Hm, I don't really see the value in this video. I don't mean to discount your opinion as a tanker or anything, but you don't really make any claims backed by evidence or sources, just vague ideas that are somewhat true. You also seem to get off on "rustling jimmies" I guess? Which fair, but if you spend 90% of your content trolling/owning people, you're going to produce very little content of actual value.
Yeah, Ukrainian tankers and other anti-tank teams would disagree with him on the T-90M. They're killing them, yes, but it's not an easy job and often requires more ordnance expenditure than other tanks to kill. He also got their origin wrong, the 90 series is based on the 72. The easiest knock out they've gotten so far was a kamikazi drone hitting near the gun breach, but we see on camera that the tank was hardly damaged, never flared up and the crew got out safely and ran the hell away, which is very impressive for Russian junk after watching all those 72s tossing turrets in 2022.
Frankly the T-90 seems better protected than Nato tanks. It shrugs off atgms and drone hits that would have immediately crippled all three of the main Nato mbts.
@@atankersview That will be good but hoenstly any tanks really would be good and the Supreme Commander games sure does have dozens of vehicle classes for you to try reviewing. Majority of them put Warhammer 40k, Halo, and Star Wars tanks to shame. And be up there with the Bolos.
@@atankersview That is nice to hear. From what I heard and seen these Supreme Commander games are pretty under dang underrated and unknown by most people. That is a big shame, I sure would like to play them and see a extra sequel get made.
I've heard that one of the issues that Imperial Japan actually had with their tanks was less that it was badly designed, and more that it was very well designed. For an early 1930s Light Tank. The issue of course comes in the fact that Imperial Japan stuck with it and didn't even start developing a replacement until 1942-43 when the flaws of a Pre-War Tank, and especially Light Tanks, were extremely apparent. Designs which were apparently also great for a Late War Tank, provide they had, you know. Actually been finished. Though some slack has to be given to the Imperial Japanese regarding the fact they looked at all the issues Italy and Germany had and told them: "Stop slacking at your bad industry score, look at how awful *our* resource issues, inter-service rivalries and industrial inefficiencies are!"
Yeah, Imperial Japan and Italy really had a "last war" mentality in some places. Tank design for Japan, Il Douche's brain for Italy. And also tank design. The infighting between the Army and the Navy didn't help either, especially since by 1943 the Navy's main goal with most Japanese steel was apparently to let America sink it in new and exciting displays of brave bullshido thinking. They may also have been tricked by the fact their tanks didn't do too badly in the Chinese campaign, where the Chinese had few decent AT weapons and even fewer tanks.
Japanese doctrine of the time favored larger numbers of lighter tanks, since it was a doctrine primarily aimed at defeating and conquering China and other less well equipped powers. This caused them to be drastically under developed once faced with any other major tank using nations. They tried to play a fast catch up game after realizing they were being outclassed by Stuarts, Lees and Shermans on every front by buying a Tiger I and Panzer III and their technology packages, hoping to make their own versions, but these tanks and the information never made it to Japan because of the D-Day landings in France. They already knew even before the war that they had some catching up to do after they were badly mauled in a border skirmish with the soviets, who still arguably underperformed despite their victory, but that led them initially to the Type 1 cannon, not better chassis development.
@@johnshelton1141 Yes. They mainly went toward equipping ANZAC and Indian units. They were outdated for the fight against Germany, but they were still plenty capable against Japan. M3 and M5 Stuarts also performed acceptably well against Japan.
I love how everyone says that the M3 Lee is too tall as if its just towering over all other tanks when its only a foot taller than the Sherman and thats just because of the commanders cupola on top. Despite not being a great design the British did make great use of them against the Germans until they finally got some Shermans. I look forward to seeing a Top 5 Best tanks video or Top 5 favorites tanks.
@atankersview i feel like the quality actually got worse the second time round because it felt like i was watching you read the same lines from the first video. 😅 the greenscreen and outfit were a nice touch though! i really like your content and i hope you continue to make these videos. (ps: you should make a video about your top 5 tank battles)
to be kind of fair on T34 and most Soviet/Russian Tanks(and by extension Chinese and other post soviet countries), the Russian doctrine is always "better tanks? Nyet! more tank and even more tanks" when your one well made well designed panzer has to face five poorly welded together steel junk heap on treads, the steel heap is winning that shit.
The fundamental design of the T-34 is really good. Its quite mobile with those wide tracks and decent engine power to weight and it packed very powerful cannon when introduced at the start of WW2. Unfortunately the ergonomics are utterly atrocious due to the wartime conditions preventing such revisions, quality finishing and quality equipment from being made or added. The post war T34s sent to Korea were at last afforded a refurbish and these much higher quality manufactured T34s did indeed perform extremely well in the Korean war until they started encountering Pershings and long gunned Shermans.
