Richard Smith's Bad Ideas | Bottom 5 | The Tank Museum

► JOIN OUR PATREON: Our Patreons have already enjoyed Early Access and AD free viewing of our weekly KZbin video! Consider becoming a Patreon Supporter today: / tankmuseum
► TIMESTAMP:
00:00 - INTRO
00:24 - IS THERE NO SUCH THING AS A BAD IDEA?
► SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE TANK CONTENT: / @thetankmuseum
► SHOP THE TANK MUSEUM: tankmuseumshop.org/
► WATCH MORE:
Most Recent Videos: • Tank Chats #144 | Stag...
Tank Chats Playlist: • Tank Chats #142 | Humb...
► FOLLOW THE TANK MUSEUM:
Instagram: / tankmuseum
Facebook: / tankmuseum
Twitter: / tankmuseum
Website: tankmuseum.org/
________________________
◈ Created by The Tank Museum
#tankmuseum #tankchats #RichardSmith

[@SleventyFive]

The other reason to keep the Maus going is the longer you're an engineer on an 'important' project, the longer you don't get given a rifle and sent east.

[@generalripper7528]

That is literally what my grandfather's superior did during WWII. He was assigned to translate German law into English for when (inevitably) the Third Reich would have won WWII and occupied the UK. Of course, he never finished with that "highly important" project... and then one day the war ended.

[@BoleDaPole]

Yea that sounds like bs sorry

[@teejayaich4306]

Bonus points if you can answer any inconvenient questions with "Hitler said so" or something similar... nobody wants to be reported as standing in the way of Hilter's "Wonder Weapons" ("Wonderful" for the allies since they drained resources Germany didn't have into things that either never worked or weren't even made).

[@jacktheaviator4938]

@@BoleDaPole I can't say for sure that this person's grandfather was involved, but there was definitely "living under the third Reich" pamphlets produced during WW2, including ones in English. They detailed the new laws and regulations occupied populations would face.

[@ladyzapzap9514]

That tactic is still in wide use today.

[@kenbrown2808]

I've found that when a person says, "there's no such thing as a bad idea/stupid question" some people take it as a challenge.

[@AEB1066]

I went to once such brainstorming session and suggested that we murder and eat the consultants as there were no bad ideas.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@AEB1066 what did the consultants say?

[@ogscarl3t375]

I mean sure I think we can all admit there is such things as stupid ideas but if you need to ask a question surely it's better to ask and get an actual answer and learn something than for people to label it as a stupid question and then proceed to mock anyone who asks.

[@VikingTeddy]

A boomerang grenade might actually not be a bad idea. It can be curved behind corners and it has extended range when thrown along the ground like aboriginal hunters did. Most people don't know that real boomerangs don't actually return, though they can be made to but it was rare. For some reason, that's the thing it's known for.

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

That, Thats Just Crazy Enough to Work. Nah That Is A ***king Stupid Statement/Idea

[@dougstubbs9637]

“ As you listen to the gentle thud of heads on desks…….” Richard has a gentle way of describing frustrations….

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

The man has survived Monday morning meetings with consultants and most probably marketing guys. That makes him a modern hero in my book.

[@chemech]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Not only survived, but managed to avoid getting charged with homicide in the process...

[@RichWhiteUM]

In defense of Tetrarch, at least it wasn't designed to be transported for the support of airborne troops without its turret installed. We did that with the Locust...

[@nickdanger3802]

Tetrarchs were replaced by M22 Locusts after D Day.

[@thurin84]

they shouldve called it "male praying mantis"

[@HingerlAlois]

I think having Tetrarchs is still better than having no fighting vehicles at all. Kinda like for example nowadays the German airborne troops have Wiesel weapons carriers equipped with either a 20mm machine cannon or anti-tank missiles and a machine gun.

[@Nodjia]

I think the baseline concept of armored support for "remotely deployed troops" whether they are air dropped or brought in by sea, etc. is a valid idea but it is difficult to execute correctly. One of the criticisms I often see about tetrarch and locust is that "they would be useless against real enemy tanks", but their actual role would have nothing to do with anti-tank combat (except in a dire emergency). Let's use the typical scenario that the British feared would happen involving German paratroopers. One of the key goals of a German airborne infantry group was to capture or at least disrupt the allies' ability to field aircraft from air bases. Even if the German paratroopers only manage to temporarily capture or threaten an airfield, it can prevent the launch or recovery of air assets for long enough that a devastating strike could take place in the area, or result in the damage of aircraft which are quite precious (in the early war). It was not common for airfields to have their own anti-tank forces, or to have a stockpile of infantry based anti-tank weapons available. If we look at some of the early British attempts to "protect airfields", one solution was a crude concrete bunker built into a truck where infantry could hide inside and fire rifles. If we use that same scenario, and now envision not only German troops but also light armored vehicles which can destroy aircraft on the ground, destroy troop transports, block bridges, and generally menace anything that doesn't have anti-tank capability, it greatly enhances the overall difficulty a defensive force would have in countering the paratroops. The same overall logic applies to allied airborne troops. If they have the support of light tanks they can engage halftracks, machine gun positions, sandbag bunkers and other light targets while generally avoiding engagements with actual enemy armor. It generally isn't fun for dispersed infantry forces to engage machine gun nests or halftracks spraying over the open fields which are typically near airfields. So having an armored box that can roll around and engage those types of threats can greatly increase the likelihood of a successful raid, even if the armored box cannot defeat bigger enemy armored boxes that may be "somewhere" in the vicinity. At lets not forget, surprise factors in greatly in armored warfare, so it is very likely that enemy armor or transports are going to be less likely to be on the lookout for allied tanks 50-100 miles away from the frontline. So the concept isn't exactly bad, it is the delivery of the vehicle that causes the problem, which is why so much effort was focused on "how do we get it there safely", not "what is it capable of after it gets there". ---all this being said, detaching the turret from locust was completely idiotic.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@Nodjia that really is quite a comprehensive summary!

