Top 5 Turning Point Tanks | Richard Smith | The Tank Museum

[@thetankmuseum]

Hello Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed Richard's choices of turning point tanks. Let us know which tanks you would choose!

[@kajlennartsson4234]

A great list 👍👍 The M4 Sherman

[@tompayne4945]

This was a great new angle on the 'top5'. I appreciate the different angle, and how it allowed you to include some different Machines. More like/unlike this Richard!🙏

[@cjwars2828]

side ?> why is their no monster truck tire tank i would go with lee its in the most happen time and still can be put in places

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Pre WW2, the Renault FT, Carden Lloyd/Vickers light and the Vickers 6 tonner and their families of copies/derivatives seem to dominate most countries tank fleets. Maybe worth a deep dive on each (and maybe then a look at the multi turreted tanks inspired by the "Independent").

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Now how about a list of top five dead end tanks? (Unconventional Tanks that entered service and served their purpose but didn't get any concept successors after their natural service life ended)

[@sandroid3138]

I'm just hugely amused and impressed by the way that Richard manages to use the 'clipboard-carrying-bean-counter' persona to disguise what a brilliant and highly knowledgeable communicator he is! Just superb...

[@sking3492]

Lol. I hear you sandroid. He looks like a bean counter, but a smart one. I like them all though, the way they present their own views, all experts in their fields.

[@stressedpanda7205]

He always reminds me of a friendly, enthusiastic vicar.

[@captiannemo1587]

If only he knew anything about tanks…

[@johnstephen8136]

Dennis Norden

[@BlueZirnitra]

​​@@stressedpanda7205 yeah I don't really get what OP means by "looks like a bean counter". I thought the term referred to people who miser over finances not how they look. Kinda low key prejudicial.

[@osokmav]

I'm surprised the Renault FT isn't on the list. First design of what we now know as a tank: transmission and driver at the front, engine at the back, 360 degree rotating turret.

[@bonetiredtoo]

I was typing exactly the same when you posted !

[@mrjockt]

Got to agree with that, the Renault FT basically gave us the modern tank design and therefor should have been on the list if not in the No1 position but at least at the No2 slot due to its influence on future designs.

[@mattmiller4233]

I was coming to type this exact same thing 😝

[@chrisgibson5267]

I understand that Little Willie should have been fitted with a turret.

[@mikeinmelbourne9491]

It's the "ur" tank

[@Pincer88]

As former armored infantry I can only say that I am most pleased that the RAM Kangaroo gets some well deserved love. And agree completely; it should have been a game changer. I hope the Tank Museum will make a more elaborate video some time in the future about APCs, AIFVs or MICVs.

[@emberfist8347]

Well it was mostly because it lacked NBC protection. And when you are going to transport infantry it might have been better to use a dedicated design instead of an ad-hoc one like the Kangeroo which was field modification for tanks due to lack of half-tracks. The only reason it took until the T-14 for there to be another infantry transport variant of a tank was the simple matter that the Russians were finally making a new AFV platform that would perform in every single role they would need.

[@robertwarner5963]

@@emberfist8347 Over head cover was important, but senior staff did not worry about it until nuclear warfare became a concern during the Cold War. Then they wanted sealed AFVs that could protect soldiers from inhaling NBCW dust as they drove across a contaminated battlefield. Kangaroo was invented to address a rapidly worsening shortage of Canadian infantry during the summer of 1944. Something like 40 percent of infantry casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire before they advanced to within sight of the enemy. The Black Watch of Canada Regiment suffered 350 percent casualties during WW2 and no where near enough new recruits were coming up the supply lines, which meant the wounded soldiers were rushed back into the front lines before they were fully healed. This shortage of fresh infantry also caused the Conscription Crisis when word got back to Canada during the autumn of 1944. The Conscription Crisis was a political scandal - doubly so in Quebec - but never produced enough replacement infantrymen so under-strength infantry regiments were repeated thrown back into battle until the war ended in May 1945.

[@markfryer9880]

@@robertwarner5963 You mean until the European War ended in May 1945. There was still the matter of dealing with the Japanese before WWII could be considered over.

[@chrisb7198]

@@emberfist8347 I don't know where you get your info but the T-14 is nothing more than a prototype of which only 10 have been built. It has never seen combat. The program has been halted. Now that that is cleared up there have been other tank type units built well before. The m-113 APC was fully tracked. The Bradley is another. The Merkava tank also has the ability to carry troops.

