Bruce Crompton Bottom 5 Tanks | The Tank Museum 

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

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

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

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

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

Most the time not even rolling tbh

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

slowly rolling bunker ^.^

@@fabiobucher8581 at least half of that time was repairing

you mean a "sometimes rolling bunker"

Lullubelle tank from "Sahara"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six inches can be very important

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

@@HALLish-jl5mo 😂😂😂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@Tephaine yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the main gun was not for tanks. The main gun was for lobbing high explosive shells. British tanks had anti tank guns but no HE guns so no good against trailed anti tank guns or artillery pieces As Rommel had faced British tanks in France, he made sure he had plenty of 88s (The only German gun that could knock out Matildas in 1940)

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

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

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

@@maxkronader5225 The USofA Army disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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