Least successful WW2 tank?

As far as tanks that made it into battle, I'd lean towards the Elefant / Ferdinand design. Too complex, too costly, and underprotected. Big, semi mobile, steel bunker that couldn't protect itself from close in attacks.

The trend toward super heavy tanks by the U.S., Britain and Germany was rather laughable too. The U.S. T-28, the British Tortoise, and the German Maus / E-Series are a prime example of designers run amok. Just where were they going to use these big beasts and better yet .... how were they going to get them there ?

M3 Lee/Grant:
It's main armament had very limited traverse and the secondary armament was completely inadequate for anything tougher than a truck. When the main armament could be brought to bear on armour targets there was a lot of vehicle exposed (as opposed to exposing turret only) and it was a large target.

The Italians M13/40. Under powered, poor armament, thin skinned, even the Ausies who captured some used and tossed them when the ammo ran out.

I will agree with shermanfreak, the designers did run wild toward then end of the war. Design a super tank that can kill an entire division all by it's self.
What ever drugs they were smoking that day, please pass around.

I agree with Shermanfreak, the Elefant/Ferdinand was a military blunder. There was a saying : What's the easiest way to put out an Elefant? Have another Elefant tow the broken down one." , or something to that effect. The Jadgtiger deserves some critisism as well. Overweight and terribly underpowered, it could only travel on paved roads and couldn't cross most of the bridges. How would all the later German designs of fared?

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

While few people would disagree that the Elefant/Ferdinand was a unsuccessful design; too costly, too heavy, underpowered, initial lack of a self-defense weapon, shortage of spare parts, etc., I think as much blame for it's lack of combat success can be attributed to how it was used. Throwing it untested into battle at Kursk in an assault role, it was easy prey for Soviet tank-killer teams with Molotov cocktails and anti-tank mines. The German commanders should have realized that the Elefant's lack of machine gun armament, slow speed, poor maneuverablity, easy approachability from the sides or rear made it totally unsuitable as a "Schwerepunkt" weapon. This realization would have relegated the Elefant to it's intended role as a semi-static, long range anti-tank gun. And few would argue the 88/L71's usefulness as a superlative anti-tank weapon.

Without a doubt the Elefant.

The Elefant

If we want to consider a poor design, lets look a tank that we built 830 of them and did not even use. This is the M22 Locust light tank. Despite an anticipated order for 1900, only 830 were built before production ended in February 1944. Of these 830, NONE of them were used operationally by the US Army. The only operational use were small numbers used by the British Army's 6th Airborne Division in the crossing of the Rhine in March 1945. To quote The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World; "In general, tanks are considered to combine firepower, protection and mobility to produce a fighting machine, and in practice a shortcoming in one particular factor may be offset by a superiority in another. The unfortunate Locust possessed none of these vital attributes." "the Locust had very thin armour, which could be defeated by the .5in AP round, and by the standards of 1945 it was underpowered and undergunned." Now, for all of you dissing the Elefant, at least it was well armoured and had tremendous firepower, it's major weaknesses were lack of mobility and no machine gun. At least the Elefant was used in combat, and despite it's tactical misusage, if utilized in it's INTENDED ROLE, (you folks are missing this point, see original post), it could decimate it's enemy at ranges far beyond their ability to retaliate. The unused, undergunned, underpowered and underarmoured Locust didn't do much of anything. The fact that we built 830 of them and then gave them to the British to die in, should underscore the utter uselessness of this vehicle.

QUOTE: Instead, what I ask, is which tank of ww2 failed miserably in the roll the designers had for it?

In light of this I have to agree with leopold's assesment of the Elefant, although I stick my choice of M3.

My picks are:

1.) The Cruiser Tanks.
Cruiser Mark 1 : By 1940's standards, protection was poor
and the main armament was weak. All tanks sent to France
were lost in battle.
Cruiser Mark 2 : Lacked strong armor for close support and
too slow to be a Cruiser tank.
Cruiser Mark 3 & 4: Armor is too light and 2-pounder gun
not good enough to defeat German tanks. Liberty engine
not reliable.
Cruiser Mark 5 : Rushed into production with about 1700
units built. Radiator problems. Never sent to battle.