Oh please, I'd take a Ha-Go any day of the week over the Hotchkiss H.35, a tank so damn bad the French calvary preferred horse over taking the damn thing. It had a WWI era 37mm short barrel so piss weak that a USA 50cal had better penetration, cast AND riveted armor so you had the worst of both worlds, oh and did I mention the only way for the commander/gunner to see was a little slit dome designed for him to turn with his head? Or that you had to climb in and out via a "butt flap" on the back of the turret and that it held 80 rounds packed in tightly so that any enemy round going in had a high chance of cooking off the ammo? It was a tank so damn terrible that the Germans who were so badly in need of tanks at the start of Barbarossa said "yeah no thanks" and left them in France 💩
@@atankersview These tanks were literally too slow to be used in German lightning warfare despite being light tanks. The French tank force is a hilarious mix of some of the best tank technology seen at the time and some of the most extreme cost cutting and bureaucratic waste.
Weird that the Bob Semple would even be referenced at all in this video. You think you’d be more likely to see that one in the best tanks in human history video
@@Dicka899 Yeah sure. Except one of them had an 80% crew survival rate when penetrated and the other had 28%. And when they went head to head in the Korean War, the Sherman consistently smoked the T-34 in every encounter. Only one of them also still has thousands of functional war time examples around the world. The other's remaining functional examples are largely Czech and Polish license manufacture from the 1950s.
your opinion isn't really supported by anything, I don't know how you can claim any of these as the absolute 'worst' tanks. you seem to be focused on just being a contrarian instead of actually making good arguments or claims.
A T-90 recently got spanked and humiliated by a spicy mini-van. Do we really need a hundred long page exhaustively sourced doctoral thesis to say Russian tanks are overhyped junk at this point?
@@Burkutace27 and you can find Abrams being knocked out with rocket launchers, don't cherrypick examples. not saying the T-90 isn't bad though. I'm just saying it is far from the worst tank, same with the other tanks the video author put in this list.
@@atankersview But those tanks really did get destroyed by RPG-7s lmao.... And so did Leo 2A4s. A tank caught is a destroyed tank. Whether those were Bradleys, guys with AT launchers, other tanks it didnt matter. The tank got caught out of position and that is it. It says nothing bad about a tank. And replace the T-90M in that scenario with any other tank, and every other tank gets disabled too.
@@niksonrex88 None of those tanks have ever been destroyed by RPG-7s. Not sure where you got that fucking load of nonsense, seeing as a challenger II in Iraq took 14 direct hits to the turret from RPG-7s and came out unscathed. Even soviet tanks from the T-72 onward are largely resistant, if not outright immune to the RPG-7 unless firing down from the roof of a building into the thinner roof armor or the engine deck, which is exactly what the Chechens did to the Russians. The Leos lost by the Turks when they fought ISIS and the Kurds were killed by older ATGMs like American TOW and Russian Metis and Spriggan systems.... and they were killed because they were sent into an urban zone with little to no infantry support. The Saudi Abrams that were lost were lost to the same Russian systems, plus Kornet, and for the same reason, though we've also seen abandoned Saudi Abrams destroyed with satchel charges thrown inside the tanks to prevent recovery. Iraqis lost a few Abrams to ISIS as well, not destroyed but abandoned because of their initial shock and retreat before they got their shit together and started fighting. What do all these losses have in common? Arab countries, who are consistently poor quality combatants. You can train an ME nation to the highest western standards, and they will never in a thousand years be able to one-for-one match the quality of a western soldier unless you can completely erase and replace their culture with one that builds an entirely different mindset from birth. And even then, I'm not convinced you could do it because euros and north Americans constantly study better ways to kill each other while Arabs spent all their time studying better ways to oppress each other and worship their child-molesting blood god. Addition to all that, the Merkavas that were knocked out by Libya a few years ago were done so with Kornets that were launched from higher positions. The Israelis failed to properly support the tanks with infantry on the high ends of the valley and no overhead drones either to protect against ambushes. And then on top of it, they failed to pop smoke when coming under fire. Truly some amateur dumbfuckery on their part. And still, they managed to get very lucky. None of those tanks were destroyed, minimal losses were sustained as they retreated, though those tanks were among the roughly 30% of knocked out tanks from that campaign that had to go back to the factory for more extensive repair and/or partial rebuild.
T-90M, Just M, The MS is the export variant of the M. Also the Russians just decided that quantity has a quality of it's own, which is why they went for the T-72B3s. T-90M IS better, but requires a new turret made from scratch, rather than slapping ERA and aplique over the T-72B that they already had and it also needs more advanced systems and more powerful engine to deal with the weight. Vladimir Vladimirovich wanted more tanks ready to shoot sooner, so the T-72 upgrade was the way to go. Also the since the T-90 essentially is a development from the T-72 hull it's quite likely that they had to pick making some T-90Ms or upgrading T-72Bs on the same production line, but not both. T-34 genuinely was bad. Especially mid-war production QC was terrible. T-34/85 was a war design. That thing was upgunned with the cast turret because it's 76 mm was getting long in the tooth and two man turret definitely made the tank difficult to utilise, so they went to copy the german layout. By that time they had enough time to check the Pz. IIIs and IVs. M3... skirts the adapted farming equipment line almost :D In defense of the Japanese armor one must just admit that it was an improvement over their bicycle troops.
The T-34 was very good when finally given the chance to be manufactured properly and given proper equipment after the war. The Koreans got to use much better quality T-34s than the ones the red army had to put up with during the desperation of WWII and it shows. North Korean T-34s were unstoppable until American Pershings and late model Shermans arrived to counter them.
