Bottom 5 Tanks | Military Aviation History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2024
- In this week's video we are joined by Chris from @MilitaryAviationHistory. Chris provides a combination of historical insights and personal perspectives as he delves into The Tank Museum's collection to select his Bottom 5 Tanks.
Watch Chris' Top 5 Tanks here ► • Bismarck | Top 5 Tanks...
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► RUclips Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:40 | Number 5
03:52 | Number 4
05:11 | Number 3
05:56 | Number 2
09:12 | Number 1
#tankmuseum #bottom5tanks #aviationmilitaryhistory
We hope you enjoyed Chris' Bottom 5 Tanks - do you think his choices were justified? Let us know in the comments down below!
Sometimes you just have to release a little bit of steam and Chris's tongue and cheek. teview is just one of those times.
Great job Chris, I totally understand where you are coming from! LOL.
I loved his reasoning. Made me genuinely chuckle. Refreshing and informative too.
@@paulfellows2604 agreed, didn't like this video at all really.
The lack of logic and reason for his bottom 5 list was quite different….
@@paulfellows2604 He wasn't being totally serious - as he said, being an aviation historian, not an expert on tanks. Try and see this video as light-hearted entertainment rather than super serious discussion. RUclips isn't exactly a medium for you to expect academic-tier discourse anyway. Lighten up.
I love how petty this list is.
What do you expect from a kraut
NonCredible Defense is leading schizoposts
Agree, it's clickbait at its finest
What's so petty about it?
@newtownyard1317 it's subjective with very little data to back up Chris' rationale for "his" bottom 5 tanks. How would you describe it?
I greatly appreciate the Aviation historian coming by and going "Yeah, so these are my least favourite vehicles because they were really good at shooting down my favourite planes." It provides a really different perspective on the vehicles in question.
So much bias LOL
Surprise there wasn’t a Gepard.
Only because there isn't a Gepard in the collection!
There is one in Australia in Cairns!@@FieldMarshalFry
@@chriscamfield7610 ...it's his opinion, OF COURSE it is biased. Our biases literally are formed from our opinions.
"It doesn't have the spinny thing on front" I haven't laughed in a Tank Museum video since David Fletcher retired. While I can understand people disagreeing with the presenter and his reasons for his selections, I find it refreshing that someone with a different point of view is shown.
fun fact: the spinny thing on the front is a cooling fan. when it stops spinning, the pilot starts sweating.
It has the spinny thing on the top. Low rpm, though.
@@crilljr420 or the end of the gun barrel in the tank spinny thing
Havent laughed at all
I think the weedwhacking version of the Sherman ( Crab ) would cover that lack of spinning things on the front 😁
Prop aircraft can aslo be used for trimming f.e. hedges in your garden
An amusing take on the bottom 5 tanks. It would certainly be dull if everyone had the same reasons.
Exactly my thoughts too! Plus he’s a aviation guy, not a tank expert so he gives his views from another perspective. I enjoyed this a lot, not everything has to be so serious and boring. He does it with deliberate with tongue in check, knowing this will ruffle some feathers. And they say Germans doesn’t have any humor! 😂
Did my brain decide that less than a few dozen Avro Ansons and Beech 18s with the R-975 are worthy a mention. Yes, yes it did. Also BT-15 et al.. Trainer aircraft are unsung heroes, I will die on this hill.
This was a lot of fun to film, thanks Tank Museum for hosting me and congrats on the ongoing success!
There would've been a dozen more if not for the Sherman taking all those engines!
It was a pleasure having you!
Oh pipe down you absolute pilchard. Yes, yes I did type that. You waffling berk.
I genuinely chuckled at your reasoning. Who said Germans don't have a sense of humour 😉
Try to remember that manufacturers had to be flexible when trying to reach large production numbers. Also, try to stick with tanks if you are rating 'tanks'.
I love the fact that his personal reason to put T-34 on the list pretty much summarized the actual T-34's main issue.
