945.
@@robertwarner5963 You mean until the European War ended in May 1945. There was still the matter of dealing with the Japanese before WWII could be considered over.
@@emberfist8347 I don't know where you get your info but the T-14 is nothing more than a prototype of which only 10 have been built. It has never seen combat. The program has been halted. Now that that is cleared up there have been other tank type units built well before. The m-113 APC was fully tracked. The Bradley is another. The Merkava tank also has the ability to carry troops.
@@chrisb7198 The M113 and Bradley aren't based on tanks and the Merkava is still a tank and the door wasn't intended for infantry transport but for the loader. Also the T-14 has entered serial production according to Rostec the parent company of the manufacturer for the T-14
Every so often there is someone’s presentation of the top/bottom 5 tanks. Each time I think, “what more could anyone add to what has gone before?” Each time I play the video and - I’ve learned something new. I learned a lot in this presentation and, again, it’s been shown from a new slant. Thank you.
I think the Renault FT deserves a place here; it sets the template for what we understand as "a tank" with the rotating turret, engine in the rear, side mounted tracks etc. Other designs at the time were a hodgepodge of near misses with the medium B and C having some of the elements, the British Rhomboid tanks having the strategic ideas and the French Chars being, well, French but it's only in the FT that all the idea of the preceding few years come together in what remains the standard (and, as yet, still unbeaten) design for a tank.
True. I think it's been argued that the Renault FT was the first "modern" tank. All tanks from that point forward have Renault FT "DNA" in their designs!
The "shed" as a place for engineers (an men in general) is a fundamental british concept. There are aequivalents in other countries, but nothing exactly like it.
Shed. A very British concept an oily wood workbench with old oily well used hand tools hanging on the wall. Reminds me of my grandfather and my father's sheds. :) Now, off to my workshop!
IMO Renault FT should definitely be on the list since it defined what a tank is. another one can be said to be the Panzer 3 (maybe #5). 3 man turret with a "good enough" gun, "good enough" armour, "good enough" mobility, good reliability, excellent ergonomics. In essence, the Pz3 is kind of the progenitor of what would eventually turn into the Main Battle Tank concept (important to note that the pz3 is design of the 1930s). up to that point most nations (even germany) envisioned specific designs that fulfilled specific objectives (hence infantry tanks, cruisers, light "cavalry" tanks, breakthrough tanks..etc), but really that Pz3 was the first one that combined elements of all roles and managed to do them successfully.
Not sure - first versions had a 37mm gun with an inadequate HE round (and that didn't come in until early 1940). Actually gave it dual coax machine guns in ausf A-C. So in terms of ATG supression and anti-infantry it was about as effective as the Pz I and less effective than the Pz II. In german doctrine tanks were seen as primarily to be used against soft skin vehicles and infantry and for this purpose the original Pz III's were at best harbingers of a potentiality, rather than designed with that potentiality in mind. They got 'lucky'.
@@simonnorburn3518 the earlier 37mm was given because it was just about the only gun available. But the design itself had in mind the 5cm which was starting to enter service in 1940. If the base design itself wasn't as ergonomic or well thoughtout, it wouldn't have had the successes it did. The same argument can be made for the Pz4, though I would pose that the Pz4's original concept of a close support tank with a 75mm howitzer had more to do with its later development into a main medium tank its original design itself (and indeed the Pz4 mobility and reliability will suffer considerably the more it got upgraded and the heavier it got)
@@darthcalanil5333 No dispute. The key point I am making is that the unavailability of HE ammo for the 37mm until early 1940 indicates that as built, and as used and designed, it was considered acceptable for the vehicle to have an anti soft target capacity similar to the PzI and less effective than the the Pz II, both of which were envisioned as 'stop gap' vehicles. Claiming that the PIII was one of the first progenitors of the 'universal tank' may be true but seems more by happenstance than design.
@@JeremiahPTTN they typically pick vehicles that are in the collection, as far as i know, the ft17 isnt there. i do fully agree that the renault should be on the list, not sure about the panzer 3 tho.
Speaking of first's I think Centurion was also the first tank to use a Boiling Vessel, setting the tone for all British armoured vehicles going forward.
@@catnapcatastrophic2136 Prior to that (according to my grandad, who was a Sherman driver at the very end of the war), you cut an empty fuel can in half, filled half with earth, then poured in petrol and lit it. On top of this, you put the other half of the can filled with water. Into this you dropped your issued tinned rations. Two downsides to this: A) you were outside the tank, which meant you were vulnerable to surprise artillery (apparently a reason why the BV was invented). B) the labels on the tins tended to fall off, leading to some "interesting" meals.
I would say that the Renault FT deserves to be in that list. It was the first tank that had the layout that pretty well all subsequent tanks followed: crew in the front, engine at the back, fully rotatable turret. British tanks of that era were a technological dead end and it was the FT which showed the way to go. Actually I would go as far to say that it deserves to be number 1.
I agree the Renault FT was hugely influential. The early British designs were driven by the need to cross trenches and heavily-cratered ground. The French army of WW1 adopted a policy of using infantry with shovels to prepare a crossing over every German trench. As a result, French tanks often got shot to pieces by German artillery while waiting for the infantry to come along. SO, it's a bit unfair to call the British heavy tanks a technological dead end.
@@warlord195711 Do you see Mark 1 inspired modern tanks? Or even tanks after WW1 shaped like that? No? Then its a dead end, in fact British tanks did not do all that well in WW1, the French FT17 were far superior, smaller and faster meant they could engage in places that was unthinkable for the Germans and their small size was noted as being really difficult to hit with artillery.
I love seeing Richard talk on the various subjects that he has so far. He always provides alternative, thought provoking, points of view - and always manages to get in a dig a the French. I love it 👍 Also, as others have mentioned, I was surprised to not see the FT17 on the list, even though it's French.
The Ram was a dead end because of thechoice of the hull.. Only egress point being out of the turret ring. There were no alternatives. The Merkava derivative benefits from the front mount engine in the original design and the large hatch in the rear.
It was untimately a dead end because of the simple fact it was a field modification due to a lack of half-tracks. Also it was opened topped which didn't look good to post-war engineers looking at NBC threats.
@@emberfist8347 sure, but was the concept worth to disappear? From a tank-thickness / tank chassis troop carrier to the M113/FV432 light "battle taxi".
@@fabiogalletti8616 That battle taxi concept became a dead end too. The switch to IFVs was the natural evolution of the design. For example the M113 wasn’t used as a Battle taxi like it was intended but as an early version of an IFV or an improvised light tank.
@@emberfist8347 that's the nifty part. They lost the Kangaroo lesson for a battle taxi. The battle taxi was a dead end. WHAT IF they went for a Centurion/M48 Kangaroo - with rear ramp but tank thickness/mobility. And then, seen a machine gun was not enough, fitting a tank-thick autocannon turret on that?
I always enjoy Mr Smith's sense of humour... lol And hey, I'd watch Digging for Mother!! THanks for putting the RAM Kangaroo into the mix... the Tank Museum is one of the few museums that puts an effort into preserving the history of the Ram tank and derivatives... awesome to see this kept alive.
@@andrewballard3316 Honestly I wuold say the T-14 would be the real game-changer. I can see it now in the future people will follow Russia's example and make a single chassis for every AFV role. It is a logistical revolution.
I heard that in the Ukraine they got T-34s from their pedestals (even a Panther mockup on a russian chassis) and placed them on the roads as decoys to distract from operational tanks.
Ravens, like all corvids, can remember human faces & share their personal opinions with their fellow birds. The famous UW experiment is easily repeatable if you take the time to feed you local ravens, crows or Jay's. Feeding Ravens is awesome & underappreciated.
Thanks Richard. Another great video. I was lucky enough to be able to visit the Tank Museum last Thursday. A perfect day and being able to wander around with no crowds meant that I could really spend as much time as I wanted down there. A big thanks to you and especially to your very friendly and helpful staff. Will be coming back again, particularly as my ticket is valid for a year! :-)
Agreed, but I wouldn’t call the Centurion the parent of anything but all Cold War era tanks(which to me, is impressive enough). In my opinion, the Leopard 1 is actually the first true 4th generation tank. It’s optics in later models set the standard not just for today’s tanks, but also todays attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, drones, etc. throughout NATO countries. it’s basic hull and track design are repeatedly copied in all modern Western tanks to this day. In later models, it took armor to the next level when they started with spaced armor improvements on the turret and then decided to fill the gap for batch 5 with high heat resistant, low weight foam and encasing it because heck…Why not? It wasn’t laminated armor in the modern sense, but I feel it was an important stepping stone in approaching the concept for current designs. That’s just my subjective opinion.
@@silentdrew7636 Not really :-) The concept of a vehicle lighter/smaller than their target, is still in use. The Germans mounted bigger guns when not using turrets. The bigger gun was the solution to take out tanks, and the crew was still protected. Today we still use lighter vehicles to take out tanks, and the distance protects the crew. There is a lineage from Tank destroyers to anti-tank missile carriers, as weel as a lineage from the Bazooka to the systems used by the Ukrainiens today
I think the M-1 Abrams take is a "Turning Point" tank. It successfully introduced many sophisticated technologies, like thermal imaging, laser range-finders, gas turbine power and extraordinary speed. There probably are earlier systems with some of these systems, but the M1 combined them all and showed they could be used successfully. It's also one of the few post-WWII tanks with a significant combat history, proving adept at trashing every Soviet tank up to the T-72. Other countries might have a tank as good as the M1 on paper, but most don't have its combat history. As we've learned in the Ukraine fight, "on paper" often doesn't mean much. The fact that the M1 is still the U.S. Army front line MBT after 40 years is astounding. Other than gas turbine power, any new tank has the same night-fighting ability and main gun accuracy, or it isn't a front-line tank.
