What is the worst tank of WWII?

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?

 

C. I read somewhere that the germans actually had respect for the Char B, it was heavily armoured and had a reasonably heavy gun. I understand it was the French tactics that they used that made them such easy meat for German armour. No idea what that was though.

 

The FT-17 didnt leave front line service until 1943, actually. The Germans used a handful of them on the East front as mobile command posts. Weapons were removed and interior was retrofitted with radios and a map table. The FT-17 soldiered on until the end of war performing such tasks as airfield defence, antipartisan, and training vehicles.
The Char B1bis had the same problem as the rest of the French tanks. One man turrets. This forced the poor commander do to the tasks of 2-3 men in a German vehicle. The B1Bis 47mm was cursed with a one man turret, and the 75mm was fixed in line and aimed by a hydrostatic steering unit operated by the driver. The entire 31+ ton monster had to move to aim the 75mm. The Germans used captured B1's also, installing howitzers on some, flamethrowers on others, and the few that were sent to the Channel Islands were mostly kept as they were. Maybe a dozen saw combat on the East front, the rest were used as trainers.

 

Thanks for the great info guys I think also that with the above mentioned problems, the Char B, was not reliable on the road ir in the field. Meaning that they always had major mechanical problems.

I have seen dozens of photos, of Char B's, that had been dug into a postion, but were still easily knocked out. One other problem was that the rear had virtually no protection and neither did the engine compartment, and many-a-time, an airburst shell killed the Char B. I think its worst problem though, was that it was outdated even in the 1930's. The French high command, is also responsible for that because they too, were in the mind that Infantry won battles, not tanks (same thinking as the Japanese had)

 

Hi!

Good question about Char B1 bis!! I was thinking about it. I read it was the heavier tank in 1940, and germans were quiet afraid to fight against. The B1 bis inspired the M3 LEE and the M3 Grant. I think B1 bis was a good tank for his period.

Miquel

 

I wonder what the french tactical weakness was in 1940?m not y familiar with that period.
Also I saw a documentary recently about the blitzkrieg of 1940, it said that the ammount of MBT's in the german panzer divisions in 1940 was very low, apparently there were more armoured cars and self propelled guns and very light tanks, The Panzer Mk 1 was apparently still in service. Also most of the artillery was still horse drawn!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Billy Bones:
I wonder what the french tactical weakness was in 1940?m not y familiar with that period.
Also I saw a documentary recently about the blitzkrieg of 1940, it said that the ammount of MBT's in the german panzer divisions in 1940 was very low, apparently there were more armoured cars and self propelled guns and very light tanks, The Panzer Mk 1 was apparently still in service. Also most of the artillery was still horse drawn!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Horse drawn artillery remained the norm in the German army throughout the war. Even in 1944 there were more teamsters in the German army than tankers.

 

1940 French war doctrine was the same as WWI's and all other contemporary's. Their doctrine said you need to form a line of battle to defend. This line of battle should contain X number of soldiers per kilometer. The line is to be held, defended, and attacks staged from it. Fortress's and buildups for attacks were allowed for in certain sectors, but overall most of your men would be manning this line that may stretch for tens or hundreds of miles.
The Germans on the other hand, attacked with several massive spearheads, focusing their armies power on smaller sectors, abandoning the battle line in some cases or usually weakening it to the point only to keep the enemy facing it busy. The spearheads would bypass areas of opposition to advance deep into the enemy's rear and destroy lines of supply and communication. Instead of having the bulk of its men in manning a line, they would follow behind the spearheads to envelope the suddenly marooned enemy forces. This meant that most of the enemy's battleline, where the bulk of his forces were, would not be directly attacked, only left to wither on the vine.
This type of attack had to be completed quickly, before the enemy can counterattack, and force you to respond to him. You must keep the enemy defending YOUR moves. If this Blitzkreig attack doesnt go down as quickly as planned, you end up having a lot of highly trained men and equipment stuck behind enemy lines.

 

Thanks for letting me in on your knowledge of it Comet. I am familiar with that tank, but not much other than it might have been the Frenchs best tank, but it really wasnt that great of a tank overall. Maybe had they had better unit Commanders, and had better results, I might think differently.

