Jump to content


Top Five Tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

SULOMON #321 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 05:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 6853 battles
  • 11,185
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011

View PostSpenzOT, on Jan 25 2014 - 02:35, said:

1. T-34:  Obvious reasons.  Had the best combination of firepower, armor, and mobility the earliest of any of the main tanks of WW2 AND in the most numbers.  It was also the most destroyed tank in history but meh..

 

2. Sherman:  I know it wasn't the greatest tank and it had some serious faults but they made a LOT of them, and they were used for practically everything, by every major allied power.  They used them as infantry support tanks, tank destroyer, mine-clearing, bridging, amphibious ops, artillery carrier, flamethrower tanks, rocket-artillery, bulldozers, and even used in combat after the war, like the T-34.  Despite its flaws, its sheer numbers, wide usage, and versatility makes it, IMO, one of the best tanks of the war.

 

3. Panther:  Take the best features of the T-34, have them improved upon by the best tank producers of the war, and you have what is probably the best tank of the war. However,  by the time it wasn't breaking down all the time and being produced in relatively high numbers, the war was lost, most of the best crews were killed, air superiority was but a memory, and there was barely enough petrol to fuel them anyways.  A superb tank, but it was just too late.

 

4. Tiger:  A tank with many strengths and many flaws.  Everyone already knows what makes the Tiger great and what makes it not so great.  The one notable thing I would add is the absolutely MASSIVE psychological effect this tank had on its foes.  Think about it; they made less than 1,400 of these things, which is a drop in the bucket, but its infamy, something which lasts even to this day, is beyond astounding and only a testament to what this tank, made from the finest materials using the finest construction methods and manned by the finest crews, could do to its enemy. I have two books detailing the actions of every Tiger battalion during the war and I was shocked as to how few of these tanks were actually lost to enemy action. 

 

5. Panzer IV:  Another excellent tank which fought from the very beginning of the war till the very end, and was fairly cheap, build in good numbers, and highly versatile.


Would it kill you to actually read a thread before posting?



Mechanize #322 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 05:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostSULOMON, on Jan 24 2014 - 21:50, said:


Would it kill you to actually read a thread before posting?

 

That's asking alot for most of this community to be fair.



xthetenth #323 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 09:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
I'm a ghost because I read a thread. Reply to this post ten times or your favorite pet/child/family member will get an ingrown toenail.

Knuckleduster_2015 #324 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 09:41

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014

View PostDeathbyLOLTRAKTOR, on Jan 24 2014 - 19:48, said:

its not 'JS-3' its an IS-3 because in Russian, Joseph is spelled with an I as in Iosif Vissarinovich Stalin

 

I'm not using the russian alphabet so therefore Joseph is spelled like Joseph.

 



Grandpa_55 #325 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 09:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17134 battles
  • 1,707
  • [ST4ND] ST4ND
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

View Postyota151, on Jan 23 2014 - 20:16, said:

1. IS-3 for the statement it made about soviet tech at the end of the war.

2. King Tiger because it was the most feared tank of WW2.

3. Tiger 1 because it was the 2nd most feared tank of WW2.

4. Panther because it made a lot of tech advances.

5. M4 Sherman because it made tech advances and showed a mass produced tank was needed to fight wars.

 

LOL IS3 was a joke? Sure when it was released everyone thought "oh crap" but to bad they didn't know half of the tank didn't work, and the turret design produced a slow reload rate do to cramped movement. Just like the ferd. Good on paper, bad in life.



Tolos #326 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 09:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,233
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

1 - T34. ( Inc variants )

2 - Panzer 4. ( Inc variants )

3 - Stug.

4 - Sherman. ( Inc variants )

5 - Tiger.

 

I know putting the Tiger 5th will cause outrage with the fan boys but the simple fact of the matter is this, it was never made in enough numbers to REALLY make a difference, and this is the same reason the Panther didn't make my list. 



