Hi Tank Nuts - we hope you enjoyed Chris' Bottom 5 Tanks, let us know in the comments below. If you'd like to see Chris' personal favourite tanks, watch his Top 5 Tanks here: th-cam.com/video/6pIXyXL_kWM/w-d-xo.html
Regarding A9 Cruiser, the germans took pretty much everything they picked after Dunkirk into use in one way or another. It seems that the tank in question was not considered good enough for them. Even as a chassis for something self propelled.
@@azgarogly it might have been used in the anti-insurgency role in W.Europe. Exactly like the many, many, completely obsolescent, but essentially unmodified, FT-17s. plus, the +1ton Trucks, & Tankettes.
Thanks to all those that financially support The Tank Museum. I am personally unable to and it's your contributions that make it possible for me to enjoy this great content, thank you.
In the book tigers in the mud. Otto says when he was commanding jagtigers one was knocked out because the inexperienced crew turned around in battle and it got shot in the rear instead of backing away.
@markwilliams2620 Why would turning shred the final drive? Check out the footage of the Jagdtiger being put through manoeuvres. It's turning beautifully and quickly.
They ordered 120 and built 120. Mainly used parts which were already in production. It has the same power to weight ratio as a late war Churchill and it could put its power to much better use because of the 9 speed gearbox. It was by far more practical than british tortoise or a US t28/t95. Yeah those tanks were a dead end, but Jagdtigers and Ferdinands had some incredible moments. I think they get a little bit to much bad press, if you really compare it to allied contemporarys which should serve the same rolls.
@@panterka.f In the last 5 years I've seen 20 times more people complaining about wehraboos without any being around than actual wehrboos. And like your pal George here they tend to be focused on pop history. What a weird thing to be obsessed with.
The video starts with "feel free to disagree", I just did that, and add something to the discussion. Your childish post... Yeah I am sorry did not want to hurt your feelings with facts which doesn't not fit your narrative. As we know late war production tanks suffered from material shortages and poor built quality, maybe the driver couldn't get into the reverse gear. I was referring situation like these: th-cam.com/video/5lc-b4yjypo/w-d-xo.html
I drove a soft skin FLA from Bagram airfield to Camp Edgars, on the only paved road in Afghanistan. Low on fuel, first week in country, stuck in trafic jams in the mountain passes, soft skin, no armor or crew served wepons. Yes, I can imagine how it was.
The history of Matilda CDL(and other CDL tanks) matches suprisingly with a myth about how Zhukov ordered the assault on Berlin to start under the light of _ordinary unprotected AA searchlights_ that didn't have neither filters, nor stroboscopic effect, nor even ability to move. Makes one wonder what would have happened if these tanks were sent to soviets and if we would have heard a completely different story as a result like with Aircobra, which didn't match american doctrine, but became a real beast on "eastern front".
That's a myth? I'd like to hear more about that, haven't done my reading on Zhukov's initial attacks on the outskirts of Berlin. Also, Airacobra, it's a weird name so I got it wrong too at first c:
You may be thinking about the assault across the River Oder. They used search lights to blind the German defenders. Instead the dust in the air from the usual GINORMOUS Soviet artillery barrage refracted the light beams and blinded the Soviet tank crews.
I have heard that using AA searchlights for supporting a night attack was not first case in Berlin, russians have used that trick before. Frankly, if used in sufficient numbers, the lack of protection does not matter that much, because shooting accurately into the beam of light is not an easy task anyway. And the enemy is not supposed to be able to do that long, because the main strike is given by massive concentration of armour and infantry that would just need some time to cross the no mans land.
According to Communist's propaganda all weapons were better when run by Russians. Truth is Russia relied and still relies on having more bodies than the enemy has bullets.
The only tank is missing from these lists is the Ferdinand which to be fair the museum doesn’t have. It is everything wrong with the Jagdtiger taken up to eleven and unlike the Jagdtiger doesn’t have any obvious benefit to exist. The Jagdtiger at least serves as a self-propelled platform for the 12.8 PaK gun which the Germans needed, but the Ferdinand fielded the same gun used in other tank destroyers with larger production runs.
Yet again, a fantastic episode from The Tank Museum. The only issue I have is that it needed a more extended list. Please do the 20 worst tanks; I'm sure there are plenty to select from. Cheers.
I wish the ‘bottom 5 tanks’ lists didn’t include prototypes that never went anywhere. By definition their badness was identified and discarded. Job done. Tell us about the worst production tanks that were true mistakes.
Limiting it to production tanks should probably make a distinction between ones which were bad because they didn't meet the intended specification and those which were bad because they met the specification too well to cope with changed the reality of the battlefield.
That is a valid point. Though inclusion of the prototypes broadens the choice and might bring up the interesting concepts that are otherwise burried in the sands of time.
7:02 While Britain not having a medium tank in 1940 is technically true, the A10 Cruiser tank does have the hallmarks of a medium tank of the period especially when compared to the German mediums at the time such as the Panzer 3 and the Czech 35t and 38ts, they are very comparable in armour, mobility and firepower
You're not wrong, although Pz 35t, 38t and IIIE (3,7cm gun) were considered the "light" elements in 1940 Panzer divisions; Pz IV (7,5 cm short) was the "heavy" element. Pz III only became a medium tank officially with the 5cm L42 after the French campaign. Note: German armored vehicles were sorted by gun caliber, not weight or armor ! Gun calibers increased over time, so 7,5cm became medium at one point. Which is why Panther was a medium tank and Nashorn a heavy TD, although Panther was heavier than KV and Nashorn was only lightly armored. I think the biggest difference is the use of HE ammo (or the general lack of it). 37mm doesn't sound great for HE, but it's better than nothing. In fact, the dreaded 3,7cm "door knocker" AT gun was quite popular with the troops for accurate HE shelling. Cruisers couldn't effectively engage soft targets besides their MGs, and even the lightest AT gun had a bullet-proof shield (not all, in fact, but you get the idea ...). Even the CS versions of Cruisers and Mathilda were supposed to fire smoke exclusively. Cromwell (75mm) would be the first British tank to scratch medium-status - in a time when new mediums where rapidly crossing the 30tons border. Early British tanks lacked all-round capability, thus they were no mediums, or shall we say MBTs ? Just because they invented the trade mark doesn't mean they invented the concept ! Everybody else and their dogs had the concept already going by 1941/42. Simply said, the English suck at tanks and football.🙂 Cheers !
Steven Zaloga noted a case of a Jagdtiger being knocked out by an M36 tank destroyer, but that unit was struck from the side. So it is likely accurate to say that no Jagdtiger was ever penetrated frontally.
The fact that you put a small timer at the bottom of the little ad and thank you makes me even more likely to watch it. Just a small thing but worth mentioning nonetheless. Thanks for the video
My bottom 5 tanks: 1. F-22 Raptor -- no one could see the thing 2. M2 Flamethrower -- too unconventional 3. AK-47 - good mobility, no armor, outclassed armament vs other tanks 4. Iowa Class Battleship -- well armed and protected dreadfully slow on land 5. Roman Gladius -- outdated and outclassed in modern tank warfare
heard on some other youtube channels that when over pentrating less armored vehicles a lot more is happening then 2 holes , sudden over pressure, heat, and some even say when the dart flys out the other side it sucks air with it so pressure drops dramatically and some even claim it can suck our parts of the crewmemebers but I have a hard time picturing that happening. But a sudden rise in pressure and then a drop should have a chance to damage organs.
The British maintained an ‘offensive searchlight’ capability until Gulf War One. By then it was called a “movement light” capacity and consisted of searchlights mounted on a Bedford 4 Ton truck. The idea was that the searchlights could indirectly illuminate the battlefield by reflecting light off the bottom of clouds. It was a rather niche capability and was maintained within a single Royal Engineers TA* squadron. Other arms would get exposure to these during night vision demonstrations where the audience would first get shown how far away an army right angle torch could be seen, working up to the searchlight demo. They were remarkably effective. * Army Reserve in new money.
The same trick was used already in WWII. Ken Tout describes in his brilliant book "Tank" how "artificial moonlight" is used during the opening stages of Op Totalise in Normandy 1944.
I remember that the American version worked out quite well, because the Germans ended up shooting at some of them during a crossing, so the crews were quite happy having something with armor. Not an efficient use of resources, perhaps, but not wholly worthless either.
@@MM22966 more or less.. :) They were most dischuffed, when having practiced the First IA ON lightbulb changing for donkey’s years, they had to hand over the searchlights to a -gasp - infantry battalion as it wasn’t possible to deploy a formed TA unit on Gulf War One… Mind you, as à compensation they were then re-roled as a bomb disposal squadron…
Fv4004 looks like the outcome of a bet about who can make the most cartoonish tank Actually it reminds me of a toy tank I had made for my commander's desk out of Cardboard bottle caps and a Straw for main gun 😄
@@emberfist8347 One evening in a pub: You can' t mount a gun that big on that tank! Right, hold my beer... Some time later... Okay I concede... but? why did you actually build it? What are you going to use it for? (scratches his head) I dont know.. it seemed a good idea at the time.
MBT Hull + 120mm Gun = *Conway* Heavy Tank Hull + 84mm Gun = *Caernarvon* MBT hull + 84mm Gun = *Centurion* Heavy Tank Hull + 120mm Gun = *Conqueror* You certainly had your pick of vehicle depending on the situation, that's for sure.
For the Jagdtiger, I found 2 occasions, where they were properly used as tank hunters and performed impressively. (Still losing some to adverse terrain) But in general, by the time they came out, there was no reserving anything for special occasions, and they're about as far from "general purpose" as you can get. Still I think that place on the Bottom5 is well deserved.
10:35 For anyone more interested, 2 main Field guns that where used as AT guns by the germans were the 7,7 cm FK 96 n.A. L/27 and the 7,7 cm FK 16 L/35 as well as all captured french, russian and british guns drilled out to 7,7 cm (thats the whole reason, to be able to drill out captured guns, but at the same time deny the enemy to use your guns with their ammo) with also barrles of 7,7 cm with L/27 and L/35 length. They both had 3 dedicated AT rounds (while the normal He rounds with right fuze setting will work as well) namely 1. K. Gr. 15 m.P (Kanonen Granate 15 mit Panzerkopf -> Cannon Grenade/Shell 15 with AP head) beeing a normal HE shell but instead of the normal impact fuze it has a big special hardened special steel head with an extra designed (AZ f. K. Gr. 15 m.P) Impact Fuze under it, going in at 6,85 kg with 230g of cast or pressed filler beeing TNT, Amatol or something else more potent like PENT. Going at 465m/s with L/27 and 525-600m/s with L/35. 2. K. Gr. 15 m.P (Bo. Pr.) Beeing the same round but instead made of a different steel drilled out and beeing 7 kg. 3. K. Gr. 15 m.P m.L (meaning mit Leuchtspur -> with tracer) beeing also 7kg heavy and having a really big tracer pressed under it.
I know of a Jagdtiger that was knocked out during the war. Outside the city of Heidelberg in Western Germany, my distant ancestor, Unteroffizier Fritz Klein, was the gunner of Jagdtiger #131, attached to Schwerer Panzerjäger Abteilung 653. When coming into an intersection, Jagdtiger 131 got hit broadside three times by an M4A3E8 Sherman, one hit setting the fuel alight. The machine buried its gun in the building up front, and the crew was forced to abandon the machine. Sadly, Fritz Klein didn’t make it, being gunned down while trying to escape. It was a sad end for this ancestor on the losing side of the war, along with the unceremonious demise of such a gargantuan fighting machine.
if it’s the same account that i’m reading on wikipedia it was actually them turning to flee and getting hit in the weakest spot killing all six inside…
@@bostonrailfan2427 nope. That’s partially wrong. I read an after action report from the unit that was a part of the takedown. He was killed by MG fire.
@@thetankcommander3838 where because the source i saw said all six killed in the tank, the only one that i found actually taken out by other tanks and it fit that claim of three tanks doing it. nothing about people escaping, only six killed
@@thetankcommander3838 looking again, your facts are lacking as it’s a “trust me, bro” meanwhile mine came directly from the memoirs of an actual tank ace who commanded them and his facts actually check with US sources: one lost in action due to inexperience by the crew with all six lost. but WTF would he know, it’s not like he was the commander…oh, right: HE WAS
@@RetrosicotteNo it is bad in real life. But in video games namely World of Tanks it is a lethal joke character. The armor is thinner than public trust in the US highway system, but it has a crap ton of health to compensate. The tank is slow it can fire on the move accurately without a stabilizer and the gun is great being the 17-pounder.
@@emberfist8347 The fact you say it has a 17-pdr tells me you actually know nothing about it in real life, given it has never mounted a 17-pdr irl. That was a museum error that got picked up by WoT.
No mention of the Bob Semple tank from New Zealand? Corrugated steel structure mounted on an earth moving tractor, it's firepower being several soldiers with Bren guns riding inside. As it's designer Bob Semple said, "I don't see anyone coming up with anything better."
Matilda CDL, A 'brilliant idea', I see what you did there Chris! Very nice to get your views especially about the CDL, I can just about twist my mind to understand the logic but it seems a huge amount of hassle and a long logistic chain for a single use vehicle, doubtless Fuller had his logic though. Please continue with the excellent work.
Regular trip flares and parachute flares can ruin your vision at night, this would have been much worse. The thing with regular flares though is that they can be deployed far more simply and as the immediate need requires unlike the poor old CDL.
While I share the assessment that the Jagdtiger was a questionable design in spite of the 128mm of awesomeness it mounted, I would caution against the “they should have built more of something cheaper” argument. This argument has been used by others, Steven J. Zaloga being a well known proponent. Mr. Zaloga claims that the M4A3 was -overall- the better tank, because it was easier and cheaper to produce (in Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944). This is a very short sighted argument, as it assumes that enough crews, fuel and rolling stock for strategic transportation are available. Certainly the German Army was hard pressed to find the former two items. So it is quite possible that building a higher quality product was the better choice for the Wehrmacht at that point.
I do somewhat defend the A9. I think its biggest issue quickly became that it became a defensive tank, during the retreat to Dunkirk, and thats just not an effective role for for it. The most important thing for a tank survivability it to not be hit. Due to the nature of France, shots wont be fired at far enough ranges were even much more substantial armour would have been effective (unless it was to be Matilda levels thick). Its issue was it was engaged in a battle that it was not idea for. It would likely have been far more successful if the Germans had be stopped imo.
If the doctrine is centred on not getting hit, would it not be better to have something other than a tank, such as a lighter weight wheeled vehicle like an armoured car or scout car? Basically something fast and manoeuvrable with the bare minimum of armour and a mounted gun or two.
So many wrongs about the JTiger. It didn't draw lots of man power for designing it, because the lower hull and the chassis did already exist. It's "just" a KTiger with a casemate. They ordered only 200 pieces, this should show you, that it wasn't that big of a project. They were meant as mobile bunkers, imagine, how much the other side has to invest, if only a platoon of these defending a bridge. Like with a lot of weapons, the war situation lead to a misuse of many things, including using JTigers for offensive operations. Putting an additional 10 tons of armor on a JPanther would have been the better choice, imho.
The Jagdtiger is cursed in every way: It’s the wrong thing. At the wrong time. In the wrong place. By the wrong side. And that made it sort of a blessing for the good side.
The A9 CS version is a very useful tank in the game Bolt Action. I was chatting about one of these last night - a light howitzer with a coax MMG, and 2 front/side firing independent MMGs is very useful in game. The armour though sucks as you state.
Really emphasises the phrase "Lions led by Donkeys" although even the latter would've bolted if ordered to go in a Mk II! Hypothetical now, but be interesting to see how would things have turned out if the Wunder Waffen's were reigned in to a sensible extent. Probably not worth thinking about.
I agree with the list with the exception of number 1and 5. They were concept tanks or training vehicles. Hardly representative of what we commonly refer to as a tank. Cheers.
Comment on the statement about the MKII. Imagine going into battle in a tank that wont stop a bullet. Then he describes the scars and dinks all over it which suggests the rounds did not in fact penetrate the boiler plate. As for the artillery, anyone notice what it is doing in Ukraine to tanks at the moment.
In partial defense to the German "obsession" with big guns, it all boils down to penetration. The penetration stressor is kinetic energy divided by surface of the cross section. You can increase it by making the projectile faster or denser, which is what the UK eventually did with APDS (and everyone later with APFSDS), and this is also what caused all those squeeze-bore experiments by various countries. The problem is that Germany has a massive shortage of tungsten, and it's needed more for the tools to make that stuff, than to be shot at the enemy. Tungsten core AP shells are only made in homeopathic numbers. Whole tank crews never even saw one. Well, if you can't make it denser, can you just make it faster and thinner? Well, not without it also being made of harder stuff than steel. Both Krupp and Rheinmetall actually worked on APDS or similar throughout the war, tried hundreds of designs, and it went nowhere because it doesn't work particularly well with just steel. Well, the other way is to just increase the calibre, thanks to the square-cube law. The weight of the projectile, all else being equal, is proportional to the cube of the calibre, while the cross section surface is only proportional to the square. And basically that's why we ended up with a 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger, or the Soviets ended up with an 122mm gun on the IS-2. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Jagdtiger was a good tank or TD. It was not. Just that sometimes there are reasons for some decisions, rather than just obsession with big guns. They may not be GOOD reasons, or sometimes even SANE reasons, but they're reasons.
The bigger problem was Nazi Germany's massive shortage of trucks, failing to mechanise your army prior to launching a mechanised war was that special kind of retarded thinking that the Nazis specialised in. Believing your own publicity never ends well.
There is something basic to understand for all later German tank design. Germany knew they were fighting against nearly the entire world, so they could never win on quantity. This led to the quest for quality, then "everything bigger/better/stronger etc. than anyone else" and finally to all kinds of excesses.
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 That too, but also more immediate practical concerns like fighting the IS-2. The Brits saw it in 1945 and promptly crapped their pants, causing, like the video said, a "blind panic" project like the FV-4004 with its 120mm just to be able to punch through its front glacis. Well, Germany had been fighting IS-2 since 1943. And mind you the Brits had tungsten APDS rounds, and still felt a need to go 120mm, while Germany couldn't really spare the tungsten for that. So, yeah, just saying, when you put it in that context, Germany going 128mm doesn't sound as stupid a phalic symbol fetish for big guns any more, does it? :p
A great very interesting Tank Chat.I wish you could say something about modifications of the Stuart and Sherman tanks with the 75mmAT gun and 122mm gun that originated in Yugoslavia during and after the WWII. It is kind of a space oddity there were no Italian or Japanese tanks listed here.Have a good one.
I agree with the first 4, but I think it's unfair to ding a training tank that was never intended to be on the battlefield. Presumable it did it's job of training crews without using any valuable armor plate.
It was used on the battlefield anyways so it has good reason to be on there. The only good things to come out of the Mark II were the Mark IV and the fact the Germans who tested captured models came to the conclusion tanks weren’t viable so they didn’t field tanks in large numbers giving the Allied Powers a near-monopoly on these machines.
True. I mean it was used for something it was neither really planned nor designed for. You could also say a spoon should be on that list, since it would have been a terrible tank for sure, too. The only true bad tank imo of that list is Nr. 3. Like the FV4004 was more something of a prototype out of pure desperation and necessarity, so they did as much as possible with little as they had. The Jagdtiger was not a tank, but a tank destroyer which had been fighting on lost ground since it rolled out of the factory. The Matilda was much less a tank by its definition then even the Jagdtiger. It just came to be a search light with light armor and tracks. While on the other site you had the Cruiser tanks, which had a bad design as well as a terrible concept (cruiser tanks in general).
@@BoshaftUndStolz Every military would like more time, money and resources to develop, build and deploy its systems but in the end you have to fight with what you've got and what you choose to put into service, and systems are often used in roles they weren't designed for with varying degrees of success. British commanders decided that the training Mark II would be useful in battle despite being a suicide mission for the poor crew, so it definitely counts having not only been deployed but also saw combat.
At least 1 unarmoured Cromwell training tank was deployed by accident into France after D-Day. It was a squadron leader and always faster than it's breathren. The crew never knew why until they blundered into a German division and ended up with projectiles stuck in the plating, halfway through. Amazingly the crew refused to give it up for a 'real' tank. they considered it lucky...