This was a wonderful presentation, and had me definitely consider the Kangaroo to be more important than I thought previously, even if it was sidelined in history for awhile. Honestly I agree with your list with only one piece missing, like a few others have said, the FT-17! And an aside, thanks Director Smith and Tank Museum crew, I do appreciate your content and work.
The FT would be a better choice than the T-34/76. The latter simply took many of the ideas percolating around all the tank using countries and put them into one vehicle while the FT invented the tank as awe know it - separate compartments, driver in front, engine at the rear, revolving turret with cannon armament. The Centurion, as the first modern MBT, also renders the T-34 as an irrelevant choice.
Is Centurion really the father of the Western MBT? Couldn't you say the same for the M26 Pershing in American army? It evolved with time through M47, M48 and finally into M60. I understand it was revolutionary construction for the Brits, but wasn't it because Brits were behind in tank development during WWII? Was Leopard indeed inspired by Centurion? I have my doubts.
yeah but neither was the Leopard inspired by the M26 was it?? The M26 was a pretty mediocre tank never stayed in service for too long before being replace by the M47 .. whereas the Centurion was still in service lot too long ago with the Israelis
Why didn't the Allies utilize their large stocks of obsolete M3 Grant/Lee's for conversion to Kangaroo's? Their hulls were more spacious than the M4 Sherman's and they had the added advantage of side hatches making access for the troops significantly easier.
They did exactly that with the defrocked Priests. Based on the Lee Chassis, they pulled out the gun and plated over the aperture. The Rams were better armoured over all though.
I eagerly await corrections on this by those with better information on the subject. Availability seems to have been an issue. Most Grant/Lee tanks seemed to have been shipped directly to North Africa, never touching the UK. They were then sent east to deal with the Japanese or kept in the now dormant theatre for training/security uses. Ram tanks, several hundred were in the UK for training uses by the Canadian divisions. That is just a hop, skip and a jump away from where they were needed. The Few Grant/Lee tanks in the UK seem to have been converted to recovery vehicles and other specialised support vehicles for the invasion because they shared many mechanicals with Sherman's. By time the concept was proven, even in Italy there were so many Priests/Sextons available it was quicker to convert those in theatre.
Great list, some nice ideas to chew on! R.e. The ram: I think that the idea of a gun platform is held as evocative, plucky and aggressive whereas the protected personnel platform is thought of as defensive and as such, as less of a force multiplier (for the resources used). You do a good job in pointing out the folly of this paradigm.. Fresh, well provisioned troops delivered unharmed to the very teeth of the battle seem like a very effective multiplication of force
Having served in both U.S. armored cavalry and leg infantry units, each branch has a blind spot for the other's needs for future development and integrated doctrine. In other words, there seems to be a cyclical ascendance of one branch over the other as world events drive the need for either armor-heavy units or rapidly deployable light riflemen. I suppose that the Stryker vehicle was an attempt to come up with a compromise, but it appears to be on its last legs already.
I find myself wondering if the reason the Ram Kangaroo wasn't a revolution was essentially it's awkwardness - it was basically just a tank with the turret pulled off and as such was in no way designed as an APC or IFV, and so lacks certain features (like doors or ramps) that purpose built ones have, and have for a damned good reason - I'd call it more of a precursor/proof of concept to later vehicles like the M113 or the Spartan than a turning point in it's own right.
If the Ram Kangaroo still had the side doors that the Ram started with (being an evolution of the M3 medium tank), it would have been a more obvious success. The big problem for any sort of infantry battle taxi is exiting the vehicle, while it is under fire. Being able to use the armored vehicle as cover while dismounting would have made it more effective. Interestingly, the big advantage of the (relatively) heavily armored, tank based APC versus the lightly armored tracked box APC is that the higher ratio of sprung to unsprung weight of the tank based APC gives it much better cross country performance that allows it to keep up with the tanks.
This is probably the most dreadful video I've ever seen from Bovington. It's not even internally consistent, where the kangaroo was a turning point tank even if it's not a tank and wasn't a turning point...
I'm with you on number 3. I've always favored better armor protection for infantry. I think they tend to mix it up with recon and light tanks, and so they don't want to build an additional vehicle. That's why we're always stuck with inferior armor, and they want us to be quick and adaptable to various tasks without being commited to tank protection at all times.
The fact that Director Richard Smith publicly acknowledged that were it not for Mother the French would have invented the tank… is the most beautiful, backhanded compliment there is. That say’s a lot. Merci Monsieur Smith. Vous en demandez plus constituerait un châtiment cruel et inusité. Nous nous en tiendrons donc à ceci.
How does a T-34/76 make all other tanks obsolete exactly ? A crappy suspension system using up valuable hull space, an inferior gun, terrible sights, overworked turret crew, fragile gearbox, and a level of sloping that even the soviets abandoned by the time of the T-44 (which is the origin point for most of the soviet armor that followed it, NOT the T-34). The only turning point was as an example of how NOT to build a medium tank.
T-34 is simple, fast to manufacture, good mobility on all type of grounds. It was made in war times for war. It had a lot of problems, but so did the others as well.
Lindybeige's real objection to the Carden Loyd Carrier is probably that they spelled "Lloyd" wrong. And it isn't beige. If it was beige, and if Lloyd was spelled correctly, it would have been his favorite.
I am still under strong suspicion that he is just a well-masked Italian tank afficionado. This amount of gesturing for a British is genetically impossible.
Very good, highly entertaining. Also I suspect the Kangeroo did not take off in the west was because they envisioned a defensive armoured conflict not an armoured advance.
I think the simple answer is a better one. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the kangaroo that much better than a half-track? And that's the real rub of the "solution".
@@SlavicCelery It was basically something that was made because they didn't have a half-track so they had to improvise. That and both half-tracks and Kangeroos didn't have NBC protection due to being open-topped. The switch was made to IFVs and they went with dedicated dedsigns for those.
I do love Richard’s boundless enthusiasm. Carden Lloyd not so much. It’s success was the armoured light lorry not a fighting machine. I would have to replace it in the list myself by the Renault 17 whose layout remains current to today with an unbroken line. The turning point from the mobile pillbox of the first tanks to the tracked armoured car. It was the first medium tank and medium tanks have been the norm since then. Now medium tanks have grown into huge beasts in the meantime, but they remain the standard normal armoured fighting vehicle since then. Not a specialist device to do one task, but the routine go to vehicle forming the mobile mass of the armoured force. In their duties the Challenger 3, Abrams, Leopard 2, T80 etc. are just bigger better Renault 17s. The medium tank, by whatever name of the day, is the ‘tank’ and the first of these was the Renault 17. Well done the French. Enjoyed this episode. Thank you.
Leaving out the Renault FT-17 feels like an odd omission from a parent vehicle list. That really set the layout of how a tank should look until modern times. While Vehicles like Mother and the Carden-lloyd proved a concept that is still around, the FT-17 showed how it's done and how to make it flexible enough to be useful. Even though its French :)
“The number of soviet design is always the date of the design” That’s woefully incorrect. The T-60, T-70, etc are all 1930s and 40s designs, so that’s really easily proven wrong.
Pathetic. It is just GB/Commonwealth yanking yourself off...and not even all choices is tanks.... FT-17 - the first real tank. First sloped armour. Not on the list. Panzer III's(The MBT before MBT was even a thing) or IV(support tank which became tank killer) , or even V(which were designed far faster than Centurion, more produced and was supposed to become mainstay of Germany Panzer but because of war realities couldn't) isn't on the list. LOL, what a biased list. Man, not even tank killers like Tigers are on the list, they sure deserved it with their kill ratios... Heck, not even Sherman is and it was 2nd most produced(about all that is good about it) tank of WW2. Ah well...
'Mother' was actually a 'Male' tank as it was armed with two 6pdrs. It shows that Britain was ahead of the times & thinking about so-called 'diversity' even back then! 🤣 1. British Mark IV - first practical battlefield [mass produced] tank 2. Centurion - First true MBT as stated 3. FT-17 - Battlefield use of a turret 4. T34/85 - same reasons that Richard states for the 76 version, but that version had no real forerunner per se where the 85 obviously did 5. STUG IIIG - Developed from ideas such as the Panzer Jager I & earlier STUG assault gun versions, but laid the foundation for similar turret-less or tank conversion concepts even up to the Swedish S-Tank
As a former US Marine and US Army Infantryman I have some thoughts on why IFVs haven't had the same level of armor as MBTs: 1) Cost. Designers can sell MBTs a lot easier than they can sell a vehicle that "just carries Infantry." Imagine describing what an M1 Abrams is and what it can do and then explain an almost equally expensive IFV and its main selling point is that it protects Infantry... 2) Logistics and 3) Infantry are expendable. The harsh reality is that most militaries are willing to accept losses of Infantry more readily than losses of more specialized units. Infantry is seen (correctly or not) as being easily replaceable, especially in comparison to more technical jobs...
