SAVAGEJIM

Over engineered? no. Overly complex to mass produce considering Gemany's production base? Absolutely. Panzers, Panthers, Tigers, etc. were not over engineered, they were to complex to mass produce.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about being complex to mass produce, most modern top-of-the-line military tanks of today's top military countries are very complex to produce. The M1 Abrams of the US are such tanks. The thing is the US had (past tense) the production capacity to make decent numbers of such modern tanks. However, since America insists on sending all of its manufacturing out of country, that capability is now gone or will very well soon be gone.

The mass exporting of manufacturing is a serious national security. The reason why the allies won WW2 is because of manufacturing capability. Adm Yamamoto called America the "Sleeping Giant" because of our factories and our ability to convert all those factories to make tanks, planes, ships, etc. If the US were ever to enter a conflict where we need to mass produce arms, we are now at a very serious risk to lose that conflict because we no longer have our manufactruing base that won us WW2, and even the cold war.

germantanker

According to Belton Cooper's memoir of his 3rd Armored Division service, the Shermans were "death traps"; the overall combat losses of the division were extremely high. The division was nominally assigned 232 Sherman medium tanks; 648 Sherman tanks were totally destroyed in combat, and a further 1,100 needed repair, of which nearly 700 were as a result of combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost 1,348 medium tanks in combat, a loss rate of over 580%, in the space of about ten months. Cooper was the junior officer placed in charge of retrieving damaged and destroyed tanks. As such, he had an intimate knowledge of the actual numbers of tanks damaged and destroyed, the types of damage they sustained, and the kinds of repairs that were made. His figures are comparable to those given in the Operational History of 12th U.S. Army Group: Ordnance Section Annex. Some World War II Army officers made similar arguments during the war.

googlydoogly

And maybe that's the reason why he's so passionate about it, since he got to see first-hand the devastation caused by the Germans against the Sherman tanks. But that also makes him quite biased against the Sherman.

But why not also take in account the words of the men who actually fought in the Sherman tanks, like Gen. Irzyk, Abrams, or that Soviet tanker, Dimitry Loza, who preferred the Sherman over the T-34?

pattoncommander

The Sherman DD and Pz III Tauchpanzer were on a similar train of thought, although the Tauchpz was never deployed as designed other that "deep wading tanks" in Russia. The DDs were disembarked into very heavy storm swells and taking fire as they went into the water, for which they were not designed. I don't know how many we lost at Normandy , but I do see a few photos of them in France, still with the air vents , so at least some made it to support the bogged down infantry. As with many "bright" ideas in war, many did not pan out as designed. As has been brought out in this interesting thread is that not the tank or crews are at fault, but rather the method of command deployment. If the DDs were dropped off in calmer water and able to get going before taking direct fire, the outcome might well have been lots different. No way in der hölle I would climb into a Tauchpanzer and drive under a river (or can you even immagine the English Channel[:@]) with a very good possibility of getting stuck into deep mud. The DD's were a well intended design and well tested in Aberdeen before issued, but weather and other circumstances didn't allow better performance.

Too many things like that happened in a wartime environment;

Hitlers deployment of the Panther without any testing whatsoever. ..
Our developing a battalion of heavy tanks (33d Hvy Tk Bn Aschaffennburg Germany with M-103s)...the only Heavy Tank Battalion ever used in the US Army to counter the Russian JS-III which was a total operational disaster and posed absolutely no threat...
Hitler stopping the attack at Dunkirk... And trusting Göhring to use his Luftwaffe, which he totally failed to do....
Our continuing with the TD Forces although it was proven to be a failed doctrine back in 1942....
Our continued use of the Sherman with only superficial armor plates added and no design changes for crew protection....
Sending our troops to Korea with no winter gear and no capable weapons to stop the T-34/85....
Politics and homefront Generals.[:'(]

jharding58

There is a tendency to abuse the M-4. From the perspective of the field commanders the response was to keep them coming. They were extremely simple tanks with a bogie structure that could be relatively easily repaired and an engine that was pretty reliable and easily serviced. Surely the M-4 was built light - built to be shipborne and easily transported by rail. Once up-gunned and up-armoured, in sufficient numbers the fight would be taken to an 88 with alacrity and maneuverability. More rounds on target reduced the effectiveness of the 88 in engagements - still not sure if I would want to be in the first Sherman seen by an 88 gunner. I think that the ability to perform field modifications to the tank (bocage cutters and welded plate armour) surely had an advantage over the more technically advanced German tanks.

