Worst tanks of WWII

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Well, in the spirit of the bomber thread, let us revisit the anals of armored warfare to see some of the real stinkers that various nations engineers have turned out. Obviously any tanks which only got to the prototype phase don't count, so only tanks that entered production and actually saw combat. Here are my nominees:

King Tiger: A moving pillbox that cost a lot more to build and was easier to destroy than a pillbox. I use the term moving because it could quite easily be broken down or out of fuel. Although it was good at killing tanks, it was probably better at using up resources.

T-35: Unreliable, oversized on the outside, undersized on the inside, and just all around a piece of junk.

Fiat M14/41: Again unreliable, hard to work in, and was the italian attempt to build a tank version of the hindenburg.

[BlackWave]

Most of the early British tanks.

[Polish Eagle]

I actually vote Tiger I. It was oversized, prone to failure, slow, and a gas guzzler that only did the Panther's job worse.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Dan Reilly The Great

Well, in the spirit of the bomber thread, let us revisit the anals of armored warfare to see some of the real stinkers that various nations engineers have turned out.

Personally, I'd prefer to visit the annals of armored warfare, but maybe that's just me.

[BlairWitch749]

the tiger 1 was not a terrible tank

Plus:
Lethal and accurate gun which could kill any tank from 2 kilometers
Strong armor that could deflect allied tanks at most normal battle ranges
Crews were given complete training and achieved world record kill ratios
Wide tracks gave it good cross country performance relative to its size
excellent for defensive operations or breathroughs

Minus:
Guzzeled fuel (normal for a heavy tank)
Too complicated to produce (biggest downfall of the design)
German high command had too much confidence in it and used it for operations for which it wasn't suited (ie long distance mechanized offensives, swampy terrain)

Keep in mind the Russians and Americans also used heavy tanks in independant battalions (KV,IS,M-26) with good effect and developed a strong respect for the tiger

The crap design of the war
The Sherman M-4

Plus:
Good mobility and reliability for long distance mechanized offensives
Well adapted pinton mounted machine guns which made it effective engaging infantry in the open

Minus
High silouette
Armor too thin for a medium tank could be knocked out from 3 kilometers by a medium anti tank gun
75mm and 76mm did not have punch to knock out panther and tiger from regular battle ranges
bad engine which would backfire when started up giving away the tanks position

[The Kiat]

The Japanese tanks didn't seem much for tank-on-tank action. More antipersonnel, and easily knocked out.

[thedarkmaster]

The trouble with this sort of thread is that people have axe's to grind and will not accept any critasisum of their beloved favourite " super " tank

[Spitfiremk1]

The Crusader springs to mind....

[Blue Max]

Maus was a loser--a stupidly huge design that did not begin to deliver on the amount invested in it.

Arguably, Germany didn't do well with any designs after the Panzer IV, although if the Panther had started testing a year earlier instead of Germany being complacent after the Fall of France, that might have been a positive trade.

Some of the old tanks of the interwar period, like the T-26, the Matilda I and the Panzer I and II, as well as their Italian and Japanese Counterparts, were just too small to be useful.

France's Char B1 Bis was an otherwise splendid machine that had the great idea of overworking one of the crewmen.

The Crusader Tank was prone to serious failures as well.

As for the worst one, definitely Maus. A Gas Guzzling Superwaste of resources made only because Der Furher thought it was a good idea. It wasn't built with a Scarlet "Bomb This" sign, but with its large exterior gas tank, it might have well have been.

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

the tiger 1 was not a terrible tank

Plus:
Lethal and accurate gun which could kill any tank from 2 kilometers
Strong armor that could deflect allied tanks at most normal battle ranges
Crews were given complete training and achieved world record kill ratios
Wide tracks gave it good cross country performance relative to its size
excellent for defensive operations or breathroughs

Minus:
Guzzeled fuel (normal for a heavy tank)
Too complicated to produce (biggest downfall of the design)
German high command had too much confidence in it and used it for operations for which it wasn't suited (ie long distance mechanized offensives, swampy terrain)

Keep in mind the Russians and Americans also used heavy tanks in independant battalions (KV,IS,M-26) with good effect and developed a strong respect for the tiger

Crew training has nothing to do with the quality of the tank inself, so it shouldn't be included in either side of the argument, same thing with the german high commands decisions. You also forgot that the Tiger I was too heavy to traverse most bridges, a severe weakness if your tank can be easily bottlenecked into crossing only a couple bridges in a theatre of war.

