Worst tanks of WWII

[Redbeard]

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 .

I'll second that - the number produced in itself is a major part of the failure. And the idea of putting the radiator outside on the front glacis plate is simply beyond my imagination of what human stupidity can produce. If the designers had been left with more time they probably would have placed the fuel tank and the main ammo there too!

But again, if this just had been a prototype you could have sacked the designer, sent him to a home and claim: "the system works!". But producing it in 1.771 copies!!!

Apart from that I guess the French concept of overworking their tank commanders as gunners and loaders too is a touch that can detroy any otherwise good idea in tank design.

I don't understand the harsh critique the M4 Sherman gets. At the time of its introduction in 1942 it was the best tank in the world and had plenty of potential for development. That this was not utilised until relatively late in the war is not a fault in the design, but in US Army doctrines.

It's biggest design flaw IMHO was its stowage of main gun ammo high in the hull making a burn out a very realistic risk in case of penetrating hits above the tracks. But after wet stowage was introduced this was reduced to a normal rate compared to other designs (main ammo, not fuel, was the main cause of fire). I would prefer a late war M4 (easy eight) to a T34/85.

Now we are at Soviet tanks the multiturret deisgns like T28 and T35 (and experimental SMK) proved a dead end. They looked great on a parade ground but in combat they simply were too cumbersome and compliacted - and despite heavy weight only with marginal armour.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[PhilKearny]

The comrades who mislabel the Sherman as a worst tank seem unable to grasp the fundamental idea that the tank is a tool. A tool has to be able to perform the tasks for which it is used. The Sherman was able to do that, and the Sherman was an effective tool. The Sherman was available, affordable, reliable, and capable. No Panzer could match the Sherman in these qualities. The German tanks were too unreliable and expensive.

Contrary to what some may claim, the Easy 8 was a match for the Mk IV or T-34. Could the United States have fielded better tanks? Certainly, which is one of the mistake the United States made.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

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

However heavy tanks are not the best ideas for armored warfare, keep note of the fact that no modern military fields a heavy tank today. Simply by fulfilling the role that something was designed for does not make it a good design, if it's designed role is foolish or stupid, then by definition it is a poor design, no matter how well it fills this role, case in point:

technically this fills its designed purpose quite well, it's still a bad gun design though.


The T-34 and Panzer IV were less reliable than the sherman, the Panzer was more complex and harder to maintain, and cost more to build. As such the T-34 and Panzer 4 were comparable, but I would hesitate to say that they were outright better.

 

[Moglwi]

I do not understand why people say that the Sherman has a high shilloute it is smaller than the Tiger 2 9ft v 10ft and the panther is even taller than the sheman 9ft v 9ft 10". I think the probleam is that the sherman looks taller

 

[BlairWitch749]

However heavy tanks are not the best ideas for armored warfare, keep note of the fact that no modern military fields a heavy tank today. Simply by fulfilling the role that something was designed for does not make it a good design, if it's designed role is foolish or stupid, then by definition it is a poor design, no matter how well it fills this role, case in point:

technically this fills its designed purpose quite well, it's still a bad gun design though.


The T-34 and Panzer IV were less reliable than the sherman, the Panzer was more complex and harder to maintain, and cost more to build. As such the T-34 and Panzer 4 were comparable, but I would hesitate to say that they were outright better.

The fact that "heavy" tank battalions don't exist today is not a negative mark against the concept from 1941... in ww2 the sort of suspension systems, bridgebuilding equipment and engines to move a 40+ton vehicle over long distances with manageable reliability just didn't exist yet. The tiger, kv, is, and m-26 filled a very important strategic role that ALL of the war making powers appreciated and copied. the sherman couldn't perform well on any mission profile other than long unopposed advances because it was too vulnerable to the entire german arsenal of weaponry (albert ernst and otto carius had confirmed kills in the ruhr pocket with the jagdtiger knocking out shermans from 4 kilometers, rudolf von ribbentrop had confirmed kills in his panther in normandy at over 1800 meters whereas the sherman's gun couldnt crack a panther at 600 meters)

all sides in that war appreciated their heavy tank battalions and they were given the most critical missions if possible due to their superior knockout ratios vs medium tanks

 

[Jotun]

"No modern military fields a heavy tank today"...hmmmm...Considering that most MBTs today are in the 50+ metric tons range, wouldn't that classify them as heavy tanks in WWII terms, especially with their main armament in the 120mm range?

 

[The Red]

"No modern military fields a heavy tank today"...hmmmm...Considering that most MBTs today are in the 50+ metric tons range, wouldn't that classify them as heavy tanks in WWII terms, especially with their main armament in the 120mm range?

Times change though, many "medium" tanks in the pre war period became "light" tanks during the war. In the post war period the concepts of heavy, medium and light became obsolete as the benefits of each design could be combined into one.

 

[burmafrd]

I don't think there is any way the 75 ton M1A2 is NOT a heavy tank. Its just that heavy, light, medium just is not used any more. Just about every nation has one tank, called a Main Battle Tank. Very few have anything else.

 

[Theodoric]

"No modern military fields a heavy tank today"...hmmmm...Considering that most MBTs today are in the 50+ metric tons range, wouldn't that classify them as heavy tanks in WWII terms, especially with their main armament in the 120mm range?

Well, yes, but it's not just weight/speed/armour/armament that determines the 'class' of a tank, it's also role. Now, a Main Battle Tank, with it's big calibree, multi-purpose gun, high armour and high speed can fulfill all roles a tank or self-propelled gun can be expected to fulfill. (even reconaissance (if that's even necessary with modern tech), considering that MBTs up till recently tended to outpace IFVs)

Though the Chinese and (untill recently) the Russians have a dual MBT-system, with one tank that's slightly 'heavier' than the other, but that's mostly for economic reasons.

