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.
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 :lol: :lol: :lol: (just kidding)
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...
?!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.
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).
As I read in one webpage, (sory but I cannot remember the url now) just a few units of Bob Semple tanks were built just to be used in a military parade on New Zealand capitol (Wellington, isn't it?) as a civil morale booster. Well. it seems that it wasn't exactly a morale booster, but a laugh booster. The tank seemed so ridiculous it was never seen again.
i am going to bust the bubble here cuase from what i have heard, the M3 honey, while easy to drive * for it's time, you had to use two hands or one small sledge hammer to move levers and such* was a very very poor tank for use against anything, i have a book by a WWII Captain, the Captains names was Robert Crisp and the book he wrote was Brazen Chariots, he told accounts of the smaller German Panzer II's main gun *i believe a 50 mm, i could be wrong* made a "Complete Armor Penetration, Front to Rear of the M3 Stuart Light Tank" and i am sorry, but i vote for that being the worst tank for there time
the M3 Stuart had the worst armor .... the driver had a 2 foot hole to crawl through to get out, it made a good target, this dark hole in the front of the tank , i feel sorry for those drivers, and thanks, i knew that the Panzer II had a cannon, i was just unsure of what one
yeah, cool, i never new the refitted the old MK II's in germany, but i am the guy who studies the Tiger's, P 1000's, Muas's and E-100's, so that lil struff would really by just a toy in my way seeing as how the M3 was less than half the tiger's weight and all the others were over 100 tons , so yeah, i don't like any light tanks, but i think the M3 deserves the spot light for being absolutely useless in protection , here is a quote on general bradley about the M3 Stuarts and M3 & White Halftracks
Gen. Bradley"well soldier, do the machine guns penetrate the armor?"
Solider " well no sir, they come in one side, and rattle around alot."
i am sorry, but that would do two things
piss me off/ kill me
make me find a better tank or a new job