Bruce Crompton Bottom 5 Tanks | The Tank Museum

[@thetankmuseum]

Hey, Tank Nuts! What did you think of this week's upload - do you agree with Bruce?

[@paulosborne6517]

Some great choices! I like it that these tanks - as well as being stop-gap / panic builds, also show what often happens when tanks are designed by committee, with everyone having a different idea of what they should be - leading to absolute 'white elephants' / liabilities. Those are often the most interesting tanks of all, and there is so much to be learned from them.

[@kartchner7]

Grant wasn’t a complete failure, did ok honestly. Hardly a worst tank ever. Tortoise was an experiment that never went anywhere literally. Tog was an interesting historic piece that was so bad never entered production, and wouldn’t merit being on a list except it’s been given a false life in a video game. Jagdtiger seems to be on everybody’s whipping list these days so kind of a boring pick, lots of tanks past and recent have used two part ammo. The only interesting choice was the cruiser tank and it’s a good one an example of a service tank that saw a lot of use that was pretty bad.

[@dillonpierce7869]

He's wrong on his worst tank.... Grant/Lee is awesome in my book.

[@ConstantlyDamaged]

Well, to be fair, his first two choices weren't tanks-no turret.

[@dillonpierce7869]

@@ConstantlyDamaged getting too technical on that they're still close enough. 😅👍

[@moneypoww3760]

I believe the M3 Grant was used (and loved) in Burma towards the end of the war. The main gun excelled at countering Imperial Japanese fortifications. The loader was able to quickly switch between HE and AP as friendly troops closed in on the fortifications, allowing heavy fire support righ up until the troops were at the fortifications. Source: Burma '44 by James Holland From what I understand, the turret was excellent for a sneak and peek over the hilly terrain of Burma combat areas, with the opportunity to let off AP rounds on opportune targets, but I have no source for this.

[@stigchristensen2597]

all armored vehicles shine when not facing any opposition, as bruce pointed out the layout of the M3 makes it a bad vehicle. it would have shined in 1940-41 after 41 its obsolete

[@StuSaville]

@@stigchristensen2597 Not true, for all its flaws the M3 dominated Italian and German armor in North Africa in 42.

[@white-dragon4424]

Ironically, one of its main flaws on the normal battlefield, its high build, was its strong point when fighting in the heavy jungle foliage.

[@stigchristensen2597]

@@StuSaville in 1942 the primery gernam tank in the DAK was the Panzer III with a short 50mm gun (a few long 50mm) and some Panzer IV also snubnosed 75mm guns, italian tanks was a joke with a good engine and transmission but not much else.. when you have a primery gun placed in the hull to the side you handicap yourself in so many ways. the M3 was a stop-gap vehicle that was better then nothing it was never ever a good tank.

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@stigchristensen2597 It wasn't a "good" tank when you are assessing it against a set of criteria on a piece of paper, but it was good enough to defeat what it was facing in North Africa (and Italy to an extent) and South East Asia.

[@ahseaton8353]

A buddy of mine father commanded an M3 tank early in the war. He said one of the advantages was that for every shot that could get off from the 75 they could hit the enemy six times with the 37 mm. He said he preferred the 37 over the 75. Hr later drove at Sherman and Pershing at the end of the war and liberated death camps. He said the Pershing was the best tank he'd commanded but he had fond memories of M3.

[@TellySavalas-or5hf]

Lullubelle tank from "Sahara"

[@ReddyDutch]

I visited the tank museum last week and I truly loved it! The tanks in the arena were amazing and I really applaud David Whitley for his enthusiasm in describing the tanks. I even got a friendly nod of the man himself. For everyone who hasn't been, just go, you won't regret it. Make sure to go before lunch though, as the tank show is around 1 on weekdays.

[@davidwhite9159]

I totally disagree with his choice of the Grant for two reasons: 1) when it was first deployed in North Africa it was the first time that the British had a gun capable of taking on both tanks & anti-tank guns, yes once they changed the 75mm shell for captured German / French shells (the US HE shell had a crap fuse & the German AT shell had a bursting charge inside) 2) it was brilliant in Burma not only because it acted as a mobile pill box, remembering that Japanese tanks could be taken out by the 37mm, but most importantly the 37mm also had a canister round that acted like a large shotgun / directed claymore mine and this could clear Japanese snipers out of trees etc..

[@maxkronader5225]

Most people who heap scorn on the M3 get most of their tank "knowledge" from video games. Compared to the other tanks of it's time, the M3 was a good tank, particularly considering that it was knowingly put into production as a stop-gap to hold the line until the Sherman could be developed and mass produced. Was it the best tank of it's day? No, but it was far from bad. It was superior to every German and Italian tank in North Africa except for the PzkpfwIV ausf F2. When you consider the combat record of the M3 compared to the opinions of many people today, it's as if they're not related to the same tank at all.

[@stigchristensen2597]

@@maxkronader5225 most people who praise tanks like the M3 lee has never been in real world combat, has no grasp of tactics nor know what cover and concealment means, so sod of, making up to be something you are not an expert of tanks.

[@dennisswaim8210]

Yes that 37mm canister round was very effective vs. Infantry. I don't know if it was available in North Africa?

[@thomasstevenhebert]

@@stigchristensen2597 I’m a combat vet and understand what the grant/Lee were intended to be. A means to bring a reliable drive train with good enough armor, armament and comms. They built it knowing it would be rapidly replaced, but the main benefit of the design it could be rapidly built in large numbers while the Sherman was spun up. Ultimately the tank that could be built in the thousands was better than the one on the drawing board, it was the weapon to fight the industrial war.