Yes, the T-34 made every tank with optics you can look through, a working gear box, a working engine and non-fragmenting armor obsolete. It is a landmark in Potemkin tanks. Things that look like and shoot like tanks but don't hit anything or never arrive on the battlefield. T-34 defined what happens to T-62s, T-72s. T-80s and T-80s in turret pops in Ukraine. This piece of kit was a deathtrap from the casuality numbers. It gave birth to whole generations of deathtrap tanks disregarding the life of their operators and glorified them. Due to nukes nbo one ever really put that to a test. Hm, maybe ask the Syrians about their experience in the Valley of Tears.
The inclusion of Mother and T34 confuse me greatly. - Mother is the precursor to an absolute dead-end in tank design and the French had their Souain experiment a month earlier to demonstrate their own tank, the Schneider CA1. I don't really know how Mother could be seen as significant outside or Britain. - T34 is a good tank, that the Russians were able to produce by foregoing any and all quality controls. It was a tool fit for purpose, and it has a huge cultural impact in Russia, but saying that all Soviet tanks are "updated T34" because they're cramped, with bad ergonomics and a "big" gun is a bit of a stretch. The absence of FT17 on the other hand makes no sense to me. Little Willy I'd understand, it might have been first but it didn't influence the course of tank development so much. Tanks like the M4 Sherman or M3 Lee might have been great candidates as well, cementing the dominance of standardization and industrial warfare. Lee especially, going from design to mass-production in less than a year, shipped all over the globe early in the following year. It really is a complete rebuke of small-production German late-war designs before they're even built. That being said I really appreciated the attention to tracked Utility vehicles and APC as legitimate turning point in thinking and designing around armored warfare.
I respectfully disagree with the thoughts on the T-34. I suggest that title of the first of the Soviet style MBTs actually goes to the T-44. The T-44 has the wedge shaped front, slab sides, transverse mounted engine leading to a short hull length behind the turret, turret with dedicated commander and gunner (and human loader for now), and torsion bar suspension. All these things are practically identical to all subsequent Soviet style tanks. The T-54 added the rounded turret, the T-62 added the smoothbore gun, then came the two carousel autoloaders and different engines, but all of these things are built upon the same basic design that started with the little known T-44. In fact the T-34 and A20 before it really bear more in common with the BT series of tanks before it than the T-44 and subsequent designs that came after it. Mind you it's a pretty big evolutionary step up, welded hull armour with cast and welded turret compared to the riveted BTs, plus there's two crew in the hull instead of just the driver, plus everything's bigger and heavier, but that really doesn't seem like much of a change compared to what came after it. Just a thought.
Development of the T-34 started in 1937 with the A-20 prototype. This was further developed into the A-34 prototype before being accepted as the T-34. Soviet tank numbering is nothing whatsoever to do with dates.
I disagree on Centurion inspiring all Western tanks. The M26 appeared around the same time. The M26 through M60 were their own limb from thr tree sprung from the FT17. I do agree that the Centurion was a milestone in tank development. It's revisions world wide prove the strength of the basic design.
You can argue that way about T-54/55 too. Actually, Centurion with 105mmL7 was only produced as response to Russian tank as 20 pounder couldn't penetrate Stalinism armour LOL
After seeing so many British tank types in world war 2, the Centurion to me looks like sort of a giant modified Comet. Everyone acts so amazed that this was the next step, but it seemed kind of obvious with the way German and Russian tanks were getting bigger and better. Also, is the Panther seriously not considered to have inspired the Centurion whatsoever? Also, the T-34 isn't the parent vehicle, the A-20 was...
I would add Renault FT and T-64. Renault FT was first "tank" and T-64 was first tank with all modern equipment, modern armor, modern gun, modern sensors (in later version) etc.
"...or - even worse - the French could have invented the tank!" ROFL!!! That was as British as it could get! Brilliant! And that goes for the complete episode.
The two vehicles which did not become immediate heads of game changing developments were infantry vehicles. The British and American Armies were too married to infantry marching or being trucked to the attack. Universal use of armored transport and fighting vehicles was a much later idea. One major influence was the so called Atomic Battlefield. a battlefield made toxic by atomic or chemical weapons.
The failure of the Ram to catch on.... could the battle tacticians have reckoned that each APC did not carry enough troops? Adding a whole extra tank in effect with all the logistics, only to carry a 'handful' of men into battle... maybe they felt that each tank present needed to be a big gun bearer able to shoot it out and the infantry needed to work there way around the battlefield by other means.
Russian tanks numbers are not design years. T-50 was not created in 1950 but in 1941. T-60 was not created in 1960 but in 1941 too and we can continue with T-70 for example. Only medium tanks and battle tanks have the year code that So-so works. T-34, T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, T-14.. T-34 has nothing to do with tanks like T-72. It was the T-54/55 with mid mounted turret and different layout that set the base for next generations and then T-64 started the 3 guy crew era that again is different.
As the development of that tank that became the T-34 started in 1937 with the A-20 prototype, the first T-54 produced in 1946, and the T-72 entering service in 1969 it doesn't work for medium tanks either
I think I'd have gone: 1. Mark I - first operational armoured vehicle 2. FT 17 - rotating turret & speed 3. T34 - sloped armour 4. Centurion - integrated MBT 5. T64 - composite armour They might not be the very first examples of each technology, but they're the ones that sprang to mind!
I watched many of the Tank Chats, and found them vey entertaining. One of the things I have picked up on that the British wrote in depth reports on captured German tanks and armoured cars and rated them as above average in an overall view. A lot of German vehicles featured sloped armour, why then did the British reject sloped armour post war?
@@davidmartyn5044 sloped armor is great, if you got room to spare. sloping reduces internal availible space. also it is more complex to produce (just like rounded armor plates) and thus requires alot more time and expertise, driving the cost up. Or you cast the armor plating, but that on the other hand makes it difficult to properly harden the plate and get a homogenous plate consistency.
The Vickers 6 ton Type B tank is certainly a design that influenced development all over the world, despite never going into mass production. In particular, it had a main gun with a coaxial machine gun, on top of a bogie suspension like on the USA M4 Medium tank, all in a tank that first appeared in 1929. For these reasons, it's a proper "Turning Point" tank.
I could also make the point the T64 or T72, particularly the T72, is another key pivot point in establishing the MBT as we know it now. Highly upgradeable, composite armor, popularized the autoloader, fully electric crew compartment, IR systems, dazzlers, popularized reactive armor, popularized the smoothbore gun. It has a dubiously earned poor reputation, and a lot of the stuff came on either contepmporary T64 or M60 models, but the T72 was the first tank where so many things we now consider to be part of the standard were introduced widely enough to become the standard.
I think the T34 was included .. yes for the reasons stated in the video.. but it actually played a major part in winning the war ..sheer numbers and ease of manufacture .. Without it Europe would look vwery different ..
An interesting perspective though personally I think the Sherman should of been on there because of it concentrated on ease of manufacture and maintenance on the battlefield. Maybe you should do an episode on interesting tanks that didn't lead anywhere like the S-tank
Great video and wonderful explanations as to why your list makes sense. I'm really glad you explain precisely how each tank affected subsequent design later down the line. And as for Lindy Beige, let's be real, that dude is basically "Russell Brand" for the world of history. Lol!
The reason the Ram Kangeroo wasn't the revolution it should have been until recently was that it was designed as a matter of expediancy and was really another "funny" tank as they were called at the time. After the war, most nations went from unarmored apcs to IFVs due to the issue of NBC protection firepower. Might as well build it from the ground up in that case. The T-14 was only other taker and real turning point as it was designed from the start to serve as a multi-purpose chassis.
Number 1 DID exist and it is indeed the mother of all tanks.. so is that not worthy of being number 1... It was the first actual full on , useful TANK ... you could say the same about the Wright flyer, just because we may only have say the propeller left .. it is more then worthy of being 1 as it spawned the aircraft industry as we know it
Love to hear more from Richard , love his casual style . But so Knowledgeable .The Dennis Norden(remember it will be alright on the night) of the Tank world .Love it. Clipboard and all.
* Ft-17 for obvious reasons * t-34 because the influence it has to later German and soviet tanks * ERA armor, rather a component than a specific vehicle it was a game changer * M47 to m60 series. The constant upgrades and changes show us how a vehicle can stay relevant many decades after it was originally built by changing parts to meet the needs of the environment it's operating * M1 Abrahams the same with above but taken to the next level It's influence can be seen in almost every tank design that came afterwards, at least in the west And for the future I believe that the next big game changer will be removing the traditional turrets for remote control weapons stations since if one thing is to be told about armored warfare after Ukraine is Than you need to keep the grew and the ammo as separate as possible
The reason why the RAM Kangaroo wasn't a turning point is that simply being a critical idea is not enough - the Cent, the T-34 the sherman - all of these where produced in high enough numbers to prove the value of their designs on a wide enough scale
The Centurion mk. 1 was actually very similar to the Panther - both in armor and firepower, probably also in mobility - and became operational two years later. The T-34 was a typical Soviet product - much better on paper than in reality. But yes, it was a turning point, as it lead to the next turning point: The Tiger 1. When first operational in September 1942 it was the largest, heaviest, most expensive, best protected, best armed, most feared, most agile, most mobile tank - and it remained so for almost two years. It was the only tank to cause a "disease"; Tigerphobia. Never in history has one tank had this margin of superiority over its opponents as the Tiger in the period late 1942 to early 1944. Calling the Ram Kangaroo and Garden Loyd carrier turning points is perhaps stretching it a bit?
i cant help but feel some of your choices were calculated to generate comments lol. well, obviously it worked. what? no ft-17??? it literally gave everything that followed it layout. helped establish tanks as a nimble (if not speedy) mobile force for controlling the battlefield. everything before it was a lumbering armored shipping container with varying amounts of guns. nearly eveything after it was what we now think of as conventional layout for tanks.
