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

[shep854]

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.

'Pruitt'

[Loopycrank]

The thread on Soviet estimations of NATO armor is here:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39436

 

T-55 is considered a baseline with a combat potential of 1. The M60A3 is given as a 1.4, leo 1a4 as 1.5, M60A2 as a fearsome 2.2, chieftain mk V as 1.5 and leo 2 as 2.4.

 

So, in the Soviet's eyes, the M60A2 was far more threatening than chieftain nearly as dangerous as the leo 2!

[shep854]

So if it made the Rus that uncomfortable, the M60A2 couldn't be called a total failure.

[mnm]

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

With a 37mm for a sponson gun on a Medium?

[BLAH]

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.

 

 

 

People say that, but when you look at it, anything that makes it through the side of the T-64/T-72 plus, will probably have enough left over to make it into the autoloader where the juicy combustible charges are stored. The same with the front and rear.

[BLAH]

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.

 

 

Sure, it's fine for a WW3 situation, where the front armor and gun are both good, and a tank getting knocked out on the attack is as good as dead anyway (the crew probably has a small chance of making it back too), plus decent automotive capabilities (apart from pretty much being unable to reverse).

 

However, that never came to be.

 

Now, you have those decent attributes in a tank that blows up a good portion of the time, taking the most expensive part of the deal with it (the crew; trained crews are far more important than a tank when you have a lot of tanks).

Hence, one massive failure, which is compounded by how many they built.

[mnm]

I guess you're right, but what correction measures would you suggest if you were in a suitable position?

[BLAH]

Sell as many as you can and scrap the rest.

 

Start over from the T-62.

[bojan]

...

People say that, but when you look at it, anything that makes it through the side of the T-64/T-72 plus, will probably have enough left over to make it into the autoloader where the juicy combustible charges are stored. The same with the front and rear.

 

Same goes for Leo 2 and Leclerc front hull ammo storage. So those are failed tanks also?

[BLAH]

The typical wine racks located in one area are fine IMO. The chance of being hit is far less than the T-64/72, where the entire center mass of the hull is ready to go up with a penetration.

 

Centurion for example (something with as much or more combat experience than the T-72), never had much of a problem of the tank blowing up with its hull mounted wine rack, because it was hard to hit if aiming center of mass.

[shep854]

I'm likely creating another learning opportunity, but here goes:

Where would the M103, Conquerer and the IS's fall? Semi-success since they at least kept a portion of the other side's attention, or a failure since they were rather quickly superseded in front-line service by the smaller MBT's?

[istvan47]

 

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.

Sure, it's fine for a WW3 situation, where the front armor and gun are both good, and a tank getting knocked out on the attack is as good as dead anyway (the crew probably has a small chance of making it back too), plus decent automotive capabilities (apart from pretty much being unable to reverse).

 

However, that never came to be.

 

Now, you have those decent attributes in a tank that blows up a good portion of the time, taking the most expensive part of the deal with it (the crew; trained crews are far more important than a tank when you have a lot of tanks).

 

Hence, one massive failure, which is compounded by how many they built.

 

 

Maybe and maybe not.

 

-Let's take, as example, other 40 t tanks, such the Leopards, that i knew quite well. Ammos scattered everywere. Thin-skin armour. Did they have fare better thant the T-72, even vs RPGs?

 

Or.

 

-Let's take the T-55/62s. They did a lot of action. They weren't much successful either.

 

-The T-72 was soundly defeated only by the best Abrams, in Irak. Of course, this cannot be previewed in Europe in 1975-85, when the Abrams was relatively rare and with a 105 mm gun.

 

-And i do not think that, if the US producers were forced to make a 40 t tank, they would do an 'Abrams'. Maybe an AMX-40, if they were successful.

 

To compare a T-72 with an Abrams/Leo 2 or C.2 is just like to compare a T-34/Sherman to a Tiger. Too much difference (20 tons), already saw even with M-24 vs T-34 in Korea.

 

The M1 fans should remember this simple fact.

 

The last 40 t US tank (atlest put in production) was the M48.

 

 

Having said this, despite the 'spectacular' fires and explosions, the T-72 seems to fare quite well.

 

Especially with ERAs. It is currently employed in Syria, Lybia, Ukraine, and many other places 'hot'.

 

I don't say that T-72 was perfect, i agree that that ammo under the ass was a nightmare and i would never accept it! Sure, the crew would have Abrams/Leo 2 instead (but if they are incompetent like Iraki Army...).

 

But neverthless, i don't think that any other 40 t tank would have been much better than the T-72. Add additional protection to the ammos, hold some of them outside the turret (in the rear sponson box?), add thermals. Not much else.

 

And you cannot call a 'failure' of a tank that was made in 30,000 examples and sold to dozen countries.

 

The armies that hold it are not scrapping it.

 

And maybe there will be some T-72(90) in service even when the last M1 /C2/Leo 2 will be phased out.

 

It was already happened with the T-34 vs Shermans, apparently.

Edited September 13, 2014 by istvan47

[istvan47]

Ah, not talk about the Ariete, Leclerc, even Challenger and Leopard 2. All those can 'blow' if hit in the ammo depots.

 

The old gen (M60, AMX-30, Leopard 1, M-48 etc) not even bothered at all about ammo storage security. Just the british did some work with this (fatal) issue.

 

So the soviets were in relatively good company, in this aspect.

 

A burnt out Patton or Leopard would look not that different than a T-64/72, after all.

 

And many times, the T-72 blown out explodes some time after being hit, so the crew could escape.

 

The real problems are the last gen RPG/ammos (DU), and the mines (another real danger), all of them capable to blow the T-72 (just like any other 40 t tank).

 

I agree, that the semi-combustible charges were a mad idea for the security aspect (much better if they did like in the T-62).

 

Also madness can be called the fuel inside (!) the crew compartment, another soviet tradition (that is present in the early T tanks as well! Atleast the T-72 has improved its armour).

 

Basically, except M1, Leo 2 and C.2, the tanks still have the capacity of incenerating themselves, not a fair point about them.

[Markus Becker]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

True enough but the Imperial Japanese Army didn't intend to fight on any remote islands except for the Japanese Kurils. They were fighting the Chinese -who had no tanks AFAIK- and preparing to fight the USSR -who had light tanks and lightly armoured large tanks. Compared to a T-26 and BT, the Ha-Go and Chi-Ha look all right.

[istvan47]

I'm likely creating another learning opportunity, but here goes:

Where would the M103, Conquerer and the IS's fall? Semi-success since they at least kept a portion of the other side's attention, or a failure since they were rather quickly superseded in front-line service by the smaller MBT's?

I think both answers are possible.

 

They were a semi-failure (Conqueror and M103), or of limited value (JS/T-10), but still, they stimuled the enemy and scare him forcing to do better and costlier machines.

 

Stalin/Lenin tanks were produced by thousands and employed in action with success, so they can't be really failures.

 

For what it worths, i think that, in order to fight the latest 50-60 paramounth NATO tanks, the soviets should have NOT did the T-80s, but upgrade the T-10 instead.

 

Just like, basically, the british did from the Chieftain to the Challenger 1. A 40 t tank cannot fight effectively with a 60 ton tank, it's just to put Monzon vs Tyson.

 

But a 'T-10' with composite armour and 125 mm gun, and a turbodiesel... well, it would have been interesting.

 

Even if the T-10 itself was surclassed by the much lighter T-62 almost by every point (and this pratically ended the 'heavy tank' in soviet production, the T-72 was, BTW, a 'super T-62'for many points).

[istvan47]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

True enough but the Imperial Japanese Army didn't intend to fight on any remote islands except for the Japanese Kurils. They were fighting the Chinese -who had no tanks AFAIK- and preparing to fight the USSR -who had light tanks and lightly armoured large tanks. Compared to a T-26 and BT, the Ha-Go and Chi-Ha look all right.

 

 

Not properly.

 

In 1939 clashes the russian tanks outclassed straight the japan tanks, not contest! The 45 mm gun was a lot better than any weapon japs had!

 

Basically, they were forced to use artillery and 'humans' to blow the soviet tanks.

 

So definitively the japs were not at the verge of the technology even in '30s.

 

But... but.. they fough against Soviet army.

 

Let's get a look to the fascist army, then.

 

What they got? a phalanx of... L3/35 tanks, plus some M11, with not even with a turret. The only with one, were the Fiat 3000 tanks (copies of FT-17!).

 

Germans? What did have them? Panzer I and Panzer II, plus a punch of heavier tanks.

 

British? Vickers tankette with machine gun, and some Matilda I and early thin-skinned cruisers.

 

US Army? In 1939? 300 tanks, mainly light and without an idea of what to do with them.

 

Apart France, Soviet army had therefore the only (and by far, the greatest) tank fleet. Nobody else was comparable to them. The 45 mm gun was already a tank killer, with HE as well. Germans matched it just with the 50/42 mm gun (in late 1940, IIRC).

 

So, did Japan junk tanks?

 

No, they did not.

 

The jap tanks, for once, have diesel engines, and they were perhaps the FIRST in mass production-

 

Their tanks had almost always both a turret, a real gun (without coax!), and a radio set (IIRC).

