"Worst Tank of WWII" Topic

Ok to fit it has to have gone into quantity production AFTER 1940, because there are just too many candidates before this date.

My vote goes to the Italian M-14/41-M15/42. It would have been a fine tank for the 1930s but as a credible vehicle for after 1940 it was almost worthless.

Let the opinions fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

T-26. They exploded when exposed to the hot sun. They made Japanese tanks feel superior. Russians themselves knew they were safer on foot!

The Tiger tank. It was just good enough to suck up production resources that could have made many more useful tanks.

How dare you besmirch the reputation of the "Uber" Panzer!! Hehe. Robert

Naw … It's got to be one of the Jap pieces of junk … Type 95, Type 94, Type 97, etc. … just pick one … But I think the '97 was the only one built after '40 …

I too vote for the Japanese … ahem … "tanks"!

Tiger is a good one actually. I wonder if anyone has ever done the math and figured out how much resources, money, and labor were spent and how much the Tiger accounted for in kills thus wasting enemy resources, money, and labor (minus the same for the kills of the tanks the Tiger killed).

Man that sounds like some complicated math…

ie: did it kill it's "Points" worth to put it in GW terms.

Corps Commander ,the Soviet T-26E was so up graded with armour refits that had they been given to Italian crews the north African campaign might be seriously affected.See CMBB2 for details , from 15 mm frontal to 50 mm.

Let us not forget that T-26 was a British design as well lads,I love this little tank hull down and sniping she can do the job ,offensive actions ,well dont pass thru enemy ,kill as you go or you get the evil enema.

Standing orders for the Soviet army regarding the use of captured tanks were: Use the STGs, PZ IIIs and IVs and keep them running. Use the Panthers and Tigers until they broke down. Soviets were also struck by how poorly constructed the VIb was.

If you read the Imperial War Museum's book "The Great Tank Scandal" an argument can be made for most British Cruiser tanks in the 40-42 period. Most accounts of Churchill's "Tiger Convoy" state that the tanks involved needed several months to be fitted out for the desert. According to the IWM, most of the time was spent taking care of the shoddy construction (bolts had been hand tightened only, etc). There is a reason that the diminutive Stuart was called the Honey. It actually worked well and was easy to maintain.

Correlli Barnett in The Audit of War sites the Covenanter as his choice for "a complete and abysmal failure."

I'll vote for the Covenanter. The cooling system allone gives it the title of worst tank for its period.

x42

Another vote for any Japanese POS tank made during WWII, poor design, lousy gun, thin armor a true "triple Threat" on the battle field.

I also agree with John the Tigers series of tanks were resource hogs, good tanks tactically (when the worked), but strategy a waste of resources that would have been better used producing and improving the Panther series of tanks.

Regards

I am afraid it's got to be the italian L3, it shouldn't even be considered a tank or tankette, just a tin can moving around waiting to become a coffin for its crew

The T-26 was a pre-war design, but a 'wunderwaffen' in the SCW.

"Tiger is a good one actually. I wonder if anyone has ever done the math and figured out how much resources, money"

I can't recall the absolute figures, but the cost in Reichsmarks of producing a Tiger VIe was twice that of a Panzer IV, the cost of a Panther was approximately 10% more than a Panzer IV. Ongoing maintenance requirements of the heavies were obviously higher.

10,000 Pz IVs, 9,000 Panthers or 5,000 Tiger 1s? I know what I'd choose.

It perhaps highlights more what a lousy complicated and expensive design the Pz IV was. Conversely, you could have three Pz Is for one Pz III (early).

Anyway, worst tank produced after 1940? The Covenanter, rushed into mass production but so irredemably unreliable it never saw frontline service. The early Churchills were lousy too, but the problems were fixed quite quickly.

T-60s/70s may have been tin cans, but they saw action in large numbers.

Like the 'Rommel/Monty' threads, you cannot seriously propose the likes of Panhers and Tigers as 'worst tanks' – ahead of their time perhaps. Postwar the German Army spent much of its time in 'Panthers' aka Leopard 1, whilst we built our very own Tiger aka Chieftan.