If the whle T-34 and it's descendants are fatherson tanks with a clear heritage. Or M# Medium series of USA (M2, 3, 4) for that matter... The RAM is a representative of the APC, which is very much a uncle/nephew line, because each iteration is derived from a current-gen tank, then re-imagined every new generation, where there is a familiarity, but it's essentially made from scratch, though with experiences from the previous "uncle"apc tagging along.
I'm giving honorable mentions to... British Mark 4 (unlike the Mark 1, Mark 4 was actually successful) Renault FT (already explained by many) Panzer 1(showed how important mobility was) Sherman Crab Flail (not the first, but very successful at dispatching mines) Abrams (US's most developing tank and influential to upcoming future US tanks; including Abrams X) Challenger 1 (an important development away from the under-powered Chieftain) Europanzer (a failure, but was instrumental in development of future tanks for a few countries) Leopard 1 (one of the best off-road performances for the time and majorly used by numerous European countries) and T-14 Armata (major focus on auto-loading and the positioning of its crew already has an influence with Abrams X).
Great point about the RAM Kangaroo. Live infantry are much more useful than dead ones and being armoured enough to deliver them directly to the point of contact has to be an advantage. So strange that it wasn't adopted.
The main problem with having infantry carriers with tank level armor is the cost. Making vehicles with that much armor is almost as expensive as making a tank in the first place and an army would need a lot more vehicles to carry infantry than battle tanks. The vehicles would be better protected against more things but they can still be knocked out by anti-tank weaponry. And the bigger and scarier you make an infantry carrier the more likely the enemy is to shoot it with the heaviest weapon they can bring to bear, meaning the infantry inside now are being shot by heavier weapons. The Kangaroo was a good use of otherwise surplus Ram tanks but it wasn’t really a game changer. The real start of useful battle taxis were things like the M113 which were cheap enough and protected the infantry inside from small arms and artillery fragments. The BMP-1 would also be a game changer as that was the start of infantry fighting vehicles, while still not well armored they could also fight against things up to and including battle tanks.
Well, at least the nr. 2, from a British perspective, had the benefit of fooling the Italians into building flimsy vehicles that doomed their future offensive operations using tankettes as light tanks, light tanks as medium tanks and medium tanks as heavy tanks.
Real shame no FT17 was included, it truly was the tank that really did win WW1, it was cheap to make, it practically did everything that Mark 1 - 7's did in terms of armour and almost as much as firepower specially when they had machine gun and cannon combo towards the end the war, and the FT-17 had a crazy service life that barely any tank but the T-55 can attest to. Oh and the fact T-55 was not there is a bit sad, without it the west would never really bother upgun their machines, its also a workhorse of a machine that still sees service today. When I think of tanks that shaped the world, it be FT17 and T-55, hands down paint a silhouette on a paper and ask people what tank it is, they will tell you the French tank, or the Russian tank hands down.
11:53 I would put forth the Ram Kangaroo did inspire a future development. The Israelis when they took all Yam K. War captured T-55 tanks and turned them into APC's
I have to align with the folks asking why the Renault FT17 wasn't on the list. It is without a doubt the blueprint and general layout for all modern tanks, just in miniature. It absolutely represents a very clear uniquely identifiable permanent inflection point in armor design. Mother and all other "landship" tanks, while important in proving the value of tanks, were basically a developmental dead end. This culminated in TOG 2, the Char B series and arguably Churchill, but even those instances put a turret on top. Churchill would be a very scaled down evolution of the rhomboidal tank for sure. Arguably without the basic FT concept combined with all the evolution and lessons from WW2 you wouldn't have arrived at Centurion. I do believe Centurion is an outstanding and amazingly enduring example of a game changing tank.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed Richard's choices of turning point tanks. Let us know which tanks you would choose!
A great list 👍👍 The M4 Sherman
This was a great new angle on the 'top5'. I appreciate the different angle, and how it allowed you to include some different Machines.
More like/unlike this Richard!🙏
side ?> why is their no monster truck tire tank i would go with lee its in the most happen time and still can be put in places
Pre WW2, the Renault FT, Carden Lloyd/Vickers light and the Vickers 6 tonner and their families of copies/derivatives seem to dominate most countries tank fleets. Maybe worth a deep dive on each (and maybe then a look at the multi turreted tanks inspired by the "Independent").
Now how about a list of top five dead end tanks? (Unconventional Tanks that entered service and served their purpose but didn't get any concept successors after their natural service life ended)
I'm surprised the Renault FT isn't on the list. First design of what we now know as a tank: transmission and driver at the front, engine at the back, 360 degree rotating turret.
I was typing exactly the same when you posted !
Got to agree with that, the Renault FT basically gave us the modern tank design and therefor should have been on the list if not in the No1 position but at least at the No2 slot due to its influence on future designs.
I was coming to type this exact same thing 😝
I understand that Little Willie should have been fitted with a turret.
It's the "ur" tank
"or worse, would have been invented by the French."
I applaud you, sir.
See the FT is mentioned😂😂😂
Indeed; though that sort of wry observation one would expect to be uttered by David Fletcher :)
@@johncartwright8154 During the epidemic Tank Chats I've come to love Mr. Smith, Mr. Willey and Finn as dearly as I was in love with Mr. Fletcher years in advance.
@@johncartwright8154 He probably wrote the script. 😉
As many speeds in reverse as forward along with difficulty on staying on track...
I'm just hugely amused and impressed by the way that Richard manages to use the 'clipboard-carrying-bean-counter' persona to disguise what a brilliant and highly knowledgeable communicator he is! Just superb...
Lol. I hear you sandroid. He looks like a bean counter, but a smart one. I like them all though, the way they present their own views, all experts in their fields.
He always reminds me of a friendly, enthusiastic vicar.
If only he knew anything about tanks…
Dennis Norden
@@stressedpanda7205 yeah I don't really get what OP means by "looks like a bean counter". I thought the term referred to people who miser over finances not how they look. Kinda low key prejudicial.
I choked on my tea and biscuits when Richard pointed out that the Centurion is nearly 80 years old!!
Yup, it was the tank that Britain produced when they finally realised what sort of tank was required. It was just too late to see service in WW2.
Tempus never stops fugiting.
And it still looks like it could head out onto the modern battlefield.
Mother (1916) - Centurion (1945) = 29 years. Centurion to today = 77 years.
and it basically looks like a modern tank, well what we imagine a modern tank is.
As former armored infantry I can only say that I am most pleased that the RAM Kangaroo gets some well deserved love. And agree completely; it should have been a game changer. I hope the Tank Museum will make a more elaborate video some time in the future about APCs, AIFVs or MICVs.
Well it was mostly because it lacked NBC protection. And when you are going to transport infantry it might have been better to use a dedicated design instead of an ad-hoc one like the Kangeroo which was field modification for tanks due to lack of half-tracks. The only reason it took until the T-14 for there to be another infantry transport variant of a tank was the simple matter that the Russians were finally making a new AFV platform that would perform in every single role they would need.
@@emberfist8347 Over head cover was important, but senior staff did not worry about it until nuclear warfare became a concern during the Cold War. Then they wanted sealed AFVs that could protect soldiers from inhaling NBCW dust as they drove across a contaminated battlefield. Kangaroo was invented to address a rapidly worsening shortage of Canadian infantry during the summer of 1944. Something like 40 percent of infantry casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire before they advanced to within sight of the enemy. The Black Watch of Canada Regiment suffered 350 percent casualties during WW2 and no where near enough new recruits were coming up the supply lines, which meant the wounded soldiers were rushed back into the front lines before they were fully healed. This shortage of fresh infantry also caused the Conscription Crisis when word got back to Canada during the autumn of 1944. The Conscription Crisis was a political scandal - doubly so in Quebec - but never produced enough replacement infantrymen so under-strength infantry regiments were repeated thrown back into battle until the war ended in May 1945.
@@robertwarner5963 You mean until the European War ended in May 1945. There was still the matter of dealing with the Japanese before WWII could be considered over.
@@emberfist8347 I don't know where you get your info but the T-14 is nothing more than a prototype of which only 10 have been built. It has never seen combat. The program has been halted. Now that that is cleared up there have been other tank type units built well before. The m-113 APC was fully tracked. The Bradley is another. The Merkava tank also has the ability to carry troops.
@@chrisb7198 The M113 and Bradley aren't based on tanks and the Merkava is still a tank and the door wasn't intended for infantry transport but for the loader. Also the T-14 has entered serial production according to Rostec the parent company of the manufacturer for the T-14
Every so often there is someone’s presentation of the top/bottom 5 tanks. Each time I think, “what more could anyone add to what has gone before?” Each time I play the video and - I’ve learned something new. I learned a lot in this presentation and, again, it’s been shown from a new slant. Thank you.