My least favourite - does it have to have been deployed or simply built? Panzer VIII Maus - so much steel and technology yet you might as well have mounted it on a railcar and had better maneuvre. Four hours at top speed and you were done. Then you had to deal with highly specific maintenance equipment. Never let watchmakers and welders on the same project

sevoblast

I have watched this thread with some interest, and now it's time to open my phat yap.
Are we talking of the "worst tank" as far as technical aspects, or are we talking about deployment aspects?

Basically what you have to do is not read the Allied and Axis propaganda blurbs, instead read what the actual vets said about their various rides. One can make a case for virtually any tank being the "worst". Take casualties. Sherman was not known for survivability of it's crews, but then neither was the T 34. In shear numbers of burned out hulks, the T 34 would qualify as the "worst". We know the T 34 was certainly not the worst tank in the fracas, far from it, being based on Christies designs. How about the early KV 1, which came factory equipt with a hammer to pound the trans lever in to reverse? There are many tanks of good engineering and construction that were surely not deployed in scenarios that they were designed for, hence the problem of a Honey coming up against a Pzkw 4 with the long 7.5cm, a quite distressing turn of events for the Honey crew.

The Germans made a decision early on to go for quality over quantity, not the least reason for this being that even in 1940 Germany was still primarily an agrarian based economy. Yes, they can and do build some of the finest machines the world has seen, but they had neither the production base nor the manpower to field the tanks in numbers as SSSR and USA. They also ended up with the strategic and logistical nightmare of having to fight on 3 fronts.

As far as breakdowns on the march or in combat, just see the book "Death Traps" aforementioned and read Coopers account of the Sherm, half track, and 6 by breakdowns on a relatively short road march. Another good reference is Tigers in Combat I and II for what the crews thought of that vehicle series. However, even an observer on the spot is open to mistakes. For instance, Cooper several times mentions that the Panther and Tigers had hand traverse turrets. Ummmm. Not true, me lads. Power traverse with a hand wheel for fine adjustments.

All in all, I can not make a judgement as to which tank was the "worst", not the least reason being I was not there to see and experience fighting in these vehicles. However, having experienced more than the average guy and seeing what happens to a "modern" tank on today's battlefield, I much prefer my prime MOS of Tank Hunter as opposed to Tank Crewman. The bravery of all the crewmen who manned these steel coffins from 1917 to today is beyond reproach.

germantanker

You make some excellent points here, lets try to stick to technical issues as well as crew survivability. I think we are straying a bit from the OP which was the "worst tank" singular. I realize people are passionate about there favourites, but I think we can get weighed down or distracted on debating over our favourite tanks. If we could focus on a particular tank we believeis the worst and why I think we can all learn things here. Lets try to stayaway from saying all German tanks were the worst orall Allied tanks were the worst. I thank everyone for their responsesthus far.

uhu

Muzzles and muzzle brakes have always been condidered the "bussiness end" of tanks, and their quality should also be considered from this point of view.
Just an example, as said before and according to many opinions, the M4 should not be seen as the best overall tank in WWII, but when armed with a powerful gun, as were the british QF17 pdr or the american 76mm M1, it could equal almost any german tank in ETO.
As far as WWII armour combat was primarily a matter of continous evolution of "bigger gun vs thicker armour", in my opinion it becomes very difficult to name a single model of tank as "the worst", too many factors involved......

Regards
Jose

heavyaslead

Consider that WWI tanks were pressed into service during WWII like the FT-17/18 and British Mark IV/V.

I would surely pity the poor soul that had to operate these in WWII combat!

Perhaps it may be better to qualify ‘worst’ as whether to consider main production models as opposed to prototypes (like the Maus) or cancelled productions (like the T-35).

