Go to ground.news/redwrench to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up or subscribe through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access if you support the mission and find it as useful as I do.
@@Dicka899 I think it’s to measure when outlets have been reporting things as true that are later proven false. How often they have done that and to what degree. Also, where does this end? Who checks those who check the fact checkers? Who checks them? The point of GR is that it is impartial - it treats all outlets equally. It also, to my knowledge, focuses on English speaking news outlets for an English speaking audience.
The problem with interwar tank designs is that pretty much EVERYONE screwed them up monumentally. People THOUGHT they knew what had worked during WWI, and they THOUGHT they knew what would work in a future war, and mostly, they were wrong, just more or less radically so. . Nice video.
I would argue the Brits got it right, they were the first who thought of armored warfare where every military branches are mechanised in the 1920s. By the War started, it was the only nation with small but effective crew number, good gun, and adequate protection, which became the norm on tank designs on the later years, with a clear doctrine that continues to be used until a new doctrine was created universal tank, which now we know as MBT.
@@arianwinanto6299 "I would argue the Brits got it right" Uh-huh... "it was the only nation with small but effective crew number, good gun, and adequate protection" Say WHAT now? The standard British tank gun, at best, was the 2 pounder. And the British were the most extreme in dividing tanks between cruisers and infantry tanks. The Cruiser series of British tanks topped out at 30mm armor. The Crusaders were only slightly better and it wasn't until summer 1942 that the Mk III got 51mm armor along with being the first to mount a 57mm cannon. A gun that would have been great in 1939 and 1940, which by 1942 was of uncertain value. The Matilda had mostly good or ok armor, but it was still not a modern tank, with too many weak spots, and it was literally made to move at infantry WALKING speed. Pit a T-34 against any British tank 1941 and who's the better tank is predictable. The British 2 pounder is essentially useless against T-34 armor while the medium velocity 76mm gun on the T-34 will tear anything but the Matilda completely apart. And the Matilda can't handle the HE shots without detracking, allowing a T-34 to easily get at its vulnerable sides and rear. And while the KV-1 were rather crude for its time, they had roughly the same protection everywhere, or better, than the Matilda II had at best. Coupled with the same 76mm gun as on the T-34. British Cruisers and Crusaders in 1941 couldn't even penetrate them even if they got endless free shots. And even their later 57mm gun upgrade needed special ammo to pen the kind of armor the KV-1 had. . "they were the first who thought of armored warfare where every military branches are mechanised in the 1920s." They were the first that tested it. It's arguable who first considered it. Charles DeGaulle was a serious pioneer on the subject, to the point that Guderian personally translated his military theory books to German between the war as he considered them absolutely essential reading. And by the time WWII started, France actually probably had the most mature and functional mechanised warfare doctrine. Except of course, that only the French experimental divisions that had been testing it knew it, and only from experience, with no formal training or formalised rules. Also, Jean Estienne tried to form a fully mechanized French force already in 1921, 4 thousand tanks and 8 thousand APCs. Also, the idea of fully mechanized warfare came about VERY early also in the red army. Because the warfare there during WWI had tended to be VERY mobile, something that quickly made the idea highly relevant. "which now we know as MBT." Essentially, the T-44, which then in revamped form became the T-54, the most produced tank ever.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I did say "by the war started", which most nations had interwar tanks. Maybe I oversimplified on the armour part, but Matilda 1 can held up its own against German 37mm AT guns during the German invasion on France, though the tank itself was designed from a mix of old WW1 tactics and their experimental tactics which later developed into the Light, Cruiser, Infantry. Tank cannons at the start of the War, Germans had majority of 20mm, Pz3 with their 37mm was being fielded at a smaller number at the time, Soviets had their 45mm or the howitzer 76mm which isn't what's used on their T34, US with 37mm which was as good as the 2pd. 2pd itself was deadly in France and the African campaign until the Germans uparmored their tanks. Obviously, when the war entered its mid years, most of the Soviets and the US better tanks entered the service at a greater rate which saw the tanks that are even better than the Brits such as the T34 and the Shermans. I would say France had a good development on their doctrine and tanks too, but due to their loss we didn't see "much" action and it's hard to judge it's effectiveness, and as you said, the training wasn't spread out to other units. But their tanks do give much stress for the Commander though. On the MBT part, sure it's very hard to know who did started that. Some say Comet tank started it, some say T44, some say the Panther, I've even heard that the French started the concept. Feel free to disagree ofc, I'm just here to clarify the time in my previous comment.
@@DIREWOLFx75in 1939 the 2 pounder gun was pretty much the best tank gun in use by any nation, remember this is about interwar tanks so the t-34 doesn’t really count does it?
