…okay, I’ve read a lot of opinions in a couple of threads debating the “baddest” and “meanest” tank ever to lay tread on the ground…some interesting points of view…BUT, let’s switch gears and think about this: What was the worst and most ineffective tank that soldiers ever had the misfortune of being issued?
Only criteria is that it has to have actually been a production tank that was fielded to front-line units for combat duty, not "one-offs, test vehicles or rear echelon vehicles…
Covenanter? 1,200 built, right off the drawing board.
NTM
Choose from:
Infantry Tank Mk 1 (machine gun, built to a price)
Fiat-Ansaldo M13/40 (unreliable, weak armour)
Tetrarch
T-26
Covenanter???
Covenanter was an upgraded cruiser tank, it was so good it went straight to use as a training tank but did provide some value as a starting point for the Crusader.
My vote would have to go to the Soviet T-28 & T-35, neat tanks to build as kits but the multi-turret concept never really worked well. Huge expensive tanks with poor armament for their weight, poor reliability and thin armor.
[#ditto] that T-35 was pretty bad…Not to mention MacGyver could have built a more reliable transmission with a paper clip, three cats and a 2 foot length of string.
Worst tank, hum? I would say, Panzer II, they good for reconnaition but terrible in combat, only arme with one machine gun.
I think M13/40 and Tetrarch are a bit unfair.
For the time the M13/40 came out, it wasn’t incredibly shabby. It was certainly well armed, and about as armoured as a cruiser. The problem was that the Italians never really replaced it, so what was a decent tank for 1939/1940 standards was utterly outclassed by 1943.
Considering the limitations on Tetrarch (i.e. get it to fit into a Hamilcar), I’m not sure what you would have really expected.
How about the CDL tanks?
NTM
do you mean “Kelvinator”?
gary
Well, I always seem to lead with my chin in armor forums, but what about the Grant/Lee?
And did the Maltilda ever serve anyone well?
Are Japanese AFVs from WW2 even tanks?
[:D] No offence to anyone…
…some call them: “tankettes”…lol
Wrong, they were usually armed with a 20mm and an MG 34…
TRex: the Pz II wasn’t designed to attack Char B1bis or bunkers. It was designed as a light tank and for its era, its functionality was just fine. That’s like saying a jeep is a terrible vehicle because it couldn’t knock out a Panther.
When the M3 Lees/Grants were fielded, they were an even match for German Mk IIIs and most Mk IVs. Their 75mm sposon gun could KO any of their peers and were very welcome by the beleagured UK forces in N Africa. Sure they had a high profile and fared poorly on the Russian steppe (facing advancing German armor killing capabilities) but the M3s were a vital step in the development of the M4 Medium series.
Ultimately there’s no definitive answer to threads like this since it’s all opinion but I wanted to throw my two lifelines out to the Pz II and M3 Lee/Grant[:)]
Part of what many ascribe as being “bad” about a tank is the assessment of how it would/should fare against other tanks. Vast majority of vehicles that carried the “tank” designation in WW2 weren’t designed for tank-on-tank warfare but were instead Armored Fighting Vehicles designed for a whole range of activities. Take the StuG III A-E series for example…it’s an AFV designed to tool around and provide mobile artillery support for the infantry, not go up against other AFVs. Granted, it doesn’t have a turret but rather a casemate mounted gun, but it’s still generally referred to as a “tank” by many even though it’s an assault gun.
A Pzkpfw I going up against a Somua or Renault tank would fare badly…not because it’s a bad design per se, just that it’s being cast in a role it wasn’t ever designed to do. It’s a “tank” with a turret, but lighly armored to withstand infantry calibre rifle fire only and serve as an anti-infantry weapon. Pitting it against a heavier tank with an AP capable gun was essentially a death wish. Most of the tanks that we consider to be “bad” were early war or pre-war designs that still held to the doctrine that tanks should support the infantry. The Matilda II is a case in point, designed to be heavily armored, slow, infantry-supporting. For the period in which it saw active service, it served well…the only thing the German forces had that could knock it out reliably at decent engagement ranges was the 8.8cm Flak gun. It’s 2-lber gun, while seeming puny, was actually quite effective at dealing with the Pz IIIs and IVs it encountered early on before they started receiving counter-measure upgrades to their armor.
…one AFV that comes to my mind is the M113…although not a tank, it was an APC and from what I read its aluminum “armor” had a very hard time with RPG’s and heavy MG fire…
I have to call you on that one, Manny. The M113 is among the most reliable APCs ever designed, and is still in use in more than a hundred countries around the world. True it’s thinly armored, but it’s not true that machinegun fire would penetrate it (very heavy MGs, maybe).
Personally, I was never a huge fan of the M551a1 Sheridan, although it certainly had its supporters during its run. I guess it’s just too opinion-driven a topic.
I conceed that you are probably more right than I am…I guess I have just seen a few too many of them where the aluminum actually melted away once they caught fire…they have had a looong service life which is a testament to their versatility (there have probably been a gazillion variants) …and they weren’t designed for anything too heavy to hit them, although I do believe a soviet 12.7mm MG will penetrate…
Yeah, a lot of people have said this over the years. When I was a kid, I was told by a Vietnam vet that his 113 was penetrated by .50-cal rounds fired from 200 yards away. He even said that rifle fire, although not M16 fire of course, would penetrate a 113’s sides. According to him, a .50-cal would punch right through it like paper.
Well, some years later I found myself wearing green and firing a .50-cal myself, and one of our range targets was an old M113. So naturally, I lit it up, from a range of 100 meters. Later I went downrange (got myself on a range detail just so I could investigate it), and I couldn’t find a single instance of the vehicle being penetrated by .50-cal rounds. Now mind you, lots of other stuff had busted through this thing, and it was full of holes and burned out pretty much. There wasn’t a whole lot left to investigate. But I never did see any holes that looked like they’d been made by anything smaller than a LAW.
This was during the early 90s, when we were burning off a lot of the older stuff like LAWs and early Dragons. So a bunch of old M113s and M48s, etc, were being sacrificed to the Range Gods. This is also how I know that a Dragon will pop the turret off of an M48 (no idea which variant of M48 though).
I would agree with Manic Moran. When comparing the armor vehicles you should compare the origin of the design with also understanding the intended use and doctrine. The concept of the Main Battle Tank comes at the very end of WWII. Most of the 1930 designs that ended up in WWII had distinct functions that their armor theorists dreamed up. Many times it was more of a failure of theory than design. The design met the theory, but the theory didn’t meet reality.
Look at the orignially intended use of the Pz IV and its final use. The Pz III was the intended main tank, but where was it by the end of the war? The best vehicles of WWII were those that could be adapted to the changes in the battlefield.
Also, see how the British use of Infantry and Cruiser tanks had to adapt to the battlefield. The failure of the early development of a High Explosive (HE) shell for the 2pdr. gun was a major handicap to British armor early in the war, but it wasn’t a fault of the tanks’ own design. The theorists thought a Close Support version with a HE/Smoke capable weapon would be adequate. What actually showed up in battle is that if the standard vehicle had a HE shell it would have been easier to deal with enemy anti-tank guns than trying to get direct hits on them with armor piercing shells. Other than having to wait for a CS vehicle to appear.
A better comparison for this thread would be the worst employment/doctrine of tanks.
Mike T.