I think the Renault FT deserves a place here; it sets the template for what we understand as "a tank" with the rotating turret, engine in the rear, side mounted tracks etc. Other designs at the time were a hodgepodge of near misses with the medium B and C having some of the elements, the British Rhomboid tanks having the strategic ideas and the French Chars being, well, French but it's only in the FT that all the idea of the preceding few years come together in what remains the standard (and, as yet, still unbeaten) design for a tank.
Oh no, it doesn't "deserve" anything, it's bloody French!
100% agreed FT all the way, should be at no.2 IMO.
True. I think it's been argued that the Renault FT was the first "modern" tank. All tanks from that point forward have Renault FT "DNA" in their designs!
They weren't near misses. You can't learn from something that doesn't exist.
The "shed" as a place for engineers (an men in general) is a fundamental british concept. There are aequivalents in other countries, but nothing exactly like it.
Shed. A very British concept an oily wood workbench with old oily well used hand tools hanging on the wall. Reminds me of my grandfather and my father's sheds. :) Now, off to my workshop!
Ah. This explains why Britain is on the cutting edge of innovative tech today….
The shed is strong in the antipodes also.. long live the shed!
Lots of great US inventions and gear has come out from guys tinkering in their garage. Is a UK shed different in some way?
@@gerardlabelle9626 You don't park cars in a shed. Unless you're a bit strange.
IMO Renault FT should definitely be on the list since it defined what a tank is.
another one can be said to be the Panzer 3 (maybe #5). 3 man turret with a "good enough" gun, "good enough" armour, "good enough" mobility, good reliability, excellent ergonomics. In essence, the Pz3 is kind of the progenitor of what would eventually turn into the Main Battle Tank concept (important to note that the pz3 is design of the 1930s). up to that point most nations (even germany) envisioned specific designs that fulfilled specific objectives (hence infantry tanks, cruisers, light "cavalry" tanks, breakthrough tanks..etc), but really that Pz3 was the first one that combined elements of all roles and managed to do them successfully.
Not sure - first versions had a 37mm gun with an inadequate HE round (and that didn't come in until early 1940). Actually gave it dual coax machine guns in ausf A-C. So in terms of ATG supression and anti-infantry it was about as effective as the Pz I and less effective than the Pz II. In german doctrine tanks were seen as primarily to be used against soft skin vehicles and infantry and for this purpose the original Pz III's were at best harbingers of a potentiality, rather than designed with that potentiality in mind. They got 'lucky'.
@@simonnorburn3518 the earlier 37mm was given because it was just about the only gun available. But the design itself had in mind the 5cm which was starting to enter service in 1940. If the base design itself wasn't as ergonomic or well thoughtout, it wouldn't have had the successes it did. The same argument can be made for the Pz4, though I would pose that the Pz4's original concept of a close support tank with a 75mm howitzer had more to do with its later development into a main medium tank its original design itself (and indeed the Pz4 mobility and reliability will suffer considerably the more it got upgraded and the heavier it got)
@@darthcalanil5333 No dispute. The key point I am making is that the unavailability of HE ammo for the 37mm until early 1940 indicates that as built, and as used and designed, it was considered acceptable for the vehicle to have an anti soft target capacity similar to the PzI and less effective than the the Pz II, both of which were envisioned as 'stop gap' vehicles. Claiming that the PIII was one of the first progenitors of the 'universal tank' may be true but seems more by happenstance than design.
Yeah but it’s french and he’s british and this is a personal and biased list… you are correct, but he is British lol.
@@JeremiahPTTN they typically pick vehicles that are in the collection, as far as i know, the ft17 isnt there. i do fully agree that the renault should be on the list, not sure about the panzer 3 tho.
Speaking of first's I think Centurion was also the first tank to use a Boiling Vessel, setting the tone for all British armoured vehicles going forward.
how else would you get your dinner :)
@@catnapcatastrophic2136 Prior to that (according to my grandad, who was a Sherman driver at the very end of the war), you cut an empty fuel can in half, filled half with earth, then poured in petrol and lit it. On top of this, you put the other half of the can filled with water. Into this you dropped your issued tinned rations.
Two downsides to this:
A) you were outside the tank, which meant you were vulnerable to surprise artillery (apparently a reason why the BV was invented).
B) the labels on the tins tended to fall off, leading to some "interesting" meals.
I really was expecting the Renault FT-17 to be high on this list!
I would say that the Renault FT deserves to be in that list. It was the first tank that had the layout that pretty well all subsequent tanks followed: crew in the front, engine at the back, fully rotatable turret. British tanks of that era were a technological dead end and it was the FT which showed the way to go.
Actually I would go as far to say that it deserves to be number 1.
I agree the Renault FT was hugely influential. The early British designs were driven by the need to cross trenches and heavily-cratered ground. The French army of WW1 adopted a policy of using infantry with shovels to prepare a crossing over every German trench. As a result, French tanks often got shot to pieces by German artillery while waiting for the infantry to come along. SO, it's a bit unfair to call the British heavy tanks a technological dead end.
@@warlord195711
Do you see Mark 1 inspired modern tanks? Or even tanks after WW1 shaped like that? No? Then its a dead end, in fact British tanks did not do all that well in WW1, the French FT17 were far superior, smaller and faster meant they could engage in places that was unthinkable for the Germans and their small size was noted as being really difficult to hit with artillery.
I love seeing Richard talk on the various subjects that he has so far. He always provides alternative, thought provoking, points of view - and always manages to get in a dig a the French. I love it 👍 Also, as others have mentioned, I was surprised to not see the FT17 on the list, even though it's French.
Is it just me or is Richard Smith looking and sounding more and more like Denis Norden?!
Your right. I was struggling to remember the name.
Thanks for that.
Its the clipboard which does it.
😁
The Ram was a dead end because of thechoice of the hull.. Only egress point being out of the turret ring. There were no alternatives. The Merkava derivative benefits from the front mount engine in the original design and the large hatch in the rear.
It was untimately a dead end because of the simple fact it was a field modification due to a lack of half-tracks. Also it was opened topped which didn't look good to post-war engineers looking at NBC threats.
@@emberfist8347 sure, but was the concept worth to disappear?
From a tank-thickness / tank chassis troop carrier to the M113/FV432 light "battle taxi".
@@fabiogalletti8616 That battle taxi concept became a dead end too. The switch to IFVs was the natural evolution of the design. For example the M113 wasn’t used as a Battle taxi like it was intended but as an early version of an IFV or an improvised light tank.
@@emberfist8347 that's the nifty part.
They lost the Kangaroo lesson for a battle taxi.
The battle taxi was a dead end.
WHAT IF they went for a Centurion/M48 Kangaroo - with rear ramp but tank thickness/mobility.
And then, seen a machine gun was not enough, fitting a tank-thick autocannon turret on that?
I always enjoy Mr Smith's sense of humour... lol And hey, I'd watch Digging for Mother!! THanks for putting the RAM Kangaroo into the mix... the Tank Museum is one of the few museums that puts an effort into preserving the history of the Ram tank and derivatives... awesome to see this kept alive.
Call the Time Team!
I was surprised by the lack of the FT-17!
Cause it’s French and he is a Brit historian, talking about a French tank without puking is probably hard for him 😂
Was gonna say that too. Also the kangaroo? If a concept goes 80 years and only gets one taker... its probly not a game changer.
@@andrewballard3316 Was that not the point?
Same
@@andrewballard3316 Honestly I wuold say the T-14 would be the real game-changer. I can see it now in the future people will follow Russia's example and make a single chassis for every AFV role. It is a logistical revolution.
During the intro I was muttering to myself “Centurion must be in the list,” and lo and behold… no. 5!
I heard that in the Ukraine they got T-34s from their pedestals (even a Panther mockup on a russian chassis) and placed them on the roads as decoys to distract from operational tanks.
Ravens, like all corvids, can remember human faces & share their personal opinions with their fellow birds. The famous UW experiment is easily repeatable if you take the time to feed you local ravens, crows or Jay's.
Feeding Ravens is awesome & underappreciated.
Another YT idiot made a video of the “Panther” claiming it was real. After a few quite ridiculous videos from this person I un-subscribed.
I love Crows, their calls are so eerie
@@Ubique2927 so many bots and so many dumb people.
The Greek army does the same with old " M series" vehicles 😉
Watch to the end, the deadpan joke is worth it. Well played.
That was expertly done!
"Mother" is now an Arthurian Legend, will emerge when Britain is threatened. Maybe a Time Team JV to find it.
He even explained why he did't include Renault FT 1917. Great job!
Thanks Richard. Another great video. I was lucky enough to be able to visit the Tank Museum last Thursday. A perfect day and being able to wander around with no crowds meant that I could really spend as much time as I wanted down there. A big thanks to you and especially to your very friendly and helpful staff. Will be coming back again, particularly as my ticket is valid for a year! :-)
All tanks are made on the same principle as the Renault FT (some exceptions…), and it is not in that list!
But three british tanks in the top five!
;)
4 if you count the Kangaroo!
Thank you Richard. Really been missing your chats since the end of the lockdowns.
Agreed, but I wouldn’t call the Centurion the parent of anything but all Cold War era tanks(which to me, is impressive enough). In my opinion, the Leopard 1 is actually the first true 4th generation tank. It’s optics in later models set the standard not just for today’s tanks, but also todays attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, drones, etc. throughout NATO countries. it’s basic hull and track design are repeatedly copied in all modern Western tanks to this day.