The L3 was also a pre-war design. Can't people read?

Another vote for the Covenanter – over a 1000 built but none used in combat

the covenanter was very successful as a training vehicle which surely should be taken into account..if you ever come across a movie called The Tawny Pippet there are some very nice and seemingly quite capable covenanters in a number of the scenes..
imdb.com/title/tt0037352
link

Cromwell? Not a bad tank per se but by the time it went into action it was way behind the times in terms of armament and protection. A lot of effort into creating a tank much the same as one the British already had lots of (Sherman) when their production facilities would have been better off converting more Fireflies or getting the Centurion onto the battlefield before all that was left to fight was the Volksturm on bicycles.

The L3 was also a pre-war design. Can't people read?

Welcome to the Internet, where half of the people read only the thread title before responding.

Mind me, the appropriate title for this thread should have rather been "Worst tank to enter production 1941-1945".

I'm going to agree with John on this, the Tiger really sucked up resources: production time, metal, fuel etc. that could really have been better used for something else.

I'd disagree on the Tiger – any weapon which dominates the imagination of its opponents and makes them behave cautiously is worth more than economics alone can measure. Conversely a weapon which undermines your own side's confidence and makes the enemy bolder is worth less.

Oh its definitely the Japanese Type 97 Shinhota Chi-Ha. "Upgunned" to 47mm it was outclassed by the M5, much less the M4 encountered in the Philippines or the T-34/85 in China.

"the covenanter was very successful as a training vehicle"

Because that was all it was good for.

Perhaps we need to define the question as to tanks that actually saw combat

For example, there were more then 1800 Ram tanks built in Canada that probably would have been pretty mediocre main battle tanks if anyone had actually used them in that role – as training tanks and in specialized roles such as observation tanks and as conversions were very useful – just like the Covenanter was useful as a training tank

The little Valentine, although well protected and reliable, had (by 1941 – plus standards) a pea-shooter for a main gun plus a very unworkable two man turret – worked well for supporting infantry if the enemy didn't have any tanks, though

I definately agree about the Japanese tanks, although further to the point above the Type 97 was actually designed in 1938 – the Type 1 Chi-He was designed in 1942, and although it was more robust than the Type 97 (which is not saying a lot) it was underpowered and mounted a 47mm as a main gun – it saw, I think, some action in the last stages of the liberation of the Phillipines, and was rated as markedly underperforming compared to the Sherman

tiger? really? i understand the wasted resource argument, but in capable hands it was very effective. anyone ever hear of michael wittman? sure, his greatest exploit was in a borrowed tank because his broke down, and he died in a tiger, but…. he sure did teach the english a lesson or two in normandy.

the panther was a good tank but the delay at kicking off kursk for the early versions which STILL were not ready was fatal…

my vote goes to the italian tanks. as the /39 implies, they were before the date mentioned above. even later models (40 & 42) were sadly inadequate though often bravely utilized.

While I do agree the Japanese tanks were mediocre at best they were designed for easy transportation by sea. They also were designed for jungle warfare and they performed well in Burma.

By 1943, being kind, they were outclassed by anything anyone else was fielding.

Man that sounds like some complicated math…

ie: did it kill it's "Points" worth to put it in GW terms.

Well if you look at the kill to loss ratios of the heavy panzer battalions they are around 15 to 1. So the Tiger would have to have consumed more than 15 times the resources of a T-34 or Sherman to make a loss. I would guess it is more than worth the points.

I would guess it is more than worth the points.

I don't know though…it was costly to make, broke down a lot, consumed a lot of fuel, difficult to transport, and was hard to maintain. I think it IS possible that it consumed 15x as much than what it killed. Like I said though, I didn't do the math.

I think what the Germans were great at producing were guns and optics.

uhm anyone took care to explain me why M13/40 and M11/41 were soo poor while the crusader so perfect?

amor was practically the same, better on the M series. Reliability of M14 and M15 was superior, and balistic performance of the 47mm was equal to the 2pdr with the addition the 47mm was able to fire HE.

