Ugliest tank of WW II?

I liked the Churchills, too. They look like proper tanks. Very conventional. I think the ugly ones were the frail looking fellows, like the M3 Stuarts, and even the Sherman. Panzer 1's, too. Doesn't stop me wanting to make models of them. I like weird and ugly.

Matt

QUOTE: Originally posted by tigerman Everything I have read about the French tanks is that they were mechanically faulty.

So were the german tanks, I am a huge Tiger fan but it is a fact that the germans lost more tigers due too mechanical break down than to enemy fire.
the ugliest...... 15 cm sig33 Pz.Kpfw 1, what were they thinking mounting a towed artilery piece on top of a tank

QUOTE: Originally posted by monrad So were the german tanks, I am a huge Tiger fan but it is a fact that the germans lost more tigers due too mechanical break down than to enemy fire. the ugliest...... 15 cm sig33 Pz.Kpfw 1, what were they thinking mounting a towed artilery piece on top of a tank

Any tank will break down if it is not given the required maintenance halts. The heaviest German tanks were underpowered, and so needed fairly regular halts, but this was often simply neglected by the higher command -- particularly the SS higher command, who had many of the Tiger battalions under their command.

There were often furious arguments between the Tiger battalion commanders and the SS generals on this subject. The SS men wanted the Tigers here and there, doing this and that --always with the vaunted aggressiveness -- but it was the unit commanders -- often Wehrmacht men, by the way -- who actually saw the Tigers falling out of column immobilized, useless as a result. More Tigers were lost to misuse by the higher command than to combat casualties.

When the Tigers got regular maintenance halts, they performed fairly reliably - Jentz and Doyle even say that it was about as reliable as the Sherman when it got regular maintenance. They were like any machine -- most useful when employed with an eye toward their best utility. The revision of the Tiger's reputation is much needed, but it goes a little too far sometimes.

Lets see..May 9 ,1940 ...the French invasion Germany had 627 Mark IIIs and IVs, the remaining 2,060tanks with the exception of 381 Czech 38ts . The rest was Mark 1 and 2s and out of the many 25% were lost to mechanical failure. is this true or not.

Another ugly tank french Char B
Ter

If I'm correct, the Mk III and IV were basically the German equivalants of the Sherman in terms of reliability and were well liked by their crews. The heavier German tanks did seem to have more mechanical problems then the III's and IV's, primarily as stated by Larry, were often underpowered.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Larry_Dunn Any tank will break down if it is not given the required maintenance halts. The heaviest German tanks were underpowered, and so needed fairly regular halts When the Tigers got regular maintenance halts, they performed fairly reliably - Jentz and Doyle even say that it was about as reliable as the Sherman when it got regular maintenance. They were like any machine -- most useful when employed with an eye toward their best utility. The revision of the Tiger's reputation is much needed, but it goes a little too far sometimes.

I totally agree with you Larry, I just didn't have the time to write such a long reply.
By the way I' ve got all of Jentz and Doyle' s books and they are great. I' ve also got the book "the combat history of schwere panzerabteilung 503"
and the issues that you rise are made painfully clear in this book. Its written by former members of the unit.

My mother-inlaw was alive in WW II, she is ugly and if you saw her, you would say "yes, she's a tank!" So she gets my vote.

I dont believe there were any ugly tanks, innefective ones of course but no ugly ones.I would rather build the ugliest tank in the world than none at all.

Oh, I dunno Tigerman. The Italians built some pretty horrendous machines.......

Everything is ugly when sitting next to a......... Tiger I

Ter