Tonight on bo’om tank I gun it round the nürnburg ring in a BT-7 Richard torches the krauts in a Churchill Crocodile And Jams was caught “only following orders” as he sprayed down Serbian civilians with a turret mounted MG-42
Yes but that's because at 40 his body decided he should look as if he was 50 and I think right about now his actual age has finally caught up with his looks. :)
What *really* impresses me about the Praying Mantis: this was the first time I saw a vehicle and was legitimately unsure which end of it was which, until you pointed it out.
While I do agree with just how bad this thing was..... I also have to say, it is pretty nifty. Well there is one thing I disagree with in this video. The part about nobody asking for it. It seems like he is conflating "not asked for" with "not needed". That is not a reason for something to be called bad, plenty of good things come from things nobody asked for as well. This thing is a great example of both lateral thinking and thinking outside the box. Sure it is a failure, but not from any of what I just talked about. Unlike the concept of 'design by committee' basically being a guaranteed way to fail.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Designed to raise-up and fire over hedges and walls and give the Hun a terrible fright! Or he might of died laughing maybe! :)
I mean, one (only?) thing they nailed perfectly was the name - with the front raised and the guns protruding at its "head" it really looks like taken from a clip from BBC Earth 🤣
I've always wondered how it would play if the devs would bring in multi-turret ability that's been used in a couple of seasonal specials. I love the looks of it, but man it's terrible as an over-tall hull mounted TD-wannabe in it's current iteration inside WoT.
Recently revisited the Tank Museum. I very much appreciated the revamped War Stories display, as well as the Live Display out in the arena. Thank you for your steadfast commitment to the preservation of this mechanical, and human, history.
TOG 2.. the only tank that can hit the top of any list... even best music producer... or sexiest man from the 70s... its allways no1 on all the lists. becouse its the TOG...
My one wish about the TOG 2 would be to find out if a hypothesis that occurred to me is either true or false. In David Fletcher's video on the TOG 2, he mentioned that he could not figure out what one member of the crew was supposed to be doing. Another video mentioned that some of the men who crewed the prototype had experience on submarines. The TOG 2 uses an electromechanical drive train. The main engine drives a generator and there are electric motors driving the tracks. My hypothesis is that the TOG's designers solved the problem of controlling the main engine, the generator and the motors to run optimally through the entire vehicle's speed range by scaling the electrical panel of a diesel-electric submarine to the power levels of the vehicle. One crewman has the job of throwing the switches in the correct order, at the correct time, to keep the TOG on the move
@@tacomas9602 Sort of. The positions of the switches determine the excitation of the motors and generator, and possibly reconfigure the stator windings of the electro-mechanical devices. The switch man could also do other useful things like monitor the temperatures of the windings to prevent excessive heating from burning out the motors on long trips. As the larger tanks in WWI had two men helping the driver shift gears, reducing it to a single man was an improvement.
the praying mantis was as a suggested solution for the bocage fighting in Normandy - the idea was to spot above the bocage and fire ad hidden German positions.
Similar concepts in use today in Ukraine with hydraulic cherry pickers, and with the Israeli Army using telescopic jibs to raise observers and cameras.
The Bison was very good for what it was good for, being driven into the middle of an airfield and just getting in the way. It was never intended to work as a tank or armoured car.
You know, the so-called killdozer did a pretty good job of showing how well concrete works in this function, since a huge portion of its armor was concrete. It did have steel as well, but I do not know what kind of steel it was and as we all know, an inch of regular steel is nothing like an inch of armor plate. Given that it was a homebrew killing machine, I am guessing that it wasn't armor plate.
With regard to Jingles comment about the 17pdr., the Centurions were originally armed with this gun as well, the 20pdr. didn’t come along until a couple of years later, long after the Black Prince had been abandoned.
Centurion is cruiser/medium/MBT, Black Prince is HEAVY infantry tank. Different criteria and doctrinal use. French 75mm was outdated as gun for medium and heavy tanks post WWII, but it was mighty fine for Chaffee light tanks. Centurion has very different "weight budget" from Black Prince.
@@TheArklyte, but both tanks were initially armed with the same gun, both the Centurion Mk.1 (essentially a pre-production trials model) and the Mk.2 were equipped with the 17pdr., it wasn’t until the Mk.3 came along that they switched to the 20pdr.
@@mrjockt oh, he did mix up the dates, I just mean that while he did so, he's still essentially 100% right about Black Prince - Centurion comparison. "Task failed successfully" so to speak. Same problem is what many people say about T-34/76 and KV-1 they have basically the same armor(KV-1 was more armored, but due to angling and german guns in question, they both were able to bounce same guns and were overmatched by same list of guns. Germans simply didn't have a medium power gun that could pen T-34, but was unable to pen KV-1) and have the same gun. So what's the point of slow and unreliable KV-1?
@@TheArklyte You can't ask "What's the use of the KV-1?". The KV has it's uses and particularly with the KV-85 and KV-2 leading the way. Tanks when designed basically have their upgrade potential all mapped out and prepared for incoming upgrades and the KV did just that. Because the T-34 was being built as a medium tank, their turret ring are relatively smaller than heavy tanks and when the KV came out, it was a phenomenal tank that scared the Germans shitless as you said, they hold the same armor thickness in theory but the actual thick armor of the KV bounced off anything lower than 88mm whereas the T-34 in its early days during Barbarossa could see its armor being punched through the long barrel 50mm in the Panzer III even at 500m if it hit it at a good spot. However, that's not the only point the KV has. As mentioned, the KV was not only good with it's armor, it's turret ring was also its savior or masterpiece. The KV was then a platform for the Stavka to try different cannons to see which works or not and soon, they did. For example, during the Winter War, the KVs were used and their guns were in the same caliber as the T-34 that was still in minimal production stage, the L-11 but then the F-34 gun performed well on the KV and soon they fitted the better F-34 76mm cannon on the T-34 too. Then they tested the 85mm D5T gun on the KV1 chassis and thus, the KV-85, they found it to be amazingly good but now with the 75mm KwK 40 being a regular show up on German Panzer IV and StuG III by mid 1942, they need a better elliptical tank with the same armor thickness of the KV but a more slopped armor like the T-34 but retain its big turret ring and thus, the IS-1 was born.