Mechanize #327 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostRlyShadow, on Jan 25 2014 - 01:49, said:

LOL IS3 was a joke? Sure when it was released everyone thought "oh crap" but to bad they didn't know half of the tank didn't work, and the turret design produced a slow reload rate do to cramped movement. Just like the ferd. Good on paper, bad in life.

 

....You're talking about a tank with supposed reliability problems and somehow ignored he put the Tiger 1 and 2 on the list?

 

How?



Grandpa_55 #328 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17134 battles
  • 1,707
  • [ST4ND] ST4ND
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

View PostMechanize, on Jan 25 2014 - 10:03, said:

 

....You're talking about a tank with supposed reliability problems and somehow ignored he put the Tiger 1 and 2 on the list?

 

How?


Those were both great tanks, only problem the tiger 2 had wasn't that it was a bad tank, but it was material related. Had they had the resources they had in the start of the war, it would of been another tank to be feared.



boxtosser #329 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:17

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 7297 battles
  • 1,348
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

Who cares whether the IS-3 or Tiger II was better?

 

Heavy tanks were probably among the most stupidly overrated weapons of the war. 



Knuckleduster_2015 #330 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014

View PostTolos, on Jan 25 2014 - 09:54, said:

1 - T34. ( Inc variants )

2 - Panzer 4. ( Inc variants )

3 - Stug.

4 - Sherman. ( Inc variants )

5 - Tiger.

 

I know putting the Tiger 5th will cause outrage with the fan boys but the simple fact of the matter is this, it was never made in enough numbers to REALLY make a difference, and this is the same reason the Panther didn't make my list. 

 

So numbers makes a shitty tank good? Ok!

That must be why so many voted for the T-34, the shitty and claustrophobic tin can with 45mm of armor.

''But it was sloooped'' Yeah that little slope sure made it 100mm of effective armor. /rolls eyes

And the Sherman could only win if it shot the Panther tank up the ass from 60 meters away while the Panther could kill a Sherman from 800 meters or more head on.

They could have put the T23E3 into massproduction in '44 and it would have been a good tank with it's three inches of sloped front armor but due to the stupidity of some military leaders they didn't.

 



Mechanize #331 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostRlyShadow, on Jan 25 2014 - 02:05, said:


Those were both great tanks, only problem the tiger 2 had wasn't that it was a bad tank, but it was material related. Had they had the resources they had in the start of the war, it would of been another tank to be feared.

 

The Tiger 2 was a dumpster, and not just due to terrible materials, but over/badly engineered, far too large and heavy, terrible combat range made worse by it's notorious unreliability, required way too many man hours and resources to produce, which considering it was made when Germany was on the defensive was an even worse decision..... Oh, and I may aswell add that it was a logistical nightmare on the field in even the best conditions while I'm at it.

 

The IS-3 was better in basically every way possible. and It's glacias couldn't even be penned by the long 88mm from over 100m away.


Edited by Mechanize, Jan 25 2014 - 10:27.


Mechanize #332 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostKnuckleduster_2015, on Jan 25 2014 - 02:18, said:

 

So numbers makes a shitty tank good? Ok!

That must be why so many voted for the T-34, the shitty and claustrophobic tin can with 45mm of armor.

''But it was sloooped'' Yeah that little slope sure made it 100mm of effective armor. /rolls eyes

And the Sherman could only win if it shot the Panther tank up the ass from 60 meters away while the Panther could kill a Sherman from 800 meters or more head on.

They could have put the T23E3 into massproduction in '44 and it would have been a good tank with it's three inches of sloped front armor but due to the stupidity of some military leaders they didn't.

 

 

[content moderated - insult / not constructive]
~GM/Mod Team



Tolos #333 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,233
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostKnuckleduster_2015, on Jan 25 2014 - 09:18, said:

 

So numbers makes a shitty tank good? Ok!

That must be why so many voted for the T-34, the shitty and claustrophobic tin can with 45mm of armor.

''But it was sloooped'' Yeah that little slope sure made it 100mm of effective armor. /rolls eyes

And the Sherman could only win if it shot the Panther tank up the ass from 60 meters away while the Panther could kill a Sherman from 800 meters or more head on.

