Worst tanks of WWII
- Thread starter Dan Reilly The Great
- Start date
Bearcat
Banned
You miss the point... the US could produce Shermans until the cows came home. 4 to 1, so what? As the apocryphal German soldier's story goes, the Wehrmacht ran out of shells before the US army ran out of Shermans.
It was perfect for the US - an army which wasn't always the highest quality, but could swamp you with quantity.
The Tiger, conversely, helped to ensure the Germans lost, for the opposite reasons: in a war of production and attrition, it was the wrong weapon. A weapon which could only be produced in penny packets.
I'm pretty positive that the Sherman is not the worse designs. Main problems were in the Army doctrine(tanks don't fight tanks), bad intel, and general lack of interest in improving the tank quickly(due to general lack of combat with front line tanks). It wasn't until in Normandy that the Army realized that the Panther wasn't a rare tank but a major production model.
And comparing it to the Panther isn't really fair as the Panther debut about a year later and was designed the counter the Sherman's weight class(about 30 tons, Panther is about 44 tons).
For when it debut in 1942, it could lay claims to being one of the best designs(for its class) for the time as while the T34 has better armor and mobility. The Sherman had much better ergonomics(T34 at this time badly overworked the commander), radios(not many T34 had radios, if at all), and a much better reliability(partly due to good US suppy chain). I've even heard that it burned less easily then the T34!
Sadly for the Sherman and the US Army, other then wet ammo stowage, there was little interest or perceived need to upgrade the Sherman until the major encounters with the Panthers and upgraded Panzer IVs in Normandy.
And comparing it to the Panther isn't really fair as the Panther debut about a year later and was designed the counter the Sherman's weight class(about 30 tons, Panther is about 44 tons).
For when it debut in 1942, it could lay claims to being one of the best designs(for its class) for the time as while the T34 has better armor and mobility. The Sherman had much better ergonomics(T34 at this time badly overworked the commander), radios(not many T34 had radios, if at all), and a much better reliability(partly due to good US suppy chain). I've even heard that it burned less easily then the T34!
Sadly for the Sherman and the US Army, other then wet ammo stowage, there was little interest or perceived need to upgrade the Sherman until the major encounters with the Panthers and upgraded Panzer IVs in Normandy.
Actually, only the M4 & M4A1 used the modified gasoline aircraft radial engines among the Shermans. The M4A6 used a diesel radial derived from the Wright R1820, but it was a fairly rare variant. It, and the other diesel Sherman (M4A2, powered by 2 GM L6 diesels) were very rare in US Army service, as Army Ground Forces decreed that diesel-engined M4s in US Army service were not to be used outside the US for logistical reasons; most were either given to the Marines for use in the Pacific (the Navy having most diesel-related logistical & support assets), or were transferred abroad under Lend-Lease, largely to the Soviets and the British. The M4A4 used a weird multi-bank 30-cylinder engine (5 Chrysler L6s thrown together to use a common crankshaft); most of these were transferred to Britain under Lend-Lease. The variant ultimately preferred by the US Army was the M4A3, which used a Ford OHC gasoline V-8, which was more powerful & reliable than the radial engined variants, and started supplanting them in service between mid to late 1944. Shermans retained for post-war service by the US were versions of the M4A3.
Secondly, the Sherman was a late 1940-early 1941 design frozen for mobilization production, prototype in August 41, series production in October, and would have been quite capable of dealing with the Axis tanks then in service. (Incidentally, the 76mm Sherman was about as capable as the T-34/85 in actual combat.)
The problem was that Allied intelligence failed to anticipate that German AFV design would essentially leapfrog a generation in 1942 (both the Tiger & Panther being 1942 designs), and when they first appeared, thought that they were limited production variants intended for a few special units. This was compounded by the intransigent insistence by Army Ground Forces that the job of fighting enemy AFVs was that of the tank-destroyer, not the tank (which was to support the infantry and exploit breakthroughs according to doctrine), and thus the 75 mm Sherman was all the tank the US Army needed, while any changes to armament or alterations to increase survivability would unacceptably disrupt production. Army Ground Forces used these arguments to block production of the 76 mm Sherman (inferior HE round to the 75 mm and would encourage tanks to fight other tanks contrary to official doctrine) the M-26 Pershing, and proposals for upgunned variants of the Sherman, such as the Firefly, despite mounting evidence fron 1943 onwards that their assumptions were sorely mistaken and demands for more powerfully armed tanks; it took the personal intervention of Gen. George Marshall to get any of these built and in service, and even then, Army Ground Forces dragged its feet, delaying the combat introduction of the 76 mm Sherman until July 1944, and the Pershing until early 1945. The situation with Army Ground Forces' resistance to improving the Sherman could be somewhat analogized to the USN's struggles with the Bureau of Ordinance over torpedos.
Despite its issues, the Sherman did manage to get the job done, and there are much better candidates for worst tank of WW2- the Ferdinand/Elefant for the Germans, the US M3 medium & M22 Locust, just about anything the Japanese sent into action, the Soviet T-26, T-28, T-35, & BT-7 (well past their expiration date by 1941) & KV-1 (well protected for 1941 but slow, unreliable & clumsy, difficult to produce, and had the same firepower as the 76mm T-34)
I've also heard that the second prototype went into action (it didn't last long), but I've never been able to find any confirmation of that.