I think Ken Tout and his crew found out that their tank was a training tank. They decided to keep using coz they thought it was lucky. And it was also faster than the other tanks in the squadron. Seems actual armor is quite heavy!
Mythbusters, Junkyard Races and several other shows back on TV were engineering awakening to many people, it made them aware of their interests, talents, what education and career they would like to pursue. I wonder if effect of "two certain vehicle games" on popularity of topic of military equipment from engineering and historical(in their creation and adoption sense) lead to same result for this generation? A window into the minds of engineers of that era instead of another look at 100500th memoir of some commander written after the war to make himself look good. There is a running joke on Forgotten Firearms channel that channel isn't as much about firearms as about history of small inventors going bankrupt(hence forgotten) and in many cases same could be said about whole myriad of vehicles that remained in shadow of history. And yet they have stories behind them too, stories that allow you to get an idea why people of the era made decisions they did.
People today generally know FAR more about the minutia of various weapon systems than we did when growing up before the days of the Internet. What was "known' was basically whatever your local library had on the subject matter and unless you had the means to travel to museums and archives and have the credentials to get hold of technical details to study you were lucky if you found a color picture of any given item, let alone a detailed description.
Those two games have been great for introducing people to oddities like TOG, however they are games and modify performance in the name of play balance. People who think the games are any reflection of reality are in for a shock when they read the history. If the Stuart was as good in reality as they are in either game, we'd see M3s rolling into Berlin and not JS's
Hard to argue with this list. I could, of course suggest a few other tanks that deserve to appear (Matilda Mk I, Vickers Amphibian, etc.), but these are all pretty bad. Well done!
My wife actually came running at my Vader-esque NOOOO when the Jagdtiger came on the screen - I know it's a nightmare mechanically and logistically, but she's so beautiful....
The Maybach HL230 also powered the Panther,which was even 27tons lighter.Putting this engine in the Jagdtiger is like letting a Panther pulling a Panzer IV!
At least for WW2, it would be mega interesting to see everyone at Bovington to design the perfect tank as various nations. EDIT: Could make a day or week with the patreons or all the staff to make them from cardboard, and have a water gun/paintball fight after lol
Shame you didn't tag the Conqueror . I've seen the one at Duxford. What we're they thinking ..? Lol That and the TSR2 , the most impressive exhibits imo., Beauty and the Beast.
It's a surprisingly good list. It's nice to see a British person who is willing to admit when a British design is bad and not just claim everything British is brilliant. I also did not know about the training tanks being sent to Araas in 1917, that's extra informative!
A reasonable choice except for the A9. The armour was comparable to German designs of the same initial period. The A10 was a bugfix upgrade that did improve the armour to something comparable with other tanks being used later on and they also removed the secondary turrets. So, they were aware of the issues and solved them quickly. What you really have is an early MkI and a MKII that has learnt the lessons of the battlefield.
Hi Tank Nuts - we hope you enjoyed Chris' Bottom 5 Tanks, let us know in the comments below. If you'd like to see Chris' personal favourite tanks, watch his Top 5 Tanks here: th-cam.com/video/6pIXyXL_kWM/w-d-xo.html
The true King
A pleasure to watch.
Regarding A9 Cruiser, the germans took pretty much everything they picked after Dunkirk into use in one way or another.
It seems that the tank in question was not considered good enough for them. Even as a chassis for something self propelled.
@@azgarogly it might have been used in the anti-insurgency role in W.Europe. Exactly like the many, many, completely obsolescent, but essentially unmodified, FT-17s. plus, the +1ton Trucks, & Tankettes.
I would like to see that CDL tank working at night if you could make a video of that if it still works ?? Thank you.
For the Mark II part my wife nearly walked into frame and interrupted Chris making this video as we were visiting at the time of shooting 😂
I like how blunt and straight to the point Chris is with his opinions
Thanks to all those that financially support The Tank Museum. I am personally unable to and it's your contributions that make it possible for me to enjoy this great content, thank you.
Excellent comment. The tank museum is on my bucket list.
In the book tigers in the mud. Otto says when he was commanding jagtigers one was knocked out because the inexperienced crew turned around in battle and it got shot in the rear instead of backing away.
They turned it without shredding the final drive? Glad the were eliminated. The were an _experten_ crew.
@@markwilliams2620Nah as the Germans called them the crew was goulash.
Excellent book, as I recall Carious hated the Jagdtiger
Great book read it twice.
@markwilliams2620
Why would turning shred the final drive? Check out the footage of the Jagdtiger being put through manoeuvres. It's turning beautifully and quickly.
I like this guy. He’s got the pragmatism of a regular army soldier. “If it doesn’t work or works but I don’t have a use for it, it’s garbage.”
The Jagdtiger is a great tank. Any tank that hindered the german war efforts in WW2 was great.
stop hurting wehraboo feelings, they are clueless😂
They ordered 120 and built 120. Mainly used parts which were already in production.
It has the same power to weight ratio as a late war Churchill and it could put its power to much better use because of the 9 speed gearbox. It was by far more practical than british tortoise or a US t28/t95.
Yeah those tanks were a dead end, but Jagdtigers and Ferdinands had some incredible moments. I think they get a little bit to much bad press, if you really compare it to allied contemporarys which should serve the same rolls.
Yeah incredible moments like JT's being driven by inexperienced crews turning around in full view of the enemy to withdraw and being knocked out.
@@panterka.f
In the last 5 years I've seen 20 times more people complaining about wehraboos without any being around than actual wehrboos.
And like your pal George here they tend to be focused on pop history.
What a weird thing to be obsessed with.
The video starts with "feel free to disagree", I just did that, and add something to the discussion.
Your childish post... Yeah I am sorry did not want to hurt your feelings with facts which doesn't not fit your narrative.
As we know late war production tanks suffered from material shortages and poor built quality, maybe the driver couldn't get into the reverse gear.
I was referring situation like these:
th-cam.com/video/5lc-b4yjypo/w-d-xo.html
I drove a soft skin FLA from Bagram airfield to Camp Edgars, on the only paved road in Afghanistan. Low on fuel, first week in country, stuck in trafic jams in the mountain passes, soft skin, no armor or crew served wepons. Yes, I can imagine how it was.
FUN AS PHUCK!
Tanks for sharing
Thanks!
Mr Copson is starting to reach levels of scorn and understatement of the school of the great and much missed Mr Fletcher
I've never found David Fletcher scornful. Frank and ready to share his thoughts? Yes. But he's never seemed in any way mean-spirited to me.
Oh no! Did Mr Fletcher retire?
@@justinkedgetor5949 Yes. Actually, according to his own words he has re-retired.
Thanks for the great content. Chris is doing great work on the channel. Highly appreciated.
"A brilliant idea, with no real purpose" ... story of my life
I resemble that remark
Plenty of us feel like that.
