Worst Pices of Crap 3: Tanks

Worst Tank

The worst tank ever made? An easy one. The American M5 "Stuart". The only thing it was good for was speeding the crew's journey to the afterlife. Thank God, the Americans only produced a few thousand of the miserable things.

Even a German anti-tank rifle (those wretched things) could "challenge" the "Stuart", while the 37mm "cannon" could only knock on German tanks and say "Hi, kill me quickly".

Ollie Garchy
 
No,i think there is no worst tank in the world.
Each tanks were made as best at that time&situation.
But later,those thinkings were denied by real war.
 
I think the Japanese three-man tank are ridiculous! Good thing they did not meet with any tank resistant in the MALAya!
 
There have been several tanks mentioned that are fairly described as crappy but I'm gonna have to go with the King Tiger. Expensive and unreliable, it claimed resources that might have been better spent elsewhere. Not only was it expensive to produce (more than 300,000 marks, the cost of three FW190's), it burned enormous quantities of scarce fuel decreasing the mobility of the rest of the army.

When it did make it to the battle, it wasn't too difficult to defeat.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=88&lang=en

While it was more powerful than the Sherman or T34, it wasn't as reliable and was much more expensive. Only a few of these tanks could be produced and even fewer could drag themselves to the battle. Inferior in protection and reliability to the Soviet IS2 and the American M26, the King Tiger killed German soldiers by diverting resources, squandering fuel and failing to stop the Allied advance.
 
2dold4this said:
There have been several tanks mentioned that are fairly described as crappy but I'm gonna have to go with the King Tiger. Expensive and unreliable, it claimed resources that might have been better spent elsewhere. Not only was it expensive to produce (more than 300,000 marks, the cost of three FW190's), it burned enormous quantities of scarce fuel decreasing the mobility of the rest of the army.

When it did make it to the battle, it wasn't too difficult to defeat.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=88&lang=en

While it was more powerful than the Sherman or T34, it wasn't as reliable and was much more expensive. Only a few of these tanks could be produced and even fewer could drag themselves to the battle. Inferior in protection and reliability to the Soviet IS2 and the American M26, the King Tiger killed German soldiers by diverting resources, squandering fuel and failing to stop the Allied advance.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with you that the King Tiger was an expensive waste of resources when Germany could scarely afford it, I can't agree that it can be called crappy in any way, shape or form. I mean, this tank had excellent, thick, sloping armour and a potent main gun. It could knock out all Allied tanks at almost all ranges and was safe from almost any Allied tank at most ranges. To me that doesn't sound that crappy. To me that sounds formidable.

The problem of the King Tiger, aside from its expense, was two-fold. The first being that the engine chosen to power the tank was not nearly powerful enough, being the same engine that was used to power the Panther, some 25 tonnes lighter. Thus the King Tiger had a very low power to weight ratio and poor mobility. This engine also meant that the King Tiger had an appalling fuel thirst. However, in the role that the Germans used it, as a defensive tank, it was excellent. Secondly, and the main problem, was that the tank was rushed to the front with no pre-production trials at all. This was why so many of them broke down. The tank simply was not ready for mass production.
 
Doppleganger said:
It could knock out all Allied tanks at almost all ranges and was safe from almost any Allied tank at most ranges.
Click to expand...

The Russians had no problem knocking out the King Tigers sent to attack their bridge head (See above link.) This was perhaps aided by half of the huge tanks breaking down before they could drag themselves the short distance to the fight and the King Tiger's slow turning turret. The British 17 pounder (same as the US 76 mm), the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm and the Russian 100mm, 122mm and 152mm guns could knock out the King Tiger.
Some penetration test:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123&lang=en


king_09.jpg

Knocked out by artillery in Operation Konrad


Tanks can be used on the defensive but are by their nature, more suited to offense. If a tank can't crawl more than a few miles without breaking down, why not spend the money on a good cheap pillbox? Germany would have been better served purchasing more Panthers, aircraft or even towed antitank guns than buying the expensive King Tiger that was lucky to get to the fight.

The King Tiger may have cost the Germans their Ardennes offensive and Operation Konrad due to their lack of mobility and gas guzzling. This is over and above the fact that resources were used up on a tank that couldn't win battles instead of buying equipment that was useful.
 
