We hope you enjoyed Chris' Bottom 5 Tanks - do you think his choices were justified? Let us know in the comments down below!

I love how petty this list is.

I greatly appreciate the Aviation historian coming by and going "Yeah, so these are my least favourite vehicles because they were really good at shooting down my favourite planes." It provides a really different perspective on the vehicles in question.

"It doesn't have the spinny thing on front" I haven't laughed in a Tank Museum video since David Fletcher retired. While I can understand people disagreeing with the presenter and his reasons for his selections, I find it refreshing that someone with a different point of view is shown.

An amusing take on the bottom 5 tanks. It would certainly be dull if everyone had the same reasons.

Did my brain decide that less than a few dozen Avro Ansons and Beech 18s with the R-975 are worthy a mention. Yes, yes it did. Also BT-15 et al.. Trainer aircraft are unsung heroes, I will die on this hill. This was a lot of fun to film, thanks Tank Museum for hosting me and congrats on the ongoing success!

I love the fact that his personal reason to put T-34 on the list pretty much summarized the actual T-34's main issue.

Sherman: It has aircraft components that should stay in the aircraft. M-16: It shoots down aircraft. With dakka. Tracked Rapier: It shoots down aircraft. With kaboom. Panzer V: Really really really really annoying to destroy from the air. T-34: It give boo-boos.

I appreciated Chris' sense of humor and linking (most of ) his choices with some snippets of Military Aviation History. Hey, why not, The Tank Museum gave Chris the mike, so let him have some fun and tell us a few things about planes, tanks as they relate to planes, tanks as they relate to bruises, etc, etc. A fun watch.

This was a great list! As a retired tanker, getting bounced around the inside of a tank can truly reduce crew effectiveness. It was funny, but a very valid point.

It took me a few to understand what Chris was doing and for that I give him a BIG thumbs up for creativity.

I liked his input on the Panther. I didn't realize it took that many rockets to even hit a Panther.

I wasn't sure where this was going, but I am glad I stuck around. Humorous and well informed. One of the better 'Bottom 5' lists.

Always fun to have a top/bottom 5 list from a non-tanker perspective.

If he ever makes a video about the 88 mm Flak gun, I'm trying to imagine how negative it would be. 🤣

Hilarious take on the bottom 5. Thanks for the fun Chris!

Loving the "Don't hurt my precious flying things!" take on a tank list! Well done MilitaryAviationHistory and The Tank Museum!!!

Chris (aka 'Bismarck')....You know you've made it when you get asked to do a "Bottom/Top 5 Tanks" on The Tank Museum's channel. Congrats & Tally-Ho ! 👍

fun interpretation obviously light hearted and filled with informative tid-bits. And yes, planes didn't get to be much cop directly against heavy armour until the advent of the latest generations of ATGGMs.

They picked the radial engine because all the V type engines were going into aircraft. Then the US decided they needed radials for aircraft which is where Chris's problem comes in. So the use of radials in tanks was caused by the aviationist taking all the V type engines not the tank builders. Meanwhile the British put the Merlin engine in their tanks. So you could say they sort of reverse engineered the flying tank.

"95% of the time." I agree with him. In WWII accuracy of air to ground bombardment was not great, shockingly so. It's main impact was psychological but it also gives away a formations position. A near miss on a tank for example, will effectively spoil the day for accompanying infantry. The emotional impact of even potentially being attacked from the air is dramatic. It changes ones behaviour and limits freedom of manoeuvre. Forces under cover of air supremacy behave very differently. It's obvious really but until one has actually experienced both situations, the importance is easily forgotten. Be it WWI balloons or 21st century drones, enemy presence in the air is a game changer. 💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂💂‍♂👮

Nice of the tank museum to invite a plane lover to show him some real historical objects! I hope he is able to realize the error of his ways and that there is no alternative but to convert from St. thin aluminium to her lady of thick steal.

The theme of this list is either: "It's too hard to kill in my Stuka" or "it makes it too hard to kill things near it with my Stuka".

A man I used to commute with every day for years had been a British Tank guy in North Africa and Italy from 1942 to 44. Like a lot of Tankers he was a bit shorter than me and had a lot of knee problems, which he blamed on being in Tanks for years. They are bloody uncomfortable even standing still. when they moving along, all the metal lumps forcing you into difficult positions start bashing into you. In addition there are often some annoying people trying to kill you. It is really not much fun.