FFR2608

pantiger..



DH

pattoncommander

Good suggestion. Debating prototype super heavies has little relevance to less that desirable tanks in the field.

USA; M-60A2 Starship
Italy: cv 33 or 35 or M-11/39 or M-13/40
Japan; Type 92 light or Type 89 medium
Romania; Skoda R-1 and R-II
Germany; both WW I attempts

daisycutter redux

despite being a cancelled production there were still over 60 t-35s built its worth considering the worst as not one single aspect of its design was free from serious problems in everthing from the tracks up it was however a good propaganda machine as a whole lot of these certainly looked inpressive

a lot of ft-17s were attached to armoured trains(loaded on flatcars) as extra firepower and pursuit until better tanks became free,thogh poland pre war built a number of rail platforms that were propellled by an ft-17 that saw some war use
standard ft-17s were used often for light duties/occupation to free up better tanks for combat

sorry to fall off topic but ww1 tanks used in ww2 is another interesting topic

rgallant

Hmm... Not sure how to determine the worst, combat losses are not really of use, design flaws have some validity depending on your time frame. Doctrine and training and the phase of war you are in all count, as well as what part of the war are we talking about.

You could make a case for the Sherman being the worst but I think it would be a stretch. Poor ammo protection , multiple fuel types and engines are all minuses. Poor initial gun showing it's unsuitability by 1944. But it was generally reliable, there were lots of them and it was successfully upgraded so hardly the worst. There were lots of British prewar designs used in 1940 that barely deserved to be called tanks, there is a good place to start.

Rebellion13

Anything that went up against a King Tiger

pattoncommander

Everyone seems to hammering on the Sherman, and in many respects understandble. The Sherman, at it's intruduction, was THE tank, with that "huge" 75mm gun. For that time (1941), it offered a tank with heavy armamnent in a fully traversing turret, unlike the comparable gun stuck in the M-3 Medium sponson. The armor was never good, and with 2.5" in the side, and with no angles, it presented a well known weakness of getting to the ammo with one shot. Throughout the war, this weakness was known, but nothing, other that adding a 1 inch plate over three areas and a chin plate on the turret was ever done to eleviate this deficiency. The Sherman was easy to build, and relatively easy to maintain and repair. Controls were simple and anyone who had ever driven a farm caterpillar tractor could be made a tank driver. The 75mm was a GP gun with poor AP performance and the 76mm., although an improvement, did not stand up to the reports by APG testing and Gen Eisenhower made a couple very unfavorable remarks about in in 1944. The Firefly was THE Sherman to have with you, as it was the only gun that had the punch needed.

Israel bought many Shermans staring in 1947, (A1s through A4s) mostly through France, and rearmed them with the D-75-50 gun and made several modifications for optimum performance. These were M-50s. The M-4A3s they armed with the French D-1504 L-44 105mm gun, and as with the M-50s, these M-51 Ishermans were slightly up armored, more powerful diesel engines were installed and they kicked some royal Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian T-54 and later tanks a in two all-out wars. They were Shermans, but in the hands of people who knew how to improve on and employ them, they did very well indeed. The Ishermans served alongside Centurians and M-47s very fared very well with a highly respectable survival rate..

Its now what you have, but rather what you do with it and how you deploy.

Now, taking that cute Vickers Light of 1930 against a Pz IV//[:@]

hatakashi

heheheh I actually think the M3 Lee/Grant is worse than Sherman

Spitvalve

The British concept of cruiser and infantry class tanks produced a fine selection of steaming piles. Take your pick of fast, lightly armoured and armed, or slow heavily armoured and lightly armedboth were out of step with what the new battlefield required. I nominate the Crusader series of tanks for their poor reliability, poor mechanical design for the heat of Africa, anachronistic "machine gun turret" at the bow, riveted construction when pretty much everyone else had ditched that method, and milquetoast main gun. At least they were fast and could get to the rear area repair shops in a spritely manner.

