Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

Priory_of_Sion #41 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:10

    Major

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

View Postawesomelions, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:07, said:

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 

I wouldn't want to stand in front of any tank. However it isn't like T-34s and M4s could KO Tigers @ 600 meters or anything(they could). 



Cl4nkCl4nk #42 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25523 battles
  • 1,364
  • [TEXAS] TEXAS
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Posthobowankenobi, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:55, said:

....All of these are worse than Lee/Grant?    Hard to imagine a Tiger or Panther crew would swap for a Lee....  :sceptic:

 

The Lee/Grant series were absolutely known to be stop-gaps by their designers, engineers, logisticians, generals, and probably even their crews.

 

When and where the M3 Medium tank was deployed, it didn't suck too bad.  Facing Pz.IIIs and the very earliest Pz.IVs, its armor and armament were strong and threatening respectively.

 

In this game we play, the M3 Lee regularly faces tanks it was never ever intended/actually expected to oppose.

 

In WWII, the Lee/Grant did its job and was replaced in a timely fashion. The shortcomings of the M4 series of medium tanks, and the failure to upgrade it in a timely fashion should not be held against the legacy of the M3 series.

 

 



M103_Longstreet #43 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:10

    Major

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

View PostBabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:09, said:

 

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


Depends, has he used a gun before?



EnsignExpendable #44 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:15

    Major

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

View Postawesomelions, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:07, said:

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 

 

If I stand far enough away, it will break down before it gets to me. Or I can toss an RPG-40 at it, get a mobility kill, and giggle from the trenches as the enemy loses thousands of man-hours trying to get it back up and running.



HMCS_ElsAnna_ #45 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30558 battles
  • 589
  • [1CAN] 1CAN
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postawesomelions, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:07, said:

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 


Would you like to stand in front of a KV-1? The overall size of a gun didn't matter; it was the fact that it could go through you. If the Ha-Go was so bad, why aren't we standing in front of them, too? I'm not saying it was good at war, I'm just saying that the image of a tank is nothing compared to the fact that it has a gun. And it can end your life. M4s can just as well as Tigers, but aren't as big a hassle to care for.



EnsignExpendable #46 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:16

    Major

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

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 23:55, 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". 

 

 

You can keep denying it as long as you want, but the fact is that the M4A1 and literally every T-34 model were too advanced for the Germans to produce. 

 

Edit: what other M4s were too hard for the Germans to pull off? Help me out, people.


Edited by EnsignExpendable, Jan 28 2014 - 06:18.


BabyOlifant #47 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 10718 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
All of them. Cast turrets r hard.

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #48 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:20

    Major

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

View Posticoleman, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:55, said:

 

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

The M4A1 was not a cheap model, it was arguably the most advanced tank in the world when introduced, and when they met the Germans in the Deserts of North bers, and later modifications in armament through the course of war.. but far from being "advanced". 

 

 

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

 

 

It was ideal... at first.

 

 

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

 

 

The M4A1 was not a cheap model, it was arguably the most advanced tank in the world when introduced, and when they met the Germans in the Deserts of North Africa, the Germans got their asses kicked. When the same tanks met Panthers at Arracourt and just about everywhere else in Europe the Panthers lost.

http://en.wikipedia....le_of_Arracourt

It’s only modern day Wehraboos who still believe the Nazis driven propaganda about German tank being anything but junk .

 

Some early war tanks like the PIII were good. Most were poorly engineered hand built junk. The Tiger, Panther and Kingtiger were all horrible tanks.  Unlike every other nation the Germans never figured out putting the Tranny and final drives in the back was a good idea. So all their tanks hand front transmissions with a drive shaft running under the fighting compartment, this made them all too tall.  They also had poor fire control, bad ammo storage, laughable turret drives, armor so brittle it spalled and wounded or killed crew members without needed to be penned. Their motors were junk. There track system was idiotic. They were so unreliable they had to be shipped by train as close to the battlefield as the Germans could get them.  All in all the big cats helped the allies win the war they were so packed with fail.  