I don't think you would care about that if you went to war in that thing.
Notoriously the T34s contained many all female tank crews.
I think the main disappointment would be their absence.
@@babboon5764 I saw the Soviet shot-putting 'ladies' in broadcasts of the olympics.
Those T 34 shells were *heavy*
Probably safer without the Natashas......
Unless the Tank rolled over your foot and you needed a kind perso to lift it off.
@@patrick3426 You wouldn't, but it certainly can improve the crew's performance. Not to say that tanks like M4 or Panther were more comfortable for the crew and still managed to be effective.
@@babboon5764 Mostly impossible. Too much strength required to drive it. Levers in t-34's quite hardcore thing.
Sherman: It has aircraft components that should stay in the aircraft.
M-16: It shoots down aircraft. With dakka.
Tracked Rapier: It shoots down aircraft. With kaboom.
Panzer V: Really really really really annoying to destroy from the air.
T-34: It give boo-boos.
The T-34 had an Hispano-Suiza engine which was originally an aircraft engine too.
@@SirAntoniousBlock The T-34 had a Kharkiv V-2. Is it based on the Hispano-Suiza because I can't find anything saying it is?
@@russman3787 Yep, Hispano-Suiza was a French aircraft engine originally and the chassis was a Christie, an American design the US never adopted.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Uh... the original christie chassis was only used on the BT series of tanks. The T-34 chassis was designed by Mikail Koshkin (but used christie's suspension system).
Which specific Hispan-Suiza are you talking about because I still can't find anything saying the V-2 was a copy of one.
@@russman3787 I think you're correct about the Christie suspension but I've seen a working example of twin Hispano--Suizas at Saumur Armour museum in France saying that it powered the T-34.
I appreciated Chris' sense of humor and linking (most of ) his choices with some snippets of Military Aviation History. Hey, why not, The Tank Museum gave Chris the mike, so let him have some fun and tell us a few things about planes, tanks as they relate to planes, tanks as they relate to bruises, etc, etc. A fun watch.
This was a great list! As a retired tanker, getting bounced around the inside of a tank can truly reduce crew effectiveness. It was funny, but a very valid point.
Lack of comfort would be a valid point unless you were the 4th crew member of the Charioteer TD with the 20 pounder, seeing the Charioteer only has room for 3 without the 20 pounder.
That lucky sod who “volunteered” to be the 4th crewman was the outside observer. On the plus side, he did have heaps of room.
When I was stationed at Fort Stewart GA there was a Soviet T-62 there. One day it was towed down to our unit and unlocked so that we could get inside if we wanted to to really get familiar with an enemy tank. I jumped up on it and dropped in through the drivers hatch and quickly realize how the tank was so much lower than one of ours. From the floor to the ceiling it was about three and a half feet high.
It took me a few to understand what Chris was doing and for that I give him a BIG thumbs up for creativity.
I liked his input on the Panther. I didn't realize it took that many rockets to even hit a Panther.
a stationary, easily spotted target. Quite frankly it did not matter what tank they decided to test this with, the results would be about the same, perhaps even worse against smaller tanks.
This is also why the US A-10 should not be mourned. The gatlin gun was not as effective as we think it was.
I often wondered how accurate WW2 era rockets were when launched from Typhoons etc. From the footage it always seemed to rely heavily on dead reckoning by the pilot
I wasn't sure where this was going, but I am glad I stuck around. Humorous and well informed. One of the better 'Bottom 5' lists.
Always fun to have a top/bottom 5 list from a non-tanker perspective.
Drachinifel (warship historapher RUclips content creator) had a better understanding of tank capabilities.
@@carlkalman1148they are floating tanks.
If he ever makes a video about the 88 mm Flak gun, I'm trying to imagine how negative it would be. 🤣
well he is german after all, a certain amount of negativity is in our blood
@@cosmochbut he’s also bavarian, so can we really claim similar blood on him? Lol
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas ...
