Worst Pices of Crap 3: Tanks

The Japanese tanks were rubbish, The Grant tank was used a lot by the British in Asia and could sit in the road and take all the Japanese Tanks could throw at it and then just pick them off. It was rather like a Sherman going up against a Tiger from the front.
icecold said:
Other tanks with major issues include India’s Arjun, which was been in development for over 20 years and is just now entering series production – twenty years behind schedule. It’s also turning into a maintenance nightmare, requiring more maintenance personnel than the T-72s already in Indian service. It is also proving to be incompatible with current tank transporters in the Indian Army. It is also overweight (at 58.5 tons), and the Indian army still cannot get a decent engine for this tank. To be fair to this tank, it is still in development. However, the chances of these problems being fixed can only be described as slim.The French AMX-30 also has had issues. In combat it did reasonably well (destroying 50 Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm), but one also needs to note the problems. The AMX-30 often was a third choice when countries could not acquire German Leopards or American M60s. The Saudis have generally kept their AMX-30s in depots, hardly using them. It should be noted the French have had a hard time selling their used AMX-30s – a problem that Germany and the United States are not having. Often countries with the AMX-30 are discarding them for used Leopard 1s (which had some issues with armor protection).The winner of the worst tank competition has to be the T-72. This is a tank that not only has serious design flaws, but it also has a very poor track record in combat. The T-72 is a compact tank, but the compactness creates serious issues in the area of crew survivability. Often, the ammunition is stored next to the fuel tanks. The autoloader often requires the presence of a live round in the crew compartment. In other words, if the tank is hit, it is going to blow up, and it will probably kill the crew in the process. Oh, and production quality is highly iffy, not only for the tanks, but for the ammunition their main guns used.Desert Storm proved that those faults matter on the battlefield. In essence, battles like 73 Easting were one-sided turkey shoots – where larger numbers of T-72s would be wiped out by smaller units of M1A1 Abrams tanks. Conversely, T-72s were unable to do much – shells were known to have bounced off the Abrams despite being fired from as close as 400 meters. T-72s were often blown apart at the welds when Hellfire missiles hit them, and on at least one occasion, T-72s were destroyed by American 120mm tank shells that had passed through obstacles (a sand berm or another T-72). Often their crews were taken out with them. In Iraqi Freedom, the story did not change much, despite the acquisition of systems to upgrade these tanks. In essence, unlike the Arjun, AMX-30, or M60A2, the T-72’s faults have been shown decisively on the battlefield, making it the biggest lemon in the world of tanks.
Are you Harold C. Hutchinson?
Koz said:
Yes, it was bad

when you can get off two aimed shots in a minute. there's a problem.

The tank itself wasn't bad, the gun was. At the time it was seen as one of the best protected in NATO because of it's layout.

The main problem with the launcher was when fired it would leave burning ash and needed to be cleaned with the compressor. If they had put a 120mm in there or a 105mm she would have worked out fine.
icecold said:
then again:
Conqueror (Heavy tank of the 60’s – so bad that Chieftain was a great improvement.)
Tortoise (80 ton monster that was too big and heavy for most bridges)
Covenanter (Cruiser tank made with low grade materials and only used for training.)
A9 (Early wartime cruiser tank with paper thin armour and a gun that wouldn’t penetrate panzers)
A13 (Ditto)
Mk 6 Light Tank. Chronically unreliable recce vehicle – my father had one shot from under him in Greece ’41)
M 103 (US Heavy tank of the 1960s built to counter the Soviet JS 3. The Army wouldn’t accept it so the Marines got it. Never used in action.)
M551 (US tank with a 152mm low pressure gun that that shook the wagon to pieces when it fired. The gun also fired missiles)
Neubaufahrzeug (German inter-war tank that had a 75mm gun, coax 37mm and MG in the turret and two little MG turrets on the front corners. Unfortunately the Germans developed the Panzer 3 and 4 as parallel programmes)
M11/39 (Italian tank with a 37mm gun in the hull. Paper is too thick to describe the armour)

Actually one Army division used the M103A1, it was then replaced by the M60.

The M551 was a fine tank, just the gun was the problem, when she launched that missiles it shook the sights out of alinement and tore out the back section of the turret.

Doppleganger said:
I think he was saying that the M26-Pershing should have been introduced as soon as possible. If you read the link that I posted in a previous thread, you'll see that the Sherman was built to a cheap budget, using an artillery piece for a main gun and often an aircraft engine for its powerplant. Thousands of UK and US servicemen died needlessly in a tank that was hopelessly outclassed by the enemies it faced.

For the importance it played in history it was amongst one of the 'worse pieces of crap' tanks.
And maybe the British would have been better off with the Churchill? POS that it was.
Well, after reading up on the Japanese tanks on WW II, I have to say that we have another contendaaaaah! None o ftheir tanks wer weable to match the M-4 Sherman, with one exception, and their best tanks were kept in Japan to help defend against the inevitable American invasion. So, up to this point, the contenders are:
1. Almost every WW II Japanese tank,
2. The M-4 Sherman
3. The T-72
4. The T-62
5. The AMX-30 (Personally, I do not agree with this one, but... whatever)
6. A few other unmentionables...

So unless there is any more debate, it is time to pick the loser. Bids with reasons, gentlemen???

The Conqueror, that i saw in a local barn a couple of years ago


There are very few pictures of this tank around
I think you will find that he had painted it at some point or other. I think they can do that if they own it
zander_0633 said:
IS there any special paint to paint or can they just use those car paint to paint?

I'd use automotive grade because the cost of a gallon of mil spec white and OD that we used on launchers could cost as much as $300.00 in the '80s.
zander_0633 said:
IS there any special paint to paint or can they just use those car paint to paint?

Xander, don't wanna be unkind but have you ever posting anything other than a one sentence comment? It would be nice to see something a bit more from you once in a while.