Rob Bell | Bottom 5 Tanks | Institution of Mechanical Engineers | The Tank Museum
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Discover the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and explore a career in Engineering www.imeche.org/careers-educat...
Top 5 Tanks playlist • TOP & BOTTOM 5 Tanks
Rob Bell, TV Presenter and Engineer, presents The Institution of Mechanical Engineering's Bottom 5 Tanks at The Tank Museum, looking at what makes a tank an engineering disaster!
00:00 - Intro
00:31 - Bottom 5 tank
06:59 - Bottom 2 tank
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum UA-cam channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP & become a Friend: ►tankmuseumshop.org/
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
Stay up-to-date with the latest Museum news, videos, and special offers: mailchi.mp/e6fae2ac8bee/newsl...
#tankmuseum #tanks
The Covenanter achieved one of it's design goals. It was impossible to hit because it never got to the battlefield.
I never knew Richard Hammond was interested in tanks 😶
Thought was Hugh Jackman
Only if he can crash them.
Hammond is interested in guns and military equipment in general. I don't see why tanks would be outside of the scope of his interests.
@@yellowjackboots2624 not the looks, the way he talks.
"...and on that terrible disappointment..."
I do like your contributions, Rob. You don’t just say “this is bad/good because….” but you go on to give a moral in the lessons we can learn.
Now I feel the urge to design a tank.
Exactly what I was thinking.
@@tor6684 Me too.
Chieftain's failings with the engine are largely to do with the fact that the powers to be couldn't bring themselves to admit the engine was crap and replace it, struggling along for years.
It's ok to make a mistake as Rob rightly says, the real tragedy is not to suck it up and make changes when it happens.
By the first Gulf War the Royal Engineer's chieftain AVREs had a better availability rate than both Challenger I and the M1 Abrams. Then again, that might have been down to the large number of spare engines since chieftain had been withdrawn from service as a front line tank, and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers had 30 years experience of swapping out broken chieftain engines.
@@DERP_Squad Chieftain AVRE? I think we still had Centurion AVRE in Gulf War One. We did have Chieftain bridgelayers though.
As for sappers replacing packs, we had the REME for such uncouth tasks :)
Reminds me (somewhat OT) of the history of SpaceX trying to catch and reuse the cargo fairing halves after a rocket launch. First they built a big net on top of a ship. Did not work. Then they built a larger net on top of a ship. Still did not work. But then they said, screw it, we'll make the fairings a bit more resistant to saltwater, just pick them up from the drink and give a good wash.
And this... works.
@@DERP_Squad Royal Engineers don't swap out engines. REME swap out PowerPacks.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Sorry for dirtying the hands of the Royal Engineers with the concept of replacing power packs. I've corrected the comment to put the REME in their oily place.
My understanding was that some of the chieftain AVRE conversions were sent out to Iraq in 91, though I'm not sure how many. The centurion version might have been more common. The point that the Leyland L60 was reasonably reliable after 30 years of development is still true though.
There was 0 chance the Covenanter wasn't gonna be this list haha
In complete fairness to people thinking you're The Hamster, your face is the right sort of shape and you've got his animated, cheerful expressions.
Apart from Robs about two foot taller.😁
But the height!
@@fus149hammer5 and he doesn’t talk like a three counties drive time radio presenter
And the voice
@@PeriLlwynog Yes the height isn't right, but the rest is.
People need to start walking up to Richard Hammond and asking him if he's Rob Bell.
"The world needs more engineers"
As a Frostpunk player, I approve that message.
Automatons > Engineers
You need engineers to build automatons
"Four years ago, I couldn't even _spell_ 'engineer', and now I are one."
As a (half engineer, half scientist depending on the project) Rob's presentation was excellent. I look forward to watch more of his presentations! Well done Rob!
I cannot praise this presentation enough. As an engineer for over 35 years, what Rob Bell stated should be presented to every engineering student and every newly minted graduate. These are important lessons that literally cannot be emphasized enough. Good design is hard because you are always balancing and compromising. The tank's iron triangle of protection, mobility and firepower is a crucible for any engineering team.