[@stigchristensen2597]

@@thomasstevenhebert please do read the other replies i post here before you post. i do at more then one occation acknowledge that for 1) the M3 lee had a good suspension engine and drive train and for 2) that you could not have the M4 Sherman without the M3 Lee question : as a combat vet how much would you expose of yourself in a firefight ? for me the answer is as little as possible. the M3 Lee has no such thing as hull down because of the placement of the main gun using the M3 Lee you had to expose most of the hull to use the main gun this is why i dont like the M3 Lee, i do requgnise it was a stop-gap tank. but its production was over 6000 built compared to other tanks used during ww2 its a relatively small number but its substantial enough to have seen service on all major theaters of war during WW2. also its rivited which means when hit beside from "normal" schrepnal rivits also contribuits to the "fun" inside the tank

[@StevieSantosia]

Jagdtiger isn't a Tank, it is a rolling bunker.

[@jacobcatterall6070]

Most the time not even rolling tbh

[@fabiobucher8581]

@@jacobcatterall6070 it was but only for a few months in 1944

[@Nerobyrne]

slowly rolling bunker ^.^

[@jacobcatterall6070]

@@fabiobucher8581 at least half of that time was repairing

[@emilbt7588]

you mean a "sometimes rolling bunker"

[@andrewbarratt8551]

Bruce, I'll go along with most of your choices but the M3 was in theatre when the M4 was still on the drawing board. Maybe not perfect but it was busy punching holes in German tanks before the M4's came on stream. Yes the height was an issue but as a trade off you got 2 shots off to 1 at anything heading your way and it was superbly reliable. Most importantly, had it not been for the M3 what would Sergeant Blast and Private Meekly have driven in the Wacky Races - so who would you have had to cheer for at tea time

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It literally got routed in its first proper action at Gazala, and it made no difference on the battlefield. It was Montgomery coming in and placing greater emphasis on artillery instead of tanks that changed the North African campaign, not this tank.

[@cwilson2143]

Bruce is a icon I agree with him totally he’s my number one celebrity to meet someday Bruce your awesome

[@derekmills1080]

An interesting selection of 'bottom worst five tanks' from Bruce. Thank you. Reluctantly, I have to agree that the M3 was flawed in several critical ways. My late father saw action in North Africa and Italy as a tank commander, thankfully in Shermans, with 2nd Lothians and Border Horse. He thought the M3 much better than the flimsy Crusader, despite the latter's potential speed. On my late father's behalf, I would swap places with the M3 and Crusader - the Crusader being worst of all (or best worst?!?). His final tank - several had been previously knocked out - was the M4/A2 or A3 Sherman with the high velocity 3" or 76.2mm gun. I have a picture of him stood in front of it with 'Arezzo' written on the back. Arguably every bit as good as the 'Firefly' with the 17pdr gun. Thank you again for a fascinating 'chat'.

[@Nerobyrne]

Why didn't they remove the turret from the M3? Then you still have what's essentially a tank-hunter with a good gun and you don't have to build a new tank. Plus it's not like that turret was a threat to anything other than an armored car anyway.

[@derekmills1080]

@@Nerobyrne small angle of traverse with the 75mm gun; thinner armour; (as Bruce said) danger of riveted panels when hit - even if not penetrated; Sherman had a rudimentary gyroscopic gun stabiliser allowing quick fix on target when stationary; crew of five in M4 and much more.

[@Nerobyrne]

@@derekmills1080 Okay so, basically it wasn't worth the effort for what you would have gotten, is what I'm making from all this. That does make sense, especially because until today, I didn't know that riveted armor was so much worse than welded.

[@derekmills1080]

@@Nerobyrne in a way I'm partly agreeing with Bruce, and, more importantly with my late father - after all he fought in tanks alongside commonwealth troops and, of course, the American forces. Survival in a tank was decreased when hit if shrapnel or dislodged rivets were ricocheting inside the hull.

[@Nerobyrne]

@@derekmills1080 yeah I never considered that the rivets inside would blast around if the plate deforms. You're basically sitting inside a giant shrapnel bomb 😱

[@bigblue6917]

Yes the M3 Grant was not ideal. But it was a stopgap until the M4 Sherman got into service. And the Grant gave an excellent account of itself in Burma. As to its height and dependent on which variant of M4 you are looking at some Shermans were only some six inches shorter than the Grant.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Yes on the height, but in a Sherman you can go hull down and still use your primary armament. Can't do that in an M3.

[@russellborn515]

From what I understand the M3 pretty much dominated in North Africa when it was introduced. That didn't last long, but by then the Sherman was coming online. So while not a great design, it was the right tank at the right time.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

Six inches can be very important

[@soares8802]

@@russellborn515 The video is about the tank itself, and the M3 was horrible as a tank...

[@chriskingston4270]

@@HALLish-jl5mo 😂😂😂

[@sandwormgod4771]

Love Bruce, love his enthusiasm and ability to get the information over.

[@muttmankc]

M3 is silly. Far from ideal, but vital at Gazala, among other battles, where it shocked the Germans. And generally well loved in the East to the end of the war, where the 37's canister ammo was greatly appreciated.

[@panderson9561]

I agree. Not the best tank of the war, but far from the worst.

[@seanmalloy7249]

Admittedly, it did have some stupendously stupid design features, one of which is hard to see behind Mr. Crompton as he lambasts the vehicle. At 12:45, you can see a pair of openings in the front hull; these were ports for a pair of machine guns intended to be controlled by the driver -- a holdover from the American fetish for hanging machine guns off every corner of their tanks. With everything else the driver had to do, they had no real time to handle firing fixed-mount machine guns on top of their other duties, and the guns were quickly removed (in the video, only the right gun port (left port seen from the front) appears to have a machine gun fitted; the other is empty.

[@afishynado6812]

As a tank it was rubbish, but as a giant armoured shotgun, it was amazing.

[@panderson9561]

@@afishynado6812 Yeah, but worst of the entire war?

