Jump to content


Top Five Tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

ChiefKim #581 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:42

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11503 battles
  • 995
  • [SALTY] SALTY
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
100 guys with smoothbore muskets could wipeout 100 with assault rifles if they tried really hard. It's often up to the decisions taken in combat rather than just how many shells you can throw into the air or how many centimeters of armour you have.

Priory_of_Sion #582 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
The Hellcat was a completely useless vehicle. It was a good tank killer, but was part of the failure of the TD Battalions, had no armor(crews liked their M10s better), speed was overrated, and its firepower wasn't any better than the M4(76). 

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #583 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:39, said:

Its my opinion. And Ill leave it at that. Atleast I dont have to resort to childish name calling.

 

No just complete ignorance. Have fun with that. 

 

Just know, your opinion is wrong. 

 

WRONG. 

 

Now you can go. 



BabyOlifant #584 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 28 2014 - 03:39, said:

Its my opinion. And Ill leave it at that. Atleast I dont have to resort to childish name calling.

 

You people need to freaking get over "your opinions".

Your opinions are wrong. You are not entitled to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when someone provides real evidence that your opinions are wrong. That just makes you look like a self-absorbed git.

Argue with sources. Argue with evidence. Contrary to what you might think, we like it when people change our minds, and that hard won passion for the truth is why we're so freaking obnoxiously dismissive when some jackass comes in here spouting the same History Channel tripe that we've heard a thousand time and is no truer now when you say it than the first time some idiot posted it.

 

Get. Over. Yourself. Untangle your ego from your opinions. Learn to... Learn, for chrissake.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #585 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostTalonV, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:41, said:

Why because I consider late war german tanks hunks of junk? Which they were. Take a panther vs a M4 sherman. M4 gets taken out, unless the tank was literally blown to pieces, the M4 was dragged back to the rear, fixed, refit and sent back into action. Take a Panther, it gets taken out on the battlefield, most times it got left on the battlefield.  Barely any panthers were dragged back to the rear and put back into service.

 

Why the german tanks late war are big pieces of crap.  Take one of them out, it usually isn't coming back.  Knock out ten shermans to take out a panther, 8 of those shermans, probably coming back.

 

 

Because of posts like this, and all the other crap you post about tanks. 



IronWolfV #586 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:45, said:

 

 

Because of posts like this, and all the other crap you post about tanks. 

wow..just wow... can't even debunk it, you just call it crap and you think you are right. :teethhappy:



BabyOlifant #587 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostTalonV, on Jan 28 2014 - 03:46, said:

wow..just wow... can't even debunk it, you just call it crap and you think you are right. :teethhappy:

 

Did no one tell you? We don't have to do research, dig up primary sources, and provide evidence to the contrary if you don't freaking support your argument in the first place.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #588 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostTalonV, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:46, said:

wow..just wow... can't even debunk it, you just call it crap and you think you are right. :teethhappy:

 

Sorry, you're not worth the time. 

 

 

You've shown that you lack the desire to learn anything. 

 

 

Wallow in  your ignorance, you’ve earned it.

 

 

P.S. are you really asking to get trolled and to look like an idiot? Cause It's been done so many times tonight, I'm a little tired. 

 



Walter_Sobchak #589 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:12, said:

 

Yeah but he's running away, you know, cause he lacks the ability to back up his ignorant posts. 

 

And did you just see this Tommycooker joker?


Treetop64 was not the one that made the Tommycooker post.  That was "delerium."  But whatever. 



BabyOlifant #590 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
I think he was talking about both of them.

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #591 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:03, said:


Treetop64 was not the one that made the Tommycooker post.  That was "delerium."  But whatever. 

 

Yeah, I was asking Baby if he saw Dels post...

 

I try to avoid naming the beast when possible.

 



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #592 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 33897 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostTalonV, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:46, said:

wow..just wow... can't even debunk it, you just call it crap and you think you are right. :teethhappy:

 

Oh shit, the laughing emoticon! We are defeated!



CavScout19D #593 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

Making unfounded claims and then saying, "I don't want to continue" is painting you as a Wehraboo...