I could listen to Mr. Copson all day long. What a pleasure. Thank you.
“Feel free to disagree” love that he doesn’t care 😂🤘🏻
Well, classier than Fletcher 😁
Of course. He himself could've picked a different 5
As usual a great and entertaining chat. Chris also seems to have made an extra effort for some less known models.
He cuts down some very renowned tanks. I love it. He's right!
The history of Matilda CDL(and other CDL tanks) matches suprisingly with a myth about how Zhukov ordered the assault on Berlin to start under the light of _ordinary unprotected AA searchlights_ that didn't have neither filters, nor stroboscopic effect, nor even ability to move. Makes one wonder what would have happened if these tanks were sent to soviets and if we would have heard a completely different story as a result like with Aircobra, which didn't match american doctrine, but became a real beast on "eastern front".
That's a myth? I'd like to hear more about that, haven't done my reading on Zhukov's initial attacks on the outskirts of Berlin. Also, Airacobra, it's a weird name so I got it wrong too at first c:
You may be thinking about the assault across the River Oder. They used search lights to blind the German defenders. Instead the dust in the air from the usual GINORMOUS Soviet artillery barrage refracted the light beams and blinded the Soviet tank crews.
I have heard that using AA searchlights for supporting a night attack was not first case in Berlin, russians have used that trick before.
Frankly, if used in sufficient numbers, the lack of protection does not matter that much, because shooting accurately into the beam of light is not an easy task anyway. And the enemy is not supposed to be able to do that long, because the main strike is given by massive concentration of armour and infantry that would just need some time to cross the no mans land.
The prototype airacobra had a supercharger in it. it was deleted from the production version.
According to Communist's propaganda all weapons were better when run by Russians. Truth is Russia relied and still relies on having more bodies than the enemy has bullets.
That was one of the best Bottom 5s. Properly reasoned from an engineering standpoint.
The only tank is missing from these lists is the Ferdinand which to be fair the museum doesn’t have. It is everything wrong with the Jagdtiger taken up to eleven and unlike the Jagdtiger doesn’t have any obvious benefit to exist. The Jagdtiger at least serves as a self-propelled platform for the 12.8 PaK gun which the Germans needed, but the Ferdinand fielded the same gun used in other tank destroyers with larger production runs.
@@emberfist8347 I think even the Ferdinand was more use than the Jagdtiger, but I agree with your point.
Love the description: "uniquely awful." A perfect phrase with many applications - politicians, news readers, actors, restaurants, etc., etc.
Another great chat from Chris.
Yet again, a fantastic episode from The Tank Museum. The only issue I have is that it needed a more extended list. Please do the 20 worst tanks; I'm sure there are plenty to select from. Cheers.
Superb ‘Bottom 5’ list, Mr Copson. Thank you.
love is gentleman's attitude .. great list and very blunt and to the point! Great job!!
I wish the ‘bottom 5 tanks’ lists didn’t include prototypes that never went anywhere.
By definition their badness was identified and discarded. Job done.
Tell us about the worst production tanks that were true mistakes.
Are there even that many bad tanks that got into production?
I'm sure there must be but there can't be that many.
I think it's interesting to see them. They're obscure and otherwise we'd probably never learn about them.
Limiting it to production tanks should probably make a distinction between ones which were bad because they didn't meet the intended specification and those which were bad because they met the specification too well to cope with changed the reality of the battlefield.
That is a valid point.
Though inclusion of the prototypes broadens the choice and might bring up the interesting concepts that are otherwise burried in the sands of time.
The Marmon-Herington CTMS would probably take the cake:
th-cam.com/video/faaea_1jWaE/w-d-xo.html
7:02 While Britain not having a medium tank in 1940 is technically true, the A10 Cruiser tank does have the hallmarks of a medium tank of the period especially when compared to the German mediums at the time such as the Panzer 3 and the Czech 35t and 38ts, they are very comparable in armour, mobility and firepower
You're not wrong, although Pz 35t, 38t and IIIE (3,7cm gun) were considered the "light" elements in 1940 Panzer divisions; Pz IV (7,5 cm short) was the "heavy" element. Pz III only became a medium tank officially with the 5cm L42 after the French campaign. Note: German armored vehicles were sorted by gun caliber, not weight or armor ! Gun calibers increased over time, so 7,5cm became medium at one point. Which is why Panther was a medium tank and Nashorn a heavy TD, although Panther was heavier than KV and Nashorn was only lightly armored.
I think the biggest difference is the use of HE ammo (or the general lack of it). 37mm doesn't sound great for HE, but it's better than nothing. In fact, the dreaded 3,7cm "door knocker" AT gun was quite popular with the troops for accurate HE shelling. Cruisers couldn't effectively engage soft targets besides their MGs, and even the lightest AT gun had a bullet-proof shield (not all, in fact, but you get the idea ...).
Even the CS versions of Cruisers and Mathilda were supposed to fire smoke exclusively.
Cromwell (75mm) would be the first British tank to scratch medium-status - in a time when new mediums where rapidly crossing the 30tons border.
Early British tanks lacked all-round capability, thus they were no mediums, or shall we say MBTs ? Just because they invented the trade mark doesn't mean they invented the concept ! Everybody else and their dogs had the concept already going by 1941/42.
Simply said, the English suck at tanks and football.🙂 Cheers !
Until the Centurion obviously.
As for football, can't argue with that
@@ottovonbismarck2443 they sucked for a brief, but rather important, period. They made up for that by building the best tank in the world.
@@aaronleverton4221 I didn't know that they built the Leopard 2 ! 😛
@@ottovonbismarck2443 -- looking at Maus trying to be inconspicuous in the background.--
I enjoyed this quite a bit! Hearing about bad tanks and bad armored vehicles is fun.
Great List Chris, really liking your Tank Chat videos, keep up the great work
That mark 2 tank shows just how little the people at the top cared about the troops on the front lines.
*This series could do with a B-roll showing close-ups of the tanks and specific details being discussed in the video.*
Thanks Chris, I, and I'm sure many others, enjoy your eloquent and informative presentations.
Steven Zaloga noted a case of a Jagdtiger being knocked out by an M36 tank destroyer, but that unit was struck from the side. So it is likely accurate to say that no Jagdtiger was ever penetrated frontally.
Unlike Steven's mom.
there’s an actual loss where three Shermans hit one at once that was fleeing, hitting the weakest part killing the entire crew inside
I always like a good “your mother” joke
The fact that you put a small timer at the bottom of the little ad and thank you makes me even more likely to watch it. Just a small thing but worth mentioning nonetheless. Thanks for the video
My bottom 5 tanks:
1. F-22 Raptor -- no one could see the thing
2. M2 Flamethrower -- too unconventional
3. AK-47 - good mobility, no armor, outclassed armament vs other tanks
4. Iowa Class Battleship -- well armed and protected dreadfully slow on land
5. Roman Gladius -- outdated and outclassed in modern tank warfare
heard on some other youtube channels that when over pentrating less armored vehicles a lot more is happening then 2 holes , sudden over pressure, heat, and some even say when the dart flys out the other side it sucks air with it so pressure drops dramatically and some even claim it can suck our parts of the crewmemebers but I have a hard time picturing that happening. But a sudden rise in pressure and then a drop should have a chance to damage organs.
