James Holland | Top 5 Tanks | The Tank Museum

[@oisnowy5368]

The Churchill Crocodile may be slow... it still is way faster than a concrete bunker.

[@DarkKatzy013]

😂 lol indeed. Love your comment 🐈🐾

[@jameskoskinen6763]

🤣 Excellent point!!

[@cronobactersakazakii5133]

Nailed

[@everythinggaming7938]

But everyone's seen you coming and done a runner by the time you get there 😆

[@hagamapama]

@@everythinggaming7938 Then you take the bunker and your supporting infantry has target practice on the retreating Germans.

[@mephistoXFC459V]

The Panzer IV was so good that it goes from the Top 5 list in 2019 to the Worst 5 list in 2021.

[@ArcticTemper]

Different criteria in different videos you nugget.

[@mephistoXFC459V]

@@ArcticTemper It was a light hearted comment to highlight the impossibility of choosing a 'best' or 'worst' tank, but thanks for the insult.

[@Zerobob26]

I completely agree. These are "Top 5" and "Bottom 5" lists, and so the same criteria should have been used to compile both. The same tank has no business being in both lists... unless there have only ever been 9 tanks in the history of the world.

[@Joze1090]

@cris lol

[@Asgar1205]

I mean… in order to badmouth the Panzer 4 in the bottom 5 tanks video he even compares the medium Panzer 4 to the heavy Churchill and complains about the panzers 4 lack of armor… need I say more?

[@calvinfernandez1956]

Invite Mark Felton to do a video on his top 5 tanks.

[@Funcrafter01]

Yes definitely

[@brandonfarris8049]

You said it man i love his channel.

[@Arbiter099]

shouldn't be too hard to get a disembodied voice to present a video, as long as they add his theme music

[@Funcrafter01]

@@Arbiter099 well at least he is unbiased not like potential history for example

[@Arbiter099]

oh, no, I love his content, just poking fun at him not appearing on camera on his channel.

[@jamespeterburch]

Need to get @Mark Felton Productions on this

[@mcsmash4905]

hm yea that would be a good choice for the next top 5

[@markthemaniac3350]

no

[@apuffofpink8484]

When he said “A couple chickens on the back of it” for the firefly, I just imagine a fence built around the engine deck with live chickens running around

[@roeng1368]

- "We're slightly over 40 tons captain, we cannot cross the bridge" - Captain " Best get rid of those damned chickens"

[@havanadog7987]

Edwards! Release the chicken!

[@devinoakley4063]

I was wondering if it would drop bird seed behind as it drove

[@canuckled]

I thought about the Gypsy tanks from Kelly's Heroes

[@TheLoxxxton]

Commander what do we do?? Cry havoc and let loose the chickens of war!!

[@lillypillie6469]

When will we see James May? I would love to see his choice! Due to him being your promote guy on your site and web.

[@Hybris51129]

"And for my favorite tank its a tie between the Ford Mondeo and Dacia Sandero."

[@livarot1]

He also reminded me of James May, similar accent and similar mannerisms.

[@Lunkwow]

Captian Slow, you already know what tanks he will pick.

[@Hybris51129]

@@Lunkwow Churchill, Matilda, Tortoise, Black Prince, TOG II*

[@adastra3280]

James May? Like the cooking guy?

[@Caratacus1]

James's 'War In The West' series is required reading for anyone interested in WW2 Western Front. For sheer storytelling power though his Malta Siege book is brilliant. A top bloke.

[@jakebolger6248]

Have read these and have just finished Normandy and Burma '44. Very engaging and personable way of writing, it is unlike a lot of military history books which can be very dry and hard to access.

[@ianbrown9108]

Nice to see the Cromwell included in the list. The Meteor engine was developed in the town where I live, meaning I have an affinity with the Cromwell.

[@jacqirius]

Still a horrendously terrible tank overall though

[@ermoscowitz]

Always like James Holland’s videos - certainly a gifted presenter .

[@watchrami]

Biased however

[@josiahricafrente585]

Did he just say Thicc Bois?! XD

[@B----------------------------D]

lmao.

[@robertkalinic335]

Thicc boys with rubber on.

[@izumishion6267]

EXTRA THICC

[@B----------------------------D]

@@robertkalinic335 kinky af.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

He did.

[@andrewclayton4181]

I would agree with his assessment, but he has also put the panzer IV on his worst tank list! Can't have it both ways.

[@stevecarey2030]

Yeah, I noticed that. But the worst five were sorted by year, and it was rated the worst for 1944-45 because it was up against improved Allied/Soviet tanks. I'm not a tank expert so I won't weigh in on whether it was the worst in that period or not.

[@AdamMGTF]

You can have it both ways. it's called context. As he mentions in his other video, the zero was a top line fighter in 40/41 and into 42. But it was still being fielxed as front line in 45. As a better example. The hurricane was cutting edge in 39. It was very good in 40 and was arguably more of a battle winning aircraft than the spifire during the battle of Britain. Roll on another year (41) and it was useful but was being superceded. By the time the Americas joined the fight in 42, it was dam long in the tooth. It was a bottom 5 fighter in 42/43 in Europe. But in 39 it was easily top 5

[@killersamson7881]

First or end of war it should be a total assessment of the tank or just his opinion, however 5th on worst and 4th on best discredits your opinion. Literally hundreds of tanks made to fill a top 5 list, available there or not doesn't matter.

[@nickm8874]

@@killersamson7881 are they all at that museum though? Nobody seems to grasp that context. He’s not gonna get paid to present at a museum, and list tanks that aren’t there …

[@Glaskruset]

It is on both lists for different reasons

[@RasEli03]

Having the crocodile on your list: David fletchers eye: "twitches in anger*

[@xenofoxx]

"And for my number 2 tank, Covenanter pulling a Rota Trailer" **eye twitch intensifies**

[@ericamborsky3230]

I don't think David Fletcher had that much bad to say about the Crocodile. He mostly just identified it as a vehicle that fulfills a very niche role.