In later models, it took armor to the next level when they started with spaced armor improvements on the turret and then decided to fill the gap for batch 5 with high heat resistant, low weight foam and encasing it because heck…Why not? It wasn’t laminated armor in the modern sense, but I feel it was an important stepping stone in approaching the concept for current designs. That’s just my subjective opinion.
Kind of missing the german panzers turned into tank destroyers. They were the parents of so many designs
I agree, but don’t hold your breath on that one.
But Tank Destroyers we're ultimately a dead end anyway.
@@silentdrew7636 Not really :-) The concept of a vehicle lighter/smaller than their target, is still in use. The Germans mounted bigger guns when not using turrets. The bigger gun was the solution to take out tanks, and the crew was still protected.
Today we still use lighter vehicles to take out tanks, and the distance protects the crew. There is a lineage from Tank destroyers to anti-tank missile carriers, as weel as a lineage from the Bazooka to the systems used by the Ukrainiens today
Always good to see Richard. He’s like the kid that grew up to get the job he dreamed of :)
I think the M-1 Abrams take is a "Turning Point" tank. It successfully introduced many sophisticated technologies, like thermal imaging, laser range-finders, gas turbine power and extraordinary speed. There probably are earlier systems with some of these systems, but the M1 combined them all and showed they could be used successfully. It's also one of the few post-WWII tanks with a significant combat history, proving adept at trashing every Soviet tank up to the T-72. Other countries might have a tank as good as the M1 on paper, but most don't have its combat history. As we've learned in the Ukraine fight, "on paper" often doesn't mean much.
The fact that the M1 is still the U.S. Army front line MBT after 40 years is astounding. Other than gas turbine power, any new tank has the same night-fighting ability and main gun accuracy, or it isn't a front-line tank.
The Leopard 🐆 before the Abrams 👍
This was a wonderful presentation, and had me definitely consider the Kangaroo to be more important than I thought previously, even if it was sidelined in history for awhile. Honestly I agree with your list with only one piece missing, like a few others have said, the FT-17!
And an aside, thanks Director Smith and Tank Museum crew, I do appreciate your content and work.
The FT would be a better choice than the T-34/76. The latter simply took many of the ideas percolating around all the tank using countries and put them into one vehicle while the FT invented the tank as awe know it - separate compartments, driver in front, engine at the rear, revolving turret with cannon armament. The Centurion, as the first modern MBT, also renders the T-34 as an irrelevant choice.
Is Centurion really the father of the Western MBT? Couldn't you say the same for the M26 Pershing in American army? It evolved with time through M47, M48 and finally into M60. I understand it was revolutionary construction for the Brits, but wasn't it because Brits were behind in tank development during WWII? Was Leopard indeed inspired by Centurion? I have my doubts.
yeah but neither was the Leopard inspired by the M26 was it?? The M26 was a pretty mediocre tank never stayed in service for too long before being replace by the M47 .. whereas the Centurion was still in service lot too long ago with the Israelis
Why didn't the Allies utilize their large stocks of obsolete M3 Grant/Lee's for conversion to Kangaroo's? Their hulls were more spacious than the M4 Sherman's and they had the added advantage of side hatches making access for the troops significantly easier.
They did exactly that with the defrocked Priests. Based on the Lee Chassis, they pulled out the gun and plated over the aperture. The Rams were better armoured over all though.
I eagerly await corrections on this by those with better information on the subject. Availability seems to have been an issue. Most Grant/Lee tanks seemed to have been shipped directly to North Africa, never touching the UK. They were then sent east to deal with the Japanese or kept in the now dormant theatre for training/security uses. Ram tanks, several hundred were in the UK for training uses by the Canadian divisions. That is just a hop, skip and a jump away from where they were needed. The Few Grant/Lee tanks in the UK seem to have been converted to recovery vehicles and other specialised support vehicles for the invasion because they shared many mechanicals with Sherman's. By time the concept was proven, even in Italy there were so many Priests/Sextons available it was quicker to convert those in theatre.
The Lees were converted to M7 Priest as you needed self-propelled artillery.
Great list, some nice ideas to chew on!
R.e. The ram: I think that the idea of a gun platform is held as evocative, plucky and aggressive whereas the protected personnel platform is thought of as defensive and as such, as less of a force multiplier (for the resources used). You do a good job in pointing out the folly of this paradigm.. Fresh, well provisioned troops delivered unharmed to the very teeth of the battle seem like a very effective multiplication of force
Having served in both U.S. armored cavalry and leg infantry units, each branch has a blind spot for the other's needs for future development and integrated doctrine. In other words, there seems to be a cyclical ascendance of one branch over the other as world events drive the need for either armor-heavy units or rapidly deployable light riflemen. I suppose that the Stryker vehicle was an attempt to come up with a compromise, but it appears to be on its last legs already.
I find myself wondering if the reason the Ram Kangaroo wasn't a revolution was essentially it's awkwardness - it was basically just a tank with the turret pulled off and as such was in no way designed as an APC or IFV, and so lacks certain features (like doors or ramps) that purpose built ones have, and have for a damned good reason - I'd call it more of a precursor/proof of concept to later vehicles like the M113 or the Spartan than a turning point in it's own right.
If the Ram Kangaroo still had the side doors that the Ram started with (being an evolution of the M3 medium tank), it would have been a more obvious success. The big problem for any sort of infantry battle taxi is exiting the vehicle, while it is under fire. Being able to use the armored vehicle as cover while dismounting would have made it more effective.
Interestingly, the big advantage of the (relatively) heavily armored, tank based APC versus the lightly armored tracked box APC is that the higher ratio of sprung to unsprung weight of the tank based APC gives it much better cross country performance that allows it to keep up with the tanks.
This is probably the most dreadful video I've ever seen from Bovington. It's not even internally consistent, where the kangaroo was a turning point tank even if it's not a tank and wasn't a turning point...
6:30 I'm not any kind of expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong! But wasn't the Panzer III Germany's "workhorse tank" during 1940?
I'm with you on number 3. I've always favored better armor protection for infantry. I think they tend to mix it up with recon and light tanks, and so they don't want to build an additional vehicle. That's why we're always stuck with inferior armor, and they want us to be quick and adaptable to various tasks without being commited to tank protection at all times.
As you mentioned, that mentality of tanks being able to fend for themselves is continually disproven.
The fact that Director Richard Smith publicly acknowledged that were it not for Mother the French would have invented the tank… is the most beautiful, backhanded compliment there is. That say’s a lot.
Merci Monsieur Smith. Vous en demandez plus constituerait un châtiment cruel et inusité. Nous nous en tiendrons donc à ceci.
centurion is a tank that looks a lot more modern than it is, then again the US M46 wouldn't be out of place in a NATO line until the 1980s
Especially since the M46 can trace its lineage back to the M26 of W.W.II and then forward to the M60 still in use with many armies today.
How does a T-34/76 make all other tanks obsolete exactly ? A crappy suspension system using up valuable hull space, an inferior gun, terrible sights, overworked turret crew, fragile gearbox, and a level of sloping that even the soviets abandoned by the time of the T-44 (which is the origin point for most of the soviet armor that followed it, NOT the T-34). The only turning point was as an example of how NOT to build a medium tank.
T-34 is simple, fast to manufacture, good mobility on all type of grounds.
It was made in war times for war.
It had a lot of problems, but so did the others as well.
In the pitiless TH-cam clickbait war, not mentioning the Renault FT, and having a dig at the French as well, is a masterstroke.Well done Sir!
Lindybeige's real objection to the Carden Loyd Carrier is probably that they spelled "Lloyd" wrong. And it isn't beige. If it was beige, and if Lloyd was spelled correctly, it would have been his favorite.
Richards enthusiasm is the best thing in this video. Double thumbs up.
Absolutely; I've seen people on Strictly Come Dancing move less than him in this video
@@epl803 hahaha and the rest is mostly filler
I am still under strong suspicion that he is just a well-masked Italian tank afficionado. This amount of gesturing for a British is genetically impossible.
Very good, highly entertaining. Also I suspect the Kangeroo did not take off in the west was because they envisioned a defensive armoured conflict not an armoured advance.
Excellent point!
I think the simple answer is a better one. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the kangaroo that much better than a half-track?
And that's the real rub of the "solution".
@@SlavicCelery It was basically something that was made because they didn't have a half-track so they had to improvise. That and both half-tracks and Kangeroos didn't have NBC protection due to being open-topped. The switch was made to IFVs and they went with dedicated dedsigns for those.
I do love Richard’s boundless enthusiasm. Carden Lloyd not so much. It’s success was the armoured light lorry not a fighting machine. I would have to replace it in the list myself by the Renault 17 whose layout remains current to today with an unbroken line. The turning point from the mobile pillbox of the first tanks to the tracked armoured car. It was the first medium tank and medium tanks have been the norm since then. Now medium tanks have grown into huge beasts in the meantime, but they remain the standard normal armoured fighting vehicle since then. Not a specialist device to do one task, but the routine go to vehicle forming the mobile mass of the armoured force. In their duties the Challenger 3, Abrams, Leopard 2, T80 etc. are just bigger better Renault 17s. The medium tank, by whatever name of the day, is the ‘tank’ and the first of these was the Renault 17. Well done the French.
Enjoyed this episode. Thank you.