[@markallinson4935]

In defence of the boomerang grenade, only the training boomerangs were made to come back. the No7 Hunting boomerang flew in a straight line for quite a distance. ideal for long range grenading

[@gerhardris]

A boomerang has one large and one small wing in order to boomerangback. This one are of equal length. Indeed ies straight.

[@gz3zbz]

Here's a video of a hunting boomerang reaching 80 or 90 metres - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHfTZ5qmgc5-d80

[@christopherreed4723]

Damn. Wish I'd come up with that one when I was playing Paranoia in college. All I managed was the self-returning shuriken.

[@McBlazington]

It's a stupid idea, but not for boomerang come back reasons. Apparently the thing was impossible to aim properly.

[@MrNScatt]

@@gerhardris It’s the other way around. Returning boomerangs have equal length wings. It’s the nature of the faces that cause it to return. One face is flat, the other is convex. Non-returning boomerangs generally have non-equal-length wings.

[@rpgta]

I have never considered Richard the best entertainer from the Bovington crew. But by Jupiter, this was the most entertaining Bottom 5 video by far! Everyone else complained about ze Germans, the Russians, the ineptitude of the British. He did the same but with a tremendous sense of humor and jokes that made me laugh.

[@canuck600A]

He's done some good stuff but he's brutal in the ad's

[@Simon_Nonymous]

well the ads have been moved around a bit thank goodness, but I love his enthusiasm, sarcasm, and that he loves tanks!

[@redspark2009]

He has a sense of humor alright, the best of the lot I guess, just never mention hats near him or the men will never shut up.

[@JohnyG29]

Na, he's miles better than the others.

[@neilwilson5785]

This is a doozie to be sure. Really funny as well.

[@KMac329]

Mr. Smith's combination of erudition, understatement, sarcasm, irony, eloquence, humor, and, above all, intelligence, makes this one of the most delightful tank chats ever.

[@Deamon93IT]

In all honesty Richard's Bottom 5 should be a series, had so many laughs (especially when it came to the Sentinel and the Aussies).

[@sunnyjim1355]

Unfortunately (for me at least) the more I see of this guy the more irritated I get.... going to skip this.

[@james.black981]

As an Australian, im both proud and sadly accepting of the truth here. Love the design, but it probably didn't need the hilarious guard over the gun.

[@martentrudeau6948]

@@james.black981 ~ Obviously Richard enjoys a good joke and he had his fun with Sentinel, which is a good tank. This joke really started with David Fletcher's, Sentinel tank video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnPXlmSrdpKkhdU Fletcher said: "We will over look the front machine gun position, because some people (I can't imagine why) think it's rather rude." Then David says, "I can't imagine why?" -- IMO, Richard and David are funny Brits, and great to watch, Thanks Tank Museum, you guys are blessing to me.

[@politenessman3901]

@@james.black981 The guard was necessary, they were using weapons in production in Australia and that meant as an MG available for tank use, all they had was the Vickers, it's water cooled - if you don't protect the water jacket it will quickly jam.

[@akizeta]

@@politenessman3901 Sure, but did the guard have to look quite so... suggestive?

[@sambagogo777]

"Not being able to go 'round corners could be seen... as a bit of a problem." Such trifling details didn't concern the US car industry for decades!

[@ronroche3138]

Good point

[@homelessEh]

every viper owner.. sounds good to me corners are optional.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

or Kawasaki with the KH series... the frame seemed to have a hinge in the middle

[@kenbrown2808]

in all fairness, my comment on the class of vehicles my daily driver is, is "it'll go 'round anything but a corner" however, rather than handling, it refers to the fact that lorries have a tighter turning radius than what I drive.

[@logoseven3365]

The Dalek Defence!

[@iemozzomei]

To be fair, the hull machine gun on the Sentinel just makes it extra Australian :)

[@dukeoftoast2420]

It makes it the male tank

[@gunner678]

I love the Sentinel tank. They are used as enemy tanks in the Peter Finch movie 'Rats of Tobruk'. They have loads of them darting about in that. But what an amazing achievement considering the pressure Australia was under at the time.

[@der_fuxs]

DIIIIIK😁

[@envygd4902]

Ah yes the M A L E

[@jesper509]

Sentinel is a great tank considering how many tanks Australia had made before the sentinel.

