Which do U think was the worst tank in the world? Vote or propose your particular one.

I voted for the A11 Matilda I as it was an almost total flop as a tank. The only thing it had going for it was its armor, as it firepower (one .30 or .50 cal machinegun) and mobility (8 mph max speed and 80 mile range) were clearly inadequate. This is not surprising as it resulted from a very flawed idea of what a tank should do.

Also, this poll has some odd choices on it:

1. You have light, medium and heavy tanks mixed together (e.g. Pzkw I, Type 89 and T-35). These vehicles performed different missions and were tailored to accomplish them.

2. Only about 100 M11/39 tanks were ever made - did you mean the M13/40? and neglect to mention some real losers (such as the US M3 Medium Grant/Lee).

3. What is the Turan I? I am not familiar with that AFV.

Here is the Turan I:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/hungary/turan.htm

Oh, also, a couple of the tanks are not bad desighnes at all, its just that by the time the war started they were old and tired....

I apologise for the flaws... I'm newbie, though
Just one thing... ¿do U really think that the Grant was a loser? I've read a lot of times that the British received them on desert just as rain on crops... well, maybe it was because that any tank, compared with the Crusader, seemed better (just kidding)

i'd actually have to vote for the sherman tank also known as the "tommy cooker".

A reply comment on the Grant/Lee i think is in order:

I remember talking with my former neighbor about this tank and some of its faults in combat, He was pretty emphatic about some of his dislikes:

1. His major dislike: He said that the ideal of riveted armor was sheer lunacy. When the heads of those bolts were hit by smaller caliber shells that wouldn't penetrate the armor, the inertia of the hit would cause the inside head to separate and fly around the inside of the tank, causing injury and sometimes death to the crew members. He even stated that they were going to continue the practice on the sherman, and had actually made some with a riveted or bolted front armor skirt, until the Grant /Lee convinced them to stop doing it.

2, That corner cupola gun: since you couldn't do much with it but attack from a limited arc to the front, if you were engaging another tank you had to practically turn the whole tank in that direction to get a shot. And due to its location on the hull, you couldn't use the gun to fire over an embankment: almost half the tank would be subject to getting hit by another tank if you tried it.

3. The side door to the tank interior located in the sides: although they made them heavy enough to withstand some hits, enough hits could distort them just enough to make getting out in an emergency a tough enough task.

his biggest comments were that if it supported infantry only, and didn't have to slug it in a tank battle, it was okay.

I'm not a tanker, but it certainly doesn't sound good to me...

i'd actually have to vote for the sherman tank also known as the "tommy cooker".

?!Sherman a bad tank? Its a very good tank. Higjly relaible for its time, fast and cheap. True, the Armour was insufficiant. The gun was weak but that was fixed with the "Firefly" version, armed witha 17 pounder. Now the Sherman served well during WWII, and than served on in armys around the world. The IDF still used them in 1973(Sherman M51, witha 105mm, better engine, better fire controll...but a Sherman), and they killed off T54, T55 and even T62 tanks. The Sherman is still in use in some Armys and is constantly being revised so it is capable of beating potntial enemys.

Mark Conley's reply pretty much hit it on the head with respect to the M3 Medium Grant/Lee see also http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...opic.php?t=576

Sherman, thanks for the link - that is a good one

I had heard about the Turan I, but not by that name and did not have technical data. I agree with your assessment of the Sherman and some of the other vehicles on the list. Again, I think it most of them resulted form a flawed understanding of what a tank was supposed to do. I would also point out that many of the countries on the list did not have the funds or technical know how to produce first class AFVs (not to mention the shortsighted policies of the Nazis that kept their so called Allies form developing or buying better weapons).

I agree with your assessment of the Sherman and some of the other vehicles on the list

Are you talking about my assasment?

Well, I couldent let the Sherman be spoken at like that...Kind of my favorit piece of military hardware in all times(hence the username...)

Phew, finally back on forum, after these bagruts are over....

I think the worst WW2 tank was Bob Sempl's tank(not sure about the name). I was made in new Zealand, and it was actually caterpillar fitted with machine guns and armor.



Sherman was a great tank, in my opinion second best, after T-34.