Main page

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.

Grigori, on Aug 17 2010 - 21:52, said:

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

LGrum, on Aug 18 2010 - 12:39, said:

Thanks alot mate. I always was a great fan of the churchill tanks, and now i finnaly read the whole story of the King Force at el alamein.Do you happen to have more articles like these of the churchill?

 bundesarchivbild101i127ud7.jpg (78.97K)
downloads: 1093

Don´t even know the name of that Fail

dotalchemy, on Aug 18 2010 - 21:57, said:

lol,  

theta0123, on Aug 18 2010 - 23:01, said:

Did you read the rest of the articles on the North Irish and using Churchills on that website; their use high in the mountains of North Africa (Tunisia) is very interesting and there's the piece on Dieppe there that goes into detail as to what happened.

Interesting on the numbers - 27 reached the beach, of which 15 got onto the promenade. They couldn't break through the road blocks and so 10 of those returned to the beach. Equally 14 tank crew were killed but only 2 where in tanks at the time.

GrauWolf, on Aug 19 2010 - 02:53, said:

A search through the "Bundesarchiv" gives the description as "Belgien (nahe der französischen Grenze).- Zwei deutsche Soldaten bei der Begutachtung eines erbeuteten belgischen Panzers T-13 B3; PK 689"

Which avoiding the exact translation means its a picture of a Belgian T13 B3 which is the tank destroyer version of the T15 machine gun carrier. The T15 is a Belgian rebuild of a Carden Lloyd artillery tractor. The T13 had a C47 (47mm) anti-tank gun which was probably quite effective -  since I found reference to it putting a shell through a PanzerVI on one side and out the other.

I'm going to say the Valiant. It was basically a project to turn the Valintine II into a heavy tank, by adding more armor, but the 27 ton tank was equipped with only a 210 hp engine, so it had a top speed of 19 km/h, with about the armor of a churchill and only a 6 Pdr for a gun. It is widely regarded as the worst tank in history, and is kept by the School of Tank Technology as an example to its students. One of their final exams is to study the tank and find everything that's wrong.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Valiant_tank

LGrum, on Aug 19 2010 - 13:40, said:

Those 12 little tank destroyers killed 45 panzers in total.

the 47mm gun was brand new and very effective. We belgians had a whole new line of guns ready to be produced, but ye, germany was a bit to soon in our country  

Well just take a look at this "tank" here :
Zar Panzer / Tsar Tank

... WW1 prototype ... but what kind of drugs did the engineers take?

GrauWolf, on Aug 19 2010 - 02:53, said:

One of those fails destroyed 5 panzers by itself in the Ardennes.

Manco, on Aug 21 2010 - 11:47, said:

And the last one at dunkirk killed 6 panzers.

http://s50.radikal.ru/i127/1008/81/1f9b3c9ed75e.jpg
Gazodinamichesky trawler "Warming up"

I'm amazed nobody has yet mentioned this, the worst mass produced medium tank that I can think of to see action:
http://ww2total.com/...40-02-px800.jpg

It's an Italian M13/40. It was Italy's most produced tank of the war. In 1940, it completely failed to halt the advance of British tank divisions in North Africa which were at the time equipped with Cruiser tanks Mks 1 through 4, leading to the complete destruction of the Italian Tenth Army. It was later completely outclassed by the Crusader tanks. Yes, I said Crusader tanks. I'll leave it to you to imagine how crap it was against Grants and Shermans when they made their appearances.

The M13/40 is far from the worst tank to see action. I don't think many of you are even trying. The M11/39, surely, was worse. The 13/40 was an improvement in nearly every way. Then there are Italian Light tanks, like the FIAT L6/40 and the generations before that. But then it can be argued that these were better off than the FT-17. But in any case, I stand by the Bob Semple tank which I posted earlier.

Grigori, on Aug 24 2010 - 15:35, said:

The M13 was the first mass produced tank with DIESEL engines.

That alone defiantly gives it a place in history.

Yeah, and for it's time the M11/39 could be considered as competent. The M13/40 was an improvement, but nowhere near enough to match it's opponents at it's time.

theta0123, on Aug 24 2010 - 16:02, said:

Not really. Diesel engines didn't prove themselves superior to gasoline powered engines for quite some time after. The whole "Sherman blew up because of evil gasoline" thing has been debunked hundreds upon hundreds of times over, and its engines still provided better power to weight ratios than many of its contemporaries.

In any case, the thread is about the worst tank ever built. Are there tanks worse than the M13/40? Many, many, many. So can the M13-40 be considered the worst tank ever built? Logically, it cannot. The bob semple tank, in contrast, was armed with a half dozen machine guns on a vertically aligned hull with an eight man crew. The vehicle was a conversion from a civilian tractor by welding a mild sheet steel superstructure in place over it, and the vehicle had to stop to change gears.

But, of course, this tank wasn't mass produced. In that case, it's very hard to argue against the British Mark 1 female being considered one of the worst, even if it was (debatable) the first.

Grigori, on Aug 17 2010 - 21:52, said:

is there a mirror for tanning the driver?
honest fail from new zealand here
http://en.wikipedia....Bob_Semple_tank

Grigori, on Aug 24 2010 - 17:46, said:

I referred to that as "90% of todays MBT's use diesel engines "