[@candleman2123]

"Australia, you had one job..." Australians: "Yeah, and we succeeded!" 🤣

[@ericgrace9995]

The Australians also designed a fighter aircraft, the Boomerang, that was intented to come back. After all ..they weren't Japanese.

[@gunner678]

Nice aircraft actually.

[@carbon1255]

Traditionally, boomerangs, well, don't come back. Some bird hunting ones did, which got turned into toys but...

[@johanmetreus1268]

What about the boomerang grenade?

[@advorak8529]

Japan was mentally sound when deciding pro suicide attacks - they’d lose more lives and planes not doing it. Also, they were really low on good pilots at that point - which you need for conventional attacks.

[@ericgrace9995]

@@advorak8529 I would not describe anything the Japanese did in WW2 as "mentally sound".

[@georgelush1998]

I love these British expressions. “The Maus takes the biscuit.” Brilliant. Other favorites include: “Don’t over-egg the pudding.” And “Looks like someone’s had a fiddle and made a pig’s ear of it.”

[@HanSolo__]

😆

[@babaganoush6106]

Now that is a different kettle of fish....

[@nektulosnewbie]

English in general is so difficult for foreign speaks to learn because it's heavily idiomatic. You need to learn the culture to understand the expressions. This stands for all variants of it and is probably why the expression "America and Britain are two people separated by a common language" is so true.

[@advorak8529]

@@nektulosnewbie English is not particularly difficult to learn if you come from Germanic languages. Try Navajo. Or, if you want a more useful, less difficult challenge, try Japanese. Unless you meant “speaking it as someone born in (specific place in the UK) with the native accent and idioms well enough to be mistaken for a native … while being scrutinised”.

[@nektulosnewbie]

@@advorak8529 learning the structure isn't the problem (I know, I can see what you mean; I see lot in Dutch and German myself). But it isn't so much what you're saying but how the expressions change that can throw people off. I see this with the Filipinos I know who, despite knowing English well, still stuggle because they only know "half" of the language.

[@StacheMan26]

In fairness to the Tetrarch, the whole concept behind it was clearly intended for pulling their own Crete. Airborne forces landing in and taking over an isolated island or region where, although the enemy garrison outnumbers them it has little to no armored support of its own. Under those circumstances even the thin skinned Tetrarch would've been a massive force multiplier, but of course they were never deployed into such circumstances, instead they were dropped into Normandy, which at the time had something of an infestation of big cats.

[@DeadEye0767]

This concept was demonstrated to devastating effect against the Argentinians in the Falklands war when British forces landed Scimitar tanks on the island.

[@mudcrab3420]

Easy to dismiss landing tanks at Normandy because Pegasus Bridge was captured successfully and the beach landed troops linked up so quickly. Had the airborne been isolated for longer than the half day or so the Tetrarchs would have probably had a much more prominent role reconning their perimeter to detect the size and direction of any German counter attacks. As it was it was possible to move bench landed armour east of the canal easily and the main attempts to break out west of the canal ended up drawing in the vast majority of German forces. Also do not underestimate the ability of enemy forces to over-react to sightings of allied tanks landing with the paratroops. Imagine you are part of one of the German forces located East of Caen. You are woken up early on June 6 with reports of the invasion. You and your platoon set out after some confusion to take up in the practiced 'anti-para' drills on the grounds that the light infantry (which is what paras are) are best attacked quickly before they can get reinforced. And.... Is that a TANK?!? Remember the average WW2 soldier was NOT a tank nerd. There were two types of tank - friendly and enemy and they were marked with white stars and black crosses to aid the memory of which was which. Simply having any tank be delivered by glider was an advantage and absolutely worth the effort in developing the gliders and tactics. They fact they were hardly used is a distraction.

[@Vilamus]

Light airmobile tanks still persist today. The Soviet/Russian BMD series is absolutely designed to not face proper tanks but to allow the paras to overrun rear enemies. I suppose the Tetrarch is like the Tiger - great for it's niche role and not a lot else.

[@KandonKuuson]

I think Arnhem may have been a different experience had you had the Tetrarch. I may not have lasted. But as least you wouldn’t have been fighting tanks against men, all the while waiting for XXX Corp. The blessing of hindsight hey.

[@johanvanzyl8479]

More from Richard please.😍 "if you pick the Valiant in a video game there should be a system to physically harm the player" 😂😂😂. Shakespeare could not have done better.

[@SteamCrane]

"Can the Chieftain fit into a Valiant?"

[@BadByte]

@@SteamCrane Getting in is easy. Getting out ... He was never seen again :P

[@OliverFlinn]

​@@BadBytehe is the Valiant now

[@Scholaroflife]

One of my favorite bad ideas is when upper management decides to cut maintenance to make up for time lost due to breakdowns. Mill managers are often lacking both in understanding of causal relationships and the laws of physics.

[@heikkiremes5661]

I remember drawing multi-turreted, mobile fortresses as a kid, so #5 made me smile.

[@tisFrancesfault]

Its always nice to see Richard. One of the better things to come out from the last couple years.