I feel the Bison is being unfairly treated here it is as you say a mobile bunker not a tank, it was supposed to be used to help defend airfields from paratroopers. the furthest it had to travel would have been from the yard to the middle of the runway as a Bunker it has an amazing amount of mobility
@@wmd1520 why would you have a tank on an airfield in the middle of the UK? at worst its going to face paratroopers not tanks and at best as is the case it will face nothing more than bombing raids
@@graveperil2169 It would make use for obsolete tanks that the British had in their inventory ? I guess though if you look at Crete, holding onto airfields to prevent enemy use was key to defending that island.
@@yankee1376 I think you're overestimating how powerful hand-grenades are. They are shrapnel weapons designed to clear rooms/foxholes/etc. You can't shape or aim the charge either, so only a portion will go up. So you've got a fragmentation charge, almost all of the force going in the wrong direction, which you can't place *against* the hull, and in the way is the metal frame and a sturdy wooden floor (the Museum's Bison is a Thornycroft Tartar). And that's only IF you actually HAD a grenade available, as Fallschmirmjager dropped with most of their gear in crates. Imagine facing that lorry with only a Luger and a shovel, and you are closer to the mark.
This is the most logical bottom 5 list I've ever seen. By far. Any list that puts the Panther, Panzer IV, Tiger, Sherman etc in the bottom 5 is just being controversial for the sake of it and isn't using logic. This list is spot on.
Well, to be fair, Jingles has fallen out of WoT himself too. He mostly posts WoWs content nowaday, with an occasional WT or WoT inbetween. He's become so much WoWs focussed he is even a regular on the Armchair Admirals WoWS stream and has his own Captain in the game.
@@Tuning3434 He also covers other games besides Wargaming stuff. It's jsut that he's most consistent with postinng Wargaming content. He kind of has a habit of starting games but not contuing to show videos of them after only a few videos. But he did finish up Subnautica Blow Zerro fairly recently and has recroder a coupld Finl Fantasy Online vidoes.
Some of my favorite videos have always been the ones The Mighty Jingles filmed at the Tank Museum at Bovington, along with some of his other museum visits to other spots. So glad to see this on The Tank Museum's channel. ✌💯😁
it was actually a one man band project, someone (possibly this channel) has done a full video on it, and explains why it was made the way it was despite what Jingles might claim here.
I think personally, if I was making a list like this I wouldn't include experimental vehicles. There's a reason they were never put into production... There are however some tanks that were accepted into service and mass produced, where you have to wonder just who gave it the green light.
I would say the Churchill had decent mobility. Sure it was slow as anything but mobility isn't all about speed. It's cross-country performance was extremely good and the Churchill could climb very steep gradients that no other Allied tank could achieve, in that regard it was pretty good.
Aye. For the role of Infantry Support that she was designed for, the Churchill was excellent. Only when Centurion came along did she have competition for climbing hills and taking punishment. (it's often forgotten that the later variants had thicker and better profiled frontal armour... than a Tiger)
@@Henchgirls The mistake with the black prince over the Churchill seems to be that they decided to give it more of what it had plenty of and not more of what it had too little of.
Churchill was not too bad...it was not too good... Good climbing but poor mechanically. Churchill has poor gun and although armour was good but, Jadgpanther penetrated it easily!
Number 5: not a tank Number 4: not a tank Number 3: finally a tank, that was ok really even by Jingles (boohoo bad in a vidyagaem) Number 2: prototype tank (6 made) Number 1: and another prototype (1 made)
I think the Bison is a pretty decent idea - a budget, portable concrete bunker basically. Handy for setting up road blocks or protecting airstrips or scaring the crap out of parachutists. Obviously it's no good as an armoured carrier or as a tank, but it had a useful role when it was conceived.
The Bison was a Runway defence vehicle and not a Tank (Yes i know Jingles is unable to tell one vehicle / ship / plane from another). Large established Sector Airfields had fixed defences. However there were a lot of new airfields getting built that didn't have any. These vehicles were to provide defence whilst the new airfield was being built and then move on when the fixed defences were complete. A large open runway with no obstructions or base defences is just asking for gliders to land on it. Hence parking trucks like this on it.
Quite right - and the limited mobility of the Bison (which has an S in the middle not a bloody Z) would not really matter so much when everything was nice and flat and either tarmac or turf. As German assault troops airlanding would have to rely mostly on small arms at the start of an assault, being bullet proof was all that was needed.
Yeah but even for that the design is still horrible honestly. Armored cars had been developed decades before that, Halftracks, armored trucks are all a thing at the time this thing is concieved. I get there was desperation going on but it would already be heavily improved by putting a small machine gun turret/ring on it instead small holes to shoot through. All the concrete bunker did was slow down the truck more. Even the design of the bunker is bad, It is a bunker on all 4 sides, same with the driver compartment. If they had connected the driver and bunker compartments they could have done away with a decent amount of weight, had more room for everyone and maybe even space for somewhat heavier weapons.
Ive said it before and im saying it again, I just love the voice of Jingles 😍 He has such a pleasing narrative voice and always sound so happy it’s contagious 😂😍 One of the most important traits for doing videos imo. Ofc the content is important but this combined with a good voice makes the great UA-cam’s stand out :)
Imagine being a German Infantryman, holding the Siegfried line, when suddenly a concrete bunker starts speeding down a road coming right for you, blasting god save the king.
Jingles starting in front of the TOG 2... noo, you tease! P.s. Everybody forgets the M3 was a nasty shock for the german anti tank artillery crews in the desert. They had grown quite unused to the concept of if the enemy is in range, so are you!
I didn't have a problem playing the M3 in World of tanks, Well, that was because I started my adventure in WoT going down the American TD line, which included things like the T40. So when I decided to give the Medium tank line a go, I played it exactly like a TD, Finding a nice bush or a spot to snipe from. I wouldn't call it stellar, but I never understood the hate it got.
Since I was a kid I've read that the Normandy "bocage" was why. Whacking great hedges separating paddocks from roads and giving the Wehrmacht perfect cover for ambushes.
6:20 Although I do agree with Jingles' points, it is worth mentioning that Black Prince was developed alongside Centurion 1, which was also armed with a 17-Pdr, not a 20 as stated here. The 20-Pdr wasn't developed or used until shortly after the war's end, by which point the BP project had long since been dropped.
Nah. That makes things too complicated. The "Holy Trinity" is just an approximate guide. It sort of exists because armour and mobility are a trade off, you can generally only have one or the other. It's kinda the same for mobility and fire power.
