HidaSeku | 18 Jan 2016 12:34 p.m. PST |
For the purposes of discussion, the favorite tanks in question that I'm looking for are: 1) Light tanks and/or tankettes 2) Generally considered poor/bad For me, it's got to be the Soviet T-60 light tank. Something about that tank really speaks to me. From the 20mm autocannon to the low profile I just really like the look. In combat? It failed pretty miserably at the huge task at hand, failing to keep up with the T-34 tanks in the mixed tank companies and generally getting destroyed easily by their German counterparts. However, when I read the few stories out there about the T-60 taking on unprepared infantry, it really enlivens my imagination. What is your favorite bad light tank? |
dBerczerk | 18 Jan 2016 12:47 p.m. PST |
Imperial Japanese Army Type 95 Ha-Go. 37mm main gun with two 7.7mm light machine guns. Used from 1939 to 1945. Went on to serve the Chinese during the Chinese Civil War.
|
Herkybird | 18 Jan 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
Carro Veloce CV-33 – thats my choice! 12mm armour and a poor machine gun, 1 man turret. I would not have kept corned beef in this! |
Fred Cartwright | 18 Jan 2016 12:54 p.m. PST |
The Italian L6/40. Pretty useless, but cute! |
Sundance | 18 Jan 2016 12:59 p.m. PST |
Pretty much any of the early war light tanks were pretty bad, yet all hold some fascination for gamers. I like the Japanese in particular, though the Italian and the Polish take close seconds. |
Lou from BSM | 18 Jan 2016 1:00 p.m. PST |
I'm going to go with the Vickers 6 ton… seen here: link |
Gaz0045 | 18 Jan 2016 1:04 p.m. PST |
I quite like the British Mk VI series (as the L3/33 has been grabbed)….thinly armoured,poorly armed, ugly as sin……ticks all the boxes. |
Wretched Peasant Scum | 18 Jan 2016 1:19 p.m. PST |
M22 Locust-designed to be glider carryable, only a handful ever made it into action. Armor wasn't even fully resistant to machine gun fire. |
christot | 18 Jan 2016 1:40 p.m. PST |
Got to be the mark VI, …pennants cracking in the breeze as it races over the desert..ugly? Never |
vtsaogames | 18 Jan 2016 1:42 p.m. PST |
Honey/Stuart. Remember the haunted tank? |
Weasel | 18 Jan 2016 1:53 p.m. PST |
When I play Steel Panthers as the Krauts, I always include a few Panzer I. Completely worthless at basically everything, but I'll have a couple anyways. |
Big Red | 18 Jan 2016 1:56 p.m. PST |
Hotchkiss H35/39. Something about French light tanks – maybe its the sexy three color camo scheme (a bit muted in this photo).
|
79thPA | 18 Jan 2016 2:01 p.m. PST |
|
21eRegt | 18 Jan 2016 2:44 p.m. PST |
Japanese Type 94 tankette. Ever since I saw a picture of one strapped to the engine compartment of a Sherman, I knew that was a bad tank.
|
Patrick Sexton | 18 Jan 2016 2:55 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't consider the FT-17, the H-35/39 or the Stuart bad light tanks as they did well in the times they were designed for. Now the Russian and Italian light tanks? Those were never good. And the Japanese light tanks were pretty awful unless there were no other tanks on the battlefield. Or anti-tank guns, rifles etc. |
Lluis of Minairons | 18 Jan 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
Spanish Civil War's IGC Sadurní Catalan tank. Good running gear, but too small (half a ton lighter than a Panzer I ausf. A), poorly armed (just one Hotchkiss MG), with no rotating turret, and manned by only 2 crewmen.
But I looooooooooove her! |
Big Red | 18 Jan 2016 3:00 p.m. PST |
Like all French light tanks, the H-35/39 had that wonderfully inhibiting one-man turret and although a few were up-gunned the original 37mm was fairly effective against unarmored targets. |
Andy ONeill | 18 Jan 2016 3:28 p.m. PST |
Is the luchs too good? Always liked that. ok. Mkvi |
Ney Ney | 18 Jan 2016 3:39 p.m. PST |
I like the panzer I and the jadgpanzer I. |
skippy0001 | 18 Jan 2016 3:50 p.m. PST |
Early M3 Stuart with sponson machineguns. |
ubercommando | 18 Jan 2016 3:53 p.m. PST |
I'm going with something more modern, the M551 Sheridan. Now with those early WW2 tanks, they would have been alright and they basically worked had not tank design completely overtaken them. With the Sheridan, almost nothing about it worked in the first place. It had a missile launcher which didn't work, a gun which fired ammo that broke apart half the times they tried to load it, a hull which melted, armour that could only withstand machinegun fire and an amphibious capability that was undermined by the plastic window in the driver's position which leaked. |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Jan 2016 4:11 p.m. PST |
It's taken, but for sheer "what genius thought of this?" badness, I don't see how the CV-33 can be topped. One quibble with the nomination, though: it didn't have a one man turret. It had no turret at all. So if you could block a column in a tight space--say by rolling a boulder in front of the column--you could come at them from behind in perfect safety and flip them over. Not a hypothetical. Happened in Ethiopia. Oh. And ubercommando? You forgot the combustible cartridge which used to fill the interior with smoke. The Sheridan: truly a tank to remember. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 18 Jan 2016 5:31 p.m. PST |
|
Fred Cartwright | 18 Jan 2016 5:34 p.m. PST |
Agreed Robert, but it is about your favourite, not for the worst ever design. Uber the M551 is a favourite of mine too. Piece of junk, but looks cool, particularly the ones in Nam festooned with gear and extra weapons. |