[@emberfist8347]

@@chrisb7198 The M113 and Bradley aren't based on tanks and the Merkava is still a tank and the door wasn't intended for infantry transport but for the loader. Also the T-14 has entered serial production according to Rostec the parent company of the manufacturer for the T-14

[@fredorman2429]

Every so often there is someone’s presentation of the top/bottom 5 tanks. Each time I think, “what more could anyone add to what has gone before?” Each time I play the video and - I’ve learned something new. I learned a lot in this presentation and, again, it’s been shown from a new slant. Thank you.

[@kenbrown2808]

"or worse, would have been invented by the French." I applaud you, sir.

[@kiwiruna9077]

See the FT is mentioned😂😂😂

[@johncartwright8154]

Indeed; though that sort of wry observation one would expect to be uttered by David Fletcher :)

[@Tuning3434]

@@johncartwright8154 During the epidemic Tank Chats I've come to love Mr. Smith, Mr. Willey and Finn as dearly as I was in love with Mr. Fletcher years in advance.

[@GARDENER42]

@@johncartwright8154 He probably wrote the script. 😉

[@JTA1961]

As many speeds in reverse as forward along with difficulty on staying on track...

[@TheZinmo]

The "shed" as a place for engineers (an men in general) is a fundamental british concept. There are aequivalents in other countries, but nothing exactly like it.

[@MaxTSanches]

Shed. A very British concept an oily wood workbench with old oily well used hand tools hanging on the wall. Reminds me of my grandfather and my father's sheds. :) Now, off to my workshop!

[@bebo4807]

Ah. This explains why Britain is on the cutting edge of innovative tech today….

[@leeedmunds2539]

The shed is strong in the antipodes also.. long live the shed!

[@gerardlabelle9626]

Lots of great US inventions and gear has come out from guys tinkering in their garage. Is a UK shed different in some way?

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

@@gerardlabelle9626 You don't park cars in a shed. Unless you're a bit strange.

[@m10cachilles43]

Speaking of first's I think Centurion was also the first tank to use a Boiling Vessel, setting the tone for all British armoured vehicles going forward.

[@catnapcatastrophic2136]

how else would you get your dinner :)

[@m10cachilles43]

@@catnapcatastrophic2136 Prior to that (according to my grandad, who was a Sherman driver at the very end of the war), you cut an empty fuel can in half, filled half with earth, then poured in petrol and lit it. On top of this, you put the other half of the can filled with water. Into this you dropped your issued tinned rations. Two downsides to this: A) you were outside the tank, which meant you were vulnerable to surprise artillery (apparently a reason why the BV was invented). B) the labels on the tins tended to fall off, leading to some "interesting" meals.

[@darthcalanil5333]

IMO Renault FT should definitely be on the list since it defined what a tank is. another one can be said to be the Panzer 3 (maybe #5). 3 man turret with a "good enough" gun, "good enough" armour, "good enough" mobility, good reliability, excellent ergonomics. In essence, the Pz3 is kind of the progenitor of what would eventually turn into the Main Battle Tank concept (important to note that the pz3 is design of the 1930s). up to that point most nations (even germany) envisioned specific designs that fulfilled specific objectives (hence infantry tanks, cruisers, light "cavalry" tanks, breakthrough tanks..etc), but really that Pz3 was the first one that combined elements of all roles and managed to do them successfully.

[@simonnorburn3518]

Not sure - first versions had a 37mm gun with an inadequate HE round (and that didn't come in until early 1940). Actually gave it dual coax machine guns in ausf A-C. So in terms of ATG supression and anti-infantry it was about as effective as the Pz I and less effective than the Pz II. In german doctrine tanks were seen as primarily to be used against soft skin vehicles and infantry and for this purpose the original Pz III's were at best harbingers of a potentiality, rather than designed with that potentiality in mind. They got 'lucky'.

[@darthcalanil5333]

@@simonnorburn3518 the earlier 37mm was given because it was just about the only gun available. But the design itself had in mind the 5cm which was starting to enter service in 1940. If the base design itself wasn't as ergonomic or well thoughtout, it wouldn't have had the successes it did. The same argument can be made for the Pz4, though I would pose that the Pz4's original concept of a close support tank with a 75mm howitzer had more to do with its later development into a main medium tank its original design itself (and indeed the Pz4 mobility and reliability will suffer considerably the more it got upgraded and the heavier it got)

[@simonnorburn3518]

@@darthcalanil5333 No dispute. The key point I am making is that the unavailability of HE ammo for the 37mm until early 1940 indicates that as built, and as used and designed, it was considered acceptable for the vehicle to have an anti soft target capacity similar to the PzI and less effective than the the Pz II, both of which were envisioned as 'stop gap' vehicles. Claiming that the PIII was one of the first progenitors of the 'universal tank' may be true but seems more by happenstance than design.

[@JeremiahPTTN]

Yeah but it’s french and he’s british and this is a personal and biased list… you are correct, but he is British lol.

