Which Were the WORST Designed Tanks of WW2? - The Tanks that Make Historians Facepalm
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- As George Patton put it, "Tanks are a new and special weapon."
But what exactly did the American general mean by "special"? If he meant "special" as in ungainly, thin-skinned, and prone to cooking their occupants alive, then the World War II tanks we're going to talk about today absolutely fit that bill.
Buy us a KoFi to help support the channel & team! 🎭
•ko-fi.com/thefront
Check out some of the music we use in our videos!🎶
•bit.ly/RelaxJackYT
Join other history buffs on our Discord!📚
• / discord
🎬Video Credits:
Narrator - Cam, Pat
Editors - Shantanu koli
Writer - Nick Petrou
Researcher - Daniel
Intro music - / 16bitrecordsofficial
#TheFront #History
For business inquiries and to learn about our team check out our website🌐:
•frontiermediaco.com
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:40 Britain: Covenanter
2:17 Japan: Type 95
4:08 Germany: Maus
5:35 Italy: L3/35
7:07 New Zealand : Bob Semple tank
8:51 Conclusion
As an italian, i'm well aware italian tanks plus the Bob Semple could have made the whole list if you didn't limit it to one per country.
Italian military knew they weren't ready but fascism.
Italy itself was not ready, not only its military. It simply did not have the necessary heavy industry.
The M13/40 wasn't really a bad tank for the time it entered service, being roughly on par with what the British were producing.
Like you mentioned before, Italy was not ready for war, but they did their best with what they had.
Even though they were not the best, I still enjoy the Italian military stuff of WW2.
The Carro Veloce 35 did well in Spain during their last civil war. At least during the first year, 1936.
When the Spanish Legion, the Moroccan mercenaries, the Falange (a far right party) militia and the conscripts in the regular army under the rebel general Franco were about to assault Madrid, defended only by its civil population, somebody in Franco's army had the brilliant idea of giving the attack plans to their allies, the Italian army, with some forces already in Spain.
One day during the initial combats in the Southern end of the city, the defenders of Madrid searched a dead Italian captain and found Franco's secret plans. So the few loyal army officers knew how to defend Madrid without a real army, just the neighbours using old Mauser rifles from the 1898 war against the US. Madrid resisted three years of bombardment by artillery and bombers and surrendered only when Franco conquered 3/4 of Spain and resisting had no sense.
That Italian captain was commanding a CV 35 tankette.
So, in the name of the inhabitants of Madrid (during 1936) thank you, Italian war industry, for making the CV 35 and not a better tank. 👌
How dare you sir, including the Bob Semple tank on this list. It was a magnificent machine that, if adopted by all the Allies early in the war, would’ve shortened the conflict. The Axis would’ve surrendered immediately if they saw thousands of the mighty Bob coming at them!
It was truly a BS tank!!
The bob simple could have ended the war a year short it was quite a amazing tank
It would have shortened the conflict all right.
@@thelizardking3036 it was more powerful then the atomic bomb
@@Caligulashorse1453 Yeah, the mere concept of mass-producing the lad is a war crime
I don't think it's fair to include tankettes. They were glorified infantry support vehicles and scouting vehicles. They were not meant for tank on tank action and plenty of armies other than the Italians had them.
Likewise, I think prototypes that never made it into combat deserve It's own video. Tanks that did poorly in combat should have theirs as well.
Yeah, tanks that actually saw significant service are a different category than tankettes and prototypes. Protos are practically by definition deficient - if they get to the point of being production ready, it means (hopefully) that you've ironed out the worst of the bugs. That they're still protos means they still have substantial issues.
"Tank on tank" is probably the least desirable outcome for any tank.
Wouldn't a tankette have been more akin to a Bren Carrier?
@@JohnMartin-bz5xq yes, although the Bren was more of an IFV
@@JohnMartin-bz5xq As per the original Italian doctrine those tankettes were the next step in evolution from the British tanks of WWI. Their role was to be a mobile pillbox that can not be defeated by rifle shots. Nothing more, nothing less. And in that role they were good. The main thing the Italians learned from the was against Ethiopia was that they needed to put those machine guns in a turret. And that they did.
They did design and produce light and medium tanks, and their doctrine and organizational plans called for those tanks to be fielded, but alas. The mind may be willing and strong, but it is for naught if the economy is weak and failing...
The bob semple actually was so strong that the Japanese were terrified of it so they didn't dare to attack it also ,bob semple himself was so terrified of its true power that he never let it be massed produced
This makes sense given that it looks like Bob Semple was played by Monty Python's MIchael Palin.
You now that the tipe95 light tank was superior în evry aspect to it
@@dariusdiaconescu1942 except the type 95 tank would find it very hard to make it ashore
@@dariusdiaconescu1942 no the bob semple is so good it was never used
Hut how did the reach New Sealand I mean they can find it on map the best they can do is find Australia
The Bob Semple is simply misunderstood. The whole purpose was to introduce a new concept into armoured warfare: the Battleshed. And the Bob Semple was the best armed and armoured Battleshed ever produced.
