Worst Ww2, And Post Ww2 Tanks To Make It Into Series Production And See Service?

[Mr King]

You can find threads about the "best" tank or piece of kit on every military forum, I am curious what the opinions of the folks here are on the worst tank to see production and service in WW2, and worst tank to see production and service post WW2 till present day. Not looking to start any bickering, just a friendly discussion. Sadly I imagine one of my favorites, just because its so bizarre, will be at the top of the pile.

 

[Rick]

Japanese WW2 tanks.

[Mikel2]

Japanese WW2 tanks.

 

They were surprisingly useful for most of the operations the Japanese carried out. A tankette in some remote island is better than the 30 ton tank that can't be brought to that island or supported.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Mikel2

[Richard Lindquist]

 

Japanese WW2 tanks.

 

They were surprisingly useful for most of the operations the Japanese carried out. A tankette in some remote island is better than the 30 ton tank that can't be brought to that island or supported.

 

Except when your adversary has the ability to transport, land, and support 35 ton medium tanks on the same island.

[Marek Tucan]

But that is more fault of other things than tanks.

 

Well, I'd say M11/39. And post war... Hard to say, I would say all stuff that got mass produced HAD some use, even the Starship (which probably really is the worst, as all others were good )

[Colin]

The Pz 35T was a decent tank at the beginning, but quickly was overtaxed and the armour shattered causing nasty injuries.

[JasonJ]

Japanese WW2 tanks.

Keep in mind the date of entry of the tanks.

 

Type 95 Ha-Go (1935)

Type 97 Chi-Ha (1937)

 

Japanese had plans for replacements but the Navy build up and it's getting whooped and logistics being wrecked by US subs took resources away from newer and better tanks for replacing ships and aircraft.

 

The Ha-Go was planned to be replaced by the Type 98 Ke-Ni (designed in 1938) which would have been better in dealing with 50 cal. It finally entered production in 1942 and stopped in 1943 with 100 tanks made. Ha-Go had to keep pushing.

 

The Type 1 Chi-He Medium with mostly welded hull of 50mm front hull and 50mm front turret suffered terrible delays as well. Order made to make it giving in 1940. Full size mock up completed in August 1941. A prototype was not completed until August 1942. All trial testing and development finally finished in June 1943 by which time it's Type 1 47mm cannon was obsolete. According to records, 15 made in 1943 and 155 made in 1944 for 170 total. The Chi-Ha was forced to march much longer then intended. It's been said a handful of Chi-He's saw action. If not, all Chi-He MTs remained on the Japanese home islands. Further down the pipeline the Chi-To was suffering delays as well, intended to address to anticipated obsolete 47mm cannon. All these delays prompted a stop gap measure; the Type 3 Chi-Nu until Chi-To could finally be completed.

 

The Japanese actually developed an appreciation for tanks capable of fighting other tanks rather than just infantry support by 1939 with the fight with the Soviets in Manchuria. Japanese tanks just never had the resource allocation thus forcing 1930s era tanks to fight through the entire war.

[Paul G.]

The Covenanter was reputed to be a complete automotive design failure.

[shep854]

The Covenanter was reputed to be a complete automotive design failure.

Might have been nice for an Arctic winter, though.

[BLAH]

Modern:

T-64/T-72 autoloading system, from the perspective of the crew members.

 

You know there's a problem when any old benign penetration can kill the entire crew and burn the tank up. Sure, most tanks can suffer the same fate, but keeping it all stored in one place like Leopard 1 means that it has to be a specific area hit, whereas any center punch on a T-72 will kill the whole thing, no matter if it's a PG-7V or a M829A1 breaching the armor.

 

I think they went backwards from the T-62 here.

[shep854]

Ram might also be in the running, and we can't forget the US M6 heavy.

[istvan47]

Modern:

 

T-64/T-72 autoloading system, from the perspective of the crew members.

 

You know there's a problem when any old benign penetration can kill the entire crew and burn the tank up. Sure, most tanks can suffer the same fate, but keeping it all stored in one place like Leopard 1 means that it has to be a specific area hit, whereas any center punch on a T-72 will kill the whole thing, no matter if it's a PG-7V or a M829A1 breaching the armor.

 

I think they went backwards from the T-62 here.

 

Probably so (to shield the ammos in the center of the tank, with no ammos in the turret was not exactly a BAD idea, atlest in principle), but we are talking about 'whole tanks' and definitively, with over 50,000 produced, the T-64/72/80 were NOT a failure.

 

Though i rate the autoloader of the T-72s better (as protection) than the one in the T-64/80.

[Richard Lindquist]

Ram might also be in the running, and we can't forget the US M6 heavy.

Which was never really fielded. If there had been a need for monstrous heavy tanks, it could have been fielded and was a fairly powerful tank for the time. The prototypes also served as transmission and engine test beds.

[Marek Tucan]

Modern:

 

T-64/T-72 autoloading system, from the perspective of the crew members.

 

You know there's a problem when any old benign penetration can kill the entire crew and burn the tank up. Sure, most tanks can suffer the same fate, but keeping it all stored in one place like Leopard 1 means that it has to be a specific area hit, whereas any center punch on a T-72 will kill the whole thing, no matter if it's a PG-7V or a M829A1 breaching the armor.

 

I think they went backwards from the T-62 here.

 

Actually ammo in the autoloader is pretty well protected and the brewups are often after prolonged fire...

Ammo OUTSIDE the autoloader is a risk though and in Chechnya, tank crews often loaded only autoloader ammo to reduce risk of catastrophic explosions.

 

 

Ram might also be in the running, and we can't forget the US M6 heavy.

 

Ram? What was wrong with it apart from falling on the altar of "we have more Shermans anyway"?

[Richard Lindquist]

To be fair to the Starship, it was conceived at a time when the Shillelagh under development was considered to be the "magic bullet" to defeat the untold numbers of tanks possessed by the godless hordes of communism. The MBT-70 would be the mainstay, but the entire fleet of M60 would be upgunned with Starship turrets (a simple drop in, har-de-har-har). The 105mm turrets would then be dropped into dieselized M48 hulls to upgun the reserve components.

 

The MBT-70/XM803 died and it turned out that the Shillelagh needed a closed breech scavenger system which meant that the Starship needed a whole new hull. All of this was done under the funding and procedures of a simple PIP (Product improvement program). When all was said and done, the Starship might have died except for the Sinai battles which took a toll on the Israeli tank fleet. A lot of the US tank stock went into rearming the Israelis leaving the US short of tanks pending fielding of the Abrams (the US also lost 150 or so M48A3 in the fall of South Vietnam).

 

At the time, the only foundry casting turrets was the Blaw-Knox foundry which could only produce 40 turrets a month. With 600 or so Starship turrets available, the M60A2 was a godsend. Between the available M60 and M60A1, the Starships, and the conversion of M48A2 and M48A3 to 105mm M48A5, the Army was able to equip all of its forces until the quantity fielding of the Abrams. The Starships (and the Sheridans) then mercifully disappeared.

[DKTanker]

At the time, the only foundry casting turrets was the Blaw-Knox foundry which could only produce 40 turrets a month. With 600 or so Starship turrets available, the M60A2 was a godsend. Between the available M60 and M60A1, the Starships, and the conversion of M48A2 and M48A3 to 105mm M48A5, the Army was able to equip all of its forces until the quantity fielding of the Abrams. The Starships (and the Sheridans) then mercifully disappeared.

I believe only 1/67 AR was the only M60A2 tank battalion that transitioned directly to the M1. The four battalions in Europe transitioned first to the M60A3, so the fielding of the M1 had no influence on the removal of the M60A2 from Europe.

[Richard Lindquist]

 

At the time, the only foundry casting turrets was the Blaw-Knox foundry which could only produce 40 turrets a month. With 600 or so Starship turrets available, the M60A2 was a godsend. Between the available M60 and M60A1, the Starships, and the conversion of M48A2 and M48A3 to 105mm M48A5, the Army was able to equip all of its forces until the quantity fielding of the Abrams. The Starships (and the Sheridans) then mercifully disappeared.

I believe only 1/67 AR was the only M60A2 tank battalion that transitioned directly to the M1. The four battalions in Europe transitioned first to the M60A3, so the fielding of the M1 had no influence on the removal of the M60A2 from Europe.

 

It did, because there would not have been enough M60A3 available until the M1 production came on line. The difficulty was in getting turrets for the M60A1 and M60A3. Once M1 began to be fielded, the tank shortage problem began to resolve itself.

[shep854]

Wasn't the M60A2 something of a boogeyman to the Soviets? ISTR reading something about that on another thread.

Edited September 13, 2014 by shep854

[Panzermann]

 

DKtanker mentioned it in passing, but the M551 Sheridan was just as badly thought out as the M60 A2 Pruitt. Although it soldiered longer till short after Desert Storm. A 75 mm main gun and an optional starter for atgm would probably been more useful imho.

[TonyE]

The starship was lightyears ahead!

[lucklucky]

M11/39 was build in 1939 so not too bad tank for the time. It was like the M3 Grant of 1942.

[DKTanker]

 

It did, because there would not have been enough M60A3 available until the M1 production came on line. The difficulty was in getting turrets for the M60A1 and M60A3. Once M1 began to be fielded, the tank shortage problem began to resolve itself.

 

 

I wouldn't know about CONUS, but in USAREUR all M60A2s were pulled from service before and as the first M1 battalion (2/5CAV 1CD) started transitioning. Moreover, all M60A2s in Europe were a distant memory by the time the first M1 made it to Vilsek for transition training. There were plenty of M60A1 and A3 turrets in Europe with about half of the A3s being new factory builds and the other half being rebuilt in Mainz from those M60A1s previously turned in for M60A3s. For 8th ID it probably sucked that before they got their A3s some units had already transitioned from A1s, to A3s, to M1s, to M1IPs.

[Panzermann]

The starship was lightyears ahead!

Too many light years ahead of capabilities of the technology available at that time. Today one could put LAHAT or similar into any MBT with not much complication.

 

 

edited to add TonyE's quote

Edited September 13, 2014 by Panzermann

[DKTanker]

DKtanker mentioned it in passing, but the M551 Sheridan was just as badly thought out as the M60 A2 Pruitt. Although it soldiered longer till short after Desert Storm. A 75 mm main gun and an optional starter for atgm would probably been more useful imho.

There was some that thought the M41 was in no need of replacement by the M551. Slap some electronics and a TOW on the M41 and you have yourself a sweet light tank.

[Panzermann]

That would have made too much sense I think. Not much to earn by that. And it is not new and shiny. And no millions of U$D to channel into someone's pockets.

 

But well I think there is still a light tank gap. The M8 Buford and the Thunderbolt developed from it were not produced so far.