WW2, Worlds Worst Tank

Each side seemed to be developing a weapon that could out do the other. Such as to combat the T34 the Germans built tanks such as the Tiger to combat it. And later in the war, as you mentioned, the Jagd Tiger arose to combat threats such as the SU series and other recent Soviet armored developments.

I think that the King Tiger was a an example of a German system that was overdeveloped and too heavy. Despite its formidable appearance, most of the King Tigers were lost due to abandonment than combat and they were sucking a lot of the precious fuel resources the Germans had. And its very heavy armor gave it a lot of limitations.

 

Why do i think of "Queen of the battlefield" regarding the Matilda.
Tried to find a referrence on the net, but only found "artillery" or "soldiers" listed as the QOTB.
At Arras, the Matilda's held up Rommel, and were only thwarted by the use of AA 88's "hastily transformed into anti tank weapons" on Rommels instruction...

 

Because that's what they called the Matilda II. Well "Queen of the Desert" actually.

 

Technically, the 105mm guns of Art Regt 78 knocked out the largest number of allied tanks attacking the 7th Panzer Division.

The Germans had also anticipated that Flak 88mm guns would operate in the ground role in France 1940. The guns were equipped with anti tank sights and units were issued with AP and point detonating HE ammunition. Rommel did not invent the tactic of using 88mm guns in the anti tank role. During the Arras battle he was located close to a light (20mm) rather than heavy (88,mm) AA battery. .

 

In Arras there were MK IIs too.
It is true, the MK I was slow and poorly gunned, but obviously it was cheap and easy to manufacture, so that's ok.

 

There were indeed - or rather, there were MkIIs started at Arras, but the majority THEN broke down or got tangled up with Rommel's panzers....so it was the MkIs made it into his rear echelon...."Ooer, Missus, no!".

The MkIIs had just motored 128 miles from Belgium right back to the start line for Arras...with only nightly maintenance in laager, and no time before Arras for major overhaul - which they severely needed.

 

As for slow....it could motor along at crosscountry walking speed for an infantryman - and provided them with the same level of infantry support a MkII did

 

Thanks for those bits.
Wonder if they were using the 105's in a direct fire role, or as plunging fire.

Recalling some thread here where the discussion was aboot when the 88 was first used/ or best used as an AT weapon.
...Would it be misleading then, to say Rommel was its' champion/used first as AT- or were others recommending to Rommel, that it would be a great idea.

-Sorry, off topic. But this is where the conversation seems to be going.

 

Poppy, I'd assume direct fire, most guns of the era were at least provided with solid shot for A/T work...

...and as an infantry support tank, it would be pretty proof against dropping HE fire. It would be expected to operate "normally" in such an environment...!

 

The '88' Flak in the AT role was a) vastly over-credited and B) a serious waste of redsources. The standard German AT weapons (37/60/75mm) were always able to deal with enemy tanks except for the first year in Russia. Putting a large barn-door like object in direct line of sight of the enemy is always a risk. Exposing a gun with complicated sighting and aiming equipment in that position borders on the criminal.

 

a) Tiger II, plus if you wanna count J.tiger&S.tiger as tanks too
b) Italian M13/40s etc. rivetted death traps
c) I also am no fan of the 2pdr armed tanks, cause almost useless vs. "soft" targets and had trouble to hit and penetrate even PzIII. Mathilda2 in theory is great as infantry tank, very good armore, however serious lack of firepower.

 

I repeat. The 2 pdr was a very effective anti-tank weapon and as good as any German AT gun of its time. Claims the 2 pdr was puny and/or innefective' are wrong.

 

37mm at least had HE shells, even if "puny"..........2 pdr. did not. So the question is why arm inf. tanks with a main weapon without HE ? Guess the plan was to use only MGs or waltz the enemy over? He takes a lot but deals not out much. 2pdr might be better than 37mm in penetration ofc. but optics also as good?

2pdr cruiser quite as useless, however they can be used as fast recon/cav tanks, Mathilda too slow for that.

 

I would agree partly. The 88mm was needed for KVs and Mathildas in early war. In late war vs. IS´s. Depends on the terrain and line of sight too. Yes, 50mm and 75mm PAK could defeat a lot. 88mm sometimes overkill and risky to employ. However, the 75mm in dusty/snowy terrain would give it´s position away too. Maybe not on wet ground.....also 75mm PAK is quite heavy too. Needs vehicle too pull, as 88mm. 50mm in emergency can be manhandled. Like 6pdr, too I guess. So they might be usefull even in late war.

 

Optics just as good if not better.


Montgomery's Scientists
Operational Research in Northwest Europe
The Work of No.2 Operational Research Section
with 2 1 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945 .

page 11

Studies comparing the gunsights used in German and
British tanks led to important results and an object lesson in OR methods. Solandt recalled this
investigation as one of the highlights of his time at Lulworth. The problem presented to Solandt was
that "the Germans had introduced a new tank gunsight which was vastly superior to the British sight."
Tank crews in the desert were sure that it was the new sight that made it possible for the Germans to
knock out British tanks at long range before they were themselves in danger. However, careful
measurements showed the British gunsight was accurate. The German sight was similarly tested and
found to be inferior. "We were therefore forced," Solandt wrote, "to treat it as an operations research
rather than a technical problem . . . "
Solandt's team studied "the whole weapon system" undertaking "first class fundamental research
which shed light on the whole process of aiming a gun and which subsequently produced important
improvements in various aiming systems." None of this research solved the immediate problem of
what was actually happening in the desert. It was not until 1943 that firing tests against captured
German tanks revealed the existence of face hardened armour which existing British shot could not
penetrate.


The 2 pdr was a good AT weapon and was replaced by the 6 pdr which was just as effective. In turn the 17 pdr replaced the 6 pdr. At no time during the war did the British fall behind the Germans in hole-punching ability.

 

I don´t doubt 6 + 17 pdr. Good guns, 2pdr used too long until replaced - no HE has mentioned above - huge disadvantage, shot might just fly through trucks etc. and not do serious damage.

 

What is your source for this statement?

At the start of the operation I think there were 16 Mk I and 56 Mk II tanks which reached the assembly area North of Vimy Ridge. Only a proportion reached the nominal start line, the Arras Douellens Road, But , what is the evidence that all of these were Mk Is, rather than a proportion of MkIs and IIs?

 

Oh God, my sides!

 

I most certainly cannot determine a best or worst anything of WW2, but some of the worst tanks i have ever seen, or most pathetic excuses for tanks i have ever seen would have to be these.

T-35 Due to its unreliable mechanics, as well as the multiple turrets being too much for the commander to often handle. It could have been passable in my book if it A) Had the armor to take an AT rifle, and B ) Had capable mechanical components.

T-60 and T-70. I just hate these little things.

Vickers Mark VI. This was a light tank with 3 crew, and an armament of a 12.7mm and 7.7mm machine gun in a single turret. It would have been better off being designed as an armored car.

And finally, the TK3 tankette, and the CV33/CV35 tanks. Both of these little things are adorable to look at, but with heaviest armor (belonging to the CV33) being half an inch at best, these would have once again, been better as armored cars.

 

This would look like a house if it were painted other colors!