Love you channel mighty jingles! I learned recently that you served in desert storm, my dad also served in desert storm with the 101st airborne. Thankyou for your service buddy!
I think there's an argument for not picking a bunch of experimental ideas that were rejected because they were poor rather than working from tanks that were put into use even though they were bad
I quite like the Bison. It's job was to be trundled gently into the middle of an airfield to counter a paratroop or glider attack. For a pillbox that isn't in the way for day to day plane movements and can withstand small arms fire, it ticks every box of it's design brief. Aaaaand, it's utterly unbeatable in Tank Top Trumps with that concrete armour...
I visited the tank museum mid July. I live in Edinburgh and travelled all the way down with my girlfriend by car. We both really loved it and I wouldnt have known about the museum if I hadnt watched Jingles. Thank you so much Paul from a long time Jingles subscriber.
I would add 2 very important points to the "fire-power, speed and armor" categories. Reliability and cost. Never underestimate the nightmare that is logistics.
Except he forgot that Mobility doesn't = speed, rather all mobility characteristics. As such he said Churchill had poor mobility... the Tripoli & Korean campaigns disagree XD. (as does the fact that Churchill technically was the first Tank with Nuetral Steer [that worked], making her the fastest turning Tank in the world at the time)
@@jimtaylor294 yeah you might look that up.... thats on the A7V, not the Churchill. but mobility includes speed, turningspeeds, deployability, climing ability etc. and in the majority of aspects, the churchill was horrible. an outdated design dinosaur even before production that kept on living, due to necessity, not due to sucess.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yes, the most survivable tank of the war was a failure Yes, the tank with best climbing of the war was a failure. Yes, one of the best armoured tanks of the war was a failure. I completely agree with you in every way and see no glaring holes in your logic.
^ As nonsensical a reply as I expected, factually bereft on every level. The A7V had no such feature (and was a dismal failure), and the accredited first Tank to feature Nuetral Steer was the French Char 2B. (though unlike the Churchill there's no evidence that it ever worked) The Churchill only lacked Speed out of those mobility facets; which was typical for Infantry Support Tanks & Heavy Tanks of the period. The gun Tanks lasted in service into the 1950's, and the engineering variants also lasted in Army service into the late-1960's, long after most of her axis rivals had become museum exhibits & razor blades.
I haven't plat WoT for years but The Black Prince was one of my most successful tanks and I didn't mind taking it out. The gun was barely adequate but it seemed happy to squat down under a rain of fire and do whatever damage it could squeeze out.
Aw man.....I went to the Tank Museum in 1994 and take great pride in telling everyone who (doesn't) ask that I have been in every one of the tanks on display. It looks like they have added to the collection since then so that is no longer the troof!....It was really quiet that day and no one was around so I ignored all the "Do not go in the display" signs and had a whale of a time....Funny how 2 years later I bacame a Sapper, must have been an influence somewhere.....Great vid Jingles!...
Points to note : Churchill had GOOD mobility. Mobility doesn't just mean top speed. Churchill traveled at a maximum speed of only 15 mpH,. BUT it could climb over anything and was notoriously good (for it's weight class) in deep mud. Many other tanks travelled faster on road and over good terrain, true , but then again ,...that's the easy part.
5:14 That’s a myth. The Soviets never called the M3 the ‘Coffin for seven brothers’, in fact they appreciated its firepower in much the same way as the British, and they even considered using it as APC due to its spacious interior. The only tank the Soviets called a coffin for anything was, in fact, their own T-60, the ‘Coffin for Two Brothers’, because it was virtually useless in most combat situations against German AT guns and autocannons, with armour only proof enough against bullets.
Awesome video. Nice to see Mr. Jingles talking about tanks. Going to order some books and clothes from the tanks museum shop next month. Cheers everybody!
It's difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of some of these tanks, especially if you've only ever seen them in World of Tanks, even though the game tries to make them kind of as accurate to their real-life counterparts as possible. When Paul was sat on top of the Black Prince or when he was next to the M3 Lee, I was astonished as to the actual scale of those tanks!
I love the tank museum and jingles. But I have to wonder if they would be jointly liable if I had in fact just clicked so hard that my phone display had shattered. Love you guys
To be fair, you can't really judge the Thorneycroft Bison using tank design criteria, because as you say... it's not a tank. It was an emergency stop-gap movable pillbox and as such it meets its design requirements.
Praying Mantis is in fact a perfect example of designing a vehicle for a niche role because it was designed to fire over hedgerows in Normandy and by the time they had the prototype Normandy was long over.
The TOG accepts its place at the bottom because it's a power bottom. It takes your flanking penetration and asks for more. They knew what they were about when they designed it. Look at that marvelously large back end.
Aa rather different approach to TTM's "top 5" video chats. BUT. Loved it. Quirky, humorous, and strangely enough, factual. Cheers from here; the other side of the Pond, hard by Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada... ;-)
@@zxbzxbzxb1 Buddy, in TANK units. It was bad at engaging other TANKS. The US Army and Marines in the Pacific and Army in Europe used them to support infantry in place of the M8 Stuart with the 75mm pack howitzer. The Lee was better armored, and with 75mm HE for its main gun and 37mm canister shot up top, it was absolute murder on bunkers, MG nests, and infantry. Additionally, if an infantry division with Shermans in its tank battalion had Grants instead of Stuarts in the assault gun battalion, the vehicles used some parts in common (same chassis) which simplified logistics. Finally, if fire support vehicles like the M8 Stuart or M7 Priest came under attack by enemy tanks, they were totally screwed. Grants in the same position had a better chance.
IIRC the Germans still had plenty of 20-50 and short 75 mm armed tanks/AT guns in North Africa at the time the M3 Lee debuted, and so the Lee’s 75 and range + armor and reliability were appreciated. Not everything was a Tiger, 88, or long 75. Italians did have some tank destroyers but most of their tanks and AT guns were lighter calibers.
Actually Jingles... In 1945 when the Black Prince was being trialled, the Centurion only had a 17 pdr gun (though it was intended that this would soon be upgraded, never the less, at the time it had top of the range firepower). Also, the mobility of the Churchill wasn't actually bad. Its top speed wasn't good, but as an infantry tank, that was almost the point... But it's still renowned for its exceptional terrain climbing ability (above many supposedly "more mobile" tanks).
"..terrible mobility of course." That seems an odd comment considering one of the things the Churchill was best known for was its climbing ability. Sure it was slow but speed's not the only aspect to consider.
The terrible mobility thing was about the Black Prince. A 50+ tone tank on a 330hp engine. The Black Prince lost all of the Churchills advantages through shear weight.
The TOG2 is the best tank cause it's the only tank that would carry your family, friends and picnic gear, all while covered in armour and with a big gun.
I enjoyed playing the Black Prince in WoT. Ok, I realize that I'm probably the only person on the face of the earth that would ever say that. It was gawd-awful slow. And the gun was nothing to sing songs about. But it was good at what was able to do: hold a choke point, angle the armor, dare anyone to fire at you, while you freed up your teammates so they could pour in the firepower against everybody shooting at you. Yeah, I liked it.
World of Wanks has the M3 Lee/Grant with a hit box unusable turret. Despite having perfectly working multi turret tanks in their Halloween event. It is half the tank it should be... This same game has armor that grows then reduces and guns that gain and loose penetration, from year to year. While all Soviet tanks come from the planet Kryptonite.
After several years of WoT experience I recently went back to the M3 to see if it was as bad as I remembered and if I could now play it any better. I love that vehicle to death now.
From official Wargaming wiki page about M3 Lee. "Its frontal armor can also be penetrated easily, thereby putting the driver in constant danger of injury and greatly hindering survivability in a fair fight. Also, Jingles hates it."
Alright lads welcome to bottom gear, I mean tank
tonight on bo'om tank,
Richard breaks a T-34,
James shoots an Italian meatball with a 380mm rocket,
And I set fire to little willie
Haha richard crashes an kv-1
Jurmey mends an panther gearbox.
And jams switches sides
a
Is there nowhere you won't follow me, Iron?
Tonight on bo’om tank
I gun it round the nürnburg ring in a BT-7
Richard torches the krauts in a Churchill Crocodile
And Jams was caught “only following orders” as he sprayed down Serbian civilians with a turret mounted MG-42
Jingles never ages. He looks just as young as he did like 8 years ago.
Yes but that's because at 40 his body decided he should look as if he was 50 and I think right about now his actual age has finally caught up with his looks. :)
If his WOT commentary is anything to go by, he's been senile for at least that long.
That happens when you age into old age earlier
when you reach the level cap you stop leveling.
@@ImRandomDude
He's like the Michal McDonald of gaming
i mean.. 18 months AFTER he was asked to do this, is pretty much on time for this "old man"
much love Jingles :)
Well actually.... He drove there in the TOG 2. So he did it as fast as he could
@@Terkelchr you know, im perfectly willing to believe that.
and he would be laughing the entire way too :D
I first misheard as 80 months and didn't really react to that. Still seemed about right.
I'm always weirdly reassured and soothed when Jingles tell us to Take care, stay safe, and that he'll catch us next time.
what if he didnt catch you nex time .........................
because you were too fast for him?
Yeah well I've watched his videos for eons and he hasn't managed to catch me yet.
I see it as a threat. Because I just escaped saltmine shaft #8. Horrible shaft really. I want my #11 back!
What *really* impresses me about the Praying Mantis: this was the first time I saw a vehicle and was legitimately unsure which end of it was which, until you pointed it out.
Reminds me of a "tick tank" from C&C Tiberian Sun, so much so that I wonder if this thing inspired the game devs to come up with that silly concept.
While I do agree with just how bad this thing was..... I also have to say, it is pretty nifty.
Well there is one thing I disagree with in this video. The part about nobody asking for it. It seems like he is conflating "not asked for" with "not needed".
That is not a reason for something to be called bad, plenty of good things come from things nobody asked for as well. This thing is a great example of both lateral thinking and thinking outside the box.
Sure it is a failure, but not from any of what I just talked about. Unlike the concept of 'design by committee' basically being a guaranteed way to fail.
If the tog II ISNT on this list, frankly, Jingles aint himself today
As if he would put tog bottom tanks never!
Oh dear just watched it and he put tog 1 lmao I was wrong
Lol, TOG is maybe the only tank that could make the top 5 best and worst depending on you criteria and bias. It is so bad it is good.
TOG don't care, TOG tops every list
The TOG belongs in the maritime museum.
That Mantis looked like a claustrophobe's nightmare!
I still have no idea how it is supposed to function!
I'd say worse than a nightmare - I just googled it for images : OMG 🤣🤦♂️
That's almost any tank really.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Designed to raise-up and fire over hedges and walls and give the Hun a terrible fright! Or he might of died laughing maybe! :)
I mean, one (only?) thing they nailed perfectly was the name - with the front raised and the guns protruding at its "head" it really looks like taken from a clip from BBC Earth 🤣
The TOG is long enough to be on the Top 5 and the Bottom 5 list.
😂
Yet still shorter than K wagen
😂 you win the comments.
TOG always wins.
Thought you were being harsh about the Grant until I heard your reasoning - completely right about it on WoT!
I've always wondered how it would play if the devs would bring in multi-turret ability that's been used in a couple of seasonal specials.
I love the looks of it, but man it's terrible as an over-tall hull mounted TD-wannabe in it's current iteration inside WoT.
@@VosperCDN probably just as bad, potato luncher at the top wouldn't do much other than harassing lower tiers...
Does anyone still play WoT other than Russians?
@@VosperCDN you can play in Warthunder with all guns working.
just saying... :)
You should not judge the merits of an actual fighting vehicle off a (badly designed) GAME. Ask the crews, combat and repair. For shame!
If he’s including the Bison why not corporal Jones’ converted butcher’s van?
That would be the number 1 armoured vehicle!
Just " Don't panic"
Rubbish video tbh..
Jones' van had formidable armament; "Open two three, out two three, bang two three, bang two three..."
OPEN, two, three
OUT, two, three
BANG, two, three
BANG, two, three
BANG, two, three
BANG, two, three
BANG, two, three
IN, two, three
CLOSE
He was waiting for his tickets to download from a Microsoft server.
Hahahahahahaha!
Recently revisited the Tank Museum.
I very much appreciated the revamped War Stories display, as well as the Live Display out in the arena.
Thank you for your steadfast commitment to the preservation of this mechanical, and human, history.