He probably refuses to accept 88s even existed fake news 🗞️ lmao 🤣
Hilarious take on the bottom 5. Thanks for the fun Chris!
Loving the "Don't hurt my precious flying things!" take on a tank list! Well done MilitaryAviationHistory and The Tank Museum!!!
It’s the Target Museum .
Chris (aka 'Bismarck')....You know you've made it when you get asked to do a "Bottom/Top 5 Tanks" on The Tank Museum's channel. Congrats & Tally-Ho ! 👍
fun interpretation obviously light hearted and filled with informative tid-bits. And yes, planes didn't get to be much cop directly against heavy armour until the advent of the latest generations of ATGGMs.
They picked the radial engine because all the V type engines were going into aircraft. Then the US decided they needed radials for aircraft which is where Chris's problem comes in. So the use of radials in tanks was caused by the aviationist taking all the V type engines not the tank builders.
Meanwhile the British put the Merlin engine in their tanks. So you could say they sort of reverse engineered the flying tank.
Poor old Merlin; robbed of it's blower, stuffed in a dark metal box & given a task far meatier (Meteor?) than it was designed for. Not generally a fan of stuffing powerful songbirds into ground based crawling things, but then I must look at Sir Henry Segrave's 'Golden Arrow', & somehow forgive them . . . they can make watercraft 'garble' along nicely too; at idle, their slumbering menace is a rich & glorious sound to cross any harbour's tranquility : )
@@loddude5706 I mean, it's not like the Meteor didn't have it's glory on the ground. It was shoehorned into a crusader and it went so fast the driver flew off the track. It also made the Cromwell so fast that British crews gained a reputation for jumping over obstacles rather than going around them. Not to mention, it created some of the best sounding tanks of all time.
@@loddude5706 meteors and cruiser tanks were a match made in heaven!
@@NitroNuggetTV Half right - the motor block was certainly made with the heavens in mind, but once allied with your multi-ton wonder bus, certain fundamental buoyancy problems may do the exact opposite of 'arise', but I do take your point : )
@@exxusdrugstore300 Apparently they had a command Steeple Chase which meant scatter over the countryside as fast as you can.
The Cromwell was at one point slated to get the Liberty engine, I seem to remember. Which was WW1 vintage.
"95% of the time." I agree with him.
In WWII accuracy of air to ground bombardment was not great, shockingly so. It's main impact was psychological but it also gives away a formations position.
A near miss on a tank for example, will effectively spoil the day for accompanying infantry. The emotional impact of even potentially being attacked from the air is dramatic. It changes ones behaviour and limits freedom of manoeuvre. Forces under cover of air supremacy behave very differently. It's obvious really but until one has actually experienced both situations, the importance is easily forgotten. Be it WWI balloons or 21st century drones, enemy presence in the air is a game changer.
💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂💂♂👮
That is a good point. At the time, the tankers didn’t know they were relatively safe from aircraft.
@@greggs1067 Safe from bombing but not so much strafing. See the footage of Typhoons running amok taking out targets of opportunity and providing close air support - After the D-Day landings. Quite impressive how they could hit moving trains etc. It made me reconsider WWII air power. But the big bombers were useless at hitting anything smaller than a 50 or 100 mile square target.
@@gusgone4527 i mean, the brits did tests, using a bright white painted panther, perfect weather, no defensive firing. Used... Typhoons with Rockets and bombs and so on. I think it was Typhoons... Perfect target. 5% hit chance. At best.
Nice of the tank museum to invite a plane lover to show him some real historical objects! I hope he is able to realize the error of his ways and that there is no alternative but to convert from St. thin aluminium to her lady of thick steal.