 

You've earned the sign. 

 



EnsignExpendable #49 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Really, they couldn't even do the turret? Laffo.

schaghticokekid #50 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8364 battles
  • 1,481
  • [NET] NET
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:07, said:

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.

The problem had nothing to do with the ammo. The issue lies with the gasoline engine that had a really bad habit of melting crews. 



BabyOlifant #51 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:23

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:22, said:

The problem had nothing to do with the ammo. The issue lies with the gasoline engine that had a really bad habit of melting crews. 

 

[citation needed]



Priory_of_Sion #52 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:24

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:22, said:

The problem had nothing to do with the ammo. The issue lies with the gasoline engine that had a really bad habit of melting crews. 

It had everything to do with the ammo. "Dry" M4s burned ~80% of the time when hit, "wet" M4s burned ~10% when hit. 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #53 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:25

    Major

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

View PostBabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:05, said:

 

[citation needed]

 

His ass, Belton Cooper and the History channel. 



EnsignExpendable #54 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:27

    Major

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

Here's a very simple comparison of "advanced" engineering vs "primitive" engineering. See if you can guess the tank and nation!

 

Tank 1: Tanks are starting to break down after 1000 km? Unacceptable, better get that reliability up, chop-chop!

Tank 2: 700-1000 lifetimes on engines? Eh, good enough, if I don't mention the parts that fail sooner, I can trumpet how glorious this tank is!

 

Ready to guess? 

 

Spoiler

 

 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #55 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:32

    Major

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

View Postawesomelions, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:07, said:

would u want to stand in front of a tiger

 

 

Dumb argument is dumb, and has nothing to do with anything. And the Tiger is still a pile of crap. Think I'm wrong? Tell us why, don't go with a stupid argument like this. 

 

You may as well go with a YOU MOMS FAT JOKE.... 



schaghticokekid #56 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8364 battles
  • 1,481
  • [NET] NET
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:25, said:

 

His ass, Belton Cooper and the History channel. 

Aw, that's cute. Some people just can't accept that we won with a quantity over quality strategy. It saw limited service in Africa were it performed fairly well against the by then obsolete Panzer 3. In Italy it faced down Italian tanks that were easy kills for the British army in 1941. In Western Europe they did a fine job of being built faster than they could explode

Remember, we're looking at tanks, not manufacturing industry here. Even then the Soviets still win that fight. 



M103_Longstreet #57 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 13568 battles
  • 6,834
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012
Cite a source that says the fires on the M4 Sherman were caused by the fuel tanks.

EnsignExpendable #58 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Tanks are a weapon of war. Tanks are good when they are good at winning wars. Tanks that are only good for winning honourable one on one tank duels are not good at winning wars, therefore they are bad weapons. Therefore, if you want to win a war, you should not build these tanks.

BabyOlifant #59 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:38

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 05:34, said:

Aw, that's cute. Some people just can't accept that we won with a quantity over quality strategy. It saw limited service in Africa were it performed fairly well against the by then obsolete Panzer 3. In Italy it faced down Italian tanks that were easy kills for the British army in 1941. In Western Europe they did a fine job of being built faster than they could explode

Remember, we're looking at tanks, not manufacturing industry here. Even then the Soviets still win that fight. 

 

In Western Europe, they completely crushed "superior" Panther tanks in several engagements.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #60 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:39

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:22, said:

The problem had nothing to do with the ammo. The issue lies with the gasoline engine that had a really bad habit of melting crews. 

 

Did you know all German tanks had gas engines and were very prone to gas fires? Did you know the Panther in particular liked to light itself on fire?

 

You are wrong again, it was not fuel fires that burned out Shermans, it was ammo fires, ammo storages changes made the Sherman one of the least likely tanks to burn after 43. Cause the allies had the ability to rebuilt the older models and keep the current, and no they didn’t get a better gun. The 75mm M3 was more than enough to handle the Cats it faced. 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users