I stopped playing WOT and WOW. But , I still watch Jingles and Claus for the giggles. And finally, Jingles came to his senses with the TOG:)
Bored of the endless grind and never satisfying battles xad I don’t blame you
Classic Jingles to confuse a truck with a tank
You're lucky he didn't think it was an Imperial Japanese Navy cruiser.. although he can't say "Bison" correctly
@@frederickvondinkerberg7721 "You might be wondering what a Imperial Japanese navy cruiser does in my list of the worst tanks. Let me explain..."
TOG 2.. the only tank that can hit the top of any list... even best music producer... or sexiest man from the 70s... its allways no1 on all the lists. becouse its the TOG...
My one wish about the TOG 2 would be to find out if a hypothesis that occurred to me is either true or false. In David Fletcher's video on the TOG 2, he mentioned that he could not figure out what one member of the crew was supposed to be doing. Another video mentioned that some of the men who crewed the prototype had experience on submarines. The TOG 2 uses an electromechanical drive train. The main engine drives a generator and there are electric motors driving the tracks.
My hypothesis is that the TOG's designers solved the problem of controlling the main engine, the generator and the motors to run optimally through the entire vehicle's speed range by scaling the electrical panel of a diesel-electric submarine to the power levels of the vehicle. One crewman has the job of throwing the switches in the correct order, at the correct time, to keep the TOG on the move
@@richardbell7678 so basically a manual shift crewman lol
@@tacomas9602 Sort of. The positions of the switches determine the excitation of the motors and generator, and possibly reconfigure the stator windings of the electro-mechanical devices.
The switch man could also do other useful things like monitor the temperatures of the windings to prevent excessive heating from burning out the motors on long trips.
As the larger tanks in WWI had two men helping the driver shift gears, reducing it to a single man was an improvement.
TOG is love, TOF is life.
the praying mantis was as a suggested solution for the bocage fighting in Normandy - the idea was to spot above the bocage and fire ad hidden German positions.
... once the crew finished vomiting.
Similar concepts in use today in Ukraine with hydraulic cherry pickers, and with the Israeli Army using telescopic jibs to raise observers and cameras.
If only the crew could've seen outside!
The Bison was very good for what it was good for, being driven into the middle of an airfield and just getting in the way. It was never intended to work as a tank or armoured car.
You know, the so-called killdozer did a pretty good job of showing how well concrete works in this function, since a huge portion of its armor was concrete. It did have steel as well, but I do not know what kind of steel it was and as we all know, an inch of regular steel is nothing like an inch of armor plate. Given that it was a homebrew killing machine, I am guessing that it wasn't armor plate.
With regard to Jingles comment about the 17pdr., the Centurions were originally armed with this gun as well, the 20pdr. didn’t come along until a couple of years later, long after the Black Prince had been abandoned.
Centurion is cruiser/medium/MBT, Black Prince is HEAVY infantry tank. Different criteria and doctrinal use. French 75mm was outdated as gun for medium and heavy tanks post WWII, but it was mighty fine for Chaffee light tanks. Centurion has very different "weight budget" from Black Prince.
@@TheArklyte, but both tanks were initially armed with the same gun, both the Centurion Mk.1 (essentially a pre-production trials model) and the Mk.2 were equipped with the 17pdr., it wasn’t until the Mk.3 came along that they switched to the 20pdr.
@@mrjockt oh, he did mix up the dates, I just mean that while he did so, he's still essentially 100% right about Black Prince - Centurion comparison. "Task failed successfully" so to speak. Same problem is what many people say about T-34/76 and KV-1 they have basically the same armor(KV-1 was more armored, but due to angling and german guns in question, they both were able to bounce same guns and were overmatched by same list of guns. Germans simply didn't have a medium power gun that could pen T-34, but was unable to pen KV-1) and have the same gun. So what's the point of slow and unreliable KV-1?
@@TheArklyte You can't ask "What's the use of the KV-1?". The KV has it's uses and particularly with the KV-85 and KV-2 leading the way.
Tanks when designed basically have their upgrade potential all mapped out and prepared for incoming upgrades and the KV did just that. Because the T-34 was being built as a medium tank, their turret ring are relatively smaller than heavy tanks and when the KV came out, it was a phenomenal tank that scared the Germans shitless as you said, they hold the same armor thickness in theory but the actual thick armor of the KV bounced off anything lower than 88mm whereas the T-34 in its early days during Barbarossa could see its armor being punched through the long barrel 50mm in the Panzer III even at 500m if it hit it at a good spot.
However, that's not the only point the KV has. As mentioned, the KV was not only good with it's armor, it's turret ring was also its savior or masterpiece. The KV was then a platform for the Stavka to try different cannons to see which works or not and soon, they did.
For example, during the Winter War, the KVs were used and their guns were in the same caliber as the T-34 that was still in minimal production stage, the L-11 but then the F-34 gun performed well on the KV and soon they fitted the better F-34 76mm cannon on the T-34 too. Then they tested the 85mm D5T gun on the KV1 chassis and thus, the KV-85, they found it to be amazingly good but now with the 75mm KwK 40 being a regular show up on German Panzer IV and StuG III by mid 1942, they need a better elliptical tank with the same armor thickness of the KV but a more slopped armor like the T-34 but retain its big turret ring and thus, the IS-1 was born.
I feel the Bison is being unfairly treated here it is as you say a mobile bunker not a tank, it was supposed to be used to help defend airfields from paratroopers.
the furthest it had to travel would have been from the yard to the middle of the runway as a Bunker it has an amazing amount of mobility
Yes, it's probably the most mobile bunker history.
Idealy you would have actual tanks, like Matilda but its not bad for an improvised truck
This man is really trying to defend a concrete bunker with wheels
@@wmd1520 why would you have a tank on an airfield in the middle of the UK? at worst its going to face paratroopers not tanks and at best as is the case it will face nothing more than bombing raids
@@graveperil2169 It would make use for obsolete tanks that the British had in their inventory ?
I guess though if you look at Crete, holding onto airfields to prevent enemy use was key to defending that island.
The Bison absolutely had the necessary mobility and protection for the role it had: Airfield defence.
Yeah. If I was guarding an airfield and German Paratroopers started showing up, I would rather have a few than not.
I wouldn't want to be in it if a simple hand grenade exploded under it.