2.) T-35 - Too big but with thin armor. Very difficult to manuever
Armament looks impressive but cannot fire accurately in
motion. It has very limited range. Many were lost in campaign
against Finland, other captured without fuel.

Strange no one mentioned the French tanks that on paper were superior to the German panzers in 1939-40 but in the end were captured without much of a fight. These were relegated to rear areas and constablatory duties. The Germans didn't even find them worthwhile to press into frontline combat.

As for the M3, it was developed as a stop gap tank when the Army realized a 37mm anti-tank gun was inadequate and hadn't yet developed the technology for a turret large enough for a 75mm main gun. When it first hit the North African terrain, it was the most heavily armed tank. The Tiger and later variant PzKpfw IV weren't there yet.

You're right Rob, on paper, French tanks were superior to German panzers of the time, but they suffered from two fatal weaknesses, piecemeal deployment and the fact that most had one-man turrets. French combat doctrine relegated tanks to the infantry support role and deployed them singularly or in pairs. The French tanks, though superior in armour and fire-power, were overwhelmed by German armour used en masse. This was a failure in tactics more than one of design intent, since these tanks were basically designed for the infantry support role. The use of one-man turrets however, was a grave design error. By forcing the commander to direct the tanks movement, target selection, loading, aiming, and firing the gun, this severely over-taxed the commander and limited his combat performance. In this respect, tanks like the Renault R-35, the Char B1, the Hotchkiss H-35, and the Somua S-35 all suffered from this fatal design error.

Leopold you have some good points about the Ferdinand, but it wasn't designed to be a defensive weapon, it was suppossed to be the battering ram to crash through the thick Russian defenses at Kursk. In thus failed miserably in its intended role. In answering AttackDonuts question of worst tank design for its intended role, it would be hard to argue against the Ferdinand/Elefant.

The Elefant wasn't designed to be a defensive weapon? Sorry, but the Elefant isn't even a main battle tank, it is a Tank Destroyer, that is why it is called the "Jagdpanzer Elefant", that is why it was deployed in Schwere Panzer Jager Abteilung 653 and 654, together which formed Panzer Jager Regiment 656. And that is why it doesn't have a turret, just like the Marders, the Hetzer, the Nashorn, the panzerjager IV, Dicker Max, the Jagdpanther and the Jagdtiger. Porsche wasn't stupid and just forgot to add a machine gun, the Elefant didn't have one because it's designers didn't think it needed one, if it was used IN IT'S INTENDED ROLE. Remember, the Nashorn didn't have a machine gun either, for the same reason. You are confusing the design intentions of the Elefant with it's actual combat use. The Elefant was not designed to "crash through the thick Russian defenses at Kursk", but that is how it was used by the field commanders, most likely on Hitler's insistence. The Elefant was designed to be used as a long range Tank Destroyer, not a main battle tank. Will some please verify this point before I have to get indignant here.

Didn't mean to strike a chord Leopold. I agree that it was a tank hunter with arguably the best anti-tank gun of the war and it was used out of position at Kursk. Much can be said of how the Tiger I was used poorly outside of Leningrad during its baptism on the Eastern Front. It's late and I see I have some research to do on the Elefant so I don't look so stupid next time.

It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

Sorry, didn't mean to get so huffy, but this exact topic is a major point of contention with me. There is no doubt that the Elefant was an unsuccessful design. If you look at my original post, that is precisely what I said. It was too heavy, too costly, used too much scarce copper in the electric motors, initially lacked a machine gun for close support, lacked spare parts, had poor visibility, was very slow, underpowered, the list goes on and on. BUT, contrary to popular belief, the Elefant was not a total loser. Lets take a look at the actual combat statistics: Schwere Panzer Jager Regiment 656, commanded by Oberstleutnant Ernst Von Jungenfeldt, comprised of 89 total Elefants in s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 and 654, this was joined with 42 Brumbars of Sturmpanzer Abteilung 216 and deployed on the northern flank of the Kursk salient in July 1943. By July 27th, 656 Regiment had accounted for 502 Soviet tanks, 100 artillery pieces and 20 antitank guns destroyed. After operation Citadel was called off on July 13th, s.Pz.Jg.Abt. 653 alone had destroyed 320 Soviet tanks with the loss of 13 Elefants with 24 crew members killed or missing. These are not the combat statistics of a loser weapon system. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a unit with better. So, may I suggest that all of you Elefant bashers might consider rethinking your position in light of the actual combat statistics, instead of popular misconception.