Battleshed sounds like a place where adult men go to resolve their differences using rockem sockem robots. I'm dead. There are just too many things here about the Semple.
Its looks like a good tank for the drug war in Mexico. Thos drug dealers can use the Bob Semple.
It would be a better ice fishing shed. But at 20++ tons, you would have to let your line out the roof.
@@R1_Lazz. si pendejo
what about the FV-4005? or was that more of a battle barn
The Bob Semple tank looks like something that the A-Team would have assembled in the 80s.
On a TV related note, it looks like it could have been the inspiration for the Crushinator in Futurama.
Well David, that statement insults every member of The A-Team. You'll have to answer to Mad Murdock and BA.
dude the ateam DID build a bob semple sque tank thing
I love it when a plan comes together.
I pity the fool that insults my tank! - BA
New Zealand are always bragging about having the worst tank ever, but the Aussies did pretty bad too with the Sentinel Tank, powered by 3 Cadillac V8 engines that had to all start at the same time and the first tank with a fully cast hull
The cast hull was an impressive feat of engineering for a country that had not much of a heavy industry (and pior expertise). The engines were not the best for a cruiser tank but kudos for trying what's available!
@@BHuang92 Kudos indeed
Yes, but the real error was its weaponry. It was designed to scare every inmate taking a shower in the jail. Just look at that... thing in the front of the hull:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_tank#/media/File:AC1_Sentinel_8030.jpg
If that thing doesn't make the enemy to run away, I don't know what other weapon can do it. 😜
@@caniconcananas7687 Well maybe, but how often did the crew run away, oh wait, they couldn't, the turret was like fitting in a shoe box!
Actually the Cadillac V8’s were fully independent. The tank would move quite happily on two out of the three.
It was also the first tank to mount the British 17pdr gun (a year before the Sherman (the Sherman mounting was actually a copy of the Sentinel mount as the Sentinel designer moved to England)).
The Sentinel at one stage also had dual six pounder guns.
An interesting thing about the Type 95 was that when Shermans first engaged it, they reported that a fair number of Type 95s took direct hits and kept on going. It was eventually realised that the armour of the Type 95 was so thin that AP ammunition would go in one side of the tank and straight out the other, so unless the Sherman hit something vital like the engine or driver, the Type 95 could just keep on rolling with a big hole in either side. After the Sherman crews realised this, they switched to using HE against the Type 95s.
No armor is best armor, as any War Thunder player can attest.
Same with Tiger and sherman
Look, man. The Bob Semple tank wasn’t mentioned in the WWII tanker book, “Death Traps” nor did the Japanese invade New Zealand. Sounds like a winning design to me. 😎
🚪
the Italian L35 was also used by the Chinese KMT vs. the Japanese army. the only battle they were used in was at the battle of Kunlun pass 1940. Well many were supposedly destroyed by Japanese infantry. and anti tank guns.
Can't believe you had the audacity to claim that Bob Semple was a bad tank shaking my smh 😤😤😤
That's because it is. What didn't make it a "bad" tank would be the fact it came out of a single guys head who knew tanks were going to be needed.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 why do you think someone would say the Bob Semple is a good tank if it wasn't a joke?
@@sinisterisrandom8537 Dude, a Bob Semple can destroy a Maus
What do you mean its bad?
@@TheSuperCoolGamer America didn’t drop atomic bombs in Japan. We dropped Bob Semples on them.
@@Vanishingink4 what? Of course im joking about that comment. Bob semple superiority
I don't have any Bob Semple tank jokes, but it succeeded at being a morale builder. Even today, there are countries that would struggle to build a modern equivalent. It took and takes a considerable industrial complex to build all kinds of heavy equipment. The New Zealanders did the best they could with what they had.
That's ridiculous. They would be better off building a handful of real tanks than 1000 Bob Semples, or not build any tanks and instead use the material to build anti tank guns and mines,
or maybe smartest of all simply abandoning the island and fleeing to Australia.
@@BoleDaPoleEven a terrible tank is terrifying to a force that doesn’t have good/any anti-tank assets with them.
This list isn't really fair or accurate as it fails to take into account the country's battle doctrine. Italy was expecting a repeat of ww1 in the alps, so a light tank or Tankette was ideal for them. Japan is an island nation, so the navy got steel priority. Also, the Japanese viewed tanks as infantry support units.
How is a light, thinly armoured tank any use in an infantry support unit?
@@gwilymmorgan5115 while the tanks won’t survive anti tank fire , for infantry support it’s use is to move forward are while under small arms fire, it can take out machine gun nests if needed, therefore it’s seen as a infantry support tank
For what it was designed for the type 95 tank was good, it was decently fast, had good climbing abilities, mechanically sound, and as a diesel powered tank was less prone to exploding when hit, good for fighting Chinese or western forces that didn't possess tanks or anti-tank weapons and in jungle environments. Take it out of that environment and it didn't fare too well.
I view the greatest flaw of the type-95 as being there was no plan B. Japan did not seem to understand that once they pushed through jungle and poorly equipped armies their tank had no further use. Instead of developing and diversify their armored units they just said hmmm they figured this out, we will go crazy with designing new stuff but still bet our navy to save us. Just use what we have even though everyone and their dog can kill a 95 now.