@@yankee1376 I think you're overestimating how powerful hand-grenades are. They are shrapnel weapons designed to clear rooms/foxholes/etc. You can't shape or aim the charge either, so only a portion will go up. So you've got a fragmentation charge, almost all of the force going in the wrong direction, which you can't place *against* the hull, and in the way is the metal frame and a sturdy wooden floor (the Museum's Bison is a Thornycroft Tartar).
And that's only IF you actually HAD a grenade available, as Fallschmirmjager dropped with most of their gear in crates. Imagine facing that lorry with only a Luger and a shovel, and you are closer to the mark.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431 Plus concrete armour spalls on the outside unlike steel which spalls on the inside.
Pretty useful for denying a landing, just park the bugger in the middle of the runway
This is the most logical bottom 5 list I've ever seen. By far. Any list that puts the Panther, Panzer IV, Tiger, Sherman etc in the bottom 5 is just being controversial for the sake of it and isn't using logic.
This list is spot on.
Haven't seen Jingles stuff in ages since I fell out with WoT, honestly thought he'd finally bought it, nice to see some old classics survived 2020.
Well, to be fair, Jingles has fallen out of WoT himself too. He mostly posts WoWs content nowaday, with an occasional WT or WoT inbetween. He's become so much WoWs focussed he is even a regular on the Armchair Admirals WoWS stream and has his own Captain in the game.
@@Tuning3434 He also covers other games besides Wargaming stuff. It's jsut that he's most consistent with postinng Wargaming content. He kind of has a habit of starting games but not contuing to show videos of them after only a few videos. But he did finish up Subnautica Blow Zerro fairly recently and has recroder a coupld Finl Fantasy Online vidoes.
I stopped watching his stuff back in 2012 , same ol annoying dude 🙄
Idk why he'd died, I don't even think he's in his mid 50s, he just looks older than he is
@@BlackHawkBallistic he's just reached lvl 51 I believe...
And he looks older because of the beard
I guess it does make sense to have the TOG II* as #1 on both of your lists, since it is the best worst tank. All hail the party tank!
The first thing I see when I load the video is a comment giving away #1. Nooooo! 🤣🤣
If he ever makes a boat list, it will also be on top
@@james.black981 Well he tipped you off at the beginning sitting next to it, didn't he?
It was the best of tanks, it was the worst of tanks.
KV-2 has joined the chat
not watched jingles for some years, but i clicked this fast
Some of my favorite videos have always been the ones The Mighty Jingles filmed at the Tank Museum at Bovington, along with some of his other museum visits to other spots. So glad to see this on The Tank Museum's channel. ✌💯😁
The Praying Mantis seems to be the definition of what happens when a number of different departments all get their wires crossed
it was actually a one man band project, someone (possibly this channel) has done a full video on it, and explains why it was made the way it was despite what Jingles might claim here.
I think personally, if I was making a list like this I wouldn't include experimental vehicles. There's a reason they were never put into production... There are however some tanks that were accepted into service and mass produced, where you have to wonder just who gave it the green light.
I would say the Churchill had decent mobility. Sure it was slow as anything but mobility isn't all about speed. It's cross-country performance was extremely good and the Churchill could climb very steep gradients that no other Allied tank could achieve, in that regard it was pretty good.
The black prince was far too heavy for the engine it had, though.
Aye. For the role of Infantry Support that she was designed for, the Churchill was excellent. Only when Centurion came along did she have competition for climbing hills and taking punishment.
(it's often forgotten that the later variants had thicker and better profiled frontal armour... than a Tiger)
@@Henchgirls The mistake with the black prince over the Churchill seems to be that they decided to give it more of what it had plenty of and not more of what it had too little of.
@@Henchgirls The Black Prince was awful. But the Churchill was decent
Churchill was not too bad...it was not too good... Good climbing but poor mechanically. Churchill has poor gun and although armour was good but, Jadgpanther penetrated it easily!
Number 5: not a tank
Number 4: not a tank
Number 3: finally a tank, that was ok really even by Jingles (boohoo bad in a vidyagaem)
Number 2: prototype tank (6 made)
Number 1: and another prototype (1 made)
Its justa bit of fun for the tank museum for things they have at the museum.
I think the Bison is a pretty decent idea - a budget, portable concrete bunker basically. Handy for setting up road blocks or protecting airstrips or scaring the crap out of parachutists. Obviously it's no good as an armoured carrier or as a tank, but it had a useful role when it was conceived.
The Bison was a Runway defence vehicle and not a Tank (Yes i know Jingles is unable to tell one vehicle / ship / plane from another).
Large established Sector Airfields had fixed defences. However there were a lot of new airfields getting built that didn't have any. These vehicles were to provide defence whilst the new airfield was being built and then move on when the fixed defences were complete.
A large open runway with no obstructions or base defences is just asking for gliders to land on it. Hence parking trucks like this on it.
It was an awful vehicle but it did provide something without taking away production from companies actually making tanks.
Quite right - and the limited mobility of the Bison (which has an S in the middle not a bloody Z) would not really matter so much when everything was nice and flat and either tarmac or turf. As German assault troops airlanding would have to rely mostly on small arms at the start of an assault, being bullet proof was all that was needed.
He literally said, I know this isn't a tank
Yeah but even for that the design is still horrible honestly.
Armored cars had been developed decades before that, Halftracks, armored trucks are all a thing at the time this thing is concieved. I get there was desperation going on but it would already be heavily improved by putting a small machine gun turret/ring on it instead small holes to shoot through.
All the concrete bunker did was slow down the truck more.
Even the design of the bunker is bad, It is a bunker on all 4 sides, same with the driver compartment. If they had connected the driver and bunker compartments they could have done away with a decent amount of weight, had more room for everyone and maybe even space for somewhat heavier weapons.
@@charchadonto 1940 was a desperate time with the Home Guard armed with pitchforks and knives tied to broomhandles.
Ive said it before and im saying it again, I just love the voice of Jingles 😍 He has such a pleasing narrative voice and always sound so happy it’s contagious 😂😍 One of the most important traits for doing videos imo. Ofc the content is important but this combined with a good voice makes the great UA-cam’s stand out :)
Imagine being a German Infantryman, holding the Siegfried line, when suddenly a concrete bunker starts speeding down a road coming right for you, blasting god save the king.
Ahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
Hah!
"Speeding"!
had a top speed of 15 mph, was so overweight it could only be used on the flattest ground, hence its use exclusively as a runway defence system
Jingles starting in front of the TOG 2... noo, you tease!