Firefly.jpg

The Firefly
The 17 Pounder (76.2mm) gun was a British weapon which, with some difficulty, was installed in the American Sherman tank. It was not renowned for its accuracy but, with a muzzle velocity of 3950 feet per second, firing Sabot ammunition, could penetrate 135mm of armour at 1,800 metres.
 
2dold4this said:
The Russians had no problem knocking out the King Tigers sent to attack their bridge head (See above link.) This was perhaps aided by half of the huge tanks breaking down before they could drag themselves the short distance to the fight and the King Tiger's slow turning turret. The British 17 pounder (same as the US 76 mm), the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm and the Russian 100mm, 122mm and 152mm guns could knock out the King Tiger.
Some penetration test:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123&lang=en


king_09.jpg

Knocked out by artillery in Operation Konrad


Tanks can be used on the defensive but are by their nature, more suited to offense. If a tank can't crawl more than a few miles without breaking down, why not spend the money on a good cheap pillbox? Germany would have been better served purchasing more Panthers, aircraft or even towed antitank guns than buying the expensive King Tiger that was lucky to get to the fight.

The King Tiger may have cost the Germans their Ardennes offensive and Operation Konrad due to their lack of mobility and gas guzzling. This is over and above the fact that resources were used up on a tank that couldn't win battles instead of buying equipment that was useful.
Click to expand...
I've seen the above link before but what needs to be remembered is that the quality of german ore deteriorated in quality towards the end of the war. There is some debate as to how much this affected the quality of German AFVs but it is reasonable to say that it did have an effect. As your link stated the quality of German welding seemed of good quality on the captured King Tiger but the actual metal used wasn't of as high quality as earlier German tanks.

I agree that the Germans wasted valuable resources on development and production of the King Tiger but that was Hitler for you. He was obssessed with the gigantic. And it was underpowered and not properly developed, with later versions not having the same quality steel as earlier versions had. Those are all issues with the rapidly worsening economic and industrial situation faced by Germany herself, not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design. The implementation of the design was poor, given Germany's worsening situation, not the actual design itself.

I don't think the King Tiger caused the Ardennes Offensive to fail. It was an ill concieved idea that never had much hope in the first place. It only did so well to begin with due to the element of surprise and the bad weather that hampered Allied aircraft.
 
not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design.



I'm not calling it a crappy design. I'm calling it a crappy tank. While it may have had an inspired design (that is debatable as a good designer takes into account the materials he must work with), it's the finished product that counts. The soldier does not care if the flaw is in the production process, the materials, the concept or the design.
 
2dold4this said:
not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design.



I'm not calling it a crappy design. I'm calling it a crappy tank. While it may have had an inspired design (that is debatable as a good designer takes into account the materials he must work with), it's the finished product that counts. The soldier does not care if the flaw is in the production process, the materials, the concept or the design.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I'd still say the tank, particularly the ones made in 1944, were still formidable, assuming they didn't break down or run out of fuel first. There are many more crappy tanks to choose from than the King Tiger.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
M60A2 wasn't bad, the M551 was worse. The only problem was the Gun/Missle Launcher on the A2.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was bad

when you can get off two aimed shots in a minute. there's a problem.
 
It is good idea to throwing flame. Imagine, you are on Okinawa, you are an officer of the platoon, you saw a Jap's bunker with 4 deadly machine guns in about 30 yards. It is impossible to send flamethrower to there. You need a Sherman with flame thrower to send that with armors. Then, Sherman burned them up. Understand? :)
 
Well, Only on certain mission those tanks are useful, else they prove to be deadly! Those huge fuel tanks they tow behind can cause a great explosion!
 
Zander0633......Those Churchill Crocodile Tanks used on D Day and beyond were a great success, the Germans feared them so much that if they captured a crew from one of those tanks they were shot on the spot. Towing the fuel behind the tank made it far safer for the crew as if it went up the crew were often far enough away to not be hurt, also you you could carry a far larger supply for the flame weapon than you could if it was inside the tank. America turned the offer for these tanks down for d D Day but went on to convert the Sherman for use in the Pacific conflict
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top