"Worst Tank of WWII" Topic

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?

What about the Canadian built Ram tank? Over 1900 built, and relegated to training usage or into conversions for support roles.

"What about the Canadian built Ram tank?"

At least the hulls were useful. Was any use made of Covenantor hulls?

I need a more solid definition of "Worst". In terms of resources, in terms of battle worthiness, in terms of crew comfort, surviviblity, reliability, good looks, nice paint or reputation?

I need a more solid definition of "Worst"….

Naaaah. It means whatever you want it to mean. totally subjective.

"Was any use made of Covenantor hulls?"

Yes, bridgelayers and things. I never realised there were 1900 Rams built though, that is a lot. The Kangeroos and Sextons were pretty useful though.

What about the the Soviet T-35! There was never a tank so badly designed and so mechanically unreliable. Even during the worst set-backs of 1941 the Soviets considered taking it out of service!

Rod, the T-35 was a pre-war design like my original candidate, the Renault FT-17…

The criterion was for a tank built post-1940 (hence my later selection of the Cromwell).

""Tiger on the East Front" by Jean Reastayn…"

Yes indeed, ground undulations and etc. did mean that many if not most shots would hit at an angle, but the angle I suspect was more often than not less severe than when striking a vehicle that had over 40 degrees of slope to it already.

Cromwell was reasonably fast and reliable, yes, but again, it was a delayed design indicative of the limitations of British industrial capacity to make bigger, heavier tanks with bigger guns in numbers sufficient to meet the needs of the Commonwealth ground forces. Compared to the Cromwell the M4 Sherman looks like a juggernaught…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Sorry, I should have read the original post more carefully before commenting!
Rod Robertson.

It is interesting to look at the reasoning behind the production of tanks that were obviously inferior to their peers, I would recomend "Janes Tanks of World War 2".

The Germans appeared to suffer from Hitlers belief in "Bigger is better".
The British from the philosophy of the Ministry of Supply, dispersing both design and production to various vehicle manufacturers, presumably to avoid catastrophic losses from bombing raids. It was only in November 1943 that the requirement for a "universal tank" requirement A41 was issued to the Department of Tank Design their first such program since the war began – we know it better as the Centurian.
Even the USA was not immune Marmon-Herrington's contribution seems to have modelled on the British system, with similar results.

As ever hindsight is always perfect.

If we are limiting outselves to tanks produced from 1940 on, I am surprised no one has mentioned the Hungarian Turan, which went into production in 1943. It would have been a great tank in 1935, but it was totally out-classed by the opposition before it even left the factory.

The story I heard (and someone please correct me if its wrong) is that the Hungarians were looking to produce Panthers, but the Germans wanted such high royalties per vehicles that the Hungarians couldn't afford it, and went with the indigenous Turan. They must have been desperate.

Would the Finnish BT-42 be able to participate in the contest, or does it get disqualified due to using a pre-war hull (even though the turret was designed in 1942)?

This strange contraption consisted of a captured BT-7 hull, on top of which was added a massive new turret mounting a British 4.5 inch howitzer. This howitzer was slow to load and had poor anti-tank performance. For some strange reason there was not a single MG mounted on the same vehicle, and regardless of the size of the turret the vehicle still only had 3 crew members.

Of course the extra weight of the new turret was more than the vehicle was designed for, leading to mechanical problems, while armouring was not improved from the original BT-design.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT42

I'm surprised noone has mentioned the Curusader I. Oh, I admit the Covenanter was worse, but not much. The Crusaders were underarmored, underpowered, and undergunned; fast, but unreliable; basically a match for the M13 series of Italian tanks and not much more. When your crews would rather be in a Stuart, you know your standards of armor and armament are low.

When your crews would rather be in a Stuart, you know your standards of armor and armament are low.

It certainly wasn't the armament that made them prefer the Stuart, as its 37mm gun was not quite as good as the Crusader's 2-pdr. Close, but certainly not better.

Sorry, Moko and co., I should have read the initial posting more carefully.

How about the Light Tank Mk VIII (A25) Harry Hopkins? 100 of them built from 1943 to 1945. It was basically only an improved Tetrarch with sloped armor.

link

Again i'd vote the covenenter, I wonder what else could have been built with the resources.

As for the knocking of the Italian M series, I offer the Hungarian Turan 1, 50mm frontal Armour, the gun was effectively a 2 pdr (single shot adaptation of the bofors AA gun) thrown into battle in 1944 against the Russians. While not a bad tank for 1940/41, it wasn't produced until late 42/early 43. An upgrade was attempted with a short 75mm gun, a prototype was made mounting a pak 40, but the problem of smaller nations remains, takes so long to get something in service that it was already obsolete when the troops got it.

Quote Arrio: "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 when 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."

