The top 10 worst tanks of the war

Sorry the ONLY reason Im "Defending" it is because you are Wrong. I could care less if it is American or not. We have all posted here information refuting how you statements and OPINIONS are incorrect. You will notice that the other members here who have posted are not from the US also BTW. So pulling out the nationality card is a childish ploy that doesn't work here. I have been here long enough that many of the posters here have seen that I try very hard to keep any personal bias out of anything I post. And I back up what I post with my sources. If it is of my opinion I say so. Now I asked you questions as to why about both the M4 and M3 and you have yet answer or address them. As others have said if you make statements here then you should be ready to back them up with sources and facts.

 

It was due to the role played by Churchill tanks in battle, infantry support.
To support the infantry an excellent HE round was of far more importance than a AP round, as the main threat these tanks would face would be enemy AT guns and infantry, not enemy tanks.

 

I totally agree! I know it would be my first choice of any light Tank if I were to choose out of a large number of different light Tanks produced during the Second World War!

I would also add to Za's list of attributes,good speed which any light Tank needs to get itself out of trouble,it was a true "Honey" of a Tank.

As for the Sherman, it was a good design and highly adaptable to upgrades over the years, no one can realistically put these two Tanks in a top ten "worst" catergory.

As for the Churchill,again it does not even come close to being in a top ten worst catergory...it was well used in a number of variants in Africa Italy and France and proved itself it be a very sound design with good crew protection.

 

In no particular order....

Covenanter Tank....they produced over 1700 and it was so bad it never even saw combat!
Matilda Mark I....why build a heavily armoured tank with a MG as its main weapon?
M11/39...totally outclassed by its introduction it even made the M13's look good to the Italian Tankers
CV33/35...very poor armour,too slow for a light tank...if it can be called that?
Elephant....no Mg,poor mobility,bad mechanics,too heavy
Japanese Tanks..esp the two man type's..nuff said
T-35....land ship?...poor reliability,poor armour,poor performance off and on road
T-28..see above
T-KS Polish...way too small and under armoured
Char 2c....no explanation needed..

 

The Elephant is probably over criticized. It was just one way of using some 90 chassis they had available and only 2 batallions were equipped with it. Despite it's reputation for unreliability some were still around for the Bulge after having fought in the East and Italy. Also I would not call "worst" a vehicle that, at long range, is more than a match for anything short of a JSII.

 

Exactly what light tanks are you comparing the Stuart to? Why not give us a list?

 

I guess well agree to disagree.. I hope that is okay.

 

Congratulations, you managed not to give one single proper reply to any questions put to you. Assuming you simply don't have an answer we're not agreeing to disagree, I don't even see where we can agree or disagree. Until circumstances change we can simply neglect to acknowledge you. Fare well.

 

I have to agree with you Za LOL. He has chosen not to answer to anything. Even with listing the light tanks he supposedly compares the Stuart with. So it appears he has chosen to disagree with the FACTS placed before him. Have you noticed that no one else agrees with his statements either LOL?

 

You are speaking of Comrade Yezhov, right?

 

Alright if he wont do it, then I will.

Ok lets think......

How about the Stuart vs the Pz II, or maybe vs the Lynx.

 

Or if I may add the Italian L6/40,Japanese Types 92,95,98

 

Interesting thought.

 

As did practically every tank in WWII. Comparative studies have shown that PzIIIs and PzIVs were as prone to brewing up when penetrated as Shermans.

 

What's your source for this opinion? Furthermore do you mean the Churchill I, II, III, IV, VII or Crocodile?

 

I'm well aware of the Churchill's role in battle, all I'm saying is that the 6pdr's HE round may not have been as bad as it's painted.

 

Go the Petard, Churchill AVRE.

 

Now you're falling on the same error as the SMLE guy was. You're comparing things who have little in common. One (the M3/5 series) is a tank. The others are just tracked vehicles who happen to have an inefficient gun. How can you compare vehicles that have nothing in common??



Cheers...

 

Well all four had "turrets" ..the type 95 and 98 both had 37mm main gun IIRC....didn't know we were comparing firepower also....my bad

 

The Stuart has an obvious advantage here except in overall height. The Stuart's frontal armor is sufficent to stop either tank's gun at typical engagement ranges while the 37mm is still capable of penetrating either vehicle. There is no clear advantage in fighting either vehicle crew-wise. The German vehicles only lack the hull assistant driver of the Stuart and all three have two man turrets.

For even worse, there are the horrible Soviet light tanks like the T 60 or T 70. While these have more armor and gun than the German tanks and the T 70 is better armed and armored, both Soviet vehicles are two man crewed. They lack all but the most rudimentary vision devices and are virtually blind in combat. They also lack a radio and intercom system. Both also have manual turret rotation only.
These two vehicles are little more than death traps on a battlefield.

Even the contemporary British Cruisers are not any better. The Crusader I and II along with previous models have no more firepower, are still saddled with two man turrets and no better armor. On the negative side, the British tanks are far less reliable though they are just as fast and have minor advantage in cross country performance.

I won't even go into the Japanese or French, or Italian for that matter, lights. These rate equal or below the two Soviet vehicles described above.