The Germans have never really figured out the value simplicity & reliability. If you don’t believe me, ask your mechanic.
Rob Bell is the man. He really gets into what he's presenting. Like a young Tony Robinson
I have heard that the Chieftain makes an excellent firing platform if it happens to break down in a good gunnery position.
The quote I always come across, along similar lines is:- "The Chieftain was the best tank in the world, so long as it broke down in a good firing position" :)
My compliments to Rob. This is the most interesting Top/Bottom 5 episode yet.
Multi-fuel vehicles were seen as a necessity for the atomic war. With the challenges of WWII logistics in nit to distant memory, being able to operate on whatever you could find sounded great.
It did indeed 'sound' like a great idea, and probably was cooked up in a meeting of officers who had little experience in logistics, and less in engineering. I imagine it went through committees and the engineers who knew that it wasn't a good idea were never given the opportunity to give input.
The multi-fuel requirement was introduced by NATO in 1957. However the two other wide spread tank designs contemporary with chieftain, the M60 and Leopard I, both were designed with diesel only engines. The designers came to the conclusion that a tank that worked when one fuel was available was more useful than one that didn't work when any fuel was available.
Further, the chieftain engine wasn't as useful as the phrase 'multi-fuel' would suggest. It took an engineering team 8 hours and the use of a field workshop to modify the engine to work on a fuel other than diesel, and the same to modify it back again. This is assuming that the parts to conduct the modifications were available. The time it would take to modify a company of tanks to run on petrol or jet fuel would probably have been better spent finding a logistics unit that had some diesel.
Yep, we have to design fuel pump systems for aircraft to be able to operate on multiple fuel types, it was a requirement of potential war with Russia. But the point is valid, always question the requirements.
"--at the time." The saying is "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
When I was in Army (post cold war) It was one army one fuel. When did that become the solution? It seems like the way to go.
Multi-fuel itself isn't even the main issue. There are working multi-fuel engines out there (the AGT1500 of the M1 Abrams and the LD-series of the M35 and M54 cargo trucks come to mind) that have been widely used for decades without the sorts of reliability problems that the Chieftain suffered. The surplus M35 is very common in civilian use in the US and the engine is well regarded.
It's the particular engine/design the British used that is the issue. That, and the fact that the British never really planned on using anything besides one fuel in it. At least the US army regularly uses a different fuel (jet fuel for the Abrams is now standard instead of Diesel, though it means the smoke generator is no longer usable). The British should have done what the rest of NATO did and use a normal engine.
People forget that the L60 engine was extensively used by the Indian army in the 42 ton Vijayanta tank. A variant of the vickers Mk1. The engine proved to be reliable when rated at 534 bhp rather than the early Chieftains 585 bhp
Yep, an absolute essential at the start of every project is to question ALL of its requirements/assumptions and see if they pass the "real world sanity test."
In the final anaylsis, it's an engineer's job to deliver products that work properly, and if you manage to incorporate some future upgradability, that's a bonus.
Superlative engineering analysis and principles. And a Shakespearean quote! Henry V Act 1 Prologue: "Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention!" Now that's what I calls a Top or Bottom 5 Tanks presentation, mateys. Thank you very much RB.
Do you know what they say about people who start sentences with $5 words like "superlative"? Just wondering... lol
@@MFKR696 Actually over here they don't charge us for using words, "super" and "superlative" are both free so why not splash out? ;)
@@AndrewsGamarra Nothing's "free", bud. Not even you lol.
Ah yes, Cultivator No. 6 is one of those ideas that are rarely known about but need to be as a source of lessons.
Loved this list and the reasoning behind it. The engineer always needs to be free to say "Wait, you want it to do what????.... No."
My late father in law was a major in REME, knew as much about the Chieftain as anyone and was part of the team that tried to sort out its engine problems. He agreed that it wasn't a good tank.