Amazing I quote, in full, a source, they themselves claim the vehicle is undergunned and then you slam me for their comments (eyes roll). The M14/41, as stated by Chamberlin and Ellis, was an upgrade in which tropical filters were added and an improved (ie More reliable) engine was installed. This was unofficially known as the M-14/41
The M-15/42 was not just a product upgrade it was a major overhaul which included a petrol engine, was faster then the M-13/40, had a better HP to weight ratio, heavier (better) high velocity gun (Model 47/40), new hull shape, and armored shrouds for the exhaust system.

Quote Arrio: "Also the Ka Mi was quite different from the Type 95 Ha Go…"

What is your source for this silly statement? Ever see a picture of a Ka-Mi? It IS a type 95 Ha-Go with flotation pods front and back (eyes roll twice).

Quote Arrio: "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 Bleeped texted off by tou complete lack og consistency, knowledge and common sense. Have a fun day."

This is unreal, it really is. Make accusations without proof. Look I DID NOT use bits and pieces of any statements, I used the FULL quote as it appears in the documents I have whether you like it or not. The Quotes I used were complete from the paragraph referring in total to the vehicle, or vehicles, in question. Deal with it.

Next you are going to tell me that, in your vast wealth of knowldge, that you have never heard Chamberlin and Ellis? You remind me of the man who said that bees cannot fly, while in fact they do.

Last, but not least of all, you love to toss about your vast wealth of knowldge without quoting any sources at all. And as typical for a person of this type when confronted with real FACTS they can only slam the messanger. No sir I have done exactly what you asked me to do and you do not like it that someone has finally called your bluff. I dare you to prove that the statements I quoted were in any way altered by me. You have made the accusation it is up to you to back that accusation up. The ISBN number is all you need to obtain the information to prove me wrong or that I in anyway altered the writers statements.

My money says you will toss out some more insulting statements, tell us all how smart you are, and then say something else idiotic.

Gentlemen! No fighting! This is the War Room!

LOL John, but I didn't throw down the gauntlet. I rose to the challenge offered and got slammed for the effort.

It is up to Arrigo to respond to the challenge he threw down and refute my facts. I am more then willing to give him more information from books and documents till they flow out of his ears. But it is now up to him, after accusing me of twisting the quotes (Which I did not), to prove I did so.

I make the above statement without fear as I know I did not twist or skew the quotes.

However I fear he will only continue to make false accusations without backing them up.

Moko, while you're having a rant at Arrigo, you've not noticed that I've challenged your assumption that the Japanese tanks performed well in Burma. They did not.

I'd also add that the Type 95 Ha-Go was NOT designed for jungle warfare. As Arrigo correctly points out, it was designed for combat in China and Manchuria. Specifically, the Japanese needed a light tank that was fast enough to keep up with motorised infantry. This was the primary design specification.

I'd also add that Chamberlain and Ellis are not perfect – their Churchill Tank book, for example, has quite a large number of errors. I've not read the books you quote, but a single source should never be cited as Holy Writ without checking against another.

I still think John the OFM was the worst tank of World War Two.

But wasn't he designed and produced already before 1939, thus not qualifying?

"but the Germans wanted such high royalties per vehicles"

Now we are moving on to "worst weapons production policies of WWII".

Any chance that further slinging of monkey poo could be conducted in English, so the rest of us can appreciate it?

" I am surprised no one has mentioned the Hungarian Turan"

Ooooh, good choice. I was thumbing through Zalogas eastern front book last night trying to find a photo of a Panzer Grey Pz 35(t), and I noticed a photo of Turan next to a Panzer IVg and thought nothing of it.

Oh well, the Hungarians are lumped in with the other 'minor axis' powers for a reason.

Tiger and her bigger sisters. Too many resources on an operational or strategic level. 1500 Pz VI built, times 15:1 kill ratio, = 22,500 Shermans. Sure, that's half the production run of all types, but that doesn't count how many Shermans were returned to service after a couple days in the shop. I recall Allen mentioning something like 50% of all Shermans were returned to service after being knocked out of one battle, and I am probably understating that percentage.

Now we're down to the Tigers permanently-destroying 11,000 or so Shermans. What's the cost of a Sherman versus a Tiger again?

All that said, as a German commander, I'd want Tiger support at a tactical level.

I think you'd have to count the cost of the crews, as well.

All that said, as a German commander, I'd want Tiger support at a tactical level.

But what were his chances of actually getting that support, compared to an American commander's chances of getting Sherman support?

"But what were his chances of actually getting that support, compared to an American commander's chances of getting Sherman support?"

One of my favorite quotes from a German veteran was about how the Sherman was, in his opinion, the best tank of the war. When asked why, he said "because it's the only one I ever saw!"

Or, to quote Stalin, "quantity has a quality all its own."

R Mark Davies

Sorry I missed your post, my fault.