 

[alt_historian]

I do not understand why people say that the Sherman has a high shilloute it is smaller than the Tiger 2 9ft v 10ft and the panther is even taller than the sheman 9ft v 9ft 10". I think the probleam is that the sherman looks taller

Yes, it looks taller because those two are wider for their height:

M4 Sherman: height 9ft (2.74m), width 8ft 7in (2.62m), length 19ft 2in (5.84m)

Panzer V Panther: height 9ft 10in (3m), width 10ft 9in (3.27m), length 22ft 6in (6.87m)

Panzer VI Tiger: height 9ft 10in (3m), width 11ft 8in (3.5m), length 20ft 8in (6.39m)
​

So the Sherman was actually taller than it's width, while the others were wider than their height... that'd do it.

 

[Theodoric]

Yes, it looks taller because those two are wider for their height:

M4 Sherman: height 9ft (2.74m), width 8ft 7in (2.62m), length 19ft 2in (5.84m)

Panzer V Panther: height 9ft 10in (3m), width 10ft 9in (3.27m), length 22ft 6in (6.87m)

Panzer VI Tiger: height 9ft 10in (3m), width 11ft 8in (3.5m), length 20ft 8in (6.39m)
​

So the Sherman was actually taller than it's width, while the others were wider than their height... that'd do it.

And the really important aspect of this is armour. The armour on a Panther was sloped much more than that on a Sherman, making it much more effective.

 

[markbrow10]

I think I win this!

The Bob Semple Tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

See Ya

Mark

 

[BlairWitch749]

And the really important aspect of this is armour. The armour on a Panther was sloped much more than that on a Sherman, making it much more effective.

And nobody has argued that the panther was a great design... I was merely pointing out the flaws of the sherman

t-34 and panzer 4 which were more contemporary (and closer to the same class) as the sherman where both lower to the ground with thicker armor and harder hitting guns

 

[Seraph]

Taking a quick peek at wikipedia shows that T34 is the tallest actually and the Sherman is only 2 inches taller then the Panzer 4.

Panzer 4 does have thicker front armor, but there is no slope to it. Sherman, while having the not having as much armor in front, does have more armor on its other facings, its top armor had the same amount of armor as the Tiger 1 tank.

As for the guns(late war), Panzer 4 and Sherman has a 3 inch that performed about the same while the T34 had a 85mm that wasn't as good at taking out armor as the 3 inch on the late Shermans(this may be to do to the type of AP used against the German face hardened armor plate). The Sherman's turret also had a quicker traverse.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Taking a quick peek at wikipedia shows that T34 is the tallest actually and the Sherman is only 2 inches taller then the Panzer 4.

Panzer 4 does have thicker front armor, but there is no slope to it. Sherman, while having the not having as much armor in front, does have more armor on its other facings, its top armor had the same amount of armor as the Tiger 1 tank.

As for the guns(late war), Panzer 4 and Sherman has a 3 inch that performed about the same while the T34 had a 85mm that wasn't as good at taking out armor as the 3 inch on the late Shermans(this may be to do to the type of AP used against the German face hardened armor plate). The Sherman's turret also had a quicker traverse.

The t-34 was only 8 feet tall it was shorter than the other two

The German long 75mm had a much better muzzle velocity and better armor piercing characteristics than the sherman's gun. the pak 40 (not even as good as the gun on the panther) had a muzzle velocity (when firing armor piercing) of nearly 1000/meters per second there are document kills of t-34 and shermans with this gun from well over 1200 meters

the sherman by contrast firing ap with it's 75mm gun only achieved velocity of 620/meters a second

going up to the next level... the panthers gun could pierce 89 mm's of rolled armor (sloped 30 degrees) at 2000 meters

the shermans gun could only pierce 87mm of rolled armor (flat surface 90 degrees) at 500 meters or less

this is on top of the long standing and well documented anecodotal evidence that the sherman's gun couldn't punch its way out of a paper bag

 

[Lazzars]

maybe the turan tank of hungary? those things didn't stand a chance in '44

 

[Larrikin]

Modern MBTs

"No modern military fields a heavy tank today"...hmmmm...Considering that most MBTs today are in the 50+ metric tons range, wouldn't that classify them as heavy tanks in WWII terms, especially with their main armament in the 120mm range?

Would be classified as super-heavy by WWII standards, and make the Tiger and Tiger II problems with transport infrastructure look like child's play.

 

[HMS Warspite]

In terms of quality, the M-4 Sherman was not quite good, especially not when facing more advanced opponents on a one to one base. The big advantage of the Sherman was that there were so many of them, so they could affort to loose several, while their consorts were still roling further, as the Germans especailly could not destroy enough of them to stop the Allied Advance.

 

[Sachyriel]

I think I win this!

The Bob Semple Tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

See Ya

Mark

Damn it that's what those were called! I remembered the idea and New Zealand part but ugh, could not for the life of me find them when this thread started.

 

[NHBL]

Not so dumb...

Dumb for obvious reasons.

View attachment 90030

I have to disagree with this being a dumb idea. It's useless for attack, but railroads are very vulnerable to sabotage or raiders; this can patroll tracks far easier than a truck, armored car, or marching troops.

For that matter, armored trains played a role in the first world war and the wars in Europe afterwards, like the Russian Civil War.