The crap design of the war
The Sherman M-4

Plus:
Good mobility and reliability for long distance mechanized offensives
Well adapted pinton mounted machine guns which made it effective engaging infantry in the open

Minus
High silouette
Armor too thin for a medium tank could be knocked out from 3 kilometers by a medium anti tank gun
75mm and 76mm did not have punch to knock out panther and tiger from regular battle ranges
bad engine which would backfire when started up giving away the tanks position

the sherman was inferior in combat against heavier German tanks, however that does not make it a bad tank, just a misused one. It was comparable to earlier German designs from the earlier part of the war, however it was never meant to go up against the vastly heavier Tigers and panthers from later in the war. On the pro side you forgot about the ability the sherman had to be modified for a wide variety of roles which it filled quite well. And the part about the engine backfiring seems a bit silly, it's not like someone wouldn't notice the sound of the rather loud diesel engine even without it backfiring.

[BlackWave]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

Maus was a loser--a stupidly huge design that did not begin to deliver on the amount invested in it.

Arguably, Germany didn't do well with any designs after the Panzer IV, although if the Panther had started testing a year earlier instead of Germany being complacent after the Fall of France, that might have been a positive trade.

Some of the old tanks of the interwar period, like the T-26, the Matilda I and the Panzer I and II, as well as their Italian and Japanese Counterparts, were just too small to be useful.

France's Char B1 Bis was an otherwise splendid machine that had the great idea of overworking one of the crewmen.

The Crusader Tank was prone to serious failures as well.

As for the worst one, definitely Maus. A Gas Guzzling Superwaste of resources made only because Der Furher thought it was a good idea. It wasn't built with a Scarlet "Bomb This" sign, but with its large exterior gas tank, it might have well have been.

But the Maus wasn't really properly developed beyond prototype, no? So IMO it doesn't really count. In which case you may say the Ratte was worse.

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by BlackWave

But the Maus wasn't really properly developed beyond prototype, no? So IMO it doesn't really count. In which case you may say the Ratte was worse.

A working model was made, at considerable expense. Ratte was just on paper, although I agree, if it had been made WW2 would have been a much shorter conflict.

Maus was made and used at least once in battle. If you'd rather not count it, there are plenty of other mentions I've made.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Dan Reilly The Great

Crew training has nothing to do with the quality of the tank inself, so it shouldn't be included in either side of the argument, same thing with the german high commands decisions. You also forgot that the Tiger I was too heavy to traverse most bridges, a severe weakness if your tank can be easily bottlenecked into crossing only a couple bridges in a theatre of war.




the sherman was inferior in combat against heavier German tanks, however that does not make it a bad tank, just a misused one. It was comparable to earlier German designs from the earlier part of the war, however it was never meant to go up against the vastly heavier Tigers and panthers from later in the war. On the pro side you forgot about the ability the sherman had to be modified for a wide variety of roles which it filled quite well. And the part about the engine backfiring seems a bit silly, it's not like someone wouldn't notice the sound of the rather loud diesel engine even without it backfiring.

The Tiger not being able to cross bridges wasn't a big deal in most operations... it became an issue because the German high command didn't employ them correctly (ie heavy tanks are only supposed to be used on the defensive and on breakthrough not advancing boundless distances which fuel supply and suspension cant support; thats what medium tanks are for)

The backfire retort on the Sherman was like an aircraft engine turning over (well it was an aircraft engine so its not surprising) My grandfather (6th Panzer division and later Panzer Lehr) told stories of laying in wait with a Panzershrek and when the backfire of the sherman came they would pound it with a deluge of rockets or call in artillery strikes

The Americans had plenty of time to study war in Egypt and send observers to the Russian front to see the progession of tank warfare and push their development towards a more battleworthy design... If I was sent to the hedgerows of Normandy or the plains of Italy a sherman is the last place I would want to be considering the knockout ratio against you is 5 to 1.... 4 tanks are going to die before you take out the tiger

[BlackWave]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

A working model was made, at considerable expense. Ratte was just on paper, although I agree, if it had been made WW2 would have been a much shorter conflict.

Maus was made and used at least once in battle. If you'd rather not count it, there are plenty of other mentions I've made.

The Maus was used in battle? You sure? The stuff I've read indicates that it didn't go beyond testing. Unless that counts as battle.

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by BlackWave

The Maus was used in battle? You sure? The stuff I've read indicates that it didn't go beyond testing. Unless that counts as battle.