Yes in of those enviroments was manchuria 1945 when IS2 early amd 1944 variants,T34 85 and 76 tanks steam rolled over those tanks
@@suddenlyentertaining2253 and to a certain extent that's what happened to the zero as well, it was one of the best fighters in the world from 1940 through 1942, but once it because clear that the allies had caught up and then surpassed it they either wouldn't or couldn't adapt, that plane was so loved by its pilots and the public that they wouldn't let it go.
True. It's proven to be effective in the early stages of the Pacific theatre, when the Japanese used it to steamroll the British forces in Malaya and Singapore.
@@zachfrancisco8185 steel sharpens steel, and in WWII there was no better steel than the best that Nazi Germany could bring to bare, so it was no wonder that the red army steamrolled the long idle Japanese forces in Manchuria. THAT was Japan's biggest weakness, they had no powerful opponents to test themselves against until it was too late, they had no real incentive to improve.
The Japanese tanks catch a lot of hell but they performed well in the jobs they were designed for. They were built for for infantry support against unarmored Oriental armies.
That’s quite true. It’s also a bit of a non-argument that the Type 95 was especially vulnerable to other allied tanks that it was never meant to fight. And jungle warfare being what it was, they were more likely to run into a 6 pounder than another tank like a Matillda.
@@thethirdman225 also by the time the us joined the ha go was allready 5 years old
Yeah, but there is a problem there. They had engaged in armor warfare with the US. They chose actually to do so. A nation that is not underdeveloped oriental and has proven their abilities in combat on the previous Great War. Building a monstrosity like Yamato naval ship with like a thousand guns and not being able to make a tank at least more or less decent, is a complete fucking retarded approach of the matter. They just left their ground troops being fucked. Maybe thinking they are going to win the war with the Katanas.
The bom semple was ingenious having an island full of tractors yet being better in armour than a Maus faster than a BT-7 and having a higher pen than Gustav gun
Smdh
27 yards of concrete penetration at a range of 70 miles!
For me, it'd be the Maus Tank. It was a behemoth, but it also could outclass anything on the battlefield. If only it'd gone into battle. From what I'd read about the Maus, it'd gone into action in the final hours of the war against the Soviets, at the test range. The Red Army took the turret of one prototype and the hull of the other and now they have the complete model on display in a museum today.
Its only scary if you look tank VS tank. The Maus cant out run Aircraft or Artillery, both of which the Allies loved to use.
Not really. In addition to the host of logistical problems with the Maus that meant it never would or could have been a "war winner", by the time it was coming out the concept was largely obsolete. It was massive and slow, a giant target for fighter-bombers (easily seen and easily hit) especially as the allies had air superiority. It was far from undefeatable on the ground especially from shots to the side or rear and the Centurion began production a few months later, marking the beginning of the era of the Main Battle Tank. Whilst I think the Maus is in contention for which one I'd rather be in, honestly I might rather be in the covenanter despite it's overheating issues. Hell, maybe even in the tankette, depending on what it is we're fighting and assuming time appropriate enemies.
@@Person01234 i was a question of all these tanks in a fight with oneanother in wich case the maus could act as a bunker and at long range too with its unnecessarily powerful gun in this fight i dont think those problems would matter so yeah maus for the win
@@powerbox5451 That was not explicitly the question. If that were the question it would be a moot, pointless question.
to my understanding the Maus was designed to be something that could replace destroyed defensive bunkers, mainly on the siegfried line rather then a tank for the battlefield
A Thunderbolt with a 2000 lb bomb would have loved a mouse.
@@JohnSmith-mh1mp Indeed. When up against an enemy with total air superiority it was a sitting duck. They'd just have been target practice for P47s, Typhoons and Tempests.
The maus was called that to try put the allies off as to what they were doing. Previous tanks they had made were named after big cats, tiger, panther etc
Part 2 YESSSS!! Especially if it includes one of the several "land battleship" designs, like the Soviet T-35
I agree.
The German Maus as well.
@@ag7898 Ne the German "Ratte" Land Battleship
@@derkurier2710 I always thought it was hilarious that a russian po-2 (a very slow biplane) with a 150 pound bomb probably would have decimated that thing lol.
Since 3 out of the 5 never even saw action, it is for me, a 2 tank competition. Coming up with a totally bollocks design is bad but having the good sense to recognize that it shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield goes some way to making up for it.
The Japanese Type 95 was a light tank so it was never going to impress the same way the big boys from any country would. Light tanks just don't have that kind of panache. And since it seemed to have done the job it was intended to do in at least a somewhat satisfactory manner; and in fact, exceeded expectations in that it wasn't totally useless in jungle conditions like many believed, I'll give it a pass.
It's for me, the same thing with the little Italian job. A tankette is a step down from even a light tank so by its very design, it's going to be very limited in what it can accomplish on the battlefield. Sending it out to do jobs it was never designed to do, in conditions it was never intended to operate in and having it fail spectacularly is not the fault of the tank, it's the fault of the people utilizing it.
And since just about every condition present on a WW2 battlefield was beyond the capabilities of these two small, lightweight tanks, designed and built years earlier for an entirely different battle environment, I'll just go ahead and say that whatever shortcomings either one exhibited should have been well known by the time the war broke out and neither one should have been utilized at all. If either tank failed, it was because too much was asked of it.
Issues with the L3/35 was due to it being entirely built out of bolted armor.
Some may believe the Type-95 was bolted as well which it wasn't. It was welded. The bolts were more of a decoration since Japan had a bell system built to the rear of the vehicle as a form of communication.
So you're giving the type 95 a pass for its designed environment but not the L3? The L3 was designed for mountainous terrain. It was supposed to be used to bring a level of firepower and protection not generally available in the rocky Italian countryside. And it performed amicably in its intended scouting and troop support role but as with every other Italian asset, it struggled under the poor leadership of the Italian comand.
@@casematecardinal Where did I say that?
@@hughjass1044 you said it in your first paragraph. Terminating in the words "I'll give it a pass"
@@casematecardinal You're right. And the very next sentence is - "It's for me, the same thing with the little Italian job."
"..... the same thing....."
What meaning do you take from this? Where is the ambiguity? Are your reading and comprehension skills that bad that someone has to literally spell everything out for you using the exact same wording?
I had heard that the Type-95's asbestos lining was so that the crew didn't burn themselves on the metal that was being cooked by the sun. It could possibly have stopped fragments, as well.
Ha-Go tank were welded armor the bolts were more of a made you believe it was not properly built and designed and the asbestos lining probably did help stop fragments.
Exactly, also some tropical versions of RR and Lanchester ACs had this kind of lining. Some had also an electrical generator, to avoid being stormed by natives.
To be fair the Bob Semble tank in itself was kind of a ground breaking tank for New Zeland at the time, if you take into the account the time they had and what materials they could use. Compared to other countries with far more materials and better technology I think the New zelanders did a damn good job of creating something that was something close to an armored vehicle.
As he said "I don't see anyone else coming up with any better ideas". Ultimately I don't think it would have been very useful in combat but at least the guy tried to give them some armoured capacity and had itever seen service it would have offered some flexibility (as well as given them valuable experience in tank design).
If it was deployed against infantry who had no armour or anti armour capacity it would have been a difficult machine to get the better of. Any tank can be better than no tank. Sometimes.
@@Person01234 it would be better for my country to just send out infantry as the bob semple is just a box death trap that has the same armour as my roof
@@Counter102 Your roof is 8 - 12 mm thick metal? - that is one heavy roof. Ignore the corrugated iron on the outside that was put on top of the metal plates they used, there is a good reason it was over 20 tons.
The Type 95 was not a bad design, it did what it was designed for very well; it just was kept in operation long after it was obsolete. The Type 95 was a contemporary of the Panzer 1, Vickers light tank and the M2 and I would argue was the best of the bunch.
Also you missed out many real horror stories like the Russian T35, the British TOG2 and the French Char B.
that is correct the type 95 ha-go was introduced in 1936 and was definitely obsolete by the time the us entered in 1941
Lets take the fact that New Zealand even tried to make a tank, *better than not making one at all*
You can always take the russian approach. Put big gun on back of pickup truck.
@@cheesesniper473 maybe even a *bunch of rockets ;)*
@@cheesesniper473 The British did that extremely effectively in the Western Desert in 1940-41.
The Bob Semple Tank could of served as a mobile pillbox against Japanese Infantry, might of been more effective than you think.
Bob Semple did the best with what he could at that time. For someone who never created a tank, in a country that never created a tank, with basically no resources or existing parts to create a tank, his tank wasn't actually that bad imo.
The Semple isn’t bad when you look at it from the perspective of the Keowees, they tried their best with what they had available to them at the time.
Now the question is, of which improvised tank designs who would win: Bob Semple or Killdozer.
not only that I don't see why people call it as a tank when it's just a tankette
@@jacksteel1539 Because 20 tonnes falls out of the tankette bracket.
I know the Italian tankettes aren't technically tanks, but would the Maus be? It has a turret but it can't rotate 360°.
It counts as tank
Tankettes are tanks with machine guns only tanks are tanks with a 360 degree turret tanks with a gun that can’t rotate are tank destroyers
@@knightblade0188 Ehh Tankettes don't just carry MG's as some could also carry light AT guns like the L3/33 that carried a 20 mm AT rifle & TKS with a 20 mm AT rifle as well.
Some tankettes also had 25 mm rifles an some cannons things like 40 mm / 47 mm guns too an of course some also had flamethrowers.
Tankettes are still in use today as seen by the Weasel which carry quite a bit of weaponry.
The Italian L3/35 looks more like a bren carrier then an actual tank or tankette for that matter
@@knightblade0188 polish tankettes can easily destroy panzer 1 & 2
The Bob Semple is a brilliant example of ambush warfare. Any invading Japanese forces seeing a tank group parked near the beach would likely think it nothing but a shanty town. Hiding in plain sight at its best!
😂😂😂
The Maus might be the worst. All you need to defeat it is a Hetzer, a Type 89, and a Panzer IV manned by a human plot device.