The only common part of the 75mm cannon for aircraft was the barrel. The recoil mechanism for the flying model was concentric. This was later adopted for use by the M24 Chaffee light tank.

Rapier was incredibly successful because it had a much, much longer shelf life than most other systems. It was also designed to be used on varying platforms. The electronics in the trailer mounted units were fragile when moving cross country. 16 Air Defence Regt, RAA, during the Seventies and Eighties towed the trailer mounted units using One Ton forward control Landrovers, powered by the 3.5 L V8, the speed of which no doubt contributed to the mulching of the sparky bits whilst bouncing around in the Outback. The M548 mount may have alleviated this issue, but who knows, the stinking government here never were too much into buying decent kit for the Diggers. Cheers.

I was impressed by the introduction and the rest of the video lived up to expectations! 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊 Good one Chris! Mark from Melbourne Australia

A refreshingly different take on presenting history. I found myself smiling a lot thru his presentation.

I think that “it doesn’t have a propeller” is my favorite criticism of the Sherman. Just wondering, did the use that Wright engine on any of the DD Sherman’s?

Really entertaining video, and a really creative way to find reasons to talk about lesser known bits of (plane related) tank history. Was particularly interested by the tracked rapier variant, I had no idea that existed, have only run into the towed variant until now.

bruises from a T-34/85 are the least of your worries, with no turret basket losing a misplaced foot was not unusual

Hahaha! This was very entertaining. Well, at this point, why not be completely subjective? Pick the ones you have something to say about.

I hope Drach does one.

Ahh Bismark, the Air Historian named after an Admiral and a Warship talking about tonks. Perfection

Brilliant list! Thank you Tank Museum for inviting Chris to do a Bottom Five! I enjoyed it tremendously!

Awesome job, Chris! Thoroughly enjoyable and informative. A true rock star!

Dear Bovington. Please immediately give a raise to the man or woman responsible for the idea of inviting Chris to do a bottom 5 episode. In fact, chain them to their desk so we all selfishly may never miss any future brilliant ideas. Cheers from across the pond.

Interesting and fresh perspective and informative, too.

I'm surprised his #1 wasn't a Tiger, because if I remember correctly there is a fairly popular story of a Tiger shooting down an allied aircraft with its main gun.

Well done Chris, really funny! And well done to the Tank Museum, another great collaboration.

Really love this totally (un)biased set of five worst tanks.

His dislike for the Sherman sounded very personal 😂

3 of 64 hits sounds exceptionally good even for a static range test.

Whao, our tamed German talking about tanks!!!! Good or you Chris, always nice to see you in action!

He was spot on in regards to being out of his depth. His aircraft videos are fantastic, and this was video seemed to be somewhat done with some tongue and cheek. In regards to the radial engines, they where much easier to work on in the field than other water cooled engines.

A brilliant insight from one of my favorite KZfaqrs and historians!

I about pissed my pants when you said the M 16 has 4 yee-haws on it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ignore all the naysayers below - refreshing, original & funny review!

I'm surprised the Abrams with its Helicopter Turbine didn't make the list. I'm pretty sure there was an early model in the museum, unless that was a loaner. Love the content Bismarck!

Very funny! Loved this bottom five list! Great job Chris!

Yeah, Chris!!

While I guessed right, that there were a lot of AAs in this, I would have been disappointed if Chris talked about targets without mentioning the M16.

I appreciate seeing an alternative perspective on these tanks

Aloha; BRILLIANT! Keep up the good work! Mahalo

So happy to see you do this, love your channel

This is a lot of fun. It's a great way for a WW2 expert whose expertise is not tanks to give us a different take.

Real WW2: planes barely kill tanks, and barrel shots are extremely rare. Warthunder: hahahah CAS go brrrrr and your barrel is a magnet.

The mention of the M16 with the "M45 quad with the four Yee-Haws on it" was great!XD

Your logic is irrefutable Chris .😊😊 Well done.

The most original Tank List I've watched to date. Awesome!

My uncle told me about the B-25G. He was chief of maintenance at an airfield (I don't know which one) on New Guinea. He reported few maintenance problems with the M4 cannon. He also was a passenger on a B-25G that used it's M4. He said the recoil of the cannon caused a very perceptible check in the aircraft's forward travel. He did tell me about a freak accident when loading the rockets on the wing racks. Someone had apparently mis-wired the toggle switch to fire the rocket and one of his munitions crew members hooked the rocket at the front and then pushed it up into the socket only to have it light up in his face.

😂 This was my favorite bottom 5. Thanks for the laughs.

I thoroughly enjoyed the great humor, different take from a different area of expertise, and information in this episode! Well done!!

I loved the take on that! ...and the good humor. Keep it up! ;)

An interesting take on the "Bottom 5", loved it.

WOW!.. Chris is on the tanks channel!.........You guys are always surprising with fantastic, knowledgeable guest hosts.

Cracking job Chris, refreshing take on the list, which was becoming a bit stale. Well done 👍

😂 "It's on my bottom 5 list because it shoots down planes" I shouldn't have expected anything else from you Chris 😂

I enjoyed the different perspective. It boils down to if it is made to shoot down planes he does not like it. Very well done

Great Bottom 5, very amusing and informative - thank you

Loved this..well done, sir!!

When I saw the title, I thought “Why is the plane guy doing a video on bottom tanks?” Ha Ha, loved the video Loved his previous video here too

If it shoots down planes Chris doesn't like it. I love the "spinny thing" comment. Thank you.

"This is good vehicle, but it shoots down planes so I hate it." Love the energy.

Yes, early Shermans had problems with their radial engines but they quickly replaced them with regular gasoline and diesel engines. Funny enough the radial Shermans worked better in the mountains. Who would have thought a engine designed for aircraft would work better at higher altitude.

What a splendidly idiosyncratic selection of the "worst" tanks!

A refreshing perspective. Great video.

Brilliant - thank you for a really different bottom 5

TLDR list: 5: Sherman (M4A1 in particular): Because it uses Continental R975, which is a plane engine. 4. M16 MGMC: Because it shoots planes 3. T-34/85: Because it rides so rough it gives him booboos. 2. Tracked Rapier: Because it shoots planes, but better. 1. Panther: Because it's so hard to kill by planes.

A German with a sense of humour. Time to lie down lol

Enjoyable and informative. Thanks.

A tongue in cheek list perhaps but the Panther section is spot on.

I love that the choices were personal or just anti-craft!! I really appreciate honesty.

Loved your perspective.

The problem with Rapier is needed to “bed in” after being at sea. Once it bedded in during the Falklands there was a saying “If it flies, it dies”.

I can only assume, that the top 5 would include the Soviet Antonov A-40. It's a tank, but it flies! Or glides! Sometimes!

Great list!

I’ve been waiting for this for forever

German: The T-34 bruised me Russian T-34: HeHeHe Excellent if rather different way of looking at tanks. Thanks!

I love his evaluation criteria!!

"... because it has an aero engine." me thinking: "The engine is the heart of the machine... wouldn't they be like. 'Yeah, my little brother is a tank. He's afraid of heights.' or something?" . "... Because it kills planes." Me thinking: "But planes kill planes." . "... Because planes don't really kill tanks." me: "They just make pilots angry and frustrated. Understandable."

LOL! I love it. Next go to the WAR Museum where you can have a staff member in British uniform represent, THE INFANTRY. Since modern infantry have handheld missile devices to shoot helicopters and planes. The staff could hold such a device as you look at them sternly and say "BAD INFANTRY BAD! LEAVE THOSE PLANES ALONE!"

Excellent- you really took on some “ sacred cows “

"... Which made antiaircraft defense very personal..." OMG! This man is great!

🤣🤣 Excellent Christian. Very enjoyable, funny, AND rational 😊👍

I enjoyed that the take away from the half track was that it's bad because it shoots down aircraft, rather than it's good because it helped beat Hitler...

A few bits of interesting information there. I'd like to read more of these reports from the pilots.

Why would anyone put a tank cannon on an airplane? US: "Because we can!"😂😂

I appreciate your levity. Thanks!

A very original and thought provoking view of the subject area.