They could have put the T23E3 into massproduction in '44 and it would have been a good tank with it's three inches of sloped front armor but due to the stupidity of some military leaders they didn't.

 

 

You have to be trolling, I refuse to believe anyone can be this stupid.



Knuckleduster_2015 #334 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014

View PostMechanize, on Jan 25 2014 - 10:24, said:

[content moderated - insult / not constructive]

 

You really don't know how to debate on a public forum do you?!

Don't answer that - It was a rhetorical question because I already know that you have no debating skills whatsoever.



Mechanize #335 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostTolos, on Jan 25 2014 - 02:27, said:

 

You have to be trolling, I refuse to believe anyone can be this stupid.

 

He is, that or a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome.



Mechanize #336 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostKnuckleduster_2015, on Jan 25 2014 - 02:28, said:

 

You really don't know how to debate on a public forum do you?!

Don't answer that - It was a rhetorical question because I already know that you have no debating skills whatsoever.

 

Actually I would completely smash you in a debate to the point your 2 brain cells would cry for mercy, but then again, you're just a negative rep farmer so....nah.



Knuckleduster_2015 #337 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 10:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014

View PostTolos, on Jan 25 2014 - 10:27, said:

 

You have to be trolling, I refuse to believe anyone can be this stupid.

 

The one trolling and being stupid that would be you.

Why is this the american version of the game infested with russians anyway?

The americans won't play it and the game must seem to be active?  Yeah I can buy into that.


Edited by Knuckleduster_2015, Jan 25 2014 - 10:34.


Tolos #338 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 11:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,233
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostKnuckleduster_2015, on Jan 25 2014 - 09:34, said:

 

The one trolling and being stupid that would be you.

Why is this the american version of the game infested with russians anyway?

The americans won't play it and the game must seem to be active?  Yeah I can buy into that.

 

 

I'm sorry, but what you just wrote was absolute gibberish. 



rossmum #339 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 12:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23177 battles
  • 4,998
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010

View PostTalonV, on Jan 25 2014 - 07:20, said:

If it really was the best of the best, riddle me this. Why are there not IS style tanks today?

 

...Because when the 1960s came along, everyone realised they could use cool things like laminate armour to throw guns and protection previously reserved for heavy tanks onto something half the size?

 

It's not difficult, I don't know what's preventing you from grasping the concept. The heavy tank was obsoleted when advances in technology and engineering allowed for its best features to be combined with the best features of the medium tank. This was not technologically possible during the Second World War, or it would've happened then and not 20 years later.

 

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 25 2014 - 15:06, said:

Those figures are apples and organges.  The figure you give for Soviet losses is total military dead.  The figure you give from the Glantz book for the Germans is for total casualties including wounded, not total deaths.  Total German military deaths is more in the area of 6-7 million. German Allies deaths is just under one million, the figure of 1,725,000 is for deaths and wounded.

 

The figures I'd always heard were 11.2 million Soviet military dead, something on the order of 7.5 million German military dead (80% on the Eastern Front), and about another 16 million Soviet civilians. Those might be old numbers though.

 

View PostRlyShadow, on Jan 25 2014 - 20:05, said:

Those were both great tanks, only problem the tiger 2 had wasn't that it was a bad tank, but it was material related. Had they had the resources they had in the start of the war, it would of been another tank to be feared.

 

Hahaha no they weren't, they were both garbage. The problems had nothing to do with material and everything to do with being idiotic designs, like every German tank designed after the outbreak of the war.

 

[content moderated - insult]
~GM/Mod Team



Grisbane #340 Posted Jan 25 2014 - 13:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 19136 battles
  • 2,240
  • [2TUF] 2TUF
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

5. BT-7  :trollface:

4. Cruiser II :trollface:

3. Vickers Mk.E Type B. :trollface:

2. B1 :trollface:

 

and finally, everyone's favorite

1. M3 Lee :trollface:

 

oh how the negs will come flowing from this :teethhappy:






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users