[@rrobb9853]

At last! The PzIV. Thank you for including it in your list 👍

[@gozza7199]

PzIV correct Mark IV wrong.

[@apocalypticsurvivor1881]

Especially because it's the coolest PzIV it's a early I think E model but upgreaded later in the war

[@Ko.Wi.]

@@apocalypticsurvivor1881 its an ausf D ( cupola, one piece hatches etc....). It was just up armoured and received the long 75

[@stevenbreach2561]

But strangely he included it in his list of bottom 5 tanks as well!!!?????

[@g111g]

@@stevenbreach2561 Yes, that's what I was just thinking.

[@Stonewall1861]

James Holland is one my favorite historians.Second World War was something that I had studied for very long time. Theirs more to a Tank than fire power. It doesn’t hurt.

[@bartonstano9327]

Marriage made in heaven. US tech + UK tech. Sherman +17 pounder gun. P-51 fighter plane + Merlin engine. Shows what the Allies could do, work together to get the job done.

[@HaVoC117X]

The designer of the P 51 airframe was german^^.

[@SoundAndFuryy]

so what you are saying is on their own none of them stood a chance against the might Germans

[@bartonstano9327]

@@SoundAndFuryy Together the war was shorter and that is a good thing.

[@colincampbell767]

The US Army got some Sherman Firefly's for evaluation. After looking at the abortion that was every crew position they sent them back. The ergonomics for the crew in the turret were so bad that it was considered to be unsafe to be inside the turret when firing the main gun. And the Firefly also had a slow turret traverse speed because of how the gunner's controls were laid out. It had a slow rate of fire because it was difficult for the loader to load the main gun. They shoehorned that gun into the turret without any regard for how the crew were expected to actually use it. The US Army then continued on the development of the E8 model of the Sherman with a superior 76mm gun and the typical careful attention the US Army gives to ergonomics.

[@jarink1]

Oddly (?) enough the best and most reliable Merlin engines were those made by Packard...a US company.

[@chris5634C3PO]

If you haven't visited, please do. The museum has an awesome collection.

[@45auto82]

Love to hear James Holland! Watch him on WWII in HD/Color and his analysis of what’s going on in specific battles or campaigns is amazing! Keep on going, James!

[@AYYEPIC]

Hearing James call the firefly's wheels "thick boys" is hilarious

[@edmundmcalister119]

I agree with his number 1 choice, but was surprised that the T-34 didn't at least get an honorable mention.

[@dafyddthomas7299]

Me 2 - should have been No 2

[@skopskiet01]

Totally agree. Isn't that a T-34 parked next to the Tiger?

[@jackanory-balamory]

I agree. For me the T-34 was very much the Sherman of the Red army but with even greater numbers produced, great reliability and the versatility to fit a bigger gun much like the Sherman firefly and easy 8

[@Gerzzo]

Kursk!

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The T-34 was the death trap of WW2. The most destroyed tank of the war. Nearly 45,000 of them were lost, and even when it was 'supposedly' the best tank in the world (despite its internal archaic ergonomics) in 1942/42 still some 10,000 were lost by the end of 1942. Only numbers gave it an impact, so really it should be in the 'best production' list. From 1941 through most of 1943 its two man turret, no commander's cupola, lack of radios, poor fire control and mechanical unreliability would not give it any spot in the top five.

[@dariogastelo9716]

How interesting: when you think "only in the tank", You could choose for example a Tiger or Even T34. But, when you think about the "whole system around the tank", then you are able to discover that the Sherman tank was the Best. Thanks James Holland for your explanation.

[@DD-qw4fz]

This "whole system around the tank" is cope, Panzer 4 , Panther, T-34 85, any good tank of ww2 would fare just as good if not better than the Sherman with unmatched US logistics and airpower...to qoute a Australian volunteer from Ukraine "its easy to be the best army in the world when you can get an F-16 to blow a single mortar team on a hillside" kzbin.info/www/bejne/inTFdWeNd9aDnZYsi=OZmvsp6SOlvPLMil&t=1667

[@arunmcgrath3730]

This man just described the wheels on a Sherman firefly as “thicc bois” and this is where the internet improves itself

[@carsonm7292]

I appreciate that Holland looked at other factors besides the gun and armor; in combined arms warfare, the best gun gets you nothing without a good platform backed up by good logistics to get that gun to the right place at the right time. In this sense the Sherman, broadly, is absolutely #1. As I understand it, Tigers were mainly only the terror of the infantryman whose man-portable antitank equipment had little effect on the Tiger's armor. My grandfather was a platoon commander of a unit of 75mm Shermans and he said that they actually weren't afraid of the Tiger; at common tank engagement ranges and with a little grit on the part of the crew, the Sherman was perfectly capable of defeating the un-sloped armor of the Tiger I. What they really feared were the Flak 41 emplacements which could be dug in and concealed much more effectively than a Tiger could. Even though the Tiger mounted effectively the same gun, a single good penetrating shot would knock out any tank - but crew-served 88s were another matter entirely. I won't get into the user unfriendliness of the Firefly; second best and present is always better than best and absent, so it still deserves a spot on the list. I will say that crews widely regarded the sabot round as junk though; the muzzle brake of the Firefly interfered with the sabot cleanly breaking apart which led to wild inaccuracy among other problems.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

What division was your grandfather in? My dad was 6th Armored Division. My dad went in the Army in 1939 when he was 17 years old. By 1941 he was in E5. By 1942 he was an E7. The first Armored Division that he was in was the 2nd. Before Operation Torch he was moved over to form the Cadre of the 6th Armored Division. And from there the rest is history primarily with a 3rd Army. Eisenhower and Omar Bradley liked to move his divisions between armies a lot.