The British maintained an ‘offensive searchlight’ capability until Gulf War One.
By then it was called a “movement light” capacity and consisted of searchlights mounted on a Bedford 4 Ton truck. The idea was that the searchlights could indirectly illuminate the battlefield by reflecting light off the bottom of clouds. It was a rather niche capability and was maintained within a single Royal Engineers TA* squadron.
Other arms would get exposure to these during night vision demonstrations where the audience would first get shown how far away an army right angle torch could be seen, working up to the searchlight demo. They were remarkably effective.
* Army Reserve in new money.
The same trick was used already in WWII. Ken Tout describes in his brilliant book "Tank" how "artificial moonlight" is used during the opening stages of Op Totalise in Normandy 1944.
I remember that the American version worked out quite well, because the Germans ended up shooting at some of them during a crossing, so the crews were quite happy having something with armor.
Not an efficient use of resources, perhaps, but not wholly worthless either.
I wonder what their field exercises looked like? "Light goes on, light goes off!"
@@MM22966 more or less.. :)
They were most dischuffed, when having practiced the First IA ON lightbulb changing for donkey’s years, they had to hand over the searchlights to a -gasp - infantry battalion as it wasn’t possible to deploy a formed TA unit on Gulf War One…
Mind you, as à compensation they were then re-roled as a bomb disposal squadron…
@@bob_the_bomb4508 I'm not sure that's an upgrade....:)
the mathilda CDL would be useful for illuminating makeshift sports fields.
Concert lighting.... It ain't half bright Mum.
Fv4004 looks like the outcome of a bet about who can make the most cartoonish tank
Actually it reminds me of a toy tank I had made for my commander's desk out of Cardboard bottle caps and a Straw for main gun 😄
I like to think it and the FV4005 were done by people who made a bet to see if they could make a more impractical vehicle than the KV-2.
@@emberfist8347 One evening in a pub: You can' t mount a gun that big on that tank! Right, hold my beer... Some time later... Okay I concede... but? why did you actually build it? What are you going to use it for? (scratches his head) I dont know.. it seemed a good idea at the time.
It looks like a KV2…
@@micumatrix I was thinking the same thing.
MBT Hull + 120mm Gun = *Conway*
Heavy Tank Hull + 84mm Gun = *Caernarvon*
MBT hull + 84mm Gun = *Centurion*
Heavy Tank Hull + 120mm Gun = *Conqueror*
You certainly had your pick of vehicle depending on the situation, that's for sure.
Excellent selections.
Legit list of tanks Chris, & great explanation as to why they're on your list!
Excellent video. I like this new presenter. He's gets to the point and doesn't waffle. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of him.
For the Jagdtiger, I found 2 occasions, where they were properly used as tank hunters and performed impressively.
(Still losing some to adverse terrain)
But in general, by the time they came out, there was no reserving anything for special occasions, and they're about as far from "general purpose" as you can get.
Still I think that place on the Bottom5 is well deserved.
but it's not a heap of junk. It makes a m,marvelous museum exhibition XD
10:35 For anyone more interested, 2 main Field guns that where used as AT guns by the germans were the 7,7 cm FK 96 n.A. L/27 and the 7,7 cm FK 16 L/35 as well as all captured french, russian and british guns drilled out to 7,7 cm (thats the whole reason, to be able to drill out captured guns, but at the same time deny the enemy to use your guns with their ammo) with also barrles of 7,7 cm with L/27 and L/35 length. They both had 3 dedicated AT rounds (while the normal He rounds with right fuze setting will work as well) namely 1. K. Gr. 15 m.P (Kanonen Granate 15 mit Panzerkopf -> Cannon Grenade/Shell 15 with AP head) beeing a normal HE shell but instead of the normal impact fuze it has a big special hardened special steel head with an extra designed (AZ f. K. Gr. 15 m.P) Impact Fuze under it, going in at 6,85 kg with 230g of cast or pressed filler beeing TNT, Amatol or something else more potent like PENT. Going at 465m/s with L/27 and 525-600m/s with L/35.
2. K. Gr. 15 m.P (Bo. Pr.) Beeing the same round but instead made of a different steel drilled out and beeing 7 kg.
3. K. Gr. 15 m.P m.L (meaning mit Leuchtspur -> with tracer) beeing also 7kg heavy and having a really big tracer pressed under it.
I know of a Jagdtiger that was knocked out during the war. Outside the city of Heidelberg in Western Germany, my distant ancestor, Unteroffizier Fritz Klein, was the gunner of Jagdtiger #131, attached to Schwerer Panzerjäger Abteilung 653. When coming into an intersection, Jagdtiger 131 got hit broadside three times by an M4A3E8 Sherman, one hit setting the fuel alight. The machine buried its gun in the building up front, and the crew was forced to abandon the machine. Sadly, Fritz Klein didn’t make it, being gunned down while trying to escape. It was a sad end for this ancestor on the losing side of the war, along with the unceremonious demise of such a gargantuan fighting machine.
if it’s the same account that i’m reading on wikipedia it was actually them turning to flee and getting hit in the weakest spot killing all six inside…
@@bostonrailfan2427 nope. That’s partially wrong. I read an after action report from the unit that was a part of the takedown. He was killed by MG fire.
@@thetankcommander3838 where because the source i saw said all six killed in the tank, the only one that i found actually taken out by other tanks and it fit that claim of three tanks doing it. nothing about people escaping, only six killed
@@thetankcommander3838 looking again, your facts are lacking as it’s a “trust me, bro” meanwhile mine came directly from the memoirs of an actual tank ace who commanded them and his facts actually check with US sources: one lost in action due to inexperience by the crew with all six lost. but WTF would he know, it’s not like he was the commander…oh, right: HE WAS
It's a good list and well presented. I look forward to more such talks.
Well said & yes me too
Great bottom 5 Chris . Very entertaining and informative
Good to see some new blood on the Bottom 5 chopping block.
Haha. the TOG somehow escaped the list.
The TOG really isn't that bad if you look into its history, rather than just video game memes.
@@RetrosicotteNo it is bad in real life. But in video games namely World of Tanks it is a lethal joke character. The armor is thinner than public trust in the US highway system, but it has a crap ton of health to compensate. The tank is slow it can fire on the move accurately without a stabilizer and the gun is great being the 17-pounder.
@@emberfist8347 The fact you say it has a 17-pdr tells me you actually know nothing about it in real life, given it has never mounted a 17-pdr irl. That was a museum error that got picked up by WoT.
