The top 10 worst tanks of the war

Japanese tank thread for those who are interested.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22247-japanese-tanks.html

 

I doubt it. After the A11 was retired the "II" From the Matilda II was dropped so from then on the A11 was, in some respects, forgotten.

 

I was thinking about the worst tanks ever. Seems that the t-35 had some use outside battle after all....I mean such a massive (and useless) vehicle must have caused a great impression between civilians and new recruits during the army parades... at least it was some sort of civilian morale booster.

 

A giant fish tank?
Or maybe a roadblock?

 

Not a fish tank, it leaked too much.

 

The t-26 is a great tank and it did great in the Spanish civil War.

 

And what was the T-26 fighting in the Spanish civil war? PzKpfw Is at my last check.

 

And what does this has to do with the thread topic of "The top 10 worst tanks of the war"

 

Dont forget the FT-17 and its variants.

 

Armour 6 - 13 mm Maximum speed14 km/h Main weapon 37 mm tank gun The Czechoslovakian KH 50 light tank is the worst just look at it!

 

Looks like it wasn't used in the war.

"Following WW1 and a side trip to deliver the "M-21" to Sweden, Josef Vollmer, the former chief designer for the German War Department's motor vehicle section, came to reside in Czechoslovakia. Joining Skoda, he set to work on a wheel/track light tank. His KH-50 design had roadwheels mounted on the drive sprockets and a jockey wheel behind to keep the tracks up off the ground. Despite impressive specifications - 13mm armor, a 37mm turret mounted gun, and a 50hp engine capable of pushing the tank up to 8mph (tracks) and 22mph (wheels), it was rejected by the Czech army. However, the Czech army was impressed. The army liked the hybrid Kolohousenka wheel/track arrangement and commissioned further studies. Further designs would be the KH-60 and 70. Notable differences would be the engine power was increased to 60 and 70hp and a better system of switching between track and wheel. The left three photos are the the KH-50, the right two are of the KH-60. The middle photo is of the wheel change device. This simple ramp device allowed the track to wheel change to happen in under 10 minutes. The actual years of production and testing were 1925 - 30. During which time, 2 KH-50 prototypes were built. One was rebuilt into a KH-60 and the other scrapped. Actual production included 2 KH-60 to the USSR and 1 KH-70 to Italy. As time passed, this vehicle came to be regarded as more of an experiment rather than a military war vehicle."​

Czechoslovakia​

 

I think the list would include almost all Japanese and Italian tanks. The Maus would have to make the list also as a colossal waste or resources, although it was really no more than a research project.

How about the Tiger II - although an excellent machine, the Tiger II was totally inappropriate for the German's war situation. The efforts would have been better focussed on assault guns and jagdpanzers.

 

Keep in mind that a good amount of Japanese tanks produced in the war were light tanks. Just because those light tanks were outclassed by the Sherman medium tank, it doesn't necessarily make them bad.

 

That is true enough, but both the Japanese and Italian light tanks were outclassed by the American M3 "Stuart" light tank, and most of the Japanese light tanks were no match for even its predecessor the M2A4.

When stretching into mediums, the Japanese 97 was barely equal to the sad and sorry stop-gap M3 "Lee/Grant". I will admit that I find the V-12 air-cooled diesel engine in the Type 97 to be an interesting idea however, even if it had less than 190 hp.

 

That is a good point - the Japanese designs would need to judged against comparable light tanks. But my understanding is the Japanese types did not compare well with other nation's light tanks.

How about the German fascination with flamethrower tanks. A waste of a good tank chassis ripping out a multi-purpose main gun to support such a short-range, limited-use flamethrower.

 

I do understand that yes Japanese tanks were less than par. I wasn't really arguing for them, but I could see how it might seem that way.

But it is a fact often overlooked when discussing tanks. Too many people say that the Stuart stinks because it had a 37mm gun and no armor. Or that the King Tiger must be better than the Sherman because it could easily defeat it in a battle. But it is often ignored or unknown to these people that each of those three tanks were built for different purposes and are each in a different class. The Stuart was a good LIGHT tank, the Sherman was a good MEDIUM tank. I just wanted to make sure SPGunner wasn't making that mistake.

 

Not a problem "Jagdtiger1", I was pretty sure I understood where you were going. I still find the idea of an air-cooled V-12 diesel engine to be intriquing. I just cannot wrap my head around the thing, especially knowing the temps at which diesels like to run, and wondering if they could even be operated in the heat of the South West and South Pacific areas?

I've searched in vain for the displacement of these V-12 diesels, but to no avail. Do you know?

 

Unfortunately no, my understanding of the V-12 diesel is probably no better than yours or others.

The 12-cylinder air-cooled diesel was mounted at the rear of the hull and transmitted power via a propeller shaft to the gearbox in the nose of the tank; the gearbox had four forward and one reverse gears. A feature of most Japanese tanks of this period was that they were powered by diesel rather than petrol engines, which gave them a much increased operational range as well as reducing the ever-present risk of fire, the dread of any tank crew.

 

Wikipedia says 21.7 liter? Is that displacement?

 

Some data I have on the Type 97's engine are
12 cylinders V diesel cyl diameter 107mm (early) 120mm (late) stroke 166mm
17.900 cc (early) 21.700 cc (late)
150 to 170 HP at 1500 RPM
The type 1 engine gave HP at 2000 RPM (and possibly had only 6 cylinders but I'm not sure of that).
But even if classified as "mediums" the Type 97 and Type 1 weighted around 15 tonns so where in the same class of the US lights and the early British cruisers,, against which they had some advantages not the twice as heavy Sherman and M3 "mediums".