Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The top 10 worst tanks of the war

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by T. A. Gardner, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Thanks for that TOS, with a bore diameter 107mm (early) 4.173 inches, 120mm (late) 4.68 inches, and a stroke 166mm is 6.474 inches, the 21.7 liters displacement converts to 1324.215 cubic inches.

    Which can be put in perspective if an American mind can wrap itself around the fact that a 427 out of a Corvette or a big-block Ford is only 7 liters. Pretty lame on the HP department, even for WW2 era diesel.
     
  2. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    But the again we all get our impressions of Japanese tanks from scraps of the Pacific campaign. A better example of their effectiveness as an infantry support vehicle would require delving into the Sino-Japanese side of WW2.
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    They did well against the Chinese, who had NO tanks, only a few armored cars. They were eaten up by the Red Army in the engagements where they competed against a true armored force. The Japanese tanks are and were crap. The Type 97 probably couldn't have stood up against a Stuart one on one.
     
  4. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    Also, their doctrine was years behind the rest of the world. One could argue that this was due to the specificity of their usual war field (I'm lacking the correct word here). What I mean is, that tropical areas cannot cope with heavy armour too well and tanks weren't deemed as vital by the Japanese force. They didn't really needed them until it was too late.




    Cheers...
     
  5. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    Everything Italian
    Everything Japanese
    Everything British with a 2pdr gun.

    That should cover a ten-spot easily.
     
  6. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    The Churchill originally mountd the 2pdr, would you consider that amoung the bottom 10?
     
  7. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    Yes I do, and so did most of the British tank crews of the period. The 2pdr (37mm) was a fine gun for a recon vehicle like a Stuart, which was a nimble fast mover of it's time. The Churchill was NOT a nimble, fast mover. It couldn't bring it's popgun into play before the 75's and 88's blew them into next week.

    Alan Moorehead relates how 8th Army crews in North Africa wanted Shermans instead of 2pdr Churchills.
     
  8. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    The Churchill was a sturdy, reliable tank, not unlike the Sherman in its ability to be converted and used in many different roles for the British. Its large longitudinal chasis provided the basis for many special purpose vehicles. Although it did lack hull armor, its turret armor was quite efficient at around 101-mm and it was upgraded with a variety of different size guns from the 2pdr, to a 95-mm and even a 17pdr. It served the British quite well and is in no way one of the worsts tanks of the war.
     
  9. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    The 2pdr version, was not the same tank as the later 6pdr or better tank.

    It wasn't a great deal better than the Matilda in it's 2pdr form. We're not talking about "The Churchill" in all it's various forms. Specifically, we're talking about a slow, undergunned, still full of teething troubles early version with a 2pdr gun.
     
  10. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    The Matilda was rather expensive to build, had low mobility, and was unreliable. The Churchill was far better in any form.

    The Churchill with the 2pdr is essentially the same tank as later models with a different gun. It still possess the qualities that gave the Churchill its value. That is, its reliability and ability to be used in many different roles.

    Sure the 2pdr version was extremely undergunned and would probably perform less than adequate in most combat situtations, but simply because it is Churchill varient it does not deserve to be in the bottom ten tanks of the war.
     
  11. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello JagdtigerI,

    I think a fair way of evaluating a tanks capability or worthyness as such resulting in a ranking figure could be to compare its development and fielding cost contra the destroyed enemy tanks or overall enemy losses.

    As such a Sturmtiger or Jagdtiger would propably end up rather badly ;), and I would believe that a Churchill wouldn't look to good if compared to a T-34, Kv-1, Sherman, PzIV, Stug, etc. etc.

    However the Churchill wouldn't be amongst the worst ten. (maybe 11:D)

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  12. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    Hi Kruska,

    Based on that I would be interesed in hearing what you think to be the top ten tanks of the war. This thread seems to be quite the opposite place to discuss it but there is an older thread about the top ten tanks.
     
  13. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello JagdtigerI

    for the best ten IMHO

    T-34
    Pz.IV
    Sherman
    SU-100
    Stug III/IV
    SU-85
    M24 Chaffee
    Pz.III
    T-70
    Tiger I

    In case you can find the thread "best ten" plese let me know since I don't want to divert this thread about the worst 10.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  14. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    758
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
  15. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello T.A.G,

    Thanks - for the link

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  16. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    The Mk.1, with the 2pdr, was mechanically poor, under-gunned, and slow. Sorry, it's on my list of 10 worst, tied with the Matilda, Valentine.
     
    SPGunner likes this.
  17. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    Could you possibly post up your bottom 10 tanks, they don't have to be in any order.
     
  18. Half Pint

    Half Pint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    9
    This beauty from Down Under

    Crew of 8
    5 MG's
    12 feet tall

    [​IMG]
     
    SPGunner likes this.
  19. SPGunner

    SPGunner Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    10
    I assume you mean for the Top 10 best tanks. That has my vote just for looking so cool.
     
  20. Half Pint

    Half Pint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    9
    That's cool????? WOW!!!

    Scared to ask what type of car you drive.:D


    HP
     

Share This Page