[@fabiogalletti8616]

@@panderson9561 subjective, but wrong? In a way M3 and to an extent the Crusader are the worst *successful* tanks in WWII - They came up in the nick of time when what they can provide were needed and all the flaws and incongruences were simply ignored. As soon as something build right showed up, both were relegated to lesser fronts were any armour is better than no armour at all.

[@Tiger313NL]

I've had the pleasure of talking with Bruce for a bit, a few years ago. Very down to earth, funny and knowledgeable man.

[@TXGRunner]

One very interesting aspect of this series is the different criteria each presenter uses in choosing their top best tanks or bottom worst tanks. The first three are all "stopgap" or "panic built" designs; two never even get passed trials. His principal objection is their impracticability and insane maintenance requirements. For the Crusader III, he focuses on huge maintenance/support issues. That makes his choice of the Grant as his worst tank all the more ironic. The Grant was a very successful stop-gap that turned out to be a nasty surprise for the Germans, at least according to Rommel. Like the Stuart/Honey, the first American tanks were a Godsend for British tank crews who found the British designs were prone to breakdown and very difficult to maintain. The US built tanks used radial aircraft engines that were easier to maintain, but resulted in very high profiles. In the book Tank War, the reader is definitely left with the impression British tankers were very grateful for the M3 Grant, warts and all.

[@therealmrfishpaste]

In the desert campaign, virtually all British tank losses were to towed AT guns, hardly any were to enemy tanks. The Grant was quite fine at lobbing HE at AT guns...and exponentially better at doing so than any of its 2 pdr predecessors.

[@colbeausabre8842]

And while the 2 pounder had a high explosive and a smoke round, British doctrine was that they were only issued to the towed AT gun. Tanks were only issued solid AP shot, which whatever its merits as an AT round, was next to useless fighting enemy AT guns. It demanded a direct hit on a weapon that was already low to the ground and virtually always dug in - the barrel was just inches above the surrounding earth. With a HE round you could kill the crew with splinters from a near miss

[@BlackHawkBallistic]

It was also better than the tanks the British would have had without the grant/Lee, aka, nothing lol

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

@@BlackHawkBallistic : Another "Yanker" showing their lack of respect & intellect, for that matter "lol"

[@maxkronader5225]

@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM How so? The M3 was the only medium tank the US had available to supply to Britain at the time. I don't recall coming across any accounts of British tank commanders in the field during the North African campaign who said "No thanks, tell the Yanks well just stick with what we've got until they come up with a better design." So it was, that when it came to US made medium tanks, indeed the M3 or nothing. Stop being such an anti-American bigot.

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

@@maxkronader5225 : I replied in kind & thank you for clarifying my point.

[@thegeneral123]

I just wish Combat Dealers could be easily watched online. Love the show, pretty much impossible to find.

[@chrisgibbs804]

M3 was a clunky tank but it was always a stop gap tank. Question you should ask is do we want m3 now or no tank now. For being a stop gap tank it was reliable with a solid, albeit awkward gun at the time. In that regard I think it checked its boxes. Wasn't the crusader reworked and fixed to become a very reliable machine?

[@dwavenminer]

Early crusaders were riveted (which created a huge spauling hazard and increased the weight, which the transmission did not approve of...) together by train builders (they were all that was left after the Royal navy and airforce, who had priority, had their picks) while others were training on how to weld tanks, once the trained staff were put into action the quality significant went up after a little experience...especially since they no longer riveted now.

[@chrisgibbs804]

@@dwavenminer thanks for the input. A lot of early production had issues and ones like that popped up a number of times.

[@aizseeker3622]

Crusader can only fire AP which worse when trying to support infantry

[@zachsmith1676]

@@aizseeker3622 but why would they need HE when their job isn't to support the infantry but to rush through gaps in the enemy line and play hail mary with the enemy's rear lines

[@kyle857]

@@aizseeker3622 crusader had an he, it just want very good. Like the panzer 3s at the time.

[@RitzOriginal1]

Bruce is looking well and healthy, always a pleasure to watch, enjoyed this one :)

[@Tephaine]

Was he the person that had a paracuting accident during a D-Day recreation?

[@leedad]

@@Tephaine I don't think, so it was his para friend and work colleague but it was in the same jump

[@pcmmulders]

@@Tephaine yes

[@fus149hammer5]

@@Tephaine Yes he landed in a tree then fell out upside down.

[@ericanpaul01]

Bruce simply the best - bring back combat dealers

[@linnharamis1496]

Thanks- these segments are always fun because one gets to hear a variety of viewpoints and opinions about some of the same vehicles. Keep ‘em coming!👍

[@johnfisk811]

The Tortoise was built for a specific assault purpose and never intended to keep up with anything faster than a man in boots. When trialled Germany it was found to be adequately mobile with the only major fault being the strategic mobility of getting that weight across bridges but that would not affect it in it’s intended role. That role died when the allies crossed into Germany but the Tortoise would have carried it out quite well. TOG became an engineering experiment that answered all the questions it posed about drive trains.

[@n.b.barnett5444]

The Grant was the best tank in the desert at the moment when it was first put into service in the desert. It didn't age well, but during its brief window, it was the best tank in combat in North Africa.

[@maxkronader5225]

It is interesting that British field commanders during the North African campaign were happy to have the M3s and considered them a valuable addition to their armored strength, particularly the HE capabilities of the 75mm. Of course they replaced the M3s with the M4 Shermans when they became available; the M4 was a newer, superior design. But that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate the M3s It seems it's mostly armchair experts who never got closer than a computer screen to armored combat who are so critical of early WWII tank designs. Some were attempts to figure out what a tank should be (like the various tankettes), some (like the M3) were stop-gaps intended to be good enough to hold the line until better models could be manufactured. It is only in retrospect that we recognize that "obviously" a well balanced combination of mobility, firepower, and protection is the way to go.

[@MRKapcer13]

The Lee also performed very well in the pacific, where the cannister shot for the 37mm proved to be excellent and the 75mm could very easily take on anything the Japanese threw at it.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Panzer IV ausf F2 was better, and made its debut shortly after, at Alam el Halfa.

