Worst tank in history

[lorne19]

What would be your choice for the worst tank in history. I think the criteria for this is pretty straight forward, poorest performance, unreliable, little effect on the outcome of history, and just a plain simple bad tank.

[the_redstar_swl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/n...ewzealand.html

Rube Goldberg himself could not have designed it better. Apart from being just plain ugly to the bone, the front gunner actually had to lay on a mattress on top of the engine in order to fire his weapon! The Semple had a searing top speed of 24 km/h but had to slow down or even stop in order to shift gears. The "tank" was highly unstable in movement and top heavy. The Public Works Department tried to give this "white elephant" to the army and even offered to convert their entire fleet of 81 into Semples (at a cost of only 4200 pounds sterling apiece)! The army took them, tested them, and even paraded them around the country in an effort to whip up morale. After the laughter subsided, and in an rare display of military intelligence, the army returned them.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Yeah, THAT one would be a serious contender.

[Lance Williams]

Any WW II Japanese or Italian "tank"....................

[lorne19]

Originally Posted by Lance Williams

Any WW II Japanese or Italian "tank"....................

My though exactly.

[Listy]

Originally Posted by Lance Williams

Any WW II Japanese or Italian "tank"....................

Again with the hatred and Bias towards Japanese Tanks.

Seriously Some of the Japanese tanks where Very good for their time. Where it all went tits up was at the Staff level, and the tankers Training and doctrine.

Take the Type 97 with the 47mm gun, and you've got a good medium tank, albeit with fairly weak side hull armour. A type 97 with a 47mm gun was a match for a Sherman.

Recent combat reports indicate that the quality of the 47-mm armor-piercing, high-explosive projectile has been improved. Moreover, tests show that the 47-mm tank gun will penetrate the U.S. M4A3 at 500 yards or more. In combat, one U.S. M4A3 medium tank was hit six times with armor-piercing, high-explosive rounds from this gun, at an angle of impact of approximately 30 degrees. Five complete penetrations and one partial penetration resulted. The range, according to members of the U.S. tank crew, was approximately 150 to 200 yards.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/j...ank/index.html

[Exorcist]

Okay, so a Type 97 might get a penetration on a Sherman. However, was there any chance that a Sherman would not obliterate any Japanese tank, with a hit on any facing?
The Japanese should have gotten a hold of the plans and the jigs for the Stug. III. That was one German tank that lent itself to mass-production, and would have been within the limited ability of that nation's industry.

The Italian M-13 and M-14gets my vote for being disapointing, treacherous, and a dissater for the nation fielding it.

It must have looked good on paper, with that 47mm gun and reasonbly thick armor... by 1940 standards.
However, that armor was so brittle that it could be shattered by HE rounds, which might be why the Italians were the first to put sand-bags over their tanks. The mechanical reliability was even worse then the British tanks they faced, and the cannon was not as powerful as it should have been.

The fact that it's replacement was only in the prototype stage in 1943 indicates how over-invested Itlaian industry was in this type.

[Mountain Man]

Oddly enough, my vote would be for the Maus. Too heavy, too slow and wa-a-a-y too expensive and complicated. Just behind that would be the American experimental T-28 Superheavy Assault Gun, which had to drag its outer set of tracks behind it on road marches.

I guess the German Heushercke would be a good contender, too. not too much use for a tank that can set its own turret on the ground and leave it there.

[Alina]

I have to echo the support for the Japanese tanks. For the time they were built (the late thirties), they weren't bad at all. I mean, look at the Panzer I. Is that really any better? The Japanese tanks had a much better gun, and better armor protection. The problem with the Japanese tanks isn't the design, it's the fact nobody bothered updating them.

[Achtung Baby]

The Maus gets my vote.

[Alina]

Oh and guys, all I have to say about the type 97: Low Silhouette:

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by Lance Williams

Any WW II Japanese or Italian "tank"....................

Actually, they were not all bad.

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by Alina

Oh and guys, all I have to say about the type 97: Low Silhouette:

A picture of a Type 97 Chi-Ha Medium would have been helpful here, Alina. That's a Type 97 Te-Ke tankette! (The silhouette wasn't especially low for its size.)

[Alina]

It is a Type-97, but a te-ke, not a chi-ha. Both called type-97.

[Alina]

I see we're both skilled at editing our posts as we realize we've messed up. Touche...