well, with the Germany’s best tank post, I figured Id ask the opposite, see what you guys think.
I’m going to have to say Ferdinand for lack of vision, or PZ I with those huge Bright white crosses.
what do you guys think?[?]
Does it have to had entered production? If not I would say the E-100 because of its huge drain on resources to build a tank that Germany could not have produced in significant numbers.
If it was meant to be produced then probably the pzI or Ferdinand like you said reb, the PZ1 because of the fact that it only had machine guns in an immobile turret and the Ferdinand because of your reason. Did the Ferdinands have machine guns?
Well we kind of had this argument awhile back and I took a bath on voting on the Ferdy/Elefant. I was brutally reminded that it destoyed 100’s of Russian tanks and was misused in tactics. On the Russian Steppes it could destroy any Russian tank and was immune from harm at all but pointblank distance. As far as tactics, it should not have spearheaded the Kursk offensive, for it got seperated from the infantry and got picked off piecemeal by the anti-tank guns and Russian soldiers, because of the lack of a machine-gun.
My nomination would be the Maus, which was even more of an overkill than the E-100, and like it, was a total drain on the German war effort. I doubt it could cross any bridge either. What could possibly tow it if it broke down? Also 1, perhaps 2 actually saw combat at the end of the war, whereas the E-100 did not.
On a side note which you probably all know anyways, Maus in german is Mouse, which is we all know a very small animal, whereas the Maus tank was not very small at all.
Wouldnt want to be the tanker up against that Maus, would you?
Gentlemen, an assault gun is NOT a tank. After WW1, tanks had turrets. So technically speaking, wouldn’t the Elephant be disqualified as the “worst tank”?
Having said that, the worst German tank(s) were probably the captured French or Czech jobs that they used in Poland and elsewhere.
But the Panzer I was a tank and it had an immobile turret, just like the Ferdinand.
Werent the 35(t) and the 38(t) actually decent tanks though? They had a 37mm cannon, more than the PZ2 and PZ1s.
You are technically correct on the Elefant. Maybe we should change the thread to be German AFV. No excuse, but it is late over yonder…[|)]
Ditto.
1:34 AM here
Actually I think the D and below (time affects your ability with words) PZ4 were not very good either. Certainly more advanced than the PZ1, but with the year, was it the worst German tank?
Scer16 the Pz IV was one of the best tanks that Germany had. It was easily upgunned and up armored and remained a mainstay in armored service to the end. Crockett the Czech 35(t) and 38(t) were excellent light tanks that performed exceptionally in Poland and France and supplemented the Panzer Divisions due to shortages of Pz III and Pz IV tanks. The worst German tank was the original Pz V ausf D. At Kursk more Panther D’s were lost to track teeth breakdowns & engine fires than to enemy fire. Also the tank had no ball mounted hull machine gun to use against advancing infantry. Afterward the Panther A & G models turned out to be their best tanks. Fast, hard hitting and alot more reliable.
TigerII
Mind telling that to the Swedish S-Tank. [:D]
Ferdinand/Elefant. You guys are a bit unfair with the Pz I… Have to leave it in the context it was designed in…! There were worst AFVs at that time!
I’d have to say, the mild-steel prototype for the Neubaufahrzeug.
Multi-turreted, and not even proper armor…
hey guys,
All tanks had their weak and strong points so no one tank was the worst they were built to preform a role the german tanks were a class above any allied tank during ww2 if i had a choice of what tank i wanted to be in id rather it be a german pather then a allied sherman anyday but thats just my opinion… Az
As the old addage says
Never buy a new vehicle in the first year of production !
The germans seemed to have a history of forcing out the newest and biggest machine out into the battlefield before they worked out the various bugs .
Many of the larger tanks /assault guns had poor horsepower to weight ratios , as well as transmissions that could not handle the load .
Add to this fact many of these machines were complicated to assemble and exspensive as well, further hindering their extensive use .
The R and D dept should have fixed the various problems before these were put into battle . WWII version of shock and awe !
Many of the "rushing into battle " problems were due to Hitler , further proving he was a definate madman !
Due to these facts the german army had more failures than sucess’.
How about changing the question to “What was the one German AFV used to the least of its potential?”
It’s so hard to declare a “best” or “worst” vehicle!
I don’t know, when threads like this come up I guess I look at things from a different perspective since I spent about twenty five years riding on,living in,working on, shooting, and finally, manufacturing the real thing. All tanks are prone to breakdown and are fielded with less than ideal components. Like all weapons systems, those issues must be worked out over time. The M1 Abrams is a perfect example. The Panther is another. They are built with the intent of withstanding abuse, but they are machines and…I think from the broad perspective the Germans did pretty well in thier development, design book, they just didn’t have enough, and we are lucky that they didn’t, otherwise we might be eating bratwuirst and heading to our mandatory Party meeting after lunch today.
Steve
The panzer ones one the wars in poland, while the czech tanks one the war in the low countries, without these, war vs. russia would have been impossible-hence no maus, no ferdy, no e100, no panther, and perhaps no tiger. so you see, those were actually very good, because it also got german tank designers thinking, and able to produce such massive machines. I would say the worst, probably were the E100, Maus, and the sturmtiger–just not very practical, they could have put those resources to more jagdtigers, which were some of the best-if not strictly tanks…
This is such a difficult thing to pin down…worst compared to what exactly? What time period, operating conditions, opponents, etc.?
Btw, the claim that the Pz I had an immobile turret is a strange one…not sure where that comes from as it had a rotating turret mounting two MGs…and was never meant to serve in a combat role but rather was designed to be a training tank and got pressed into service at the war’s outset.
In terms of true battle tank designs in a tank vs. tank or tank vs. AT situation, I’d put my money on the “worst” as being the Panzer III F…armed only with the 3.7cm gun and thinly armored at max 30mm, it sacrificed survivability and hitting power for speed…had the French and British properly employed their tank and AT forces in 1940, history “might” have been dramatically different. The French 47mm and the British 2 pndr could easily knock out the Pz III F at long ranges given the opportunity.
Sorry wbill, I have a pic of a PanzerI on my desktop and it shows no turret, but now that you say that, the command version didnt have a turret, did it?
Sorry everybody and now I go with the E-100 and Maus
My vote for the worst German tank is the Jagdtiger. Sure it has a big gun and great armor, but it is woefully underpowered and was too big for most roads and bridges in Europe. Those raw materials would have been better off going to more Panzer IV’s or Stugs which by this time of the war were the backbone of Panzer divisions.