Richard, I would l like to see a top 5 tanks you would like in the collection but dont have,,
Ref. the Kangaroo concept, put the engine in the front, doors at the back, roof over, job done - ! The Germans were very good at such a conversion.
Leaving out the Renault FT-17 feels like an odd omission from a parent vehicle list. That really set the layout of how a tank should look until modern times. While Vehicles like Mother and the Carden-lloyd proved a concept that is still around, the FT-17 showed how it's done and how to make it flexible enough to be useful. Even though its French :)
“The number of soviet design is always the date of the design”
That’s woefully incorrect. The T-60, T-70, etc are all 1930s and 40s designs, so that’s really easily proven wrong.
Pathetic.
It is just GB/Commonwealth yanking yourself off...and not even all choices is tanks....
FT-17 - the first real tank. First sloped armour. Not on the list.
Panzer III's(The MBT before MBT was even a thing) or IV(support tank which became tank killer) , or even V(which were designed far faster than Centurion, more produced and was supposed to become mainstay of Germany Panzer but because of war realities couldn't) isn't on the list. LOL, what a biased list.
Man, not even tank killers like Tigers are on the list, they sure deserved it with their kill ratios...
Heck, not even Sherman is and it was 2nd most produced(about all that is good about it) tank of WW2.
Ah well...
Canadian bias aside, I could not agree more with you regarding the Ram Kangaroo! 🇨🇦 🍁
'Mother' was actually a 'Male' tank as it was armed with two 6pdrs. It shows that Britain was ahead of the times & thinking about so-called 'diversity' even back then! 🤣
1. British Mark IV - first practical battlefield [mass produced] tank
2. Centurion - First true MBT as stated
3. FT-17 - Battlefield use of a turret
4. T34/85 - same reasons that Richard states for the 76 version, but that version had no real forerunner per se where the 85 obviously did
5. STUG IIIG - Developed from ideas such as the Panzer Jager I & earlier STUG assault gun versions, but laid the foundation for similar turret-less or tank conversion concepts even up to the Swedish S-Tank
As a former US Marine and US Army Infantryman I have some thoughts on why IFVs haven't had the same level of armor as MBTs: 1) Cost. Designers can sell MBTs a lot easier than they can sell a vehicle that "just carries Infantry." Imagine describing what an M1 Abrams is and what it can do and then explain an almost equally expensive IFV and its main selling point is that it protects Infantry... 2) Logistics and 3) Infantry are expendable. The harsh reality is that most militaries are willing to accept losses of Infantry more readily than losses of more specialized units. Infantry is seen (correctly or not) as being easily replaceable, especially in comparison to more technical jobs...
Yes, the T-34 made every tank with optics you can look through, a working gear box, a working engine and non-fragmenting armor obsolete. It is a landmark in Potemkin tanks. Things that look like and shoot like tanks but don't hit anything or never arrive on the battlefield. T-34 defined what happens to T-62s, T-72s. T-80s and T-80s in turret pops in Ukraine. This piece of kit was a deathtrap from the casuality numbers. It gave birth to whole generations of deathtrap tanks disregarding the life of their operators and glorified them. Due to nukes nbo one ever really put that to a test. Hm, maybe ask the Syrians about their experience in the Valley of Tears.
The inclusion of Mother and T34 confuse me greatly.
- Mother is the precursor to an absolute dead-end in tank design and the French had their Souain experiment a month earlier to demonstrate their own tank, the Schneider CA1. I don't really know how Mother could be seen as significant outside or Britain.
- T34 is a good tank, that the Russians were able to produce by foregoing any and all quality controls. It was a tool fit for purpose, and it has a huge cultural impact in Russia, but saying that all Soviet tanks are "updated T34" because they're cramped, with bad ergonomics and a "big" gun is a bit of a stretch.
The absence of FT17 on the other hand makes no sense to me. Little Willy I'd understand, it might have been first but it didn't influence the course of tank development so much.
Tanks like the M4 Sherman or M3 Lee might have been great candidates as well, cementing the dominance of standardization and industrial warfare. Lee especially, going from design to mass-production in less than a year, shipped all over the globe early in the following year. It really is a complete rebuke of small-production German late-war designs before they're even built.
That being said I really appreciated the attention to tracked Utility vehicles and APC as legitimate turning point in thinking and designing around armored warfare.
I respectfully disagree with the thoughts on the T-34. I suggest that title of the first of the Soviet style MBTs actually goes to the T-44.
The T-44 has the wedge shaped front, slab sides, transverse mounted engine leading to a short hull length behind the turret, turret with dedicated commander and gunner (and human loader for now), and torsion bar suspension. All these things are practically identical to all subsequent Soviet style tanks. The T-54 added the rounded turret, the T-62 added the smoothbore gun, then came the two carousel autoloaders and different engines, but all of these things are built upon the same basic design that started with the little known T-44.
In fact the T-34 and A20 before it really bear more in common with the BT series of tanks before it than the T-44 and subsequent designs that came after it. Mind you it's a pretty big evolutionary step up, welded hull armour with cast and welded turret compared to the riveted BTs, plus there's two crew in the hull instead of just the driver, plus everything's bigger and heavier, but that really doesn't seem like much of a change compared to what came after it.
Just a thought.
Development of the T-34 started in 1937 with the A-20 prototype. This was further developed into the A-34 prototype before being accepted as the T-34. Soviet tank numbering is nothing whatsoever to do with dates.
I disagree on Centurion inspiring all Western tanks. The M26 appeared around the same time. The M26 through M60 were their own limb from thr tree sprung from the FT17. I do agree that the Centurion was a milestone in tank development. It's revisions world wide prove the strength of the basic design.
You can argue that way about T-54/55 too. Actually, Centurion with 105mmL7 was only produced as response to Russian tank as 20 pounder couldn't penetrate Stalinism armour LOL
Well you are wrong but that's ok ;)
@@PatGilliland You must not know the development of M26 in particular and subsequent marks leading to M60. That's okay.
The M26 didn't last too long after ww2 did it..being replaced by the M47
@@kittyhawk9707 Soldiered into Kores
After seeing so many British tank types in world war 2, the Centurion to me looks like sort of a giant modified Comet. Everyone acts so amazed that this was the next step, but it seemed kind of obvious with the way German and Russian tanks were getting bigger and better. Also, is the Panther seriously not considered to have inspired the Centurion whatsoever?
Also, the T-34 isn't the parent vehicle, the A-20 was...
I would add Renault FT and T-64.
Renault FT was first "tank" and T-64 was first tank with all modern equipment, modern armor, modern gun, modern sensors (in later version) etc.
"...or - even worse - the French could have invented the tank!" ROFL!!! That was as British as it could get! Brilliant! And that goes for the complete episode.
The two vehicles which did not become immediate heads of game changing developments were infantry vehicles. The British and American Armies were too married to infantry marching or being trucked to the attack. Universal use of armored transport and fighting vehicles was a much later idea. One major influence was the so called Atomic Battlefield. a battlefield made toxic by atomic or chemical weapons.
The failure of the Ram to catch on.... could the battle tacticians have reckoned that each APC did not carry enough troops? Adding a whole extra tank in effect with all the logistics, only to carry a 'handful' of men into battle... maybe they felt that each tank present needed to be a big gun bearer able to shoot it out and the infantry needed to work there way around the battlefield by other means.
Renault FT-17 not on list. How could one not put that on the list. And I would say the the Mark i since it proved that tanks could be useful.
Russian tanks numbers are not design years. T-50 was not created in 1950 but in 1941. T-60 was not created in 1960 but in 1941 too and we can continue with T-70 for example. Only medium tanks and battle tanks have the year code that So-so works. T-34, T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, T-14..
T-34 has nothing to do with tanks like T-72. It was the T-54/55 with mid mounted turret and different layout that set the base for next generations and then T-64 started the 3 guy crew era that again is different.
As the development of that tank that became the T-34 started in 1937 with the A-20 prototype, the first T-54 produced in 1946, and the T-72 entering service in 1969 it doesn't work for medium tanks either
I went to the museum last week and it was a fantastic place to visit.
Design flaw on the Carden Lloyd - IT HAS A TARGET PAINTED ON IT!!!😩
rofl "or even worse, would have been invented by the french..." --- kudos great joke.
I think I'd have gone:
1. Mark I - first operational armoured vehicle
2. FT 17 - rotating turret & speed
3. T34 - sloped armour
4. Centurion - integrated MBT
5. T64 - composite armour
They might not be the very first examples of each technology, but they're the ones that sprang to mind!
I watched many of the Tank Chats, and found them vey entertaining. One of the things I have picked up on that the British wrote in depth reports on captured German tanks and armoured cars and rated them as above average in an overall view. A lot of German vehicles featured sloped armour, why then did the British reject sloped armour post war?
@@davidmartyn5044 sloped armor is great, if you got room to spare. sloping reduces internal availible space. also it is more complex to produce (just like rounded armor plates) and thus requires alot more time and expertise, driving the cost up.
Or you cast the armor plating, but that on the other hand makes it difficult to properly harden the plate and get a homogenous plate consistency.
@@davidmartyn5044 with sloped armor you lose a lot of space, it's why all of the successful tanks either don't use it, or only use it on the front.
That's a good group
T64 -- "composite armor"? Are you confusing ERA with composite armor? Isn't the Challenger the first tank with composite armor?