[@apefish]

@@JeremiahPTTN they typically pick vehicles that are in the collection, as far as i know, the ft17 isnt there. i do fully agree that the renault should be on the list, not sure about the panzer 3 tho.

[@FokDR1]

I love seeing Richard talk on the various subjects that he has so far. He always provides alternative, thought provoking, points of view - and always manages to get in a dig a the French. I love it 👍 Also, as others have mentioned, I was surprised to not see the FT17 on the list, even though it's French.

[@davefost]

I always enjoy Mr Smith's sense of humour... lol And hey, I'd watch Digging for Mother!! THanks for putting the RAM Kangaroo into the mix... the Tank Museum is one of the few museums that puts an effort into preserving the history of the Ram tank and derivatives... awesome to see this kept alive.

[@Thirdbase9]

Call the Time Team!

[@keithorbell8946]

During the intro I was muttering to myself “Centurion must be in the list,” and lo and behold… no. 5!

[@bonetiredtoo]

I would say that the Renault FT deserves to be in that list. It was the first tank that had the layout that pretty well all subsequent tanks followed: crew in the front, engine at the back, fully rotatable turret. British tanks of that era were a technological dead end and it was the FT which showed the way to go. Actually I would go as far to say that it deserves to be number 1.

[@warlord195711]

I agree the Renault FT was hugely influential. The early British designs were driven by the need to cross trenches and heavily-cratered ground. The French army of WW1 adopted a policy of using infantry with shovels to prepare a crossing over every German trench. As a result, French tanks often got shot to pieces by German artillery while waiting for the infantry to come along. SO, it's a bit unfair to call the British heavy tanks a technological dead end.

[@SMGJohn]

@@warlord195711 Do you see Mark 1 inspired modern tanks? Or even tanks after WW1 shaped like that? No? Then its a dead end, in fact British tanks did not do all that well in WW1, the French FT17 were far superior, smaller and faster meant they could engage in places that was unthinkable for the Germans and their small size was noted as being really difficult to hit with artillery.

[@julientabulazero103]

The fact that Director Richard Smith publicly acknowledged that were it not for Mother the French would have invented the tank… is the most beautiful, backhanded compliment there is. That say’s a lot. Merci Monsieur Smith. Vous en demandez plus constituerait un châtiment cruel et inusité. Nous nous en tiendrons donc à ceci.

[@Davey-Boyd]

I really was expecting the Renault FT-17 to be high on this list!

[@uzivatel56]

He even explained why he did't include Renault FT 1917. Great job!

[@mikereger1186]

Always good to see Richard. He’s like the kid that grew up to get the job he dreamed of :)

[@ProvidenceNL]

I was surprised by the lack of the FT-17!

[@JeremiahPTTN]

Cause it’s French and he is a Brit historian, talking about a French tank without puking is probably hard for him 😂

[@andrewballard3316]

Was gonna say that too. Also the kangaroo? If a concept goes 80 years and only gets one taker... its probly not a game changer.

[@Kumimono]

@@andrewballard3316 Was that not the point?

[@kyle857]

Same

[@emberfist8347]

@@andrewballard3316 Honestly I wuold say the T-14 would be the real game-changer. I can see it now in the future people will follow Russia's example and make a single chassis for every AFV role. It is a logistical revolution.

[@RonOhio]

Watch to the end, the deadpan joke is worth it. Well played.

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

That was expertly done!

[@6472tim]

Thanks Richard. Another great video. I was lucky enough to be able to visit the Tank Museum last Thursday. A perfect day and being able to wander around with no crowds meant that I could really spend as much time as I wanted down there. A big thanks to you and especially to your very friendly and helpful staff. Will be coming back again, particularly as my ticket is valid for a year! :-)

[@paulcollins6197]

Thank you Richard. Really been missing your chats since the end of the lockdowns.

[@feedingravens]

I heard that in the Ukraine they got T-34s from their pedestals (even a Panther mockup on a russian chassis) and placed them on the roads as decoys to distract from operational tanks.

[@vapormissile]

Ravens, like all corvids, can remember human faces & share their personal opinions with their fellow birds. The famous UW experiment is easily repeatable if you take the time to feed you local ravens, crows or Jay's. Feeding Ravens is awesome & underappreciated.

[@Ubique2927]

Another YT idiot made a video of the “Panther” claiming it was real. After a few quite ridiculous videos from this person I un-subscribed.