Drach laughs at your "thick steel"! 😊
@@stevewhite3424 hello! Have you ever seen Maus? 😉
@ Have you met Iowa and her 17" turret face armor...☺️
@@stevewhite3424Not mentioning the YAMATO that had more armour on the sides than ANY frontal armour of anything man ever did! ;-)
@@marcoflumino Except yamato is a coral reef. 😃😃
The theme of this list is either: "It's too hard to kill in my Stuka" or "it makes it too hard to kill things near it with my Stuka".
Have you read his book on stukas?
A man I used to commute with every day for years had been a British Tank guy in North Africa and Italy from 1942 to 44.
Like a lot of Tankers he was a bit shorter than me and had a lot of knee problems, which he blamed on being in Tanks for years. They are bloody uncomfortable even standing still. when they moving along, all the metal lumps forcing you into difficult positions start bashing into you. In addition there are often some annoying people trying to kill you. It is really not much fun.
The only common part of the 75mm cannon for aircraft was the barrel. The recoil mechanism for the flying model was concentric. This was later adopted for use by the M24 Chaffee light tank.
Rapier was incredibly successful because it had a much, much longer shelf life than most other systems. It was also designed to be used on varying platforms. The electronics in the trailer mounted units were fragile when moving cross country. 16 Air Defence Regt, RAA, during the Seventies and Eighties towed the trailer mounted units using One Ton forward control Landrovers, powered by the 3.5 L V8, the speed of which no doubt contributed to the mulching of the sparky bits whilst bouncing around in the Outback. The M548 mount may have alleviated this issue, but who knows, the stinking government here never were too much into buying decent kit for the Diggers. Cheers.
Something like the tracked Rapier system is what the US needs because our air defense systems are kind of lacking, particularly in the short range arena. I realize that Us doctrine is base on the assumption that we'll always have air superiority if not supremacy, but what about before that happens, or if ti takes longer than anticipated, or worse yet, what if we never quite manage to fully control the air? Sure would be nice to have more mobile AA systems that can keep up with the tanks and troops, wouldn't it?
@@Riceball01 I gotta figure the congresscritters who get kickbacks from the Stinger missle manufacturer are constantly voting down things like the Sgt. York DIVAD from ever getting funding again. A serious solution has to be able to keep up with the Abrams and the Sgt. York couldn't even do that. But, hey, I want the entire US military defunded, so I'm sure my words will fall on deaf ears.
@Riceball01 Why worry about something that is not going to happen?No enemy of America has stealth planes or weapons that counter them.And yes,that counts China,the J-20 is crap.
So in the Falklands War "Within the total, only five Argentine aircraft might have been shot down by Rapier, and, as originally noted by Ethell and Price, only one of these was certain, " --- best you kept your money in your pocket and not wasted it on this .
@@Riceball01We had one, look at the Chaparral.
I was impressed by the introduction and the rest of the video lived up to expectations!
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Good one Chris!
Mark from Melbourne Australia
A refreshingly different take on presenting history. I found myself smiling a lot thru his presentation.
I think that “it doesn’t have a propeller” is my favorite criticism of the Sherman.
Just wondering, did the use that Wright engine on any of the DD Sherman’s?
Did not propell air...
Really entertaining video, and a really creative way to find reasons to talk about lesser known bits of (plane related) tank history. Was particularly interested by the tracked rapier variant, I had no idea that existed, have only run into the towed variant until now.
bruises from a T-34/85 are the least of your worries, with no turret basket losing a misplaced foot was not unusual
it was the premier high risk high reward tank, they were monstrously effective with a competent crew... but the ergonomics did everything they could to make that not a given.
That's why Russian tankers wore those padded helmets.. 😁
@@anasevi9456Any tank was effective with a good crew. Ergonomics weren't the only thing holding the T-34 back.
@@Chopstorm. The UK 1941-2 begs to differ.
Basketless turret on the T-34 taking your foot off, later Soviet tank designs tried to castrate their crew with the recoil path of the main gun, or remove limbs with autoloader mechanisms.
Do not call it a "bug", Comrade. That is an effete, capitalist term that has no place in Socialist vocabulary. It is a feature of the forward-thinking design meant to be operated by true New Soviet Men.