[@tripwire3992]

The crusader was good too, but people drag it for the filters being clogged by sand in the desert, the Germans also had this problem, that’s why Rommel didn’t have Stug iii’s im the desert bc the external filters for the engine got clogged with sand and the engines basically caught fire

[@jonsouth1545]

@@tripwire3992 The Germans actually got it a lot worse the breakdown rates of the Pz IV in North Africa are a whole order of magnitude higher.

[@kalaharimine]

Good selection Sir, although the Crusader just looks right. I'm happy to say that i made it to Bovington Tank fest this year for the 1st time, all the way from Southern Africa. What a show and a fantastic museum enjoyed by grandkids and all, absolutely recommended. That Jagdtiger is a truly enormous beast, didn't see the Tortoise and TOG, they must have been hiding in the back. somewhere.

[@Colinpark]

I have to disagree on #4, it was a purpose designed tank, it was reliable enough and the Allies had the production and resources to build it if required. We always have to remember that it's quite easy to see the mistakes in long hindsight, but at the time of inception, no one knew just how strong the Germans defenses might be. As for #1, on this I will strongly disagree, in fact it was considered the best tank in North Africa till the long barrelled Pz 4 showed up and as a another commenter mentioned, it was the German AT gun line that was the main killer of tanks. The Grants allowed the Brits to stand off and shell that line with 75mm HE, instead of having to do suicide charges against it to get into machine gun range.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

as a stop gap panic tank the M3 was fairly successful. the germans didn't really have anything to stop it when it did arrive, which prompted them to get bigger tanks which ate their supplies like crazy.

[@fordprefect80]

Australia loved the M3 Grant during WW2. It got the job done and best of all it was miles better than anything the Japanese had.

[@ihategooglealot3741]

Yes, a tank only needs to be better that its opponent, M3 did a job in the deserts and jungles, it was what it was.

[@allangibson8494]

Australia only used the 1500 M3’s for training in Australia. The Australian forces used the Matilda II to actually engage the Japanese (none of the Japanese tanks could penetrate the armor on the Matilda (and neither could most of the Japanese anti tank guns). Australia forces used Italian tanks to capture Syria from the Vichy French forces.

[@meles3740]

@@allangibson8494 I'm amazed how your comment is largely ignored and the inaccurate one has all the likes.

[@danam0228]

The M3 Grant and Lee, although quickly obsolete, did better than most people think in North Africa, and it's replacement did worse for some time. Was good to bring up in this list though as it was not very good with many tactics because of the design flaws mentioned

[@moblinmajorgeneral]

The M3 Grant was on par with the Panzer IV F1, even with the weird mounting for the AT gun. The Sherman had to contend with early Tiger 1s and the Panzer IVG, markedly better tanks with higher velocity guns than it.

[@spm36]

I met Bruce at this years tankfest, he is exactly as he portrays, down to earth and polite...chapeau

[@tbone121974]

I know the Tog was a design behind the times but as Jingles always says "Tog always wins." I'd love to meet Bruce at some point. Such a wonderful character.

[@Twirlyhead]

I would not have put either Crusader iii or M3 in there myself. Plus, the only problem with the 75mm on the M3 was it could not be used in a safer, dug in, hull down position. You mentioned 2 part ammo as a problem a couple of times but it's not.

[@mandoprince1]

Agreed, for all their faults, both the Crusader and Grant gave good service in the desert. As guns get bigger, ammo gets heavier and at some point it becomes necessary to split the shell and the charge, as the weight of one piece ammo becomes too great to handle😎

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

No, 2 piece ammunition is objectively slower than 1 piece shells.

[@mandoprince1]

@@2ndcomingofFritz Not if the loaders can't lift the shells!

[@braxxian]

Its well known that the Grant was a stop gap measure, just something to hold the line till the more suitable Sherman arrived. It was also excellent in Burma where the lighter Japanese tanks couldn't compete with it. Its fire power, speed and maneuverability were pretty good so it did fulfill the purpose it was designed for. Yes it was a bit of a clunker but still a very effective one.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

I like it better when they have guests that know something about tanks. Seriously where did you get this guy?

[@peenice]

I saw Bruce crompton and I hit like. More combat dealers brucey please 🙏

[@maxpayne2574]

One of the big down sides of the Grant was the riveted armor. A hit on the head of a rivet from an MG bullet would send shards of rivet into the crew compartment. It's his choices so he sets the standards.

[@sscchhnert]

Nice video and a nice guy. Thank you for providing us with these awesome videos every week!

[@josephgraney1928]

I don't really think the M3 belongs on the list. Was it the best? No. It *was* too tall and it *did* require too many crew. However, it was pretty well armored for the time, which helped alleviate the height issue. It would get seen, and it was an easy target to hit, but it was hard to knock out, especially in the longer ranges of desert fighting. The crew issue was somewhat alleviated by the fact that the M3 brought a lot of fighting power to the table. The 75mm was better than anything else the Allies had mounted on tanks at the time, and was in many ways better than the 50mm L/60 gun or the short 75mm gun which were the main options on German tanks at the time. Furthermore, the 37mm gun was a decent gun in its own right, capable of taking out many German and basically all Italian tanks of the time. If you look at the M3's combat record, it did decently well. It think the design suffers only because it constantly gets compared to the M4 Sherman, which was clearly the better vehicle but was also a later design.

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

Nah the early panzer 4s could get through the M3.