[@Just_lift_anyone]

I love Crows, their calls are so eerie

[@vapormissile]

@@Ubique2927 so many bots and so many dumb people.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

The Greek army does the same with old " M series" vehicles 😉

[@pacificostudios]

I think the M-1 Abrams take is a "Turning Point" tank. It successfully introduced many sophisticated technologies, like thermal imaging, laser range-finders, gas turbine power and extraordinary speed. There probably are earlier systems with some of these systems, but the M1 combined them all and showed they could be used successfully. It's also one of the few post-WWII tanks with a significant combat history, proving adept at trashing every Soviet tank up to the T-72. Other countries might have a tank as good as the M1 on paper, but most don't have its combat history. As we've learned in the Ukraine fight, "on paper" often doesn't mean much. The fact that the M1 is still the U.S. Army front line MBT after 40 years is astounding. Other than gas turbine power, any new tank has the same night-fighting ability and main gun accuracy, or it isn't a front-line tank.

[@jackdarbyshire5888]

The Leopard 🐆 before the Abrams 👍

[@GhostOps21]

This was a wonderful presentation, and had me definitely consider the Kangaroo to be more important than I thought previously, even if it was sidelined in history for awhile. Honestly I agree with your list with only one piece missing, like a few others have said, the FT-17! And an aside, thanks Director Smith and Tank Museum crew, I do appreciate your content and work.

[@phil20_20]

I'm with you on number 3. I've always favored better armor protection for infantry. I think they tend to mix it up with recon and light tanks, and so they don't want to build an additional vehicle. That's why we're always stuck with inferior armor, and they want us to be quick and adaptable to various tasks without being commited to tank protection at all times.

[@phil20_20]

As you mentioned, that mentality of tanks being able to fend for themselves is continually disproven.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The Ram was a dead end because of thechoice of the hull.. Only egress point being out of the turret ring. There were no alternatives. The Merkava derivative benefits from the front mount engine in the original design and the large hatch in the rear.

[@emberfist8347]

It was untimately a dead end because of the simple fact it was a field modification due to a lack of half-tracks. Also it was opened topped which didn't look good to post-war engineers looking at NBC threats.

[@fabiogalletti8616]

@@emberfist8347 sure, but was the concept worth to disappear? From a tank-thickness / tank chassis troop carrier to the M113/FV432 light "battle taxi".

[@emberfist8347]

@@fabiogalletti8616 That battle taxi concept became a dead end too. The switch to IFVs was the natural evolution of the design. For example the M113 wasn’t used as a Battle taxi like it was intended but as an early version of an IFV or an improvised light tank.

[@fabiogalletti8616]

@@emberfist8347 that's the nifty part. They lost the Kangaroo lesson for a battle taxi. The battle taxi was a dead end. WHAT IF they went for a Centurion/M48 Kangaroo - with rear ramp but tank thickness/mobility. And then, seen a machine gun was not enough, fitting a tank-thick autocannon turret on that?

[@Macedonia914]

I really like the paper setup of this video. Telling you the prompt and defining the criteria then showing why each tank fits this criteria.

[@dvldog_]

As a former US Marine and US Army Infantryman I have some thoughts on why IFVs haven't had the same level of armor as MBTs: 1) Cost. Designers can sell MBTs a lot easier than they can sell a vehicle that "just carries Infantry." Imagine describing what an M1 Abrams is and what it can do and then explain an almost equally expensive IFV and its main selling point is that it protects Infantry... 2) Logistics and 3) Infantry are expendable. The harsh reality is that most militaries are willing to accept losses of Infantry more readily than losses of more specialized units. Infantry is seen (correctly or not) as being easily replaceable, especially in comparison to more technical jobs...

[@johnfisk811]

I do love Richard’s boundless enthusiasm. Carden Lloyd not so much. It’s success was the armoured light lorry not a fighting machine. I would have to replace it in the list myself by the Renault 17 whose layout remains current to today with an unbroken line. The turning point from the mobile pillbox of the first tanks to the tracked armoured car. It was the first medium tank and medium tanks have been the norm since then. Now medium tanks have grown into huge beasts in the meantime, but they remain the standard normal armoured fighting vehicle since then. Not a specialist device to do one task, but the routine go to vehicle forming the mobile mass of the armoured force. In their duties the Challenger 3, Abrams, Leopard 2, T80 etc. are just bigger better Renault 17s. The medium tank, by whatever name of the day, is the ‘tank’ and the first of these was the Renault 17. Well done the French. Enjoyed this episode. Thank you.

[@Volfan1065]

One of the reasons I love these videos is how hard they geek out over their tanks. Nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about the weapons system.

[@gazzertrn]

Love to hear more from Richard , love his casual style . But so Knowledgeable .The Dennis Norden(remember it will be alright on the night) of the Tank world .Love it. Clipboard and all.