Haha I understood this reference
They use to call the Sherman tank a "Zippo", as it would light up the first time it was hit. My father was E.O.D. in the Air Force for 24 years. He told me that he saw a U.S. Army training film on anti-tank weapons. The first thing shown on that film was a statement that read "This film is not to be shown to tank crewmen." It was a WWll film. Take care.
Think the film really said that or, think he just remembers it that way?
Have a source for that?
the truth is, the burn rate of a Sherman tank is around 60%, which is the same as their German counterparts
I thought they were called ronsons for the exact same reason
The burn rate was only believed to be high due to British doctrine/habit. Forces of the British empire stuffed shells everywhere some in more precarious positions than the ammunition racks meaning they were more likely to ignite. Hence the more infamous nickname ‘Tommy cooker’
That particular model of Italian tank lasted a long time. I saw a picture of an American soldier sitting on a captured model during the Persian gulf War. It probably came from a museum. But still.
Having prototypes that never saw service or production in a comparison against vehicles that went into full production and active service is a bit apples and oranges if I may say. Its a bit of a picking the low hanging fruit analysis to always go after the Semple tank, when in reality it was just an idea for a 'last ditch' type piece of equipment where proper design and manufacturing resources were not available. Even calling a modified bulldozer chassis a 'tank' is a bit of a stretch.
it's a tankette at most, it's a mobile pillbox
The Italian L3/33 series tankette, in my opinion, is a masterpiece of design. You must keep in mind that it was based on Carden Lloyd, and the CV-29, which was created in 1929, was the first-ever prototype! The CV-33, essentially an armored pillbox for infantry support, was created primarily for colonial purposes. It was tremendously successful as an export product and relatively inexpensive to create. Numerous nations bought it.
The issue was that it had been in use for such a long time and Italy lacked the funds to either replace or more adequately support these tankettes with some medium tanks. Imagine these tankettes added on top of the Italian M tanks that could have been in use during the Spanish Civil War or in the very early stages of the conflict.
I would add a special award for the Bob Semple tank as the best "A-Team" tank of the war.
(For those who are less ancient than your correspondent, I would add that "The A-Team" was a whimsical mid-1980's American television series featuring an outlawed Army A-Team putting thousands of rounds into their general environment without ever killing anyone. (While still waving the damsel or whatever in distress.) One consistent feature was the team being trapped in a random garage which was conveniently equipped with an arc welder so they could improvise a tank out of an automobile and random sheet metal.)
The Brits designed the worst tank ever, A38 Valiant, as the officer in charge got out after 13 miles and left it there and was only ever got out of its workshop to find faults with how not to design a tank
Silly statement. The MBT 70 the Yanks poured vast amounts of money and effort into. Far less went into the A38. Both were used as what not to do. This happens continually - part of the learning process.
@@martinidry6300 Well maybe tell that to the officers and designers who took the A38 out to find more things to avoid, much money was pumped into many things that didn't work, I never said they weren't crap or that money mattered here, I just said its only contribution was how not to design a tank
@@johnryder1713 Ditto about you telling that to the officers and men regarding the MBT 70. You have only your perspective, I.e. a narrow one. That was my point, which you've borne out.
@@martinidry6300 Why are you saying any of this? I never drove the A38 or MBT 70, nor in the former case not many people have. I only stated that no one had anything good to say about the A38 and it was widely regarded as the worst tank ever, if you think of a worse one point that out somewhere, and I only pointed out what I knew from any source I read or heard.
@@johnryder1713 I stated this, as I clearly stated in the first statement, to point out the absudity of your claim - which you very obviously cannot comprehend. That's all.
PS: Stupid people have to mention the factor of direct experience, i.e. "I never drove the A38 or MBT 70, nor in the former case not many people have." That's a truly facile sentence to write. Not many people have walked on the Moon, yet expound on the Moon landings, ditto practically everything worth noting in history.
The Japanese didn't love "getting stomped by heavier, Allied tanks" but simply because "they can't do anything but get stomped by heavier Allied tanks".
Japan, being an island nation, has to fight its wars on a transportation concept where "light is key" and to them, speed and agility is everything. Having bigger tanks meant that the Japanese navy would have to ship these tanks to the multiple island campaigns the Japanese sees themselves in and with the war in China being dragged on for soo long and their materials all being cut out by the sanctions imposed on them, materials were diminishing by the minute and they don't have enough to even build big tanks.
Also, big tanks might work but it would become a hassle to unload, pack and transport to other parts of the theater again thus for the Japanese concept, the lighter is better and even if they wanted to build a tank that's more like the German Panzer III where it has the firepower to kill Shermans but still protective enough, they can't due to limitations.
As an Aussie and an ANZAC I can truly say the Bob Semple tank Kicks Ass!
Salute NZ. Your commentary was informative yet hilarious.
Keep up the great work.
Cheers from Australia. 🍻
To quote Moriarty from Kelly's Hero's,"it's a piece of junk!!!".
In the Semple tank’s defense, it improvised with what was available. When you live on a small nation (in population), far from an ocean away from your allies or anyone who can provide you the weapons to defend yourself, you make do with what you have.
