James Holland | Bottom 5 Tanks | The Tank Museum

It's all about opinions, so please feel free to agree or disagree in the comments below.

Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.

#tankmuseum #tanks

[mttspiii]

Ideas: How about a top 5 (or bottom 5) tank list from the Museum's maintenance crew? Hardest to maintain, hardest to acquire parts for, hardest to make new parts for?

[GAMINGisAWESME]

The best tank of World War 2 was the Maus, no battle causalities and half of them still exist!

[maxkronader]

I have to admit, the Matilda looks like something a reasonably competent hobbyist welder could make in his garage

[burntbybrighteyes]

I feel we’re starting to jump the shark a bit when even the good old panzer 4 starts making worst lists.

[paulfrantizek]

Panzer IV was still effective at the end of the war. Not state of the art, but effective.

Japanese tanks were at the limit of what their infrastructure could handle anyway.

[GreenAppelPie]

You lost me at the Panzer IV. Seriously it was the most reasonable tank the Germans produced at the time.

[TKSSLCHN]

Tank: Marvelous design for its time, just kept in service long past its prime due to war needs.
James Holland: To the bottom with you.

[johnvanstone]

Panzer IV was one of the best tanks the Germans had, produced and upgraded throughout the war, reliable, fast, loved by it’s crew and relatively cheap to make🇬🇧🤘

[ddraig]

JH has written some good books but he seriously contradicts himself here. He rightly points out that the King Tiger was too heavy, too complicated and too unreliable but criticizes the Panzer 4 for not being sophisticated enough.The long 75mm on the later Panzer 4 could comfortably take out any Allied tank bar the JS2, and it was reasonably mobile and reliable.It wasn't heavily armoured but most Allied tanks weren't either.

[HanSolo__]

If it is not as fast as Cromwell, as well armored as Churchill and didnt have such potent gun T-34/85 and Sherman had...
This means it was well balanced in Firepower, Mobility, Protection - isnt the balance that makes a tank any good?

[WebertHest]

Panzer 4; mildly underpowered, but suited to the German needs in 43-45: BAD
Tiger II: overpowered, but unsuited to the German needs in 43-45: Also BAD

Consistency: BAD

[rossedwards]

I feel it would be fairer to judge a tank when it comes out, it is not the tanks fault that it is not replaced

[harrybuttery]

The Panzer IV has a lower siloute than the Sherman and can still penetrate them so I would not say they are worse, same with the T34 and Cromwell(actually I would have put the Cromwell on the list considering it is a late war tank that is riveted, even boxier than the Panzer IV and has a worse gun than the Panzer IV too).

[billd.iniowa]

Not sure why you chose the panzer IV. The panzer III was still kicking around in '44. The early T-34s left alot to be desired too. It took the Soviets awhile to figure out how to make good steel plate.

[mickneighbour]

never thought i'd defend a matilda 1 but 60mm of frontal armour in 1940 was very good

[firebat]

This guy kind of lost me when he called the Churchill a medium tank.

[Cheezymuffin.]

"gets upgunned as well, this one has a 75mm"
yes, as opposed to the early 75mm, or the first long 75mm, this one has indeed the L48 75mm...

[mattbowden]

Putting the Pz IV on a worst tank list? That's not "a bit harsh" - it's bloody delusional. Yes, there were better tanks out there in 1944, but pretty much all of them had been explicitly designed to one up the Pz IV and the upgunned Pz IV was still competitive against ALL of them.

Also, lots of that disquieting experience of watching a published author and "expert" make a minor statement that you know for a fact is flat out wrong. I don't disagree with the thrust of most of what he says and I get that the format means there isn't a lot of opportunity to explore nuance, but all the times you think "hang on, that's not right at all" really undermines your confidence in his analysis.

[spidrespidre]

I completely agree with your #2 choice, the Tiger II. "Yes, it's incredibly terrifying if you come up against it, " but the thing about the Shermans is that they turned up. Ask a Wehrmacht infantryman if they'd rather have 10 Shermans (including a couple with 76mm or 17 pounder cannons) to cover them or a single Tiger II that's too heavy to get over a bridge or waiting for non-existent parts. You can understand the Italians (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese) having crap tanks. For the Germans, with a good-sized economy and wealth of experience of armoured warfare, it was inexcusable, typifying Hitler's spiralling madness and faith in his Wunderwaffe.

As for #1, the Matilda I - it reflects British thinking at the start of the war in that it was always going to be the RAF and Royal Navy that would stop the Jerries from invading. Hence, tank development and manufacture came well down the list of priorities. At one point, the British even considered stopping all tank production and just buying Shermans, demonstrably excellent tanks. Good job they chose not - as the Churchill is my second favourite.

[claytonis]

I very much respect the fact that you took the context of history into account when making this list. Also, your justification was so good for each tank (I admit I was reluctant to admit it for some...) that I ended up agreeing with you. Good job!