WW2, Worlds Worst Tank

#31
That is a rare French Tickler. Magnum.

 

Just looked it up. The tank used in the movie was a replica Mark VIII.

 

By 1943 most of the Japanese tanks were pretty worthless. Perhaps in the mid-1930s they'd have been useful.

 

Gotcha KJ Jr. Thank you for pointing that out

 

WRT the Bob Sempel tank, the Soviets used at least two tractor-tanks, the NI(Na Ispug) and the KhTZ-16.
http://www.o5m6.de/ni.html
http://www.o5m6.de/khtz_16.html

While the results tended to be predictable, the tractor-tanks did occasionally see some success.

 

As tanks....or as tractors???

 

If only the Japanes had the services of Goebbels. We could all be talking about invulnerable Japanese tanks with 10-1 kill ratios!

American armor, which played so important a part in the ground action, had suffered heavily. By the end of May, not counting Marine tank losses, there had been 221 tank casualties in the four Army tank battalions and the one armored flame thrower battalion. Of this total, 94 tanks, or 43 percent, had been completely destroyed. Enemy mines had destroyed or damaged 64 tanks and enemy gunfire 111. Such mishaps as thrown tracks or bogging down in bad terrain had accounted for 38, of which 25 were subsequently destroyed or damaged, mostly by enemy action. The 221 tank casualties constituted about 57 percent of the total number of Army tanks on Okinawa. At least 12 of the valuable and irreplaceable armored flame-throwing tanks were among those lost.

There were only 30 Japanes 'medium' tanks on Okinawa!

 

Not very fair comparison in my opinion.

1. The terrain wasn't exactly optimal for tank warfare, but as tanks were so important part of US ground forces, there were tanks deployed in Okinawa too. In Okinawa special flame thrower tanks were used in close cooperation with ground forces.
2. Japanese defense was dug in deep and they used strong fortifications, caves pillboxes etc. very efficiently
3. Japanese artillery was exceptionally strong in Okinawa
4 Overall circumstances were so different compared to European battle fields and in Okinawa there were rarely tank to tank battles and I suspect that in direct tank to tank battle the American tanks were much better than Japanese (of course, just my opinion)

Here is a good read about the tactical aspect of that battle and even if it doesn't tell much about tank warfare in Okinawa, but it'll give good overall picture on how the circumstances were. It is easy to understand, why American casualties regarding tanks were higher.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter10.htm

 

Agree. The fact that Japan never actually got into full scale tank warfare except with China maybe is the reason why they neglected their tank improvements and put their focus on naval development. During late war their tank technology was outdated and comparisons to other nations tank technologies isn't fair.

 

Don't read to much into it.

M Kenny was just having his usual go at the Panthers and Tigers.

 

The Imperial Japanese Army did not focus on naval development, unless it pertained directly to them. Although the IJA did have some "aircraft carriers", submarines, and the first purpose -built amphibious assault ship, the Shinshu Maru. At the time, the IJA was very rapidly increasing and developing planes for the IJAAF, which was taking up a good portion of their budget.

Still, the Japanese tanks were no worse or better than like tanks of other nations. However, the Japanese faced no real tank opposition until the M-3 Lee/Grant in 1943. So, they was no pressing need to speed development of a more adequate medium tank. Further, giving that Japanese heavy industry was operating at or near capacity, Japan was short in all areas of the weapons of war, and their logistics were woefully inadequate to support and maintain a large new fleet of powerful medium tanks, Japan did not have the luxury of being able to produce and deploy a better medium tank.

I believe Old Abe put it best, "Too many piglets, not enough tits."

 

And vs the Soviets, in Mongolia, 1939...

With Zhukov commanding 498 Soviet BT-5's and BT-7's.

 

Of which, it seems that Zhukov lost a good deal
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/battles/khalkhin_gol/losses.htm

Though I have not been able to find a good source on Japanese tank losses. Does any one have any reliable figures on Japanese tank losses at Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan?

 

Hitler had weird ideas after Stalingrad, perhaps Brumbär was ok, but Ram Tiger was in my opinion totally a flop.

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/RAUMPANZER%20TIGER.htm

Based on the experiences of Stalingrad street fighting, on November 22, 1942 Hitler approved the production of a single Rammtiger - barricade and obstacle destroyer.

 

LOL:

Propulsion[edit]
The Ratte was to be propelled by two MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines of 6,300 kW (8,400 hp) each (as used in U-boats) or eight Daimler-Benz MB 501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines of 1,500 kW (2,000 hp) each (as used in E-boats) to achieve the 12,000 kW (16,000 hp) needed to move this tank

 

What about these things? The Sturmtiger.

The only one I know of that was killed in combat (in the west at least), was taken by Company C, 117th IR, 30th Division, on February 26th, 45, at Oberembt, Germany. Several others were found broken down and/or abandoned in this period. There are few details. Curlew, the 1st battalion history, only says that the 2nd and 3rd platoons took the right flank of Oberembt and quickly killed or captured the occupants of what they began calling "The Monster." A photo shows what appears to be bazooka holes in the rear.




View attachment 22079

View attachment 22080

 

Looks like excellently sloped armor in the front. Add a little more angle to the sides and maybe mount an 88 in there and you 'll have a wonderful AT/assault gun there. At first I thought that was a prototype to the Jagdpanther.




They might want to think of playing down the horsepower though. That does sound a bit like overkill in an armored bulldozer.

 

It's easy to ridicule about light tanks developped in the 30ies, but most of them were just built to give the crew mobility and a basic protection against infantry weapons.

The britisch Matilda I was different, built as a front-line tank, but to slow and only equipped with a machine-gun, it was useless. The Crusader was a poor effort too, very unreliable, and when it works, it was no match for the german Mk III.

Never understood, why the "Jagdtiger" was built. Why mounting such an enormous gun when the smaller, cheaper and more reliable Jagdpanther was available? Even the Hetzer was enough to take out every allied tank at reasonable ranges, and it was small, reliable, cheap and easy to camouflage.

 

I suspect the Jagd Tiger arose from the arms race on the Eastern front. By the end of the war Soviet tanks (JS 2 and T34/85) were fitted with 85mm guns as tank armament and turret less SU series were fitted with 100mm guns, In this context the turret less versions of the Panther (88mm in place of 75mm) and Tiger (128mm in place of 88mm) make sense.

 

The Matilda MkI was far from useless...given its thick armour, excellent reliability...and AP ordnance for its Vickers MG It also only soaked up two trained crew, and gave them FAR more protection than any of the Vickers Lights.

And don't forget when Rommel recorded in his diaries about "Matildas" rampaging through his rear echelons he wasn't talking about the MKIIs...he was talking about the MkIs fielded at Arras