Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

hobowankenobi #21 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46689 battles
  • 1,799
  • [ANTI] ANTI
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012
....All of these are worse than Lee/Grant?    Hard to imagine a Tiger or Panther crew would swap for a Lee....  :sceptic:

Cold_Llama #22 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17138 battles
  • 1,761
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
anything Mexican or candian

BabyOlifant #23 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

Five worst tanks that fought in and were serially produced during WWII:

5. Panzer IV. Imagine if the Soviets fought the entire war steadily upgrading the T-28 beyond the point of sense. That's basically what the Germans did with the Panzer IV.

4. Ha-Go. Small. Bad layout. Armor that can be penetrated by rust.

3. M22 Locust. Inflatable decoys and AT guns probably would have worked just as well.

2. Tiger and Tiger II. what are u doing germany this is not breakthrough tank go home ur drunk

1. Panther. Hahahahah.



icoleman #24 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:55

    Major

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

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:44, said:

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

 

Cheap tank model with little crew protection against the enemy it faced. 

 

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:47, said:

 

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

 

 

It wasnt advanced. It did its job with numbers, and later modifications in armament through the course of war.. but far from being "advanced". 

 

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:49, said:

 

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…. 

 

German tanks were expensive and required heavy resources to be produced. Viable only until production sets grew (or at least tried to grow..).

 

View PostMay_Contain_Asbestos, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:49, said:

 

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

 

It was ideal... at first.

 

View PostDracoArgentum, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:49, said:

 

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

 

There are quite a few British tanks that were useful and well designed. 



M103_Longstreet #25 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:57

    Major

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

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:55, said:

German tanks were expensive and required heavy resources to be produced. Viable only until production sets grew (or at least tried to grow..).

 

And were terrible at their job when they didn't break down.



BabyOlifant #26 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 05:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View Posticoleman, on Jan 28 2014 - 04:55, said:

It wasnt advanced. It did its job with numbers, and later modifications in armament through the course of war.. but far from being "advanced". 

 

*he says in between hits of aerosol paint*



icoleman #27 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:00

    Major

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

View PostT___A, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:57, said:

And were terrible at their job when they didn't break down.

 

The idea was acceptable enough. It did not however, suffice against allied strategical armour placements. Less trying to built big tanks and improving the tank doctrine of the Panzer IV would have been more ideal. 



M103_Longstreet #28 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:01

    Major

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

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:00, said:

 

The idea was acceptable enough. It did not however, suffice against allied strategical armour placements. Less trying to built big tanks and improving the tank doctrine of the Panzer IV would have been more ideal. 


The allied equivalent of the Panzer 4 is the T-28, which shows how limited it development was by the time of world war 2.



Priory_of_Sion #29 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:02

    Major

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

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:55, said:

 

Cheap tank model with little crew protection against the enemy it faced. 

Cheap? That is a good property. Armor wasn't spectacular but the Pz IV had a worse armor layout(which is what it faced the majority of the time). It also won on the large scale and small scale. 



Obsidian_Shine #30 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:02

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4683 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    07-30-2013
I like how, whereas the Top Tanks thread was made for honest discussion and comparison, this was just made to jump on the "bash Germany" bandwagon. Keep it up, and it just might catch up to the Wehraboo Wagon!

icoleman #31 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:03

    Major

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

View PostT___A, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:01, said:


The allied equivalent of the Panzer 4 is the T-28, which shows how limited it development was by the time of world war 2.

 

Giving the tanks produced by Germany at the time, the Panzer IV was the better doctrine to advance from. Either way the end result would have been the same, just delayed with time. 



schaghticokekid #32 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8369 battles
  • 1,481
  • [NET] NET
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

View PostT___A, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:37, said:

in no particular order.

Tiger

King Tiger

Panther

Maus

IS-4

I lol'd

 

Mine:

M4 Sherman: (Not including the M4A3E8 "Easy 8" and "Firefly" variants) - A total deathtrap that, ton-for-ton, was absolutely outclassed by nearly everything it encountered. Disregarding industry strengths, it's a weak stream of chicken piss. A weak stream of chicken piss that was easy to build and highly expendable. Nothing says "War-Winner" like crispy crewmen!

Jagdpanzer VI (P): (Elephant, Ferdinand, whichever) - A tank that carried a gun that gave it less mobility over ground that it's towed variant. Big, bulky, complicated, and vulnerable to human wave attacks. Good thing the Soviets never tried that, am I right?

Bob Semple Tank: There's really no need to explain this

Antonov A-40: Is it a tank or a plane? Either way, it's crap. Leave it to the Soviets to try to make a steel brick fly, then make the brick a useless, outdated piece that may as well have been in a museum.

Char 2C: A Tank built to act as a trench-busting mobile fortress. The French were really focused on the last war with this one. Unfortunately, by the time they turned around, Hitler was already drinking champagne in Paris.

 



BabyOlifant #33 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostObsidian_Shine, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:02, said:

I like how, whereas the Top Tanks thread was made for honest discussion and comparison, this was just made to jump on the "bash Germany" bandwagon. Keep it up, and it just might catch up to the Wehraboo Wagon!

 

which is why we're all talking about how bad the Panzer III was.


right



Priory_of_Sion #34 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:04

    Major

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

View PostObsidian_Shine, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:02, said:

I like how, whereas the Top Tanks thread was made for honest discussion and comparison, this was just made to jump on the "bash Germany, Italy, Heavy tanks besides the IS-2, American TDs, the UK, Japan" bandwagon. Keep it up, and it just might catch up to the Wehraboo Wagon!

ftfy



BabyOlifant #35 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:04, said:

M4 Sherman: (Not including the M4A3E8 "Easy 8" and "Firefly" variants) - A total deathtrap that, ton-for-ton, was absolutely outclassed by nearly everything it encountered. Disregarding industry strengths, it's a weak stream of chicken piss. A weak stream of chicken piss that was easy to build and highly expendable. Nothing says "War-Winner" like crispy crewmen!

 

[citation needed]



awesomelions #36 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6210 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013

View PostCold_Llama, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:55, said:

anything Mexican or candian

pretty sure the americans made bad tanks worse then the Canadians

 



Krieger_07b #37 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12734 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    09-30-2011

View PostObsidian_Shine, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:02, said:

I like how, whereas the Top Tanks thread was made for honest discussion and comparison, this was just made to jump on the "bash Germany" bandwagon. Keep it up, and it just might catch up to the Wehraboo Wagon!

 

No, it was created for the express purpose of wanking over the big cats, or is the OP not obvious enough for you?

View PostKnuckleduster_2015, on Jan 23 2014 - 13:13, said:

5. JS-2 model 1944 with forged hull

 

4. Panther Ausf. D

 

3. Tiger

 

2. Panther Ausf. G

 

1. King Tiger

 



Priory_of_Sion #38 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:07

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:04, said:

I lol'd

 

Mine:

M4 Sherman: (Not including the M4A3E8 "Easy 8" and "Firefly" variants) - A total deathtrap that, ton-for-ton, was absolutely outclassed by nearly everything it encountered. Disregarding industry strengths, it's a weak stream of chicken piss. A weak stream of chicken piss that was easy to build and highly expendable. Nothing says "War-Winner" like crispy crewmen!

You can replace the M4 with Panzer IV or Cromwell and it would still make sense. M4s with wet ammo storage had the lowest burn rates of the war, I might as well add.



awesomelions #39 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6210 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:41, said:

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.

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 



BabyOlifant #40 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View Postawesomelions, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:07, said:

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 

 

would you want to stand in front of a child holding a loaded Cricket .22 rifle?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users