All those rust buckets make T-28 with its turret bucket, powered turret traverse, radio on every tank and intercom for crew, look like amazing future tank. It was a huge leap forward for soviet tank designers
Some T-24 tanks were used & destroyed as dug in engineless static defence positions,, in the Stalin Line. Oddly enough, three British made Vickers Medium II tanks, which had been purchased in 1930 and christened "The British Workman", by the Soviets, also shared this same fate.
I believe the colloquial term for the big, slow, under-armoured interwar paradigm is "battle fridge" on account of having the same approximate shape, mobility and armour layout of a fridge.
You need to give it to Soviets, even if they had no capabilities and experience in designing and producing tanks, instead of giving up and just buying them from abroad, like many others would, they actually tried and worked on their own stuff until they got competent enough to actually make something good.
They didn't have much choice, as no industrialised country was willing to sell them modern tanks in the numbers they wanted. They only got Christie's design because the Americans didn't want it.
@@Pushing_PixelsThe US Army used the Christie's design. He got pissed off after the contract to build them was given to American-LaFrance instead. Christie sold the rights to anything he designed to the Army in the early 1920's so couldn't prevent that. He also was a PITA to deal with. Walter sold that design to Great Britain and the USSR. Both countries fielded tanks during the war that came from that design. The Army tried it out, made modifications then declared those obsolete in 1939 to get something better made. That turned out to be the M3 and M4.
The MS-1 also saw combat in Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929, proving somewhat effective. Also they took part in the battle of Lake Khasan, though I only saw information of them being turned into stationary gun emplacements there.
No wonder for Far Eastern region, they got their updated eq last even now. Some number of MS-1 was operational here in 1945 when Manchuria was invaded.
Soviet tank design is so interesting. They basically started as some farmers and workers without any know how and in just a few decades they build some of the most advanced vehicles at the time. Truly remarkable
During the World War, Russian industry relied on Ukrainian coal, from the Donbas, and iron, from Kryvyy Rih. Which they lost in 1918. So workers at arms factories such as the Putilov plant couldn't build a lot in the Civil Wars. They could repair old equipment, and they could build limited numbers of experimental projects such as the Austin-Kegresse halftrack and the Russkiy-Renault tank.
@@kingfish2703The BT tank was built off an American design which would later evolve into the T-34. The T-26 was a British design which died with no successor to carry it's legacy.
The Soviet Mindset had always amazed me. They had all the odds against them and in just 20 years they come from miserable to world super-power!!! Thats simply amazing ❤❤❤
The US Army didn't bother with designing tanks after the war. They used Ford's Renaults and tested what J. Walter Christie came up with. The Army told Christie their specifications and he would build them differently. The Army Arsenal finally built one design according to the Army's specs to be known as the Model 1928. Some countries check it out. It resembled a tall Churchill Crocodile. Then Christie introduced his Model 1929 fast tank so the Army paid him to produce several with the Army adding on a turret. It was liked by the tankers so the Army had Ordnance design one like it then hired American - LaFrance to build it. They were slow and went way over budget so had their contract cancelled with further tank development handled by the Army Arsenal. They reduced the length and weight of the combat car by using a Wright radial aircraft engine coupled to the rear transmission which enabled both to be removed while connected for servicing by using a truck crane. The Army adopted it in 1938 then declared it obsolete in early 1939 after watching the fighting in Europe. They told Ordnance to come up with something that was better armored and armed with a robust suspension and drivetrain that would be easy to repair out in the field. The Army Arsenals were working on a light tank and had finalized a design that became the M2. They drove one from Lima, Ohio to Washington DC on public roads in good time without any breakdowns (used 2 Cadillac V8's and a Buick Hydramatic automatic transmission). Congress was impressed so gave the Army the OK to produce them. Ordnance hired Chrysler to help out designing a medium tank and the factory plus machinery to make the parts. They came up with the M3 and M4. Ordnance also designed a heavy tank at the same time which was the M6. They figured Germany was doing the same thing so wanted one ready to counter theirs. It had the transmission and final drive in the rear and used a larger radial engine. They used a fluid drive transmission of their own design that used kerosene as the fluid. They also made a few that used a gas engine spinning a generator that powered electric motors that turned the drive sprockets. That type of drivetrain allowed the tank to travel at the same speeds in forward and reverse. It worked but had too many maintenance problems so was set aside for further development for use in the T series that were to replace the M4. The M2 was improved to become the M5. Ordnance then used the M5 chassis to make the M7 fast artillery tractor. They called it fast since it could tow field pieces faster than a team of horses.
Fun fact: Grote's 1000 ton "fortress tank" designs were also originally meant for the Soviet Union. After he returned to Germany, he started offering the same concept to his home country.