[@carsonm7292]

​@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer He was in 8th Armored. Less than a month before the war ended in Germany he earned a bronze star for directing artillery while dismounted under enemy mortar fire. A jeep blew up and landed on his leg but miraculously he was able to keep it, although his knee was permanently damaged and he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. I never knew him to complain about it, or really about anything. Very easy-going man. He made this while recovering in a hospital in Europe for a year waiting to go home: www.dropbox.com/s/vwy40rg9ieu07jf/patch.jpg?dl=0

[@DC9622]

Carson M would that be the US 8th Armoured Division? The US Army was never convinced about the APDS. The 21st Army Group used it very successfully, whilst initially there was an issue with the Firefly muzzle brake, once they changed the design problem solved. Reports and post war discussions with Firefly crews, have never reported issues with the APDS, it was a tank destroyer, and when used in that capacity for overwatch, for the 75mm Sherman’s it was deadly. However, the standard round was more than capable of dealing with either a Tiger 1 or Panther at 1200 yards no problem. The Comet the Firefly’s replacement used the 17 pounder light, which could defeat all German Armour at 1200 yards, except the front plate of a Tiger 2, you would need the full fat 17 pounder with APDS, theoretically, so Centurion. The 21st Army Group defeated numerous Tigers with the standard 75mm Sherman using HE, to damage track or optics. They were never convinced about the 76mm Sherman, the HE was very poor compared to the 75mm which was 85% of the job. The 6 pounder used the APDS very successfully, indeed a number of Churchill were refitted with 6 pounders to provide over watch for standard Churchill’s. After the Ardennes, the US order 100 Firefly’s there is a photograph of them, however the Jackson and Pershing had started to arrive so nothing came of it, because of logistics having to support the various 17 pounder rounds.

[@RussianThunderrr]

wrote: "My grandfather was a platoon commander of a unit of 75mm Shermans and he said that they actually weren't afraid of the Tiger; at common tank engagement ranges and with a little grit on the part of the crew, the Sherman was perfectly capable of defeating the un-sloped armor of the Tiger I." -- No 75mm "short barrel"(40 calibers) could not defeat any part of un-sloped part of Tiger I tank not just a frontal, but any part(!) from common tank engagement ranges, while "long barrel"(52 calibers) 76mm could defeat un-sloped none frontal armor of Tiger I from common tank engagement ranges using special tungsten core ammo which was very rare in Sherman tanks(usually one or two rounds per 76mm Sherman tank), but so is Tiger I encounters with Sherman tank crews.

[@wbertie2604]

In general, allied tanks were knocked out more by AT guns than tanks.

[@bigb3409]

My Grandfather never spoke of the war. He only spoke briefly before he passed.. He was a Commander in the Churchill variants and the Firefly, he didn't like the Firefly tho, he also spoke of attempts to put the Sherman gun on the Churchill... He spent time at Belsen in the Crocodile and that large picture in the display behind the museums Crocodile may show him sitting on the far right of the pictured crocodiles turret... Been trying to find a decent copy to confirm it... Great video thanks again..

[@mostlyharmless7154]

Black Prince? That was an upgunned Churchill

[@jamesfenwick7103]

@@mostlyharmless7154 Possibly the Churchill NA75

[@AZZACraft]

@@jamesfenwick7103 correct and it was Sherman and lee guns that were knocked out in Africa that they used

[@DC9622]

This may be of interest www.normandywarguide.com the have the operational report on the Crocodile, fearsome thing, but through surrender saved more lives than it took.

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Big B, if you require any information regarding this you can contact the Archive on Tel [phone] x207 or email [e-mail].

[@wfp9378]

You guys need to get James May in. He would love this sort of stuff. And tweet about it too!

[@AdamMGTF]

If his schedule allowed, I'd agree. But he is a little "high profile" compared to what TTMB usually have as a guest

[@wbertie2604]

@@AdamMGTF he's apparently a friend of Bovington. But there might be contractual issues given deals he may have made in terms of presenting stuff. He's done voice stuff for Bovington, though.

[@johanrunfeldt7174]

The Panzer IV was still in front line service in the Syrian Army during at least the first day of the Six Days War of 1967. The 17-pounder may have been a nice AT-gun, but was less desirable than the general purpose gun of the standard Sherman when fighting infantry, and you encounter a LOT more infantry than armour in any war.

[@TheTrueNorth11]

Yes. Your last point, people fail to recognize this.

[@velvetinedrapes4359]

Sure but the Firefly would be attached to a troop so you'd have 3 shermans with the stand 75mm and a Firefly on the side for dealing with armor

[@nighthawk8053]

​@@velvetinedrapes4359Yep,you are right about that ,just enough Fireflys to deal with armored threat 👍

[@robertvoss6145]

I've always loved this 'top 5' series and this top 5 is no exception. James Holland's enthusiasm for his top 5 is infectious 😀👍

[@Funcrafter01]

His book about Normandy is amazing

[@HydroSnips]

When he’s not using books that are literally fake history as sources. Luckily the reissue removed the parts he quoted from it ;) They’re okay but seem sloppily edited and rushed so some shocking errors creep in. He got the timing of the 5th Parachute Brigade drop at Ranville wrong by a whole hour, now it may not sound much to lose sleep over but it’s a bit of an amateur mistake when Holland doesn’t have that excuse. Also bungled the explanation of the British Army’s Colossal Cracks doctrine, plus maps with towns in the wrong place or names swapped all over. Hopefully he’s fixed them all but doesn’t make you trust him really.