And Moko… again some fantasizing… Japanese tanks were not designed for Jungle. They were designed for operation in China and Manchuria. The Type 97 and 95 were designed long before the army exibited any interest in southern operations and the requirement were based on northern china and manchuria. The subsequent effort in Japanese tank design was sparked after Nomohoan and Burma/philippine and the encounter with allied M3 that proved superior. Army tanks were not designed to be easily transported beacuse the army planned for a campaing in china or agaisnt soviet union were sea transport would have been secondary. The only tank that fit your criteria is the Type 3 Ka Mi amphibious tank designed to be used mainly by the navy.

Again it seems you are relying on very very weird sources..

Give me the Reichmarks equivalent in StuGs over Tigers any day.
Reliable, good gun, adequate armor, and much cheaper to produce and keep in the field.

Re: Italian M-series. One thing that needs to be factored in is the quality of steel used. Italian armor plate would sometime crack when subjected to firepower that would not normally penetrate, and resulting in the loss of the tank or crew regardless. Also, while the M13/40 was competative in 1940 and into 1941, it was quickly outstripped. IMHO if the M13 series had been introduced in 1938 instead of 1940, and had better armor plate, perhaps history would be more kind to the design…

Damon.

The Tiger was definately the worst tank, from the point of view of any Sherman crew encountering it!

Robert

Still I think that until 1942 and the introduction of M3Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman the M13 series was by no mean worst…

I would attribute the title worst to the T35 (pretty useless it seems) also no one specified what worst meant in this context…

The Maus, for the same reason the OFM gave for the Tiger -- total waste resources.

Runner-up: The KV2.

Arrigo is spot on about the design principles of the Japanese tanks. Tanks were built by the Japanese Army who were focused on China and Manchuria not South Asia and the South Pacific. Indeed the designs were heavily influenced by pre-war experience in siege warfare against walled Chinese cities!

Actually, the T-26 was more than a match for the Japanese tin cans, CorpsCommander, and had a superior gun by comparison.

Now for the worst tank of WW2, I assume we're discounting the L3/33 and TKS tankettes used by the Italians and Poles (and very desperate German anti-partisan units), and focusing on actual tanks that used a revolving turret.

I nominate the Char Legere Renault FT-17.

These WW1-era grandaddies of all modern battle tanks were still in service with the French and other armies in their hundreds in 1939, and many saw action during the Battle of France, in Yugoslavia, North Africa, and again in German service during D-Day. While these diminutive little beasties were state-of-the-art in 1918, by 1939 they were bona fide antiques compared to even the Panzer II. Still armed with either a machine gun or a 37mm 1918-vintage "trench gun," the FT-17s were completely outclassed by their more modern opponents.

Despite their unsuitability for modern war, they were nonetheless thrown into battle as simply nothing else was available locally, and an old tank was regarded as better than no tank. The results could be predictably tragic, such as an entire battalion of FT-17s thrown into a desperate counterattack during the Battle of France, only to be knocked out in rapid succession by German Pak 36 anti-tank guns.

Other times such as at the Ecole de Cavalrie at Saumur, things could go the other way, such as when a French cadet used an FT-17 to knock out a number of German armoured cars and trucks that tried to force their way into the school, tackling them head-on in an aggressive counter-attack that stopped the German attack but cost the cadet and his driver their lives.

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

The Maus never entered quantity production, and the T-35 was limited to 30 units.

Arrigo enough already…………….

Source ISBN 0-8117-1261-3 Chamberlin, Peter and Ellis, Chris

"In the early thirties, the Japanese considered a limited mechanization policy. At first, studies concentrated on wheeled armored cars, but 'terrain conditions' in the Far East favored tracked machines and such machines were finally preferred."

The jungles of the Far East was considered in the production of T-95, but not the Chi-Ni or Chi-Ha which were intended for combat in Manchuria.