"You probably haven't heard of!" Me, who has scrolled on basically every nation's interwar tank projects on wikipedia and tank enyclopedia: *I am four parallel universes ahead of you*
Thank you for interesting video, though I expected that it will also mention the completely failed line of amphiboius "extra-light" tanks like T-37. Still I've learned quite a lot in just 11 minutes. Thanks.
@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you, I found it: ruclips.net/video/VNpKBsLXDS0/видео.html I've had consirered them as completely failed design; thanks to your video I've corrected my perception and learned that they finally enjoyed some modest success if used as intended.
Soviet tanks from the interwar period look interesting and funny, but they became outdated very quickly, but I like to make sketches from them for an alternative history, if the war had started in the 1920-1930s.
Prototypes with Armata-like characteristics were created back in the Soviet Union, there were like 3-4 projects, that is, with an isolated crew capsule and an uninhabited tower, two projects were even with a 152 mm gun.So the Armata project did not arise from scratch. as for the t-14 armata, its future is unknown even to the Russians, there is a hypothesis that it will be a small-series transition tank (and it will never enter the army), on which various new concepts for future vehicles will be worked out. the tank itself is expensive, it costs like 3 pcs of T-90. Of course, Armata is not a tank that will be produced now during military operations, during the war, there are always proven designs in production with the best price/quality/production time spent.(these are the tanks that go down in history)
Tracked/Wheeled Combat Car. The Soviets also used an armored car with a tank turret. It had two rear axles so was equipped with two sets of tracks that went around the rear wheels. J. Walter Christie's company made continuous rubber tracks for the rear wheels of commercial and logging trucks for use on muddy roads.
@@billwilson-es5yn ah yes, the Soviet Inter Bellum-era BA-30 turreted half track, or are you instead talking about the also Red Army Austin-Kégresse* half-tracked armoured car from the Russian civil war. *AN: the Austin-Kégresse are a Russian Red Army conversion of consisting of basically mounting locally-built armoured hulls of the British-designed Austin armoured Car on the chassis of a Kégresse half track
You forgot to name the ultimately 2 worst Soviet tanks NI-1 and NI-2 enrered production late July 1941, phased out of production mid October 1941. These were civilian trucktots covered with 20mm armor and armed with Maxim (sometimes DT) machine gun and 45mm cannon respectively. And had a wapping top speed of 7km/h on road less off-road.
the oldest tank they made was not the ft 17 renault that was french although they did make a tank simular to the renault their first tank may have been the tzar tank
@@RedWrenchFilms Maybe, but to an audience that was taught that Socialism = Satan, what do you thinks they gonna think? They somehow spins simple things such as introduces Condoms to peasants population into "Birth Controls mean", and medicines that stops pregnant for a short periods into "birth sterilization".
@@Huy-G-Le Doing the opposite is equally problematic. It’s important to recognise what is a failure. The Soviets recognised these vehicles were failures, but learned from them and became one of the best tanking nations in the 20th century.
@@RedWrenchFilms Yes they are failures, but good luck convincing the Propagandize population from understanding the nuances. They already want to believe that all Soviet tanks are hot trash, cheaply made for a droids army.
They also have this pretty dumb tank the T-42 it mass is 101 ton with the numbers of crew is 14-15 and it have 90mm thick of armor (front) Main gun: It have a 107mm m1910/30 gun Secondary: 2x 45mm 1932/38,4-5x 7.62mm DTM machine gun Designed years: 1930-1932 In service: None
I just watched a thing about the insane land-ship tanks Germany had plans for. The ones with Destroyer guns and AA quads, 120mm artillery and mortar pits and a mess hall for the crew of 50 dudes 😂😂😂. The are like the things kids draw, or a level boss in those old arcade games 😂. They had one that was gonna carry smaller tanks inside 😂
Title: 8 failed soviet tanks you havent heard of. *Video shows T-18/MS-1* Guys who played Wot ever since 2014: How dare you insult the lil capable guy?!?!?!
I still have no idea how the soviets name their tanks. Because there was a T-34 before the iconic one and sometimes they jump backwards and forwards at seemingly random (except after the T-54, it was consistent with the year it was designed)
Bloody hell! 11 seconds in and the T-14 Armata is claimed to be "highly influential and successful"! That aside, this is well-researched and well-produced. We rarely get the chance to see original footage of such rare vehicles, yet they are in some respects as interesting in their failure as better known tanks were in their success.
I argue that the BT and T-26 were all the capable. I mean they could run. Which if your talking about a car is all you need. But when called to actual combat their performance was pretty awful.
Lol, T14 as an example for a successful tank Introduced 10 years ago and still not one seen in action. Only available for parades if they can be patched up to even make it 😂😂😂😂😂
@@jeffkardosjr.3825Of course it is for export, or it would be, if Russia could actually manufacture them in quantity. Russia relies on export contracts to make their military vehicles affordable. Without contracts, the assembly lines will likely never get setup.
and you know that how? its struggling with production... but like the UK has spent like 30 years trying to replace the warrior and the ajax after like 15 years of delays has finally been deployed... well.. 1 has been deployed...
So, until World War 2, Russia was essentially a 5 year old with lego blocks making tanks. Thank gosh they had French and British designs to copy or they might have ended up using bolted plates attached to bicycles.
Dude, no one knew how to make a tank in the inter-war period. Soviets made primitive tanks, got experience and better industry, and then made better tanks. No need to accuse them of copying.
Go to ground.news/redwrench to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up or subscribe through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access if you support the mission and find it as useful as I do.
Hey red I was wondering if you could do a video about the T 10 and its variants
Insanely dystopian with that “factualness” stat, and does it use non western sources including from hostile nations?
@@Dicka899 It does indeed. Read all the RT your heart desires.
@@RedWrenchFilms right, anything from India, Turkey and China? And again what’s with the fact check meter, who checks the fact checkers?
@@Dicka899 I think it’s to measure when outlets have been reporting things as true that are later proven false. How often they have done that and to what degree.
Also, where does this end? Who checks those who check the fact checkers? Who checks them?
The point of GR is that it is impartial - it treats all outlets equally. It also, to my knowledge, focuses on English speaking news outlets for an English speaking audience.
Inter-War tanks are always so silly, but taken into experiences during WW1 they’re not very surprising.
If WW2 were fought like WW1, the designs are perfectly sound. Bad news is WW2 was something even more awful.
@@jaysherman2615Not really last I checked WWII never left large pieces of land completely uninhabitable.
@@emberfist8347 Well that not untrue... cause there was none good land left to compare with...
Hiring a German for a heavy oversized tank is either very smart or utterly insane.
Grote: hold my beer and starts designing T-42
Russia hosted hush hush German tank development in the early 30s
@@cjthebeesknees until Hitler came to power and just testing grounds. Dutch hosted sub development and Swiss some of firearm development
I mean, they fixed the Bri'ish Sa80 and made it good so they're not bad when it comes to machinery.
@@UnknownOps The SA80 is also not an early 20th century heavy tank.
The problem with interwar tank designs is that pretty much EVERYONE screwed them up monumentally.
People THOUGHT they knew what had worked during WWI, and they THOUGHT they knew what would work in a future war, and mostly, they were wrong, just more or less radically so.
.
Nice video.
I would argue the Brits got it right, they were the first who thought of armored warfare where every military branches are mechanised in the 1920s. By the War started, it was the only nation with small but effective crew number, good gun, and adequate protection, which became the norm on tank designs on the later years, with a clear doctrine that continues to be used until a new doctrine was created universal tank, which now we know as MBT.
@@arianwinanto6299 "I would argue the Brits got it right"
Uh-huh...
"it was the only nation with small but effective crew number, good gun, and adequate protection"
Say WHAT now? The standard British tank gun, at best, was the 2 pounder.
And the British were the most extreme in dividing tanks between cruisers and infantry tanks.
The Cruiser series of British tanks topped out at 30mm armor. The Crusaders were only slightly better and it wasn't until summer 1942 that the Mk III got 51mm armor along with being the first to mount a 57mm cannon.
A gun that would have been great in 1939 and 1940, which by 1942 was of uncertain value.
The Matilda had mostly good or ok armor, but it was still not a modern tank, with too many weak spots, and it was literally made to move at infantry WALKING speed.
Pit a T-34 against any British tank 1941 and who's the better tank is predictable.
The British 2 pounder is essentially useless against T-34 armor while the medium velocity 76mm gun on the T-34 will tear anything but the Matilda completely apart.
And the Matilda can't handle the HE shots without detracking, allowing a T-34 to easily get at its vulnerable sides and rear.
And while the KV-1 were rather crude for its time, they had roughly the same protection everywhere, or better, than the Matilda II had at best.
Coupled with the same 76mm gun as on the T-34. British Cruisers and Crusaders in 1941 couldn't even penetrate them even if they got endless free shots.
And even their later 57mm gun upgrade needed special ammo to pen the kind of armor the KV-1 had.
.
"they were the first who thought of armored warfare where every military branches are mechanised in the 1920s."
They were the first that tested it. It's arguable who first considered it.
Charles DeGaulle was a serious pioneer on the subject, to the point that Guderian personally translated his military theory books to German between the war as he considered them absolutely essential reading.
And by the time WWII started, France actually probably had the most mature and functional mechanised warfare doctrine.
