Failed Tanks

collegeboy16 wrote:what, nobody mentioned FCS MCS? basically their take on the russian sprut-sd. major problem tho, is that its meant to slug against frontline units, not unlike an abrams mbt wheras the sprut would be for that odd armor encountered deep behind enemy lines. mobility is not as good as the sprut too- non airdroppable and non amphibous. not only that, they rely a lot on APS to save the day

Well it was not produced so you can take it out of the running.

Brovich wrote:
Well it was not produced so you can take it out of the running.

fair enough, apart from it most of fail tanks that come to my mind were already mentioned.

I will have to vote for Fiat M15/42.



It came so late, and was so obsolete compared to the rest of WW2 tanks that its just funny.

In all aspects except for it's very impressive looks, T-35.

But into the realms of "what if", then if WWIII occured before 1980s, perhaps Leopard 1, including up to A4 version, as I think it would have struggled against even the T-72M1 of NVA, and of course been brushed aside with impunity by GSFG T-72B, T-64 and then T-80 in the later 1970s.

Japanese Type 1 and Type 3 tanks - both obsolete by the time they entered service

AMX30, in the respect that the tankers knew they were one and done for most hits, from most threats. Until the B2 upgrade came along. 20mm Co-ax being a nightmare in combat adds some more flavour.

In all aspects except for it's very impressive looks, T-35.

To be fair there are distinct trends in tank design from the first lozenge shape to the roof mounted turret.

When the T-35 was developed multi turreted tanks were normal because to combine the the anti personel HE power with anti armour capacity of the time you needed different weapons... a short snub barrel 76.2mm gun for HE fire power and a high velocity 37mm gun for anti armour use... there was little chance of getting them all into one turret so the top 360 degree 76.2mm turret plus four turrets placed around it with 37mm and later 45mm anti armour guns in one diagonal and machineguns in the other diagonal was standard practise... the British came up with very similar designs when facing the same problem but had no money to actually make any. So many turrets meant a large crew and a huge vehicle with relatively thin armour.

The S-100 reduced it down to two turrets and the KV-1 to one.

^

Oh I know it was a tank of it's times and there were other monstrosities, the "Independent" I have seen. What I base my assessment on is it's war record, which is the worst probably of any tank ever to see combat.

Of the 61 T-35 in existence in June 1941, 8 were at training establishments, 5 were undergoing capital repair, and the remaining 48 were with 8th Mechanised Corps.

Only one tank from 8th Mechanised Corps survived and the fate of the 47 is so:
6 in combat
4 accidents, 2 fell off bridges and 2 bogged down
8 unfit for service at the beginning of hostilities due to existing mechanical defects
29 due to mechanical failure during the course of hostilities

It was not liked by it's crew due to being extremely cramped inside, difficult to get in and out of, and when the crew had to evacuate, because the tank was so high they were sitting ducks for MG fire, but T-35 is not alone in this aspect. It was badly designed, it's excessive length to width ratio made it difficult to steer, tracked vehicles in perfect world would be as wide as they are long, but of course that is not realistically possible. It was also badly constructed. There were of course other bad tanks in other armies, but loosing all but one of those in frontline service, and mostly due to defects, is terrible. But, apart from effect on the guys who were inflicted with this nightmare, it was totally of no consequence in the bigger picture of what was happening.

The JagdTiger and King Tiger both Tanks were a nightmare to maintain constantly breaking down due to being under powered with a Engine designed for the 45 ton Panther put in tanks that weighed 70 and 72 tons .. more tanks were lost to break downs than being knocked out by the enemy ... yes they had amazing firepower at that time period
at the start of WW2 the UK had a whole series of shocking designs like the Matilda, the cruiser tanks, whippets etc

runaway wrote:There is some interesting videos on youtube on falied tanks, they show for example:

T-62
IS3
M114
M60A2
Arjun
M1


Which is the most failed tank by your opinion?