@@rogerc6533 Seriously the T-34 had almost no opposition there. At first they rushed in some M-24s in there and the light tank was just outclassed as it was never meant to fight armor. It was about matched to the later Sherman and Comets AFAIK and Pershings could counter them (well, they were meant to counter whatever panzers ze Germans could throw at them). The T-34 wasn't that good as it was an upgunned pre-war construction, but it could do the job.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 being equally matched to the later model Shermans and Comets does make the T-34 an excellent tank. Its impressive the Soviets managed to make a competitive design in such vast quantities despite their far lesser wealth and cruder industry.
@@rogerc6533 They all were already dated designs and Soviets themselves knew it and were alredy producing much improved T-44 and had the T-54 in the pipeline. Those were the actual good tanks for that time. Also Soviet industry was far from primitive. It wasn't as robust, but they were having quite a few facilities projected and built by western industrialists in the 30s and got their hands on many German factories and scientists as well at the end of the war. USSR invested in heavy industry a lot. It was the consumer production that was generally lagging behind.
T-90 shits on every NATO tank. You may laugh because one T-90M got its optics shredded by a pair of Bradleys in an ambush, but no NATO tank has lasted more than five minutes in real combat against a peer adversary. NATO tanks are so poorly designed that they get clapped by a single FPV drone hit, and that's assuming they even make it to the front line without breaking down or getting stuck in the mud. Abrams tanks keep ACKing in Berdychi which is now perhaps only a few short weeks away from being under full Russian control, the first Abrams platform vehicle has already been captured and hauled off on the flatbed of shame (M1150 ABV), and the Russians will soon have a mildly crispy Leopard 2A6 at their Victory Day Parade. The Challenger 2 is so unreliable that all Challenger tanks will neutralize themselves before ever seeing combat in not too much time, aside from the one that did see combat and got its turret popped as soon as it was spotted. NATO tanks are so heavy that they can't go over most bridges and require specialized equipment to tow off the battlefield, which is why pretty much none that have been knocked out have been recovered by either side. NATO tanks are also horribly out-ranged by Soviet/Russian/Chinese tanks' cannon-launched ATGMs which have over double the effective range of even the fastest APFSDS shells guided by the best FCS in the world, and this has proven to be quite the problem for the Abrams after one got knocked out by a T-72B3's Reflekts ATGM outside of the Abrams' engagement range, and the T-72B3 isn't even one of Russia's good tanks by the Russians' own admission. Remember that NATO tried to make a working gun/launcher for the MBT-70 program and on the slightly less disasterous M551 Sheriden, but failed as they couldn't figure out how to make the ATGM guidance system survive cannon recoil. The trauma the MBT-70 inflicted on NATO is why neither America or any European NATO country have attempted to make a tank autoloader ever since, as this cutting-edge '60s technology is just too much for them to figure out. And don't even get me started on the manual loading issue that's the cause of all NATO tanks' problems from being massively overweight due to the larger crew compartment needed for the 4th crew member which forces NATO's tank designers to make the sides, roof, and rear thinner in order for these things to not be any more horrifically overweight than these things already are, but that has come at the cost of causing these things to die to FPV drones, artillery, mines, and ATGMs much easier than their Soviet/Russian counterparts. On top of all of that, this gives these tanks a horrifically slow rate of fire while on the move, as as anyone who's tried standing up in a moving vehicle will tell you, it's not a very stable envrionment which makes handling a big, heavy shell extremely difficult, even if manual loaded tanks have a marginally higher rate of fire while stationary, not that that matters as a stationary tank is a dead tank. This pretty much makes NATO tanks WWII tanks with NERA armor compositions unchanged aside from their thickness since the late '70s and digital FCS and thermal optics that were both obsolete or close to obsolescence in the late '90s that barely work under laboratory conditions and break down under the slightest stress. The breakdowns these tanks have had have been a major source of complaints from the AFU on the rare occasion when one of their crews or mechanics is allowed to speak honestly or has written off his own life and no longer fears the SBU. It's also rather ironic that NATO's obsession with removing the ammo from the crew compartment, as good intentioned as that may have been, has been why these tanks have had such a high burn rate as their ammo is stored at the top of the back of the turret where it's easiest to hit with an FPV drone or ATGM. This has also condemned many of their crews to being picked off by drones and artillery shortly after abandoning these deathtraps. Really, you have no right to criticize Soviet/Russian/Chinese armor when for all their many faults, they've made an absolute mockery of NATO armor in Ukraine. NATO tanks and IFVs haven't won a single battle with all of Ukraine's few victories having been achieved with their old Soviet equipment that actually works, while Russian tanks and IFVs are taking a new town or village just about every day now.
Nato copium bought into the German big cat meme and made extremely limited quantity ultra heavy super wunderwaffe tanks that bog down in the mud and get annihilated by modern weaponry all the same. Which is really stupid considering the west essentially has infinite resources and could of just made a modern day workhorse to continue the Shermans legacy. Instead the T-90 is a far worthier continuation of the Sherman tank legacy.
Oof I saw Sheridan there. Granted, given just 1 shot of its !55mm Snub-gun or a 1-a few missiles will knock out the electronics in the tank but come on. it's an itty-bitty tank with a snub gun (in theory) capable of knocking out an actual tank. Not like I would try in IRL... but then again, goofy wargames on table DO exist- All jokes aside, most modern "light" tanks seem to have something wacky about them that doesn't often add up well. Swedish and American tanks that i know of fail there though the Scimitar and Scorpion tanks, if they're not just tankettes, from the British do seem semi-decent for their use... probably should preference that those tanks I've only ever seen on tabletop and even i have mixed results with those games.
What galls me the most about the sheridan, is that they used it for almost 40 years despite all of its issues. Hell they canned the Stryker mgs after 2 because it sucked so bad.
My personal honorable mentions that undoubtedly deserve the title "Worst Tank in History". (Idk if assault guns and tank destroyers count, they weren't exactly mentioned in the 3 rules of the vid) Also it's been hilarious seeing all the triggered comments, mfs acting like you need a 100 page historical document just to prove that (insert tank) is bad. I guess basic common sense no longer exists after you've spent 18 hours daily online at tank forums, eh? St. Chamond - Comically short tracks on an equally comically long and front-heavy hull made trench crossing and driving in-general not a great experience to say the least, especially in the battlefields of WW1. L3/35 - a small tank too small for even one man and armor so thin, welding a shovel at the front unironically gave you triple the armor thickness. Armed with an AT rifle at best, and a flamethrower at worst, even a disabled M3 Stuart would make you think twice about a fight. Ferdinand - a disastrous design made even more disastrous. I don't care about your kill:loss ratios, if you're losing tanks against hills it's pretty telling just how bad your tank is. Jagdtiger - a disastrous design made even more disastrous part 2, the absolute definition of pointless. The long 88 and 75 are already capable of killing all Allied armor, what could the Germans possibly need the 128mm for? Sturmtiger - a great design turned disastrous. Oh you think the 128mm wasn't overkill enough? well, we welded this 380mm rocket mortar to a Tiger 1 hull. Good luck trying to find ammo for this thing, oh and reloading it as well. T-72 - self-explanatory, you don't even need to know about the Ukrainian invasion at all to arrive to the same conclusion.
Calling some of the best tanks ever built the worst tanks is pretty based and in this case pretty American heck the t-90 and t-34 makes being dubbed the “worst” look pretty good. Heck when I heard you call the t-34 one of the worst tanks, when it came to the German part of the video I was sorta expecting the tiger 1. Ha go is definitely the kind of tank to go to if your looking for a one way trip
This will drive you crazy but I think the T90 is the best tank in the world right now. You have to factor in its sheer availability. Theres no other modern mbt that can be churned out in the hundreds every month. Also its performance is no worse than Nato tanks; perhaps even better due to its light weight handling terrain better. Nato tanks with all that heavy armor still lacks in protection against modern weaponry. Mass produced, fairly modern, nimble and workhorse: T-90 is essentially the modern day equivalent of the Sherman.
Technically the armour did stop the rounds, but it shredded all the vision blocks, sensors, and the tracks. It was a meeting engagement, so whomever fired first and most will win. Realistically tho, depending on the model of t72, its armor cannot stand up to modern 25 and 30mm. A lot of the older ones that were in storage are probably going to run into that issue.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I Think this thumbnail might be too clickbaity...😅
Nah, I think is fair hahaha 😂
its not what you have, its how you use it. Your equipment is only as effective as the user
Hm, I don't really see the value in this video. I don't mean to discount your opinion as a tanker or anything, but you don't really make any claims backed by evidence or sources, just vague ideas that are somewhat true. You also seem to get off on "rustling jimmies" I guess? Which fair, but if you spend 90% of your content trolling/owning people, you're going to produce very little content of actual value.
Yeah, Ukrainian tankers and other anti-tank teams would disagree with him on the T-90M. They're killing them, yes, but it's not an easy job and often requires more ordnance expenditure than other tanks to kill. He also got their origin wrong, the 90 series is based on the 72. The easiest knock out they've gotten so far was a kamikazi drone hitting near the gun breach, but we see on camera that the tank was hardly damaged, never flared up and the crew got out safely and ran the hell away, which is very impressive for Russian junk after watching all those 72s tossing turrets in 2022.
Frankly the T-90 seems better protected than Nato tanks. It shrugs off atgms and drone hits that would have immediately crippled all three of the main Nato mbts.
I was so expecting to see some British tanks on here, especially the Cruiser MkIII Valentine.
Can Supreme Commander tanks make it to these tank review videos?
it could happen..lmao.. I guess your looking at wanting to see the UEF Fatboy?
@@atankersview
That will be good but hoenstly any tanks really would be good and the Supreme Commander games sure does have dozens of vehicle classes for you to try reviewing. Majority of them put Warhammer 40k, Halo, and Star Wars tanks to shame. And be up there with the Bolos.
@thorshammer7883 oh im aware, im an avid player
@@atankersview
That is nice to hear. From what I heard and seen these Supreme Commander games are pretty under dang underrated and unknown by most people. That is a big shame, I sure would like to play them and see a extra sequel get made.