[@leeedmunds2539]

Great list, some nice ideas to chew on! R.e. The ram: I think that the idea of a gun platform is held as evocative, plucky and aggressive whereas the protected personnel platform is thought of as defensive and as such, as less of a force multiplier (for the resources used). You do a good job in pointing out the folly of this paradigm.. Fresh, well provisioned troops delivered unharmed to the very teeth of the battle seem like a very effective multiplication of force

[@jaysmith8347]

Having served in both U.S. armored cavalry and leg infantry units, each branch has a blind spot for the other's needs for future development and integrated doctrine. In other words, there seems to be a cyclical ascendance of one branch over the other as world events drive the need for either armor-heavy units or rapidly deployable light riflemen. I suppose that the Stryker vehicle was an attempt to come up with a compromise, but it appears to be on its last legs already.

[@Thamian]

I find myself wondering if the reason the Ram Kangaroo wasn't a revolution was essentially it's awkwardness - it was basically just a tank with the turret pulled off and as such was in no way designed as an APC or IFV, and so lacks certain features (like doors or ramps) that purpose built ones have, and have for a damned good reason - I'd call it more of a precursor/proof of concept to later vehicles like the M113 or the Spartan than a turning point in it's own right.

[@richardbell7678]

If the Ram Kangaroo still had the side doors that the Ram started with (being an evolution of the M3 medium tank), it would have been a more obvious success. The big problem for any sort of infantry battle taxi is exiting the vehicle, while it is under fire. Being able to use the armored vehicle as cover while dismounting would have made it more effective. Interestingly, the big advantage of the (relatively) heavily armored, tank based APC versus the lightly armored tracked box APC is that the higher ratio of sprung to unsprung weight of the tank based APC gives it much better cross country performance that allows it to keep up with the tanks.

[@barrylarking8986]

A brilliant communicator. Thought provoking.

[@varmint243davev7]

Love the director's enthusiasm !

[@dogsbody416]

any video by Richard is hilarious!

[@Svorty]

I have to say that mr Smith is incredibly animated person and I can truly feel his passion for the subject at hand, what a pleasure to watch and listen to. Thank you for the list.

[@jeremysmith3786]

More Richard Smith videos please. This man could make almost anything interesting with uis dry, witty but ultimately knowledgeable and insightful style.

[@getinthevantim]

A lesson in reason and analysis. Thank you.

[@gavindenton6821]

Very good, highly entertaining. Also I suspect the Kangeroo did not take off in the west was because they envisioned a defensive armoured conflict not an armoured advance.

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

Excellent point!

[@SlavicCelery]

I think the simple answer is a better one. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the kangaroo that much better than a half-track? And that's the real rub of the "solution".

[@emberfist8347]

@@SlavicCelery It was basically something that was made because they didn't have a half-track so they had to improvise. That and both half-tracks and Kangeroos didn't have NBC protection due to being open-topped. The switch was made to IFVs and they went with dedicated dedsigns for those.

[@simongee8928]

Ref. the Kangaroo concept, put the engine in the front, doors at the back, roof over, job done - ! The Germans were very good at such a conversion.

[@tomk3732]

I would add Renault FT and T-64. Renault FT was first "tank" and T-64 was first tank with all modern equipment, modern armor, modern gun, modern sensors (in later version) etc.

[@adamrubella2290]

“An angry child with an hand grenade could destroy it.” 😂 I love the British gift for deadpan humor. Brilliant!

[@modernxenophon1582]

The deadpan at 15:29 is why I love British comedy.

[@ptonpc]

Richard always does interesting videos :) Thanks.

[@DemonOfGadara]

FINALLY! I waited too long for more Richard Smith content

[@Mugdorna]

Love the delivery from Richard. Just like my favourite lecturers 25 years ago.

[@JadePagac]

This type of museum is very creative.

[@launch4]

I respectfully disagree with the thoughts on the T-34. I suggest that title of the first of the Soviet style MBTs actually goes to the T-44. The T-44 has the wedge shaped front, slab sides, transverse mounted engine leading to a short hull length behind the turret, turret with dedicated commander and gunner (and human loader for now), and torsion bar suspension. All these things are practically identical to all subsequent Soviet style tanks. The T-54 added the rounded turret, the T-62 added the smoothbore gun, then came the two carousel autoloaders and different engines, but all of these things are built upon the same basic design that started with the little known T-44. In fact the T-34 and A20 before it really bear more in common with the BT series of tanks before it than the T-44 and subsequent designs that came after it. Mind you it's a pretty big evolutionary step up, welded hull armour with cast and welded turret compared to the riveted BTs, plus there's two crew in the hull instead of just the driver, plus everything's bigger and heavier, but that really doesn't seem like much of a change compared to what came after it. Just a thought.