Except of course, that only the French experimental divisions that had been testing it knew it, and only from experience, with no formal training or formalised rules.
Also, Jean Estienne tried to form a fully mechanized French force already in 1921, 4 thousand tanks and 8 thousand APCs.
Also, the idea of fully mechanized warfare came about VERY early also in the red army.
Because the warfare there during WWI had tended to be VERY mobile, something that quickly made the idea highly relevant.
"which now we know as MBT."
Essentially, the T-44, which then in revamped form became the T-54, the most produced tank ever.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I did say "by the war started", which most nations had interwar tanks. Maybe I oversimplified on the armour part, but Matilda 1 can held up its own against German 37mm AT guns during the German invasion on France, though the tank itself was designed from a mix of old WW1 tactics and their experimental tactics which later developed into the Light, Cruiser, Infantry.
Tank cannons at the start of the War, Germans had majority of 20mm, Pz3 with their 37mm was being fielded at a smaller number at the time, Soviets had their 45mm or the howitzer 76mm which isn't what's used on their T34, US with 37mm which was as good as the 2pd.
2pd itself was deadly in France and the African campaign until the Germans uparmored their tanks.
Obviously, when the war entered its mid years, most of the Soviets and the US better tanks entered the service at a greater rate which saw the tanks that are even better than the Brits such as the T34 and the Shermans.
I would say France had a good development on their doctrine and tanks too, but due to their loss we didn't see "much" action and it's hard to judge it's effectiveness, and as you said, the training wasn't spread out to other units. But their tanks do give much stress for the Commander though.
On the MBT part, sure it's very hard to know who did started that. Some say Comet tank started it, some say T44, some say the Panther, I've even heard that the French started the concept.
Feel free to disagree ofc, I'm just here to clarify the time in my previous comment.
7TP jednowieżowy
@@DIREWOLFx75in 1939 the 2 pounder gun was pretty much the best tank gun in use by any nation, remember this is about interwar tanks so the t-34 doesn’t really count does it?
Okay the TG-1 actually looks really cool. Would've been cool to see how it developed in some alternate universe
All those rust buckets make T-28 with its turret bucket, powered turret traverse, radio on every tank and intercom for crew, look like amazing future tank. It was a huge leap forward for soviet tank designers
To be fair, the T-28 was the only multi-turreted tank that was somewhat successful.
@@russman3787 Cruiser MK1 did alright
"They learnt from their mistakes" that's the pure example right there
*they
@@chooyongming110nerd
And Ukraine shows that the Russians have forgotten how to learn from their mistakes.
I love inter-war tanks, a wacky period before tank design became more of a established sterile science
Some T-24 tanks were used & destroyed as dug in engineless static defence positions,, in the Stalin Line. Oddly enough, three British made Vickers Medium II tanks, which had been purchased in 1930 and christened "The British Workman", by the Soviets, also shared this same fate.
8 failed french cold war prototypes next please mate
More like 80 lmao.
fr@@copter2000
I believe the colloquial term for the big, slow, under-armoured interwar paradigm is "battle fridge" on account of having the same approximate shape, mobility and armour layout of a fridge.
You need to give it to Soviets, even if they had no capabilities and experience in designing and producing tanks, instead of giving up and just buying them from abroad, like many others would, they actually tried and worked on their own stuff until they got competent enough to actually make something good.
The Christie Tank was a tank from abroad and a good one.
They didn't have much choice, as no industrialised country was willing to sell them modern tanks in the numbers they wanted. They only got Christie's design because the Americans didn't want it.
@@Pushing_PixelsThe US Army used the Christie's design. He got pissed off after the contract to build them was given to American-LaFrance instead. Christie sold the rights to anything he designed to the Army in the early 1920's so couldn't prevent that. He also was a PITA to deal with. Walter sold that design to Great Britain and the USSR. Both countries fielded tanks during the war that came from that design. The Army tried it out, made modifications then declared those obsolete in 1939 to get something better made. That turned out to be the M3 and M4.
The MS-1 also saw combat in Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929, proving somewhat effective. Also they took part in the battle of Lake Khasan, though I only saw information of them being turned into stationary gun emplacements there.
No wonder for Far Eastern region, they got their updated eq last even now. Some number of MS-1 was operational here in 1945 when Manchuria was invaded.
a game on the style of world of tanks/war thunder but it uses tanks from 1915 to 1935 or so would be hilarious with all the bizarre inter-war designs
Sounds cool, but it would be the slowest video game ever! 😂
thatd be such a good april fools event for wot
Doesn't WoT have some at low tier?