Hahaha! This was very entertaining.
Well, at this point, why not be completely subjective?
Pick the ones you have something to say about.
I hope Drach does one.
Hey Mr. 76MM, meet Mr. 16 inch!
Drachinifel has done both a Top & Bottom 5 with us! Watch here:
ruclips.net/video/lK4Kwi72vS4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oO1Foqb5-bQ/видео.html
@@thetankmuseum Cool! I missed those. I'll check them out thanks!!!
@thetankmuseum has Ian McCollum ever popped in for a visit from America? I am very interested in his choices for top 5 and bottom 5 tanks
Ahh Bismark, the Air Historian named after an Admiral and a Warship talking about tonks. Perfection
Brilliant list! Thank you Tank Museum for inviting Chris to do a Bottom Five! I enjoyed it tremendously!
Awesome job, Chris! Thoroughly enjoyable and informative. A true rock star!
Dear Bovington. Please immediately give a raise to the man or woman responsible for the idea of inviting Chris to do a bottom 5 episode. In fact, chain them to their desk so we all selfishly may never miss any future brilliant ideas. Cheers from across the pond.
Interesting and fresh perspective and informative, too.
I'm surprised his #1 wasn't a Tiger, because if I remember correctly there is a fairly popular story of a Tiger shooting down an allied aircraft with its main gun.
'My number one worst tank is the Tiger, as it once got drunk and insulted Willy Messerschmitt in 1943'.
It is possible, the 88 gun the Tiger had was an anti aircraft gun originally.
@@njlauren 🤣
Well done Chris, really funny! And well done to the Tank Museum, another great collaboration.
Really love this totally (un)biased set of five worst tanks.
His dislike for the Sherman sounded very personal 😂
3 of 64 hits sounds exceptionally good even for a static range test.
Whao, our tamed German talking about tanks!!!! Good or you Chris, always nice to see you in action!
He was spot on in regards to being out of his depth. His aircraft videos are fantastic, and this was video seemed to be somewhat done with some tongue and cheek. In regards to the radial engines, they where much easier to work on in the field than other water cooled engines.
A brilliant insight from one of my favorite RUclipsrs and historians!
I about pissed my pants when you said the M 16 has 4 yee-haws on it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ignore all the naysayers below - refreshing, original & funny review!
I'm surprised the Abrams with its Helicopter Turbine didn't make the list. I'm pretty sure there was an early model in the museum, unless that was a loaner. Love the content Bismarck!
I thought I heard Chris say somewhere that he wasn't a big fan of helicopters either...
Helicopters don't have the spinny thing on the front.
I don't think they have an Abrams at Bovington.
Very funny! Loved this bottom five list! Great job Chris!
Yeah, Chris!!
While I guessed right, that there were a lot of AAs in this, I would have been disappointed if Chris talked about targets without mentioning the M16.
I appreciate seeing an alternative perspective on these tanks
Aloha; BRILLIANT! Keep up the good work! Mahalo
So happy to see you do this, love your channel
This is a lot of fun. It's a great way for a WW2 expert whose expertise is not tanks to give us a different take.
Real WW2: planes barely kill tanks, and barrel shots are extremely rare.
Warthunder: hahahah CAS go brrrrr and your barrel is a magnet.
The mention of the M16 with the "M45 quad with the four Yee-Haws on it" was great!XD
Your logic is irrefutable Chris .😊😊 Well done.
The most original Tank List I've watched to date. Awesome!
My uncle told me about the B-25G. He was chief of maintenance at an airfield (I don't know which one) on New Guinea. He reported few maintenance problems with the M4 cannon. He also was a passenger on a B-25G that used it's M4. He said the recoil of the cannon caused a very perceptible check in the aircraft's forward travel. He did tell me about a freak accident when loading the rockets on the wing racks. Someone had apparently mis-wired the toggle switch to fire the rocket and one of his munitions crew members hooked the rocket at the front and then pushed it up into the socket only to have it light up in his face.