[@josephgraney1928]

@@2ndcomingofFritz The AP round for the 75mm Pak 37 could only penetrate 41mm of armor at 30 degrees. The normal HEAT round was also ineffective. There was an improved HEAT round introduced in early 1942 which had the theoretical capacity to penetrate the M3 Lee's armor, but it was both inaccurate and not widely available. Panzer 4's up to the F1 model had one rare and inaccurate round which could penetrate the M3 Lee. Panzers 3's up until the Ausf Ls had one round, the PzGr. 40 which could do the job. It was the least common AP round for the Panzer 3's with the L/42 gun, but common enough to be a reasonable concern to M3 Lee crews. Of course, the Panzer 4 ausf f2's and Panzer 4 ausf L's didn't have that much of a problem with the M3 Lee. However, those vehicles began production in March 1942 and December 1941 respectively, so by the time they were arriving on the battlefield, the M4 Sherman was appearing as well and the M3 Lee was being phased out. One must remember the the M3's first saw action in May 1942 and were beginning to be phased out by September 1942. I think people dislike the M3 Lee primarily because they tend to compare it to the M4 Sherman and the Panzer 3 Ausf. L and Panzer 4 Ausf F2. But those tanks are later designs, so it is not a fair comparison.

[@maxkronader5225]

I'm glad you mention the 37mm gun's capability. It's often dismissed as if it were useless, but it was very capable by 1942 standards. That gun, using AP-C ammunition could penetrate 56mm of RHA at 500yds. That's enough to take out every Italian tank, every model of Pzkpfw III, and all Pzkpfw IV ausf D and earlier tanks in North Africa in Spring/Summer 1942.

[@Anamnesis-Apotheosis89]

Absolutely loving the videos and learn so much from them! Thank you for all you and your associates at the The Tank Museum for all of your work.

[@MrT67]

As a Kiwi, I protest. The Semple never makes a top 5 and I can live with that. Just. But not making any bottom 5 is unconscionable.

[@gryph01]

The Semple was the tank that frightened the Japanese Army. They didn't invade New Zealand 😁

[@allangibson8494]

The Bob Semple was actually better armored than some of the Japanese tanks… (which will give you an idea why Japanese tanks are rather hard to find now).

[@kevins2684]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I’m sure there was an element of panic, but there was a war! He says “I wouldn’t want to be in one of these”. I say “who would want to be in a tank however good it was?” I would rather have seen a list comprised of tanks that were in service during the war or conflict for which they were designed.

[@simonward4520]

Great to see Bruce on here. 👍

[@ritchie799]

Brilliant presentation Bruce. Your skills make the video more interesting and enjoyable. More soon please?

[@tommytaylor4458]

Glad to see Bruce out and doing what he’s great at!!! Let’s do some more combat dealer

[@cwilson2143]

Absolutely I think he would be Hearst at specific battles and explaining the guns and ammo In and on each side I wish he would talk about the pacific campaign and the us halftrack

[@hansulrichboning8551]

Somewhere i read, that the russians had a quite sarcastic nickname for the lend-lease M3 :Tomb for 6 friends.

[@juancortapan7845]

Yeah well, that's a common nickname for the tanks in general.

[@gitfoad8032]

Correct.

[@ianwalter62]

"Coffin for 7 brothers" was the translation I heard.

[@ficklefingeroffate]

Have to disagree about the M3. Upon introduction in North Africa , BEFORE the M4, the Brits loved them and the Germans & Italians feared them. The M3 in 1942, a world beater, the M3 in 1943 a dog.

[@ihategooglealot3741]

Except in the far east, where it served successfully through till 45

[@ficklefingeroffate]

@@ihategooglealot3741 agreed. My point being placing M3 on this list is nothing more than buying into the "conventional wisdom" which is dead wrong.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It was a dog. Obsolete a few months after it's debut.

[@ihategooglealot3741]

@@lyndoncmp5751 but then its replacement was in testing before its introduction, and it and Matilda 2 were highly effective in the FE until the end.

[@ficklefingeroffate]

@@lyndoncmp5751 you are wrong. You might try reading the combat record, but then the truth would intrude upon your beliefs.

[@colboysigmax]

Great to see Bruce back!!

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

The Jagdtiger was a tankhunter that saw limited action, Tortoise, like the Tog never saw any action. They're essentially prototypes, might have beens and thus hard to compare as they never saw action. Or hardly any, as the Jagdtiger. M3 Grant was a bad design pushed through by necessity and haste, but when you need a lot of 75mm armed tanks RIGHT NOW something right now is always better then the perfect thing tomorrow. And the Grant could take on German tanks AND the anti-tank guns that had been the real bane of British armor in the desert. The Crusader suffered mostly from mechanical breakdowns in the desert. But so did T-34, with Soviet tank corps losing up to half of their tanks just on the move. And everyone worships the ground T-34 rolls over. And most of them had no radio, which made coordination in Soviet tank units a nightmare and often easy picking for the Germans. Oddly enough the Germans seems to have admired the Crusader's speed and I reckon it was an influence on German post-war design with the Leopard 1. Which emphasized speed over armor. I think the reason Crusader has gotten a bad rep while T-34 is considered the bees knees is because British tankers lived to tell the tale of how bad their tanks were, in a country where you were allowed to tell how bad your tanks were. Whereas Soviet tankers died by the bucketload in shoddy T-34's, far higher casualty rates then their Western counterparts, and those that survived were in a country where you had to sing long live Stalin, he loves you, sing these words or you know what he will do! And Stalin didn't like it when you complained about his tanks.