@thorshammer7883 to be honest its still one of the most resource intensive games ive ever played, and ive got a liquid cooled rig
I've heard that one of the issues that Imperial Japan actually had with their tanks was less that it was badly designed, and more that it was very well designed. For an early 1930s Light Tank.
The issue of course comes in the fact that Imperial Japan stuck with it and didn't even start developing a replacement until 1942-43 when the flaws of a Pre-War Tank, and especially Light Tanks, were extremely apparent. Designs which were apparently also great for a Late War Tank, provide they had, you know. Actually been finished.
Though some slack has to be given to the Imperial Japanese regarding the fact they looked at all the issues Italy and Germany had and told them: "Stop slacking at your bad industry score, look at how awful *our* resource issues, inter-service rivalries and industrial inefficiencies are!"
Yeah, Imperial Japan and Italy really had a "last war" mentality in some places. Tank design for Japan, Il Douche's brain for Italy. And also tank design. The infighting between the Army and the Navy didn't help either, especially since by 1943 the Navy's main goal with most Japanese steel was apparently to let America sink it in new and exciting displays of brave bullshido thinking.
They may also have been tricked by the fact their tanks didn't do too badly in the Chinese campaign, where the Chinese had few decent AT weapons and even fewer tanks.
Japanese doctrine of the time favored larger numbers of lighter tanks, since it was a doctrine primarily aimed at defeating and conquering China and other less well equipped powers. This caused them to be drastically under developed once faced with any other major tank using nations. They tried to play a fast catch up game after realizing they were being outclassed by Stuarts, Lees and Shermans on every front by buying a Tiger I and Panzer III and their technology packages, hoping to make their own versions, but these tanks and the information never made it to Japan because of the D-Day landings in France. They already knew even before the war that they had some catching up to do after they were badly mauled in a border skirmish with the soviets, who still arguably underperformed despite their victory, but that led them initially to the Type 1 cannon, not better chassis development.
i have heard that the M-3s went sent to the Pacific
@@johnshelton1141 Yes. They mainly went toward equipping ANZAC and Indian units. They were outdated for the fight against Germany, but they were still plenty capable against Japan. M3 and M5 Stuarts also performed acceptably well against Japan.
Can't shit on a tank cause Bradley wrecked it, Bradley's are beasts!
Well the Sovjets tactics was the kind Zapp Brannigan could approve of so its not surprising if their equipment might reflect that 😜
This tank sucks so much it could suck a bowling ball through a drinking straw.
I love how everyone says that the M3 Lee is too tall as if its just towering over all other tanks when its only a foot taller than the Sherman and thats just because of the commanders cupola on top. Despite not being a great design the British did make great use of them against the Germans until they finally got some Shermans. I look forward to seeing a Top 5 Best tanks video or Top 5 favorites tanks.
Loving the green screen/costume combo, just need a cigar or something
If youtube wouldn't immediately delist the video i would.
@@atankersviewthey really are no fun at all!!!
Sent everybody to the Gulag that had more than a room temperature IQ... and it gets COLD in Russia too.
Cry more
İ was half expecting glorious Bob semple to show up until i saw the rules.. and now i'm sad :(
@atankersview i feel like the quality actually got worse the second time round because it felt like i was watching you read the same lines from the first video. 😅
the greenscreen and outfit were a nice touch though! i really like your content and i hope you continue to make these videos. (ps: you should make a video about your top 5 tank battles)
Honorable mentions: Anything made in Italy during WW2, Current Chinese tanks, The British Cheiftan.
to be somewhat fair about Chinese tanks, they are low spec and has more than enough weaknesses, but they are light and cheap.(cough...cough ....Arjun)
Souce: nato ball
We cant judge Chinese tanks capabilities right now as they are completely untested in combat.
to be kind of fair on T34 and most Soviet/Russian Tanks(and by extension Chinese and other post soviet countries), the Russian doctrine is always "better tanks? Nyet! more tank and even more tanks" when your one well made well designed panzer has to face five poorly welded together steel junk heap on treads, the steel heap is winning that shit.
The fundamental design of the T-34 is really good. Its quite mobile with those wide tracks and decent engine power to weight and it packed very powerful cannon when introduced at the start of WW2.
Unfortunately the ergonomics are utterly atrocious due to the wartime conditions preventing such revisions, quality finishing and quality equipment from being made or added.
The post war T34s sent to Korea were at last afforded a refurbish and these much higher quality manufactured T34s did indeed perform extremely well in the Korean war until they started encountering Pershings and long gunned Shermans.
Why is there a kv2 turret on a t34 hull?
I dunno.
Oh please, I'd take a Ha-Go any day of the week over the Hotchkiss H.35, a tank so damn bad the French calvary preferred horse over taking the damn thing. It had a WWI era 37mm short barrel so piss weak that a USA 50cal had better penetration, cast AND riveted armor so you had the worst of both worlds, oh and did I mention the only way for the commander/gunner to see was a little slit dome designed for him to turn with his head? Or that you had to climb in and out via a "butt flap" on the back of the turret and that it held 80 rounds packed in tightly so that any enemy round going in had a high chance of cooking off the ammo?
