WORST overall tank

Capt. Pixel · Post by **Capt. Pixel** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:30 pm

Just reading the "Best overall tank" and thought a comparison thread for 'Worst ... " would produce some interesting results.

I figure there are going to be a few models that will show up on BOTH lists!

My nomination: Any Japanese tank. :p

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:54 pm

The M1917. Only a 30cal, I dont even thik it can be considered a tank.

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:59 pm

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
My nomination: Any Japanese tank. :p

Then you haven't used them.

As I just found out vs. Scharfschütze, pitted against equal resistance (read: USMC, M3!), they can too hurt!

Are tankettes eligible for nomination?

Capt. Pixel · Post by **Capt. Pixel** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 12:33 am

Originally posted by Belisarius

Then you haven't used them.

More likely, I never used them correctly. :rolleyes:

Tankettes? Sure, why not!

Egg_Shen · Post by **Egg_Shen** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:02 am

I find when using Japanes tanks you get only about 1 or 2 when the USMC get about 20, so it's kinda hard to hit them head on.

tanks I dont like are the Russian's little square ones, I've never used them but when I have P4's tigers and panthers they are a 1 shot 1 kill deal, plus there seems to be a crap load of them around too.

antarctic · Post by **antarctic** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:06 am

My nomination: Any Japanese tank

Well, you have to take that in context. Japanese Tanks were designed with the fact that they would mostly fight in jungle, as infantry support. I think in that role, they seem to do pretty well...
Just play the Aussie defense of Malaysia scenarion in SPWAW, and you'll see the point.

Respectfully

Antarctic

stevemk1a · Post by **stevemk1a** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:44 am

I think that the true test of a really bad tank should be based on an analysis of what threats it was designed to face. If crews were given a piece of equipment that was incapable of dealing with any expected opponent then that is a truly bad AFV.

Capt. Pixel · Post by **Capt. Pixel** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 11:54 am

Originally posted by willy
I think that the true test of a really bad tank should be based on an analysis of what threats it was designed to face. If crews were given a piece of equipment that was incapable of dealing with any expected opponent then that is a truly bad AFV.

That's more along the lines of what I was thinking in "The Worst Tank".

Items like one man turrets, underpowered, undergunned, under-armored, over-sized.

I don't think doctrine can be considered here, either. The Char B1 and Somua tanks might have actually proven quite effective in the early war years had it not been for questionable tactical doctrines. That doesn't necessarily make them 'bad' tanks.

I've got to admit I fail to see the use in the FT-17. It isn't even particularly capable as a machinegun.

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:26 pm

the T35 T37 and FT17 pop up in mind

Seagull · Post by **Seagull** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:18 pm

The FT-17 has my vote, too.

Penetrator · Post by **Penetrator** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:46 pm

Originally posted by Seagull
The FT-17 has my vote, too.

That's not really fair is it? It actually was the BEST tank in the world in its time. How else would it still be in service 20 years later?

Penetrator · Post by **Penetrator** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:48 pm

For a major tank type, I would submit the italian M13-14-15 series.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 6:03 pm

I agree on the Italian tank nomination.

How could the nation with the best cars produce that tank?

Seagull · Post by **Seagull** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 6:08 pm

Originally posted by Penetrator

That's not really fair is it? It actually was the BEST tank in the world in its time. How else would it still be in service 20 years later?

A one-man, manual traverse turret on a tank whose commander/gunner is obliged to stand

won't win any praise from me. I can't imagine sharing that space with a 37mm gun, either.

French faith in the Maginot Line and a doctrine that placed all tanks in dispersed infantry support roles account for its continued use in service at the start of WWII.

Penetrator · Post by **Penetrator** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:34 pm

My point is that it is unfair to measure it up against WW2 tanks, as per the argument for "intended adversaries".

Seagull · Post by **Seagull** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:44 pm

Originally posted by Penetrator
My point is that it is unfair to measure it up against WW2 tanks, as per the argument for "intended adversaries".

Hmmm... I just tried a platoon of FT-17M's against a platoon of GE MG34 MMG's. I thought that the machine guns would rip the FT-17's apart. Not so. The tanks suppressed hard, but no effective hits were scored. I tried closing the gap, and the MMG's got chewed to pieces by op fire. Maybe they aren't so bad, in the right context.

I still think that a design which requires the commander to stand all the time has serious flaws, though.

stevemk1a · Post by **stevemk1a** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 8:22 am

The FT-17 was designed in 1917 with a rear mounted engine and a fully traversing turret, and set the pattern of almost every tank to come. It was designed as an Infantry support weapon to kill MG nests, not tanks. It was a very successful tank for it's time and was exported to many countries, armed with MG's or small cannon (up to a 75mm howitzer). By WWII it was obsolete, and not intended for a modern war. On the other hand, the Soviet T-35 was a waste of resources with a big crew and three seperate main guns (two 45mm and one 76mm). It was highly mechanically unreliable, and impossible for a commander to control effectively, on top of all that, the armour wasn't very good. The 10 man crew could have manned two tanks with the same investment in training, and the guns could have equipped three tanks!

Egg_Shen · Post by **Egg_Shen** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 7:34 pm

Originally posted by willy
The FT-17 was designed in 1917 with a rear mounted engine and a fully traversing turret, and set the pattern of almost every tank to come. It was designed as an Infantry support weapon to kill MG nests, not tanks. It was a very successful tank for it's time and was exported to many countries, armed with MG's or small cannon (up to a 75mm howitzer). By WWII it was obsolete, and not intended for a modern war. On the other hand, the Soviet T-35 was a waste of resources with a big crew and three seperate main guns (two 45mm and one 76mm). It was highly mechanically unreliable, and impossible for a commander to control effectively, on top of all that, the armour wasn't very good. The 10 man crew could have manned two tanks with the same investment in training, and the guns could have equipped three tanks!

T-35 AHH!

is that the Monster Huge tank!!!
I saw it and it scared me but then a 37mm from a Panzer3 took it out I was like phew!

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 9:56 pm

The French St. Chamond, that extended far over the front and rear of the track, and got stuck easily. Or the German Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. It had all of 40mm of ground clearance, and short tracks and also got stuck easily.

troopie

Capt. Pixel · Post by **Capt. Pixel** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 12:25 am

Originally posted by troopie
The French St. Chamond, that extended far over the front and rear of the track, and got stuck easily. Or the German Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. It had all of 40mm of ground clearance, and short tracks and also got stuck easily.

troopie

Ah see! This is the kinda stuff I was looking for. Truly Godawful design concepts.

40mm ground clearance?

WORST overall tank

WORST overall tank

Re: WORST overall tank

Re: Re: WORST overall tank