P.s. Everybody forgets the M3 was a nasty shock for the german anti tank artillery crews in the desert. They had grown quite unused to the concept of if the enemy is in range, so are you!
What redeemed the M3 Lee was the Pacific Theater where it abosolutely curb-stomped Chi-Has and Ha-Gos.
I didn't have a problem playing the M3 in World of tanks, Well, that was because I started my adventure in WoT going down the American TD line, which included things like the T40. So when I decided to give the Medium tank line a go, I played it exactly like a TD, Finding a nice bush or a spot to snipe from. I wouldn't call it stellar, but I never understood the hate it got.
Since I was a kid I've read that the Normandy "bocage" was why. Whacking great hedges separating paddocks from roads and giving the Wehrmacht perfect cover for ambushes.
6:20 Although I do agree with Jingles' points, it is worth mentioning that Black Prince was developed alongside Centurion 1, which was also armed with a 17-Pdr, not a 20 as stated here. The 20-Pdr wasn't developed or used until shortly after the war's end, by which point the BP project had long since been dropped.
I think ‘reliability’ needs adding to the Holy Trinity of tanks.
Nah. That makes things too complicated. The "Holy Trinity" is just an approximate guide. It sort of exists because armour and mobility are a trade off, you can generally only have one or the other. It's kinda the same for mobility and fire power.
I thought the same thing. Assuming reliability leads to tanks like the Crusader
And ergonomics.
The pentagram of tank design; because you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
But then almost every british tank would fail
Yea !!!!, the ever intresting mighty Jingles.
Lots more Jingles please Tank Museum :)
Love you channel mighty jingles! I learned recently that you served in desert storm, my dad also served in desert storm with the 101st airborne. Thankyou for your service buddy!
thank you
I think there's an argument for not picking a bunch of experimental ideas that were rejected because they were poor rather than working from tanks that were put into use even though they were bad
I have no idea who this bloke is, but I love his commentary. I feel a little weird saying that i love the work of "Mighty Jingles", but there it is.
The shop is way expensive, needlessly so, but the museum is definitely worth the visit.
I quite like the Bison. It's job was to be trundled gently into the middle of an airfield to counter a paratroop or glider attack. For a pillbox that isn't in the way for day to day plane movements and can withstand small arms fire, it ticks every box of it's design brief.
Aaaaand, it's utterly unbeatable in Tank Top Trumps with that concrete armour...
The relationship between Jingles and TOG II is unrivaled. True love!
I visited the tank museum mid July. I live in Edinburgh and travelled all the way down with my girlfriend by car. We both really loved it and I wouldnt have known about the museum if I hadnt watched Jingles. Thank you so much Paul from a long time Jingles subscriber.
I would add 2 very important points to the "fire-power, speed and armor" categories. Reliability and cost. Never underestimate the nightmare that is logistics.
Only Jingles could have the same tank at the top of both lists for the same reason!
Acthualhy Jingles the TOG had a very good gun so it couldnt tick all the boxes. Now Im off to the mines again.
The same gun as the early Centurion
Mighty Jingles has got it right, don't agree with his choices but the criteria formula is spot on, thank you Jingles...
Except he forgot that Mobility doesn't = speed, rather all mobility characteristics. As such he said Churchill had poor mobility... the Tripoli & Korean campaigns disagree XD.
(as does the fact that Churchill technically was the first Tank with Nuetral Steer [that worked], making her the fastest turning Tank in the world at the time)
@@jimtaylor294 yeah you might look that up....
thats on the A7V, not the Churchill.
but mobility includes speed, turningspeeds, deployability, climing ability etc.
and in the majority of aspects, the churchill was horrible.
an outdated design dinosaur even before production that kept on living, due to necessity, not due to sucess.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yes, the most survivable tank of the war was a failure Yes, the tank with best climbing of the war was a failure. Yes, one of the best armoured tanks of the war was a failure.
I completely agree with you in every way and see no glaring holes in your logic.
^ As nonsensical a reply as I expected, factually bereft on every level.
The A7V had no such feature (and was a dismal failure), and the accredited first Tank to feature Nuetral Steer was the French Char 2B.
(though unlike the Churchill there's no evidence that it ever worked)
The Churchill only lacked Speed out of those mobility facets; which was typical for Infantry Support Tanks & Heavy Tanks of the period.
The gun Tanks lasted in service into the 1950's, and the engineering variants also lasted in Army service into the late-1960's, long after most of her axis rivals had become museum exhibits & razor blades.
@@jimtaylor294 Excellent, this community is fab...
I’ve been looking forward to this.
This one has been long overdue.
Thank you ever so much.
I needed something to cheer me up today, and this managed it nicely!☺
I like when the guest gives a sort of guideline why he picked those tanks.
I haven't plat WoT for years but The Black Prince was one of my most successful tanks and I didn't mind taking it out. The gun was barely adequate but it seemed happy to squat down under a rain of fire and do whatever damage it could squeeze out.
Aw man.....I went to the Tank Museum in 1994 and take great pride in telling everyone who (doesn't) ask that I have been in every one of the tanks on display. It looks like they have added to the collection since then so that is no longer the troof!....It was really quiet that day and no one was around so I ignored all the "Do not go in the display" signs and had a whale of a time....Funny how 2 years later I bacame a Sapper, must have been an influence somewhere.....Great vid Jingles!...
Jingles wanted to pet the miniature Tog so much 😂😂
Haha, thank you. Loved it!
Points to note : Churchill had GOOD mobility. Mobility doesn't just mean top speed. Churchill traveled at a maximum speed of only 15 mpH,. BUT it could climb over anything and was notoriously good (for it's weight class) in deep mud. Many other tanks travelled faster on road and over good terrain, true , but then again ,...that's the easy part.
Churchill, yes. Churchill Black Prince... not so much.
Thanks !! Reallt is a mighty choice...!!!!
With that tog kit, there's only one phrase for it ... Shut up and take my my money
It's honestly great.
5:14 That’s a myth. The Soviets never called the M3 the ‘Coffin for seven brothers’, in fact they appreciated its firepower in much the same way as the British, and they even considered using it as APC due to its spacious interior. The only tank the Soviets called a coffin for anything was, in fact, their own T-60, the ‘Coffin for Two Brothers’, because it was virtually useless in most combat situations against German AT guns and autocannons, with armour only proof enough against bullets.
