Steel Coffins: 5 Worst Tanks To Ever Go To War

19FortyFIve ^ | 2/1/2021 | Peter Suicu

[Seruzawa]

One can argue all week about tank. The Tiger was capable, but an expensive maintenance nightmare. Like many German weapons they were custom built and if a major part broke you couldn’t just cannibalize a part from another Tiger like the USA or Russians could. All these discussions leave this aspect off. Ease of repairing damage.

[pfflier]

Sherman tank = tommy cooker

Another name was the rolling Ronson...Lights the first time every time. It was a flaming deathtrap when hit because it ran on AVGAS.

It was fast and maneuverable and produced in large numbers.. Unfortunately, that all it had going for it.

It's main armament was poor (75mm) that couldn't penetrate German front armor. It had to sneak up on the flanks or rear of German tanks for a kill.

Defensively, it had a high profile and it's armor was insufficient.

[Seruzawa]

One of the great fictions is the propaganda that the Germans were super-efficient. This is pure horsecrap. The Nazi Party was horribly corrupt and its cadre of officials interfered constantly with the workaday economy and the military. Even the Italians were using mass production methods while the Germans still custom built so much of their gear. Tanks trucks and planes sat stranded by the basket load. “Wonder weapons” like the ME262 or the King Tiger or V2s could never be built in sufficient numbers. German fuel supplies were never adequate after attacking Russia.

Wars are not won by brilliance. They are lost by blundering incompetence. And the Germans and Japanese blundered far more than the Allies.

The Germans attacking Russia and the Japanese attacking the USA were both fatal blunders. Neither has a snowballs chance of succeeding.

[wardaddy]

I would not wanted to be a tank crew man

Nor the grunt assigned to clean out the mess

I’ve read WWII accounts

That and ball turret cleanup

Whew

[rxsid]

"Germans sure liked over-sized but impractical weapons, didn’t they?"

They like to push the engineering envelope.

Time constraints, too many fronts and a mad man running the show meant all phases of testing were typically shortened or by-passed altogether.

"Hey boss...that weapon system your demanding isn't really practical. Not to mention, getting it in the field within the next x months" probably wasn't uttered too often.

[Rockingham]

Yet the Sherman was speedy, reliable, easy to use and repair. and available in war winning numbers. The Germans regarded the Sherman as a potent adversary when properly employed.

[karnage]

I like tanks. WWII was obviously the Golden Age of tank warfare. Used to replay many battles with 1/72 scale armor.

[TTFlyer]

Lots of Germans burned to death in Pz3’s and Pz4’s.

[Mogger]

From a Bill Mauldin cartoon.

A tanker asking 2 muddy GIs if they wanted a ride....

Response, "No thanks, a moving foxhole attracts the eye".

[pfflier]

No argument there. The $10 term is when properly employed.

Sherman Tank - the American deathtrap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

That was made back in the day when the History Channel wasn't doing UFOs and Conspiracies 100%.

[Rockingham]

Like Guderian, the designers of the Sherman knew that a tank's mobility was as much a weapon as its gun. The Sherman excelled in the exploitation of breaches in enemy lines. Chasing the German army out of France in 1944 was the Sherman's defining role, with Sherman tanks repeatedly moving more quickly than the Germans could respond. In contrast, against entrenched positions or German counter attacks, the American army usually relied on its exceptional artillery arm instead of masses of tanks.

Notably, when Shermans and German tanks clashed, the battle usually went against the Germans due to the superior American mobility, greater numbers, artillery and air support, and the fighting spirit of the Americans. This was not mere happenstance but was planned by US strategists. The Sherman was part of the equation, performing as planned.

[BroJoeK]

NWFree: "Sherman tank = tommy cooker"

pfflier: "Another name was the rolling Ronson...Lights the first time every time."