The Ka-Mi WAS a T-95 with flotation devices added (Navy) the SR-I or I-Go was the armies version of an amphib made from the same vehicle. In both cases the ability of the vehicle to be transported by the Navy was considered part of production. All these projects were under consideration from 1933 on.

The same applies to the Chi-Ni and Chi-Ha, with the Chi-Ni first accepted but later cancelled and the Chi-Ha put into production. In both cases transportation by the Navy was an issue.

This isn't a surprise considering Japan is an island and anything built there would have to be transported by the Navy.

Only the Chi-Ri, Chi-Nu, and Chi-To was naval transport not considered as by that time they were more concerned over the defense of the home islands rather then transporting these tanks to, well anywhere.

The same issue applied to the M-4 Sherman and the T-20/M-26. It was easier to transport two Shermans then one M-26 and it was reasoned that two Shermans were better then one M-26 in the bush. Again this come from the above sources.

To Quote the source I gave above…..
"This led to the development of the M-13 which had thicker armor, an AA MG, and a turret mounted 47mm gun.M-13s entered service in 1940 and by late 1940 there were 250. Eventual orders up to 1942 totalled 1,900 and the M-13 very much under-gunned and under-armored by British or German standards, became the the main Italian battle tank. While a neat design, however, it was no match for opposing British vehicles in the Western Desert."

The A-15 Crusader had a 395 HP Liberty Engine hauling around an 18 ton vehicle. The M-13 had a 105 HP engine hauling around a 14 ton vehicle. The Horsepower to weight ratio of the M-13 was awful making it a difficult vehicle to maneuver in action compared to the A-15.

The M-13 had a top speed of 21mph the A-15 31mph

The A-15 had a riveted turret, the M-13 used riveted construction throughout the vehicle. When a vehicle with riveted construction is struck by a non-penetrating round the rivets sheer off on the inside and bounce around with deadly effect.

The A-15 did not 'Ronson' like the M-13 when it was struck in the flank armor. This was due to the ammo stowage points on the vehicle. The early M-4 Sherman had the same problem.

The M-14/41 was a minor un-official varient of the M-13/40. Basically tropical equipment for the desert was fitted and an improved engine was installed.

The M-15/42 WAS an improvement over the M-13/40, but too late to keep the design up with present tanks being fielded by the other combatants.

The Italians so admired the A-15 that they began their own 'copy' of it the Carro Armato Celere Sahariano. Had it gone into production it would have been an improvement over the A-15 being faster (44mph), better HP to weight ratio, and armed with a 75mm gun. Sadly it never went beyond the prototype stage.

The Polish and Italian tankettes were terrible, but do they count?
The Japanese Ha-Go was a truly poor AFV.
The Italian M series were awful.
The Early British cruiser tanks were pretty bad.
The German Panzer I wasn't very effective either.
Could some brilliant computer guy do CGI mock-ups and have a shoot out with all the crappy tanks of every nation, and see which was the worst?
Any takers?

a bit more definition within the topic thread title might help

I think it clearly states at the start tanks that went into QUANTITY production AFTER 1940. So from 1941 to 1945

Polish Tankettes, and all other Tankettes were in production prior to 1941, as were the early British Crusier tanks, and the German PzI and PzII (except for Lynx which was really a recon vehicle not produced in large number).

"he sure did teach the english a lesson or two in normandy."

Yep. That a Firefly can punch holes in a Tiger.

Wittmann was a punk--a bad tactician. The Nazis lost. Get over it.

Wittmann was a punk--a bad tactician. The Nazis lost. Get over it.

After 1940? Oh, Hell, I nominate the Cromwell, with its weak gun and vertical turret armour, as if none of the lesson of the North African Campaign et al had even penetrated the brains of the British tank designers…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

I don't know though…it was costly to make, broke down a lot, consumed a lot of fuel, difficult to transport, and was hard to maintain. I think it IS possible that it consumed 15x as much than what it killed. Like I said though, I didn't do the math.

