The top 10 worst tanks of the war

I was going to remind you, but thought better of it since I know what will happen, Za certainly knows. In our last debate about the Stuart we discussed and had different views, but by the end we agreed on the fact that we were actually agreeing on virtually everything, so the discussion was kinda pointless. lol

 

It was one of those rare instances where we disagreed to agree

 

The Russian T35 was a bad tank, because it was very slow , heavy tank . The Sherman had a problem of catching on fire, in early stages.

 

So are you saying that because in the early stages some caught fire easily yet rectified later on that that qualifies it as one of the 'worst" tanks? The qualities and facts about the Sherman has been hashed over so many times it not even funny anymore . IT was NOT one of the "worst" tanks of the war. It did what it was designed to do and continued to do so long after after the war.

 

I heard from top ten best tanks, military channel, that the only reason they were good was manufacturing numbers. Also that it"s crew was afraid when they went too battle.

 

Well unfortunatley you heard wrong. I would suggest that you read up a little more . Especially the FACTS presented here in the many other threads where the Sherman is brought up . The "documetaries" on the History and Military Channels are usually innacurate and are made more for entertainment value and profit then for actually presenting the facts. I stopped watching them years ago.

 

Iv"e heard the Stuart called the whistle blower, light cannon 37 mm, the Germans had much better tanks fighting the M3, M5, Stuarts . The Germans also had Panzershrecks, 88mm, anti tank weapon.

 

Really???? The German MEDIUM and HEAVY tanks were better then a LIGHT tank ? Go figure. Were the German LIGHT Pz.Kpfw.I or II better then the Stuart? You are once again trying to compare different types of AFVs. Of course MEDIUM and HEAVY tanks were better. All tanks were not designed and used for the same reasons. Ill refer you to the post I made in response to you above,

"Compared to what? Other light tanks? The M3/M5 were used throughout the war and in large numbers in Europe and the Pacific. And they were used for decades afterwards. Light main gun and light armor. Hence they were a LIGHT tank. They were not meant to engage other heavier types but used for mainly for recon . Try comparing it to others in its class.The Soviet T-60/70 or PzKpfw I or II among others. Not with Medium or Heavy tanks."

Because there were larger and more heavily armed and armored tanks that makes it one of the "worst"?

 

And the allies didn't? The British Piat, the American M9 Bazooka, both comparable to the Panzershreck and the Panzerfaust.

The German 88? Yes it was a feared weapon (a few veterans here themselves have posted how they feared the.), although having a high silouette it was not the easist weapon to hide, and since suprise is a key element in winning. The allies fielded various AT and AA weapons as well such as the 2, 6 and 17 pdr's, the 25pdr both as a AT weapon and as field artillery. The americans well they fielded all kinds of neat pieces just to start, how about the 57mm or the 90mm at guns?

yes the Stuart and Honey tanks, were lighter armed and amoured then other heavier tanks due to the fact that they were primairily designed for recon missions, (spotting the enemy and allowing the heavier Shermans, aircraft, and heavy artillery to destory them.) Therefore, again, not designed to take on the medium and heavy tanks from any nation.

The sherman although not the most fantastic of tanks to be used it was used in many different areas, which made it very valuable. Whether it be used as a DD Tank for the landings on Normandy, or en engineer tank with flail's to destroy mines, as a dozer to remove obstacles such as dragon teeth, and even as flame tank (crocodille?). SHe was also more then capable of taking out her main rival the GErman MKIV as well as the various other SPG's and assualt guns.

 

I'm sorry, but it appears most members over here tend to get their information from better places than History or Military Channel 45 minute features. A few of them have even been know to have read books at least once in their lifetime. A few of them even go to the extreme of sifting though the information they acquire and run an intelligen process of source comparison.

As said above, the Stuarts were light tanks for recconnaissance work. Even so when they were introduced to North Afric in 1942 they measured up quite well against the Pz IIIs and Pz IV Shorts, having rooughly the same armour thickness and penetration ability. As your Military Channel didn't say this, then I suppose it will be a lie

As for the PZschk, I hate to tell you this but that was a copy of an American invention, seen by the Germans at first instance in Tunisia in 1943, so it's just as well that you are praising an American weapon.

As for the dreaded 88, with a profile and general size like that any tale of a 88 success is only a tale of artillery (temporary) failure on the other part, as a thing that big would be a priority target. And a juicy one as well.

Every tactical problem calls for a military solution. I guess Military Channel also neglected to tell you this.

 

All we cared about was money, not quality,. I"m sure we had them outnumbered 3 on 1. :mp44kickback:istolas:

 

I read alot of books about WWII.:machinegun::uzi::bazookafire::uzi:istolshoot:

 

Why if some thig does not agree with you it is never the truth . The Milatary, History channel are telling the truth.

 

University Historians, or self proclaimed historians?

If it is the former of the two maybe they should go back to uni and do there own research, or better yet maybe you should. Instead of using the HC as a reference get a book with the facts you stat and reference it. Then get another book with a reference saying the same thing, and then get another book saying the same thing and then take as fact.

Clearly not. Oh you know the Manual for you COD game doesn't count as a ww2 book.

 

I"m comparing them with other light tanks. The only reason your defending the Stuart is because it"s AMERICAN.

 

No I don"t read game books . I not only read books I look things up on the internet.

 

A bit unable to bring foward any decent arguments other than juvenile banter, aren't you?

​

You're not the slightest bit interesting.​

 

SMLE SHOOTER;seems someone doesn't like american tanks.the M4A3E8 used in Korea had no problem defeating the T-34-85 in one on one engaements.When you read ypour books try to understand them before opening your mouth.

 

In regard to the germans fearing and dispising the Churchill.Never read anything in any of the books Ive had where the panther and Tiger crews everconsidered the churchill as anything but a very slow target.