Jump to content


Worst tank ever built ?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
283 replies to this topic

Vibeop #1 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 04:25

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 11391 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    07-06-2010
Could not even imagine driving around in this Muppet-Mobile.

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Can-RCD-Carden-Lloyd1931-DennisBerkin.jpg   37.99K


Adstar #2 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 04:51

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4321 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010
It'd be hard to hit that's for sure.

Vibeop #3 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 05:20

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 11391 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    07-06-2010

View PostAdstar, on Aug 14 2010 - 04:51, said:

It'd be hard to hit that's for sure.



Just walk up to it and club the guys over the head ;)

SovereignT #4 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 06:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7 battles
  • 387
  • Member since:
    05-14-2010
It's got to be of Japanese make for sure..  :Smile-hiding:

CheeseThief #5 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 07:43

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5566 battles
  • 203
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
It's a tankette.

It was designed to get close to an MG nest and smoke it out without the need or cost of a real piece of armour.


It's up there with the Skeleton tank in innovative thinking, and practicality.

Vibeop #6 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 08:02

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 11391 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    07-06-2010
The one pictured is actually a British Model Carden-Lloyd used by the Canadian Forces. I guess there was also a 1 man model made.

LGrum #7 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 10:02

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 96
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010
From some snufflng around, it is a Carden Loyd tankette - tankettes were not tanks as such but more motorized medium machine gun positions. They could also be used for reconnaisance, carrying support weapons for infantry and towing light artillery.
(I think the one shown was part of batch used for training by the Canadians.) Some 450 were built by Vickers-Armstrong and others under licence by some countries

The Carden Loyd is also quite influential in tracked vehicle designs. It led to several derivatives when developed upon by those nations who had purchased them.

These designs have all been linked to the Carden-Loyd design:

Soviet T-27
French UE Chenillette
Japanese Type 94 Te-Ke
Czech Tančík vz. 33
Polish TKS series
German Landswerk Krupp A (LKA) which became the Panzer I

Tankettes were used in minor wars and skimishes in 1930s as well as briefly in the Second World War.
The Belgians put 47 mm guns onto their Carden-Loyds to make "tank destroyers"

Within the UK, it leads to the Bren Gun Carrier/Universal Carrier and the Loyd Carrier.

So on the whole not the worst tank ever.

The worst tank would be one designed to do something but failed terribly. Look up the British Valiant design for an example of a project going wrong.

drybone12 #8 Posted Aug 15 2010 - 21:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2225 battles
  • 439
  • [KURO] KURO
  • Member since:
    07-26-2010

View PostVibeop, on Aug 14 2010 - 05:20, said:

Just walk up to it and club the guys over the head ;)
Lol Rofl Lmao

theta0123 #9 Posted Aug 16 2010 - 19:48

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostLGrum, on Aug 14 2010 - 10:02, said:



The worst tank would be one designed to do something but failed terribly. Look up the British Valiant design for an example of a project going wrong.

Quote

The sole Valiant was retained by the School of Tank Technology, where students were treated to an inspection of it at the end of their course and invited to find fault. "One hopes they started early in the morning."


Lukasz_Omasta #10 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 10:28

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010
I think the worst tank would be the Churchill. It was horror to drive, had lousy armament (not talking about "special" versions like AVRE) and broke all the time.
Thing is Valiant never saw combat. People actually had to fight in Churchills. Even Winston commented that it is funny that tanks named after him have more flaws then him.
A tank developed to be an infantry support unit (who uses heavy tank for this?), with poor (never upgraded) engine what meant that after upgrading the armour it was like the
Buckingham palace. Big, heavy and stationary. Only good thing was usage of multiple bogie susp and tank's ability to cross hard terrain. But as soon as Germans
started using high velocity guns on PzIV's it became obvious that Churchill is underpowered, undergunned and an overall poor design as a tank.
As a specialist vehicle it was very good. As a tank it was crap.

theta0123 #11 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 16:32

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostLukasz_Omasta, on Aug 17 2010 - 10:28, said:

I think the worst tank would be the Churchill. It was horror to drive, had lousy armament (not talking about "special" versions like AVRE) and broke all the time.
Thing is Valiant never saw combat. People actually had to fight in Churchills. Even Winston commented that it is funny that tanks named after him have more flaws then him.
A tank developed to be an infantry support unit (who uses heavy tank for this?), with poor (never upgraded) engine what meant that after upgrading the armour it was like the
Buckingham palace. Big, heavy and stationary. Only good thing was usage of multiple bogie susp and tank's ability to cross hard terrain. But as soon as Germans
started using high velocity guns on PzIV's it became obvious that Churchill is underpowered, undergunned and an overall poor design as a tank.
As a specialist vehicle it was very good. As a tank it was crap.
Say WHAT?

The churchill tank, was the ONLY westren allied tank wich had armor to survive german tank guns. The MKIII withstood anything of the 5cm and the 88 up to 900m. When the german tank guns got bigger, so did the churchill=152mm of armor on the MKVII when the normandy campaign began.

The heavy churchills had 154mm of armor when they first saw action in Normandy. Enough to even survive hits from a panther.
Then the churchill its biggest strength was its Excellent cross-road performance. While not as fast as other tanks, the churchill could go everywhere. Everywhere. It could climb the steepest hills where tigers, shermans and panthers couldnt even make it halfway. And it could drive trough the shittiest of terrains for a tank. Many german defenses where smashed by the churchill, because they thought 'No tank can go trough that forest,bocage or field'

The churchill had one problem, and that was armament. The 6PDR churchills faired well, because they could fire APDS rounds wich could kill PZIV, stugs with ease and the tiger aswel. It was a stupid move to change to the 75mm gun when the MKVII came.

But the churchill was very versatile, and it carried other great armament=The 95MM CS howitzer, the 290mm Spigot mortar, the Ronson flamethrower on the crocodile.


I would say the churchill was even more usefull then the tiger tank.

PzGrenKdr #12 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 18:02

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,951
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
most ppl overrate APDS rounds(for 6 and 17pdr), they are very inaccurate(only use up to 500m) make only some damge inside a tank because of lack of HE-filler(ok the brits have in no ap-round ever a HE-filler) and were rare.

The Churchill is more a pionier-tank than a real battle-tank. Also the a PzIV could destroy a Churchill very easy from side(see NA-theatre and Normandy)

theta0123 #13 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 18:59

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostPzGrenKdr, on Aug 17 2010 - 18:02, said:

most ppl overrate APDS rounds(for 6 and 17pdr), they are very inaccurate(only use up to 500m) make only some damge inside a tank because of lack of HE-filler(ok the brits have in no ap-round ever a HE-filler) and were rare.

The Churchill is more a pionier-tank than a real battle-tank. Also the a PzIV could destroy a Churchill very easy from side(see NA-theatre and Normandy)
Depends. The sides where barely any thinner then the front. The PZIV had to hit it straight at 90 degrees, or the shell would have bounched.
PZIV's in NA had the short 75mm gun. It penetrated 79mm of armor at 1000m. Churchill had 104mm frontal and 94mm on the sides. Keep in mind that the churchill can easily kill the PZIV  :Smile-playing:


APDS Bad Accuracy was only over long distances. I would doubt the actuall damage the APDS round made when it penetrated the armor. The damage done by an APDS was sometimes pathethic.

Grigori #14 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 21:52

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 316 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010
http://i8.photobucke...s/bobsemple.jpg

PzGrenKdr #15 Posted Aug 17 2010 - 23:22

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,951
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Posttheta0123, on Aug 17 2010 - 18:59, said:

Depends. The sides where barely any thinner then the front. The PZIV had to hit it straight at 90 degrees, or the shell would have bounched.
PZIV's in NA had the short 75mm gun. It penetrated 79mm of armor at 1000m. Churchill had 104mm frontal and 94mm on the sides. Keep in mind that the churchill can easily kill the PZIV  :Smile-playing:


APDS Bad Accuracy was only over long distances. I would doubt the actuall damage the APDS round made when it penetrated the armor. The damage done by an APDS was sometimes pathethic.