Always fascinating to see how a design philosophy and long development times can hogtie the effectiveness of any vehicle when it hits the battlefield. I find it hard to resist the "designed by eye" look of early British tanks however. Just glad I never had to use one in combat.

Mike.

pcomm1

The German 2nd and 3rd generation WWII tanks are interesting, my favorite models to build and paved the way for much later modern tank design, for sure. But in 1944 and 1945 those tanks were dangerous duds.

OK, clearly the 3rd generation of German tanks on paper clearly out classed the USA 2nd generation Sherman tank. But in the field the German 3rd generation tanks did not perform to expectations.

The Panthers failed in the 3rd Invasion of Russia, they couldn't even drive to the fight without breaking down. The King Tigers couldn't get through the Ardennes without similar problems.

Patton was right to stick with the Sherman, big Sherman tank numbers, Sherman reliability, beat the new German (more modern for the era); and better high quality industrial design tank concepts on the WWII battlefield.

During WWII, unit movements, logistics and maintenance proved to be the most important necessary factors to achieve armored victory.

Wolfgang Schneider in both Tiger in Combat I and Panzer Tactics repeatedly writes (with some defiant pride, I might add, LOL) about the significant losses of both type of Tigers do to mechanical breakdowns, their inability to travel many road types or terrain; the issues getting across bridges and the painful labor – time required to get any Tiger aboard a railroad flat car for movement to the next fight.

Remember, General Patton had his tankers just drive at top tank speed over European roads & terrain to get to the next fight!

And of course, Allied air power destroyed much of the German rail system making the movement of any German tank even more difficult.

The Germans might be living in Antwerp today if they could have driven all their spearhead King Tigers over the narrow country roads, terrain and bridges during the Battle of the Bulge, December 1944.

But they couldn't and didn't. And that was the key bitter German Military lesson learned and cost Germany virtually all its remaining armored forces necessary to defend Germany's European Front.

A tank that you can't get to the fight is worthless and Patton seemed to know that.

Heck, the US Army was still returning captured King Tigers to the German Army as late as 1956. By wars end the US Army was no doubt the largest operator of German 3rd generation tanks.

Though they had a very difficult time getting them started.

pcomm1

Actually the first generation Grant/Lee tanks did pretty good in Russia and Africa against against 1st generation and 2nd generation Axis tanks. The fault of this thread is that like race cars you need to compare vehicles from the same generations. For example a 2010 Honda Accord would clearly out perform virtually any 1950 Ferrari. Probably not a valid comparison for a number of industrial design reasons.

Anyone know what this is?

blitzkrieg65

Hey John,

Nope I was wrong the engine you have is water cooled!! OK now I really want to know!

On the theme of the thread, it can't be the Sherman it WON the WAR Score board Baby!


The Blitz

YHR

That is a Chrylser mulitbank out of a Sherman.

pcomm1

Right!

It is 5 Chrysler 6 cylinder engines with a common crankshaft (30-cylinder tank engine), a stop gap solution do to production shortages with the nine cylinder aircraft engine manufactured by Wright.

This multibank engine proved to work well in the M3. It was installed in 7,500 of them from 1941 to summer 1942, when M3 production ended.

5,111 Sherman M4 tanks, all with the Chrysler built multibank engine were made in 1942.

Called the "Eggbeater" it featured 650 HP, it offered lower maintenance, lower fuel consumption, ease of routine checks, and no loss of power over extended periods of running when compared to the Wright aircraft engine.

germantanker

With all due respect guys, this is quickly becoming a hate the  Sherman vs. love the Sherman battle. If you would like a thread that discusses all of the Shermans benefits than please start one as this was a thread for individuals to identify what in their opinion was the worst tank of WWII. Can we please stick with the original purpose of the thread. Thanks [8D]

sevoblast

After careful consideration, I have to nominate the Sov T35, a true horror show if ever there was one. Crusader gets Honorable Mention.

googlydoogly

I thought the original purpose of this thread (which is posted in the wrong section, btw) was to discuss, not merely state people's opinion what they think is the worst tank in WWII.

That's how discussions usually work. One person say one tank is the worst, another person might disagree and state the reason why, and the other person offer a rebuttal.