Soviet tank design is so interesting. They basically started as some farmers and workers without any know how and in just a few decades they build some of the most advanced vehicles at the time. Truly remarkable
During the World War, Russian industry relied on Ukrainian coal, from the Donbas, and iron, from Kryvyy Rih. Which they lost in 1918. So workers at arms factories such as the Putilov plant couldn't build a lot in the Civil Wars. They could repair old equipment, and they could build limited numbers of experimental projects such as the Austin-Kegresse halftrack and the Russkiy-Renault tank.
Lol. "Build". Lets not count that they bought engine design from the US in the 1920s and 1930s.
@@SCH292 and they got inspired by the Renault ft 17 and bought them. So what
@@SCH292 The V-2 was an indigenous design and was the best tank engine at the start of WWII.
@@kingfish2703The BT tank was built off an American design which would later evolve into the T-34. The T-26 was a British design which died with no successor to carry it's legacy.
I love your content keep up !
Notifs always on, can’t ever miss any one of Red Wrench’s videos. Keep up with the great videos, I love them!
A failed prototype can be considered a success: You learn how not to make something.
Failures can be used as stepping stones to an eventual success, yes. But the prototype itself is still a failure.
Have to say, I don’t think anyone believed the Armata is anything close to successful or influential, great vid though:’))
I love these early steampunk tanks with their ungainly designs. So much character.
The Soviet Mindset had always amazed me. They had all the odds against them and in just 20 years they come from miserable to world super-power!!! Thats simply amazing ❤❤❤
I would like to see another video like this, but with American interwar tanks, just because I can’t find that much information about them.
The US Army didn't bother with designing tanks after the war. They used Ford's Renaults and tested what J. Walter Christie came up with. The Army told Christie their specifications and he would build them differently. The Army Arsenal finally built one design according to the Army's specs to be known as the Model 1928. Some countries check it out. It resembled a tall Churchill Crocodile. Then Christie introduced his Model 1929 fast tank so the Army paid him to produce several with the Army adding on a turret. It was liked by the tankers so the Army had Ordnance design one like it then hired American - LaFrance to build it. They were slow and went way over budget so had their contract cancelled with further tank development handled by the Army Arsenal. They reduced the length and weight of the combat car by using a Wright radial aircraft engine coupled to the rear transmission which enabled both to be removed while connected for servicing by using a truck crane. The Army adopted it in 1938 then declared it obsolete in early 1939 after watching the fighting in Europe. They told Ordnance to come up with something that was better armored and armed with a robust suspension and drivetrain that would be easy to repair out in the field. The Army Arsenals were working on a light tank and had finalized a design that became the M2. They drove one from Lima, Ohio to Washington DC on public roads in good time without any breakdowns (used 2 Cadillac V8's and a Buick Hydramatic automatic transmission). Congress was impressed so gave the Army the OK to produce them. Ordnance hired Chrysler to help out designing a medium tank and the factory plus machinery to make the parts. They came up with the M3 and M4. Ordnance also designed a heavy tank at the same time which was the M6. They figured Germany was doing the same thing so wanted one ready to counter theirs. It had the transmission and final drive in the rear and used a larger radial engine. They used a fluid drive transmission of their own design that used kerosene as the fluid. They also made a few that used a gas engine spinning a generator that powered electric motors that turned the drive sprockets. That type of drivetrain allowed the tank to travel at the same speeds in forward and reverse. It worked but had too many maintenance problems so was set aside for further development for use in the T series that were to replace the M4. The M2 was improved to become the M5. Ordnance then used the M5 chassis to make the M7 fast artillery tractor. They called it fast since it could tow field pieces faster than a team of horses.
Fun fact: Grote's 1000 ton "fortress tank" designs were also originally meant for the Soviet Union. After he returned to Germany, he started offering the same concept to his home country.
Thank you, a very interesting look at these early designs
the T-100, SMK and T-35 are even wackier to me due to their massive size and multiple turrets
Informative and thanks for not being annoying.😎
T-12 looks like something I would make in Sprocket :D
"You probably haven't heard of!"
Me, who has scrolled on basically every nation's interwar tank projects on wikipedia and tank enyclopedia: *I am four parallel universes ahead of you*
The Russian Renault and MS 1 were very successful designs for their time, so I don't know why it's here
I cant wait other major nations tanks.
Keep up mate, like your vids.
ANOTHER MASTERPIECE! WE NEED MORE!
Why is it that whenever I just finished research a specific topic, RED WRENCH MAKES A VIDEO ON IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. LIKE, HOW????? YOU WIZARD!!!!!
The point is keep doing and keep improving and learning from the mistakes, and you will get better at it, whatever it is.
great vid as always
Another great video❤️
Stalin and Mustache man had one thing in common, an odd fascination with “Land Ships”
Yk, I've always wondered how the T-series first started, as the ones were most familier with is the T-34. Pretty nice to see gotta say
Great video thank you
russian tank named "freedom fighter"
ironic and fitting perfectly since it was gonna fight freedom
Haw, how apt!
love your vids
I wouldn't go so far as to call the armata successful.
