? Sure? Acc. to wiki he died in 1935. On the other hand, if he really did it(in 1940) that would explain the above mentioned technical miracles.
The Valentine was a knock off of the A10 so it's down to him.
Tanks that never should have entered service
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
The Valentine was a knock off of the A10 so it's down to him.
It is a case of "how long can we get away with it". Clearly they should have stopped sooner
HJ Tulp
Donor
Actually, I believe the Japanese tanks were pretty decisive in the Battle for Singapore.
You may be right. The type 95 was useful in overruning Malaya. However, that was only because the British defenders had no tanks to oppose them.
When the Type 95 came up against even a Stuart in the Pacific, it was ripped to shreds. The job the Type 95 did in Malaya could have been done just as easily with armored cars.
As far as I remember the only nation's tanks the Japanese had any real successes against were China's. And China was armed with T-26s, Panzer 1s, and Vicker 6-tons in the early parts of the war. And they didn't have many of them either. Nor good crews at that. And even then they scored some big victories against Japanese tanks, before the Americans have them Stuarts, Shermans, and Hellcats. Makes you wonder why they ever bothered in the first place. Or at least why they didn't get better ideas until 1945 or so.
The Soviets lost quite a many tanks to them in the border skirmishes, but of course they were all the Soviet tanks on this list, and not any of their good ones
Why "Thankfully"? If it was built, the Germans would have had less tanks that worked, and a thousand-pound bomb would kill everyone inside from concussion. The war could actually have ended by Christmas, 1944.
Th 1500 has a 800mm gun... that's...that's... that's insane! How many shells could it carry? 3? Why not just slap a small flight deck on it while you're at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster
Well as much as I like these idea of the Reich wasting its resources on wild goose chases, I don't think I'd take the chance that they might actually make it work correctly. Might be a great target for fly boys, but the ground pounders would need one of those Davy Crockets to take that thing out... ok, they could blow off a track with less and that would strand it.
Ok the Leopard 11 Is an excellent tank, but can you explain how it is a better tank Than the Challanger 2? And how exactly is an M1 a pork alternative to a Leopard? Agree on the T80 though. The Italian CV33 Tankette was a disaster 2 MGs against a Matilda
.No, it was only build because nothing better could be made without considerable and intolerable delays. I´m not 100% sure but I think they did not have a turret big enough for the 75mm gun at the time.
@Jukra: Wuhaaa! That contraption even looks like a KV-2.
Canadians built the Ram Chargers on essentially a Grant chassis. The Ram 1 was pitiful (2 lber popgun), but the Ram 2 had a 57mm high-velocity gun (6 lber?) that was as good an antitank weapon as the US low velocity 75mm gun on a Sherman. Unfortunately, it never got used in battle...
So, the US could have produced a better tank on that chassis earlier than the Sherman.
The Soviets lost quite a many tanks to them in the border skirmishes, but of course they were all the Soviet tanks on this list, and not any of their good ones
Yeah, could you imagine the piss-poor Japanese excuse for tanks facing down the average Guards Tank Corps?
Ah, glad to see it finaly has its own page.
I believe that did happen in 1945.
Dude, why are you so harsh on NATO countries for trying to produce their own tanks and IFVs? Is it too much to think that different countries might, you know, have different requirements for their armored vehicles? Like the US; with our traditionally high logistics abilities and lavish supply to our troops, is it so much to wonder that we might prefer raw performance to economy?
Also, do I detect a whiff of pro-German bias here?
A few options:
Black Prince... think Churchill with 17 pounder. Would have been good if it had enetered service in '43 or '44, but still in prototype form when the Centurion came along and delivered all the bang, most of the armour and a lot more speed.
Covenanter... you know a tank is bad when even the Crusader is better than it.
Challenger (WW2 cruiser tank, not the MBTs)... Okay, 17 pounder is nice, but when Fireflys are avalible in better numbers. Also, the tank itself is inferior to the Cromwell in most aspects and applying some hindsight (Charioteer tank destroyer) it would have been just as feasible to fit the 17 pounder to the Cromwell and from the logistics PoV much better.
Black Prince... think Churchill with 17 pounder. Would have been good if it had enetered service in '43 or '44, but still in prototype form when the Centurion came along and delivered all the bang, most of the armour and a lot more speed.
Covenanter... you know a tank is bad when even the Crusader is better than it.
Challenger (WW2 cruiser tank, not the MBTs)... Okay, 17 pounder is nice, but when Fireflys are avalible in better numbers. Also, the tank itself is inferior to the Cromwell in most aspects and applying some hindsight (Charioteer tank destroyer) it would have been just as feasible to fit the 17 pounder to the Cromwell and from the logistics PoV much better.
Alternatively, you could think of the Leopards and Marder as being German "schweinfleish" that could just as easily been better spent standardizing on the Chally2/M1/Leclerc/etc.
I concur fully with the previous post. I guess it never occured to Jukra that other NATO members have their own armor industrial bases, design teams, and different operational requirements. Not to mention contingencies that would take them out of the NATO Europe area. One other thing: how much combat usage does either the Leo I, Leo II, or Marder have? The M-1 family, Challenger, Bradley, and Warrior have been in several conflicts and done well.
I'll agree with the King Tiger as one that shouldn't have been in service. More Panthers or Mark IVs with the long-barreled 75 would've made sense.
I'll agree with the King Tiger as one that shouldn't have been in service. More Panthers or Mark IVs with the long-barreled 75 would've made sense.
The problem at Singapore was far worse than simpley a lack of British armor. For reasons that I have never seen properly explained the 2 pdr anti-tank guns were almost totally ineffective against the Japanese tanks. There is no design reason for this failure since the gun was effective against German and Italian tanks with similar armor. It is like the Singapore Garrison was shipped a batch of factory seconds in their ammo.