If you have the Covenanters, then you should have the slightly more successful Valentine. The Valentine is "Not quite right" writ large. It wasn't out and out bad, it was that every single thing was not quite there, and thus it was verging on useless. The only thing it was good at was crew comfort, I will give it that.
The Panzer 68: IIRC they actually wanted UK Centurions but there weren't enough available, and they didn't think Leopard 1, AMX 30 and M48 could meet their requirements. So they tried building their own. Eventually when the much improved Leopard 2 became available they were more than happy to purchase those instead.
The reason to build a domestic vehicle had already started with the more successful Panzer 61 that had preceded it. The idea was to credibly maintain Swiss neutrality by not relying on either the AFVs of a NATO member or of the Warsaw Pact. The problem? Lack of economy of SCALE. How many tanks did the Swiss Army NEED, anyway? Sort of the same issue that bedeviled Sweden, although they had better luck with their S-103 "tank" (many consider that vehicle, as it's a turretless design, to actually be a tank destroyer), which had specs that were well-tailored for the dense Swedish forests with their narrow, winding roads. Both Sweden and Switzerland replaced their domestic vehicles with the GERMAN Leopard II, which has become, by default, the "Europanzer".
@@skunknoodles6426 nope, it being able to blow its own turret off just proves it's pure Soviet excellence. He'd just have whoever designed the faulty turret/turret ring sent to a gulag and have someone else strengthen it so it could fire without damaging itself.
Guderian's dryly sarcastic response to the superheavy tank projects like the Maus was one of my favourite military quotes ever : "The fuhrer's fantasies occasionally shift into the gigantic." I'd personally debate putting the KV1 on the list: yes, it was slow and had a rubbish transmission, but it was virtually indestructible at the time (there was a famous case of a KV1 holding up the German advance for a full day all by itself) and all Russian tanks at the time had rubbish transmissions, even the T-34 (there's documented reports of Russian tank crews carrying entire spare transmissions on the back of their tanks, because it was a matter of when they failed, not if.) The KV2, though, fair enough. One problem with it that you didn't mention is that the gun was so heavy, you couldn't fire if the KV2 was on a slope, as the weight of the gun would pull the turret around until the gun was pointing into the ground. Also, I just want to mention the fact that I like your choice of the Advance Wars Days of Ruin soundtrack as background music.
@@neilharbott8394 18 hours to scout ahead By the time they wait for the Maus to complete its repair, the Red Army already arrived and smashed those infantries, and then the Red Air Force with their Il-2s would obliterate the Maus into nothing
"Through the river and over the woods / to uncle Joe's we go!" What Maus crews would have sung, if the Maus could move. And the snorkles worked as advertised. And they wern't in full retreat at this point. And IL-2s wern't raining hellfire on them. And alien space bats were helping. And ectcetera, ectectra...
I can't hear it very well behind the narration, but as all the other background tracks are commander themes from Advance Wars Days of Ruin, I believe that it's either the theme of Tasha or The Beast from that game.
@@jetseekers An exception can be made for Danton. Dantons were actually decent. The only real misfortune is that the HMS Dreadnought became a thing (ironically not that powerful for all that long, but was crucial for the major changes other countries made to battleship design philosophy).