[@ctrl1961]

Brilliant. 5 tanks; no cutaway shots. Real history on show, done as well as it can be. Thank you.

[@johanneswerner1140]

Very few cuts. Brilliant presentation, brilliant talking skills, really great. This is how you present stuff. And by Crom, he is a blast to listen to. Great work, that man.

[@BHuang92]

The boomerang grenade. The most Australian weapon ever made!

[@vespasian606]

I think the japanese would have loved it.

[@przemekkozlowski7835]

This is sometimes referrd to as someone having a visit from the "good idea fairy". The ideas seem really good when viewed from a single direction and if the problem is viewed very narrowly. The "good ideas" then turn out to be horrible when you take a bigger picture approach and clearly define what your priorities are in the product design. These designs are actually valid solution to a specific problem the people wanting the tank were facing but they were too focused on one area that they failed to consider just how bad the trade-offs would be.

[@traceybaker9209]

Love Richard Smith, he has a unique way of presenting material.

[@Habdabi]

Yep. He is very good at getting you to think about things in a different way. Or re evaluate how you look at an object, looking closer at details and decisions

[@seanmullen4003]

A third "Bottom 5 Tanks" by Richard Smith, and it's all about the handiwork of what we Yanks satirically call "the Good Idea Fairy" 🤣

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

It’s also known as a ‘CORGI’… Commanding Officer’s Really Good idea.

[@ofmanynicknames]

@@bob_the_bomb4508 And, fittingly, those ideas tend to lack legs.

[@michaelguerin56]

One good aspect of the Sentinel project is that the 17 pounder integration work and the provision of the resultant technical information to the British enabled the British to get the Firefly up and running very quickly.

[@maxkronader5225]

The litmus test for bureaucratic managers is if they spend more money on hiring "consultants" than they do on hiring qualified staff.

[@Brave_Sir_Robin]

Someone copied your comment 😔

[@pathirtle]

I don't normally associate "British museum director" with "hilariously entertaining". Well done, sir!

[@amandajones8841]

As an Australian, can confirm we're proud of Sentinel, but wish we'd done that on the main gun too.

[@capusvacans]

I always keep wondering why you didn't stick some grenades underneath it to simulate the dangly bits. Surely that must have been a massive oversight and the reason why this tank didn't make it.

[@scoutdogfsr]

The Australians should be proud of Sentinel. With the industrial capabilities of the nation at the time it was a great accomplishment. Proof that a great people can overcome the toughest challenges. Much respect to them from this American.

[@jlvfr]

Very true. They went from zero to tank in an amazingly short time, and still managed to produce a tank that, while obsolete in Europe, would have wiped any japanese opposition. And it _worked_ , unlike some other tanks...

[@scoutdogfsr]

@@jlvfr well said my friend!

[@jameswade6641]

Exactly. The Sentinel was an amazing achievement. The hull gun mantlet was just a bit of icing on the cake.

[@jlvfr]

@@jameswade6641 bit of an "up yours" at the enemy ;)

[@budwyzer77]

@@jlvfr The Sentinel's turret ergonomics were *really* awful, though.

[@bernardwills9674]

How the super-heavy Maus was supposed to fare on the bottom of a riverbed has always boggled my mind.

[@ScottishCCRfan]

Could probably use them to guard the Bismarck at the bottom of the Atlantic?

[@kenbrown2808]

It probably fared better under the river than trying to be on top of a swamp, when one considers bouyancy and displacement.

[@thoughtengine]

I"m sure I read that the next tank in the column had to run cables to it to enable it to run on the traction motors without starting the engine.

[@bernardwills9674]

@@thoughtengine Yes I believe so...not sure how comforting that would have been to the crew in such an operation.

[@dasmeltorp4705]

Think I've rewatched every episode in tank chats 2-3 times. It is just so awesome and wholesome. I was going to visit Bovington Tank Museum but that year Corona hit.

[@elwoodzo]

Easily the best tank chat/top/bottom 5 - hilarious, insightful, educational. Bravo

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

It really was very good. Considering the competition, very impressive indeed!

[@d33b33]

This man is the spitting image of my Old English language professor, except his passion clearly matches his knowledge, which has me glued to the screen. More video's please ;)

[@Anon15297]

The Tetrarch is really the odd one out here. The other 4 represent dead development lines that were already outdated before the tanks could be built, gross parodies that continued emphasising a particular trait far after it ceased to be desirable, but the idea of an air deployable tank really started to come to reality around the Tetrarch and continued from there. Sheridan's, BMD-4's, even the Stryker Mobile Gun Platform.... air deployment of armour clearly still a hotly desirable feature. Even now the US Army is looking for a new way of dropping armour with advanced forces. It's just that in the 40's the technology for aircraft wasn't good enough to carry a tank large enough to hold its own against other armour gun-for-gun, and armour wasn't good enough to provide lightweight options for smaller vehicles, so the Tetrarch came out as more of an infantry support vehicle. Perfectly capable of clearing infantry-held fortifications for paratroopers or dealing with an enemy infantry units light armour support, provided it was never used against an enemy more armoured than the Para's themselves. Which makes sense since Para's were never meant to be dropped against enemy armour. Even moderate organised resistance could disrupt landings, so their primary job was to disrupt and distract until more traditional ground reinforcements arrived.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I was about to say that... but you said it better!