Yes I have also found Chamberlin and Ellis committing errors when I have carried out my own cross checking of their info. In general they do a pretty good job, but I rarely accept info from one source. I may quote just one source in a discussion, for brevity, in almost all cases I have already found a second, or even third source to back it up.

The T-95 Ha-Go was built for more then just China/Manchuria, I have come across more info pointing to this interesting tid bit, I can dig it up if need be. As an outgrowth of the light tank program, starting with the T-92 I believe (Which was built to support cavalry in China/Manchuria). Unlike the T-92, and its follow on designs, the T-95 was built to full fill a host of different roles, hence the Ka-Mi and Ka-Chi built on the same chassie. Also unlike the T-92, and friends, more thought was given to its design to fit into those different roles.

While not designed specifically for just China/Manchuria, or for just jungle enviroments, or for just amphib operations, or just naval transport, etc, rather all were considered in its design. Truthfully, IMHO, it wasn't a bad design just a bit (Ok a lot LOL) behind the curve of tank designs.

No argument that the Chi-Ni/Chi-Ha designs were designed for Manchuria/China and to fill out the 'Tank Divisions' T-95s were found in Tank Divisions, supporting cavalry, on islands as independent formations, in Burma, and probably in the Japanese secret base next to Hitler's in Antarctica (LOL)

Early in the war a handful of T-95s did raise hell with the British in Burma (Not for a year, or even a month it was for a week or two, if memory serves). Partly because the British didn't expect to run into tanks, and partly because the British had damn little AT weaponry to face those handful of tanks down. It is from Ralph Zumbro's Book 'Iron Cavalry' (Which is a pretty good book), and from another book on the South East Asian campaign in the old WWII series by Beekham House. Both show what even a poorly designed tank can do when it has no foes to face it down.

I hope you get a chance to read them.

Ah, I think you mean Malaya, which explains my bafflement. Three tank regiments did indeed raise holy-hell in Malaya – as you say, due to the paucity of AT opposition. The lack of training of rapidly-deployed Indian. British and Australian reinforcement divisions also played a large part. The Japanese tanks were not fighting in the jungle though – they were tied to the road network. Any tank is better than no tank at all, but the success in Malaya doesn't mean that the Japanese tanks were good designs – Burma proved their inadequacies.

In Burma the first unit of tanks to arrive (elements of 1st Company, 2nd Tank Regiment) was wiped ot within seconds in its first engagement against the Stuarts of 7th Armoured Brigade. The follow-on units (1st & 14th Tank Regiments, plus some divisional recce regiments and tankette companies) had some success against unsupported Chinese formations, but always ran into difficulties when they came up against 7th Armoured Brigade Stuarts.

As you say, the Type 95 wasn't a bad tank for 1935, when it was designed, but it was seriously outmatched by 1941, yet they kept manufacturing it. I disagree with your suggestion that it was designed as a multi-purpose tank. It's prime design requirement was to keep up with motorised infantry on the plains of China and Manchuria.

The Type 2 Ka-Mi Light was an unitended offshoot developed half a decade later – they did not intend to build an amphibious variant when the Type 95 Light was first designed.

The Type 4 Ke-Nu Light was an unintended grafting of the Type 97 Chi-Ha Medium 57mm gun turret on to the Type 95 Light, which came about when the Type 97 Mediums were upgraded with new turrets to Shinhoto ('Improved Turret') standard. Again, this was not intended when the Type 95 was first designed.

The Type 3 Ka-Chi was an amphibious Medium tank and was not a variant of the Type 95 Light.

The Type 92 'Heavy Armoured Car' was a curious beast – designed by the cavalry when tanks were meant to be the preserve of the infantry (hence the designation).

@donlowry: Ok, the US had how many times the population of Germany to pull crews from, and how many of them were mechanically inclined to help support the beast?

Chances of getting a Tiger platoon in support?
Realistically? pretty marginal, unless you're in a PanzerDiv, then it's about 2/3 if I remember the proportions right.

On the table? 100%

It's really a shame prewar designs are off limits as some real doozies saw combat. One need only mention the Italian M11 and L3 (both truly miserable deathtraps), the British A9 (a design which would have been mediocre in 1933, but actually put forward and produced into 1940) and some of the already-mentioned Japanese models. The M3 Lee was not the USA's finest hour, either.

R Mark Davies

Forgive my 'ancient' memory, you are correct it was the Malay Plain, my bad. Looked it up when I got home.

The two amphib tanks were the Naval Ka-Mi and the Army SR-I or I-Go. (I think I had it right in my first post and then misquoted myself in the second.

The I-Go was started in the same year as the T-95, the Ka-Mi 1942, almost a decade later.

I will have to dig around and find the information I was talking about concerning the 'story' behind the T-95. Hate to leave anyone hanging just on my word, please give me a day or two.

Thank you for your patience with this old man.