[@Funcrafter01]

@@HydroSnips Yea towards the end i noticed a lot of issues, there was a picture of a panther (I think it was, long ago don't remember it that well) with the description that the King Tiger was a feared tank xd

[@MrTreacletime]

@@Funcrafter01 A lot of that can be down to the editorial teams that put maps and photos together. Lots of errors in the initial listing of photos when they were catalogued back in the 40’s and those errors written on the back perpetuated. Indeed some errors like his Battle of Britain book references Bodiham rather than Odiham, quite critical in the context. On the whole they are good reads though and not bogged down in endless lists of statistics and hindsight.

[@toddreaker2298]

Best description of the Tiger tank yet.

[@smoothfox007]

Brilliant James, I totally agree with your recommendations, keep up the good work !

[@Theogenerang]

Need a video on "The Middle Five Tanks". The ones that did yeoman service throughout the war, weren't great, weren't bad, just worked day in and day out to get the job done.

[@wbertie2604]

Cromwell, Sherman, Pz. IV...

[@briandelion49]

Great idea!

[@petetimbrell3527]

We were honoured to meet a Firefly driver a few weeks ago. 94 years old, Albert Entwistle I think was his name. Only a lad when he went into battle and, well into his 90's, he was telling us jokes in my local pub. A good day.

[@TheHistoryGuyChannel]

Refreshing to hear a Brit giving credit to the M4. It's size was also exactly as big as it could be and still be loaded with the integral cranes on a Liberty ship, and the length was exactly enough to allow two per train car. It was tall to allow the radial engine, but the design gave the ability to fit several different engines, allowing greater production numbers. There simply was no better design when the goal was to fight a war in Europe with vehicles produced in Detroit. I do wish you had mentioned some of the limitations of placing the 17 lbr in the M4 turret. The Firefly was a trade off, and that is too often not acknowledged.

[@RussianThunderrr]

"The History Guy" stopping by! I'm a big fun of your channel. Thank you for many interesting stories you told us!

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

Unfortunately all too often people who criticize that part of the tank go to the other extreme of calling it a horrid variant... which it wasn't. It was a trade-off, but one that allowed it to do its job of countering German heavy tanks, which the British faced far more of than the Americans.

[@SlavicCelery]

I've found that people from UK rarely want to acknowledge the shortcomings of the firefly. It's a stat monster. But it's an absolute soft stat failure. Sort of the inverse of the Sherman concept. The Sherman stats are not the most impressive, but it's soft stats are some of the best through the war. PZIV would probably be the only other tank with similar soft stats to serve a significant amount of WW2.

[@RadioactiveSaddam]

You should do a "top 5 tanks"! Would be a interesting clip.

[@TheHistoryGuyChannel]

@@RadioactiveSaddam kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYGwmGOriLuSZ9U

[@keithallver2450]

I'm seriously getting sick and tired that nobody ever gives credit to the greatest armored fighting vehicle of all time. The mighty BOB SEMPLE TANK!

[@Lunkwow]

It takes time for the unwashed masses too even start comprehending the might of the Bob Semple tank.

[@Dragonblaster1]

I like to think that the Bob Semple tank was the Americans' Matilda Mk 1.

[@MrT67]

YES!! 6 bren guns and a bit of corrugated iron. Tractor, family sedan, Vesper. Anything could be a Semple tank and every household could have one. Try invading New Zealand.... c'mon just try......

[@AdamMGTF]

I read this comment and was blown away. Never heard of this tank. Had to look it up. Seems an interesting story! Are any on display?

[@woodchild2093]

@@Dragonblaster1 New Zealand tank. And we are proud of it hahaha

[@keithrouleau2398]

THANKS JAMES H. FOR THE GREAT TOUR!

[@Funcrafter01]

Just also wanted to mention the success of the 88 was not only due to its great penetratation it was more because it's universal use you could call it the swizz army knive of cannons it could be used in nearly any role and it was I don't know if the 17 Pdr could be used as anti air and Artillery but who knows

[@bernarddeboeck8405]

Again thank you for these beautifull video’s. I love them all and one day, I promise, I will visit the museum when i come to the UK.

[@justanothercaptain6566]

That was really really really good! 😁. Thank you!

[@stephencoats1501]

Perfect ... and correct. No point having few scary beasts which break down and use massive amounts of fuel you don't have and are too heavy to cross bridges.Get a heap of fast, light tanks which transport effectively and use the same oil as everything else you have and ultimately have a great gun. High profile but that can be a good thing. Thank you for a great video.

[@Dalroi1]

+1 for the Churchill love.

[@michaeldunne338]

A surprising number 1 choice, but one that merits consideration and debate. Surprising to hear about the stats comparing the 7.6 vs the 8.8 - go Firefly.

[@DC9622]

Waited with interest for this film, having listen to the Podcast with Al Murray when they were at the museum. Glad to see Cromwell speed and can jump ditches, great number 1 choice, best tank with the best gun, best tank destroyer, to look after the standard 75mm tanks. I hope they can get Dan Snow and Guy Walters to do a film.

[@1957tennis]

Seems like whenever the British and Americans get together it results in something special. The P 51 Mustang comes to mind. American blues and rock n roll plus British skiffle= The Beatles!

[@Ben_Dust]

I have a memory of reading that the crocodile would fire a warning 'shot' first to encourage a surrender. Not sure if that's true, but I hope it is. It makes sense as better to avoid a fight at all, but I also like to think you'd give the chaps a chance to avoid such a gruesome death?

[@jrd33]

It certainly sometimes happened. Probably depends on whether the Churchill was under enemy fire or not. But the warning shot might also be a ranging shot, so they could check the line and range of the flame jet. I can't think offhand of any weapon I would less like to face on a world war 2 battlefield.

[@jameshunter5485]

Agree on the Sherman Firefly, despite its warts and peccadilloes. And like so many innovations of WW2 the combination of British and American technology produced a winning formula.

[@havanadog7987]

My list of tanks!!!! 1. Tog II 2. Tog II 3. Tog II 4. Tog II 5. Tog II

[@spacecadet35]

Where is the Tog II on your list? if it is not on there, then it is not a complete list.

[@bumblebeebob]

Go home Jingles. You're drunk. 😆

[@havanadog7987]

spacecadet35 oh yeah I forgot. Tog II is on that list too

[@spacecadet35]

@@havanadog7987 - Excellent. Thank you :)

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

So, how would you rate the Tog II* ? (I believe the asterisk is part of the official name.)

[@garywateridge]

James Holland brings tanks to life,like starting the engine

[@Pincer88]

I used to think the German 88 was the ultimate. Nice to know the 17 Pounder was such a great gun. Still can't get my head around the fact there weren't more built, but I guess once D-Day and the ensueing fight was underway, it might have been difficult to get them to where it matteted most. Great video. Thanks.

[@MrTreacletime]

The 17pdr was rushed into service on a 25 pdr carriage, not really suitable but it was still awesome. There is footage of them in action on KZbin but I don’t think it’s listed as such in the captions, worth a look.

[@johnnyenglish583]

This is partly related to the American doctrine. The Americans basically believed that tank destroyers, not Shermans, would fight German tanks, so at first they didn't bother with an anti-tank gun for the Sherman. In 1944 the Allies had air supremacy, so whenever possible, they would try to call in air support if they encountered enemy tanks. So a tank with an anti-tank gun wasn't really their priority and a good HE shell was much more useful, as they came against German infantry more than tanks. Also, German anti-tank guns, while less spectacular, were actually more dangerous to Allied tanks, but this is where you need HE, again.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I love the Crocodile, there's one outside the dday museum where I live. I've grown up climbing all over it. And I love the firefly. There's nothing like jamming a too big gun in a too small turret... 😈😈😈

[@simonwells2213]

@lindgyebeige made a grt video on the crocodile. Defenders surrendered when they saw a handful of them heading their way without a flame thrown such was their reputation... That's a brutal weapon. Even better when not used.

[@him050]

I’ve read all of his books. I literally can’t comprehend how people can dislike him

[@georgelayton2476]

People's dislike him?! Why..?

[@fixedguitar47]

Ok.... Im flying the whole family across the pond to see this “museum”. Better have an Greyhound!!

[@andybrace9225]

Think they have, you will like it I used to go every year

[@KeithH02]

Love this guy on the Nat geo docs, really knows his stuff !

[@GeneralJackRipper]

Well this was the most typically British top five tank list one could imagine.

[@forrestpenrod2294]

I mean arguably only two are purely British.

[@DC9622]

He had just released Normandy 44, having done the podcast with the Tank Museum. It has taken several weeks for the film to be released. The Firefly represented all Sherman’s, having said that, it was the only Sherman the Tiger crews were fearful of during Normandy until the Jackson and Pershing arrived. Also, of all Sherman’s it had the lowest loss rate, possible because they changed the bomb loading so less fires.

[@cpmenninga]

Except the tiger and panzer IV?

[@shad6644]

So they ask a person’s opinion of their top 5 tanks but since it’s not your top five...

[@generaljackripper666]

​@@shad6644 Aww, geez. You cared enough to leave a comment. Thank you.

[@stephenrice4554]

Good video , I know little of tanks , I have been to Bovington museum several times and the engineering across the board is fascinating . What the tank crews lived with is another subject . 👍🇬🇧

[@ilikesnow7074]

“Fabulous, wonderful Sherman firefly” unless you’re crewing it and trying to aim, command, or load

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

@yeoldebiggetee ok? just because one tank and crew destroyed 5 panthers doesnt make it a good tank... its still very bad and wasnt all that accurate past 500 meters so

[@thatperson3485]

Also... Apparently not in the opinions of any of the men who crewed it. Most people who actually crewed it who I have spoken too swear by the VC.

[@gozza7199]

The extra space taken up inside the turret by the 17 pdr was an issue for the crew. Surprised but not surprised that Holland didn't mention that. After all it is a British mod & to Mr Holland if it's British it's better whether it is or not. Checkout Inside the Chieftain's Hatch Firefly VC kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZ6wZqmcjrmVqNk

[@greva2904]

The crews made the best of whatever equipment they were given. The firefly was the right tank in the right place at the right time, although lots of armchair experts like you have spent the last couple of years slagging the firefly off because you all saw a critical video of it on KZbin once.

[@rogueleader7506]

Hey could be worse........could be a tiger, panther, or Ferdinand

[@puttepalt6336]

Lucky for Mr Holland he gets to choose nr1 in peacetime. i just watched testimonial from crew members on youtube and they where unbelievable courageous young men who did not have a choice but to crawl in to that tin can.

[@samueladams3746]

I also recall that the Sherman was designed with shipping logistic in mind-fit the capacity of loading derricks and could be deck shipped with the weight bearing capabilities of Liberty ships. Truly and “end to end” design. But as Bedford Forrest once said the key to winning a battle was to get there “first with the most”. Great uncle managed to survive from D +6 to VE in one of those, though likely not the upgunned version.

[@philipjoyce8817]

That is incredible, did you get to talk to him about it?

[@samueladams3746]

@@philipjoyce8817 He was a very quiet man. Bits and pieces. Hated the bocage. Some from his kids. Didn’t know he had a Bronze Star from WWII and a second award from Korea (staying in reserves was a mistake) until his obituary. His wife though was a piece of work. Polish, family got dumped off their farm to resettle Germans and were all sent to forced labor camps. Only three survived and she met my uncle when in a DP camp in southern Germany. She held nothing back from us kids about her experiences. It was a big part of my “political” education very early.

[@scoobydoobers23]

I get that sloped armor was hard to engineer and keep fighting space inside the tank but man that flat front armor looks easy to poke.

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

Yeah, you have to make compromises. Too steep of a slope and it ends up cramped like the T-34, not steep enough, you need way more armor to have the same effectiveness, leading to unnecessarily heavy tanks like Tiger

[@dwaynehicks6838]

40 next year,still haven't been to bovinton 😟the joys of living in the far rural north.

