Which was the worst tank ever to have been built and the worst armoured?

Question

excluding the very first british ww1 tank.

Answer 1

Having been there and done that for some time – I have always had an aversion to Russian tanks. This is a generalization but for the most part they are mass produced so overwhelmed the better German tanks in WW2. Since then most of the large armies have built their own tanks. Arguments can be made about most of them but the French amx13 was pretty bad and while not technically a tank the M551 here in the us was pretty lightly armored. The worst for armor would probably be the Stuart (which also had a very small gun).

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan

Answer 2

Well, depends. Is it a 1 v 1 battle or just normal combat? If its 1 v 1, most of the WW1 tanks were about the same. Not to much variation. However, in the real world, the British put out a considerably larger quantity than the Germans, who only produced i think like 400-500 during the entire war. Something small. There was of course the problem of speed, it only went 3 mph. Also there weren't too many tank on tank battles. Its main tactic was to help infantry advance on the bewildered enemy. Kind of hard to judge a tank that never really had a chance to prove itself in tank to tank combat.

As for WW2, in a 1 v 1, the Sherman would have lost, same with the British Cromwell and Churchill. The Tiger and Panther tanks had greater armor and fire power. However, with its lack of speed and armor, comes the blessing of speed and ability to be mass produced. So there's the trade off. Also the German tanks took more money and time to produce.

Most of the Soviet tanks, were (still are comparetively I guess) relatively lacking in terms of technology. But with most Soviet tactics, they intent to overwhelm you instead of out right fighting you.

As a whole, probably the "worst" tank, would probably belong to either the British or the French in the late 1930's early 40's (U.S. not too far behind unfortunately). Some of their tanks, like the Matilda (British) and the Renault (French), were kind of slow and DEFINATELY undergunned compared to their German counter part. They were also lacking on the armor. Fortunately for the British, they learned from the Blitzkrieg, and upped their armor to the Crusader. The French? kind of hard to upgrade when you're busy collaborating.

If you happen to get the Military Channel, they usually show this show that lists the "Top 10" greatest tanks, along with aircraft, ships, helicopters, etc. You should watch for it.

Answer 3

Pretty much anything the Italians and the Japanese had in WWII.

The Sherman would be close behind those. The US didn't have a decent tank until the E26 Pershing (the appellation M26 came after the war).

The Russian KV1, KV2, T-34's and JS series tank of WWII were probably the best made at that time. The Germans freaked when they first encountered them. Even 88mm shells bounced off of some of them.

Most modern tank design still uses features develped by the Russians in WWII: Sloping armor, low profiles, suspension, etc.

Answer 4

MG really knows his tanks, lol

I'd have to say the T-55 or M60A2, just because of my limited knowledge of BAD tanks lol. T-55's engine was prone to blow up, and M60A2 had same system as the M551 Sheridan. the Shilleglagh or something gun/missile system.

Answer 5

During World War 2, many considered the Italian Carro-Armato M13/40 to be a mobile coffin and a near-useless piece of crap. Rommel was appalled that his Italian allies were supplied with the POS. by the time it was deployed, it was already under-armored and under-gunned. It was mechanically unreliable, and caught fire easily when hit. Pretty much a death-trap for the Italian tankers.

Answer 6

many of the american ww2 tanks were terrible. They were usually nicknamed zippo as they would 'light first time' due to the petrol engine. ww1 tanks were contrastingly very efficient!

Answer 7

Sherman

"Every russian tank"
You've obviously never heard of the Russian T-34...

Answer 8

Sadly, The Sherman. It was redicously under armoured with only an inch of plating in many areas. Also Significantly underpowered it's main cannon could only penetrate the German armoured vehicles at the rear. The only reason it was effective was due to the extremely high numbers produced.

Answer 9

Here is my list
-------------------------------
Panzer V Panter
Too Heavy and too complicated to keep in the field
--------------------------------
Panzer V &VI Tigers
Way to heavy for good use, not enough for good use, No Spare Parts to replace broken parts
----------------------------------
The Italian L6 and M13
weak gun and light armor
----------------------------------
Type 95 Japanese Tank
Made the Sherman look like a Panther
---------------------------------------
US M3 Lee/Grant
Main gun built into the Hull, weaker gun in the turret
------------------------------------------
US M4 Sherman was good after the gun and armor was upgraded to the M4A3
--------------------------------------
Vickers Light Tank
Weak Armor, was not good at even being turned into a AA gun carrier
-------------------------------------------
US M103 and UK Conqueror
can only go 80 to 95 miles between refueling
-------------------------------------------
Soviet T-62
could not replace its predrcessor the T-54

Answer 10

Every tank during WWI.

They were taken out with really big rifles.