[@Moggy471]

Great point about the RAM Kangaroo. Live infantry are much more useful than dead ones and being armoured enough to deliver them directly to the point of contact has to be an advantage. So strange that it wasn't adopted.

[@AndyViant]

Dead infantry do provide extra ammunition and rations for the live ones, so they are somewhat important.

[@concreteoctopus]

I think I'd have gone: 1. Mark I - first operational armoured vehicle 2. FT 17 - rotating turret & speed 3. T34 - sloped armour 4. Centurion - integrated MBT 5. T64 - composite armour They might not be the very first examples of each technology, but they're the ones that sprang to mind!

[@davidmartyn5044]

I watched many of the Tank Chats, and found them vey entertaining. One of the things I have picked up on that the British wrote in depth reports on captured German tanks and armoured cars and rated them as above average in an overall view. A lot of German vehicles featured sloped armour, why then did the British reject sloped armour post war?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@davidmartyn5044 sloped armor is great, if you got room to spare. sloping reduces internal availible space. also it is more complex to produce (just like rounded armor plates) and thus requires alot more time and expertise, driving the cost up. Or you cast the armor plating, but that on the other hand makes it difficult to properly harden the plate and get a homogenous plate consistency.

[@silentdrew7636]

@@davidmartyn5044 with sloped armor you lose a lot of space, it's why all of the successful tanks either don't use it, or only use it on the front.

[@stefanavic6630]

That's a good group

[@JohnHughesChampigny]

T64 -- "composite armor"? Are you confusing ERA with composite armor? Isn't the Challenger the first tank with composite armor?

[@jeffgo8658]

Thank you for your enthusiastic and informative video. Nicely done.

[@JaimeWulf]

Very well put and thought out Sir!

[@loddude5706]

Tony Robinson in full 'Baldrick', standing by a big hole & proclaiming 'Mother!' . . . a JCB Christmas telly-ad perhaps? : )

[@DarthAzabrush]

Sheds are so critical to technical development that Lord Beaverbrook mounted one on a household car to make his infamous improvised tank.

[@wlewisiii]

The FT would be a better choice than the T-34/76. The latter simply took many of the ideas percolating around all the tank using countries and put them into one vehicle while the FT invented the tank as awe know it - separate compartments, driver in front, engine at the rear, revolving turret with cannon armament. The Centurion, as the first modern MBT, also renders the T-34 as an irrelevant choice.

[@emberfist8347]

The reason the Ram Kangeroo wasn't the revolution it should have been until recently was that it was designed as a matter of expediancy and was really another "funny" tank as they were called at the time. After the war, most nations went from unarmored apcs to IFVs due to the issue of NBC protection firepower. Might as well build it from the ground up in that case. The T-14 was only other taker and real turning point as it was designed from the start to serve as a multi-purpose chassis.

As always with mister Smith, so interesting to see other ways to view :)

[@F4GRAPHICS]

Centurion has to be one of the best looking tanks ever built. It and the Japanese Type 74 have such a distinctly tankish look.

[@Futureshucks]

Richard Smith, you a weapons-grade legend. Always a pleasure to learn from you.

[@whya2ndaccount]

Trust the Director to include an APC in a Top 5 tank list - great to be the Boss. :)

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

I'm giving honorable mentions to... British Mark 4 (unlike the Mark 1, Mark 4 was actually successful) Renault FT (already explained by many) Panzer 1(showed how important mobility was) Sherman Crab Flail (not the first, but very successful at dispatching mines) Abrams (US's most developing tank and influential to upcoming future US tanks; including Abrams X) Challenger 1 (an important development away from the under-powered Chieftain) Europanzer (a failure, but was instrumental in development of future tanks for a few countries) Leopard 1 (one of the best off-road performances for the time and majorly used by numerous European countries) and T-14 Armata (major focus on auto-loading and the positioning of its crew already has an influence with Abrams X).

[@wowomah6194]

I think the reason it wasn't a revolution is for a couple reasons: many of the wars post WW2 were either VERY urban or VERY rural/mountainous/desert. So in one sense, infantry could have better eyes on the situation if they staked themselves out in various buildings on rooftops, along corridors and so on, and that way communicate to the tanks where enemy combatants were hiding. Or otherwise, the engagement ranges were SO FAR that infantry would not need to be embedded anywhere near the tanks.

[@Subcomandante73]

Great choice of tanks. Just shows how interesting the whole collection is that you can derive so many Top 5's based on a plethora of criteria.

[@glennhiggins7680]

I love your enthusiasm!!!!

[@markvincent522]

I like this guy! He seems like he'd be fun to party with.