[@ericamborsky3230]

And the Tetrarch was not even originally designed to be deployed from a glider, it was just their next tank in a line of light tanks that just so happened to be light enough to be carried by a glider.

[@brittakriep2938]

See currently used ,Wiesel' of german forces.

[@oisnowy5368]

You say the other 4 were outdated. So was the Tetrarch. It was outdated as a tank. Would you fight a Panther in one? Or a even a Panzer IV? The gliding bit is irrelevant; the question is what can you do with it on the ground?

[@Anon15297]

@@oisnowy5368 but it wasn't meant to fight Pz.IV, it was meant to handle Pumas and Sd.Kfz. 231 attached to infantry units behind the front. Paras were never meant to fight armour, or even entrenched regular infantry. They were meant to quickly overwhelm rearguard units using second line weapons with third rate training, then hold off more equipped reinforcements until allied help could take over the front.

[@ericgrace9995]

Thank you Richard. You never fail but to entertain and inform.

[@logoseven3365]

That opening background is insane. So much history.

[@nonamesplease6288]

Richard, you are a classic. You bring a fresh point of view to tank enthusiasts the world over.

[@MickGough1957]

I found this really enjoyable. Richard should make more videos.

[@mycroft1905]

With all due respect to Richard and the Auckland War Memorial Museum, the Russell Boomerang Grenade was not designed to return to the thrower, which would have required it to defy the laws of physics. It was so designed to be easier to throw greater distances than conventional grenades.

[@alt5494]

Boomerang are not universally designed to return to the user. Sport boomerang's normally do but hunting boomerang's do not. Very straight or acute angles make the boomerang fly straight. To make a returning boomerang the airfoils need to be widely spaced with airfoils thinned on the opposite edge. A grenade that can easily thrown over a hundred yards is a useful tool.

[@DGARedRaven]

No, and frankly, you should pick up yourself as to why.

[@alt5494]

@@DGARedRaven And your basing your opinion on what? In 1940 the only options where grenade, grenade on a stick, or slow rifle grenades( which to use must be reloaded with a blank cartridge grenade snapped on the muzzle, and sights flipped up). Anyone who has spent time throwing boomerangs or even frisbees knows they can basically hit anywhere they want. For Australia this was a good concept as they had a deep pool of men who spent their childhood playing with boomerangs.

[@carbon1255]

Actually, one of the benefits hunting is that a boomerang travels in a curve, which means you can hit animals that can't predict its path, or enters their blind spot as they are looking at you at that point, and in the case of grenades, people you can't see.

[@DGARedRaven]

@@alt5494 Size & difficulty to carry, Payload, Difficulties to control, training requirements for the soldiers that use them, material requirements of any steel used in its construction... plus, you seem to assume that you can always stand up to throw.

[@Moxiecore]

I looked at the boomerang grenade and thought of that is not a bad design choice for a country where a lot of recruits would be familiar with the design and already have a knowledge how to effectively throw them. Kind of why american grenades are roughly baseball shaped I guess.

[@evandotterer4365]

I love this channel and it’s easy to understand explanations of tank engineering. The commentator’s don’t just say “this was a horrible design” but they elaborate on the government’s and initial uses of the vehicles of the time. I particularly liked this video cause he showed a lot of tanks that are obscure. And his respect for his wife’s Australian heritage was absolutely hilarious and heart felt.

[@tor6684]

Just brilliant! And the "I think I can confidently say that the design process starts with a visit to the pub", made my day.

[@ianc8999]

I really love your style of presenting. Between the two Davids and yourself, everything is covered.

[@rickvr11]

Good things about the valiant, I remember reading / hearing somewhere if your foot got trapped behin the break or clutch the only way to get out was to break open the tank or just saw your leg off 😂

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Well what a fun video, and nice to see you Richard having your turn in front of the camera doing tanks, rather than just advertising this excellent museum. I would argue in a friendly way about some of your selections but would never argue that you've increased the knowledge pool in a structured and informed way. All the best for 2022, we will be seeing Bovington for real this year!!!

[@mmarsh1972]

I have been in those "no such thing as a bad idea" seminar. My first thought was always "The company acting wasting their money and my time on this seminar".

[@jimihossack9191]

As an Australian, us designing a well hung tank that still lacks firepower is a very Australian thing to do. Just for a laugh

[@phildicks4721]

What I love most about the Tank Museum and its videos is the passion the Director and the other people at the museum have for the subject. Their passion for the museum and its tanks makes the viewer feel that same passion.

[@Reginald-hp9js]

I love the Dalek defense comparison! Always love watching you Gents talking about tanks, top 5, bottom 5, whatever it may be!

[@zulubeatz1]

I just love the Tank museum. I am going to start buying my models from their shop as the prices and range are really good and it supports this renowned establishment.

[@handznet]

Richards enthusiasm always makes me happy :)

[@TonyLS9A]

Woah. Woah woah. I distinctly recall flying Daleks. 😬 Once again amazingly entertaining and informative. Bravo.

[@IPointiak]

You are a brilliant storyteller, I've listened this clip whit pleasure, thanks!

[@kommodore6691]

Was the Tetrarch actually envisioned for tank vs tank combat, or just for providing some fire support to the infantry. The Russians do something similar with like BMPs or some light AFV don't they and they aren't for fighting MBTs, but supporting the airborne troops. Didn't seem like a stupid concept to me.

[@jcorbett9620]

I'm no expert, but I'm sure the Tetrach was intended to provide a limited number of lightly armed troops (the paratroopers) with some armoured support against MG's and superior numbers of infantry. At the time it was originally designed, it might had had a true anti-tank role (as tanks were lightly armoured and gunned), but by implementation it would have been hopelessly outgunned against anything other than armoured cars and other soft-skinned vehicles, but better than nothing against pure infantry.

[@Yuzral]

I don't think the 2lb gun ever had an HE round (and it would have been pretty anaemic if it had), so effectiveness against MG nests and similar would have been questionable. I agree that "how do we get AT support to paratroops" was a valid question but would submit that Tetrarch was a C- answer at best.

[@hatman4818]

I just realized, the Loyd carrier, particularly the machine gun variant, probably wouldve served the paratroopers better. I wonder if any loyds were ever air deployed.

[@mattbowden4996]

At the time it was designed, the Tetrarch was expected to go head to head with enemy armoured reconnaissance - so armoured cars and other light tanks - and would have done fine in that role even in 1944. The problem is that light armour in the infantry support role don't get to pick their fights the way reconnaissance vehicles can. There's a reason why even small infantry tanks were heavily armoured...

[@buttahXD]

@@Yuzral it did, the thing is that none of the tanks ever had them assigned because "HE went to the Artillery!" so all of the towed 2pdrs got them.

[@TheIceland2000]

To understand Maus and other freak design projects of the German industry, we need to bear in mind the fear of being drafted to the Eastern front. As long as people were engaged in one of Hitlers special projects, they got the exemption from military service.

[@SnowyFinland]

A truly excellent video. One of the most entertaining from the Tank Museum yet.

[@martingardener90]

The boomerang grenade is actually very clever - you leave it lying around as you retreat and wait for the enemy to pick it up and throw it at you!

[@Ciborium]

I disagree. The concept of a boomerang that returns to the thrower is a modern concept. A boomerang as a hunting weapon allowed a hunter to throw a mass of hard wood at a target a much farther distance than he could with just his arm muscles (throwing a rock or a spear). I could visualize that a boomerang grenade being able to be thrown at distant targets. Sure, the danger is that the other side could throw it back before it detonates, but you have that with regular grenades as well. The detonation delay would have to be short enough that you can throw the boomerang grenade a far distance and have it detonate before the enemy could throw it back.

[@bjorntrollgesicht1144]

Fun fact: videos by Mr. Smith are a complete people and project management course disguised as a tank video, plus a giant ode to the immortal Bri'ish common sense. Watch carefully how Mr. Smith thinks of and presents issues- that's top class management thinking. I'm definitely sending this one to my minions!

[@kurtwostyn1110]

Your enthusiasm is what makes this video a charm to look at.

[@colinthomasson3948]

thank you, that was the best you tube exposition ever. you are a mad genius, thank goodness

[@ptonpc]

One of the advantages of what I did was, whenever I was called into one of those meetings. I would just say "Am I getting paid for this?" If the reply was anything but "Yes, absolutely" I would just get up and leave. EDIT: PS. Great to see Richard again. EDIT 2: If I remember correctly, Armoured Archives did a video on the Valiant. It turned out many of the problems it's famous for either didn't exist during trials or were the results of some other things.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

EDIT 2 - you'd be right, I couldn't put my finger on where I'd seen it but of course it was Ed. I have an feeling that the popular history of the Valiant is what I would call a Fletcherism.

[@skyethegoose]

To be fair, boomerangs aren’t supposed to come back to the thrower. The boomerang we know today are designed to come back. The boomerang grenade would be more accurate and have a longer range than a standard hand grenade, kinda like a stick grenade

[@Raptorrat]

It was supposed to come back if it missed. The Boomerang is a type of hunting stick, first used in the stone age, especially effective against birds and small animals.

[@johnbradshaw5900]

Terrific video, great that you see the humour in these things, I have to say your intro made me laugh out loud! I have attended so many seminars and training days and endured the same asinine managementese clichés delivered by the industry standard consultant with more post-it notes than you can shake a stick at, when you enter the room you just know that anything at all would be a more useful and productive use of the next few hours. However, we mustn't be cynical.

[@markholmphotography]

Somehow missed this for a year - and without a doubt it is my favorite Bottom 5 yet ( yes, I have seen all the other ones) - what an excellent video - loved it!

