Following on the heels of the poll on ugly tank of ww2, I ask what, in your opinion, was the least successful tank design, or intended roll, of ww2?
I emphasize intended, because we could easily make a case that the PzKpfw2 was the least successful, as sometimes there were used against t-34s and whatnot, with obvious results.
Instead, what I ask, is which tank of ww2 failed miserably in the roll the designers had for it?
In my mind (and I’m hardly an expert in this) I’d say the Char Bis, it had a design dating to WW1 ideas (tall rhombodal, limited traversing weapons), and yet in the face of superior ideas, what built anyway.
As far as tanks that made it into battle, I’d lean towards the Elefant / Ferdinand design. Too complex, too costly, and underprotected. Big, semi mobile, steel bunker that couldn’t protect itself from close in attacks.
The trend toward super heavy tanks by the U.S., Britain and Germany was rather laughable too. The U.S. T-28, the British Tortoise, and the German Maus / E-Series are a prime example of designers run amok. Just where were they going to use these big beasts and better yet … how were they going to get them there ?
M3 Lee/Grant:
It’s main armament had very limited traverse and the secondary armament was completely inadequate for anything tougher than a truck. When the main armament could be brought to bear on armour targets there was a lot of vehicle exposed (as opposed to exposing turret only) and it was a large target.
The Italians M13/40. Under powered, poor armament, thin skinned, even the Ausies who captured some used and tossed them when the ammo ran out.
I will agree with shermanfreak, the designers did run wild toward then end of the war. Design a super tank that can kill an entire division all by it’s self.
What ever drugs they were smoking that day, please pass around.
I agree with Shermanfreak, the Elefant/Ferdinand was a military blunder. There was a saying : What’s the easiest way to put out an Elefant? Have another Elefant tow the broken down one." , or something to that effect. The Jadgtiger deserves some critisism as well. Overweight and terribly underpowered, it could only travel on paved roads and couldn’t cross most of the bridges. How would all the later German designs of fared?
“It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.”-R.E.Lee
While few people would disagree that the Elefant/Ferdinand was a unsuccessful design; too costly, too heavy, underpowered, initial lack of a self-defense weapon, shortage of spare parts, etc., I think as much blame for it’s lack of combat success can be attributed to how it was used. Throwing it untested into battle at Kursk in an assault role, it was easy prey for Soviet tank-killer teams with Molotov cocktails and anti-tank mines. The German commanders should have realized that the Elefant’s lack of machine gun armament, slow speed, poor maneuverablity, easy approachability from the sides or rear made it totally unsuitable as a “Schwerepunkt” weapon. This realization would have relegated the Elefant to it’s intended role as a semi-static, long range anti-tank gun. And few would argue the 88/L71’s usefulness as a superlative anti-tank weapon.
If we want to consider a poor design, lets look a tank that we built 830 of them and did not even use. This is the M22 Locust light tank. Despite an anticipated order for 1900, only 830 were built before production ended in February 1944. Of these 830, NONE of them were used operationally by the US Army. The only operational use were small numbers used by the British Army’s 6th Airborne Division in the crossing of the Rhine in March 1945. To quote The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World; “In general, tanks are considered to combine firepower, protection and mobility to produce a fighting machine, and in practice a shortcoming in one particular factor may be offset by a superiority in another. The unfortunate Locust possessed none of these vital attributes.” “the Locust had very thin armour, which could be defeated by the .5in AP round, and by the standards of 1945 it was underpowered and undergunned.” Now, for all of you dissing the Elefant, at least it was well armoured and had tremendous firepower, it’s major weaknesses were lack of mobility and no machine gun. At least the Elefant was used in combat, and despite it’s tactical misusage, if utilized in it’s INTENDED ROLE, (you folks are missing this point, see original post), it could decimate it’s enemy at ranges far beyond their ability to retaliate. The unused, undergunned, underpowered and underarmoured Locust didn’t do much of anything. The fact that we built 830 of them and then gave them to the British to die in, should underscore the utter uselessness of this vehicle.
