Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A poor tank, a useless tank, and the worst tank in the world [Video]

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A poor tank, a useless tank, and the worst tank in the world [Video]

    I found this popping up in my feed and thought you might enjoy this - whether in agreement or in opposition!

    The Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go, the Australian Sentinel, and the British A38 Valiant are covered in turn.

    So what do you think, empty hyperbole, or is he on to something with that title?


  • #2
    The Ha Go was actually designed to fight the Chinese. There were weight limits to cross Chinese Bridges and a lack of Chinese antitank weapons. I would compare it more with the Renault Tank that the Japanese bought after WWI.

    The Sentinel Tank was designed because the British were not sending Tanks to Australia or New Zealand. Both countries were dissatisfied with British Armor support in North Africa and wanted their own tank units. Few people know that at one time the Australians had a Tank Division, This was broken up and some units saw service late in the war. Australian tank units armed with Matildas and Grants saw action.

    With as many different tank designs as the British came up with they were bound to produce some dogs.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      He ain't seen nothin' yet. Tell him to look up the CV3/33 and the M11/39. Those were bad tanks in that time frame.
      Michele

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        I found this popping up in my feed and thought you might enjoy this - whether in agreement or in opposition!

        The Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go, the Australian Sentinel, and the British A38 Valiant are covered in turn.

        So what do you think, empty hyperbole, or is he on to something with that title?
        Hard to see how the Valiant can even be considered the "worst tank", it wasn't even produced, only a prototype was tested.
        Should we compare its combat performance to the. Bob Semple tank?

        Comment


        • #5
          The Type 95 wasn't all that bad for a light tank. The gun for a light was decent. Not great, but decent. It had two machineguns. Overall, not that bad. Oh, the Matilda had that maneuverable gun with the 2 pdr, as did most early British tanks where the gunner could fine lay it using a shoulder pad. The Japanese also had weight limits on shipping and landing craft that made the Type 95 desirable. The engine (a diesel which is a plus) and drivetrain were reliable and air cooled. Those were good features too. Definitely not the "worst."

          The Sentnel? Why is there a peN!$ on the front of the hull? An Aussie thing or something? Just curious...



          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            " ... The Sentinel? Why is there a peN!$ on the front of the hull? An Aussie thing or something? Just curious...
            I'm sure you must have guessed by now, that this is an armored cover for the hull-mounted machine gun. Not sure I can fully account for its shape, though.

            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              I'm sure you must have guessed by now, that this is an armored cover for the hull-mounted machine gun. Not sure I can fully account for its shape, though.
              The hull and coaxial machine guns were water cooled Vickers. As you can see the coax mount is also large but it doesn't have the angled glans...err...shield the hull machine gun has. Perhaps with the hull machine gun they were more more concerned about penetration.

              bovington-ac1-sentinel-tank.jpg

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                The Ha Go was actually designed to fight the Chinese. There were weight limits to cross Chinese Bridges and a lack of Chinese antitank weapons. I would compare it more with the Renault Tank that the Japanese bought after WWI.

                The Sentinel Tank was designed because the British were not sending Tanks to Australia or New Zealand. Both countries were dissatisfied with British Armor support in North Africa and wanted their own tank units. Few people know that at one time the Australians had a Tank Division, This was broken up and some units saw service late in the war. Australian tank units armed with Matildas and Grants saw action.

                With as many different tank designs as the British came up with they were bound to produce some dogs.

                Pruitt
                Australian units were also equipped with the Valentine III. Some Australian units in North Africa were also equipped with captured Italian tanks. The 17 pounder Sentinel was potentially a very potent beast but the 2 pounder could deal with the Japanese armour facing the Australians
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tanklizard View Post

                  The hull and coaxial machine guns were water cooled Vickers. As you can see the coax mount is also large but it doesn't have the angled glans...err...shield the hull machine gun has. Perhaps with the hull machine gun they were more more concerned about penetration.

                  bovington-ac1-sentinel-tank.jpg
                  It also has a two-pounder (37mm) in the turret, and, if my research is correct, never saw combat.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    It also has a two-pounder (37mm) in the turret, and, if my research is correct, never saw combat.
                    Read the post before yours. There was a 17 pounder version but this was overkill given the Japanese armour it would have faced. Not put into production as sufficient other tanks were made available to Australia and New Zealand

                    BTW the two pounder was 40mm
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What are the definitions of a poor tank, useless tank ,worst tank ? Or are you arguing about something you can't define ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                        Australian units were also equipped with the Valentine III. Some Australian units in North Africa were also equipped with captured Italian tanks. The 17 pounder Sentinel was potentially a very potent beast but the 2 pounder could deal with the Japanese armour facing the Australians
                        The 17 pdr version is all wrong for the Pacific theater. A powerful antitank gun isn't required on a tank. What tanks there needed was an excellent HE firing gun that could penetrate about 2" (50mm) of armor at 500 to 1000 yards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          What are the definitions of a poor tank, useless tank ,worst tank ? Or are you arguing about something you can't define ?
                          Good point not sure if we can agree on this anymore than on the best tank.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by joea View Post

                            Good point not sure if we can agree on this anymore than on the best tank.
                            A tank can be good AND poor,useless AND useful,worst AND very good .This depends only indirectly and in a small measure on the classic specifications of a tank ,= speed, armament, mobility, but it depends essentially on other factors as: mission, opposing forces, ground, logistics, available infantry/artillery .
                            A PzII could be 'better 'in may 1940 than a Tiger or a Patton ,or even a Sherman,....

                            This applies ,mutatis mutandis, for ALL weapons : artillery, aircraft, submarines, also for small arms, horses could be more useful than trucks,...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                              What are the definitions of a poor tank, useless tank ,worst tank ? Or are you arguing about something you can't define ?
                              By my definition it's one that

                              Can't adequately perform it's intended functions
                              Has retched reliability or other mechanical issues
                              Is too awkward for the supporting services to deal with it in terms of things like towing or crossing bridges.
                              Is so complex and expensive to produce that there will never be anywhere near enough to be useful
                              Is grossly inferior to its opposition as designed. That is it is inferior before it is even fielded.
                              Is terrible in terms of ergonomics and ability of the crew to employ it.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X