1) KV tanks. Inherent problems of a new aluminum V-12 diesel engine, coupled with an already poor "crashbox" transmission that were intended for the T-34 tanks, which were 26 tons to the KV's 42. Having to use a hammer to work the gear shift does not make a vehicle driveable. Yes, these beasts had thick hides, but maneuvered poorly off-road, defeating much of the purpose of a tank, broke down readily. They also had the same main weapon as the T-34. Although they functioned well as a ROAD BLOCK that could shoot, they could do little else. But they were further developed into the JS series, which proved to be of some worth, particularly when the Soviet Army made it to Poland and then Germany, having decent roads to drive on. 2) "Lion of Babylon" - a "dumbed-down" version of the export version of the Soviet-made T-72, which were already considered "monkey models". To be fair, this was Iraq's first foray into building MBTs. The main issue wasn't the basic design, it was sound, but Iraq wasn't able to get the "Kontak-5" ERA kits that then-Warsaw Pact T-72s were being fitted with. They were also buying communications and navigation gear from the French and even India, and both countries outfits essentially screwed the Iraqis, terribly. Add to that, as the commentator pointed out, the generally poor training that most Iraqi armored units got, which was probably the greatest reason for the lopsided results of both Desert Storm and Iraqi freedom. Doesn't explain the utter "thumping" that the very-experienced and supposedly "elite" Talakawani "Republican Guard" armored division got at the famed Battle of 73 Easting. I'd say Iraqis biggest technical problem with their tanks was that they were outdated from the moment they left the factory, and the technology gap only widened until their fateful end. 3) Tiam - more a case of making do with what one has. Probably intended for more a second-tier role, but with export restrictions, Iran can't easily buy state-of-the-art MBTs. Yes, the M47 is a SEVENTY year-old design...AND? Sure, as they left the Detroit Arsenal in 1952 and 1953, a joke on any modern battlefield. Should be kept in mind that the M47 itself was the mating of an existing chassis (used on the M26/M46 tanks) with a newer turret, supposedly with better ballistic properties and a better ability for the vehicle to fire on the move, originally intended for another tank project that had been shelved. The Detroit Arsenal cranked out 8,000 of them in only 18 months (there was a genuine fear that the Korean conflict was simply presaging intended aggression on Stalin's part to go to war in Europe, and the relatively few M26 Pershings still there had already proved themselves wanting in their brief debut in Germany in March-May of 1945, and likewise in the hilly terrain of Korea, where the M4A3E8 proved far more suitable and took out far more Communist armor than did the "heavy"). Likewise, even when rapidly replaced by the better M48 and M60 MBTs in US Army service in the mid-1950s, and in the mid-1960s in most NATO countries, the M47s still proved useful in "second-tier" roles in the Spanish, Austrian, Italian, and Turkish armies, especially when upgraded with Continental diesel powerplants and M68 105 mm main weapons. Please credit Iran with at least putting together SOMETHING with resources on hand, it's not exactly a 21st-century "Bob Semple". 4) Panzer 68. Supposed to be a "bigger, badder" version of their somewhat successful Panzer 58/61 MBT, with added capability of being able to fire on the move. Switzerland had wanted to maintain independence in weapons production, including tanks, which explains why they simply didn't buy from elsewhere. That to both keep their 'neutrality' credible, and also to lessen reliance on foreign suppliers. The misfires, LITERALLY in the case of the main weapon, led to extensive investigations into corruption within the Swiss Army bureaucracy and the civilian government. Along with the obvious high cost of a limited production run, as the Panzer 61s and 68s never got any non-Swiss customers, this caused the Swiss to reconsider their "domestic only" policy with respect to MBTs, especially after the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had dissolved. Switzerland bought some Leopard IIs, which, for all practical purposes, has become the "Europanzer" long envisioned...even by HITLER. 5) Maus - although a textbook example of a poor AFV doctrine carried to a ridiculous extreme, I don't believe this uber-heavy vehicle belongs on this list for a simple reason: It never entered production. Only two prototypes were ever built, and of them, one functional vehicle was put to use to combat the Oder river bridgehead in April 1945. Else, it's a classic example of an absurd design arising out of essentially a POLITICAL objective, i.e., build another "Wunder Waffen" that hopefully will convince the German people, if not their opponents, that they are, as the fictional Oberst Martin Hessler proclaimed in the historically-questionable 1965 film, "Battle of the Bulge", that the "Germans are the world's best TOY makers". Even Hitler saw that the Maus was ridiculous and ordered further development to cease. That still didn't stop the proposed E-100 from the "Entwicklung" (development) series of the next generation of German AFVs, intended to simplify production and reduce costs, at 123 tons it'd have been the heaviest mass-produced tank to see combat. The Maus was but another example of why Germany badly lost the war of PRODUCTION: their passion for technical excellence led them to waste time and resources on vehicles which indeed might have been "better", but usually not incrementally better ENOUGH to justify themselves. The Inspector-General of the Panzerwaffe, Heinz Guderian, didn't even want the "Big Cats" (Tigers I and II and Panther, and their derivatives) at all, considering them to be wasteful of steel, manpower, and Reichsmarks, believing that the Panzer IV was all the AFV that the Germany Army needed...or at least could support.
The Iranian tank: If the Iranians don't have ammunition for the M47's 90mm gun and they do have ammunition for the Type 59's 100mm gun, it would be easier to swap out the entire turret, assuming the turret rings were close in size, than to just swap out the gun. Also I believe the 100mm gun does have better performance than the 90mm. While regime propaganda will talk it up like a super weapon, I'm sure that for their military it is just a case of making do with what they have.
The Asad Babil AKA the knockoff of an already watered down export model of the T-72M1. Enough that even last Gen Pattons and Chieftans could go up against it with the puss poor ammo the Ruskies gave them. Or bent over by the M-84 which is an export T-72 done right by Yugoslavia and exported to Kuwait
There's enough bad designs for a few more parts. Do you like the Patton tank? Then you certainly wouldn't like the M60A2 Starship due being the one version of Patton that's absolutely baffling. Japanese WW2 tanks were hardly all that good, but the Type 95 Ha-Go was exceptionally awful. Bad enough that Bob Semple can actually do something to it. Germany had to start somewhere in WW1, but the A7V was almost literally an armored box version of a tractor and had to be designed with ridiculous requirements. Panther (not KF51 Panther; which looks really promising) wasn't conceptually outrageous, but the end result was more plagued with issues than the larger Tiger 1. WW2 era T-34 was conceptually fine, but they really cut corners; especially by not heat treating parts that should have been heat treated and didn't bother with rubbers on the tank tires for the majority of them. Also, a transmission that was not forgiving to operate at higher speeds. At the least, the Cold War version had better quality control, was made larger, and more so overall decent.
"Maus" actually was shortened from its original name of "Maeuschen," or "little mouse." The name was very much a joke by the designers regarding its size and the late-war German predilection for naming armored vehicles after animals.
I think the Maus can be considered part of the "wonderweapons" or "revenge weapons" Germany made when they were losing the war but not yet totally encircled and they were just coming up with these ridiculous and weird weapon concepts to try and pull a hail mary that were sometimes ahead of their time on paper, but usually complete shit in practice. They are endlessly fascinating.
My favourite is not quite a "Wonder Weapon" - it came out a little earlier than that - but the Dornier Do335 "Pfeil" (also known as the "Vomit Comet" - don't know the translation into German) which did nearly everything asked of it, but also made its pilots violently ill!
With Maus I'd say that fording is a common practice for tanks, although the Maus would probably have a good chance to bog down. Also being so slow that the enemy can move away is not that much of a problem for a breakthrough tank as it's meant to attack static defenses head-on. If the enemy abandons the position then it fulfilled it's purpose. The real problem would be that it would be an easy target for the artillery IMO.
Bit for a question whats your personal thoughts on Japanese tanks late war that were planned in advance but due to wrong decisions and or internal conflicts lead to their lack of production till late into the war and how do they perform compare to their enemy counterpart.
I've abandoned...er ... finished building a model of the T100 Soviet dual turreted tank. I don't know if it belongs on the list of worst tanks... but it's on my list of worst MODELS I've built. Individual track links are bad enough... but to have most of the fenders on the tracks MOLDED on? Wonder if anyone's done a list of worst models?
KV-1....? You included KV-1 in this list?! The only failiure of that tank is more than horrible tactical use by Soviet army and actual mess of Soviet command in that time. It is the same as you would say that Tiger I is one of the worst tanks of that period of war. For the KV-2 it was made as support vehicle not as an actual tank (as they use them).... You don't know much about that subject, do you?
I don't know why I didn't think gas/electric tanks were a thing. Or diesel/electric. Seems like it'd be better for a high speed, lightwieght, sorta run&gun type tank.
Don’t bully the Maus and yes it is one of Heaviest tank in the world and yes it costed so much money. And yes it has the horsepower but not from the locomotives about around 1,200 horsepower. KVs are not bad because they are doing well in early of German invasion of Russia.