The Vickers 6 ton Type B tank is certainly a design that influenced development all over the world, despite never going into mass production. In particular, it had a main gun with a coaxial machine gun, on top of a bogie suspension like on the USA M4 Medium tank, all in a tank that first appeared in 1929. For these reasons, it's a proper "Turning Point" tank.
Huzzah! Soviet T-26 cloned it. Japanese cloned it. In raw numbers , it was easily the most common tank in 1939 to 1941.
I think that the pivot point was not the T34 but the T54. The points about the Centurion Mark I are mostly true for the T54, but not the T34.
I could also make the point the T64 or T72, particularly the T72, is another key pivot point in establishing the MBT as we know it now. Highly upgradeable, composite armor, popularized the autoloader, fully electric crew compartment, IR systems, dazzlers, popularized reactive armor, popularized the smoothbore gun. It has a dubiously earned poor reputation, and a lot of the stuff came on either contepmporary T64 or M60 models, but the T72 was the first tank where so many things we now consider to be part of the standard were introduced widely enough to become the standard.
I'd argue that the T-44 is the the father of all subsequent soviet mbt designs
@@anthonyhayes1267 You are right. But I think of it not as a turning point, because it was not yet a MBT like the T54 was.
I think the T34 was included .. yes for the reasons stated in the video.. but it actually played a major part in winning the war ..sheer numbers and ease of manufacture .. Without it Europe would look vwery different ..
An interesting perspective though personally I think the Sherman should of been on there because of it concentrated on ease of manufacture and maintenance on the battlefield. Maybe you should do an episode on interesting tanks that didn't lead anywhere like the S-tank
@@realaiglon6382 You're quite correct but I suspect I'll never get it right.
Worthy but not a turning point I think.
Or would that apply more to the M3?
The Ram isn't a tank though, but an IFV. I'd have stuck in the Renault FT as a tank.
"the crucial role of sheds in the development of technology" well said
May 1945 was during WW2, the war did nit finish unit Sept 45.
WOW! defiantly Zero love for the FT-17. 0~o
"Or even worse, would have been invented by the French." So true!
Great video and wonderful explanations as to why your list makes sense. I'm really glad you explain precisely how each tank affected subsequent design later down the line. And as for Lindy Beige, let's be real, that dude is basically "Russell Brand" for the world of history. Lol!
I like this guy! He seems like he'd be fun to party with.
Love the Ram Kangaroo. One of Simonds' few good ideas.
The reason the Ram Kangeroo wasn't the revolution it should have been until recently was that it was designed as a matter of expediancy and was really another "funny" tank as they were called at the time. After the war, most nations went from unarmored apcs to IFVs due to the issue of NBC protection firepower. Might as well build it from the ground up in that case. The T-14 was only other taker and real turning point as it was designed from the start to serve as a multi-purpose chassis.
No 3 isn't remotely influential but gets included. No 1 doesn't even exist anymore but still no room for the FT-17
Number 1 DID exist and it is indeed the mother of all tanks.. so is that not worthy of being number 1... It was the first actual full on , useful TANK ... you could say the same about the Wright flyer, just because we may only have say the propeller left .. it is more then worthy of being 1 as it spawned the aircraft industry as we know it
Love to hear more from Richard , love his casual style . But so Knowledgeable .The Dennis Norden(remember it will be alright on the night) of the Tank world .Love it. Clipboard and all.
* Ft-17 for obvious reasons
* t-34 because the influence it has to later German and soviet tanks
* ERA armor, rather a component than a specific vehicle it was a game changer
* M47 to m60 series. The constant upgrades and changes show us how a vehicle can stay relevant many decades after it was originally built by changing parts to meet the needs of the environment it's operating
* M1 Abrahams the same with above but taken to the next level
It's influence can be seen in almost every tank design that came afterwards, at least in the west
And for the future I believe that the next big game changer will be removing the traditional turrets for remote control weapons stations since if one thing is to be told about armored warfare after Ukraine is
Than you need to keep the grew and the ammo as separate as possible
Abrams X is timely in regards to the last point.
any video by Richard is hilarious!
The reason why the RAM Kangaroo wasn't a turning point is that simply being a critical idea is not enough - the Cent, the T-34 the sherman - all of these where produced in high enough numbers to prove the value of their designs on a wide enough scale
The Centurion mk. 1 was actually very similar to the Panther - both in armor and firepower, probably also in mobility - and became operational two years later.
The T-34 was a typical Soviet product - much better on paper than in reality. But yes, it was a turning point, as it lead to the next turning point:
The Tiger 1. When first operational in September 1942 it was the largest, heaviest, most expensive, best protected, best armed, most feared, most agile, most mobile tank - and it remained so for almost two years. It was the only tank to cause a "disease"; Tigerphobia. Never in history has one tank had this margin of superiority over its opponents as the Tiger in the period late 1942 to early 1944.
Calling the Ram Kangaroo and Garden Loyd carrier turning points is perhaps stretching it a bit?
Yep they were dead-ends by the end of 1945.
Most agile? Most mobile?
You are too enthusiastic.
@@PadraigTomas Contrary to myth.
th-cam.com/video/bBni1Nd9Ez8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Pz3r5WVJ91Q/w-d-xo.html
i cant help but feel some of your choices were calculated to generate comments lol. well, obviously it worked.
what? no ft-17??? it literally gave everything that followed it layout. helped establish tanks as a nimble (if not speedy) mobile force for controlling the battlefield. everything before it was a lumbering armored shipping container with varying amounts of guns. nearly eveything after it was what we now think of as conventional layout for tanks.
If the whle T-34 and it's descendants are fatherson tanks with a clear heritage.
Or M# Medium series of USA (M2, 3, 4) for that matter...
The RAM is a representative of the APC, which is very much a uncle/nephew line, because each iteration is derived from a current-gen tank, then re-imagined every new generation, where there is a familiarity, but it's essentially made from scratch, though with experiences from the previous "uncle"apc tagging along.
Renault FT not included - I am speechless .
I'm giving honorable mentions to...
British Mark 4 (unlike the Mark 1, Mark 4 was actually successful)
Renault FT (already explained by many)
Panzer 1(showed how important mobility was)
Sherman Crab Flail (not the first, but very successful at dispatching mines)
Abrams (US's most developing tank and influential to upcoming future US tanks; including Abrams X)
Challenger 1 (an important development away from the under-powered Chieftain)
Europanzer (a failure, but was instrumental in development of future tanks for a few countries)
Leopard 1 (one of the best off-road performances for the time and majorly used by numerous European countries)
and T-14 Armata (major focus on auto-loading and the positioning of its crew already has an influence with Abrams X).
Great point about the RAM Kangaroo. Live infantry are much more useful than dead ones and being armoured enough to deliver them directly to the point of contact has to be an advantage.
So strange that it wasn't adopted.
Dead infantry do provide extra ammunition and rations for the live ones, so they are somewhat important.
The main problem with having infantry carriers with tank level armor is the cost. Making vehicles with that much armor is almost as expensive as making a tank in the first place and an army would need a lot more vehicles to carry infantry than battle tanks. The vehicles would be better protected against more things but they can still be knocked out by anti-tank weaponry. And the bigger and scarier you make an infantry carrier the more likely the enemy is to shoot it with the heaviest weapon they can bring to bear, meaning the infantry inside now are being shot by heavier weapons. The Kangaroo was a good use of otherwise surplus Ram tanks but it wasn’t really a game changer. The real start of useful battle taxis were things like the M113 which were cheap enough and protected the infantry inside from small arms and artillery fragments. The BMP-1 would also be a game changer as that was the start of infantry fighting vehicles, while still not well armored they could also fight against things up to and including battle tanks.
Well, at least the nr. 2, from a British perspective, had the benefit of fooling the Italians into building flimsy vehicles that doomed their future offensive operations using tankettes as light tanks, light tanks as medium tanks and medium tanks as heavy tanks.
Real shame no FT17 was included, it truly was the tank that really did win WW1, it was cheap to make, it practically did everything that Mark 1 - 7's did in terms of armour and almost as much as firepower specially when they had machine gun and cannon combo towards the end the war, and the FT-17 had a crazy service life that barely any tank but the T-55 can attest to.
Oh and the fact T-55 was not there is a bit sad, without it the west would never really bother upgun their machines, its also a workhorse of a machine that still sees service today.
When I think of tanks that shaped the world, it be FT17 and T-55, hands down paint a silhouette on a paper and ask people what tank it is, they will tell you the French tank, or the Russian tank hands down.
This list: exists
Every one: where ft?
11:53 I would put forth the Ram Kangaroo did inspire a future development. The Israelis when they took all Yam K. War captured T-55 tanks and turned them into APC's
I have to align with the folks asking why the Renault FT17 wasn't on the list. It is without a doubt the blueprint and general layout for all modern tanks, just in miniature. It absolutely represents a very clear uniquely identifiable permanent inflection point in armor design.
Mother and all other "landship" tanks, while important in proving the value of tanks, were basically a developmental dead end. This culminated in TOG 2, the Char B series and arguably Churchill, but even those instances put a turret on top. Churchill would be a very scaled down evolution of the rhomboidal tank for sure.
Arguably without the basic FT concept combined with all the evolution and lessons from WW2 you wouldn't have arrived at Centurion. I do believe Centurion is an outstanding and amazingly enduring example of a game changing tank.
That's funny, I was thinking how much the Centurion looks so much like a WWII tank even though it's a more modern tank.