I agree with leopold on this one. The Ferdi was a bit of a disappointment at Kursk, but served its troops well in Italy. I forget the stats, but there is some website that lists the combat victories. For some 60 or so vehicles that remained to be converted into Elefants, there were some impressive numbers. Lets not forget too that these vehicles were supposed to be Tiger tanks, and not tank killers. There were some 80 or so unfinished Tiger tanks that were converted to Ferdis. I would say that it was quite a successful “jerry rig”

As far as the most “unsuccessful”, the Italians, and the French both got their butts kicked in their tanks, but I don’t know much about either countries armor to be more specific.

Speaking of Leopold though, Germany’s big guns really didn’t help much. In fact I would venture to say they hurt Germany in the long run. A LOT of resources were used for something that didn’t make much more than a psychological impact on the battle field.

Edog, there is little argument that the Germans wasted a lot of material and manpower toying around with monsterous weapons with little or no tactical success to warrant such huge expenditures. Dora is a prime example. Weighing in at 1350 tons, a total support staff of 3870 men, (the firing crew alone was 350 men), all to fire a total of 48 shells on 7 targets. The Maus, the E-100, the Sturmtiger, the Jagdtiger, these were all ponderous weapons with little hope of changing the course of the war. Even the mighty V-2 barely rang up 1 casualty per rocket fired,(dividing the number killed by the number fired), a pretty poor return on the Deutschmark by any standard. And then there was the Atlantic Wall, the world's biggest money pit. Surely, the Germans would have faired much better if they had concentrated production on a few proven designs, than squander their resources on a myriad of dead-end behemoths. If you mean big guns in the sense of the aforementioned, no problem, if you mean big guns in the sense of the 88mm-L/56 or 71, I think I would have to disagree, You could not find a more finely engineered, harder hitting and more accurate group of weapons as a whole. There is a reason that the Abrams runs around with a Rheinmettal designed gun.

Yikes, what a hot topic![:0]

I don't have the courage to claim to know what the designers had in mind for any particular vehicle, so this is kind of a tough Q to answer...but the poor ol' Japanese Type 97 Chi-ha sure had a time of it against Shermans and Lees and even Stuarts in the Pacific. Everything I've read about the Chi-ha in Japanese praises the the courage of the hapless crews who threw their undergunned, underarmored steeds headlong towards certain destruction against the vastly superior Allied armor.

So, against other armor, the Type 97 was entirely unsuccessful.

In the infantry support role against forces lacking armor, however, it was effective.

Now, what exactly the designers had in mind for the the li'l Chi-ha, I don't know!

In principle, however, since the axis powers lost the war, I suppose you could name any axis vehicle as "least successful!"

They were all designed to win a war, which, of course, they didn't.

I know, I know, it wasn't the TANK'S fault!!

Leopold, its obvious you have some good information on the Elefant. Everything I've read about (apparently not enough) says that it was easily seperated from the infantry and picked off. Your information proves quite a different story. I just got Dragon's Elefant and would like to know more about it before I build it. If you have any good books or otherwise to reccomend, I'd appreciate it.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

If you really want the low-down on the Elefant/Ferdinand, get ready to drop $102 each for the Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and it's sister book, 654. These massive books, each with over 600 pages and 700+ photos, 400 of the Elefant alone, are the last word when it comes to these units, their weapons and tactics. They are from the J J Fedorowicz Publishing Company. The book Jagdtiger, the world's most powerful fighting vehicle of World War II, volume 2, operational history, also has a brief overview of these units, including the use of Elefants, prior to their rearming with Jagdtigers. This book is a bit more modest at $50. I have several others I could recommend if you are interested.