[@madman19931612]

I don't know, I think part of it is expectation, T34's were so hastily build that some didn't even have all the seats installed, ofcourse you're not gonna expect that thing to be robust. With the crusader, it was built, developed, and tested with care and consideration, that thing was supposed to be good. And then heat and dust does your tank in. I'd be angry as well :P With T34, I moreso admire the logistical side of cranking out just SO MANY tanks, than the tank itsself. It's a fine tank, and it's one of those "draw a tank and this will be one that springs to mind" tanks in regards to looks, but other than that... Not too special no But if you frequent places where people take the "stalinium" meme a little too serious I completely understand the frustration

[@ihategooglealot3741]

Well argued, the earlier 2 man turret this proved shocking in action, the tank went through 3 guns, the original L11 armed version was genuinely garbage

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

@@madman19931612 The downside of cranking out that many T-34's though is that the vast majority were so shoddily built you could hardly call them T-34's. T-34-ish is more apt. One factory built half of all T-34-76's produced, in less then half of the manhours that were stated to be needed to build one. Immense corners were cut. No seats, no turret bustle (crew just has to walk around with the turret), no rubber wheels so the tracks wear out quicker and the crew gets deaf and exhausted just on the move. There's a reason why T-34-76's are rare post war. Most were destroyed by the Germans. That thing was a crew killer and yet people still hail it as the best tank of the war. Considering that Crusader crews had much higher survival rates I'd say it's not that bad a tank. Stupid mistakes were made during designing (2 pounder gun with no HE ammunition, vulnerability to desert sand and dust, but the British army in 1941 had no other tank to ship to North Africa. The only alternative was Covenanter, which should really be on this list, as it was so bad that despite equipping several UK based armored divisions they still chose to send Crusader tanks to North Africa instead. No Covenanter ever saw action. It all boils down to what would you rather have, the perfect tank a few years from now, or something right now. And even with all its faults Crusader would have done a lot better if the British 8th Army had employed combined arms tactics instead of stupidly charging their tanks without support against German AT guns. Or stopped sending in their tank brigades piecemeal while Rommel had his 2 panzerdivisions combined. I daresay that if the British Army had had Sherman Fireflies and Comets in 1941 they would still have lost because of their horrible tactics. It boggles the mind that the army that in 1918 pioneered and invented modern combined arms tactics to smash the WW1 stalemate completely forgot about them a world war later and had to relearn them all over again.

[@allangibson8494]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 People who moan about the Sherman mostly because the crews were still alive to moan about the Sherman. A lot of Sherman crews went through three and four tanks - but all of the crew survived the hit that killed the tank and just had to walk back to get another one. On average there was one casualty per Sherman knocked out (killed or injured). Unless a Sherman actually caught fire it was generally back in service after a disabling hit within a week (because the Americans shipped buckets of spare parts for everything). Neither the Germans or Soviets could say the same for their tanks. The T-34/40 & 41 was an utter dog and 90% were destroyed by the end of 1941 (particularly because they had neither enough fuel ammunition or competent crews (because of a lack of fuel and ammunition)).

[@anonnymousperson]

'...they've asked me to do my top bottom worst 5 tanks.'

[@bebo4374]

Ha ha! Yeah he needs a little help with English.

[@MusicHavenSG]

Brucey is always a funny bubbly chap in Combat Dealers. Gotta love the character he brings to the show or anywhere that concerns tanks.

[@drinksnapple8997]

Respect to Bruce, he showed up with a proper suit like a proper businessman.

[@ronmailloux8655]

yes but his voice is so off putting and his comparison of the jeep to the German Kufflewagon was biased and silly .

[@teatanks6481]

Both the crusader and Grant were incredibly effective and well liked tanks, crusaders were actually quite reliable tanks once a proper supply of spare parts were established, the 57mm was more than capable of destroying any tank it faced. As for the Grant size wasn't as much of an issue in the open desert, plus the 75mm worked as a sort of assault gun similar to the StuG, effectively destroying enemy machine gun nests or AT positions.

[@toddjackson6674]

True.... a lot of the reliability issues with the Crusader were ironed out. Later in the war it served as a prime-mover in Europe; I would imagine a prime-mover would have to be reliable more than anything.

[@jacktyler2880]

Love the M3. The world's only full-production steampunk (looking) tank!

[@maxkronader5225]

While I agree about the M3, the Soviet T-35 and KV-2 were also pretty darned steampunky.

[@jacktyler2880]

Max, I can't disagree, especially on the T-35. Put Indiana Jones' father in one turret, Ned Land in another, maybe Professor Challenger and so on with your favorite characters, and you've got a hell of an adventure novel! The KV-2 always looked to me like a kid was making two different tank models at the same time and somehow switched the turrets. It didn't look as steampunky to me as just weird. All the M-3 needs is a big black smokestack sticking up from the engine compartment.

[@altratronic]

Grants were far from perfect; however, in general they were used to good effect in North Africa, and provided a decent stopgap prior to the arrival of the Sherman. At least that's what reports from the time indicated.

[@chrisjordan4210]

I imagine Bruce has just upset half of the tank aficionados in Britain, hope he got home safely.

[@mrlodwick]

Sharpe suit and presenter - thank you Sir! At least the Grant kept the 88mm under fire bro.

[@chrisntrev]

Another nice collaboration between Bruce and the Tank Museum, I loved it but I'm glad he slightly toned down the shouty, gurning presentation from Combat Dealers. He has so much enthusiasm and so much information to get across. Thanks both, very interesting stuff.

[@BernddasBrotB7]

Oh dear, he fell into the 'Crusader is unreliable' trap. It truly wasn't particularly bad. The main issue was that it was horribly cramped, and even then the T-34 was worse for that. I wonder if perhaps he was muddled with the Covenenter?

[@dogsnads5634]

It was unreliable in the desert because of the huge issues with dust... But then everything else was. I don't think it was anymore unreliable than anything else... It did ultimately benefit from the re-organisation of the British recovery system which lagged far behind the German system but then surpassed it when proper equipment arrived and the ultimate establishment of REME.

[@BernddasBrotB7]

@@dogsnads5634 Yeah, everything struggled in the desert. I haven't the foggiest why it all gets pinned on the Crusader as a particular example.