1.) The Cruiser Tanks.
Cruiser Mark 1 : By 1940’s standards, protection was poor
and the main armament was weak. All tanks sent to France
were lost in battle.
Cruiser Mark 2 : Lacked strong armor for close support and
too slow to be a Cruiser tank.
Cruiser Mark 3 & 4: Armor is too light and 2-pounder gun
not good enough to defeat German tanks. Liberty engine
not reliable.
Cruiser Mark 5 : Rushed into production with about 1700
units built. Radiator problems. Never sent to battle.
2.) T-35 - Too big but with thin armor. Very difficult to manuever
Armament looks impressive but cannot fire accurately in
motion. It has very limited range. Many were lost in campaign
against Finland, other captured without fuel.
Strange no one mentioned the French tanks that on paper were superior to the German panzers in 1939-40 but in the end were captured without much of a fight. These were relegated to rear areas and constablatory duties. The Germans didn’t even find them worthwhile to press into frontline combat.
As for the M3, it was developed as a stop gap tank when the Army realized a 37mm anti-tank gun was inadequate and hadn’t yet developed the technology for a turret large enough for a 75mm main gun. When it first hit the North African terrain, it was the most heavily armed tank. The Tiger and later variant PzKpfw IV weren’t there yet.
You’re right Rob, on paper, French tanks were superior to German panzers of the time, but they suffered from two fatal weaknesses, piecemeal deployment and the fact that most had one-man turrets. French combat doctrine relegated tanks to the infantry support role and deployed them singularly or in pairs. The French tanks, though superior in armour and fire-power, were overwhelmed by German armour used en masse. This was a failure in tactics more than one of design intent, since these tanks were basically designed for the infantry support role. The use of one-man turrets however, was a grave design error. By forcing the commander to direct the tanks movement, target selection, loading, aiming, and firing the gun, this severely over-taxed the commander and limited his combat performance. In this respect, tanks like the Renault R-35, the Char B1, the Hotchkiss H-35, and the Somua S-35 all suffered from this fatal design error.
Leopold you have some good points about the Ferdinand, but it wasn’t designed to be a defensive weapon, it was suppossed to be the battering ram to crash through the thick Russian defenses at Kursk. In thus failed miserably in its intended role. In answering AttackDonuts question of worst tank design for its intended role, it would be hard to argue against the Ferdinand/Elefant.
The Elefant wasn’t designed to be a defensive weapon? Sorry, but the Elefant isn’t even a main battle tank, it is a Tank Destroyer, that is why it is called the “Jagdpanzer Elefant”, that is why it was deployed in Schwere Panzer Jager Abteilung 653 and 654, together which formed Panzer Jager Regiment 656. And that is why it doesn’t have a turret, just like the Marders, the Hetzer, the Nashorn, the panzerjager IV, Dicker Max, the Jagdpanther and the Jagdtiger. Porsche wasn’t stupid and just forgot to add a machine gun, the Elefant didn’t have one because it’s designers didn’t think it needed one, if it was used IN IT’S INTENDED ROLE. Remember, the Nashorn didn’t have a machine gun either, for the same reason. You are confusing the design intentions of the Elefant with it’s actual combat use. The Elefant was not designed to “crash through the thick Russian defenses at Kursk”, but that is how it was used by the field commanders, most likely on Hitler’s insistence. The Elefant was designed to be used as a long range Tank Destroyer, not a main battle tank. Will some please verify this point before I have to get indignant here.
Didn’t mean to strike a chord Leopold. [:I] I agree that it was a tank hunter with arguably the best anti-tank gun of the war and it was used out of position at Kursk. Much can be said of how the Tiger I was used poorly outside of Leningrad during its baptism on the Eastern Front. It’s late [|)] and I see I have some research to do on the Elefant so I don’t look so stupid next time. [:o)]
It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee
Sorry, didn’t mean to get so huffy, but this exact topic is a major point of contention with me. There is no doubt that the Elefant was an unsuccessful design. If you look at my original post, that is precisely what I said. It was too heavy, too costly, used too much scarce copper in the electric motors, initially lacked a machine gun for close support, lacked spare parts, had poor visibility, was very slow, underpowered, the list goes on and on. BUT, contrary to popular belief, the Elefant was not a total loser. Lets take a look at the actual combat statistics: Schwere Panzer Jager Regiment 656, commanded by Oberstleutnant Ernst Von Jungenfeldt, comprised of 89 total Elefants in s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 and 654, this was joined with 42 Brumbars of Sturmpanzer Abteilung 216 and deployed on the northern flank of the Kursk salient in July 1943. By July 27th, 656 Regiment had accounted for 502 Soviet tanks, 100 artillery pieces and 20 antitank guns destroyed. After operation Citadel was called off on July 13th, s.Pz.Jg.Abt. 653 alone had destroyed 320 Soviet tanks with the loss of 13 Elefants with 24 crew members killed or missing. These are not the combat statistics of a loser weapon system. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a unit with better. So, may I suggest that all of you Elefant bashers might consider rethinking your position in light of the actual combat statistics, instead of popular misconception.
I agree with leopold on this one. The Ferdi was a bit of a disappointment at Kursk, but served its troops well in Italy. I forget the stats, but there is some website that lists the combat victories. For some 60 or so vehicles that remained to be converted into Elefants, there were some impressive numbers. Lets not forget too that these vehicles were supposed to be Tiger tanks, and not tank killers. There were some 80 or so unfinished Tiger tanks that were converted to Ferdis. I would say that it was quite a successful “jerry rig”
As far as the most “unsuccessful”, the Italians, and the French both got their butts kicked in their tanks, but I don’t know much about either countries armor to be more specific.
Speaking of Leopold though, Germany’s big guns really didn’t help much. In fact I would venture to say they hurt Germany in the long run. A LOT of resources were used for something that didn’t make much more than a psychological impact on the battle field.
Edog, there is little argument that the Germans wasted a lot of material and manpower toying around with monsterous weapons with little or no tactical success to warrant such huge expenditures. Dora is a prime example. Weighing in at 1350 tons, a total support staff of 3870 men, (the firing crew alone was 350 men), all to fire a total of 48 shells on 7 targets. The Maus, the E-100, the Sturmtiger, the Jagdtiger, these were all ponderous weapons with little hope of changing the course of the war. Even the mighty V-2 barely rang up 1 casualty per rocket fired,(dividing the number killed by the number fired), a pretty poor return on the Deutschmark by any standard. And then there was the Atlantic Wall, the world’s biggest money pit. Surely, the Germans would have faired much better if they had concentrated production on a few proven designs, than squander their resources on a myriad of dead-end behemoths. If you mean big guns in the sense of the aforementioned, no problem, if you mean big guns in the sense of the 88mm-L/56 or 71, I think I would have to disagree, You could not find a more finely engineered, harder hitting and more accurate group of weapons as a whole. There is a reason that the Abrams runs around with a Rheinmettal designed gun.
I don’t have the courage to claim to know what the designers had in mind for any particular vehicle, so this is kind of a tough Q to answer…but the poor ol’ Japanese Type 97 Chi-ha sure had a time of it against Shermans and Lees and even Stuarts in the Pacific. Everything I’ve read about the Chi-ha in Japanese praises the the courage of the hapless crews who threw their undergunned, underarmored steeds headlong towards certain destruction against the vastly superior Allied armor.
So, against other armor, the Type 97 was entirely unsuccessful.
In the infantry support role against forces lacking armor, however, it was effective.
Now, what exactly the designers had in mind for the the li’l Chi-ha, I don’t know!
In principle, however, since the axis powers lost the war, I suppose you could name any axis vehicle as “least successful!”
They were all designed to win a war, which, of course, they didn’t.[;)]