Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

xthetenth #1721 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 07:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Picture flames licking the hull of a Panther. Forever.

DracoArgentum #1722 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 10:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 14673 battles
  • 3,033
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
Why can't people post stories of hilariously bad tanks that failed their trials? Stop defending your precious cats.

Meplat #1723 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 11:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 6767 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostPlaidPony, on Feb 10 2014 - 22:05, said:

I'd have to say a close, competitive second was "T-34 engine can operate with 20% dirt mixed in with the fuel? BIG ISSUE" vs. "Panther engines spontaneously burst in to flame? Minor fault, prove it ever happened!"

I read that, and wept for the T-34's injection pump... People actually believed that?



PepperMill #1724 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 14:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11391 battles
  • 287
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Covenanter (even the British wouldn't send it into battle, the turret ring could cut off the commander's legs, mechanically crap)

Carro Veloce 33

Carro Armato M11/39

Russion T35

Pz I Ausf B

 

Others that were bad because of misuse.  Light tanks and scout tanks were used as fighting vehicles.



Tosh_0 #1725 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 19:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6709 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    09-15-2011

View PostSupertroopertanker, on Feb 11 2014 - 00:33, said:

 it did go that fast

 

Driving downhill or over a cliff does not count you [Content Removed. General Insults of a more serious nature.].

 

~GM/Mod Teams



BigDuke63 #1726 Posted Feb 16 2014 - 23:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13239 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
I am older than most of you and have known many WW2 vets , including many tankers. I can tell you they were terrified of veteran units of german armor and and the 88mm AA/AT. They let the flyboys deal with them whenever possible ...

amaROenuZ #1727 Posted Feb 16 2014 - 23:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 16660 battles
  • 3,560
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

View PostBigDuke63, on Feb 16 2014 - 22:23, said:

I am older than most of you and have known many WW2 vets , including many tankers. I can tell you they were terrified of veteran units of german armor and and the 88mm AA/AT. They let the flyboys deal with them whenever possible ...

 

Citation required.



locoace1 #1728 Posted Feb 16 2014 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostBigDuke63, on Feb 16 2014 - 14:23, said:

I am older than most of you and have known many WW2 vets , including many tankers. I can tell you they were terrified of veteran units of german armor and and the 88mm AA/AT. They let the flyboys deal with them whenever possible ...

 

 

That's great, but here's the thing just because they served doesn't mean they were the ultimate source of knowledge. Tanks and AA guns are always scary, it doesn't make them good. I bet a Tiger crew would be terrified to see a T-34 or Sherman as much as the other are of them. It's a fact of war.



CavScout19D #1729 Posted Feb 16 2014 - 23:41

    Major

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

View Postlocoace1, on Feb 16 2014 - 14:25, said:

That's great, but here's the thing just because they served doesn't mean they were the ultimate source of knowledge. Tanks and AA guns are always scary, it doesn't make them good. I bet a Tiger crew would be terrified to see a T-34 or Sherman as much as the other are of them. It's a fact of war.

Weird, I here I though folks wanted to be shot at. :tongue:



Beaushizzle #1730 Posted Feb 17 2014 - 04:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8591 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View PostBigDuke63, on Feb 16 2014 - 16:23, said:

I am older than most of you and have known many WW2 vets , including many tankers. I can tell you they were terrified of veteran units of german armor and and the 88mm AA/AT. They let the flyboys deal with them whenever possible ...


Where's that Wehraboo Bingo Board from the other thread? We just filled the "My (insert relative)/friend is a vet!" slot.



BigDuke63 #1731 Posted Feb 23 2014 - 07:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13239 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View PostBigDuke63, on Feb 16 2014 - 17:23, said:

I am older than most of you and have known many WW2 vets , including many tankers. I can tell you they were terrified of veteran units of german armor and and the 88mm AA/AT. They let the flyboys deal with them whenever possible ...

 

Pearls before Swine...My mistake... won't happen again...



unlawfulsoup #1732 Posted Feb 23 2014 - 20:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17984 battles
  • 1,494
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostBigDuke63, on Feb 23 2014 - 01:48, said:

 

Pearls before Swine...My mistake... won't happen again...

 

Who needs researched evidence that can be backed up when we have reams of anecdotal evidence.

 

My cousin talks to WW2 vets at his re-enactments, and the one SS tanker had a really dull opinion of the King Tiger. Something along the lines of 'nothing is more abysmal than losing the majority of your force to engine failure.' While it was probably true, it is the recollection of ONE guy.



lijimist #1733 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 00:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 49269 battles
  • 369
  • [EATU] EATU
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

I thin the question has to be which tank would you NOT want to be in in combat.  Considering the capabilities in this regard, hard to be too critical of Tigers and Panthers.  If they were so bad, why did the allies seem driven to match their capabilities?  Overall poor quality and poor performance have to go to the Brits and Italians.  The British tanks were notoriously unreliable, but the slow ones were well armored.  Give credit to the US planners.  The Grant/Lee was better in 1942 than anything the British had at that point.  When we gave them the Shermans, they nearly keeled over with delight.  Monty actually told them before El Alamein (re: the Sherman), "now we have a good tank."

 

Good tank it was, but when you get penned by a long 75 or 88, bad things happen.  The worst:  Crusader, Cromwell, Covenantor (so bad it never fought).  Look at what the Brits who fought in the Cromwell said about it.  They were spoiled from driving Shermans and hated it.  Yet it is OP in WOT.  Go figure.

 

At least the early to mid war German tanks were reliable and fungible.  Overall best tank of the war was the Easy 8, hands down.  And it is way UP in WOT, go figure.     



PJMC #1734 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 00:52

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26662 battles
  • 301
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
A tank so bad that there can be only one. Designed for the first world war but built during the second. This might jingles some of you xp pinata loving tinkerbells mightily but the Tog II has to be considered the worst WW II tank. I'm sure it had to have been mentioned on one of these 87 pages but I figure a tank that sucks in the game as bad as it would have on a WW2 battlefield deserves another mention on a 4 year old thread.

pepe_trueno #1735 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 01:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 41596 battles
  • 6,391
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

"2014" post

 

british had some funky designs

 

ardeer aggie: they try to put a 300mm gun on a churchil chasis, somehow it worked but it was a deathtrap for both the crewmembers using it and the ally infantry behind them. 

 

 

 


awildseaking #1736 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 10:33

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 13337 battles
  • 855
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015
Holy necro batman.

FrozenKemp #1737 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 11:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 52519 battles
  • 9,593
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postpepe_trueno, on Apr 10 2018 - 19:39, said:

"2014" post

 

british had some funky designs

 

ardeer aggie: they try to put a 300mm gun on a churchil chasis, somehow it worked but it was a deathtrap for both the crewmembers using it and the ally infantry behind them. 

 

 

 

That was a recoilless rifle ("rifle"???) wasn't it? I've seen pictures.  It looks CRAZY.

 

A bit upthread someone claimed the Covenanter turret could cut off the commander's legs.  I'm skeptical.  The British used them in the UK with as far as I know no complaints until they became obsolete.  (They just couldn't handle the heat of the desert.) 



sleeper_agent #1738 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 12:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28895 battles
  • 2,709
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013
I dont have a list ready but its astounding how many designs across the board from many nations made for fire death traps in their tanks.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users