The Semple tank may not have been great, but like Bob Semple himself said, no one else was coming up with a better idea.
The maus also had very, very thick armour and was pretty much impervious to the allied tanks
unfortunaly it was a fun time for bomber target practice and of course you need 10 engines to just arrive to the Frontline not to mention if we even had the oil to run that thing even for 25 meters
@@laisphinto6372 Yes, but when it gets to the front line it is a force to be wrecked with
@@Vegemite_Warrior not really
Even if the Japanese were criticized for their tanks, tell that to the Brits and their colonial forces massacred during their defeat at Singapore when frequently criticized Japanese tanks were utterly unopposed as these swept through the defences
Thats the entire point tho. If a tank is only good against forces that were ill preparaid and ill organized what good does that do really?
@@alexanderpippington9277 Probably, but why was a mighty fortress such as Singapore so badly prepared, and actually the design these tanks replace were slower, but had better armor and a 47mm gun could stand a chance against other allied tanks
Those japanese tanks are facing ill equipped and inexperienced troops,if they were facing much more organized forces,then no doubt those tanks didn't even have a chance
@@johnryder1713 because all of the guns were facing the sea as they believed there would be no invasion without the Japanese navy.
@@Bikavin Well one Japanese tin can on tracks did finish a Sherman, almost, by hitting it the only place a 37mm pea shooter could do damage, straight down the barrel, but the crew survived and used the Machine gun
Cool video mate and will look forward to a part 2 hopefully covering some of the larger pre WW2 designs from Russia and France (Char 2C & T-28, T-35 etc)
Regarding the Kiwi "Bob Semple" tank. It's easy to ridicule it's poor design and lack of combat effectiveness.
But, keep in mind that all of NZ's best soldiers and equipment was sent overseas; mostly to North Africa.
With the bombing of Darwin, Australia; NZ was for the very first time under the very real threat of invasion by Japanese forces.
The Bob Semple designed tank was a quick response to what was at the time considered an immediate threat as there was quite litterally NOTHING else in the home inventory for mobile armored defense. It's main role was to be a mobile pillbox, offering at least some protection from small arms fire.
There simply wasn't enough time (or money and resources) to design and build something more effective or capable from the drawing board to meet this threat.
Obviously, it was never intended for frontline service on overseas battlefields in a tank vs tank role etc.
The best example of Kiwi ingenuity was the Charlton automatic rifle, converting a 303 Bolt action into an actually effective light machine gun.
I have a soft spot for the Bob Semple Tank. Yes it was terrible but I have to give props to someone making the attempt/using enginuity to protect his country.
Maybe the idea of The Bob Semple was, if the Japanese invaded New Zealand and Australia, they'd see the Bob Semple Tank and start dying laughing? Also that bloke is a braver man than I am, I wouldn't want my name attached to something that looked like you drove a tractor through an allotment shed.
It was designed to be produced in a country that did not have any decent factories and could also be put together very fast plus it originally was ment to have a cannon but the country who said they would supply some decided not to.
Who, Bob "I can't remember any of you smart arses coming up with anything at the time" fucking Semple?
Bloody legend.
The Bob Semple tank was a effective ambush tank….get 5 or more of them together, and they can resemble a shit hole town….in plain site.
Bob Semple = genius!
Maybe the M3 Lee could’ve been included as well. Although in the early stages of the war it wasn’t bad I assume, during later stages it became outdated. It even had the nickname of “The coffin for 7 brothers”.
It was bad against Panzer IVs and Tigers in North Africa, but was absolutely dominant against the Japanese at Imphal as late as 1944.
Thank you for the documentaries!
All I have to say is the bob semple tank has never lost to another tank
I feel that the Valiant deserves a spot here in all honesty, judging on how many issues it had.
When your tank is so bad it's used as an example of what not to do when designing a tank.
I watch one of your episodes as a bedtime departure for the theme music. Always appreciated!
The others in this list were pretty much death traps, but I freakin’ love the Bob Semple tank. New Zealand had no other tanks, and no means of manufacturing conventional tanks, nor of getting them from abroad in wartime. What it did have were farm tractors and corrugated metal (from sheds and barn roofs and whatnot)and the Kiwis made the best of what was available. The Bob Semple probably wouldn’t have lasted long in tank against tank warfare, but it might have been useful against infantry troops or cavalry charges (yes, there was still some horse cavalry in World War II).
Man, I want to see a part 2 of these, now with some of the tanks from the Soviets, Americans and some more.
The only real "bad" tank i can think of on the american side was the m2. It's main gun was a 50 cal. But it was never used in combat, it was a training tank. And a damn good one considering thats all it was designed for.
I think the pershing might fit, it did see combat, but it had a feast of problems that came with it. That said, panthers and tigers tended to back up on the street they were on when they saw the muzzle brake of the 90mm gun turnin towards them.
@@cheesesniper473 the t28 american super heavy tank. Pretty much an american version of the maus that also never saw combat and had similar problems like the maus. It was being designed for a possible invasion of mainland japan but they developed nukes before they managed to make the stupid tank go forward without having a catastrophic failure.