Hello fellow engineer here. Exiting career in engineering is a fantasy let's be real
This could be the start of a complete series on tank design. You have great history videos, workshop dairies and other educational videos. Engineering would compliment everything
He didn't crash any of them and he looks taller without Clarkson and May next to him... good video
Thanks Rob and Tank Museum, that was an excellent presentation, which some great engineering lessons.
These lessons are very applicable for any mechanical engineer.
As a mech eng'g myself, I agreee.
Or any Engineers really. When I have had the privilege of getting involved with the training of trainee engineers, one of the most important lessons I try to teach them is that there will be times when the answer to a request has to be "No!".
Having been a crewman on chieftain for more years than I care to mention this tank holds a special place in my heart.
So can’t believe it’s No1 I have nursed these engines pouring gallons of oil in on the move to get where your going.
Must haves vs nice to haves. The traditional engineers trap.
In modern language; adding features because you can does not necessarily give you a better product.
Example: Windows 8,10, 11.
yeah, bloated, Blue Screen of Death, Freezes...... is pretty much shorten lifespan of most PC due to the need to suddenly turn it off to restart it, damaging the hardware in the process. =_=
@@ihatecabbage7270 Absolute nonsense.
Windows Vista and to a lesser degree 8 were the only ones to avoid. A touch of the Luddite mantra here.
@@Twirlyhead ME, 95. Not very good either and i stick to 10 and 11. No added value, just a load of crap you don’t want. Telemetry. Updates, UI
@@baronvonslambert Agree. But you needed to know what you were doing. It was more cumbersome to maintain it then moving to Linux today.
As a retired engineer myself, I approve this list. 😁
You state that the Chieftain is a superb tank with one design flaw ( the engine) so how is that deemed the worst tank when the museum has umpteen examples of vehicles with numerous design flaws
You could argue that its worse to destroy an otherwise great tank with one bad part thats never fixed than to design a bad tank you can learn from, his list is subjective to him anyway
It's the biggest lesson to learn.
8:38 "He deserved better than this tank" I mean... so did Alvin York (M247 Sergeant York)
M247 is not exactly a tank to be fair
So did Philip Sheridan (M551 Sheridan light tank).
They know we're going to need a video on Nellie now, right?
agreed. I want to know more about this beast.
Yep yep, first I've heard of it. Now I want MOAR
Absolutely! And we need to go over to Moran's channel and get an "Inside the Chieftains Hatch" episode on it as well.
@@thekinginyellow1744 indeed, though it's possible or even likely that none survive at all, let alone within the Tank Museum's collection especially given it wasn't a tank and was apparently built by the Royal Navy of all people...
Although with Churchill being in charge at the time maybe not entirely surprising.
There is/was a wooden full size model made by the National Trust in Clumber Park, it was due to be moved to a children's playground somewhere.
I'm surprised he didn't pick the A38 Valiant
That definitely should have been Number 1 on the list.
The mistake the designers and engineers in this tank made, was forgetting that the enemy are on the outside, not the inside, of the tank.
To be fair, this list is more about the lessons to be learnt in engineering rather than which is worse than the other. These tanks seemed to be chosen because they demonstrate those lessons quite well. Valiant has many things wrong with it, but it perhaps doesn't demonstrate any one lesson particularly well.
@@JumpSeeker I mean the eventual sole purpose of the Valiant was to show engineers how to NOT build a tank.
@@Frserthegreenengine What particular lesson would you attribute the Valiant to?
It's interesting and very welcome to get an engineer's perspective on tanks. Too many commentators see tanks solely from the guns-and-armor or tactical point of view, without ever looking at them as machines. But it doesn't matter if the gun and armor are great if the machine carrying them is no good.
A lot wrong with the Leyland L60 but nothing wrong with opposed piston 2 strokes, Junkers, Rootes, Napier and Doxford proved. The Rootes (Commer) TS3 and Napier Deltic were legendary for reliability and power for their class.
The L60 was adapted from the Junkers Jumo D205, but Leyland managed to make a complete mess of what was originally a reliable engine when Junkers made it.