Zinegata #594 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

Okay, I'll go ahead and post my own (likely extremely controversial) top 5:

 

1 - Panzer III + Stug (Germany)

2 - T-34 (Soviet Union)

3 - Sherman (United States)

4 - Panzer IV + TD derivatives (Germany)

5 - Panzer 38(t) + Hetzer (Germany)

 

These rankings are based on actual historical performance on a front-wide level as well as their strategic effect on the war. And yes, there is no tank above 35 tons in this list, because quite frankly the Panthers, KVs, and other heavies only played a minor role in the war. The Panther in particular was, in an actual warfare, such a grossly poorly-performing monstrosity that it should be counted among the five worst tanks of all time because the Nazis were actually dumb enough to mass-produce it. The King Tiger, while being just as stupid, was at least a limited production item so the level of self-inflicted damage was far less.



CavScout19D #595 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:42, said:

100 guys with smoothbore muskets could wipeout 100 with assault rifles if they tried really hard. It's often up to the decisions taken in combat rather than just how many shells you can throw into the air or how many centimeters of armour you have.

If the guys with assault rifles didn't bring any ammo.....



DracoArgentum #596 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 14673 battles
  • 3,033
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:15, said:

Okay, I'll go ahead and post my own (likely extremely controversial) top 5:

 

1 - Panzer III + Stug (Germany)

2 - T-34 (Soviet Union)

3 - Sherman (United States)

4 - Panzer IV + TD derivatives (Germany)

5 - Panzer 38(t) + Hetzer (Germany)

 

These rankings are based on actual historical performance on a front-wide level as well as their strategic effect on the war. And yes, there is no tank above 35 tons in this list, because quite frankly the Panthers, KVs, and other heavies only played a minor role in the war. The Panther in particular was, in an actual warfare, such a grossly poorly-performing monstrosity that it should be counted among the five worst tanks of all time because the Nazis were actually dumb enough to mass-produce it. The King Tiger, while being just as stupid, was at least a limited production item so the level of self-inflicted damage was far less.

 

That'd be a good counterpart thread. Five crappiest tanks of WW2.



Zinegata #597 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 28 2014 - 11:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience.

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

 

Nonesense. Properly trained Allied units did not fear Panzers to an unnecessary degree; not anymore than getting hit by Panzerfauts or towed AtGs. Besides which, everyone in ETO preferred to flank - the Wermacht, the Western Allies, and even the Soviets. Banzai charges are for the Japanese.

 

Also, there are some Allied tankers who in fact positively relished taking on German armor, knowing they were an overblown threat. Look up Sgt. Pool from 3rd Armor.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #598 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDracoArgentum, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:17, said:

 

That'd be a good counterpart thread. Five crappiest tanks of WW2.

There was some discussion on it about 10 pages back. 

 



Zinegata #599 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostDracoArgentum, on Jan 28 2014 - 12:17, said:

 

That'd be a good counterpart thread. Five crappiest tanks of WW2.

 

1 - Panther (overweight, overproduced, and had an abysmal actual kill ratio. 3:1 in the Sherman's favor in many cases)

 

2 - King Tiger (what happens when your leaders engage in delusional fantasies and allows limited production)

 

3 - Maus (what happens when your leaders engage in insane delusional fantasies and Guderian couldn't stop the war profiteers from making two prototypes)

 

4 - KV (spectacular last stands like Rasenai aside, even the Soviets wanted to cancel this series by 1943)

 

5 - Any British Tank (seriously, home-produced British tanks tended to be bad and don't have the "We don't have ANY industry" excuse like Italy or Japan)



BabyOlifant #600 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jan 28 2014 - 04:15, said:

Okay, I'll go ahead and post my own (likely extremely controversial) top 5:

 

1 - Panzer III + Stug (Germany)

2 - T-34 (Soviet Union)

3 - Sherman (United States)

4 - Panzer IV + TD derivatives (Germany)

5 - Panzer 38(t) + Hetzer (Germany)

 

These rankings are based on actual historical performance on a front-wide level as well as their strategic effect on the war. And yes, there is no tank above 35 tons in this list, because quite frankly the Panthers, KVs, and other heavies only played a minor role in the war. The Panther in particular was, in an actual warfare, such a grossly poorly-performing monstrosity that it should be counted among the five worst tanks of all time because the Nazis were actually dumb enough to mass-produce it. The King Tiger, while being just as stupid, was at least a limited production item so the level of self-inflicted damage was far less.

 

I dunno that I'd include Hetzer. The_Chieftain absolutely hates it.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users