Posted on 02/02/2021 8:57:08 AM PST by Onthebrink
There is a myriad of excellent tanks that have been built since the first British MkI rolled across the battlefields of Western Europe during the First World War. However, for every T-34, Leopard and M1 Abrams, there are tanks that rightfully belong on the scrap heap of history – yet instead of rusting away from memory, we should use these as examples of everything that went wrong.
While I am sure many can make different choices based on a whole host of different factors, here are my picks for the five worst tanks ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I like tanks. WWII was obviously the Golden Age of tank warfare. Used to replay many battles with 1/72 scale armor.
Lots of Germans burned to death in Pz3’s and Pz4’s.
A tanker asking 2 muddy GIs if they wanted a ride....
Response, "No thanks, a moving foxhole attracts the eye".
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%.
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.
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.
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.
You remember the First World War?
Many millions killed in trenches by artillery & machine guns.
That's what tank warfare was intended to change.
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.
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.
Was the Lee tank, not crappy enough?
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.