The wiki article is informative: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_L60
@@Slaktrax As I recall; nobody in that period managed to make an effective diesel aero' engine. Even today they remain uncommon.
True re-engine cylinder orientation; though I can't think of a Tank that's made such a setup work well.
(apparently the Soviets tried such a "boxer" engine in a Tank; and it didn't turn out well either)
The similarly arrayed Meadows engine in the Covenanter was supposedly good in of itself; but not as used in said Tank of course.
I think the dominance of V configuration engines in Tanks is for good reason, a bit like how X format engines never were have been a hit in aviation.
What an orator, I would have listened to this if it were a shopping list delivered like this.
Cracking video - love the angle of the lessons from the examples
Interesting and entertaining , Rob. Very impressed with the associated engineering lessons.
I laughed so much after the 18 second introduction. Gotta be the best Start to a Video ever. I have not watched the rest yet as i type this, i dont think its going to beat that intro though. Seen the rest, yeah, its ok. L60 Power Plant, British Leyland, i say no more as older British viewers will know the same from thier cars. We are all so familiar with that. But, it has to be the NO.1 of Tank Noise Engines....EVER. Did anyone out there actually crew 05EB65 ? Good video from a different perspective. Thanks.
That was a great video. Thanks to the Institution of ME and The Tank Museum.
best instalment of this series so far, by far.
this was quite a bit more fascinating then i thought it would be. bravo sir!
The 2 Inst of Mech E's are my favorites of the “Top 5", "Bottom 5" series.
If it's any consolation I would never mistake you for Richard Hammond for one obvious reason.
You've chosen trousers that actually fit you.
Terrific video, absolutely fascinating, thanks Rob
"Hey guys, The Valiant used to try to amputate it's drivers feet and only ever travelled 20 yards shall we make that the worst tank?"
"Nah, let's go with the Chieftain, that has a mildly dodgy engine."
"Oh my god you're right!"
Each new contributor tries to not copy the others and yet bring in something new with them. Everybody going after Valiant would be underwhelming.
Except that never happened, made up by Fletcher
@@totalcookie4953 there is an inside video that shows the problem. How exactly is it made up?
Because it didn't cost anybody a leg? Well, maybe if you use your ears and eyes you'd notice that nobody(except you) claimed it in the first place. But they showed how you can lose it in heat of the moment.
Because far less money went into the Valiant project before they canceled it. If the British would try to to fix its flaws, throwing more money at this thing, then it would make it on the list.
@@TheArklyte no it doesn't, i know the video, and its terrible, the valiant reports are in the archives and there is 0 reference to this issue. period
Great video 😎 The lessons hold up across all types of engineering too!
Rob made a fantastic, well argumentated presentation, top notch work!
Freaky, my Chieftain was 04 EB 66 ( 9Tp, C sqn, 3RTR later handed over to the 4 Skins ), didn't have too many nightmares with the old girl and we did a lot of miles in bad conditions. Unfortunately she was smelted, there's a database somewhere but I can't remember where I found it ( I think it was through the army rumour service website ) that tells you what fate that befell a particular tank.
Ok y'all need to have Rob Bell back for a top 5 best tanks too. This guy is great!
ua-cam.com/video/eCzEr732Gss/v-deo.html
@@AndrewsGamarra Well I need to learn to read lol
The Nellie is something i never heard of before and I love to hear about cool new things from the that time period so thank you .
Really enjoyed your list and reasons. Good video!
I would have said any tank held together by rivets, but you showed us much more!
I love the focus on reality, that is what engineers need to do. It is up to scientists to deal with the theory, love the rest of the design principals as well.
Very interesting and informative video thank you for sharing.
I get that the engineering explanations in this are oversimplified, but the part about the Chieftan's L60 is outright misleading. The Leyland L60 was not a bad engine due to its 2-stroke design, or due to its opposed-piston design. 2-stroke designs are often more reliable than their 4-stroke counterparts, and opposed-piston designs are not inherently unreliable.