It was a tank so damn terrible that the Germans who were so badly in need of tanks at the start of Barbarossa said "yeah no thanks" and left them in France 💩
Were those the ones they gave to the czech's?
@@atankersview These tanks were literally too slow to be used in German lightning warfare despite being light tanks. The French tank force is a hilarious mix of some of the best tank technology seen at the time and some of the most extreme cost cutting and bureaucratic waste.
Weird that the Bob Semple would even be referenced at all in this video. You think you’d be more likely to see that one in the best tanks in human history video
T34 is overrated
The M4 sherman is underrated.
they are basically the same thing/role
@@Dicka899 Yeah sure. Except one of them had an 80% crew survival rate when penetrated and the other had 28%. And when they went head to head in the Korean War, the Sherman consistently smoked the T-34 in every encounter. Only one of them also still has thousands of functional war time examples around the world. The other's remaining functional examples are largely Czech and Polish license manufacture from the 1950s.
No, definitely not
@@wolfehoffmann2697ah yes, compare a tank designed for desperate in-mass production with the best american at the time
@@wolfehoffmann2697 ok burger go eat your fried goyslop and re-read my reply
9:22 Not sure whether you said 76 or 75 mm gun, but I thought the Americans were attempting to mount a 75mm gun ?
I said 76. Meant 75. Good catch
I mean we all know why the Bob Semple tank is truly the best tank ever.
Lmao.
your opinion isn't really supported by anything, I don't know how you can claim any of these as the absolute 'worst' tanks. you seem to be focused on just being a contrarian instead of actually making good arguments or claims.
OK
I hardly doubt that your own opinion has any more value or is supported by anything unlike you he's a real tank driver
He made the mistake of calling the T-72 a T-68. A tank that legit doest exist. Shows how much this guy knows.
A T-90 recently got spanked and humiliated by a spicy mini-van.
Do we really need a hundred long page exhaustively sourced doctoral thesis to say Russian tanks are overhyped junk at this point?
@@Burkutace27 and you can find Abrams being knocked out with rocket launchers, don't cherrypick examples. not saying the T-90 isn't bad though. I'm just saying it is far from the worst tank, same with the other tanks the video author put in this list.
You must be joking when you showed that, might as well include Merkava and Abrams at this point seeing they being destroyed by the humble RPG-7......
I cant tell if your trolling or if you actually believe that
@@atankersview is this just a NATO troll channel or are you being genuine?
@@atankersview But those tanks really did get destroyed by RPG-7s lmao.... And so did Leo 2A4s. A tank caught is a destroyed tank. Whether those were Bradleys, guys with AT launchers, other tanks it didnt matter. The tank got caught out of position and that is it. It says nothing bad about a tank. And replace the T-90M in that scenario with any other tank, and every other tank gets disabled too.
@@niksonrex88 None of those tanks have ever been destroyed by RPG-7s. Not sure where you got that fucking load of nonsense, seeing as a challenger II in Iraq took 14 direct hits to the turret from RPG-7s and came out unscathed. Even soviet tanks from the T-72 onward are largely resistant, if not outright immune to the RPG-7 unless firing down from the roof of a building into the thinner roof armor or the engine deck, which is exactly what the Chechens did to the Russians.
The Leos lost by the Turks when they fought ISIS and the Kurds were killed by older ATGMs like American TOW and Russian Metis and Spriggan systems.... and they were killed because they were sent into an urban zone with little to no infantry support. The Saudi Abrams that were lost were lost to the same Russian systems, plus Kornet, and for the same reason, though we've also seen abandoned Saudi Abrams destroyed with satchel charges thrown inside the tanks to prevent recovery. Iraqis lost a few Abrams to ISIS as well, not destroyed but abandoned because of their initial shock and retreat before they got their shit together and started fighting. What do all these losses have in common? Arab countries, who are consistently poor quality combatants. You can train an ME nation to the highest western standards, and they will never in a thousand years be able to one-for-one match the quality of a western soldier unless you can completely erase and replace their culture with one that builds an entirely different mindset from birth. And even then, I'm not convinced you could do it because euros and north Americans constantly study better ways to kill each other while Arabs spent all their time studying better ways to oppress each other and worship their child-molesting blood god.
Addition to all that, the Merkavas that were knocked out by Libya a few years ago were done so with Kornets that were launched from higher positions. The Israelis failed to properly support the tanks with infantry on the high ends of the valley and no overhead drones either to protect against ambushes. And then on top of it, they failed to pop smoke when coming under fire. Truly some amateur dumbfuckery on their part. And still, they managed to get very lucky. None of those tanks were destroyed, minimal losses were sustained as they retreated, though those tanks were among the roughly 30% of knocked out tanks from that campaign that had to go back to the factory for more extensive repair and/or partial rebuild.
@@niksonrex88 every modern tank can get shitwrecked by even old ammunition with a side or rear shot
The T34 is an excellent tank in the same way a swarm of bees is an excellent defence of a hive. It works if you don't really care about losses.