I'd say it's more of a prototype than a tank
Nice vids, are you gonna do vids about smaller nations' tanks and their evolution? Hungary for example?
Thank you for interesting video, though I expected that it will also mention the completely failed line of amphiboius "extra-light" tanks like T-37. Still I've learned quite a lot in just 11 minutes. Thanks.
I’ve got a video on the T-37 if you want to check that out :)
@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you, I found it: ruclips.net/video/VNpKBsLXDS0/видео.html
I've had consirered them as completely failed design; thanks to your video I've corrected my perception and learned that they finally enjoyed some modest success if used as intended.
Thanks for the telling,it was an interesting journey into the unknown tanks of USSR!!
Soviet tanks from the interwar period look interesting and funny, but they became outdated very quickly, but I like to make sketches from them for an alternative history, if the war had started in the 1920-1930s.
0:39)The Renault FT was designed by French Army Colonel Rommel.
Strangely no one seems to know what happened to Eduard Grote after 1950 when he filed a patent from South Africa
All the free tanks for world of tanks basically
ConeOfArc: Are you challenging me?
How is the the T-14 Armata a Soviet tank design?
Prototypes with Armata-like characteristics were created back in the Soviet Union, there were like 3-4 projects, that is, with an isolated crew capsule and an uninhabited tower, two projects were even with a 152 mm gun.So the Armata project did not arise from scratch. as for the t-14 armata, its future is unknown even to the Russians, there is a hypothesis that it will be a small-series transition tank (and it will never enter the army), on which various new concepts for future vehicles will be worked out. the tank itself is expensive, it costs like 3 pcs of T-90. Of course, Armata is not a tank that will be produced now during military operations, during the war, there are always proven designs in production with the best price/quality/production time spent.(these are the tanks that go down in history)
Pls make a vedio on tanks suspension (hydroneumatic and torsion bar,etc)
Random question: I is the BT considered a armored car because it can run with out treads.
Tracked/Wheeled Combat Car. The Soviets also used an armored car with a tank turret. It had two rear axles so was equipped with two sets of tracks that went around the rear wheels. J. Walter Christie's company made continuous rubber tracks for the rear wheels of commercial and logging trucks for use on muddy roads.
@@billwilson-es5yn ah yes, the Soviet Inter Bellum-era BA-30 turreted half track, or are you instead talking about the also Red Army Austin-Kégresse* half-tracked armoured car from the Russian civil war.
*AN: the Austin-Kégresse are a Russian Red Army conversion of consisting of basically mounting locally-built armoured hulls of the British-designed Austin armoured Car on the chassis of a Kégresse half track
@@Saturnus_Ouranos The Ba 30.
You forgot to name the ultimately 2 worst Soviet tanks NI-1 and NI-2 enrered production late July 1941, phased out of production mid October 1941. These were civilian trucktots covered with 20mm armor and armed with Maxim (sometimes DT) machine gun and 45mm cannon respectively. And had a wapping top speed of 7km/h on road less off-road.
They were made out of desparation during the Siege of Odessa anyways. Still, as they say, a bad tank is better than having none at all.
the oldest tank they made was not the ft 17 renault that was french although they did make a tank simular to the renault their first tank may have been the tzar tank
The T12 and T24 look surprisingly Japanese like
because i believe just like most japanese tanks they looked at a vickers and was like "yep seems good lets make a similar tank"
Failure?Or-Prototype-deem-inadequate? See how wording changes the contents.
Inadequate and failure are pretty much synonymous in terms AFV design. If it’s inadequate it cannot be a success, no?
@@RedWrenchFilms Maybe, but to an audience that was taught that Socialism = Satan, what do you thinks they gonna think?
They somehow spins simple things such as introduces Condoms to peasants population into "Birth Controls mean", and medicines that stops pregnant for a short periods into "birth sterilization".
@@Huy-G-Le Doing the opposite is equally problematic. It’s important to recognise what is a failure. The Soviets recognised these vehicles were failures, but learned from them and became one of the best tanking nations in the 20th century.
@@RedWrenchFilms Yes they are failures, but good luck convincing the Propagandize population from understanding the nuances. They already want to believe that all Soviet tanks are hot trash, cheaply made for a droids army.
TG1 is quite good in the time it was build
Nobody tell the Warthunder devs about this video or we are gonna have AAAA lot of low tier premiums 💀
Can you make a history of the Willy's jeep? I think it would be cool though.
Oh now the new back up tanks for the secret war
"...they accidentally wielded the turret..."