In all fairness to the M4, it was first designed in 1940 as an infantry support tank whose major opponent was the German Panzers Mark 3s & 4s.
Sherman was intended for mass production, ease of transport across oceans & beaches, plus ease of operation & maintenance.
When the Sherman was attacked in the press, in 1945, Gen. Patton defended it as an offensive weapon, whereas the German Tiger was so heavy & immobile it was, for practical purposes, merely a defensive gun.

M4s remained in production to the end of WWII and in service for many years after, and long after many countries (including the USA) had developed heavier tanks which could blow a Sherman to pieces.

See also Rockingham's post #31.

[Reily]

Significant numbers of the Pershing (equaivalent to the German Panther) could have been put into production earlier. If that would have happend a lot of Amreican lives could have been saved. Expending 2 or 3 Shermans to take out one Panther would not have been the tactic of choice with the Pershing. Some historians blame Patton for interfering with speeding up Pershing production.

[BroJoeK]

"I would not wanted to be a tank crew man
Nor the grunt assigned to clean out the mess"

You remember the First World War?
Many millions killed in trenches by artillery & machine guns.

That's what tank warfare was intended to change.

[Western Phil]

According to my brother, tanks used up lots of tracks in the action in North Africa. In preparation for the war on the continent, we manufactured buco tank tracks. Europe had roads and soil which did not use up tank tracks to a large extent. Sometime late in the last century he told me that there were still warehouses full of tank tracks in Europe.

[OneVike]

I was an ace gunner on a M551 Light Tank Sheridan, The tank weighed only 17 tons and could be dropped from a transport plane into the jungles of Vietnam. Without the governor on it, the tank could get up to 55 miles an hour an a flat road. Not that we ever tried it mind you. LOL. It was a fun tank, all be-it a death trap.

The Sheridan’s main armament consisted of the M81 152mm gun-missile launcher. The M81 could fire multi-purpose M409 152mm High Explosive Anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. The Army also developed canister and beehive rounds for the M81, which were effective against enemy personnel. I remember making Swiss cheese out of crates and trees while stationed in Germany in the early "70s".

The Sheridan could carry up to twenty 152mm cannon rounds. Secondary armament included a 7.62mm machine gun coaxial which sucked. It constantly locked up. It also had a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on the turret which the TC commander loved. The Sheridan was also equipped with four smoke grenade launchers mounted on the turret.

In addition to cannon rounds, the Sheridan could carry up to eight MGM-51 Shillelagh guided missiles, which were fired through the main gun. Once clear of the tank, stabilizing fins popped out and the rocket engine ignited. To guide the missile, the gunner simply kept his sights on an enemy target, while an infrared link sent steering corrections to the missile. The Shillelagh’s fifteen pound shaped charge warhead could defeat any tank at that time, giving the lightweight Sheridan a significant punch.

It remained in production until 1971, by which time 88,000 had been produced, probably in anticipation of use by main battle tanks (below). Nearly a half dozen missiles were fired at bunkers by Sheridans during Operation Desert Storm (Iraq/Kuwait) in January and February 1991 This was the only time the missile system was fired in combat. Long after I left the military.

[Oatka]

Actually, the M3 Grant performed well in an infantry support role for the British in North Africa. It was better than anything else they had, until they got Shermans in quantity, and the equal of the early Panzers.

They were still being used in the China-Burma area until the end of the war. The Japs had crap for tanks and the Grant was a great infantry support weapon.

[amorphous]

I've never been around a Sheridan. According to https://military.wikia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan, it used the same engine as the M113, 6V53 Detroit. Was it mounted in the front like the M113, M548, M110, M109 (318 Detroit 8V71), or in the rear?

[Sirius Lee]

Was the Lee tank, not crappy enough?

[Sirius Lee]

Used to replay many battles with 1/72 scale armor.

I think I built models of just about every WWII tank and tracked vehicle growing up, some motorized. (Tamiya, not Ravell)

Never had any desire to serve in one. Aircraft models (1/32 scale Ravell) won that tug o' the heart.