The Ram | Canada's Most Successful Failure 

Ahhh that's so sad that it disappeared! You've GOT to find it!

Never even thought about that John, thanks for sharing!

Should have given them to the Soviets then, nice and warm.

Even I believe it could’ve performed well inthe Pacific for re equipping Commonwealth forces still using Valentine and Matilda tanks who may not be able to get Sherman tanks.

Would have or would've, not "would of". Sorry but it just triggers me.

No tank with a 57mm gun was a good choice for infantry support. The 57mm was a really good AT gun in 1941-42, and was better than the US 75mm at punching holes in armor. But it had no HE capability, which is one of the key tasks of any tank gun, but especially one tasked with infantry support.

@@executivedirector7467 US M1 gun, export of blueprints of the 6 pounder from britain. Became operational in the north african campaign in 1942. High explosive rounds. It's a 57 mm gun. Incendiary shells as well.

@@trevortaylor5501 The point is that a 6-pounder HE is far less effective than a 13-pounder HE, with less than half the explosive power due to how volume scales. The US Army also figured out early that while 57mm is a better hole-puncher at shorter ranges, under 500 yards, the 75mm retained more of its punching power over longer range, making it not only better for engaging soft targets but also defeating armor in most situations. The main reason the 57mm was used by the US Infantry as their antitank gun was that it was more mobile (you could pull one with a jeep or even manhandle them for short distances). For any application where the weapon could be motorized, be it a tank or tank destroyer, the 75mm was preferable.

More to come!

@@RedWrenchFilms That's great!

Wouldn't make a difference to an 88 or a 75.

@@aksmex2576 might as well not use anything then since everything will just die to an 88

I was gonna say there would be a tank full of headless corpses.

@@aksmex2576 thankfully they were rare compared to the 37 & 50mm Pak

@@bremnersghost948 yes, that's why they say the sherman had great armour, despite what most people believe. You make all the at rifles and small guns obsolete with a bit of armour and that helps alot.

Simple fact is no one had a crystal ball that predicted the future. The Ram and Sentinel were considered inefficient failures because the war went well for the allies after 1942 and the US could supply huge numbers of AFVs to the minor allies, cheaper and more logistically efficient than indigenous designs. But this was with the benefit of hindsight, if things went down differently these vehicles could have been considered excellent forward thinking and vital to the national defense.

@@ausaskar thanks for the heads up and I didn't know that basically the Shermans was cheaper than the Ram and the Sentinel. But I must say that both were excellent backups but the Kangaroos that were created as an expedient measure "in the field" by the Canadian Army and were so successful that they were used by British and Commonwealth forces especially when driving through the flooded areas in Holland. It created the postwar Armoured Personnel Carrier for the armies!

P

The Ross rifle, could have been an excellent weapon if it had not been rushed into service. The failure of the rifle discredited some politicians and advanced the careers of others. If you look into it. The Ross rifle saga is a murky tale indeed and it was a great could have been weapon

@@ausaskar well said.

If only the rest of the allies had Bob Semple tanks!

@@RedWrenchFilms to be fair they would have done well in early WW1, and its not like japanese tanks were good either.

@@RedWrenchFilms Nobody else could have handled the responsibility of its awesome power...

@@ravenof1985 I'm not so sure; they had to come to a halt to turn and only had machine guns.

That is exactly what it says in the video.

Oh wow, you don't know how much I appreciate that. Thank you so much. I just enjoy making the videos so I don't mind so much that they don't get that many views!

@@RedWrenchFilms give it time, you'll beat the RAM! :P

Aw thanks so much really appreciate it!

@@RedWrenchFilms no problem man id like to know what you are working on next though

@@maxbradley4097 Haha hopefully I'll manage to upload in the next few weeks

Thanks so much Dylan I really appreciate it!

Thanks so much Joe!

Yes it was in Italy and was very successful there. So good those captured by the Germans were amazed how remarkable and reliable they were

@@raymondkisner9240 Do you have any evidence of Ram usage in Italy?

the tank museum tank chats

Awesome, thank you!

Canada has long had a tendency to take things manufactured in other countries and make them even better. A good example of this is the C7 service rifle that has been in service with the Canadian Army since 1986. The C7 is essentially a variant of the M16A3, or Colt Model 715 assault rifle. The C7 rifles were manufactured in Canada, under licence from Colt. Approximately 150 improvements were made to the original Model 715 design, such as thicker, heavier hammer-forged and chrome-lined barrels, heavier and more durable breechblocks and more durable furniture. The end result was a more accurate and capable weapon that could withstand Canada's harsh winter climate. Further iterations (A2 models) of the C7 and the C8 carbine variant are in service with the Netherlands Army, the Danish Army, and special forces units in Norway and the UK.

You mean the Huot which was cheaper and much more reliable, yeah unfortunately WW 1 ended before it got mass produced. I really liked the reloading mechanism and the fact it was converted from a Ross rifle is awesome.

Really? No offence to the Ram but it's a slight improvement over the British Army's workhorse in North Africa, the M3 Grant, and a definite slight downgrade from the Sherman which would be in extensive British service by the time the Ram came around. The Cromwell is far superior to the Ram and the later Churchills, while infantry tanks and not necessarily directly comparable, would prove to be very capable vehicles. I don't mean to undermine the Ram here, it's a very impressive design and an efficient use of obsolescent M3 parts and as stated in the video a very capable and successful vehicle. I'll concede that I'd much rather be in a Ram tank than a Crusader or a Valentine but from 1943 onwards it's on-par at best with other Commonwealth and allied tanks. The Bob Semple would blow it out of the water though 😉

@@marmite8959 The Cromwell wasn't seen as superior It still has it faults, the Churchill has great survivability, the Ram would've worked like a normal Sherman but better frontal armour.