Yikes to that first book. [:0] Any of the Schiffer books any good? There are plenty at my LHS. I've heard that the Jadgtiger had some active role in the Battle of the Bulge. Any truth to that? Since not too many were produced, do you have any quick info on them? Thanks.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

leopold, I was talking about the weapons like the Morser Karl, the Leopold, and the Dora gun. Pretty much any gun that takes an entire train or more to move is included in my previous statement. These guns were a huge waist of resources.

Just a note about the 88 though: any gun that can be used one minute as an AA weapon, then switched to an antitank role, then used as close infantry support, and then used to fire artillery on enemy positions has got my vote for BEST weapon of WWII. I’m talking about the 88mm pak 36/37. There is a reason the German 88mm was respected so…

Not much in the Schiffer line-up other than; Elefant - Jagdtiger - Sturmtiger - Variations of the Tiger Family. This book is very much like the Squadron "In Action" series, 48 pages, lots of photos with little text. OK if you just want some photos. Concord Publishing has a new book out called; Panzers In Italy 1943-1945 (Concord/T.Cockle). 72 pages, 180B/W photos, 8 color profiles (including an Elefant) for $17. This isn't going to help you if you are building a Kursk vehicle, since they were refitted after Kursk with a MG 34, new cupola, etc. I don't have this title yet, but I do have several other Concord books and they are a good value for the money. Squadron's old Panzerjager in Action has only 4 photos of Elefants, 3 of which are from Aberdeen and one from Italy. Steven Zaloga's Eastern Front, Armour Camouflage and Markings, 1941 to 1945 has only 1 photo of a knocked-out Elephant, but it is a Kursk one. I sure there are others I'm not remembering at this time. As for Jagdtigers in the Battle of the Buldge, numerous rumors abound, but hear again, popular myth exceeds reality. I will brush aside all hearsay and quote Andrew Devey, author of: Jagdtiger, The Most Powerful Armoured Fighting Vehicle of World War II, volume 2, page 189. "The evidence is conclusive. According to the testimony of surviving members of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653, Jagdtigers were not used in the "Wacht Am Rhein." "Recorded evidence states: Only one Jagdtiger had be lost in action prior to 15 March 1945. This was at Rimling (Alsace) on 9 January 1945, an area that remained in German hands until late February. Aditionally all Jagdtigers issued for training and testing during this period are accounted for." The closest they got was the Eiffel area where they detrained and were driven into the woods, but they did not receive any orders to go into action in the Ardennes. So, sorry guys, no Jagdtigers in your Battle of the Bulge dioramas.

Edog, While railroad guns have gone the way of the typewriter and the dial telephone, in their time, they too were not without their merits. Sure, here again we have the huge material expenditures, manpower, susceptibility to sabotage, air raids, capture, limited target area and need for elaborate preparations for firing, just to name a few problems. But do you know that the US built more railroad guns than the Germans did? In 1944 alone, the US built 450 railroad guns and other than a few practice rounds, I doubt any of them ever fired a shot in anger. Between 1914 and 1945 railroad guns formed a mobile reserve of very heavy artillery for most of the European armies. My moniker "Leopold" and his brother "Robert", "Shelled the Anzio beachhead unmercifully for weeks, inflicting heavy losses in men and material and it's hiding place in a railroad tunnel proved an effective and safe cover." That said, the downside: "Railroad guns never were capable of being used in a strictly tactical sense since they were too large and their design was intended for strategic use. They had only a small role in deciding the outcome of any campaigns or battles even though they were capable of great destruction. Nonetheless, these guns- especially the later advanced types such as the K12 and the K5- were very well thought out designs able to deliver heavy shells accurately over very great distances, which is the primary mission of long range artillery."-Railroad Guns in Action. So, were railroad guns a huge expenditure of men and materials? Sure. Were they a total waste of time? For the US? Sure, we never used them. For the Germans, probably so, they could have spent their effort on things like more aircraft, tanks, subs, etc.

