[MoMo]

Just so that we get a good spread of debate, short-fuse on the British Army Rumour site has listed his 10 WORST TANKS OF ALL TIME :

1. Cheiftain AVRE particularly the Willich variant ( there is no need to explain).
2. Crusader (a 60 tonne nightmare)
3. Sherman (Zippo lighter that it was).
4. Wippet
5. T-62 (very crap replacement for T-55 that didn't work).
6. A-7 (German WW1 Tank).
7. Valentine (moved at 4 MPH and had a pop gun).
8. Jagd Tiger (not technically a tank buy 80 tonne mechanical nightmare).
9. KV-1 (Russian early war behemoth that the Germans totalled in seconds).
10. Maus (100 tonne mechanical nightmare again from our Aryan cousins 1945 vintage)

do you agree?

[Cardinal]

The KV-1 shouldn't be there (nor the Sherman for that matter) as it gave the Germans nightmares in the early stages of the war on the Eastern Front and could usually only be knocked out with the Flak '88' - it did have many technical issues though. (The gemans definitely did not "total them in seconds" .)

[MoMo]

Perhaps there is a good case for not including the KV-1, but only if you live in a perfect world and the Russians had been afforded the opportunity to deploy their tanks in a more effective way.

The case for all the early " Tommy Cookers " ( Shermans ) to stay in the 10 worst is a good one though. For various reasons, not the least of which is that it had no effective anti-tank capability and was too lightly armoured, it was really not a safe tank to be in against the Panthers, Tigers or Mk lVs and afforded much target practice to the German 88 and 75 mm anti-tank guns.

I think that a strong case for all the early variants of the Sherman could be made.

Can you think of a worse tank ( forget the Italians and the Japanese ) ?

[Shawn 507]

[quote=MoMo;77991] The case for all the early " Tommy Cookers " ( Shermans ) to stay in the 10 worst is a good one though. For various reasons, not the least of which is that it had no effective anti-tank capability and was too lightly armoured, it was really not a safe tank to be in against the Panthers, Tigers or Mk lVs and afforded much target practice to the German 88 and 75 mm anti-tank guns. I think that a strong case for all the early variants of the Sherman could be made. quote]

Once again, you forgetting the Sherman was not designed to or intended to take on enemy armor, that was the Tank Destroyers mission. Once you get past that, you'll see the tank lived up to its design and purpose. And oh by the way, it was the equal to and better than the Panzer IV. The Anti-tank debate is well, unwarranted too. Of course they were easy targets, but then the Germans were fighting a defensive fight. So the first strike should always go to them. But that worked both ways, and Germans armor paid also when attacking defensive areas. And many a Panther burned just as easily. See here in the final schenes of this clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09970606269&hl
As for the KV series. They scared the ba-jesus out of the Germans because none of their standard AT weapons could knock it out. Many a picture shows a KV with multiple hits and no penetrations. It would take the 88's from the AA Battery to deal with them. And apparently they were popular enough to be turned against their former owners by the Germans.
I'm not much on the modern stuff, but I never have heard much good said about the Cheiftan series. The Crusader / Valentine did well in the desert, but it was a pre-war design. So what do you expect? The Whippet? Again, I cannot comment on Great War armor. The T62 must have been worthwhile as it and the T55 were the only two tanks the Reds had that could operate in the harsh conditions of Afghanistan.
Jadgtigers would have been better had they appeared sooner, but Tactical Airpower and Artillery could have defeated them once discovered. The Maus was a complete waste of resources. It is an interesting technological feat however. Getting something that big to be so nimble, is impressive. One sank in the mud half way up its hull. Once the front was dug out, it managed to extract itself without help.

[smartd]

The Sherman was built in numbers exceeding 40,000,.... sure it burned, but most tanks tended to have the same vulnerability. It put numbers in the field that the Axis powers just could not handle.

[MoMo]

Yea, Guys, but with Christie being an American ( a prophet in his own country...... ) and the lessons of the early stages of the conflict available, you'd have thought that the industrial might and know-how of America could have come up with better configurations than the Lee/Grant and the Sherman! The Brits are just as guilty of ignoring salutory lessons. The British did not produce an effective tank-killer until the Centurion appeared, the Firefly being a stop-gap hybrid with a high profile which made for a good target.

I know, I know, 50/50 hindsight!

But the Germans considered a straight copy of the T34 when it appeared, and based the Panther's good looks on it. The Brits could have done the same, and produced a capable tank-killer if they had not been so pressed to produce tanks yesterday!

I still say that the initial Shermans were capable of attacking objectives well when used in echelon, giving each other the kind of support that that deployment will afford. However, they made great targets ( despite their intended role ) and they were liable to cook-up easily.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by MoMo

Yea, Guys, but with Christie being an American ( a prophet in his own country...... ) and the lessons of the early stages of the conflict available, you'd have thought that the industrial might and know-how of America could have come up with better configurations than the Lee/Grant and the Sherman!

The Sherman did what it was intended to do. It was not intended to stand toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers.

The Sherman tank was fast and maneuverable, mechanically reliable, easy to manufacture and service, and produced in many special-purpose variants, whose capabilities differed greatly. The US Army required the Sherman not to exceed certain widths and weights to permit it to use a wide variety of bridge, road and rail travel for predicted strategic, logistical and tactical flexibility. The Sherman had good speed both on- and off-road.

When the Sherman first saw combat in 1942, its 75 mm could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges. It could handle the Panzer IV, but not the later Panthers and Tigers.

[MoMo]

When the Sherman first saw combat in 1942, its 75 mm could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges. It could handle the Panzer IV, but not the later Panthers and Tigers.

or the later MK lVs??

[Aircrafty]

I agree that the Sherman was a good tank in 1942, but it's design was soon overtaken by later designs and the US had NO excuse for not producing a more suitable tank by D-Day. I've read all the usuall guff on tank doctrine, ease of manufacture, transportability etc etc. However the simple fact is that the Sherman was a death trap in later war years and those that allowed its use to continue against heavier tanks such as Tigers etc should be horse whipped.

The Sherman fully deserves do be listed in the 10 worse tanks, should be No 1 imo.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by MoMo

or the later MK lVs??

The later MkIVs ( H/J) were no better than the F2 / G seen in North Africa. A slightly different gun was it between these models. It was more a case of deleting some of the extra (costly) thrills to get tanks made faster. They were still the same basic tank that invaded Poland in 1939, with a few extras. And the bolted hull construction made for the great pictures showing them and their variants ripped apart after internal explosions.
As for the height of the Sherman over the Tiger I and King Tiger, I submit the following: