Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

DracoArgentum #1 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:35

    Major

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

Since theres a five best tanks thread here is the counterpart thread for the five worst tanks of WW2. The rules are:

  1. The tank must have been built during WW2
  2. Complete functional tanks only, mockups don't count

 

My picks in order from bad to horrific.

 

 

Bob Semple: Useless, but at least cheap and didn't replace something useful.

Panther: Overweight, unreliable, vulnerable to obsolete AT rifles.

Tiger 2: Overweight, unreliable and not powerful anyway.

Maus: No military value at all while being expensive.

Valiant: A danger to it's own crew.

 

 



M103_Longstreet #2 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 13568 battles
  • 6,834
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

in no particular order.

Tiger

King Tiger

Panther

Maus

Ferdinand

IS-4


Edited by T___A, Jan 28 2014 - 05:52.


Meruccubus #3 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12064 battles
  • 1,555
  • [PZWTZ] PZWTZ
  • Member since:
    07-23-2012
Anything french or italian.

ChiefKim #4 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:40

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11498 battles
  • 995
  • [SALTY] SALTY
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View Post24YOA, on Jan 28 2014 - 06:39, said:

Anything french or italian.

 

French tanks were actually pretty good in 1940.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #5 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16986 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

1: Panther Front tranny and final drives, too tall, weak armor, not reliable, weak turret drive, flammable death trap 

2:Tiger II Front tranny  too tall, weak armor, not reliable, weak turret drive weak turret drive, flammable death trap 

3: Tiger Outdated crap by the time it saw combat. 

4:Ferdinand LOL really? His cars arn't even that good. 

5: Maus ROTFLMAO

 

The Nazi Germans sucked at making tanks. 



POLICENITRO #6 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2917 battles
  • 1,196
  • [MAP] MAP
  • Member since:
    02-23-2011

View PostDracoArgentum, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:35, said:

Since theres a five best tanks thread here is the counterpart thread for the five worst tanks of WW2. The rules are:

  1. The tank must have been built during WW2
  2. Complete functional tanks only, mockups don't count

 

My picks in order from bad to horrific.

 

 

Bob Semple: Useless, but at least cheap and didn't replace something useful.

Panther: Overweight, unreliable, vulnerable to obsolete AT rifles.

Tiger 2: Overweight, unreliable and not powerful anyway.

Maus: No military value at all while being expensive.

Valiant: A danger to it's own crew.

 

 

No italian tanks!



icoleman #7 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 5903 battles
  • 6,994
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012

5. KV-1

4. Sherman M4A1

3. M2A2

2. Char B1

1. Maus

 



M103_Longstreet #8 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 13568 battles
  • 6,834
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View PostPOLICENITRO, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:42, said:

No italian tanks!

The Italians built their own domestic designs.



Zinegata #9 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:44

    Major

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

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)



icoleman #10 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 5903 battles
  • 6,994
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:41, said:

1: Panther

2:Tiger II

3: Tiger

4:Ferdinand

5: Maus 

 

The Nazi Germans sucked at making tanks. 

 

Tanks too complex* for their own time, resulting in technical insufficiency and lack of required resources. 



Priory_of_Sion #11 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:42, said:

4. Sherman M4A1

Any particular reasons why the M4A1 is deserving of the 4th worst tank built between '39-'45? 



Mi_Amore_Cadenza #12 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 27425 battles
  • 2,912
  • [NAKED] NAKED
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

View Post24YOA, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:39, said:

Anything french or italian.

oh now thats a little harsh you know

 

my tanks?

Tiger, Panther, M4 sherman, KV1, PZ4


Edited by Miamore_Cadenza, Jan 28 2014 - 05:45.


M103_Longstreet #13 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 13568 battles
  • 6,834
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:44, said:

 

Tanks too advanced for their own time, resulting in technical insufficiency.

The tiger was obsolete as soon as it rolled off the factor floor.

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:44, said:

Any particular reasons why the M4A1 is deserving of the 4th worst tank built between '39-'45? 

It didn't single handily defeat the Germans that's why.


Edited by T___A, Jan 28 2014 - 05:47.


DracoArgentum #14 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:46

    Major

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

View PostPOLICENITRO, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:42, said:

No italian tanks!

 

Which Italian tanks were bad, as opposed to mediocre? This isn't a list of bad stuff, its a list of worst stuff.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #15 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16986 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:42, said:

5. KV-1

4. Sherman M4A1

3. M2A2

2. Char B1

1. Maus

 

 

Huh, you rate the M4A1, a tank so advanced the Germans did not have the technology to copy it, number 4? Why exactly?

 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #16 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16986 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:44, said:

 

Tanks too complex* for their own time, resulting in technical insufficiency and lack of required resources. 

 

Nope, tanks strait up poorly designed, with dead end technology that did nothing all that well. 

 

Well, they do work well at giving Wehraboos something to wank over 60 plus years later…. 



May_Contain_Asbestos #17 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13549 battles
  • 286
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:42, said:

Char B1

 

The B1 was actually the best running heavy tank during the beginnings of the second world war.



DracoArgentum #18 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:49

    Major

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

View PostZinegata, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:44, said:

 

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)

 

Were they all that bad? Surely at least one of them didn't suck to the extent of the Maus.



Unraveler #19 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View Posticoleman, on Jan 28 2014 - 06:44, said:

 

Tanks too advanced for their own time, resulting in technical insufficiency. 

 

One man's "advanced" is another man's "dumb engineering solution."



EnsignExpendable #20 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Are we going on a badness per unit scale or a total badness? While the Maus was ass, its negative impact was limited to one and a half units. Since the former isn't too interesting, I'll do the latter.

 

Also no Italian or Japanese tanks, as I do not know enough to judge their badness. But yes to SPGs, since SPGs are like tanks too.

 

5. Tie: PzII. A tank that was bad in not only one, but two wars! Good as baby's first toy to jump-start an industry, not good at combat. I'd say PzI, but that actually jump-started an industry, and had less completely worthless modifications. Would not make this list if it didn't remain in production until 1943. 

5. Tie: Tiger. Offensively mediocre, covered in massive amounts of propaganda. Technology from 1937 in 1942 does not make for an effective fighting machine.

4. Karl Gerat. Hey guys, let's build a huge cannon that can't hit anything and has to be retired for maintenance after every other shot! No, wait let's build seven!

3. Panther. What's the sound one one final drive grinding uselessly?

2. King Tiger. Let's take everything awful about #3 and make it WORSE! 

1. Ferdinand. A tank that no one wanted, caught fire when going up steep hills, contributed nothing to any industry and floats on top of its propaganda in lieu of actual combat performance. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users