The top 10 worst tanks of the war

Just to clear up some misconceptions, the 6pdr certainly could fire an HE round (as could the 2pdr), but the 75mm fired a more effective HE round than the 6pdr. The main threat to armour was thought to be the anti-tank guns, rather than the panzers, which meant that an HE round would be more useful than an anti-tank round. However, the switch from the 6pdr to the 75mm seems an odd business based on some odd assumptions and misleading field reports.

 

Another problem for the Italians would be that the quality of their armour was pretty poor and had a tendency to shatter and split when hit. Not enough carbon in the steel, apparently.

 

My first attempt at posting pictures ...

We already mentioned the independent but what about it's little brother? Neither is really WW2 though.

View attachment 3462

The Italian army actually held competitive trials of the M13 against a Skoda design (T21 ?) guess who won and who got the production order?

View attachment 3463

And let's not forget the mighty CULQUALBER !!! There were apparently six of the things used by the Italians in East Africa, it has tracks, armour and guns, does that make it a tank?

View attachment 3464

 

alot of people may disagree but i say the Sherman. The Sherman was an adequate design pre-D-day, reliable and easy to produce. But its armor and gun were completely outclassed by 1944 by almost every other tank the Germans had. I would not want to have been an allied tanker after D-day, sooner or later you were bound to come up against a tiger or a panther and they could kill you before you even saw them.

 

And to point out yet again. The Sherman went on to soldier for many decades after the war. And even was able to best the T-34 in combat. Not bad for what you consider one of the "Worst".

 

Decades after the war yes, but with different armament configurations including a French gun derived from the Panther

What you say only proves that anything that goes vrooom-vrooom and is made in the US is (was?) stellar (except for the Edsel). But then if a tank is mechanically not-so-good then it breaks the tank trinomy: protection-firepower-mobility. If the engine is crap then what you have is an 8ft tall bunker with a scared crew inside (or miles away already). So it's only natural that tanks with good mechanics survived, others were just scrapyard bait. Better a so-so tank that runs than a great tank that doesn't - that's not a tank any more. And your so-so tank runs, your country doesn't need to buy another one.

 

Its pretty amazing how many modifications and adaptations that have been made to it and the various uses it has had over the years.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/26078-post-war-use-allied-vehicles-tanks.html

 

It seems odd to me that in an objective survey on The Military Channel, of the ten best tanks of all time; the Sherman comes in tenth. Not first in "worst" but tenth in "best". The T-34 came in #1, with the Panther, and a couple of British tanks hitting the middle range of "best".

And I believe that you yourself "marc780", should reconsider your position by including the "Easy Eight", or "Super Sherman"; "production started in the first months of 1944 and continued through April 1945. The "Super Sherman" M.4 A-3 E8 became the standard tank of the 3rd and 7th US Armies in Europe. Although it could not compete on a One-on-One basis neither with the big German tanks (Panthers and Tigers) nor, if that had been the case, with the new T34-85s, its technical readability and adequate armament, coupled with the US Army magnificent logistic organization and unlimited supplying capacities, guaranteed the M.4 A-3 E8 a prolonged, honorable life. It bravely soldiered in Korea as well as in the Middle East and equipped, in the post-war years, many Western allied armies."

From:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/m4a3e8.htm

This makes the last version of the Sherman, and one available after D-Day far from the worst tank of WW2. It was the equal of the most common Panzer (PzKpfw IV), even if it couldn’t compete with the "Panther" or either "Tiger" model. That wasn’t its job anyway, that is what the TDs were for.

And before anybody forgets this, the Ford GAA III was quite an engine for a tank. It was a DOHC unit, with extensive aluminum used in its construction, and producing 450 hp at 2,600 rpms.

Not the simple "flat head" eight of Ford fame.

 

Thanks Clint. It gets tiring of this Sherman Bashing when the facts otherwise prove some people views incorrect.

 

100% agreed, I would add the Soviet BT-7 to this list.

 

Oh the T-35 has to go on the list. Not a great tank more like a land Battleship. Now if the battle of Jutland was fought on land......

 

Naww, make it the BT-5 with that wheels-or-tracks running scheme, with steering front radwheels! Or just as bad if not worse, the Tetrarch

 

Wow, what a great what if!

 

Worst tank?

Probably one of the many make shift German tanks or SPG's, such as the Ferdinand or the King Tiger. As explained earlier, a tank is defined by firepower, amour and mobility, and since neither of this tanks were very good on the mobility side of things, I think it makes them prime candidates.

Or of course virtually any of the Japanese tanks.

That post about the Sherman in absurd, it cant take on the panther? Have you not heard of the 17pdr Firefly or the 76mm Sherman, they are after all Shermans.

 

The Sherman had a problem with catching on fire

 

The Stuart was is probably 6th worst tank, light main gun, and light armor

 

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.

 

Now you all know my views on the Stuart light tank, (lets not start it again Joe, lol), so I won't go there. But as for the Sherman, it was one of the best medium tanks of the war, yes initially she was prone to catch fire, but this was largely fixed by the time of the Normandy Invasions were one. The 17pdr (FireFly) or the 76mm Sherman were more then capable of taking out many of the German heavy tanks including the Panther, Tiger, Mk IV (medium tank) and the various mixture of assault guns, SPG's and tank destroyers fielded by the Germans. She was overall a good tank and deserves here recognition in the war.

 

The Stuarts (M3 - M5)? Best of the breed! Fine mechanics! As good armour and firepower as the other light tanks if not better, but beats hands down on reliability!

 

I must have missed (or forgotten) your views on the Stuart TC? I am however in complete accordance with Za (distasteful I know, but it happens to all of us sometimes ). The Stuart doesn't deserve any sort of place in a worst thread... they didn't call it 'Honey' for nothing.

Cheers,
Adam.