[@PitFriend1]

The main problem with having infantry carriers with tank level armor is the cost. Making vehicles with that much armor is almost as expensive as making a tank in the first place and an army would need a lot more vehicles to carry infantry than battle tanks. The vehicles would be better protected against more things but they can still be knocked out by anti-tank weaponry. And the bigger and scarier you make an infantry carrier the more likely the enemy is to shoot it with the heaviest weapon they can bring to bear, meaning the infantry inside now are being shot by heavier weapons. The Kangaroo was a good use of otherwise surplus Ram tanks but it wasn’t really a game changer. The real start of useful battle taxis were things like the M113 which were cheap enough and protected the infantry inside from small arms and artillery fragments. The BMP-1 would also be a game changer as that was the start of infantry fighting vehicles, while still not well armored they could also fight against things up to and including battle tanks.

[@НиколайТургенев-л1з]

Marvellous! Good presentation. Thanks, Richard.

[@johnkinsella5358]

The failure of the Ram to catch on.... could the battle tacticians have reckoned that each APC did not carry enough troops? Adding a whole extra tank in effect with all the logistics, only to carry a 'handful' of men into battle... maybe they felt that each tank present needed to be a big gun bearer able to shoot it out and the infantry needed to work there way around the battlefield by other means.

[@B4D_5USHI]

In order to understand why militaries have never really invested heavily in the APC I think we can go all the way back to WW2. The United States had a “mechanized infantry division,” a whole division of infantry with enough trucks, jeeps and motorcycles to transport all of them and their equipment. But they sat around in the US until they were finally broken up and sent over with other units. The reason was, if you were a commanding officer on the western front and you looked at what you could ask for as far as reinforcements, they could ship 1 armored division, 2 infantry divisions or 1 mechanized infantry division for the same cost. So while you might think that a highly mobile infantry unit would be useful, and it probably would, if you are choosing between that, 2 whole divisions of infantry or a division of armor it’s obvious that any commander would prefer to either have the offensive advantage of tanks and propelled guns, or the numbers advantage of 2 divisions than just 1 faster division. And I think it’s basically the same problem. It takes a lot of materials and resources to design and produce an APC, and for the same or maybe a little more you could have a tank. And in the grand scheme of things the tank almost always wins out because it can do things an APC can’t, and a truck can transport infantry better than an APC. The only real difference is the survivability of the ground forces and let’s be realistic, that’s not really a priority for the people in charge of making these decisions.

[@mikebikekite1]

An interesting perspective though personally I think the Sherman should of been on there because of it concentrated on ease of manufacture and maintenance on the battlefield. Maybe you should do an episode on interesting tanks that didn't lead anywhere like the S-tank

[@mikebikekite1]

@@realaiglon6382 You're quite correct but I suspect I'll never get it right.

[@johnfisk811]

Worthy but not a turning point I think.

[@mikebrown3772]

Or would that apply more to the M3?

[@seanlander9321]

It would be worthwhile remembering the inventor of the modern tank, Lancelot deMole, the Australian engineer.

[@alm5992]

After seeing so many British tank types in world war 2, the Centurion to me looks like sort of a giant modified Comet. Everyone acts so amazed that this was the next step, but it seemed kind of obvious with the way German and Russian tanks were getting bigger and better. Also, is the Panther seriously not considered to have inspired the Centurion whatsoever? Also, the T-34 isn't the parent vehicle, the A-20 was...

[@Cubcariboo]

Canadian bias aside, I could not agree more with you regarding the Ram Kangaroo! 🇨🇦 🍁

[@progenji6970]

I believe the reason the ram didn’t change armored warfare is logistics: it’s a heavier vehicle than the alternatives and it needs more fuel because of it.

[@badcallsign4204]

Agreed, but I wouldn’t call the Centurion the parent of anything but all Cold War era tanks(which to me, is impressive enough). In my opinion, the Leopard 1 is actually the first true 4th generation tank. It’s optics in later models set the standard not just for today’s tanks, but also todays attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, drones, etc. throughout NATO countries. it’s basic hull and track design are repeatedly copied in all modern Western tanks to this day. In later models, it took armor to the next level when they started with spaced armor improvements on the turret and then decided to fill the gap for batch 5 with high heat resistant, low weight foam and encasing it because heck…Why not? It wasn’t laminated armor in the modern sense, but I feel it was an important stepping stone in approaching the concept for current designs. That’s just my subjective opinion.

[@polticalme1677]

"...or - even worse - the French could have invented the tank!" ROFL!!! That was as British as it could get! Brilliant! And that goes for the complete episode.