The Leyland L60 suffered heat stress problems, often suffering and failing due to cracked cylinder liners, lip seal failures, ruptured piston rings, and rear gear case failures. None of these had anything to do with the engine being an opposed-piston design or a 2-stroke design. Rather, these issued stemmed from the design being based off of a constant-speed variable-load train / generator engine, which wasn't suitable for the high heat and stress a tank engine will incur during operation.
This guy is a great communicator.
Good to see.
Thank you Mr. Bell. I applauded and salute your brave straight forward and sensible approach to this Engineering quandary. Bravo good sir, bravo. ^~^
Great presentation and good to see engineers being promoted.
If you were to swap out the hateful L60 and put a decent engine into the chieftain it would be possibly one of the best tanks ever made
Diesel version of RR Griffon would have done nicely.
It happened. The Iranian contract Chieftains had conventional engines, and the development program that this started eventually led to the Challenger and Challenger 2.
And a more modern suspension - Vickers were building export tanks with a Torsion bar suspension around the same time Chieftain was spawned and yet......?
@@cryhavoc999
At the time, the good old Chiefy was the heaviest NATO MBT and therefore possibly too much for a Torsion bar setup.
The Horstmann spring pack was reliable and rugged as well as battle proven (Centurion used them), so no increase in Logistics.
@@aaronpentith130 M60 was only a few tons lighter. If Vickers had made it - it would have had a Torsion bar suspension.
I lived in West Berlin in the 1970s. Whenever the British were moving around their Chieftains on the streets, inevitably one of them would break down and block the road for at least half a day.
I worked at Perkins Engines in Peterborough not Stafford who weir responsible for the Large diesel engines Perkins produced but most diesel technology research was done at Peterborough I was at a packing shop (done off site in Peterborough)were I first saw the basic block casting of the said Achilles tendon and was given a full explanation of the Multifuel Arrow through it I was a serving member of the then Territorial Army REME corps as an Attached LAD to a reserve Battalion British Army of the Rhine (we are talking mid-cold war)So I was somewhat disturbed on Exercise Crusader to note the amount of Power-pack changes taking place on the Chieftain
The Covenanter tanks should have been supplied to the Soviet Union as Lend Lease in 1941-42, instead of the Matilda.
In the frigid weather around Leningrad, the Covenanter’s cooling system would have worked fine. In the Russian winter, the hot pipes from the radiators running through the crew compartment would have provided comfortable warmth for the crew, instead of cooking British crews alive in the North African desert.
Also the Russians are very skilled and practical when it comes to engineering, and probably would have been able to fix the Covenanter’s other reliability issues when the British could not.
The Covenanter wasn’t the greatest fighting tank in WW2, certainly no match for a T-34. But in 1941-42 the Soviets were desperately short of tanks, and beggars can’t be choosers. The Covenanter would have been an improvement over the BT-7, in terms of armour protection (the BT-7 only had a paper thin 22 mm of frontal armour.)
The British Matildas sent to the Soviet Union were badly needed in the Far East, against the Japanese. Malaya and Burma were lost without them.
Lol, Germans attacking your country. Here are tanks that we cant fix in factories. Try to fix them in the field. :D :D :D
No, Russians were not very skilled and practical when it comes to engineering. It was an agriculture state that industrialized itself just 5 years ago. Many of them saw a first car in the army.
The reason why Covenanter wasnt transported by a convoy to Russia is because its crap risking sailors to transport it is wrong. Covenanter’s cooling system is just a one obvious example of what in it was wrong. The engine was also bad. Soviets didnt even want Crusaders (witch is an upgraded Covenanter) because a 'fast tank' that you have to maintain often is a slow tank. It has no advantages. Matildas could at least withstand German standard AT gun.
The British Matildas sent to in the Far East were badly needed in the Soviet Union , against the Germans. Malaya and Burma was just a side show to the war in Russia. Both UK and USA agreed that defeating Germany is their main goal.
you do realize russian summers get extremely hot ?
The Soviets did not have better engineers during the war, they had some great ones, true. At this stage of the war though, they could not afford the resources to fix problem tanks.