@@Retrosicotte Except it isn't. The tank at Bovington is the version with the 17-pounder gun. And I was talking about the tank in World of Tanks.
If that Matilda CDL light is still operational, I would loooooove to see a nighttime demonstration! 😊
I cant belive the spotlight tank saw so much production. I figured it would have been 10 or less.
No mention of the Bob Semple tank from New Zealand? Corrugated steel structure mounted on an earth moving tractor, it's firepower being several soldiers with Bren guns riding inside. As it's designer Bob Semple said, "I don't see anyone coming up with anything better."
It’s the #1 top tank. Doesn’t belong on this list.
Thank you Chris, very informative!
One of the better "bottom five" videos I have seen; it's good to see some expertise, instead of a YTuber who still lives with his mum talking bollox.
I couldn't agree more
Matilda CDL, A 'brilliant idea', I see what you did there Chris! Very nice to get your views especially about the CDL, I can just about twist my mind to understand the logic but it seems a huge amount of hassle and a long logistic chain for a single use vehicle, doubtless Fuller had his logic though.
Please continue with the excellent work.
Regular trip flares and parachute flares can ruin your vision at night, this would have been much worse. The thing with regular flares though is that they can be deployed far more simply and as the immediate need requires unlike the poor old CDL.
I’d argue the bottom most tank is a septic tank. Then again, I could be full of $&!”
Thank you 😂😂😂
Marvelous mate.
Excellent choices!
While I share the assessment that the Jagdtiger was a questionable design in spite of the 128mm of awesomeness it mounted, I would caution against the “they should have built more of something cheaper” argument.
This argument has been used by others, Steven J. Zaloga being a well known proponent. Mr. Zaloga claims that the M4A3 was -overall- the better tank, because it was easier and cheaper to produce (in Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944). This is a very short sighted argument, as it assumes that enough crews, fuel and rolling stock for strategic transportation are available. Certainly the German Army was hard pressed to find the former two items. So it is quite possible that building a higher quality product was the better choice for the Wehrmacht at that point.
Stellar. Nice twist at the end.
Some really nice picks. Especially the FV4004 since i had never really seen one or anyone talk about it.
Some interesting and unseen before selections!
I do somewhat defend the A9. I think its biggest issue quickly became that it became a defensive tank, during the retreat to Dunkirk, and thats just not an effective role for for it. The most important thing for a tank survivability it to not be hit. Due to the nature of France, shots wont be fired at far enough ranges were even much more substantial armour would have been effective (unless it was to be Matilda levels thick).
Its issue was it was engaged in a battle that it was not idea for. It would likely have been far more successful if the Germans had be stopped imo.
If the doctrine is centred on not getting hit, would it not be better to have something other than a tank, such as a lighter weight wheeled vehicle like an armoured car or scout car? Basically something fast and manoeuvrable with the bare minimum of armour and a mounted gun or two.
So many wrongs about the JTiger. It didn't draw lots of man power for designing it, because the lower hull and the chassis did already exist. It's "just" a KTiger with a casemate. They ordered only 200 pieces, this should show you, that it wasn't that big of a project. They were meant as mobile bunkers, imagine, how much the other side has to invest, if only a platoon of these defending a bridge. Like with a lot of weapons, the war situation lead to a misuse of many things, including using JTigers for offensive operations. Putting an additional 10 tons of armor on a JPanther would have been the better choice, imho.
The Jagdtiger is cursed in every way:
It’s the wrong thing.
At the wrong time.
In the wrong place.
By the wrong side.
And that made it sort of a blessing for the good side.
The 2: Matilda CDL must have been a skunkworks level weapon back in the WWII. Like a laser-based ECM tank! Crazy.
They got their "brightest" people to work on it
The A9 CS version is a very useful tank in the game Bolt Action. I was chatting about one of these last night - a light howitzer with a coax MMG, and 2 front/side firing independent MMGs is very useful in game. The armour though sucks as you state.
Really emphasises the phrase "Lions led by Donkeys" although even the latter would've bolted if ordered to go in a Mk II!
Hypothetical now, but be interesting to see how would things have turned out if the Wunder Waffen's were reigned in to a sensible extent. Probably not worth thinking about.
Crazy stories - the comment below about how Zhukov used search lights to try and blind the defenders is very apt !
Nice and surprising list!
Does anyone know what tank is sitting behind the FV4004 in the warehouse?
I agree with the list with the exception of number 1and 5. They were concept tanks or training vehicles. Hardly representative of what we commonly refer to as a tank. Cheers.
Comment on the statement about the MKII. Imagine going into battle in a tank that wont stop a bullet. Then he describes the scars and dinks all over it which suggests the rounds did not in fact penetrate the boiler plate. As for the artillery, anyone notice what it is doing in Ukraine to tanks at the moment.
In partial defense to the German "obsession" with big guns, it all boils down to penetration. The penetration stressor is kinetic energy divided by surface of the cross section.
You can increase it by making the projectile faster or denser, which is what the UK eventually did with APDS (and everyone later with APFSDS), and this is also what caused all those squeeze-bore experiments by various countries. The problem is that Germany has a massive shortage of tungsten, and it's needed more for the tools to make that stuff, than to be shot at the enemy. Tungsten core AP shells are only made in homeopathic numbers. Whole tank crews never even saw one. Well, if you can't make it denser, can you just make it faster and thinner? Well, not without it also being made of harder stuff than steel. Both Krupp and Rheinmetall actually worked on APDS or similar throughout the war, tried hundreds of designs, and it went nowhere because it doesn't work particularly well with just steel.
Well, the other way is to just increase the calibre, thanks to the square-cube law. The weight of the projectile, all else being equal, is proportional to the cube of the calibre, while the cross section surface is only proportional to the square.
And basically that's why we ended up with a 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger, or the Soviets ended up with an 122mm gun on the IS-2.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Jagdtiger was a good tank or TD. It was not. Just that sometimes there are reasons for some decisions, rather than just obsession with big guns. They may not be GOOD reasons, or sometimes even SANE reasons, but they're reasons.
The bigger problem was Nazi Germany's massive shortage of trucks, failing to mechanise your army prior to launching a mechanised war was that special kind of retarded thinking that the Nazis specialised in. Believing your own publicity never ends well.
Homeopathic quantities? You win the internet today mate :)
There is something basic to understand for all later German tank design.
Germany knew they were fighting against nearly the entire world, so they could never win on quantity.
This led to the quest for quality, then "everything bigger/better/stronger etc. than anyone else" and finally to all kinds of excesses.
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 That too, but also more immediate practical concerns like fighting the IS-2. The Brits saw it in 1945 and promptly crapped their pants, causing, like the video said, a "blind panic" project like the FV-4004 with its 120mm just to be able to punch through its front glacis. Well, Germany had been fighting IS-2 since 1943.
