We heard about the best, what would be the worst "main" battle tank of the war? I would have to say the Sherman. You must remember, I am looking the the main battle tank and the Sherman falls under this. It was under gunned and caught on fire easily. Yet, it was produced in large quantities. It did have good armor protection. It was easy to produce and maintain. But, in a slugging match, it was no match at all. The Americans could have done better.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

wasn't there this model of tank the US had that was called the "Grant" used in North Africa? I don't think that one did very well?
I don't recall it having any positive features...at least the sherman was easy to produce!

My vote goes for the two man crewed Japanese light tanks as the worst tanks in WW2.

My vote goes to.........

the crusader, this tank preformed miserable in the dessert war. It broke down or cought fire without enemy "help"

Wittmann: I just wanted to say-welcome aboard. [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

panther and tiger, Evans
(panter and tiger = two tanks
tanks = thanks)
so thanks Evans [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

What an extended way to say tanks,..err I mean thanks.

What about tank crews? do you think crews make a big difference in our perception of the effectiveness of a tank? For example, when germany invaded france, the Allies actually had more tanks than the germans, many were the heavy and hard hitting French CharB's. However, the German tanks performed a great deal better than the Allied tanks. Why? Better tank crew training and coordination.

But I still think those Japanese tanks were among the worst around, no better than Panzer I's.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Dear Wittmann: Tanks you and Tanks for the laughs, also-notice your ratings? Take care and have a nice weekend. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Het Otto, we both need to keep our day jobs-Eh?

I agree with you assessment on the crews and training. Definately the Japanese tanks were abysmal. Those things were like Volkswagen Beetles with a MG~~OR~~ a small box with tracks. Those things looked like wind-up toys. Perhaps the Japanese tank manufacturers turned to making those irritating toys we have seen on the market ever since the 1950's.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Otto,
Most definitely! The panzer forces in the East have proven that superior training does make a difference. We all would admit that the T-34 was grossly superior to anything the Germans had until the Tiger was introduced yet the Germans were knocking them out at a rate of 2or3 to one when they changed tactics and discipline. I would even say that the Germans had the best trained panzer korps of all the nations.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Should it not be noted that Japanese tanks, although they were inferior to the MBTs of the ETO when compared to them as though they were intended to combat them, were intended at most as MG carriers & such.
Moreover, a Tiger, Panther, Churchil, Grant, etc isn't the sort of heavy object that makes for easy sea transport. The PTO was largely islands.
Also, the enemies the japanese faced didn't exactly have topnotch armor or AT capabilities themselves - at least other than the Russians, who the Japanese wisely avoided after a brush with them, and the Americans if you wish to consider the Sherman, which i believe did not show up in nearly the numbers it did in the ETO. Recall that the growth of tanks in size and offensive power came about as a result of the combatant nations in Europe encountering each other's tanks and trying to one-up each other.
The Germans, to comment further, achieved their initial victories using some of their lightest tanks, while the behemoths made (in)famous during WW2 fought mostly during the long, but nonetheless futile defense of Germany.
As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the Germans are as likely a candidate for producing the worst tanks as any other nation. Granted, some were among the most formidable of the war, but was it not other aspects of ther nature - their complexity, with all the related performance problems, and difficulty to construct in large numbers, which contributed in no small part to Germany's eventual defeat?

__________________
Novus Ordo Seclorum

Just moving this thread to the proper forum.

[ 02 June 2001: Message edited by: Otto ]

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

The Grant was an undoubted disaster. Its turreted gun was of low caliber while its other armament, a heavier gun carried on the side, gave the tank a very high profile which allowed the enemy to knock its turret off before the side gun could be brought into play.

Chris Ray

The Lee (Grant) was not a bad vehicle. Its opponents feared it, at least Von Luck did. Remember the Lee was the first tank in the desert to boast a non close support 75mm gun, PIV's w/ KwK/43 arrive shortly after but in very small numbers. And with its adequate armor was a formidable machine. The 37mm did a damn good job killing most anything the Axis had in the desert also. Must remember that a 37mm will ruin a sdkfz 222, anything Italian, PII, and older PIII and PIV marks. The French proved that with their significantly lower velocity 37's

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

Lots of bad ones, but the worst has to be to pretty much any 2 man Japanese tank IMO. Completely outclassed by the Sherman. All through the war the Japanese lagged behind in tank development because they didnt really have a need to have a large armored force.

The Graemlin patrol:
[img]redface.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Gibson ]

Hah ha, The Graemlim Patrol, nice laugh [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But theriously folks I agree with you that the Japanese tank was a tinker toy piece of trash.

The main reason Japanese tank development lacked was because the Japanese high command thought it best that their Inf and Artillery, was supposed to do all the "real" fighting brillient thinking on tojos part.

However, they did produce a range of tanks and even had a so-called heavy tank. It looked more like a Russian designed tank, and if im not mistaken, some were actually used on Okinawa. If my uncle were still living, I would ask him about that as he was there.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibson:
Lots of bad ones, but the worst has to be to pretty much any 2 man Japanese tank IMO. Completely outclassed by the Sherman. All through the war the Japanese lagged behind in tank development because they didnt really have a need to have a large armored force.

The Graemlin patrol:
[img]redface.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Gibson ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I get the gist of this discussion you want candidates for the "worst" tank designed to fulfill a battle tank role in combat. My candidate - hands down - is the Italian medium tank series M13/40 and M 14/41. It was poorly armored with riveted armor, had a rather low velocity 47mm gun. It was fast enough but very fragile to combat damage OR road wear. The tracks were particularly susceptible to catastrophic failure. The Japanese only produced about 200 tanks in the last couple years of the war - they were obviously unconvinced as to its usefulness to them.
The Japanese tank crew were notoriously timid. In action against the Philipine and U.S. forces they almost always stopped and waited for the infantry to clear the way whenever they came under machine gun fire.
The Italians could be pretty aggressive in their tanks - the Japanese never even considered them a "warrior's" weapon.

Mu uncle told me, that when they finally came up against Japanese tanks, he said they were so small and poorly made, that one almost felt as if he could reach down and pick the tank up, and toss it over his shoulder. In other words, they thought Japanese tanks were as dangerous as those silly little metal wind-up toys.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I dont think the Sherman was that bad a tank, when it was introduced it was undoubtedly the best allied tank produced outside Russia.The problem was that because the chasis was built to incorperate a radial airplane engine initially, the hull was too high. when better engines were later substituted perhaps the hull could have been lowered, or widened to give the sides more of a slope. Wouldn't it of been interesting if the T-34 had been available to the americans to develop a new tank from, much as the Germans did with the Panther.
If all three major powers had worked to gether more closly the allies might have been able to roll ashore on D-Day with tanks based on the T-34 design, perhaps armed with the superb British 17 pounder gun. Now that would have given the Germans a nasty surprise.

__________________
Ain't no rocket scientists in the firehall

Its a shame too, that they didnt bump heads and come up with a joint project. I can imagine ir now T-34 type tanke with snorkels wading ashore on D-Day. And I CAN imagine the Germans paniking from that

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

My list of stinkers:
UK,Harry Hopkins
UK,Covenanter
and any British tank sportin' a 2 pounder after May '42.
Japan, Type 89 KO

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

Hi everybody...here I am again.

This issue is very interresting so my vote goes to.....Renault FT17 still in use in 1940 by french army...or the Matilda markI!

Comet.

Glad to have you back Comet--long time no see. I wholy agree with your French choice. What do you feel about the Char B, which was a Heavier tank?

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.