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

[BLAH]

Leopard 2 and similar MBTs would look like the Merkava 4 in Lebanon.

 

Meaning, a headless one or two due to the hull ammo taking a direct hit, but most still intact and able to be repaired (as long as they aren't burnt out).

[CaptLuke]

 

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.

 

 

The M41 replacement was the T92, which was much lighter and lower; both good characteristics for a recon/cavalry vehicle, and the lighter weight of the T92 made it far more strategically portable. The T92 was ready to go until a " . . . but the PT-76 can swim, why can't our light tank swim . . . " frenzy got it cancelled in favor of what turned into the M551.

 

M551 itself seemed pretty solid: hardly novel or inspired, but a very workable light tank except for the Army's dumbass infatuation with the Shillelagh. The M551 was tested with a 76mm gun, like the M41, and also a 105mm howitzer, which would not have been a particularly good choice for anywhere except Vietnam, where the M551 got (almost) all its combat time.

 

If the US had gone the same route with the M551 as the French went with the AMX-13 (high velocity 75mm to medium velocity 90mm to gun+ATGM) I think it would probably be remembered pretty fondly. The M551 w/TOW (proposed but, AFAIK, never acted on) instead of the 152mm gun would also have been a much better ATGM carrier than the US Army actually had for a long time.

[Max H]

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.

 

You've yet to explain how the ammunition racks under the turret on cent are any better than the ammunition racks under the turret on T-72. They both have a large number of rounds stowed underneath the turret basket, why is one a problem and not the other?

 

 

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?

 

IS-3 had a hell of a lot more attention in the west than M103 or conq did in the east, but that doesn't mean they're bad tanks. I'm sure if they saw combat they'd manage fine, unlike the others discussed here there wasn't any major problems with them. M103 of course wasn't in any hurry to be replaced, seeing service until 1972, but even when replaced they weren't bad tanks - with new ammunition for the M58 they'd easily be the equal of M60/chieftain

[Michael Eastes]

From what I recall, the M-551's Shining Moment was as an OPFOR vismod at the NTC. They won just about all of their "battles" for a lot of years.

 

Regarding Japanese tanks, the frequently published picture, taken on Okinawa, IIRC, of a USMC Sherman with a Japanese tank strapped to the engine deck for a war souvineer, spoke volumes. A basic Sherman ( or M-3 medium, for that matter ) didn't have much competition from just about any Japanese tank. I suspect that their Type 1 Ho-Ni was probably their best contender against allied armour, but they didn't produce nearly enough. IIRC, the late production Chi-Ha's had a gun that could penetrate the Sherman, but, again, there just weren't enough. Japanese tanks had pretty good success in areas where their opponents had few or no tanks, but that situation changed pretty soon after the US entry into the war. For that matter, didn't the Russian tanks do very well against them in the Nomonhan campaign?

 

I also maintain that the men who went to war in Italian tanks were some of the bravest men who ever lived. Many of them did not live long, but many Italian armoured units fought hard, if short, wars.

 

BTW, my M48A5 came in at just about exactly 50 tons, fully loaded. Where does the 40 ton figure given above come from? I don't think that the 90mm gun versions were that much lighter.

[BLAH]

Centurion's main [ready] magazine is in the front; the ones below the floor are cased and low.

 

You just have to look at the cross sections of the various tanks and see where the path of penetration will affect the mags. The Cent has to be hit in the front hull (not center of mass from the side; nor from the front), or really low (still not center of mass from the side or front), whereas a center of mass hit is bound to mess up a T-72.

Edited September 14, 2014 by BLAH

[swerve]

 

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.

 

The Danes gave it a diesel engine, some electronics, & new ammunition, & kept it until the late 1990s.

[JasonJ]

From what I recall, the M-551's Shining Moment was as an OPFOR vismod at the NTC. They won just about all of their "battles" for a lot of years.

 

Regarding Japanese tanks, the frequently published picture, taken on Okinawa, IIRC, of a USMC Sherman with a Japanese tank strapped to the engine deck for a war souvineer, spoke volumes. A basic Sherman ( or M-3 medium, for that matter ) didn't have much competition from just about any Japanese tank. I suspect that their Type 1 Ho-Ni was probably their best contender against allied armour, but they didn't produce nearly enough. IIRC, the late production Chi-Ha's had a gun that could penetrate the Sherman, but, again, there just weren't enough. Japanese tanks had pretty good success in areas where their opponents had few or no tanks, but that situation changed pretty soon after the US entry into the war. For that matter, didn't the Russian tanks do very well against them in the Nomonhan campaign?

 

I also maintain that the men who went to war in Italian tanks were some of the bravest men who ever lived. Many of them did not live long, but many Italian armoured units fought hard, if short, wars.

 

BTW, my M48A5 came in at just about exactly 50 tons, fully loaded. Where does the 40 ton figure given above come from? I don't think that the 90mm gun versions were that much lighter.

 

Along with the Type 1 Ho-Ni, The Type 3 Chi-Nu medium was armed with the same gun. The Chi-Nu's were in service on the Japanese home islands. Many were in Kyushu in anticipation of the invasion happening there. Excluding the ones made by Hitachi, 55 (1944) plus 111 (1945) were made according to Japanese Defense Industry Association resources (兵器工業会資料 Just putting the Japanese in case I didn't catch whatever official name it may have in English). If counting in the ones made by Hitachi, its said that possibly over 200 have been made.

 

 

Of course, for this thread, by 1944 standards, these were pretty bad. But as mentioned already that was due to the resource and production issues rather then by bad design or incompetence in tank building.

 

The cannon with standard AP penetrates 80mm at 500m. With a special round it penetrates 100mm at 500m. Still leaves a little more to be desired even if facing M4 Sherman (75).

[Michael Eastes]

 

From what I recall, the M-551's Shining Moment was as an OPFOR vismod at the NTC. They won just about all of their "battles" for a lot of years.

 

Regarding Japanese tanks, the frequently published picture, taken on Okinawa, IIRC, of a USMC Sherman with a Japanese tank strapped to the engine deck for a war souvineer, spoke volumes. A basic Sherman ( or M-3 medium, for that matter ) didn't have much competition from just about any Japanese tank. I suspect that their Type 1 Ho-Ni was probably their best contender against allied armour, but they didn't produce nearly enough. IIRC, the late production Chi-Ha's had a gun that could penetrate the Sherman, but, again, there just weren't enough. Japanese tanks had pretty good success in areas where their opponents had few or no tanks, but that situation changed pretty soon after the US entry into the war. For that matter, didn't the Russian tanks do very well against them in the Nomonhan campaign?

 

I also maintain that the men who went to war in Italian tanks were some of the bravest men who ever lived. Many of them did not live long, but many Italian armoured units fought hard, if short, wars.

 

BTW, my M48A5 came in at just about exactly 50 tons, fully loaded. Where does the 40 ton figure given above come from? I don't think that the 90mm gun versions were that much lighter.

 

Along with the Type 1 Ho-Ni, The Type 3 Chi-Nu medium was armed with the same gun. The Chi-Nu's were in service on the Japanese home islands. Many were in Kyushu in anticipation of the invasion happening there. Excluding the ones made by Hitachi, 55 (1944) plus 111 (1945) were made according to Japanese Defense Industry Association resources (兵器工業会資料 Just putting the Japanese in case I didn't catch whatever official name it may have in English). If counting in the ones made by Hitachi, its said that possibly over 200 have been made.

 

 

Of course, for this thread, by 1944 standards, these were pretty bad. But as mentioned already that was due to the resource and production issues rather then by bad design or incompetence in tank building.

 

The cannon with standard AP penetrates 80mm at 500m. With a special round it penetrates 100mm at 500m. Still leaves a little more to be desired even if facing M4 Sherman (75).

 

 

Let's see- 200 Chi-Nu's produced, vs., what 40,000+ Shermans and variants, plus the Pershings that would have come with them...as mentioned, just not enough, esp. after the P-47s and Typhoons hit them from above. Japan was doomed. The atomic bombs were probably the kindest way to finish the war, for both sides. How many millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion of the home islands?

 

Plus, nuclear PTSD gave us the Godzilla movies.

[Loopycrank]

I think it gets worse. Weren't the T29 and T30 heavy tanks slated for the invasion of Japan as well?

[Markus Becker]

 

I also maintain that the men who went to war in Italian tanks were some of the bravest men who ever lived. Many of them did not live long, but many Italian armoured units fought hard, if short, wars.

That reminds me of a story,

 

during Operation Compass the Australians nicked and used Italian trucks, Italian AA guns and Italian ... tanks. Considering that not every British tank was a Matilda II the story is believable.

[Michael Eastes]

 

 

I also maintain that the men who went to war in Italian tanks were some of the bravest men who ever lived. Many of them did not live long, but many Italian armoured units fought hard, if short, wars.

That reminds me of a story,

 

during Operation Compass the Australians nicked and used Italian trucks, Italian AA guns and Italian ... tanks. Considering that not every British tank was a Matilda II the story is believable.

 

I've seen pictures of both M11/39s and M13/40s in Australian service, with huge kangaroos painted on the hulls and turrets. I suppose that any tank is better than no tank, and the M13/40 was roughly comparable with a lot of Commonwealth tanks at the time that they came out. Unfortunately they had a lot of quality control issues with their armour plate, which sometimes shattered like glass when hit by even the 2-pounder.

[rmgill]

There were Marmon Herrington Armored cars of the basic form up gunned with light Italian AA cannons.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2014 by rmgill

[Argus]

Japanese tanks might not have been built for fighting in the islands. But they were designed around fighting in China, where anything much heavier than a bullock cart had its work cut out moving around the rural road network.

 

The 2nd AIF did not steal captured Italian equipment in the western desert, that is a vile slander of the most base sort. They did however fill certain gaps in their War Establishments directly by local acquisition, sparing MEHQ all the trouble, transport and paperwork.

 

shane

[JasonJ]

 

Let's see- 200 Chi-Nu's produced, vs., what 40,000+ Shermans and variants, plus the Pershings that would have come with them...as mentioned, just not enough, esp. after the P-47s and Typhoons hit them from above. Japan was doomed. The atomic bombs were probably the kindest way to finish the war, for both sides. How many millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion of the home islands?

 

Plus, nuclear PTSD gave us the Godzilla movies.

 

 

Well yes of course Japan was defeated. Not disputing that

 

The Atomic bombs were better than a ground invasion, I agree.

 

I was thinking I might provoke a rebuttal to a "Japan might have been able to win" point. I wasn't making that point. Just going as far as showing that the Chi-Nu was well in operation rather than still a prototype in some factory and that there were enough of them for the possibility of a real tank on tank battle. In defensive positions vs M4 Sherman (75)s, Chi-Nu might have done pretty good.

 

 

Japanese tanks might not have been built for fighting in the islands. But they were designed around fighting in China, where anything much heavier than a bullock cart had its work cut out moving around the rural road network.

 

The 2nd AIF did not steal captured Italian equipment in the western desert, that is a vile slander of the most base sort. They did however fill certain gaps in their War Establishments directly by local acquisition, sparing MEHQ all the trouble, transport and paperwork.

 

shane

 

IRT for the purpose of fighting in China, before the Chi-Ha entered service, the Chi-Ha was in competition with the Chi-Ni for Japan's next medium tank to replace the aging Type 89 MT. The Chi-Ni was the cheap economy tank where as the Chi-Ha was the higher quality option. With escalations raising in China, the Chi-Ha was selected.

Edited September 15, 2014 by JasonJ