20thmaine | 18 Jan 2016 6:09 p.m. PST |
I know – it's a carrier / tankette , but it's so dinky ! |
Wargamer Blue | 18 Jan 2016 6:37 p.m. PST |
The FT-17, you can't beat it. |
platypus01au | 18 Jan 2016 6:53 p.m. PST |
I have to disgree with the FT-17. When it was built, WW1, it was a good tank. In WW2, not a good tank. JohnG |
Mobius | 18 Jan 2016 7:00 p.m. PST |
I like the 7PT jw Polish tank. 37mm is better than the German though only 2 man turret. Ft-17 is just God awful. |
Tgerritsen | 18 Jan 2016 7:03 p.m. PST |
Tetrarch looked the business, but by most accounts was of dubious value. |
79thPA | 18 Jan 2016 8:13 p.m. PST |
Since this is a WWII thread, that puts it in the "not a good tank" category then. |
dsfrank | 18 Jan 2016 8:54 p.m. PST |
looking more modern – the M551 Sheridan |
rmaker | 18 Jan 2016 9:45 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't consider the FT-17, the H-35/39 or the Stuart bad light tanks Ditto the Vickers 6-ton (aka T-26). Now, for my choice – Combat Car M1 (aka Light Tank M1A2) link |
Skarper | 18 Jan 2016 11:57 p.m. PST |
IMO to qualify the tank has to be a deliberate light tank trying to find a role when its bigger brethren are already numerous and effective. The Soviet T-70 gets my vote. I get they were trying to use capacity that could not build T-34s to build 'something' but by 1941 they really should have known better. And over 8000 built. |
Martin Rapier | 19 Jan 2016 12:11 a.m. PST |
Picking on the poor old tankettes seems a bit mean, a short lived idea from the 1930s which went the way of the one man tank. There is something majestic about the Vickers light tanks though. |
Andy P | 19 Jan 2016 5:30 a.m. PST |
For WW2 I second the Tetrarch but its cool anyhow. Modern definitely the Sheridan? The H35/39 was a good tank let down by a poor crew compartment, the Germans struggled to knock them out needed to close the range to under 50m for any 37mm armed vehicles. |
Jeff Ewing | 19 Jan 2016 5:59 a.m. PST |
I favor the AH-IV family:
|
Frederick | 19 Jan 2016 9:35 a.m. PST |
So many choices The L6/40 is good choice – so would be the M11/39 which while said to be a medium tank was pretty far from that At least the T-60 had decent cross country performance! |
Weasel | 19 Jan 2016 3:17 p.m. PST |
I suppose a T60 or T70 is better than no tank at all :-) |
French Wargame Holidays | 19 Jan 2016 4:38 p.m. PST |
For me my favourite ww2 death trap is the Belgian T13/b1/B2/B3 Based on the Vickers 1934 artillery truck and armed with the impressive Model 1931 47mm anti-tank gun and the secondary the Belgian licensed BAR MG. Since the 47mm was a fairly heavy piece of equipment, and because of the general lay-out of the Vickers artillery tractor, with its centre of gravity being upset by the weight the decision was taken to simply install the gun and its turret backwards on the vehicle. Armour protection was limited, frontal armour was 12 mm of hardened steel, both on the frontal bulkhead and on the turret. Side armour on the vehicle basis and turret was restricted to 6 mm of steel. This meant that the T-13 crew was only fully protected against indirect blast and splinter damage. The traverse of the turret was man powered by two crew (commander and assistant). the side armour shields had to be folded down to permit the full 360° traverse of the turret, exposing the crew to enemy fire. If the (lightly) armoured side shields were left upwards, traverse of the turret was limited to 120° in the frontal arc.
|
HidaSeku | 19 Jan 2016 5:35 p.m. PST |
The FT-17 was successfully used in the Romanian switch from Axis to Allies against the Germans in the area in August 1944. I can't think of any other light tank that bad making that much a positive impact that late in the war! |
4th Cuirassier | 21 Jan 2016 10:17 a.m. PST |
I can't believe this thread has gone on for three days without a mention yet of New Zealand's magnificent Bob Semple tank.
According to Wikipedia – appropriately, because it was a sort of a wiki-tank – "it was equipped with six Bren machine guns — two in the sides, two facing the front, one in the turret and one at the rear. The vehicle was very tall at 12 ft (3.5 m) and performance was poor. Due to the lack of armour plate, corrugated (manganese) plating was used in the expectation it would deflect bullets. The crew of eight included one gunner who had to lie on a mattress on top of the engine to fire his Bren gun." It takes the palm for me as a bad light tank because it had light tank protection (not a lot) and light tank armament (magazine-fed Brens), but sadly it did not have light tank weight (25 tons) or speed (had to stop to change gear because tractor). Runner up for me would be Australia's Sentinel tank, which was not all that bad compared to peers like the Crusader, and more medium than light. It's just that unlike any other tank before or since, it had a bow machine gun mounting that looked exactly like a male stripper's package.
|
Ivan DBA | 21 Jan 2016 6:17 p.m. PST |
I agree that the FT-17 should not be included on this list. As a WWI-vintage tank, it's completely misleading to compare it directly to stuff designed in the 1930s. Also, as the first tank with a rotating turret, it's the grand-daddy of all tanks since WWI. So show some respect! |
number4 | 03 Feb 2016 11:27 p.m. PST |
how about the Schofield? A Bren carrier designed by a committee……..!
|
number4 | 03 Feb 2016 11:29 p.m. PST |
Actually I always kinda liked this one
|