Originally Posted by zander_0633

Well, WAad;s the French tactics on war against the Germans?

Get beaten

hehe!

The worst tank ever made? An easy one. The American M5 "Stuart". The only thing it was good for was speeding the crew's journey to the afterlife. Thank God, the Americans only produced a few thousand of the miserable things.

Even a German anti-tank rifle (those wretched things) could "challenge" the "Stuart", while the 37mm "cannon" could only knock on German tanks and say "Hi, kill me quickly".

Ollie Garchy

No,i think there is no worst tank in the world.
Each tanks were made as best at that time&situation.
But later,those thinkings were denied by real war.

I think the Japanese three-man tank are ridiculous! Good thing they did not meet with any tank resistant in the MALAya!

There have been several tanks mentioned that are fairly described as crappy but I'm gonna have to go with the King Tiger. Expensive and unreliable, it claimed resources that might have been better spent elsewhere. Not only was it expensive to produce (more than 300,000 marks, the cost of three FW190's), it burned enormous quantities of scarce fuel decreasing the mobility of the rest of the army.

When it did make it to the battle, it wasn't too difficult to defeat.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...mid=88&lang=en

While it was more powerful than the Sherman or T34, it wasn't as reliable and was much more expensive. Only a few of these tanks could be produced and even fewer could drag themselves to the battle. Inferior in protection and reliability to the Soviet IS2 and the American M26, the King Tiger killed German soldiers by diverting resources, squandering fuel and failing to stop the Allied advance.

It is amazing that sucha well known tank is actually a tank that is lousy!

Originally Posted by Koz

T-62

M60a2

M60A2 wasn't bad, the M551 was worse. The only problem was the Gun/Missle Launcher on the A2.

Wad about those tanks with multiple turret? I saw a BMP fitted with multiple lauch rockets!

Originally Posted by 2dold4this

There have been several tanks mentioned that are fairly described as crappy but I'm gonna have to go with the King Tiger. Expensive and unreliable, it claimed resources that might have been better spent elsewhere. Not only was it expensive to produce (more than 300,000 marks, the cost of three FW190's), it burned enormous quantities of scarce fuel decreasing the mobility of the rest of the army.

When it did make it to the battle, it wasn't too difficult to defeat.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...mid=88&lang=en

While it was more powerful than the Sherman or T34, it wasn't as reliable and was much more expensive. Only a few of these tanks could be produced and even fewer could drag themselves to the battle. Inferior in protection and reliability to the Soviet IS2 and the American M26, the King Tiger killed German soldiers by diverting resources, squandering fuel and failing to stop the Allied advance.

Whilst I agree with you that the King Tiger was an expensive waste of resources when Germany could scarely afford it, I can't agree that it can be called crappy in any way, shape or form. I mean, this tank had excellent, thick, sloping armour and a potent main gun. It could knock out all Allied tanks at almost all ranges and was safe from almost any Allied tank at most ranges. To me that doesn't sound that crappy. To me that sounds formidable.

The problem of the King Tiger, aside from its expense, was two-fold. The first being that the engine chosen to power the tank was not nearly powerful enough, being the same engine that was used to power the Panther, some 25 tonnes lighter. Thus the King Tiger had a very low power to weight ratio and poor mobility. This engine also meant that the King Tiger had an appalling fuel thirst. However, in the role that the Germans used it, as a defensive tank, it was excellent. Secondly, and the main problem, was that the tank was rushed to the front with no pre-production trials at all. This was why so many of them broke down. The tank simply was not ready for mass production.