[@ericamborsky3230]

To be fair, there is s clear reasoning behind the Maus. The Germans anticipated a far more intense arms race with the Soviets, so the idea was that the Maus would one up whatever the Soviets had to one up the King Tiger, as it turned out, the tank arms race was not as intense as they anticipated and they canceled the Maus project. (I'm not sure on this, but didn't Porsche just keep working on it?)

[@AshenVictor]

Yeah, but it's one of those chains of reasoning that just sort of ignores all of the inconvienient truths that make none of it work, like the Germans not having any fuel and not having the industrial production to build enough of the tanks they already had let alone new ones that took an order of magnitude more steel and so on. It's like saying that there's a chain of reasoning by which I can strap some cardboard to my arms and fly to the moon by flapping them hard. There is, but it has to ignore several irritating bits of reality to get there.

[@zombygunslinger]

By the time they started development in 42 they would have known the issues the Tiger was having with the massive weight and horsepower issues, and they would have more insight with the heavy tank destroyers shortly thereafter. Production of the Maus was sheer delusion by the time they began making prototypes, which they did until late 44. If it actually made it into battle it would have been isolated and quickly run out of fuel, assuming it didn't get stuck or have a powerplant failure.

[@joezephyr]

The boomerang was designed to kill animals when hunting and throw from a great distance. The boomerang that came back was a toy for children. I note the Germans had stick grenades that could be thrown a greater distance than a modern grenade.

[@PabloSanchez-qu6ib]

The problem was that aborigines trained their whole life every day with boomerangs, their food depended on it. I don't think a common soldier would have had any precision and the thing is way harder to lob from concealment than a common grenade.

[@ZGryphon]

The boomerang grenade is pretty bad (even when you allow for the almost certain fact that it was intended to be used like the kind of boomerang that doesn't come back), but as an example of the same sort of "someone in the room should have laughed this off the table" invention from a previous war, I offer the MacAdam Shield Shovel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacAdam_Shield_Shovel

[@herpderpherpd]

Boomerang grenade is actually a good idea when you consider that boomerangs aren't supposed to return to the thrower. That's something you can do, but it's not the intent of the weapon. It's a long range throwing weapon with a high degree of accuracy. Nobody is hunting with a boomerang and throwing it to make it return, that's something you do to show off. The problem in the weapon lies in the fact that it's something that requires a high level of skill to use, most people aren't going to be able to use it well.

[@captainswoop8722]

Why is a boomerang grenade a bad idea? Is it because people think a boomerang will come back to the thrower rather than just fly further than a thrown object that doesn't have an aerofoil section? A boomerang was a hunting weapon, designed to hit an animal at longer ranges than just a thrown rock or stick.

[@beverlychmelik5504]

I agree. we had a beat-up jet ranger blade which we cut into 2-inch-wide sections. you could fling them a long way. Much farther than I could throw a similar weight ball.

[@thoughtengine]

Maybe they just couldn't practically distribute the weight of the explosive?

[@eckhardromanus9860]

Thanks Richard for that brilliant video: It's informing, entertaining and funny. The Maus tells you something about the intimate relationship between megalomania and stupidity. So yes, maybe it's the ultimate Nazi-Tank.

[@kevincaldwell4707]

Richard proves he is one of the best presenters in the Tank Museum. Another quality and interesting video.

[@hermanhahn3382]

Loved this video. Have not laughed this hard at a video in a long time. Absolutely brilliant!

[@ihategooglealot3741]

Have to agree about valiant at the time other people were designing comet and centurion- just wow

[@bill8791]

I once went to a management course, as described here, when the person conducting the course said there are no bad ideas. My first comment was about Invading Russia in mid summer with no winter clothing.

[@PabloSanchez-qu6ib]

Or sailing full tilt with icebergs around.

[@trumpfancardanostakepool4737]

Excellent. Had to chuckle several times. Nicely done.

[@derekmills1080]

Thoroughly enjoyed the chat, Richard, and the humourous side to it.

[@tommyknapp895]

This could be a Ted Talk on the proliferation of bad ideas. Even non-tank audiences would dig the humor and anecdotes.

[@Twirlyhead]

It is ironic that the Independent Tank concept was forward looking enough to see that it should have an anti-aircraft gun but not so as to see that airpower was to be one of the main reasons that a huge, slow moving, thinly armoured _independent_ tank would never work.

[@djmit44]

Thanks for making another video, I always enjoy watching you share your thoughts with us.

[@xinquisitor666x]

Bloody brilliant video! Keep ‘em coming.

[@cshelley5658]

Honestly, the phrase "no such thing as a bad idea" is the route of everything wrong with my generation! (I'm in my 20s) Well... Germany going to war with the entire World was also quite iffy as a first and second draft I suppose too.

[@KyriosMirage]

Congratulations, you scored higher than the Valiant! "That's not hard..." On a list of bad tanks. "Well... crap."

[@ritchie799]

Richard, A brilliant and very interesting video. You have outlined some tremendous buzz words heavily overused by management consultants. Also the fantastic selection of tanks. Outstanding! More cracking videos such as this please.

[@martinroth1263]

Thank you for really entertaining 26-ish minutes. I definitly enjoyed each minute of the vid. And for the future: could there be, please!, tank-chats with Richard Smith?