[@neilwilson5785]

40th birthday mate, you won't regret it. And we are nicer down South than people say.

[@SpudsMcHaggis]

Mate you are only a stones throw away from the Tank Museum compared to me and your trip will cost far less then mine do as I live downunder and have been there 3 times. It all comes down to will. If you really want to go, you will get there!

[@jamesscott5407]

I live in Cornwall...but I'd come and collect you and take you...you have to go...it's my favourite place!! Haven't been in a few years so I'm planning a trip in the next month or so!!

[@russwoodward8251]

I knew James Holland was going to do this! This is really great, thanks. I am a proud regular Patreon contributor.

[@gozza7199]

No Surprise that Holland's top tanks were all British or British variants. Other than Lindy Beige, James Holland is the biggest British flag waver in everything WW2. Uniforms, weapons, rations, tanks & pencils if they're British they're better. Don't believe me? Checkout the podcast "We have ways of making you talk" all the evidence is there.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being proud of your own country, especially when that country started the industrial revolution and led the world (more or less) in all things technical for well over century. Oh, and they invented the tank as well. Also, it’s quite natural that he’ll know more about British technology than say Italian or Russian technology. In any case the Sherman was essentially an American tank, just ‘up-gunned’ with the British 17-pounder.

[@gozza7199]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 Agreed there is nothing wrong being proud of your country but when everything is spun in such a way that your country does it best. Then your credibility starts to be questioned. For example. Saying the Bren light machine gun is better than the German MG34 is nonsense if not qualified to say when used under the doctrine that the British Army applied. The MG34 would be totally unsuitable for British doctrine. But it worked for the Germans. To use the reason that it fired too many bullets & therefore needed large amount of supplies (which they did) denies the fact the Germans doubled down & placed two of them in a squad & were able to operate them within their doctrine. One was not necessarily better than the other doctrine requirements dictated which was better. But unfortunately no mention of that by Mr Holland.

[@markdavis2475]

Another excellent episode!

[@chuckh5999]

The presentation is also a thing of wonder James!

[@MausOfTheHouse]

Great video!

[@guybriselden2093]

Love James's explanations and enthusiasm....however T34/85....No1. We blew several up on the ranges traing for the Gulf War - fresh from East Germany and still with the diesel in, fantastic design.

[@stevenbreach2561]

Just watched bottom 5 tanks,and James did a job on the Pzkw IV.Now he shoots down his own argument!and praises the PzkwIV.Confused

[@mauriciojaralopez2878]

he divides the tanks between years, and he selected the Pz Iv for 1944-45, and says that while the Panzer IV was a good tank for the early to mid war, was outclased by almost every allied medium tank, so basically, the Pz4 is not a bad tank on itself, but was kinda outdated by the last years of the war

[@CrichtonNo5]

You didn't really watch the bottom 5 tanks video properly if you don't understand what he was getting at

[@genie7172]

Amen James Holland! Luv your insight.

[@blackjack8049]

Between the firefly and the Easy 8 I’m going with the Easy 8

[@6038am]

Agree the 76mm guns a almost as high penetrating but much more accurat and the crew can fight well in it unlikw with the 17 pd.

[@kyle857]

For sure.

[@cerperalpurpose]

Unfortunately for the chaps fighting in Normandy, they didn’t have the choice.

[@Fredders88]

Don't think the Easy 8 was available to the Yanks in Normandy. The Firefly was available to British and commonwealth forces was.

[@jimc7022]

I agree but the Brits brought the firefly to Normandy and us Yanks left the 76mm Shermans behind (initially) so the Firefly gets all the glory as the cat killer and the US Shermans get saddled with an undeserved bad reputation 🤷🏻‍♂️.

[@Farweasel]

Superb presentation underpinned with pretty persuasive reasoning.

[@kadenc1181]

we love a guy who puts the pz4 in his top 5 tanks and 2 years later his bottom 5 tanks. what a meatball.

[@cryptotharg7400]

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but ...

[@wargey3431]

He said in 1945 it was the worst tank or one of because although it could be upgraded it wasn’t anywhere near as good as anything it faced He’s saying when it came out it was brilliant

[@kadenc1181]

@@wargey3431 it wasn't brilliant. It had issues dealing with the M3 and Matilda, let alone sherman. It's also funny that he says pz4, tiger, and tiger 2 were not vehicles that Germany needed/best suited for their needs. If not them, then what??

[@wargey3431]

@@kadenc1181 both the tigers were poor designs the Panzer IV was a good design but giving it the L75 came to late same with the Panzer 3 and the 50mm L60 The Panzer IV by the late war was outmatched in 1940 and 41 it was a good tank

[@AdamMGTF]

@@kadenc1181 the thing comes down to context. Remember. Right weapon, in the right place at the right time. Tank Vs tank is a pointless comparison. It's how the effect the battlefield. If you have 15 panzer 3 and your versing 1 tiger and 1 king tiger. But your enemies tigers run out of fuel. Then it doesn't matter if the tiger can kill your mk3s miles away. If the enemy can Out manover you into a kill position, or be in a position to call in accurate artillery or air support. Then you have lost. That's the point. Tank Vs tank is utterly irrelevant when it comes to winning battles

[@peterbourne5926]

I think you had a great selection of tanks in your video. And I completely agree with your number one tank. 🇬🇧

[@stephen9869]

When's Clarkson coming to do this?

[@Colin21233]

Well May and Hammond will have to be there to tell him he's wrong ;)

[@TheMinipily]

It would be Clarkson talking about a huge powerful tank like the Tiger being the best thing ever because POWEERRRRR, May would come along and explain in complicated engineering terms why he's wrong and that something like the Sherman or T-34 is a much better choice. Meanwhile, Hammond would probably be sat in the back yelling "IM BOREEEEED....."