Well I hope you didn’t get me wrong leopold. While the German RR guns of WWII were truly awesome, my point was that they did not help the Germans in any tactical sense. A RR gun could get off a couple of shots before having to retreat back into a tunnel for fear of an Allied air assault. They inflicted very few casualties for all the manpower they demanded, and they were very expensive to produce. Imagine if all those resources had been poured into making the Me 262!!

LOL, I think leopold likes to argue, seems like he has been playing devils advocate for this whole thread. Or perhaps educating us would be a better way to put it.

Edog, Most of the German RR guns were designed to shell major fortifications like the Maginot Line. Most were not completed in time to do so. When the Fallschirmjagers landed behind the Maginot and the panzers drove around it, the poor little RR guns were left with little to do. Yes, they were dinosaurs and doomed to extinction. They are more of a weapons oddity than anything else. But, like I said, RR guns served in most major European armies from 1914 to 1945, and even in the US. So, a whole lot of generals and politicians from a whole lot of different countries were convinced of a need of these type of weapons, including ours. Are you saying that your judgment of the need for these weapons is superior to all of theirs? Think about it, not from today's perspective, but from then. Certainly Germany could have better spent their time and money building other weapons, but at the time when these weapons were designed and production started, there was a PERCEIVED need for them. Weren't we even more stupid for building hundreds of RR guns, wasting our resources, manpower and time for weapons we never used? It's easy to sit back today and armchair QB the "What ifs" of 60 years ago. Hindsight IS 20/20. I'm not saying the Germans didn't make stupid decisions with their armaments, the record is full of them, but guns like Karl and Dora were designed for a specific job. It's not their fault that by the time they were built, they weren't needed. Do I like to argue? Maybe. Does someone need to play devil's advocate? Yes, just to keep people on their toes. Educating people, I don't know. I hope to shine some light into dark places were people might not see to well. Is this thread going off into the deep end from it's original topic? Certainly.

Well, once again leopold, I agree with you on all accounts. I will state however, Hitler and his generals fascination with excessively big guns was a huge waste of much needed resources. Yes, the RR gun was a dinosaur thought up by generals who predicted that the next war would be much like the last one, a trench war. Surprisingly enough, the Germans wrote the doctrine on modern, high speed, tank warfare. Why then did they bother with huge mammoths that could not be mobilized quickly?!?!?!?! BECAUSE THEY WERE COOL LOOKING. Yes, Hitler and some of his upper echelon thought that RR guns were cool. How else could you explain a weapon that had little place in a Blitzkrieg style of warfare??

The deep end, certainly….

Oh, would I have known better at the time?? No, probably not, but unlike Hitler, I would have listened to my career generals, and not some dip stick that was promoted because of his party affiliation and his willingness to kiss my… !

OK, There is no doubt that by the end of the war, Hitler was possessed by a facination with super-heavy and "miracle" weapons. Late war developments like the Maus, the Jagdtiger, the Sturmtiger, the V-1 and V-2 and others. But the design and development of weapons like Karl and Dora predate this period of hallucination and were ordered by the OKH, not Hitler. "Because they looked cool"? Come on, show me that in print somewhere. To quote German Heavy Mortars by Joachim Engelmann; "Requested by the OKH in 1937 to be used against heavily armored installations, the "Karl" became available to troops in 1939. Initial operations were against Brest-litovsk in 1941, then Sevastopol in 1942 and 1944 in Warsaw." As for Dora; "In 1935 the Oberkommando Heer (OKH), conducted tests to determine which calibers of artillery would be effective against the Maginot Line."-German Railroad guns in Action. Come on, don't just talk off the cuff, you need to quote someone other than yourself. Opinions are a dime a dozen if you don't have any references to back them up. I don't claim to be an expert on everything, but I can and do back-up my statements with verifiable references. If you guys want to play this game, you need to start backing your speculations with something more substantial than your opinion.