Some decent fighter aircraft would have been more use in Burma than a bunch of tanks
Any counterfactual that involves giving the Soviets worse equipment and worse support from the UK in 1941-42 imagines a war where the Soviet front collapses. It’s hard to understand how desperate and brutal that period was just from British sources.
Amazing presentation, loved it!
that was fun to watch thank you :)
So, the end sentiment basically is the good old KISS principle. 🤣
the TOG drivetrain story reminds me of a lesson imparted by my brother: "that sounds like a high tech solution for a low tech problem"
This is not the case. Regular drivetrain/gearbox/steering system for heavier tanks (no clutch-brake) was at that time also high tech.
@@PavelNygryn gears and clutches were already in use.
@@kenbrown2808 Ofcourse. That's why smaller tanks used clutch-brake steering. Very simple, very ineffective. Heavier tanks can't used that and new systems have to be invented. They were. But none of those advanced system for heavier tanks in WWII was known as "reliable". Metallurgy and precision manufacturing for these systems was too much "high end" at this time.
@@PavelNygryn and electric drive was worse.
@@kenbrown2808 As it turns out in the end ;) I mean this was not case of "hight tech solution vs. simple solution". All solutions were high tech, difficult, expensive and previously unproven.
Richard Smith OBE might be as annoying as hell in these videos, but he has the best chair of any UA-camr. Not one of those fancy "gaming chairs", he uses a Centurion tank!
This guy is genuinely FUNNY !!! And INTERESTING !!!! Please more vids with him ... on whatever engineering tank challenges but please DO MORE !!!
I was stationed in 20 Armoured Bde in the early '70's. The Life Guards and 9/12th Lancers were lucky if they could get half their Chieftans through an exercise. REME were doing constant pack changes. On the plus side, Chieftain was winning inter service gunnery competitions all over the place.
As a Tiffy in Canada, the Chieftain caused me to have no sleep for a week before injuring myself and getting casevacted. But I did achieve 12 out of 14 tanks available everyday during the exercise which I believe is a record!
World needs more engineers +1
The chieftans engine problems were mostly resolved towards the end of its life in the Brit Army with things like new cylinder sleeve seals but by then the damage was done - the were times in the Rhine army where only 18% were left serviceable after an exercise!
Same with the asparagus crops ...😂
My first day driver training at Catterick in 87....both Chiefys broke down..ouch
Speaking as both a chemical and mechanical engineer, the lessons on the philosophy of engineering, and the responsibility of the engineer to speak out when the client's specifications are causing problems... including potentially fatal problems... are crucial, and well presented in this video.
There's also a time to speak up and firmly inform the client that their concept and reality are at odds...
Finally, the quote from Dyson Freeman is a good philosophy for the engineer to consider... we are charged by our clients / employers to deliver reliable and economical designs, and the more that you can safely adapt existing technologies to meet novel requirements - developmental innovation - the more likely you are to meet those goals.
Going on that concept, the electrical final drive for tanks was an idea that worked excellently in railroad locomotives, but was about 75 years ahead of being practical in an armored fighting vehicle... sometimes, the R&D engineers need to spend (quite) a bit more effort before an application is practical. No worries, and more power to them!
speaking as another engineering professional (words selected deliberately) there is a reason why they invented Project Managers.
For those not familiar with the process, here is what normally happens:
Engineer: - What's this email you just sent me?
Project Manager: - Kick Off. Here is a new project we just got funding for.
Engineer: - What? Doing what?
Project Manager: - don't worry about that. It is all in the Power Point file. Timelines. Resources. Cost Codes. Milestones.
Engineer: - Wait! What? Hang on? You have me down for 80 hours this month and I don't even...
Project Manager: - Great! See you next deadline! Bye!!!
Project Managers were invented for a reason. Never said it was a GOOD reason...
@@mudcrab3420 PM: Management gave you 80 hours to do this task.
E: Wait, what??? I told you when we wrote the proposal that it takes 160 hours!!!