@@vothbetilia4862 But the Ram had a much worse gun.

@@executivedirector7467 well obviously, because it was their first tank the made and had the gun shipped from Britain.

You're absolutely correct - the Dutch got given the Canadian Rams after the Canadians went home in 1945.

@@RedWrenchFilms A very fitting tribute to the Canadian forces who helped liberate the Netherlands.

Like the kangaroo carries it's offspring in the relative safety of its pouch, the Kangaroo carried infantry in an armoured compartment.

The unit that converted the rams to troop carriers were code named kangaroo. Their vehicle design was thus called the kangaroo. It was a field modification.

The Ram wasn't the only vehicle named that. It was more a usage designation.

@@toomuchtimeonourhands2891 Per Kurt's comment, they were converted by the Kangaroo workshop in the field. And any tank they popped the turret off of and made into an APC became known as a kangaroo. The Ram is the most well-known "kangaroo".

Really appreciate that! Thanks.

The US M7 Priest was supplied to the British in North Africa early in the war due to a need for self-propelled artillery. They really liked it, but it carried an American 105mm howitzer. The British wanted a similar vehicle but with a British 25 pdr. mounted instead. They were shipped a few such modified M7s. The British determined that this was exactly what they needed. However, when requesting more 25 pdr. M7s from the US, they were told that due to production capacity no more would be forthcoming. British attaches in Washington were asked to keep an eye out for a suitable substitute. Someone came across the Ram. The Canadians removed the turret and mounted a 25 pdr. The British were delighted to have the Sexton. And, as you pointed out, many Commonwealth armies kept them in service decades after the war.

Cheers Gareth! I switched up my microphone set up for my latest 2 videos - let me know if you think they’re any clearer.

@@RedWrenchFilms lol I commented on a later video that you'd fixed it :) my only excuse is I'm old......

They knew it would be impossible to stop!

Almost certainly better than the Lee/Grant - what killed it is the fact that it wasn't quite as good as the Sherman.

@@RedWrenchFilms ~ The Ram helped in the development of the Sherman.

You'd think museums would have no trouble getting hold of actual Shermans for their collections 😤

Actually, the Sherman looks like a Ram. From behind and from the waist down, it is hard to tell the difference. When the Ram was first built, it was apparently brought to the Maryland proving grounds where it was greatly admired by the Americans. By slightly modifying the glacis, and expanding the turret ring to accommodate a new turret capable of housing the 75mm gun, the Sherman was born. Other than these modifications, it is an identical copy inside and out.

My pleasure Nick!

Right - there was a dire need for combined arms capability in British and canadian armored divisions. Usually only one infantry battalion in those divisions had armored halftracks, as compared to three in US armored divisions. There was also a severe shortage of SP artillery - again, in US armored divisions you had three full 105mm howitzer battalions in SP mounts. The Ram kangaroo and the Sexton filled both of these gaps to some extent.

Hi Andy, thanks for the info! Are you sure the Canadians didn't use the Kangaroo with the MG turret? There's some photos online labelled as such. Do you think maybe they were Grizzly or Sherman kangaroos instead? I can't imagine they would've removed the turret from the Ram hull.

@@RedWrenchFilms 06:12 you will see in front a British version and right behind is a Canadian version. Later production versions of the Ram Tank Mk2, had the MG turret removed .

That is not so. You are merely noting the different Ram versions used for kangaroos. They weren't "British" and "Canadian" they were just based on different Ram versions. All Canadian.

Thanks for the sub! I know the narration isn't great but I like to think I've improved on it in my recent few videos :)

@@RedWrenchFilms I think the narration is just fine....very good in fact

To be fair, the idea of combined arms warfare goes back at least to the Romans if not earlier. The Germans were the first to put it into a modern package with armored divisions that combined tanks, mechanized infantry, mechanized engineers, tractor-borne artillery etc all with a flexible command system. The allies copied much of that thinking and thus much of the equipment ideas. The US armored divisions were pretty explicit copies of panzer divisions, with a 1:1:1 ratio of tanks, mech infantry and mech artillery. The British & Canadian divisions had less infantry, and far fewer APCs, not to mention very little SP artillery. They were also organized poorly with a tank brigade and an infantry brigade, which made it harder (not impossible, but harder) to form combined arms task forces. All that said.....the kangaroo was still a great piece of gear because it gave mech infantry an APC that exactly matched the mobility and protection of the tanks they were accompanying. That was a great step forward although I will agree with you that it's hardly a "revolution". More like an evolution to the next stage of mech infantry.

Then you lose your HE capability.

The Sentinel was pretty good!

I'm working on it!

89mm angled too. Meaning it would have near 130mm+ of effective armour on the UFP. Which is incredible for a light weight tank like the ram.

No, it would not have done well because Ram units would have had no HE capability.

@@executivedirector7467 i thought that was the 40mm, British and US 57mm had the Mk 10T and the M303 HE round respectively

Probably would be useful if they ever exported it to the Pacific or India Theatre, increasing Armored forces and vehicles for Commonwealth armies there. With the 57mm being adequate like the 75mm to engage any enemy armor or vehicles, but the HE round is much less effective, unless they rebarreled or replace it with the 75mm QOF which uses the same mounting

@@TheRandCrews Which were almost never available. The 57mm was a better hole-puncher than the US 75mm, but the US and British armies both wanted the 75mm in their tanks for the HE capability.