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

Worst tank of WW2?

Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by Man, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    But it has great armor and great firepower, i think for a WWII tank its not bad, now a tank has to be good at all points like mobility, reliability, armor, firepower etc, but maybe they didn't want it to cross bridges that much....

    I think in terms of armor and firepower its a great tank :lol:
     
  2. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    oh, come on, the gun was the ultimate in antitank gun design and had good protection in the front,
    but i can agree with the ccumberson and to heavy and unrealiable transmsion plus the overworked engine
     
  3. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2

    It can“t be a bad tank, because it is a tank-destroyer. ;)
     
  4. scaramouche

    scaramouche New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    You re correct! it was a typo! (brought on by sleep deprivation plus the Bushmills!):You re correct! it was a typo! it shuld have read "1000 yards" :oops: :oops: For all its limitations, the M3 was far more capable than the "Cruiser" tanks, (certainy far more reliable) -(after all the British gave it its nickname "Honey" for a reason...it worked like a honey.). far better than the Italiam M11/M13.M15s in the Western Dessert- and it could probably hold its own against the earlier PzkW IIIs :smok: ;)
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Uhm, scaramouche, you're only making it worse, it seems. At first I was surprised because you claimed the 37mm gun would penetrate a full 254mm at 100 yards, which I think can't be matched by many guns made during the war. Now you enlarge that distance to 1000 yards, making the 37mm gun more powerful than the 88mm L/71! :eek:

    Welcome to the forum, Jeffrey. The problem with the Jagdtiger, apart from the fact that it's not a tank, is that it is way too heavy. Weighing in at 72 tons, it wouldn't be supported by many bridges, and its fuel usage was nothing Germany could afford. Also its gun was simply more powerful than was necessary, since the late 88mm gun provided more than enough power to face Allied tanks.
     
  6. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes i also only listed its disadvantages ! ;)

    Its advantages would be its really heavy armor, great optics coupled with a gun that would happily take out any tank at 4000m+ ! The 128mm L/55 gun could be argued as being too powerful for its time ! :eek:
     
  7. scaramouche

    scaramouche New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
     
  8. shearwater

    shearwater New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I forgot the Marmon Herrington CTL series, possibly the worst tank of the war, certainly the worst US tank. I don't have the specs to hand but they were produced for export to the Dutch East Indies and taken over by the USMC when the Japanese over-ran the Dutch colonies. They were a lightly armoured, 2 man mg armed vehicle and because of the poor design had to be produced in a left and right hand version. This was because the driver's position blocked full turret traverse so 2 tanks were needed to provide 360' arc of fire! They were so unreliable and inadequate that they were sent to relatively quiet areas such as Alaska.

    I don't have any pictures or full details so if anyone could post photos or more details it would be appreciated. I suppose their contribution to allied tank design was at least in showing the way not to go.
     

Share This Page