[@EmilianoCM]

"Big gun Cent" is acctually a pretty flattering nickname for the FV4005. Specially considering some other nicknames the tank has...

[@FieldMarshalFry]

HESH Shed?

[@odb_roc_hound4186]

@@FieldMarshalFry Shitbarn - coined by Sirfoch a Latvian WoT gamer who then face planted on it during the first World of Tanks Tank Day.

[@kuhaku9587]

The Sentinel is a good idea in Australians eyes, the design is exactly meant as is. What enemy wouldn't start laughing seeing that? Pretty sure they made it so it boosted moral for all the Australian, let me spray you !!

[@davidpope3943]

And let’s face it ~ if you’re going to insist on putting a water cooled Vickers in as the hull machine gun, it’s got to be armoured and given the profile, any armour is going to make it end up looking exactly like……it does. The Sentinel gets some bad press but the Aussies managed to up-gun it from a 2 pdr to a 17 pdr a whole lot quicker than we Brits managed.

[@crazytacticsdave4017]

Lovely man to listen to. I could could leave my iPad running all day with his thoughts about tanks and history filling my ears.

[@rudolphpohl4115]

Excellent presentation. Clear and to the point. Never even heard of the "bar tank". Agree with your conclusions.

[@vespasian606]

Don't knock the boomerang grenade. It will come round again.

[@dougstubbs9637]

The enemy won’t try to catch and throw back to you.

[@TheLesserWeevil]

I like this guy. Great video. Cheers Richard! edit: As an Aussie; oh dear.

[@Hachaimenesch]

Thanks a lot. This bottom 5 list was really funny! As a suggestion for a future video: Given that you have so much detailed information about the Maus, I would love to watch a video with some in-depth analysis of all the ridiculous quirks this tank had. Just the fact that you cannot remove the armour on the sides to get better access to the tracks looks to me utterly ridiculous. It is like one of those modern low maintenance car parts, which get installed with the vague hope of engineers being far enough away to not hear the reaction, when eventually customers find out about the actual costs and procedures to replace those parts. Just imagine the mobility kills suffered by a superheavy tank battalion fielding mice.

[@vksasdgaming9472]

You mean mobility kill suffered by superheavy tank batallion fielding Maus? There is one Maus in such batallion.

[@linnharamis1496]

Both informative and entertaining as always! Thank you.👍👍👍

[@jamesgoacher1606]

That was excellent. When you started with No-5 and showed such a daft thing I was wondering how on earth you could get four others worse, but you managed. Interest is piqued by you prefered winner (loser I suppose) though.

[@brianartillery]

I understand the 'Dalek defence', but Daleks have been able to levitate up stairs since 1988.

[@zxbzxbzxb1]

There is one levitating in Revelation of the Daleks in 1985, though it's not brilliantly depicted ;)

[@Grimmtoof]

Or just blow up the building!

[@fanfeck2844]

Should never have been allowed to fly. Wrong, just wrong

[@markedwards158]

You had me at the intro. Management Consultant Post it note Heads thumping on the desk. Been there so many times Had me hooked from then on. 😀

[@thunderK5]

Yes, he paints an intro straight out of 'Office Space' or Dilbert.

[@FinsburyPhil]

Fabulous presentation! Thank you.

[@SciFiAddict189]

I would argue that the Maus being terrible is actually a good thing given it took resources away from actually functional tanks. Also did Speer not cancel the Ratte cause it as 'a stupid idea'?

[@thoughtengine]

Speer was actually kind of a big figure; he wasn't just any pathetic underling who dared challenge der Fuhrer.

[@SciFiAddict189]

@@thoughtengine That was what I meant, cause he wouldn't have gotten away with it if he didn't have standing/power to do so, or as he said he would have been shot otherwise. So at least one person in Germany did say 'this is stupid' at least once and, IIRC, more times. That said there were any number of other projects, the Maus included, where he thankfully didn't (because they were a ridicules waste of resources they didn't have).

[@chipeling8386]

Utterly unfair regarding the Sentinal. This was produced to make best use of available Australian engineering and production assets at a time when tanks from Britain and the USA were not available. In the (admittedly unlikely) event of a Japanese invasion in 1943 the Sentinal would have been the right tank in the right place.

[@snarkymatt585]

The Sentinel definitely was a much better tank than that poor excuse of a converted tractor passed off as a tank that the Kiwi's offered up.

[@matthewwhitton5720]

@@snarkymatt585 Ah ! The infamous Bob Semple ! A tractor smothered in corrugated iron sheets ! I wonder if any were allowed to escape the scrap heap ?

[@florinaschilean6143]

Awesome presentation and the top 1 show what was wrong with Germany in the last years of wars. Not just the Maus, but every megalomaniac projects they make, if they had stick with Pz-IV and Stug-III and slowly replaced the Pz-IV with Panthers, maybe the war would've last longer and we would have seen the E-series too. Luckily, we didn't.

[@michaelharris-gifford2414]

Absolutely brilliantly delivered. I was nearly rolling around the floor, laughing. Thank you.