Worst Tank of WWII

[Farnan]

We did plenty of discussions of the best tank, but what was the worse?

I'm going to go with the Panzer VIII Maus. A total waste of neccessary resources for the Germans, and the design was idiotic as it was basically a moving bomber target.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Soviet T-35, as well as pretty much most of the Italian and Japanese tanks. Put also the Matilda Mk. I, it was terribly under-gunned with only an MG and taken out early in the war.

[Lord Romanus III]

The large targets that the Italians called "tanks." They were just pitiful compared to most other tanks.

[Erwin Rommel]

its either those french tanks or those italian ones

but of course its all IMO

and oh yeah those japanese ones, too bad the tanks cant go banzai

[Wheem]

its either those french tanks or those italian ones

Actually, according to Guderian (the general, not the forum poster ), the French tanks were superior to the German tanks used in the invasion (leadership and doctrine were an entirely different matter).

Overall, I'd say Italy probably had the worst tanks during the time period.

[HansDuet]

M3 Grant. "Grave for seven brothers."

Tough choice actually, Japanese had many bad tank designs.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The French ones were quite good and superior early in the war.

[Heinz Guderian]

Panzer Is and IIs and early Panzer IIIs. Ultimate door knockers.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Panzer Is and IIs and early Panzer IIIs. Ultimate door knockers.

Actually no. That was the 37mm PaK36, besides these tanks had superior intercom and their gun wasn't as puny as we would think.

[Godless Pickle]

Panzer Is and IIs and early Panzer IIIs. Ultimate door knockers.

At the time they were first produced they were atually quite high tec. But they were light tanks, so you really cant base a tank if its bad or good facing against heavy battle tanks. Light tanks are for recon and against light tagets like convoys or patrols.

Worst tank of WW2 Id have to say would be the Italian L3/33 or the British A38 Valiant.

[Rodina38]

At the time they were first produced they were atually quite high tec. But they were light tanks, so you really cant base a tank if its bad or good facing against heavy battle tanks. Light tanks are for recon and against light tagets like convoys or patrols.

Worst tank of WW2 Id have to say would be the Italian L3/33 or the British A38 Valiant.

The British Valiant never saw combat so prototypes don't count.

[Erwin Rommel]

yeah the S35 does look like a T34

too bad they got only 430

[Erwin Rommel]

Panzer III were good enough...provided none superior appeared on the enemy side

eh Herr Guderian..........and yeah your sig is too large

funny though it is.

[HansDuet]

British cruiser tanks and Matildas were also quite horrible.

Panzers III got absolutely raped by Soviet heavy tanks.

[The Super Pope]

British cruiser tanks and Matildas were also quite horrible.

Cruiser tanks by and large were shocking. The Crusader was good enough but couldn't handle the desert, had it fought in Europe it would have done better. The Cromwell was a very poor tank. While extremly fast, it was under-gunned and badly lacking in armour. However the Comet was one of the best tanks of the war and the Cruiser tank idea led to the MBT.

Most Japanese and italian tanks sucked a frozen cockcicle, while Soviet tanks other than the KV-1, T-34 and Is-2 and 3 were a big ole pile of poo.

[tomdidiot]

Cruiser tanks by and large were shocking. The Crusader was good enough but couldn't handle the desert, had it fought in Europe it would have done better. The Cromwell was a very poor tank. While extremly fast, it was under-gunned and badly lacking in armour. However the Comet was one of the best tanks of the war and the Cruiser tank idea led to the MBT.

The Cromwell was the equal of the Sherman in both armour and firepower. It basically used a rechambered 6-pdr, and had the same armour thickness of the Sherman Granted, the Cromwell might not have had sloped armour, but that fact that it was significantly smaller and faster made it harder to hit. Also, most eventually had extra armour welded on.

The Cromwell certailny was not a piece of trash, and was, in fact, the best tank designed by the British after the Comet (and possibly the Churchill).

Most Japanese and italian tanks sucked a frozen cockcicle, while Soviet tanks other than the KV-1, T-34 and Is-2 and 3 were a big ole pile of poo.

By some standards, the IS-2 and IS-3 were big piles of poo. On paper, they seemed very good, but in practice, their HUGE gun simply fired way too slowly for them to be deemed good tanks. 122mm is simply overkill, the ammo took ages to load, and they couldn't carry much of it in the first place.

And of course the Matilda I and early cruiser tanks were rubbish as well.

The early cruisers were far from rubbish. Granted, they weren't the best tanks, but they were not rubbish. At the start of the war, the humble 2-pdr mounted on the early cruisers
was considered one of the finest AT guns. They certainly might have been lacking in armour slightly, but were more than capable of taking on early German tanks and Italian tanks in France/North Africa.

[Erwin Rommel]

dont remind Manstein.

[The Super Pope]

The French Char B1 bis was one of the best tanks in the world in 1940

[Markas]

French tanks weren't too shoddy at all. GI's in Normandy found themselves facing captured french tanks from four years earlier. Modified and tinkered with they made useful recce and arty spotters.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The A9 Cruiser had very thin armour and a puny 2 pdr gun. British tanks were notoriously under-gunned during the war.