😂 This was my favorite bottom 5. Thanks for the laughs.
I thoroughly enjoyed the great humor, different take from a different area of expertise, and information in this episode! Well done!!
I loved the take on that! ...and the good humor. Keep it up! ;)
An interesting take on the "Bottom 5", loved it.
WOW!.. Chris is on the tanks channel!.........You guys are always surprising with fantastic, knowledgeable guest hosts.
Cracking job Chris, refreshing take on the list, which was becoming a bit stale. Well done 👍
😂 "It's on my bottom 5 list because it shoots down planes" I shouldn't have expected anything else from you Chris 😂
I enjoyed the different perspective. It boils down to if it is made to shoot down planes he does not like it. Very well done
Great Bottom 5, very amusing and informative - thank you
Loved this..well done, sir!!
When I saw the title, I thought “Why is the plane guy doing a video on bottom tanks?”
Ha Ha, loved the video
Loved his previous video here too
If it shoots down planes Chris doesn't like it. I love the "spinny thing" comment. Thank you.
"This is good vehicle, but it shoots down planes so I hate it."
Love the energy.
Yes, early Shermans had problems with their radial engines but they quickly replaced them with regular gasoline and diesel engines. Funny enough the radial Shermans worked better in the mountains. Who would have thought a engine designed for aircraft would work better at higher altitude.
What a splendidly idiosyncratic selection of the "worst" tanks!
A refreshing perspective. Great video.
Brilliant - thank you for a really different bottom 5
TLDR list:
5: Sherman (M4A1 in particular): Because it uses Continental R975, which is a plane engine.
4. M16 MGMC: Because it shoots planes
3. T-34/85: Because it rides so rough it gives him booboos.
2. Tracked Rapier: Because it shoots planes, but better.
1. Panther: Because it's so hard to kill by planes.
A German with a sense of humour. Time to lie down lol
Enjoyable and informative. Thanks.
A tongue in cheek list perhaps but the Panther section is spot on.
I love that the choices were personal or just anti-craft!!
I really appreciate honesty.
Loved your perspective.
The problem with Rapier is needed to “bed in” after being at sea. Once it bedded in during the Falklands there was a saying “If it flies, it dies”.
I can only assume, that the top 5 would include the Soviet Antonov A-40. It's a tank, but it flies! Or glides! Sometimes!
Great list!
I’ve been waiting for this for forever
German: The T-34 bruised me
Russian T-34: HeHeHe
Excellent if rather different way of looking at tanks. Thanks!
I love his evaluation criteria!!
"... because it has an aero engine."
me thinking: "The engine is the heart of the machine... wouldn't they be like. 'Yeah, my little brother is a tank. He's afraid of heights.' or something?"
.
"... Because it kills planes."
Me thinking: "But planes kill planes."
.
"... Because planes don't really kill tanks."
me: "They just make pilots angry and frustrated. Understandable."
LOL! I love it. Next go to the WAR Museum where you can have a staff member in British uniform represent, THE INFANTRY. Since modern infantry have handheld missile devices to shoot helicopters and planes. The staff could hold such a device as you look at them sternly and say "BAD INFANTRY BAD! LEAVE THOSE PLANES ALONE!"
Excellent- you really took on some “ sacred cows “
"... Which made antiaircraft defense very personal..." OMG! This man is great!
🤣🤣 Excellent Christian. Very enjoyable, funny, AND rational 😊👍
I enjoyed that the take away from the half track was that it's bad because it shoots down aircraft, rather than it's good because it helped beat Hitler...
A few bits of interesting information there. I'd like to read more of these reports from the pilots.
Why would anyone put a tank cannon on an airplane?
US: "Because we can!"😂😂
I appreciate your levity. Thanks!
A very original and thought provoking view of the subject area.