The Japanese tanks (early ones at least) were terrible but they were meant to be infantry support, not to fight other tanks. The last designs (Types 3, 4 and 5) were quite good but appeared too late and weren't built (only 66 Type 3's, something like six Type 4's and the Type 5 only had one unarmed prototype built).
My votes are:
The pre-war tankettes: total waste to built them and then only arm them with one or two MG's.
Soviet KV-2: Top-heavy and with a slow-firing howitzer.
Italian M11/39: Had the cannon in the bow instead of the turret, riveted construction and a unreliable engine.
UK Covanenter: Had the engine cooling pipes running through the crew compartment, making it a mobile sauna. Ended up being used for training only.
burmafrd
Banned
Very good analogy as regards the Navy Torpedo mess. Of course THERE you also had to factor in the Rhode Island factory and their pet congressman who NEVER did admit the factory was a mess. That went hand in hand with the refusal to get rid of the magnetic detonator that had NEVER BEEN TESTED on a live war shot torpedo. THe navy desk jockies in the pentagon and in ordnance should have been shot for treason (with that damn congressman and the management of the torpedo factory next). It took Nimitz personally ordering tests to finally break the log jam. The fragile exploder pin was also a big factor in the failures. Not to mention a tendency for the torpedo to run 10 feet deeper then set.
AGF was the last bastion of the infrantry idiots left over from WW1. They did pretty much sabotage all attempts to improve the sherman or replace it. The Pershing was tested and ready for production by December of 1943 which meant it COULD have been there in numbers for the breakout in July of 1944.
(Some Patton haters tried to blame it on him claiming he advised against the Pershing- totally ignoring the fact that the whole battle was happening in mid to late 1943 when Patton was in disgrace and NO ONE was talking to him at all let alone asking for advice. Patton had his men weld extra armor on the front of the shermans to help them survive german tanks once he took over 3rd Army)
AGF was the last bastion of the infrantry idiots left over from WW1. They did pretty much sabotage all attempts to improve the sherman or replace it. The Pershing was tested and ready for production by December of 1943 which meant it COULD have been there in numbers for the breakout in July of 1944.
(Some Patton haters tried to blame it on him claiming he advised against the Pershing- totally ignoring the fact that the whole battle was happening in mid to late 1943 when Patton was in disgrace and NO ONE was talking to him at all let alone asking for advice. Patton had his men weld extra armor on the front of the shermans to help them survive german tanks once he took over 3rd Army)
Last edited:
The T-26, M3 and M4 come to mind. Every Japanese tank as well to some extent (even the Type 95 was pretty crap) although they don't really count as they did their jobs in China, the theater they were designed for. Every Italian tank as well was a failure to some extent, they made progress with the P-40 but they still had a long way to go. The Tiger was a bad tank but it wasn't the worst, most German tanks for their time where decent and the Maus never actually entered combat officially (it possibly had an encounter with the Canadians in the last days). British tanks as well where pretty bad although I don't think it's fair to call them the worst.
M3 wasen't that bad and was only intended as an interim design until the M4 could be made anyhow. Both were good enough in the desert against Pnz III and IV as well as any Italian tank. Not that beating Italian tanks means much. You can get much worse then M3 or M4.
Matilda Mk I- light tank size with only 1 Vickers .303
voted before- T-35
T-28- worlds first medium tank failed miserably in action
AMR-33- another tank with just machine guns. Also had major mechanical issues, most were lost in 1940 to breakdown rather then the Germans
Almost all of the Italian or Japanese tanks.
Matilda Mk I- light tank size with only 1 Vickers .303
voted before- T-35
T-28- worlds first medium tank failed miserably in action
AMR-33- another tank with just machine guns. Also had major mechanical issues, most were lost in 1940 to breakdown rather then the Germans
Almost all of the Italian or Japanese tanks.
The Covenanter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter_tank was a notable waste of resources. 1771 built but so unreliable that they could only be scrapped. One was destroyed by a German bomb, so I am going to claim that they saw action 
.
.
BlairWitch749
Banned
The tiger wasn't meant to be a medium tank though, it was meant to be a heavy tank parcelled out in independant battalions for defensive and breakthrough ops... note the the americans and russians both thought this was an excellent idea and copied the same doctrine with the m-26 and is-2... the british were the first to see this idea with their division of infantry and cruiser tanks (matildas and a12s) although they didn't perform as intended
the sherman was a bad medium tank compared to the other members of its class, panzer 4, panther, t-34 (ie gun and armor were quite insufficient against the other members of its class)
the pershing was much harder to produce and engineer than a sherman just like the relationship between a tiger and a panzer 4 but that doesnt mean it didn't serve a useful purpose that the major warmaking powers all appreciated
when one calls the tiger a bad tank one must compare it against its contemporaries which would be the kv series, the matildas, the IS tanks, and the pershings and against those designs it was pretty competitive
But the Semple was useful in its role as villain in the "Dr. Who" television series.
burmafrd
Banned
The Sherman was not a bad medium tank- all considered it was decent. The Pershing had no real problems as regards manufacturing outside of the obvious need to change tooling and the like. There was absolutely no reason that it could not have been placed in production starting in Dec 43. The only reason it did not was the stupidity of the AGF in the Pentagon (truly a redundant stupidity).