I'm sorry, WHAT?
Accidentally welded the turret in place.
still disappointed we havent seen 1000 ton landships yet ..
Good video.
It makes you wonder how the Soviets managed to ever field KV1s and T34s in time to meet the Nazis.
They also have this pretty dumb tank the T-42 it mass is 101 ton with the numbers of crew is 14-15 and it have 90mm thick of armor (front)
Main gun:
It have a 107mm m1910/30 gun
Secondary:
2x 45mm 1932/38,4-5x 7.62mm DTM machine gun
Designed years:
1930-1932
In service:
None
Good video
1 Russian failure you have heard of...T-14
Is it a bad thing that I have heard of every single one of them.. 😅
I just watched a thing about the insane land-ship tanks Germany had plans for. The ones with Destroyer guns and AA quads, 120mm artillery and mortar pits and a mess hall for the crew of 50 dudes 😂😂😂.
The are like the things kids draw, or a level boss in those old arcade games 😂.
They had one that was gonna carry smaller tanks inside 😂
Title: 8 failed soviet tanks you havent heard of.
*Video shows T-18/MS-1*
Guys who played Wot ever since 2014: How dare you insult the lil capable guy?!?!?!
I still have no idea how the soviets name their tanks. Because there was a T-34 before the iconic one and sometimes they jump backwards and forwards at seemingly random (except after the T-54, it was consistent with the year it was designed)
I think it is a combination of years when it was designed with the weight of the tanks in tons. Some are named after the year some after their weight
The T-34 had it's name derived from it's frontal armor thickness.
@@firepower7017but...the frontal armor is 45mm thick..
Wargaming: Write that down! Write that down!
Surprised the khtz16 isnt here, the soviet bob semple
Called the benefit of hindsight
MS-1? man, every player of WoT know this tank.
Lets talk about The T-14 yeah
Bloody hell! 11 seconds in and the T-14 Armata is claimed to be "highly influential and successful"!
That aside, this is well-researched and well-produced. We rarely get the chance to see original footage of such rare vehicles, yet they are in some respects as interesting in their failure as better known tanks were in their success.
U forgot recoilless gun tank
These actually rather explain the T-14.
how? the t14 suffers from production issues not an idiot welding the turret
"Highly influential and successful vehicules" proceed to show the T14 great start
Grote is a better M3 Grant. Maybe.
Yeah, the Soviets tanked until they tanked.
You think the T14 Armata is good and influential? Wut?
The t14 is indeed influential
It teaches us what NOT to do😂
Rank 1 war thunder tanks
10:43 that's just a smaller version of the ratte
MS-1 Is a legend tank of the interwar tho
1:19
So many hitler stache's
Must of been in fasion back before it was fash 😂
Not the tankies you want
not the tankies you need
I argue that the BT and T-26 were all the capable. I mean they could run. Which if your talking about a car is all you need. But when called to actual combat their performance was pretty awful.
They performed well in any combat they saw during the 30s. They were largely obsolete by Barbarossa but that does not make them bad designs.
My dude, the T14 armata is propaganda. It's not a real tank. Literally made up.
I dunno why you'd include the Armata as influential. It's a joke.
its still influential as its a new tank design with so far no real drawbacks over the production
Lol, T14 as an example for a successful tank
Introduced 10 years ago and still not one seen in action. Only available for parades if they can be patched up to even make it 😂😂😂😂😂
Indeed. Not a single country wants to buy it, RuSSia included
@@nobbynobbs8182It's not for export to begin with.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825Of course it is for export, or it would be, if Russia could actually manufacture them in quantity.
Russia relies on export contracts to make their military vehicles affordable. Without contracts, the assembly lines will likely never get setup.
@@a5cent Nope. Not the way it goes.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 You'll have to argue that with history then, because that's how it's always worked for the Russian arms industry so far.
T14 is not successful...
and you know that how? its struggling with production... but like the UK has spent like 30 years trying to replace the warrior and the ajax after like 15 years of delays has finally been deployed... well.. 1 has been deployed...
More then 0 atleast lmaoooooooo @@datcheesecakeboi6745
So, until World War 2, Russia was essentially a 5 year old with lego blocks making tanks. Thank gosh they had French and British designs to copy or they might have ended up using bolted plates attached to bicycles.
Dude, no one knew how to make a tank in the inter-war period. Soviets made primitive tanks, got experience and better industry, and then made better tanks. No need to accuse them of copying.
48s
And here I didn't think it was possible to build a worse tank than the t34.
You can design really great tanks if you ignore human needs.
List is not complete, following are missing, T 55, T 62, T 70,
T 80, T 90, T 14😂😂😂😂
Сам сказал сам посмеялся клоун