[@Khitomer286]

@@TheMinipily Hammond would get confused and pick a Half-Track

[@tylerthompson5859]

"it's terribly slow.. but who cares when you have a flamethrower?" 🤣 My first thought too! I love it!

[@thomashoney817]

Brilliant, just Brilliant

[@jimg8073]

Some great comments from Mr Holland & uniquely manages to nominate (Panzer IV) in both his top & bottom lists. No Russian tanks.

[@6038am]

The Tiger had problems, yes. But the german knew that but it did't matter for the role it was supposed to have. As a specialist breakthouge tank it was great, but as a gerneral use tank it was bad, The lack of spare parts did't help either-

[@walt_man]

Yes, the often forgotten intended role of the Tiger, a breakthrough tank!

[@6038am]

@@walt_man The Chieftain has don alot and is still doing a great job in busting ww2 "commen knowlege". I have leared that alot of what i knew was wrong.

[@k1er4n544]

From a strategic value it was useless as it was vulnerable to break down, Was always outnumbered therefore was rarely a challenge, It drunk fuel like a mad Russian drinking vodka........ also it limited the production of the more strategically impressive pz 4.

[@6038am]

@@k1er4n544 Pz 4 and Tiger where not suposed to do the same job. Pz 4 was general use while Tiger was punch hole, pull back repair maintain and get ready for the next time they where needet.

[@bartfoster1311]

Probably forgotten as a breakthrough tank because it more or less failed to ever serve this role. By the time the tiger came along the german were mostly on the defensive.

[@brucepeek3923]

He also said the Panzer 4 was one of the bottom 5 worst tanks.. Go figure best Bruce Peek

[@AsbestosMuffins]

I always loved the uniqueness of air cooled radial engined tanks, just seems so weird, these engines went in airplanes not 35 ton war machines

[@aarau00ag]

The Sherman in the basic configuration would have made sense from this holistic point of view. Whether the Firefly could have competed with the T34/85 in the number built is another interesting question

[@SDOne-or6vm]

wwII top tanks: cromwell 3rd churchill (crocodile) 2nd firefly 1st !?! You are British, ain't you?

[@murderouskitten2577]

the wrong english he used did not give that away ? :D

[@Retrosicotte]

Someday people will learn these videos are THEIR top 5 tanks, not an objective ranking of "best in history"...

[@SDOne-or6vm]

@@Retrosicotte hahaha sorry for expecting a personal ranking based on rational characteristics. Do not call it a "top 5 tanks" but "my 5 favourite tanks"

[@k1er4n544]

@@murderouskitten2577 wrong English?? where does the English language hail from? (England ofc) so technically it is the correct English. 😂

[@Retrosicotte]

@@SDOne-or6vm You must be fun at parties.

[@devensega]

Just read Mr Holland’s Normandy ‘44. The German description of a Crocodile attack on a bunker was terrifying. Fantastic book.

[@mikep3180]

Please bring Matsimus or Mark Felton for one of these

[@MILITARY-TUBE]

No T-34, I'm surprised.

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

My thoughts exactly, especially when he said that numbers are power. The updated T-34 is a must in any WWII top 5 tanks

[@SpudsMcHaggis]

Not really. I have seen quite a few examples of the T-34 of different marks in various parts of the world and to be quite frank, they are crap. Some of the examples I have seen for instance, you can actually see inside the tank between the welds in the armour! A lot of people like to over inflate how good the T-34 was but at the end of the day it really is just like a Sherman, nothing spectacular about it. It was just an adequate workhorse that was built in large quantities.

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

@@SpudsMcHaggis Nobody says it is a supreme piece of engineering, but it was good enough and cheap enough to be massively manufactured and deployed. It's all about the balance of compromises in the final design (cost, materials, level of protection, offense capability, mobility, crew conditions and survivability, ease of maintenance, etc). In the end soviet tank program and doctrine beat the german one, and is an important factor in the soviet triumph. So that makes it a tank worthy of the top 5, because it worked great for the soviet army unlike the expensive, overengineered and outnumbered german tanks. The Sherman is in the top 5 for very similar reasons, it also had the best balance of design compromises for the US army. Also, remember that those museum tanks you saw are now 75 years old and probably saw action, and not all museums can maintain their tanks in the best conditions. They were never built to last forever (hopefully 2 or 3 battles XD)

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The t-34 was pretty good tank. But the reality is if you take a Sherman easy eight against a t 34/85, the Sherman will win. That isn't my opinion that's the reality of it man Korea. Do US Army found that the infrastructure and terrain of Korea during the Korean War was better suited to the M4 then it was the M26. The M4 could easily handle the t34 / 85. That isn't to say that the t34 wasn't innovative. The suspension was actually an American design, the Christie. The concept of sloped armor was nothing really new, if you look at the M3 Lee / Grant tank other than the sponsor in the front of the armor on the hall and the turret was sloped. The original t-34 featured an overworked tank commander. The only thing the original t-34 had going for it was its speed and sloped armor. Beyond that the tank ergonomically was a horror. Soviet in Russian tanks up to but not including the t-64 and t-72, we're pretty awful. If you are crewmen in one of those tanks you didn't have much chance to get out alive if they got hit. Go look at the statistics for the various models of Tanks the Russians fielded. I would not include the T10 in that because that was not exported at all.

[@eamonnandphyllis]

Stalin said of the T-34 , "quantity has a quality all of it's own"!

[@RowanPartridge]

Have a holiday in Australia, James, specifically North Queensland. The tropical city of Cairns is not just Great Barrier Reef and rain forest. It also hosts a world-class Armour and Artillery Museum which has a superb collection of vehicles, including all the examples in your presentation. My favourite is the Tiger replica used in the movie, "Fury", and they also have a genuine Tiger, albeit a tank assembled from battlefield recovered pieces.

