Worst tank of WW2?

oops. Yes, you're right. two machine guns.

Yes you're right in that one. It was just the first tank with few firepower and few armour that I could come up with, sitting in school with loads of curious eyes pointed on my screen...

 

Well Ricky, generally speaking the Italian and Japanese tanks were often worse than the worst of the Allied tanks. Therefore I would heap them up as worst tanks of WW2, omitting the obvious detail among them. I mean, on a scale of 10, would you mind the difference between a tank that gets a 1 and a tank that gets a 2? They're both horribly below standards.

 

Hello.
It is true that mechanically this tank was reliable.
But to choose, I will have preferred to be in Churchill than in a Valentine.
Patrice.

 

Roel -
You yourself said:
"what remains is defining worst tanks per country."
So we have to find the worst Japanese tank, the worst Italian tank, the worst russian tank, etc...

Patrice -
Maybe, but I'd rather be in a Valentine than a Cruiser Mk I, or a Vickers Light tank

 

Certainly Ricky or in a Vickers Medium Tank.

 

But it was still an acceptable tank that had some AT capability.

The Panzer 1 was effective as a training tank, and was very cheap so it wasn't entirely a waste of resources.

The Israelis today train tank crews on outdated modells like the AMX 13 or captured T 54s (Like the rest of Israels training tanks modified to resemble the Merkava on the inside in every way), so I don't think the Panzer 1 was a completely useless waste of resources.

 

2nd Legion, I think you're thinking of the Matilda II with the 2pdr. The Matilda I was I believe only armed with a machine gun.

 

The panzer 1 was very cheap so i dont see how it could have been a waste of resource. If used for nothing else they could still be used to patr effictevily behind the battle front or in occupied citie. Not counting their great use as training tanks as 2ndlegion points out.

 

Okay, so what do you think is the worst German tank of WW2? I already mentioned the Maus and the Heuschrecke, if you want a lead...

 

Well, the truth is i think the kingtiger is one excellent tank but in the long run, the resources put into its production might have been better spent in making more of the already excellent panthers and tiger1s.

 

What is the worst tank of the war.

Really it's a hard question. Even that ugly arsed lawnmower would be effective under the right conditions.

The T-34/76 in 1942 was the best tank on the eastern front but in mid 1943 and 1944 it was bad compared to the German Panther and the Tiger, only the T-34/85 would be respectable in a fight with these two.

I have to say the Koenigs Tiger. Slow, vulnerable to breakdown and aircraft/artillery fire.

I simply say this because I would not want to be in one in a battle. I would choose the Panther.

 

are you out of you mind!
the panther is among the best!!!

 

On perfectly flat concrete without cover, and opposed by 3 old men armed with spoons?

 

I was possitive that the Sherman would pop up in this thread.

 

LOL - maybe we've actually learnt something...

 

I hope those old men aren't armed with metal spoons, after all, there are three of them!!! :lol: :lol:

 

Bolo - the Tiger II wasn't at all slow, in fact it was as fast as the Panther or Tiger. It was more prone to breakdowns though, even though some mebers here will dispute that. However, judging the KT's value in a battle of long range and defence, I wouldn't say it was the worst of WW2!

After all, I think it was better suited than the Bob Semple even against old men. But metal spoons do make it tougher to say for sure...

Ricky, David - ROFL!

 

I am merely offering an opinion. The KTs weight had to be a liability on soft soil, more so than a Panther which I think was the best German tank of the war.

The KT had a very good gun, I agree with that but a gun alone will not dominate a battlefield. You need that perfect balance of mobility, firepower and armour (in that order) and not firepower, armour and mobility. IMO.

What would the KT have done if it could do 50 mph with a range of 500 miles? The raids it could have pulled off would have stopped the Russians cold. Yes I am fantacising but maybe you can see my point.

 

You mean the "Ronson Lighters"?

 

Thats funny, you're maybe the 37th person on this forum who tries to bash the Sherman and can't even get the nicknames for the M4 right. :lol: