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
    Yeah, that looks like somebody has "armored" a regular crawler tractor, either agricultural or construction. Not a "Tank" really, a "tanked" crawler.
     
  2. Half Pint

    Half Pint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    9
    That is exactly what they did, but then what is a tank other than a tractor.

    They even drove these around in parades.

    HP
     
  3. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Air-cooled diesels are not uncommon at all in tanks. In fact, one of the most heavily produced tank engines in the postwar world has been the continental motors AVDS1790 which powers the US M60, almost all Israeli tanks, and many other vehicles.
     
  4. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    153
    For some reason, whenever I see that pic, I think of Robbie the Robot! :eek:

    Was it a failure, tho'???

    1/ The locals felt a lot safer...

    2/ They dug deep in their pockets for war bonds!

    3/ it did all that without ever having to fight! :D

    Depends on your definition of failure!



    It's the legendary Bob Semple Tank - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank ....so it' a Caterpillar D8 crawler.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  5. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    139
    The Matilda II is considered by many to be one of the best early war tanks.
     
  6. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    153
    ...and midwar too, if you count the Eastern Front, the Soviets loved them, and requested we kept on producing them into 1943 for them, tho' they were well-obsolete in North Africa by then.

    The Soviets' opinion of the Valentine also differs from most other nations; they used them for hunting Tigers! :eek: The Valentine was apparently a remarkably quiet tank when running/moving - so much so that the Soviets used them to outflank Tigers and hit them from the sides or rear.
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    5 of the worst:
    Pz VII
    PzVIII
    Pz IX
    PzX
    Ferdinand (although it was no tank)
     
  8. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Does it count if they never went into production other than the Ferdinand?
     
  9. leccy1

    leccy1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    23
    The little old valley was used as a recconaissance tank by the Soviets, although slower than their own it had better armour and was more reliable than many of their own types, the 2 pdr was a decent gun in its day and many vallys the Soviets got had the 6pdr as well.
     
  10. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
  11. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Is it just me, or does that look like what would happen if the Daleks designed a tank?
     
  12. core500

    core500 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bob Semple tank New Zealand, a giant failer has only machine guns massive and fat top speed 5km 8 crew only 8mm of armour max no suspension 25.4 tons
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well it did satisfy a political/moral purpose and what few were built were converted back into tractors. The fact that they were never put into mass production or commited to combat may also mitiage whether or not they would be considered "giant failures". They are certainly eligible for the list though.
     
  14. ww24interest

    ww24interest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    7
    It wasn't the tank it was the crew. Germans when hit could bail out with minor to no injuries and transfer their experience to another tank. I the US crews were hit they were most likely killed. Vet tank crews on the US side were hard to come by opposed to German side.
     
  15. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    London UK
    I think that is a myth. Allied tank crew casualty rates were far lower than for infantry

    Check out this official report http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html#duty

    Battle casualties by duty branch, type, and disposition:(7 December 1941-31 December 1946) gives a total of 6,827 battle casualties among enlisted men in the Armored Force of which 1,581 were killed in action or died of wounds and a further 14 died in captivity or were missing declared killed.

    The US Army lost 6,000 tanks in Europe in WWII from D Day to VE, and 1500 in the Mediterranean and Pacific theatres. Given that each tank had a five man crew, there were fewer than one casualty per KO tank and less than one fatality for every four tanks K/O.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    That is most certainly not the case. Even KO'd tanks only lost about half (or less) of their crew on average and most tank crew were killed outside their tanks.
     
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    The blessed Fletcher on what's stored at Bov:

     
    Slipdigit, Terry D and Martin Bull like this.
  18. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,478
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Location:
    London, England.
    Very entertaining ; and not just that - I'd often wondered about the Covenanter and why it was relegated to training duties.
     
  19. Otto

    Otto Rested & Resupplied with MREs. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,457
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    When I picture a stereotypical Brit Armour Boffin, I imagine Fletcher.

    I've had similar thoughts on the Covenanter, well over a thousand produced, with none seeing combat. Stretched wartime resources while still continuing the project, that must have rankled some. The other "bad" tanks on the list were only produced by the handful, I'd argue this is an expected part of the build-it-and-see-if-it-works tank development process. 1,000+ AFV on a failed project seems excessive.
     
  20. The_Human_Oddity

    The_Human_Oddity New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America
    I can't think of a top 10 so I will just list a few:
    1. Bob Semple, this really doesn't need an explanation.
    2. Ferdinand Tank Destroyer, these would lose to themselves more than they would lose to their enemies.
    3. Pz.Kpfw.VI 'King Tiger', the regular 'Tiger' tank was difficult enough to use without it breaking down but the increased weight only made it worse with the 'King Tiger' as the fuel consumption skyrocketed along with the rate of it breaking down.
    4. T-34 Model 1942+, after 1941 the T-34 suffered heavily from its design as it was cramped, it used fuel tanks as armour, the gun became subpar, and the armour was never increased beyond the 45mm excluding the add-on armour, but that still didn't help much.
    5. Pz.Kpfw.VIII 'Maus', it was too heavy and too slow.
    6. T-35, its armour quickly became subpar and it would literally split in half if it went over a trench.
    7. Pz.Kpfw.IF, heavy light tank.
    I didn't include tanks like the Type 95 Ha-Go, Pz.I, M1 Light Tank, and the early T-26s since they were designed at a time where machine guns on tanks were still seen as prevalent and in some cases, such as the Type 95 Ha-Go, they were excellent tanks in the time period.
     

Share This Page