For the Russians you could ad the KV1, KhTZ-16, T-12, or the T-34.
For the Americans, the M2, the M3, or the Sutton Skunk
@@nodishtoodeep3053 The KV1 was bad only because commander had to do all the shit at once. Also I see no problem with t34. I agree with the rest though. He should also add B2 French heavy
@@nodishtoodeep3053 No, the T-34 and KV-1 tanks did quite well when they were operated properly. The KV - very effective in the early stages of Barbarossa - evolved into the very successful ISU series and the T-34-85 was still an extremely effective tank at the end of the war.
The Soviet tanks that were not successful were those later light tanks, like the T-60 and T-70. Built to replace the successful BT series tanks, the T-60 and T-70 were thoroughly disliked by their crews and unsuccessful in their roles. Even when their chassis were commandeered for other projects, like mobile artillery, they were not popular.
The American M3 Stuart tank was very successful. I don’t know what your beef with it is.
Second part please. There are many more meme tanks that need love
Surprised the Ferdinand didn't make it onto this list, its engines would catch fire if it went up a slope, and it didn't have a machine gun so Russian infantry were able to get up close and do nasty things to it. Some problems were fixed when it became the Elephant, but it still had the complicated petro-electric engines (yes it was a hybrid before there were hybrids).
I think the Bob Simple tank was built with the idea that it would be a mobile turret and not a weapon to be used against other tanks.
Pretty interesting how tanks have changed over time.
I vote for the carden-loyd 47mm anti-tank tankette
It would be interesting to see a video on the single Porsche Tiger that actually made it into combat.
The Bob Semple looks a bit like a medieval siege tower with an engine and guns!
Personally I would ride in the Ha-Go tank. Later years it was seen being modified for multiple different roles, uparmored and upgunned or was even converted into a tank destoryer.
But over all it was a alot more solid than most of the tanks shown. Especially againat the L3/35's.
When you find out that the Stuart tank had too much armor for your tank you have gotten yourself into a bunch of trouble.
I am rather glad to not see the M3 Lee/Grant here as while a stopgap tank that wasn't great at tank vs tank it proved to be an excellent infantry support tank and served in all theaters until the end of the war in that role.
Even if the Maus had been able to be produced in quantity it would have been dead meat against air power particularly dive bombing with armor piercing bombs.
people dont know the role the lee grant had in saving india from japan at the battle of imphal.. the lee tank can be argued was the tank that won ww2,,, as it saved both africa and india andkept the uk in the war
@@andrewfischer8564 The Grant/Lee was never a great tank but it was good enough at the right time to help the British hold on in North Africa. The Grant/Lee was a KV in comparison to any tank the Japanese managed to bring that far.
The Stuart was never intended for tank v tank combat.
@@thethirdman225 The Stuart was a light tank designed for scouting and for fighting other light tanks and armored cars.
@@thomasb1889 Yes. Mostly a scouting tank and a good one.
O yes. I would love to see a part 2 of this video. And if I had to pick one of the five tanks in this video to go into combat, I would pick the Covenanter.
I mean the maus looks promising to ride into battle, but the bob semple seems a little op. Ima have to go with the bob semple
Well, the Maus has that armor and cannon, but according to a documentary I saw it could get stuck if it tried to run over a Hetzer… of course, the same documentary told me that if an Italian tankette got turned onto its side that it could be righted by two high school girls.
🤔
Maus could even go through bridges
@@ogoemtojestesmuem7708 bridges would collapse under its weight as it weighs 188 tonnes
I would ride the Bob Semple Tank....
None of them were destroyed during the war.....
8:55 When your defense is "I don't see you coming up with any good ideas" now that made me laugh.
I'd ride L3, no joke.
Maus is just a giant target practice for CAS, Japanese tank is just a slow, cardboard box that will be shattered with Brownings in the first 0.3 seconds it appears on the battlefield.
Covenanter... Yeah... Nah...
But the L3 though - you are small, fast, and have a 20mm gun that can take out APCs and soft targets.
Plus you can man the thing alone.
I'd probably make some ambush spot (entirely possible by a single person, given the tank's size), shoot the enemy convoy of trucks up, and yeet the hell out there. Rinse and repeat.
But again, I'd rather ride in a Sherman Jumbo with it's 100mm sloped frontal armour and a decent 76mm gun.
For my money none of these tanks could beat each other. Most of them don't have the armor penetration needed to beat the Maus, but the Maus probably (except for the Bob) couldn't hit any of the others or keep up. The only one that might have a chance against harming a Maus (and this is highly debatable yes) is the tank that would cook its crew before it could even begin to dig in. Most boring FFA ever.
Love the video hope there is another in the pipes to explore other countries poorly engineered armor.
This isn't an FFA tf are you smoking. Destroying the maus your funny since which variant are you speaking of and do you realize how slow the turret and speed of the maus would be going especially with the mechanical issues it would be having.
In terms of what tank would win the Ha-Go would be one of them.
None of the other tanks in this video would be able to penetrate the mauses amour, you would want an 88mm atleast and that's just for the side shot on a maus.