PM: Well, you'll just have to get it done in 80... good luck with that! Oh, and I'll need daily progress updates...
E: Those weren't in the manhours estimate!
PM: Project Controls needs them for the client's tracking... see you tomorrow!
loved this perspective.
First time watching you, great presentation. Keep up the good work.
Another great video from the tank museum, more Rob Bell hosted videos please, 👍👍👍👊✌️.
Thanks for that Robbie! Can you imagine having to keep yourself alive in any of these!? 😲😖
Re: The Chieftain. I would not be so quick to cast aspersions on your engineering brethren. It seems much more likely that they did object but were shouted down by politicians and generals.
I think the other issue really is, how important is reliability vs availability. It's quite possible generals felt that the loss of reliability was acceptable if the tank could continue to run the face of fuel shortages. There's no point to a ultra reliable engine if there is no fuel to run it on and the military were operating on the (likely faulty but reasonable) assumption that nuclear conflict would make it difficult to consistently get fuel to units and scrounging fuel from civilian populations was going to be necessary.
Still.... I believe that the generals were wrong in that planning assumption. I believe that any marginal increases in fuel from scrounging wouldn't compensate for loss of logistics and the loss of reliability would incur too much costs in fuel for shipping of spare parts and time lost to maintenance
I did not know of Harry Hopkins.
Rest in Peace Harry 😟
One of my favorite worst 5s! Greatly executed
Legend has it that on certain nights, when the moon is full, you can still hear Porsche trying to sell his electric drive.
I love these videos!
"people usually mistake me for Richard Hammond"
Yep I'm definitely guilty of that
Exceptional Video; informative and great fun!
Agreed with all the choices except for the last one. Yes, a less than stellar stab at a tri-fuel engine, but this was when getting the MBTs out the door was actually a bit of a new exercise. And yes, questions existed about relative off road mobility and actual performance in service in certain conflicts later on.
But it had good firepower and armor protection at the time of its introduction, and the Horstmann suspension system was relatively easy to maintain. Suspect it kind of debatable to have that tank ranked the worst on this list when looking at overall design, the period in which it was designed and introduced, etc.
Fantastic!
I like Rob Bell, more videos please!
Striking contrast in scale from standing next to the Covenanter and then standing next to the TOG II
Great, now I can't help but think of Richard Hammond every time I see Rob Bell. And on that bombshell, I'll keep on watching these great videos!
Thank you
3:12 - Grousers at the leading edge of the track plates force mud into the track pins, promotes wear.
4:12 - Appears the grousers were originally intended to be at the trailing edge, are the tracks now installed backwards?
I remember reading in Richard Brassey's fantastic book "Tank Warfare" that the Chieftain had an MBD (mean breakdown distance) of 10 miles. I read that when in the army and expecting to rely on them. Sobering reading lol.
Excellent and Outstanding!!!
Brilliant Selections!!!!
#3.... Nellie.... and quoting from Henry V, nice... and I never knew Freeman Dyson was the origin of that quote.
To claim that a multifuel diesel engine was a leap too far is a bit of a stretch. The americans made quite a reliable series of multifuels that were used for decades on their cargo trucks.
Also the Germans had them working, Installed in the MAN 630 and KAT1...
I love my multifuel duece , it loves to drink and it's anemic lol it works good enough 👌
Great video Rob. I have watched all of your series and I can tell you that you are better than Richard Hammond (the famous organ inventor) Joking aside, thank you. Excellent well done a very interesting programme.
"The world needs more engineers".
Shouldn't the world start appreciating the engineers it already has, first??!!
I like this presenter a lot.
5. Covenanter. (Put the radiator on the Front of the tank!?)
4. TOG II.(A very heavy electric engine and transmission!?)
3. Nellie/White Rabbit/Cultivator. (It's a great agricultural tractor...far from the battlefield.)
2. Harry Hopkins. (A light tank with thin armor and a small gun.)
1. Chieftain. (A good tank when the 2-stroke, multi-fuel engine worked.)