Least successful WW2 tank?

you can't go on what a tank did later in the war, as opposed to when they built it. the T-34 was the best tank in its day IMHO. my pick: someone said something about the m22 locust, forget that, what about its predecessor, the light tank mk VII purdah/tetrarch.

J-Hulk, I'm jealous. As much of a hard time as that kit gave me I've become smitten with the little guys. In fact I've started looking into alot of these smaller tanks and wonder what was anyone thinking when they took steel, guns and tracks to come up with these designs. I think that as unsuccessful as it may have been it (japanese armor) served its purpose for the time. As I said, the chinese had what? US, British, Dutch and French forces had what for armor in the Pacific? The Japanese just picked a fight with the wrong kid in the schoolyard. (Only a fool brings a stick to a gun fight). I think they only became unsuccessful once the allies brought their armor to play and supeior firepower to bear. (They chose....poorly.)

As for some of the German monsters that were used they had their points. How many Sherman crews went looking for a fight with a Tiger, Panther, Elefant or Stug? Psycologicly I think they were almost as successful as the guns in them were intended. What cities would have resisted had the Germans brought a battery of RR guns to bear? Even today we are carrying on military actions based upon spotty intelligence and information. The psycological effect of weapons or the perceived threat they carry can be just as damaging.

With warfare comes a technological evolution whos proginy render "unsuccessful" their progenetors. I am sure cavalry felt awfully bent at the advent of air warfare and the strategic and tactical importance of motorized cav. History has made this lesson painfully evident. The armored knight to the archer, to gunpowder to the machine gun to the missile. Each generational improvement rendering its predecessor unsuccessful.

Rub a 97 for me.

Mike

Hi, Mike!

I'll be sure to give a 97 a good rub for ya (hope I don't break something!)

Good points about the psychology of warfare.

I was talking about the topic of weak Japanese armor with my club buddies here (they're all Japanese). I asked why, with the size and might of ships like the Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano, and great aircraft designs like the Zero, Hayate, and Raiden, why oh why was the armor so pathetically weak? The main answer: Japan, as a sea-going Island nation, thought land power was unimportant and focused it's attentions on the Navy and aircraft (Navy and Army. There was no separate air force). They had had plenty of success with what they had in Manchuria and other places, facing weak enemies with minimal weapons, so they never felt the urgency for tougher armor.

Another interesting point was that within the Japanese military, there was fierce and sometimes violent infighting, with the Navy, Army and aviation interests all going behind each other's backs (or right in each other's faces) to treacherously get funding and appropriation for their respective groups. There are even stories about skirmishes erupting if Navy officials showed up at an Army facility!
The army (aviation notwithstanding) always lost out in these appropriations battles, I'm told. Thus, the poor army crews were lucky to get the equipment they did!

To this day, based on conversations I've had with JGSDF personnel, the army still gets the short end of the stick. These days, it's the Koku Jieitai that gets the funding and appropriations.
Not hard to believe when you realize Japan's most prevalent MBT is still the Type 74 (designed in the 60's) while the Koku Jietai is flying Mitsubishi-built F-15s and the new semi-indigenous F-2A (based on the F-16).

The Type 90 MBT is a world-class modern MBT, to be sure, but they do not have many of them.

hmmmm........ wonder why. the type 90 has a very slow production rate and is the most expensive tank in the world.

‘Success’ depends upon a lot of factors. Each vehicle was designed to fulfill a need of its using nation. For example, even though the M22 was used in a limited combat role by the British, it was designed to be glider transportable and in that since, it was a success; even though the US Army didn’t employ it. Under gunned, thin skinned and poorly powered? Certainly, but what airborne infantryman is going to turn down armor support, even in the form of an M22? Not many I’d guess.
Also, each vehicle had its shortcomings. The Sherman was known for being thin skinned, but I challenge anyone to find a WWII tank that was more of a pleasure to operate (as far as standard transmissions and size goes). Ease in operation results in a crew that’s more rested and ready for battle. For example, the T-34 is a bear to drive and its backless turret seats mean that the gunner has to not only operate the turret, but hold on to something or stand up, resulting in battle fatigue. The Tiger II was easy to drive (no haven’t driven that one), but it was too heavy to go many places... otherwise it was a good tank, except for its limitations in maneuver. The Churchill? Good tank until you went to maintain the engine. A tank in maintenance is one less in battle.
So, do you see where I’m going with this? If the tank fulfilled (or was able to fulfill, if not deployed) the role it was designed for, it was a ‘success’... some were just more successful than others! Also, it’s difficult to choose a ‘worse design’ as we’re looking back over 60 years at the event and although an M13/40 or Chi-Ha might look like junk to us now, they may have fulfilled the role they were designed for prior to being ‘outgunned’.
Worse tank of WWII? TOG II (The Old Gang 2) by the British.... they should’ve known better than to throw developmental money away on a trench crossing tank!

2 cents given.

Regards all!

Ron.