T-90M, Just M, The MS is the export variant of the M. Also the Russians just decided that quantity has a quality of it's own, which is why they went for the T-72B3s. T-90M IS better, but requires a new turret made from scratch, rather than slapping ERA and aplique over the T-72B that they already had and it also needs more advanced systems and more powerful engine to deal with the weight. Vladimir Vladimirovich wanted more tanks ready to shoot sooner, so the T-72 upgrade was the way to go. Also the since the T-90 essentially is a development from the T-72 hull it's quite likely that they had to pick making some T-90Ms or upgrading T-72Bs on the same production line, but not both.
T-34 genuinely was bad. Especially mid-war production QC was terrible. T-34/85 was a war design. That thing was upgunned with the cast turret because it's 76 mm was getting long in the tooth and two man turret definitely made the tank difficult to utilise, so they went to copy the german layout. By that time they had enough time to check the Pz. IIIs and IVs.
M3... skirts the adapted farming equipment line almost :D
In defense of the Japanese armor one must just admit that it was an improvement over their bicycle troops.
The T-34 was very good when finally given the chance to be manufactured properly and given proper equipment after the war. The Koreans got to use much better quality T-34s than the ones the red army had to put up with during the desperation of WWII and it shows. North Korean T-34s were unstoppable until American Pershings and late model Shermans arrived to counter them.
@@rogerc6533 Seriously the T-34 had almost no opposition there. At first they rushed in some M-24s in there and the light tank was just outclassed as it was never meant to fight armor. It was about matched to the later Sherman and Comets AFAIK and Pershings could counter them (well, they were meant to counter whatever panzers ze Germans could throw at them). The T-34 wasn't that good as it was an upgunned pre-war construction, but it could do the job.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 being equally matched to the later model Shermans and Comets does make the T-34 an excellent tank. Its impressive the Soviets managed to make a competitive design in such vast quantities despite their far lesser wealth and cruder industry.
@@rogerc6533 They all were already dated designs and Soviets themselves knew it and were alredy producing much improved T-44 and had the T-54 in the pipeline. Those were the actual good tanks for that time. Also Soviet industry was far from primitive. It wasn't as robust, but they were having quite a few facilities projected and built by western industrialists in the 30s and got their hands on many German factories and scientists as well at the end of the war. USSR invested in heavy industry a lot. It was the consumer production that was generally lagging behind.
T-90 shits on every NATO tank. You may laugh because one T-90M got its optics shredded by a pair of Bradleys in an ambush, but no NATO tank has lasted more than five minutes in real combat against a peer adversary. NATO tanks are so poorly designed that they get clapped by a single FPV drone hit, and that's assuming they even make it to the front line without breaking down or getting stuck in the mud. Abrams tanks keep ACKing in Berdychi which is now perhaps only a few short weeks away from being under full Russian control, the first Abrams platform vehicle has already been captured and hauled off on the flatbed of shame (M1150 ABV), and the Russians will soon have a mildly crispy Leopard 2A6 at their Victory Day Parade. The Challenger 2 is so unreliable that all Challenger tanks will neutralize themselves before ever seeing combat in not too much time, aside from the one that did see combat and got its turret popped as soon as it was spotted. NATO tanks are so heavy that they can't go over most bridges and require specialized equipment to tow off the battlefield, which is why pretty much none that have been knocked out have been recovered by either side. NATO tanks are also horribly out-ranged by Soviet/Russian/Chinese tanks' cannon-launched ATGMs which have over double the effective range of even the fastest APFSDS shells guided by the best FCS in the world, and this has proven to be quite the problem for the Abrams after one got knocked out by a T-72B3's Reflekts ATGM outside of the Abrams' engagement range, and the T-72B3 isn't even one of Russia's good tanks by the Russians' own admission. Remember that NATO tried to make a working gun/launcher for the MBT-70 program and on the slightly less disasterous M551 Sheriden, but failed as they couldn't figure out how to make the ATGM guidance system survive cannon recoil. The trauma the MBT-70 inflicted on NATO is why neither America or any European NATO country have attempted to make a tank autoloader ever since, as this cutting-edge '60s technology is just too much for them to figure out. And don't even get me started on the manual loading issue that's the cause of all NATO tanks' problems from being massively overweight due to the larger crew compartment needed for the 4th crew member which forces NATO's tank designers to make the sides, roof, and rear thinner in order for these things to not be any more horrifically overweight than these things already are, but that has come at the cost of causing these things to die to FPV drones, artillery, mines, and ATGMs much easier than their Soviet/Russian counterparts. On top of all of that, this gives these tanks a horrifically slow rate of fire while on the move, as as anyone who's tried standing up in a moving vehicle will tell you, it's not a very stable envrionment which makes handling a big, heavy shell extremely difficult, even if manual loaded tanks have a marginally higher rate of fire while stationary, not that that matters as a stationary tank is a dead tank. This pretty much makes NATO tanks WWII tanks with NERA armor compositions unchanged aside from their thickness since the late '70s and digital FCS and thermal optics that were both obsolete or close to obsolescence in the late '90s that barely work under laboratory conditions and break down under the slightest stress. The breakdowns these tanks have had have been a major source of complaints from the AFU on the rare occasion when one of their crews or mechanics is allowed to speak honestly or has written off his own life and no longer fears the SBU. It's also rather ironic that NATO's obsession with removing the ammo from the crew compartment, as good intentioned as that may have been, has been why these tanks have had such a high burn rate as their ammo is stored at the top of the back of the turret where it's easiest to hit with an FPV drone or ATGM. This has also condemned many of their crews to being picked off by drones and artillery shortly after abandoning these deathtraps.
Really, you have no right to criticize Soviet/Russian/Chinese armor when for all their many faults, they've made an absolute mockery of NATO armor in Ukraine. NATO tanks and IFVs haven't won a single battle with all of Ukraine's few victories having been achieved with their old Soviet equipment that actually works, while Russian tanks and IFVs are taking a new town or village just about every day now.
Typical Orc cope
@@luminaaeterna1259 You lost to orcs. How fucking embarrassing.
Nato copium bought into the German big cat meme and made extremely limited quantity ultra heavy super wunderwaffe tanks that bog down in the mud and get annihilated by modern weaponry all the same. Which is really stupid considering the west essentially has infinite resources and could of just made a modern day workhorse to continue the Shermans legacy. Instead the T-90 is a far worthier continuation of the Sherman tank legacy.
Oof I saw Sheridan there. Granted, given just 1 shot of its !55mm Snub-gun or a 1-a few missiles will knock out the electronics in the tank but come on. it's an itty-bitty tank with a snub gun (in theory) capable of knocking out an actual tank. Not like I would try in IRL... but then again, goofy wargames on table DO exist-
All jokes aside, most modern "light" tanks seem to have something wacky about them that doesn't often add up well. Swedish and American tanks that i know of fail there though the Scimitar and Scorpion tanks, if they're not just tankettes, from the British do seem semi-decent for their use... probably should preference that those tanks I've only ever seen on tabletop and even i have mixed results with those games.
What galls me the most about the sheridan, is that they used it for almost 40 years despite all of its issues. Hell they canned the Stryker mgs after 2 because it sucked so bad.
My personal honorable mentions that undoubtedly deserve the title "Worst Tank in History". (Idk if assault guns and tank destroyers count, they weren't exactly mentioned in the 3 rules of the vid)
Also it's been hilarious seeing all the triggered comments, mfs acting like you need a 100 page historical document just to prove that (insert tank) is bad. I guess basic common sense no longer exists after you've spent 18 hours daily online at tank forums, eh?
St. Chamond - Comically short tracks on an equally comically long and front-heavy hull made trench crossing and driving in-general not a great experience to say the least, especially in the battlefields of WW1.
L3/35 - a small tank too small for even one man and armor so thin, welding a shovel at the front unironically gave you triple the armor thickness. Armed with an AT rifle at best, and a flamethrower at worst, even a disabled M3 Stuart would make you think twice about a fight.
Ferdinand - a disastrous design made even more disastrous. I don't care about your kill:loss ratios, if you're losing tanks against hills it's pretty telling just how bad your tank is.
Jagdtiger - a disastrous design made even more disastrous part 2, the absolute definition of pointless. The long 88 and 75 are already capable of killing all Allied armor, what could the Germans possibly need the 128mm for?
Sturmtiger - a great design turned disastrous. Oh you think the 128mm wasn't overkill enough? well, we welded this 380mm rocket mortar to a Tiger 1 hull. Good luck trying to find ammo for this thing, oh and reloading it as well.
T-72 - self-explanatory, you don't even need to know about the Ukrainian invasion at all to arrive to the same conclusion.
Calling some of the best tanks ever built the worst tanks is pretty based and in this case pretty American heck the t-90 and t-34 makes being dubbed the “worst” look pretty good.
Heck when I heard you call the t-34 one of the worst tanks, when it came to the German part of the video I was sorta expecting the tiger 1.
Ha go is definitely the kind of tank to go to if your looking for a one way trip
The M3 Lee/Grant video clips are reversed, the 75mm hull gun should be on the right side of the tank
Other videos are too, old movies shenanigans.
This will drive you crazy but I think the T90 is the best tank in the world right now. You have to factor in its sheer availability. Theres no other modern mbt that can be churned out in the hundreds every month. Also its performance is no worse than Nato tanks; perhaps even better due to its light weight handling terrain better. Nato tanks with all that heavy armor still lacks in protection against modern weaponry. Mass produced, fairly modern, nimble and workhorse: T-90 is essentially the modern day equivalent of the Sherman.
Should just go down the list of t series tanks
The septic tank
Is it realy a tank. If the armour are so shit. that it can´t stop a 25 mm shell.
Technically the armour did stop the rounds, but it shredded all the vision blocks, sensors, and the tracks. It was a meeting engagement, so whomever fired first and most will win. Realistically tho, depending on the model of t72, its armor cannot stand up to modern 25 and 30mm. A lot of the older ones that were in storage are probably going to run into that issue.
he has a cat
Ive got 3.
@@atankersview i want to see all of them
Dude hates on T-34 but doesnt list Panther, Tiger I and II. Weird
This is the worst video i have watched this year for sure, thanks for the slop
Spicey, Russia won the worst tank prize... you should not celebrate thatbwith vodka Ivan
This..isngonna get soicey. And im ok with that.
Thats just satire, please be satire, please... and really? Advertising a video with even worse quality than this? Dude...
what a sh-t waste of time
What aload of propoganda bs