And mind you the Brits had tungsten APDS rounds, and still felt a need to go 120mm, while Germany couldn't really spare the tungsten for that.
So, yeah, just saying, when you put it in that context, Germany going 128mm doesn't sound as stupid a phalic symbol fetish for big guns any more, does it? :p
@@NegotiatorGladiarius The German designers also had to impress the Nazi hierarchy to get things made and they always did have delusions of grandeur.
A9, aka "Dalek Tank". "Find something better". It was not found at that time.
A great very interesting Tank Chat.I wish you could say something about modifications of the Stuart and Sherman tanks with the 75mmAT gun and 122mm gun that originated in Yugoslavia during and after the WWII. It is kind of a space oddity there were no Italian or Japanese tanks listed here.Have a good one.
Another great analysis 👍
The funny thing about #2 the Matilda, is that a cannon disorients AND disables the enemy
I agree with the first 4, but I think it's unfair to ding a training tank that was never intended to be on the battlefield. Presumable it did it's job of training crews without using any valuable armor plate.
It was used on the battlefield anyways so it has good reason to be on there. The only good things to come out of the Mark II were the Mark IV and the fact the Germans who tested captured models came to the conclusion tanks weren’t viable so they didn’t field tanks in large numbers giving the Allied Powers a near-monopoly on these machines.
True. I mean it was used for something it was neither really planned nor designed for. You could also say a spoon should be on that list, since it would have been a terrible tank for sure, too.
The only true bad tank imo of that list is Nr. 3.
Like the FV4004 was more something of a prototype out of pure desperation and necessarity, so they did as much as possible with little as they had.
The Jagdtiger was not a tank, but a tank destroyer which had been fighting on lost ground since it rolled out of the factory.
The Matilda was much less a tank by its definition then even the Jagdtiger. It just came to be a search light with light armor and tracks.
While on the other site you had the Cruiser tanks, which had a bad design as well as a terrible concept (cruiser tanks in general).
@@BoshaftUndStolz Even with the excuse the FV4004 is a bad tank. The Mark II also counts because it got used in combat as a tank. And it is a tank.
@@BoshaftUndStolz Every military would like more time, money and resources to develop, build and deploy its systems but in the end you have to fight with what you've got and what you choose to put into service, and systems are often used in roles they weren't designed for with varying degrees of success. British commanders decided that the training Mark II would be useful in battle despite being a suicide mission for the poor crew, so it definitely counts having not only been deployed but also saw combat.
Did the German Engineering corps not Vickers Test the metallurgy of the steel? Hard to believe given how advanced German steelmaking was at the time.
I'm a bit surprised that the notorious Valiant didn't make the list, though given its history (or lack thereof) this isn't unjustified.
Chris is one person who when he talks about tanks if I disagree I know I'm most likely to be wrong!
It a shame about the A9 always like through it was the coolest tank when I was a kid along with the vickers mkii light tank indian pattern
Got to be honest...from the thumbnail I thought this video was called "bottom stanks" and it made me chuckle.
At least 1 unarmoured Cromwell training tank was deployed by accident into France after D-Day. It was a squadron leader and always faster than it's breathren. The crew never knew why until they blundered into a German division and ended up with projectiles stuck in the plating, halfway through. Amazingly the crew refused to give it up for a 'real' tank. they considered it lucky...
An interesting selection. Once again, I find one of my own top 5 tanks makes someone else's bottom 5 list - in this case, number one on that list.
I think Ken Tout and his crew found out that their tank was a training tank. They decided to keep using coz they thought it was lucky. And it was also faster than the other tanks in the squadron. Seems actual armor is quite heavy!
*Bill Bellamy in his Cromwell.
@@4192362 Cool. Thanks.
On recent evidence the Leopard 2 should be on this list!
Mythbusters, Junkyard Races and several other shows back on TV were engineering awakening to many people, it made them aware of their interests, talents, what education and career they would like to pursue.
I wonder if effect of "two certain vehicle games" on popularity of topic of military equipment from engineering and historical(in their creation and adoption sense) lead to same result for this generation? A window into the minds of engineers of that era instead of another look at 100500th memoir of some commander written after the war to make himself look good. There is a running joke on Forgotten Firearms channel that channel isn't as much about firearms as about history of small inventors going bankrupt(hence forgotten) and in many cases same could be said about whole myriad of vehicles that remained in shadow of history. And yet they have stories behind them too, stories that allow you to get an idea why people of the era made decisions they did.
People today generally know FAR more about the minutia of various weapon systems than we did when growing up before the days of the Internet. What was "known' was basically whatever your local library had on the subject matter and unless you had the means to travel to museums and archives and have the credentials to get hold of technical details to study you were lucky if you found a color picture of any given item, let alone a detailed description.
Those two games have been great for introducing people to oddities like TOG, however they are games and modify performance in the name of play balance.
People who think the games are any reflection of reality are in for a shock when they read the history. If the Stuart was as good in reality as they are in either game, we'd see M3s rolling into Berlin and not JS's
@@PatGilliland Don't be silly. T-34s would be parked in Berlin before the first month of Barbarossa was out.
Hard to argue with this list. I could, of course suggest a few other tanks that deserve to appear (Matilda Mk I, Vickers Amphibian, etc.), but these are all pretty bad. Well done!
My wife actually came running at my Vader-esque NOOOO when the Jagdtiger came on the screen - I know it's a nightmare mechanically and logistically, but she's so beautiful....
Interesting history to learn about.
Great choices Chris
Fun tour .
The Maybach HL230 also powered the Panther,which was even 27tons lighter.Putting this engine in the Jagdtiger is like letting a Panther pulling a Panzer IV!
At least for WW2, it would be mega interesting to see everyone at Bovington to design the perfect tank as various nations.
EDIT: Could make a day or week with the patreons or all the staff to make them from cardboard, and have a water gun/paintball fight after lol
The German one would be easy just a panther with a reliable engine and transmission
@@greggougeon4422 I think the Panzer IV is better
@@zachsmith1676 More practical suspension and wheel set-up, also more vertical armour surfaces.
Shame you didn't tag the Conqueror . I've seen the one at Duxford. What we're they thinking ..? Lol That and the TSR2 , the most impressive exhibits imo., Beauty and the Beast.
Looks like Drachenlord in the background in Jagtiger segment (but of course he never got to the UK)
I like his selection!
It's a surprisingly good list. It's nice to see a British person who is willing to admit when a British design is bad and not just claim everything British is brilliant. I also did not know about the training tanks being sent to Araas in 1917, that's extra informative!
A reasonable choice except for the A9. The armour was comparable to German designs of the same initial period. The A10 was a bugfix upgrade that did improve the armour to something comparable with other tanks being used later on and they also removed the secondary turrets. So, they were aware of the issues and solved them quickly. What you really have is an early MkI and a MKII that has learnt the lessons of the battlefield.
Father was the Light Operator in a CDL.