The Maus couldn't really reach any battlefield, so it would have lost by absence.
@@neutronalchemist3241 the Maus was designed as a defensive stronghold, so the Maus would be on the battlefield by default (as the enemy would have to attack). In that Situation the Maus is gonna win against the others, as they can't harm it, and the Maus can damage all other tanks on this list easily (if it either hits them with the gun or they somehow crash into it). The only way I see any tank on this list beating a Maus is by Infantry attack on close ranges, and that isn't tank combat. So I would prefer to be sitting in a Maus rather than any of the other tanks in this list
@@grafzauberer6867 When the Maus had been requested, the Germans were not even considering the defence. The goal was to have something able to break through enemy fortifications, so to deliver its 188 tons to the battlefield was pretty essential.
If the objective was something that could not move, then a turret would have been less expensive.
The bob semple tank is actually the best tank ever designed.
Only reason why it never saw combat is because it was too good.
A wonderful introducing .. thanks
9:03
If the maus'es engine survived for long enough it's clearly the winner
The Maus would be the safest, it would break down or gets stuck before it got to the fight. Everyone else would take that death traps into combat and die
i was surprised the maus tank was on there then i remembered it was slow i would vastly prefere it over the other tanks
You wouldn't if you were inside one on a battlefield. Guderian was absolutely right about these monstrosities - their lack of mobility and stealth makes ithem just very large targets for any P51 (e.g.). Post-war German tank designs (Leopard 1, Kampfpanzer 70 prototype, Leopard 2) emphasize mobility for a reasonery good reason.
It must be noted that cv-33/35 wasn't exactly a failure. It was a export success being sold to Austria, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Nationalist China, Independent State of Croatia, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Nicaragua, Spain, Albania, Bolivia and Venezuela. The Afghan models were running into the late 1960s, Nicaragua had a running model in 1979 and even communist China used a few captured models in 1949. However, the problem was it was meant to be a cheap tank design and not meant to take on any other tanks or massed infantry for that matter.
I'm curious about the Japanese Ka-Mi myself. It's one of the earlier amphibious tanks and the concept of any of those tanks are pretty interesting.
I wouldn't mind a part 2 to this video
Obi Wan Patton: Tanks are my specialty
The Bob semple is the peak of tank development. It's the strongest weapon ever created surpassing the A bomb itself.
Covenanter is the most functional one on the list. The design wasn't bad, it just had some technical issues that needed fixing. It's successor, the crusader, was great. It mounted a 6 pounder gun with -12 degrees of depression and combined with great mobility made it perfect for maneuver warfare.
A match between Type 95 and Bob Semple would be interesting to watch considering that was their intended adversary. Don't know if the light machine guns on the latter could do anything to the Ha-Go , though.
I'd like to think that seeing Ol' Bob in any action would have been an interesting sight.
"Commander, the local gas station dumpster is coming at us from the East."
A few ideas for future discussion? Okay, not all of these ideas saw action or even use in WWII, but all are worthy of a raspberry or two. U.S. M2 Medium, Harmon-Herrington CTLS-4TAC (okay, any CTL or CTM
Out of all the tanks here, I think the L3/35 tank is one that I'll actually want to ride on, It's kinda fun to watch
Being honest? As Italian, i want an L3 for my daily drive to work.
I understand the Semple tank came about by accident.
The kiwi farmer was bringing his tractor out of the shed, and accidentally hit reverse, taking the shed with him.
How dare you put the Bob Semple in the thumbnail? That tank single handedly kept the Japanese hordes off of Australian soil
The modificated CV L3 with flamethrower was actually very effective.
This channel reminds me of the times I would sit with my dad watching the history channel.
The Semple was turned back into a Bulldozer and was used during WW2 as such. It was cheap to make, took little resources and was recyclable.
Many other nations spent far more on machines over a longer time that saw less service.
Bob Semple was on a whole other level. It's like they went back 30 years all the way to WW1
It was the Kiwis making do with what they had.
The CV33 tankette should be thought of as a self-propelled machine gun that supports infantry.
It beats having to carry the machine gun and ammo.
While the details about every tank/tankette are right, it's not useful to compare a full production model like the Convenanter with prototypes like the Maus or emergency measures like Bob Semple
So basically:
Covenanter: An oven on tracks
Type 95: Endless list of mechanical issues
Maus: Too big to work
L3/37: Too small to work
Bob Semple: Slow tractor with guns.
The Type 95, because out of all of these, it is the only one that EVER saw any success.
The Bob Semple tank seems fun to ride, plus it can double as a mobile playground structure
I guess the Maus would be the safest bet for me to live the longest .
tbh The Type 95 Ha-Go had one feature a fake rivet located in de rear is actually a door bell used to warn an incoming enemy and can be used a prank tool for American soldiers
On the Maus, only 2 hulls were completed and 1 turret was completed but was never put on a hull. The Soviets captured all pieces for the Maus and used 1 hull for target practice to see how best to penetrate the armor thickness it had and the other had the turret mounted and sat as a museum piece.
@3.20 smiley emote on the side of that ha-go turret? :)