[@drydogg]

"... Calling lots of big, large, ugly metal objects 'mother'..." That's great!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

centurion is a tank that looks a lot more modern than it is, then again the US M46 wouldn't be out of place in a NATO line until the 1980s

[@mrjockt]

Especially since the M46 can trace its lineage back to the M26 of W.W.II and then forward to the M60 still in use with many armies today.

[@ducomaritiem7160]

Hi Richard, thanks for the very lively presentation!

[@cheyennereynoso4116]

No joke. I’m Richard smith’s number one fan lol.

[@bengrogan9710]

The reason why the RAM Kangaroo wasn't a turning point is that simply being a critical idea is not enough - the Cent, the T-34 the sherman - all of these where produced in high enough numbers to prove the value of their designs on a wide enough scale

[@zbyszanna]

Is Centurion really the father of the Western MBT? Couldn't you say the same for the M26 Pershing in American army? It evolved with time through M47, M48 and finally into M60. I understand it was revolutionary construction for the Brits, but wasn't it because Brits were behind in tank development during WWII? Was Leopard indeed inspired by Centurion? I have my doubts.

[@kittyhawk9707]

yeah but neither was the Leopard inspired by the M26 was it?? The M26 was a pretty mediocre tank never stayed in service for too long before being replace by the M47 .. whereas the Centurion was still in service lot too long ago with the Israelis

[@LorkiPorky]

Richard, I would l like to see a top 5 tanks you would like in the collection but dont have,,

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Centurion mk. 1 was actually very similar to the Panther - both in armor and firepower, probably also in mobility - and became operational two years later. The T-34 was a typical Soviet product - much better on paper than in reality. But yes, it was a turning point, as it lead to the next turning point: The Tiger 1. When first operational in September 1942 it was the largest, heaviest, most expensive, best protected, best armed, most feared, most agile, most mobile tank - and it remained so for almost two years. It was the only tank to cause a "disease"; Tigerphobia. Never in history has one tank had this margin of superiority over its opponents as the Tiger in the period late 1942 to early 1944. Calling the Ram Kangaroo and Garden Loyd carrier turning points is perhaps stretching it a bit?

[@emberfist8347]

Yep they were dead-ends by the end of 1945.

[@PadraigTomas]

Most agile? Most mobile? You are too enthusiastic.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@PadraigTomas Contrary to myth. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHPRmmSEmZ54sJo kzbin.info/www/bejne/hquWo2iNi69sZ7M

[@812guitars]

Great video and wonderful explanations as to why your list makes sense. I'm really glad you explain precisely how each tank affected subsequent design later down the line. And as for Lindy Beige, let's be real, that dude is basically "Russell Brand" for the world of history. Lol!

[@nigeldeforrest-pearce8084]

Marvelous Choices!!!!

[@m24pl64]

This list: exists Every one: where ft?

[@Pemmont107]

6:30 I'm not any kind of expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong! But wasn't the Panzer III Germany's "workhorse tank" during 1940?

[@typxxilps]

carrier becomes a turning point for tank - pretty impressive rise and fall, so please welcome the carrier days instead of the tiger days that would be an event where everyone has to show up.

[@MultiZirkon]

"...The crucial role of sheds in the development of technology!" -- I love that one 🙂

[@ChullsterOG]

In that first minute of the video I was getting Dennis Norden It'll be Alright on the Night vibes.

[@Slyck255]

"The crucial role of sheds..." brilliant phrase!

[@DeltaDemon1]

That's funny, I was thinking how much the Centurion looks so much like a WWII tank even though it's a more modern tank.

[@jeffreyplum5259]

The two vehicles which did not become immediate heads of game changing developments were infantry vehicles. The British and American Armies were too married to infantry marching or being trucked to the attack. Universal use of armored transport and fighting vehicles was a much later idea. One major influence was the so called Atomic Battlefield. a battlefield made toxic by atomic or chemical weapons.

[@Furniture121]

I think the Ram Kangaroo didn't take off for two reasons: 1. It was Canadian, and therefore seen as inferior by the "major" allies. 2. Infantry were viewed as largely expendable. Large losses were expected, so there was little appetite to "waste" resources on vehicles to protect them.

[@emberfist8347]

3. it was a matter of expediency. It was done because they had too many tanks and not enough half-tracks. 4. Nuclear weapons rendered open-topped APCs obsolete.

[@adrianrutterford762]

Wonderful Thanks

[@wiggernigeria5983]

Renault FT not included - I am speechless .

[@historysimplified4075]

“The number of soviet design is always the date of the design” That’s woefully incorrect. The T-60, T-70, etc are all 1930s and 40s designs, so that’s really easily proven wrong.

[@samjoentess9168]

Loved this ! Enthusiasm at the top 🤩

[@simongee8928]

The Ram Kangaroo is a very interesting and worthy choice in this list.