 

RE Sherman

Part of the Sherman's weaknesses come from doctrine of the US army at the time it was designed, which was that tanks were to be used for exploitation, not mixing it up with other tanks. The latter task was supposed to be undertaken by TD units. Unfortunately, the US was wrong about this, and the Sherman was forced to do something for which it was not really designed, to go head to head against German armor. The Sherman was improved, however, later versions had a much better 76mm gun, improved suspension with wider tracks, and then there was the British Firefly, which was a Sherman fitted with 17 pdr.

The Pershing was a different beast entirely...

The mediocrity of the Sherman is understandable, however. Interwar tank development in the US was as dismal a picture as the rest of the army, with the Depression killing off R&D funds for the Army and the feeling among many Americans that we had been duped by the Brits and French into joining the last European war. The US used no native tanks in that conflict.
Defense of the US was vested in the Navy, coastal artillery, and the AAF, not tank divisions.

The Germans, however, felt that the tank had been a major component in their defeat and worked hard to develop their own when the Nazis came to power and were, obviously, anything BUT anti-isolationist heheh. The problem was the pell-mell German R&D system, which produced the Me-262, King Tiger, and V-2 rocket, but not enough motorized transport or, say, a semi-auto infantry rifle to compete with the Garand. (The Stg 44 was an assault rifle...different animal entirely.)

The Russians, as well, adopted a policy of experimentation (both material and intellectual) between the wars once the revolution/civil war was over with. Interestingly enough, the T-34 suspension was influenced by the design of an American, Walter Christie, though the Russians modified and improved it and the T-34 can hardly be called an "American design", as was the case on the OnWar forum. Other early war Russian tanks, however, were not the excellent weapons that the T-34 and KV series were.

The Japanese? Well, if your opponent (except for the Russians, and later, the Americans) has no tanks... in Manchuria the Japanese relied on terrain for defense against armored attacks. Note also that on small islands where the enemy has overwhelming air and artillery assets and there is a)lousy tank terrain b) little maneuver room, tanks are hardly ideal. Ergo for jungle fighting, where infantry, mortars, and compact, highly mobile light artillery were the most effective weapons.

-Tim

 

exactly Tim.
The Russians did have the BT series and T-26 at the beginning of the war.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
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!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes-but at the time in North Africa the M3 was the only tank really feared by the Afrika Korp's as the 75mm gun would hurt the tanks,and the HE would upset the AT guns.....some thing the Brit' tanks couldn't do.Not perfect-but helped tip the balance in N/Affrica.

 

Hands down! Its' got to be the Italian L3! Not only the worst tank of WWII but probably the worst tank of all time. What were the Italians thinking?

Matt

 

The Italians were thinking of what kind of vino to have with their evenings pizza and spaghetti dinner Too much vino and look at what they got

 

I would have to say the worst Tank of the War was the "POLISH CAVALRY"......I mean no disrespect to those brave men who chaged German tanks horseback. Im just trying to make the point that lots of Nations were not prepared for total war, and the way I see it , they should have been. They just couldent bring theirselfs to spend money for any of that nasty "military stuff".(He who hesitates is lost)...... bunch of interesting postings here. I think "kiljoy" has a very good point about the German tanks being to difficult to produse in mass numbers , reminds me of the luger which was a surpurb pistol, but it took up to much production time to produce. Compare it to the 1911 Colt for example. I belive the German tanks were the same way...surperb, but, overbuilt.

 

My 2 cents on the Polish Cavalry.

The Polish Cavalry that you are speaking about was actually one of their elite units. I know you are referring to their usage againsy tanks, but I have to disagree with you about them not being a good unit. I know you mean no disrespect towards them but--the Polish commander HAD to throw them into the battle--and believe me--he KNEW that they would get slaughtered.

I do agree with you that it is a shame that the Polish army didnt have any good tanks--mostly relics left over from the "Great War"

 

Carl, I must get this clear. I have nothing but respect for these men. I only meant, that the muckady mucks of the Polish Army were content in the years before the war...stuck in the same thinking of the United states, England, And france....which was, OUTDATED THINKING. It was the men on the battlefield who paid the price for thier smug contintedness.

 

The Coventer apparently had that many mechanical problems, it was almost unusable.

 

At least those men chose to be soldiers. It must of come as quite a shock to those poor horses when those big steel boxes they were running towards started to blow them to pieces.