Possibly in terms of the Sherman. Definitely not in comparison to the T-34. The T-34 wasn't a very reliable tank even after they fixed the problems with the transmission – a tank corps would reckon to lose half its strength in breakdowns on the approach march to combat. Ever wondered why the Soviets liked the M4 so much or why you see pictures of M4's liberating cities after the long advances of '44 and not T-34's?

Give me the Reichmarks equivalent in StuGs over Tigers any day.
Reliable, good gun, adequate armor, and much cheaper to produce and keep in the field.

The problem with that is you have got to train 3 or 4 times the number of crews, which takes time, instructors, fuel, practice rounds and training vehicles. Then you need 3 times the number of trains to take them to the front, more fuel, more shells, more maintainance personnel etc.

as usual Moo you are changing your statements on the fly… at this point I am clearly suspecting you have serious problem… also I can't figure how the M13 was soo undergunned whne its 47mm was on par with the 2pdr and was practically the same skoda piece who equipped the Panzer 35 and Panzer 38… also the M13 was in production before 1940 and M14 and M15 were only product upgrade.

Also the Ka Mi was quite different from the Type 95 Ha Go…

Also your quation system is typical of disonhest authors who quote in bits creating complete sentences from disparate ones betting on the fact no one will ever check the books… yes I am ed off by tou complete lack og consistency, knowledge and common sense. Have a fun day.

Leland,

In "Tiger on the East Front" by Jean Reastayn there is and interesting tidbits at the end while discussing the real merit of the T%iger. Based on german experiences he said that vertical armor was not so bad beacuse in the end ground ondulation, range and difference in height conspired to make almost every shot impacting at some angle.

Also the Cromwell seems to be well regarded beacuse of speed and low profile. To be quite honest if we take the original question, it is difficult to say "worst" in any tanks in serial propduction after 1940, all had some flaws, but the one reaching serial production were by no mean the worst. Usually the aberration stayed on the drawing boards. The Type 97 was bad compared to other tanks but it was a pre war design.

The other vehicle we are criticizing are all pre war tanks still used after 1940 despite technological improvement.

At this point someone could make a case that the M3/M5 series stayed in production too long after it was clearly outclassed and thus would require the "worst" title (inadequate armor, inadequate armament), but again its role changed and the design was a pre-war one.

Cromwell over a Convenanter? I think I'll take reliable, fast and moderately well gunned/armoured over unreliable tin can with a 2pdr.

I still remain convinced that the Covenanter retains the crown of worst tank, what other vehicle was decreed to be so awful that it never saw frontline service despite over 1700 of the things being built?

Martin has a good point… 1700… I was thinking a bit less…

Strangely, virtually all the British tsnk crew I've spoken to absolutely loved the Covenanter as a training vehicle and reckoned it to be very reliable. They vehemently disagreed with David Fletcher's assessment of it as 'unreliable', saying that it was absolutely no more unreliable than anything else they'd served on, from Matildas, to Valentines, to Shermans to Centurions.

(I think Fletcher's damning criticism of its reliability is a bit like Elting's infamous criticism of Napoleonic Russian artillery limbers for not having brakes… when no other country's artillery limbers at the time had brakes…)

However, none would wish to go to war in the Covanenter, as it was obsolete even before it went into production – thin-skinned and under-armoured.

Re the T-26: Again, this is taken out of context, as it was already obsolete before WW2 started. The T-26 was the 'Tiger' of the Spanish Civil War and the Nationalists offered a bounty for all T-26s knocked out or captured.

Re Japanese tanks: While they were successful in Malaya, there was precious little antitank opposition and no tank opposition. They were also fighting a thoroughly demoralised, and in many cases, barely-trained enemy. In Burma that same year, they were consistently beaten by the Stuarts of 7th Armoured Brigade. I'd also add that they were generally not fighting in the jungle – in 1942 the Japanese 1st and 14th Tank Regimets were generally fighting in the central Dry Belt of Burma. In 1944, when they finally tried to fight in the jungle with tanks, they were comprehensively hammered by British, Indian, and Sino-American M3 Stuarts, M3 Lees and M4 Shermans.