The Panzer VIII was called the Mammoth originally but was later renamed the Maus to confuse foreign spies about what it would be like.
No it was just german humor. Like naming your dog cat or your cat dog... or invading Russia without wintergear
@@Tomlar147 That makes it even better then
@@Tomlar147 Nah nah nah, German Humour be like "Mein Gott, its been 20 years, it's time to ruin Europe!"
Like clockwork. Every damn time.
"Mammut"...that'd at least have been FITTING.
@@acorr14 so true
Well the KV-1 wasn't that bad for what it was, it was mainly the KV-2 that was the giant let down
well, at least they weren't the Panther or Ferdinand/Elephant
@@generalhorse493 you mean the tank that is the profile picture and name of my TH-cam channel
@@panzerjagertigerporsche yes exactly
@@generalhorse493 at least the kv-2 delivers one shot kills
as a KV fan myself
whoever suggested the KVs as the worst tanks, your kinda right, but screw you
KV 1 was a good tank its the KV 2 that was trash
it did good for whats its supposed to do
heavy artillery@@gandalfer5439
In the event that we get a third installment of this, it might be worth covering the British Covenanter tank
If you have the Covenanters, then you should have the slightly more successful Valentine. The Valentine is "Not quite right" writ large. It wasn't out and out bad, it was that every single thing was not quite there, and thus it was verging on useless. The only thing it was good at was crew comfort, I will give it that.
The Panzer 68: IIRC they actually wanted UK Centurions but there weren't enough available, and they didn't think Leopard 1, AMX 30 and M48 could meet their requirements. So they tried building their own. Eventually when the much improved Leopard 2 became available they were more than happy to purchase those instead.
The reason to build a domestic vehicle had already started with the more successful Panzer 61 that had preceded it. The idea was to credibly maintain Swiss neutrality by not relying on either the AFVs of a NATO member or of the Warsaw Pact. The problem? Lack of economy of SCALE. How many tanks did the Swiss Army NEED, anyway? Sort of the same issue that bedeviled Sweden, although they had better luck with their S-103 "tank" (many consider that vehicle, as it's a turretless design, to actually be a tank destroyer), which had specs that were well-tailored for the dense Swedish forests with their narrow, winding roads. Both Sweden and Switzerland replaced their domestic vehicles with the GERMAN Leopard II, which has become, by default, the "Europanzer".
The ghost of Stalin will forever haunt you for speaking ill of the KV-2
I think Stalin would understand, seeing the KV-2 could blow its own turret off if shot wrong
@@skunknoodles6426 nope, it being able to blow its own turret off just proves it's pure Soviet excellence. He'd just have whoever designed the faulty turret/turret ring sent to a gulag and have someone else strengthen it so it could fire without damaging itself.
Using a sledgehammer to shift gears, sounds like something Clarkson would do if he had the chance to.
The Maus is what got me into tanks in the first place.
Guderian's dryly sarcastic response to the superheavy tank projects like the Maus was one of my favourite military quotes ever : "The fuhrer's fantasies occasionally shift into the gigantic."
I'd personally debate putting the KV1 on the list: yes, it was slow and had a rubbish transmission, but it was virtually indestructible at the time (there was a famous case of a KV1 holding up the German advance for a full day all by itself) and all Russian tanks at the time had rubbish transmissions, even the T-34 (there's documented reports of Russian tank crews carrying entire spare transmissions on the back of their tanks, because it was a matter of when they failed, not if.) The KV2, though, fair enough. One problem with it that you didn't mention is that the gun was so heavy, you couldn't fire if the KV2 was on a slope, as the weight of the gun would pull the turret around until the gun was pointing into the ground.
Also, I just want to mention the fact that I like your choice of the Advance Wars Days of Ruin soundtrack as background music.
Well an upside for the Maus - needs to cooperate with infantry, it's not like it can move fast enough to leave any infantry behind!!
Until your Maus got broke down, which could take even 18 hours to complete
@@Kalashnikov413 Well that gives the accompanying infantry time to scout ahead 😁
@@neilharbott8394 18 hours to scout ahead
By the time they wait for the Maus to complete its repair, the Red Army already arrived and smashed those infantries, and then the Red Air Force with their Il-2s would obliterate the Maus into nothing
@@Kalashnikov413 I'm pretty sure the Maus could break down in significantly less than 18 hours
@@MercenaryPen what i mean by 18 hours is to repairing it, i forgot to put that word there
"Through the river and over the woods / to uncle Joe's we go!" What Maus crews would have sung, if the Maus could move. And the snorkles worked as advertised. And they wern't in full retreat at this point. And IL-2s wern't raining hellfire on them. And alien space bats were helping. And ectcetera, ectectra...
How did you find out about "The Alien Space Bats"?
That is top secret.
what music did you use during the tiam section? it goes hard
I can't hear it very well behind the narration, but as all the other background tracks are commander themes from Advance Wars Days of Ruin, I believe that it's either the theme of Tasha or The Beast from that game.
Interesting video but a ship version will be gladly accepted
All of them are French Pre-Dreadnoughts :P
He has one
@@jetseekers I disagree, there needs to be room for the British K-class submarines on the list
@@MercenaryPen perhaps, but it's a "worst ships ever" list not a "worst ships and boats ever" list
@@jetseekers
An exception can be made for Danton. Dantons were actually decent. The only real misfortune is that the HMS Dreadnought became a thing (ironically not that powerful for all that long, but was crucial for the major changes other countries made to battleship design philosophy).
1) KV tanks. Inherent problems of a new aluminum V-12 diesel engine, coupled with an already poor "crashbox" transmission that were intended for the T-34 tanks, which were 26 tons to the KV's 42. Having to use a hammer to work the gear shift does not make a vehicle driveable. Yes, these beasts had thick hides, but maneuvered poorly off-road, defeating much of the purpose of a tank, broke down readily. They also had the same main weapon as the T-34. Although they functioned well as a ROAD BLOCK that could shoot, they could do little else. But they were further developed into the JS series, which proved to be of some worth, particularly when the Soviet Army made it to Poland and then Germany, having decent roads to drive on.
2) "Lion of Babylon" - a "dumbed-down" version of the export version of the Soviet-made T-72, which were already considered "monkey models". To be fair, this was Iraq's first foray into building MBTs. The main issue wasn't the basic design, it was sound, but Iraq wasn't able to get the "Kontak-5" ERA kits that then-Warsaw Pact T-72s were being fitted with. They were also buying communications and navigation gear from the French and even India, and both countries outfits essentially screwed the Iraqis, terribly. Add to that, as the commentator pointed out, the generally poor training that most Iraqi armored units got, which was probably the greatest reason for the lopsided results of both Desert Storm and Iraqi freedom. Doesn't explain the utter "thumping" that the very-experienced and supposedly "elite" Talakawani "Republican Guard" armored division got at the famed Battle of 73 Easting. I'd say Iraqis biggest technical problem with their tanks was that they were outdated from the moment they left the factory, and the technology gap only widened until their fateful end.
3) Tiam - more a case of making do with what one has. Probably intended for more a second-tier role, but with export restrictions, Iran can't easily buy state-of-the-art MBTs. Yes, the M47 is a SEVENTY year-old design...AND? Sure, as they left the Detroit Arsenal in 1952 and 1953, a joke on any modern battlefield. Should be kept in mind that the M47 itself was the mating of an existing chassis (used on the M26/M46 tanks) with a newer turret, supposedly with better ballistic properties and a better ability for the vehicle to fire on the move, originally intended for another tank project that had been shelved. The Detroit Arsenal cranked out 8,000 of them in only 18 months (there was a genuine fear that the Korean conflict was simply presaging intended aggression on Stalin's part to go to war in Europe, and the relatively few M26 Pershings still there had already proved themselves wanting in their brief debut in Germany in March-May of 1945, and likewise in the hilly terrain of Korea, where the M4A3E8 proved far more suitable and took out far more Communist armor than did the "heavy"). Likewise, even when rapidly replaced by the better M48 and M60 MBTs in US Army service in the mid-1950s, and in the mid-1960s in most NATO countries, the M47s still proved useful in "second-tier" roles in the Spanish, Austrian, Italian, and Turkish armies, especially when upgraded with Continental diesel powerplants and M68 105 mm main weapons. Please credit Iran with at least putting together SOMETHING with resources on hand, it's not exactly a 21st-century "Bob Semple".
4) Panzer 68. Supposed to be a "bigger, badder" version of their somewhat successful Panzer 58/61 MBT, with added capability of being able to fire on the move. Switzerland had wanted to maintain independence in weapons production, including tanks, which explains why they simply didn't buy from elsewhere. That to both keep their 'neutrality' credible, and also to lessen reliance on foreign suppliers. The misfires, LITERALLY in the case of the main weapon, led to extensive investigations into corruption within the Swiss Army bureaucracy and the civilian government. Along with the obvious high cost of a limited production run, as the Panzer 61s and 68s never got any non-Swiss customers, this caused the Swiss to reconsider their "domestic only" policy with respect to MBTs, especially after the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had dissolved. Switzerland bought some Leopard IIs, which, for all practical purposes, has become the "Europanzer" long envisioned...even by HITLER.
5) Maus - although a textbook example of a poor AFV doctrine carried to a ridiculous extreme, I don't believe this uber-heavy vehicle belongs on this list for a simple reason: It never entered production. Only two prototypes were ever built, and of them, one functional vehicle was put to use to combat the Oder river bridgehead in April 1945. Else, it's a classic example of an absurd design arising out of essentially a POLITICAL objective, i.e., build another "Wunder Waffen" that hopefully will convince the German people, if not their opponents, that they are, as the fictional Oberst Martin Hessler proclaimed in the historically-questionable 1965 film, "Battle of the Bulge", that the "Germans are the world's best TOY makers". Even Hitler saw that the Maus was ridiculous and ordered further development to cease. That still didn't stop the proposed E-100 from the "Entwicklung" (development) series of the next generation of German AFVs, intended to simplify production and reduce costs, at 123 tons it'd have been the heaviest mass-produced tank to see combat. The Maus was but another example of why Germany badly lost the war of PRODUCTION: their passion for technical excellence led them to waste time and resources on vehicles which indeed might have been "better", but usually not incrementally better ENOUGH to justify themselves. The Inspector-General of the Panzerwaffe, Heinz Guderian, didn't even want the "Big Cats" (Tigers I and II and Panther, and their derivatives) at all, considering them to be wasteful of steel, manpower, and Reichsmarks, believing that the Panzer IV was all the AFV that the Germany Army needed...or at least could support.
The Iranian tank: If the Iranians don't have ammunition for the M47's 90mm gun and they do have ammunition for the Type 59's 100mm gun, it would be easier to swap out the entire turret, assuming the turret rings were close in size, than to just swap out the gun. Also I believe the 100mm gun does have better performance than the 90mm. While regime propaganda will talk it up like a super weapon, I'm sure that for their military it is just a case of making do with what they have.
It has a 105mm gun, like late model T-59s.
Ah yes, I can smell the argument in the comments
The Asad Babil AKA the knockoff of an already watered down export model of the T-72M1. Enough that even last Gen Pattons and Chieftans could go up against it with the puss poor ammo the Ruskies gave them. Or bent over by the M-84 which is an export T-72 done right by Yugoslavia and exported to Kuwait
Well, just load them on flat cars behind the 5 worst locomotives ever, then send the whole lot to meet the scrapper’s torch. 😆
There's enough bad designs for a few more parts.
Do you like the Patton tank? Then you certainly wouldn't like the M60A2 Starship due being the one version of Patton that's absolutely baffling.
Japanese WW2 tanks were hardly all that good, but the Type 95 Ha-Go was exceptionally awful. Bad enough that Bob Semple can actually do something to it.
Germany had to start somewhere in WW1, but the A7V was almost literally an armored box version of a tractor and had to be designed with ridiculous requirements.
Panther (not KF51 Panther; which looks really promising) wasn't conceptually outrageous, but the end result was more plagued with issues than the larger Tiger 1.
WW2 era T-34 was conceptually fine, but they really cut corners; especially by not heat treating parts that should have been heat treated and didn't bother with rubbers on the tank tires for the majority of them. Also, a transmission that was not forgiving to operate at higher speeds. At the least, the Cold War version had better quality control, was made larger, and more so overall decent.
How the hell did i manage to miss this Video? TH-cam algorythms are weird sometimes😂
I'm loving the videos mate you have me hooked can you please make more Australian videos
So, basically, you want an in depth look at the Owen Gun, both good and bad? I'd be up for that, and I'm a UKist!
Maus: Scaring elephants since 1944.
"Maus" actually was shortened from its original name of "Maeuschen," or "little mouse." The name was very much a joke by the designers regarding its size and the late-war German predilection for naming armored vehicles after animals.
I think the Maus can be considered part of the "wonderweapons" or "revenge weapons" Germany made when they were losing the war but not yet totally encircled and they were just coming up with these ridiculous and weird weapon concepts to try and pull a hail mary that were sometimes ahead of their time on paper, but usually complete shit in practice.
They are endlessly fascinating.
The Wonder Weapons achieved their primary purpose
They kept German engineers working on Military projects with prevented them from getting drafted
My favourite is not quite a "Wonder Weapon" - it came out a little earlier than that - but the Dornier Do335 "Pfeil" (also known as the "Vomit Comet" - don't know the translation into German) which did nearly everything asked of it, but also made its pilots violently ill!
Hitler had a fetish for huge guns and big tanks.
With Maus I'd say that fording is a common practice for tanks, although the Maus would probably have a good chance to bog down. Also being so slow that the enemy can move away is not that much of a problem for a breakthrough tank as it's meant to attack static defenses head-on. If the enemy abandons the position then it fulfilled it's purpose. The real problem would be that it would be an easy target for the artillery IMO.
Bit for a question whats your personal thoughts on Japanese tanks late war that were planned in advance but due to wrong decisions and or internal conflicts lead to their lack of production till late into the war and how do they perform compare to their enemy counterpart.
Remember the Rat, supposedly to weigh 1000 tons.
These guys had a curious sense of humor.
I've abandoned...er ... finished building a model of the T100 Soviet dual turreted tank. I don't know if it belongs on the list of worst tanks... but it's on my list of worst MODELS I've built. Individual track links are bad enough... but to have most of the fenders on the tracks MOLDED on? Wonder if anyone's done a list of worst models?
Germany designed the world's heaviest tank and called it the Maus. And people say the Germans have no sense of humor!
KV-1....? You included KV-1 in this list?! The only failiure of that tank is more than horrible tactical use by Soviet army and actual mess of Soviet command in that time. It is the same as you would say that Tiger I is one of the worst tanks of that period of war.
For the KV-2 it was made as support vehicle not as an actual tank (as they use them)....
You don't know much about that subject, do you?
They literally explain their reason of picking the tanks and you still question it lmfao
@@skunknoodles6426 I know what I'm talking about, but you obviously don't.....
I don't know why I didn't think gas/electric tanks were a thing. Or diesel/electric. Seems like it'd be better for a high speed, lightwieght, sorta run&gun type tank.
Nom if they would have placed an eight gun on the Maus. Just firing it would have made everyone have a concussion to include the tankers. Lol
Don’t bully the Maus and yes it is one of Heaviest tank in the world and yes it costed so much money. And yes it has the horsepower but not from the locomotives about around 1,200 horsepower.
KVs are not bad because they are doing well in early of German invasion of Russia.
What about anything fielded by the Imperial Japanese Army in World War II?
Well, pretty much by the Island hop campaign, the tanks they were using became out of date and outclassed by the Sherman.
You wouldn’t want to see a Maus in war thunder though 🤣
Is this the second video of worst tanks ever?
Yes. This is the other one: th-cam.com/video/2Z_lTYKZqJ8/w-d-xo.html
@@HistoryintheDark thanks man
Ah yes the Nevada, the most indestructible thing aside from a gameboy and a nokia
i use the KV-1 in warthunder
E maus is @least more "practical" then e Ratte