Brilliant Jingles!!!!
A truly Mighty Jingles list!
Perfect, just perfect!
Thank you Gnome Overlord!
Great video Jingles !
Awesome video. Nice to see Mr. Jingles talking about tanks. Going to order some books and clothes from the tanks museum shop next month. Cheers everybody!
It's difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of some of these tanks, especially if you've only ever seen them in World of Tanks, even though the game tries to make them kind of as accurate to their real-life counterparts as possible. When Paul was sat on top of the Black Prince or when he was next to the M3 Lee, I was astonished as to the actual scale of those tanks!
Good old Jingles. Cheers for the upload.
I have been looking foward to this
I love the tank museum and jingles. But I have to wonder if they would be jointly liable if I had in fact just clicked so hard that my phone display had shattered. Love you guys
To be fair, you can't really judge the Thorneycroft Bison using tank design criteria, because as you say... it's not a tank. It was an emergency stop-gap movable pillbox and as such it meets its design requirements.
Praying Mantis is in fact a perfect example of designing a vehicle for a niche role because it was designed to fire over hedgerows in Normandy and by the time they had the prototype Normandy was long over.
Solid choices, Jingles.
The TOG accepts its place at the bottom because it's a power bottom. It takes your flanking penetration and asks for more. They knew what they were about when they designed it. Look at that marvelously large back end.
Aa rather different approach to TTM's "top 5" video chats. BUT. Loved it. Quirky, humorous, and strangely enough, factual. Cheers from here; the other side of the Pond, hard by Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada... ;-)
They might be the 5 worst tanks but at last Jingles identified them all correctly. Hurray for Jingles.
are you sure about that, he called the Bison a Bizun
@@frederickvondinkerberg7721 that's close enough for government work
Your reason for the Lee on the list: best, biggest laugh I have had in 15 months! LOL thanks for that Jingles!
Im a simple man... I see a new video from Jingles, or the tank museum, and i watch it Lol
The M3 Grant/Lee isn't a great _tank,_ but used as an _assault gun_ in the infantry support role, it excelled.
Yh, it excelled so much that units replaced with Shermans as soon as humanly possible...
@@zxbzxbzxb1 Buddy, in TANK units. It was bad at engaging other TANKS. The US Army and Marines in the Pacific and Army in Europe used them to support infantry in place of the M8 Stuart with the 75mm pack howitzer. The Lee was better armored, and with 75mm HE for its main gun and 37mm canister shot up top, it was absolute murder on bunkers, MG nests, and infantry.
Additionally, if an infantry division with Shermans in its tank battalion had Grants instead of Stuarts in the assault gun battalion, the vehicles used some parts in common (same chassis) which simplified logistics.
Finally, if fire support vehicles like the M8 Stuart or M7 Priest came under attack by enemy tanks, they were totally screwed. Grants in the same position had a better chance.
Love this guy freaking hilarious
At 4:30 i remember his famous review of the m3 lee in WoT
well done...selecting the TOG 2 for both lists is genius
Glad to see Jingles back at The Tank Museum!!
IIRC the Germans still had plenty of 20-50 and short 75 mm armed tanks/AT guns in North Africa at the time the M3 Lee debuted, and so the Lee’s 75 and range + armor and reliability were appreciated. Not everything was a Tiger, 88, or long 75. Italians did have some tank destroyers but most of their tanks and AT guns were lighter calibers.
Oh here we go this'll be good grab your popcorn folks ^~^
The praying Mantis reminded me of the turret on the APC from Aliens
And this is why this list is #1 in my worst 'bottom 5 tanks' list!
Actually Jingles... In 1945 when the Black Prince was being trialled, the Centurion only had a 17 pdr gun (though it was intended that this would soon be upgraded, never the less, at the time it had top of the range firepower).
Also, the mobility of the Churchill wasn't actually bad. Its top speed wasn't good, but as an infantry tank, that was almost the point... But it's still renowned for its exceptional terrain climbing ability (above many supposedly "more mobile" tanks).
"..terrible mobility of course."
That seems an odd comment considering one of the things the Churchill was best known for was its climbing ability. Sure it was slow but speed's not the only aspect to consider.
The terrible mobility thing was about the Black Prince. A 50+ tone tank on a 330hp engine. The Black Prince lost all of the Churchills advantages through shear weight.
@@dessertfoxo4096 Nah, he was definitely talking about the standard Churchill.
@@buggs9950 even so, the later Churchills, mk6-8 suffered the same being high 40s of tones.
The TOG2 is the best tank cause it's the only tank that would carry your family, friends and picnic gear, all while covered in armour and with a big gun.
"jingle bælls, jingle bælls jingle all the way"
Ho Chi Min has let himself go...LOL
The first was not a tank, it was armoured but only to carry troops. The Mantis was only a machine gun carrier, not a tank.
I enjoyed playing the Black Prince in WoT. Ok, I realize that I'm probably the only person on the face of the earth that would ever say that. It was gawd-awful slow. And the gun was nothing to sing songs about. But it was good at what was able to do: hold a choke point, angle the armor, dare anyone to fire at you, while you freed up your teammates so they could pour in the firepower against everybody shooting at you. Yeah, I liked it.
World of Wanks has the M3 Lee/Grant with a hit box unusable turret.
Despite having perfectly working multi turret tanks in their Halloween event.
It is half the tank it should be...
This same game has armor that grows then reduces and guns that gain and loose penetration, from year to year. While all Soviet tanks come from the planet Kryptonite.
ALL HAIL OUR GNOME OVERLORD THE MIGHTY JIINGLES!!!
I surprised that was the opening for this program
Bren gun carrier: it works great and fills multiple roles!
Praying Mantis: but what if we put a tower on it?
After several years of WoT experience I recently went back to the M3 to see if it was as bad as I remembered and if I could now play it any better. I love that vehicle to death now.
I did the same with the Grant, if you play it right with a 100% crew you can really hurt people at that tier.
In WOT Blitz the M3 is a pretty nice tank and not all that hard to play.
From official Wargaming wiki page about M3 Lee.
"Its frontal armor can also be penetrated easily, thereby putting the driver in constant danger of injury and greatly hindering survivability in a fair fight. Also, Jingles hates it."
omg, first time i have a face to that voice i´ve been always listening while watching his videos :D