[@stanislavkos3723]

@@BernddasBrotB7 Because it fought only in the desert and the problems are well documented. German tanks were protected from it by Rommel's propaganda showing them as perfect machines without flaws, even though they of weren't.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@BernddasBrotB7 They did have some issues with cooling for the engine, I think related to chain drive on the cooling fans. They got compared unfairly with the Stuart which had a big fan which pulled a huge amount of air from the crew compartment into the engine, thus keeping the crew cool. Which was of course much appreciated. However, no-one ever points out that that means there was no armour and firewall between the crew and the petrol engine....not a good thing if you get hit...

[@cdamauser1963]

Great to see Uncle Brucey! Next time bring the Combat Dealers crew along! The Twins, Ian, Hus, Freddie and ofcourse Mrs. C.

[@calvingreene90]

The M-3 Grant/Lee was not a panic build, it was a stop gap build on the realization that the 37mm was obsolete but it was so good that it stayed in production for thousands more built than intended. It had excellent reliability and mobility. It was no taller than a Tiger but it could get to the battlefield in time and numbers to be useful.

[@bronson7279]

I always loved the Grant in the Blitzkrieg PC game of yore. It looked so good.

[@backrowbrighton]

The high silhouette was a problem with the M3 but as a stop gap measure I think it did all that was required of it at the time. I have read that many British tankers felt pleased that they could at last lob a big shell back at the Germans for the first time. The M3 almost found its perfect home in Burma as it was a really useful for bunker busting or as a fire support platform. A 75mm backed by a 37mm and up to four .30 Brownings is nothing to sneeze at.

[@burville100]

Aww maan! The Grant was my first ever Airfix model I put together when I was a nipper... Great reviews by the way Bruce. Any updates on Combat Dealers appearing any time soon would be much appreciated👍

[@emberfist8347]

I was similarly disappointed by the Crusader as it was the first tank I drove in a video game so I am nostalgic for it. The Grant and Crusaders aren’t the worse tanks they had in the collection in my opinion either.

[@dougiedrever7168]

there are stories of grant crews in north africa that said once they got used to it it was pretty effective if you spotted them first, you had to turn to get the gun on target but that also presented full frontal armour to the enemy, they bounced a lot of shots, prob why 131 ended up in bovington if you think about it

[@louislopez55]

Isn’t to panic what a country does when it finds itself suddenly in a war? (Unless your country started the war, panic comes later when you realize you are losing)

[@calvingreene90]

The M-3 tank was not a panicked design. It was the result of finding out that the 37mm gun was useless as an anti-tank gun and an unwillingness to send men to their deaths in useless equipment. The M-3 without the 75mm would be worthy of the title worst tank.

[@allangibson8494]

That would be the M-2 Medium… The M-3 was an M-2 with a 75mm gun shoehorned into the hull.

[@calvingreene90]

@@allangibson8494 The M-2 with the 75mm shoehorned in was the M-2A1. The 75 could Elevate and depress but was fixed to him forward so the driver had to aim left and right. The M-3 has the 75mm in a casement mount that allows about aiming 15° off center in both directions as well.

[@maxkronader5225]

The 37mm in spring/summer 1942 was far from useless. With AP-C ammo it could penetrate 58mm of RHA at 500yds. That's enough to take out the frontal armor of every Italian tank, every Pzkpfw III, every Pzkpfw IV ausf D and earlier, and every armored half track.

[@calvingreene90]

@@maxkronader5225 The USofA Army disagreed.

[@armymanaka360]

The crusader was an amazing scout and light tank

[@douglasmaccullagh7865]

Interesting thoughts on the U.S. M3 Medium Tank. Have you looked at the U.S. M2 Medium? For me, the M2 Medium tops my list of worst tanks.

[@folgore1]

Interesting list. The M3 is the one I would most strongly disagree with. It was a successful stopgap measure that kept the allies in the fight until the Shermans arrived. It wasn't expected to be the permanent solution though it served well in Asia until the end of the war given the weakness in Japanese armor. All the other bottom five selections make perfect sense.

[@ianmangham4570]

Always loved the Tortoise 🤣🙏🇬🇧 Empty all the interior out for an AWESOME bunker.

[@UnclePutte]

I always thought the Crusader was an ironic moniker. Was great in the cool north, boiled and choked in the far south, like the crusaders of old

[@themanwithnoname3636]

I could literally watch combat dealers all day. Great show.

[@die_vivian_360]

I'm a simple woman - I see Bruce, I click and upvote. :) (Seriously, thanks for a very entertaining video!)

[@zippy5131]

No one tank is perfect in any condition, some fettling is always needed. As I remember from the gulf war the Alvis blokes being shipped out to fettle. Such is life.

[@TanksForTheMammeries]

As much as I like Bruce, and have little to quibble with on his opinions, I did find it quite funny that as he was bashing the Crusader, the Valentine behind him was doing it's best to be absolutely still and silent. I'd take a Crusader III with the 6pndr over a Valentine and day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[@busboymk2]

Surprised the Covenanter wasn't on the list, like Bruce I love British tanks, but the Covenanter was a proper howler !!!

[@zacherymooney]

Excellent video. I can’t wait to come visit the museum

[@bullettube9863]

I agree that the M3 was a bad tank and it's designers and the US Army agreed also. But it was cheap and easy to produce in great numbers and was actually a good infantry support tank. It was also reliable and easy to maintain and offered a bit more comfort then the British tanks. It was the right tank at the right time, however short that time was. Being tall was not really a bad thing other wise number five would have been equally bad as it was taller, as was the Tiger tank. The Sherman shared many of it's parts and was also the right tank at the right time.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yeah but the Tiger and Jagdtiger had the armour protection to address the height of the vehicle. The M3 didn't.

[@waynehankinson8210]

You have to see that the M3 Grant was much better than nothing. But as far as comparing to other WW2 tanks it deserves it’s place on the list.