In NA PzIV Ausf.F1 and F2 were used F1 with L/43 and F2 with L/48 gun, both named Mark IV special by the Brits, so possible.
Btw solid rounds like APDS are only effective if they hit a lethal part of the tank(amo, crew-member, fueltanks, engine). There are reports about tanks which are penetrated(3-6 times) but because of the lack of a HE-filler(or a failure of the fuse) nothing happens.

Also why -1rep? because i disagree with you?

PanzerschreckLeopard #16 Posted Aug 18 2010 - 00:57

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1198 battles
  • 141
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostPzGrenKdr, on Aug 17 2010 - 23:22, said:

In NA PzIV Ausf.F1 and F2 were used F1 with L/43 and F2 with L/48 gun, both named Mark IV special by the Brits, so possible.

No, F1 had the L/24 gun, F2 with L/43. HOWEVER, there was little to no distinction between the F2 and G models, therefore the F1/2 designation is redundant; they should be referred to as the F for the L/24, and as G for L/43 and L/48. F2's are really early G's.

theta0123 #17 Posted Aug 18 2010 - 09:47

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostPzGrenKdr, on Aug 17 2010 - 23:22, said:

In NA PzIV Ausf.F1 and F2 were used F1 with L/43 and F2 with L/48 gun, both named Mark IV special by the Brits, so possible.
Btw solid rounds like APDS are only effective if they hit a lethal part of the tank(amo, crew-member, fueltanks, engine). There are reports about tanks which are penetrated(3-6 times) but because of the lack of a HE-filler(or a failure of the fuse) nothing happens.

Also why -1rep? because i disagree with you?
I dint do that :/ i got a -1 aswel.

To prove it i dint do it, i do a +1  :Smile_honoring:
I barely use the reputation system  :Smile-hiding:

LGrum #18 Posted Aug 18 2010 - 12:39

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 96
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010

View PostLukasz_Omasta, on Aug 17 2010 - 10:28, said:

I think the worst tank would be the Churchill. It was horror to drive, had lousy armament (not talking about "special" versions like AVRE) and broke all the time.
Thing is Valiant never saw combat. People actually had to fight in Churchills. Even Winston commented that it is funny that tanks named after him have more flaws then him.
A tank developed to be an infantry support unit (who uses heavy tank for this?), with poor (never upgraded) engine what meant that after upgrading the armour it was like the
Buckingham palace. Big, heavy and stationary. Only good thing was usage of multiple bogie susp and tank's ability to cross hard terrain. But as soon as Germans
started using high velocity guns on PzIV's it became obvious that Churchill is underpowered, undergunned and an overall poor design as a tank.
As a specialist vehicle it was very good. As a tank it was crap.

I think you must be referring to churchill's speech in the House of Commons in 1942:

"This tank was ordered off the drawing board and large number went into production very quickly. As might be expected, it had many defects and teething troubles and, when these became apparent, the tank was appropriately re-christened the 'Churchill.' "

Which is part self-deprecating humour.

Churchill's next line is

"These defects have now been largely overcome," he added. "I have no doubt that this tank will prove, in the end, a powerful, massive and serviceable weapon of war."

Given that he was speeking about the time that the Mark III went into action in North Africa and 8,000 of all Marks would be produced he seems to have been largely right.

Here's a piece on the first use of the Churchill, in North Africa http://www.northiris...articles/7.html as King Force, where it proved effective in assault and defence.

Flyntlock #19 Posted Aug 18 2010 - 16:16

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 109
  • Member since:
    07-30-2010
T35 has to have this award. Big(nice easy target) slow ,you could run faster.no armour to talk of and even with five turrets not a good weapon among em.

dotalchemy #20 Posted Aug 18 2010 - 21:57

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 31 battles
  • 61
  • [GROON] GROON
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostGrigori, on Aug 17 2010 - 21:52, said:



No, you're looking for the thread titled "Most awesome tank ever built"