[@Mikapaintings]

Historian, drops the 88mm to 80mm gun on the tiger

[@B----------------------------D]

that hurt me...

[@Frserthegreenengine]

I think he simply misspoke.

[@Riceball01]

And mispronounces sabot too.

[@cpmenninga]

I don’t know why, but I suspect he knows it’s 88mm.

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Mika, James is an extremely knowledgeable chap, he misspoke unfortunately. I'm sure we can all forgive him.

[@lcflcf1]

I visited this museum this year, amazing!

[@theobuzat9091]

Well the Firefly was good but for a historian he doesn't know that most soldiers hated it because it had a very small turret with a HUGE gun breech and the loader had to carry and trow 1meter long and 30kilos shell while in a M4A1 turret with that big breech. So on paper really good idea in practice no so good

[@jrd33]

Having Fireflies in the tank units made a huge difference in Normandy and thereafter. They gave the crews the ability to take on German tanks without having to wait for air support or specialised AT units. A bit like the PIAT - everyone hated having to carry it, it wasn't a popular weapon, but it worked, and gave the infantry a fighting chance against tanks.

[@theobuzat9091]

@@jrd33 I totally agree with that just i was awfull to be in one is what im saying not that i was bad just REALLY bad for the crew in it

[@WolfePaws]

Yeah, from that perspective it's seems to fit just fine with all the Sherman variants - not perfect, not exactly right, but good enough, and ACTUALLY THERE unlike the other tanks people make comparisons with.

[@malcolmrose3361]

If you read Normandy 44, his most recent book he discusses this.

[@theobuzat9091]

@@malcolmrose3361 i did not read any off his book, and i'm only talking about what he is saying in this video

[@andyc3088]

Another thing about the Sherman Firefly (the one shown in the video belongs to the Guards Armoured Division) is that they put 2 rockets one on both sides of the turret. They were same ones used by the RAF and called Tulip. It was also fitted to the Cromwell.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

Panthers and Panzer IVs actually had similar reliability rates once the initial teething issues of the Panther were rectified.

[@georgefort8090]

I agree with your assessment of the sherman firefly, as a serving tank soldier i must say having a tank that is easy to maintain and simple not over engineered like many today. Easy maintenance of any tank is critical for timing saving and fast repairs.

[@dariusjaeger3395]

The M4 and the Churchill are not the tanks I necessarily find the most interesting, but if I had to actually fight in a tank in WW2 I'd choose one of those. They had the best crew survivability.

[@jrd33]

Churchill was very popular among its crews. Also, being an infantry tank, it was usually well supported with infantry, so if you do have to bail out, you should be able to get back to your own lines fairly easily. Oh yeah, and really good armour, especially on the later models.

[@trxnme2082]

Also, by the time Churchills were facing lots of Germans they were inexperienced, so fired too soon ( range to kill thin skinned Sherman or Cromwell) so Churchill could get into cover, or stand and reply in safety. A really odd tank, should not have succeeded but did, maybe a reflection of it's namesake? :)

[@Frserthegreenengine]

If I had to choose between those two for survivability. Definitely Churchill.

[@johnsteed9083]

I really, really, really enjoyed that.

[@malcolmheather3204]

Nothing Russian? Loved the list though - my Flames of War armies are filled with those tanks.

[@some_Russian_dude]

I would of had something of the kv series on the list.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks very much....From Ky. USA... Friend the Sherman tank was also the easy to get killed in to...It had the rite nick name fire fly....Cause when it got hit it went up in flames as you already know....I am very old now it was hell then in those...

[@stillhere9728]

Once again the ‘easy 8’ is overlooked in favor of the Firefly... crew comfort be damned they say.

[@ant8504]

Sherman firefly saw more service so it’s brought up more and it saved the allies from the tiger problem early on

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

Easy 8 used by Creighton Abrams. *mic drop*

[@colincampbell767]

@@ant8504 The Firefly got to the battlefield sooner - after being evaluated and rejected by the US Army. One of the reasons the US Army rejected the Firefly was the safety of the crew when firing the main gun. The E8 was what the Firefly would have been if it had been designed correctly.

[@hallamhal]

Where was the E8 at D-Day?

[@Thedangler16364]

Hallam Crafer the Americans didn’t want to use it because it had less ammo, and in Italy the 75mm Sherman’s worked fine against The Panthers

[@n3307v]

Really enjoyed Jame's perspective.

[@FrancisSullivan-j7t]

As a Yank,I Luv James Holland!!! Great videos!!!!!

[@BigBossTussBall]

1:00 umm well no, the transmission of the HENSHEL Tiger does not have a Porsche transmission

[@tobiaszistler]

BigBossTussBall jea i was confused too The porsche tiger didnt had any transmissionbecause it had an hybrid drive train But anyway you se here a Tiger H And transmission issues had the tiger 2 a lot But i dont konow any of the tiger 1

[@jeffcoulter7181]

That was great, love your passion

[@M4xFr4gg]

Everybody putting either the Jagdpanzer 38t or the Firefly on their list, should be forced to shoot another video, where they have to debate the chieftain about those tanks :-D

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I'll be up for that.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

Stop apologizing for the Chieftain's ignorance regarding WWII.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Whatever my limitations about WW2, I'm fairly up to speed on the vehicles in question.

[@sladewilson8224]

I completely agree with what vehicles he chose and the order in which he placed them in but i think there was many other tanks that could have made it onto this list such as the panther,the stuG and the KV1

[@MrGoldenV]

If there were 50 thousand Shermans built, then how many T34s were built? I think there was more of them.

[@Dimology]

nah, i think about 35k of all variants of T-34 was made...

[@Dimology]

@yeoldebiggetee yeah, i checked wiki now....35k was the 76 version only.... 85 version added up another 50k :)