[@marky657]

Very good job Bruce. The M3 Lee/Grant was a stopgap vehicle and was too tall. The 75 mm gun was good, same gun as the Sherman. The M3 will always be one of my old guys from watching the movie "Sahara" with Humphrey Bogart and his M3 "air cooled job that would cross your piccadilly circus". Oh and that TUT or turd, whatever what a monstrosity

[@SPSteve]

I enjoy everything Bruce does. The Lee/Grant is so ugly it's beautiful and I agree with the Jagdtiger on the list but it's a good looking machine. All of the bottom 5 are great modelling subjects.

[@jerry2357]

The M3 was actually not too bad at the stage of the war when it was used. It was mechanically reliable and had a 75 mm gun. And the Crusader was actually used in the desert, unlike its predecessor the Covenanter, of which over 1700 were built, but so bad that it was never used in combat.

[@LordStarbeard]

When i read "the Covenanter", i read it in David Fletcher's disgusted voice... 😂

[@juancortapan7845]

considering when it was put into service and that it was a temporary tank, the M3 it wasn't too bad

[@gleggett3817]

Covenanter and Crusader are being designed simultaneously, and the pilot Crusader is completed before the Covenanter.

[@Tony-pk6ql]

The Grant tank gave sterling service in the desert and Pacific jungles at a time when the Allies really needed a decent tank. The Grant was highly underrated.

[@dannypallett1]

Would love to see some more seasons of combat dealers

[@MrEddieLomax]

The Grant tank's first use was very successful, yes it was poor but its 75mm gun chewed up Panzer 3 and 4's.

[@darreng745]

Funny how Bruce skipped over the Covenanter tank which apart from the Charioteer and the Valiant constitutes one of the worse tank designs of all time with it's over weight hull and abysmal cooling system. The Grant I would disagree on vehemently as the guns gave it a solid punch above the 2 pounder and the mechanicals were a stage above the Crusier tanks used by the 8th Army up to that point. They went on to serve in Burma with the 14th Army with great distinction where their guns gave the troops an added advantage and were also able to knock out what little armour the Japanese Army could muster. Sorry Bruce but no I think there are worse tanks in the collection, Black Prince for one and that dreadful amphibious tank made by Vickers who's armour can't even stop a revolver bullet.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

Or the Italian m-13-40 and cv-33.

[@allangibson8494]

There is worse things than a bad tank - like no tank.

[@allangibson8494]

@@thunberbolttwo3953 The M-13 performed quite well against the French in Syria (with Australians driving them). Crap command kills acceptable vehicles. The French and Italians were big on promotion of incompetents.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

@@allangibson8494 Lol good the Australians would NOT us the m13 in Syria,. they would have used British tanks instead. Logistically that would not have made sense.

[@andrewcoley6029]

great video, personally I would have replaced the M3 with the Covenanter, but that tank's ropiness has be done to death - M3 not all that bad I think, would have rather face the enemy in an M3!

[@phil2927]

Thanks Bruce, I've always enjoyed your programs. As for the mechanical problems, I'm sure the twins could have sorted them out!

[@oscargrainger2962]

Love Combat dealers. Bruce is great.

[@jwenting]

The Tortoise was never designed to take out other tanks. It was intended as a bunker buster. The lack of mobility is less important for that purpose. Which doesn't mean its massive size wasn't a bad thing, as it would have made transporting it to the staging areas a nightmare. The Americans had the same problem with their T28/T95 (and earlier with their T14). The 37mm on the M3 was standard for tanks when the vehicle was designed. Both the Americans, British, Germans, and Soviets used equivalents to it in the late 1930s. The height of the M3 was a problem as it made it an easy target, but other than that it worked as designed. It was reliable, roomy, and overall a successful design. If it didn't last long as a main line combat vehicle that's mostly because technology progressed rapidly and it became obsolete as a result.

[@malkavianstr450]

Like the jagdtiger

[@justbaquatics2512]

We went there a week ago amazing.... Just to let people know we paid for a family ticket valid for a 12 months now that's good.... Its a incredible place definitely we'll worth a vist.

[@tarjei99]

The M3 was better than anything the British had at the time. And it was reliable.

[@richardsinger01]

Matilda

[@tarjei99]

@@richardsinger01 Not even remotely plausible. There is a reason for the British using them in the desert the moment they could get their hands on them.

[@rolfagten857]

The MAUS tank was also a bit of a blunder.

[@MichaelKng-fk5jk]

Bruce backs up his thought, respect

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I find it interesting what you didn't say about the Crusader tank. Riveted armor, Thin armor, its entirely inadequate 2 pounder fun. There was little difference between the US 37mm and the 2 pounder. I believe the 2p had slightly better penetration and could fire a sabot round, but HE. The 37mm could not fire a sabot nut did have a small HE. My Father entered the US Army in 1939. He was a combat veteran in the M$. Prior to the war he basically had experience With most if not all the tanks in service including prototypes such as the Christie models. His observation of the M3 Grant it's height, impossible to fight hull down as the ground would mask the 75mm. A well trained crew could compensate for the sponson mounted 75mm poor traverse. It's introduction in north Africa was a rude awakening to the Africa Corps. Riveted armor was relatively common in pre 1942 tanks. The techniques and technology to weld armor was still being developed along with casting processes for turrets and hulls.

[@silverwolf3745]

I would have thought that the Char B would have been in the bottom 5, possibly in place of the M3.

[@the51project]

Chickens, Ducks, Geese - all fowl language.

[@I.G_NL]

Love to watch these!

[@calvinfamily3460]

Would be amazing to see the tank museum in person.

[@jfcard0055]

I remember a quote about the M3 where someone described it as "looking like a damn cathedral coming down the road," and seeing it here, I get it. Goofy design.

[@garliccat8470]

Great choices for his " top 5 bottom worst tanks"

[@jessgibson4790]

Absolutely right, Bruce. The reliance on petrol by everyone bar the Russians has always confused me. I often wonder what a diesel version of the bigger German tanks would have been like. Isn't it surprising they didn't go in for it seeing as diesel was a German invention?