 

This put them ahead of 99% armies even in 1940.

 

 

But this did not lasted much. The US light tanks, already in 1941-42, were better. The Sherman and Grant a no-match.

 

But yet, in the early part of war the few armoured units in japan army had a lot of success, included Philippines and Singapore.

 

What Japan lacked was, as already said, the capability to go with heavier tank production.

 

It's just if the US had not the industries to make something heavier than the M3 Stuart.

 

For a 13-15 ton tank, the latest Type 97 with 50 mm armour and a powerful 47 mm gun were not exactly rubbish.

 

At last, they were wrapped with asbestum inside, protecting by heat and 'crashes' the crew inside.

 

 

[BLAH]

I'm likely creating another learning opportunity, but here goes:

Where would the M103, Conquerer and the IS's fall? Semi-success since they at least kept a portion of the other side's attention, or a failure since they were rather quickly superseded in front-line service by the smaller MBT's?

 

Success, I guess. Power trains finally allowed the heavies to merge with the mediums, so you have mobile heavies like the M1, Leopard 2, Merkava 4, and so on.

 

Though many aren't of the opinion that the immediate post-war heavies were part of the current heavy MBTs' histories. I say they're half with the heavy armor, with the other half of the mediums in mobility.

 

Of course, some never bothered with heavy MBTs, like the Soviets.

[BLAH]

RE: other 40 ton tanks compared to T-64/T-72:

 

Take the same Centurion example:

You can shoot holes in it, and as long as the wine rack in the front hull isn't hit (for the most part; ready rounds near the turret are a problem, but they don't blow the tank up when they're hit), you can eventually patch it up and send it back into the fight, hopefully with most of its original crew.

 

It's the same with the Leopard 1, T-55/62 (though I don't like the rear and side turret ready racks on these), Pattons (more prone to catching fire like the T-55/62 too), and whatnot.

 

You can't shoot holes in a T-72, as the chance of hitting the charges is just too high when you look at the tank from the front and sides, and any hole has a chance of sending it all to oblivion.

 

There's nothing wrong with its armor, gun power, and mobility for its weight and time of production, but its one flaw takes away from all of that.

 

I suppose you can say it's not a tactical failure. Rather a strategic one.

[JasonJ]

 

For a 13-15 ton tank, the latest Type 97 with 50 mm armour and a powerful 47 mm gun were not exactly rubbish.

 

 

Just a slight correction. No Type 97 had 50mm armor. The Improved Type 97 with the 47mm still had 25mm front armor turret and hull. The tank with 50mm front armor was the Type 1 Chi-He which weighed 17.2 tons when combat ready.

[John T]

When we look at the pictures from Ukraine and knocked uot T-72 & 64,

Isn't one thing that this is the first reasonable symetric war in long time ?

Thus how would a Leo2 look after hit by another Leo2?

 

 

Cheers

/John

[Markus Becker]

 

In 1939 clashes the russian tanks outclassed straight the japan tanks, not contest! The 45 mm gun was a lot better than any weapon japs had!

 

Basically, they were forced to use artillery and 'humans' to blow the soviet tanks.

 

So definitively the japs were not at the verge of the technology even in '30s.

 

 

I agree that the Soviets had the better gun but the Japanses 37mm tank gun was nevertheless capable of killing the very lightly protected T-26 and BTs. The Japanese didn't lack the know-how but the production capacity.

 

 

With regard to poor tanks: Matilda I. Ok, the thing worked and was well protected but the whole concept was an epic FAIL in my opinion.

[DKTanker]

 

Same goes for Leo 2 and Leclerc front hull ammo storage. So those are failed tanks also?

 

 

As far as I know neither has actually had their armor envelope challenged, nor is there much likelihood they ever will. So instead of failure we should probably classify their protection as "incomplete" until such time they are ever tested.

[DKTanker]

I suppose you can say it's not a tactical failure. Rather a strategic one.

Only if you don't consider them as disposable commodities.

[BLAH]

Pretty much.

If you have a lot of bodies and tanks to put them in, it probably doesn't matter much. However, there have been battles won where tanks refurbished hastily have had an effect on the outcome; a blown apart tank is exactly that.

 

You also do run out of bodies and tanks, so if there's much less chance of losing the whole thing, then you can stay in the fight.

[Mr King]

When we look at the pictures from Ukraine and knocked uot T-72 & 64,

Isn't one thing that this is the first reasonable symetric war in long time ?

 

Thus how would a Leo2 look after hit by another Leo2?

 

 

Cheers

/John

 

That seems to be a pretty valid point.