My vote would go to the M114, though its a APC, it was a horrible effort of an effective APC. On tanks, maybe M60A2, altough the only bad thing was the turret and main weapon.
Perhaps the T-62? The T-55 with HVAPFSDS took away the only advantage of the T-62 with its 115mm gun.
The M1? The most overrated and costly tank of today, no tanks from 1980´s are in service.
IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun.
Arjun? Doesnt seem even the Indians want to buy their own tank.

There maybe are some else failed tank out there?

the problem with the Arjun is the Indians don't have the infrastructure to support the tank it can only be fielded in limited areas of India ... it weighs 60 tons and the MK 2 weighs 68 tons and it costs nearly $9 million per tank ... it's basically a Indian built Leopard 2A4 ... on paper the Arjun2 is a very decent tank it's handicapped by the fact Indian transport infrastructure is not capable of supporting the tank

Not failed but heavily over rated... the Sherman tank was big with poorly sloped armour with a pathetic gun that was introduced at a time when it should have been much better than it was.

Regarding WWII here is an article with the worst tanks

http://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.gr/2016/01/the-10-worst-tanks-of-second-world-war.html


From modern era tanks i would say Arjun because its a 3rd gen tank and delays and other problems have made it not so effective for the modern era

I have the craziness to know about T90. Which anti missile can destroy it. How many we need to spend to fire 1 round.

Militarov wrote:
It came so late, and was so obsolete compared to the rest of WW2 tanks that its just funny.

Not so funny for the crews roasted inside the "self propelled coffin." On one occasion--El Gubi late '41--it actually may have performed well though. The 47mm gun wasn't so bad.

cracker wrote:
T-62 was fine and needed, as the AFPSDS for T-55 came only in the 70s and 80s, T-62 was the main tool of power in the 60s and 70s, with T-64 also.

Historically, in actual combat, it didn't do well in the 1973 war, or the 1991 gulf war. The Israelis slaughtered T-62s of Egypt's 25th brigade, and the Marines destroyed hundreds without suffering a hit, let alone a loss. But that was mainly the fault of arab crews and officers not the tank itself.

Stumbled across this thread whilst wandering through forum after dinner and some good wine. Wow. Reading some of the earlier posts in interesting. Being a bit of a history buff and also having a hobby that often involves extensive research of individual tanks, it's an interesting read.

As a start, from reading part of this thread the fetish about top speed is just that, a fetish. Real operations of any tank will mostly be 'off road', ergo not much more than walking speed in most European Theater areas of combat. One can not go bucketing across the steppes or lowlands at speed without having done a thorough recon of the expected AO and even then no crew had the time to inspect in clinical detail the land they would fight over. One unseen gully or wash, and in combat tanks are buttoned up and essentially blind, and in you go face first and you are then in a world of hurt.

If you want a good history of both the Tiger E and Tiger B plus Jagdtiger, read 'Tigers in Combat' no's 1, 2 and 3. Written with extensive interviews of the crews and commanders.

Panther models D, A and G were good enough to continue in service in France until the mid 50's. Panzer 4 models H and J were still in service as of the '67 war in the ME as were Shermans and T34/85's.

T-34/76 and T34/85 are still in service today in admittedly backwater countries by today's standards but they still serve.

And a truism. Even the first versions of T34/76 or Panzer 4 A will kill you just as dead as the Armata or Abrams if you don't know how to kill them and the means to do so.

Final truism. If you don't have experience with the wet chernozim of the Russian steppes, you have never seen mud.

I recently came across a topic on another forum that suggested that the creator of the "failed tanks" videos "bliacktaildefence" is infact a furry, I have unfortunately not been able to verify this as I lack the required NBC cleanup equipment to decontaminate my computer. If anyone else has the required equipment or is willing to sacrifice themselves in order to bring down this vermin I am sure we would all be grateful.

Anyway assuming that blacktail is indeed a furry, this is sufficient evidence to allow us to disregard everything he has ever claimed as total bullshit.

What is a furry?