Sorry, it appears that my source was incorrect on this topic. I stand corrected.

[cra0422]

One problem that American and British tanks have to deal with is that they have to be transported by sea anywhere they go and they couldn't count on being able to unload at secure port facilities. That's why their tanks weren't always as heavily armored as the British or Soviet tanks which only had to cross rivers.

My thoughts:
German Maus was too big, too slow and too much of a fuel guzzler. It would have been better as a mobile fortification.

The Japanese tanks weren't used much for tank-on-tank action considering the terrain of where they were fighting. The Japanese army was almost entirely infantry.

Italy's tanks tended to be pieces of junk no matter the size.

[Major Major]

The British TOG designs. The designation means "The Old Gang" and applied because the designers were from the WWI tank design team. And the TOG tanks were supposed to be super-heavy ones. The TOG1 had a main armament of a 2-pounder and a crew of 8 (!). The TOG2 actually had a decent main gun for the time, a 17-pounder, and cut the crew to 6. They looked like WWI rhomboidal tanks, but with a turret. The TOG2 weighed 80 tonnes and had a maximum speed of 8 miles per hour.

Someone had a rush of sanity and these were never put into production.

[Paul MacQ]

Well this sort of question is about has hard to answer as Best Tank.

Japanese Tanks were crap by European standards, and would have been slaughtered in open Ground combat by most European American Tanks (in fact often were)Taken into context on the other and, the quality often forgotten in this sort of question

Take into account time and place were the tanks saw action, and numbers. Early in the fighting in the Pacific the Japanese tanks had the one quality that was most important, They were there fighting. The Sherman’s that would crush them with ease were not, Yet later the Sherman was there in the fight, Late war the easy to maintain Sherman that was small enough to fit on Tank Landing craft was a better tank one on one for the US than a Tiger tank for the German’s in Europe. Even taking into account they fought in poor Tank country.

Early war for example Matilda in early mid 1940 was a very tough nut to crack and just did mass murder on Italian armour it faced and did a great job in France and Africa. Yet in France was not there in the numbers needed and doctrine was crap.
Yet if used well was devastating. Main failing not being there in numbers when needed.

Matilda early on crushed all Italian opposition the Italians threw at it with ease. Yet in Africa was short ranged and unreliable, and very difficult to make.

What qualities are needed, Sherman was about as big as the US was going to start the Battle in Europe with, small narrow size was needed to it in things like Landing craft Tank, It was tall and high, One on one a 75mm Sherman was at a disadvantage vs a Panzer IV let alone the German Heavies, yet one quality you forget when making a question like this is. “Quantity”, that as the Russians say is a quality all important. It was there and there in massive numbers. German Major failed on this part.

Most of the lat war development was not on monsters like the Maus but E range of Tanks E10 a Hetzer replacement that was armed the same yet designed to be easier to make. E25 Panzer IV body replacement Tank destroyer with long 75mm. designed to be much easier to make. E50 an easier tank to make than a Panther and so on. What quality did all these late designs that failed to be built in numbers for combat? “Being easier to make”, all these comments about best/worst tank. Why was it the Germans? Wanted the one quality the US and USSR already had, Ease of production. The one quality the Germans failed the most in. Most weapons the Germans made were over engineered and it was only at the end when being swamped in such massive numbers they desperately wanted That most important quality of a tank having one there were needed when needed, As all these overly complicated German Broken down Tanks that were also running out of fuel failed. And failed big time.

This question needs to take into account when the tank saw service and in how big a numbers.

The Sherman was more often were it was needed in Numbers than the Tiger the T34 was more often were it was needed in numbers than a Panther, How is it they are worse designs?? A tank is not only there to fight other Tanks but be there as part of a balanced force. The German armour failed and the numbers they had and the effort put into Tank destroyers (easier to make than the tank equivalent) compared Tanks was they were failing to stop the allies Tanks,

What is a better tank the one at your side or the better one you might get ?

[Father Maryland]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

Sorry, it appears that my source was incorrect on this topic. I stand corrected.

There are some very unconfirmed reports of a single prototype Maus being used in combat against the canadians.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

Sorry, it appears that my source was incorrect on this topic. I stand corrected.

I have heard some sources say a Maus was used as a rotating gun turret in the defense of some factory, but I'm not sure.

And I repeat that the Tiger was a waste because the Panther was better suited to the job, lighter, and easier to build.