Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #61 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:40

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:34, said:

I post nonsense cause all the cool kids do it!

 

See my latest post. Also see Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga, read the book, don't just look at the pictures. 

 

 

Come back after you've done this, and you will be less ignorant and more pleasant. 

 



xthetenth #62 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostT___A, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:37, said:

Cite a source that says the fires on the M4 Sherman were caused by the fuel tanks.

I can cite Zaloga stating that the placement of ammo racks in the panther's sponsons was a cause of a great many fires, but not that.

 

It's time to a fun theory. I hypothesize that if every single Panzer III in the Wehrmacht was replaced with a Panther, the Red Army would have been in far better shape in 1942 since the Germans wouldn't have been able to pull off the encirclements that did a huge share of the killing.

 

EDIT: Jeeps your parents weren't married at your conception.

 

Also, the only tank that was armored against most every threat it could be expected to encounter was the Maus. Coleman, do you contend that the only acceptable armed forces force structure is literally nothing but Maeuse because anything else isn't survivable enough?



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #63 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:47

    Major

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

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

 

 

EDIT: Jeeps your parents weren't married at your conception.

 

 

 

Are you trying to say I'm a bastard!!

 

My mother is a good Christian Lady!



xthetenth #64 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
You have ninja'd me and therefore I must contend that they were unwed and your conception was in a state of decidedly non-marital bliss.

1HandTiedBehindMyBack #65 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:55

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24675 battles
  • 393
  • Member since:
    08-17-2011

Look you guys want to bag on German stuff like it was useless to make you feel better about this or that country but the fact is when the Tiger 1 rolled out it rick rolled everything it faced and it wasn't even close!  I find it funny that you guys want to pull stuff from late 45 (rpgs) when the first people facing tigers had zero reasonable way to deal with them short of send WAVES of tanks and hoping for a lucky side/rear shot. Of course nothing Soviet or American every had any growing pains RIGHT!

 

Also if all German armor was so horribad why did the Germans come within days of beating the 2 biggest superpowers in the world.  Funny how you guys act the the 75l70 was a terrible gun when for AT is was one of the best of the war. 



schaghticokekid #66 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:55

    Captain

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

Joseph Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all it's own"

It actually has many. One great one is being you can afford to throw tanks at your enemy. We're not talking about which tanks won the war. This is about which vehicle sucked on an individual level. One-V-One here.

Another issue here may be my lack of clarity. This is the M4. Not the M4A1, 76mm variants, or upgrades. The M4 that was first introduced to the war in 1942 and left in the beginning of 44. The reason I specified that it wasn't the E8 or Firefly was that they stood out as exceptional examples of engineering.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #67 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:57

    Major

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

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:49, said:

You have ninja'd me and therefore I must contend that they were unwed and your conception was in a state of decidedly non-marital bliss.

 

Shhh don't talk about it! My moms a good Christian Lady! And my dad was a Sailor. 

 

 



BigWaveSurfer #68 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:58

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8683 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

picking of the KV-1 has me confused as a worst tank (could see KV-2 as it turret could only turn on flat ground). when it first fought the German MBT's at the start of invasion of Russia the PzIII's best gun was the 50mm L42 and the best gun in the PzIV was the short 75mm. both of which could do nothing against a KV-1. most of the time they had to bring up a K18 10cm gun or the 88mm Flak gun.

if u want to see some crapy tanks from WWII have a look at what the Kiwi's (New Zealand) come up with...always great for a laugh....sorry to any Kiwi's reading this :hiding:

 



schaghticokekid #69 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:01

    Captain

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

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:40, said:

 

Come back after you've done this, and you will be less ignorant and more pleasant. 

 

Also, ad hominem? Really?



Priory_of_Sion #70 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:03

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:55, said:

Joseph Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all it's own"

It actually has many. One great one is being you can afford to throw tanks at your enemy. We're not talking about which tanks won the war. This is about which vehicle sucked on an individual level. One-V-One here.

Another issue here may be my lack of clarity. This is the M4. Not the M4A1, 76mm variants, or upgrades. The M4 that was first introduced to the war in 1942 and left in the beginning of 44. The reason I specified that it wasn't the E8 or Firefly was that they stood out as exceptional examples of engineering.

That is pretty dumb. 1 vs. 1 duels rarely, if ever, happen. I'd still want to be in an M4 against rather than in the most common tank it faced--The Panzer IV which had worse armor, a higher burn rate, and a much inferior overall design. 



schaghticokekid #71 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:05

    Captain

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

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:03, said:

That is pretty dumb. 1 vs. 1 duels rarely, if ever, happen.

Yes, but you wouldn't compare the performance of 100 Prius's against that of 1 Ferrari, would you?



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #72 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:07

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:01, said:

Also, ad hominem? Really?

 

No, fact. People who spew bad information are ignorant. Sorry, but if that hurts, solve it. The book’s a great read, you will be so happy after reading it and taking in all the wonderful content, you will come back full of factual info, and be more pleasant. 

 

 

Hearing the same ignorant debunked crap over gets old, this stuff was covered in the thread that spawned this one and hundreds of others. Fact is, the Sherman was a better tank than any of the cats, not because of numbers, but because of its design superiority and how it fit into a better Armys combined arms team. 

 



nicodeimous #73 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 30351 battles
  • 2,505
  • [7-BDR] 7-BDR
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

I see a lot of German tanks in these lists - really funny considering how many bad tanks were produced by the various factions in the game.

There are far too many to even get a top five, but I am fairly sure the Tiger, KV, Panther and others named in the above posts wouldn't even make a list of the worst.  Even the Sherman wouldn't ... because there simply are too many utterly garbage tanks made.  I will give one example of each country - though by no means exhaustive of the garbage made.  They will be commonly re-searchable though.

 

1. Italian tanks [M13/40]

2. Japanese tanks [Chi-Ha]

3. most British tanks up to the comet [Valiant]

4. most pre-t-34 tanks the Russians made [T-28]

5. most pre war German tanks [Pz II]



xthetenth #74 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View Postbobicous, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:55, said:

Look you guys want to bag on German stuff like it was useless to make you feel better about this or that country but the fact is when the Tiger 1 rolled out it rick rolled everything it faced and it wasn't even close!  I find it funny that you guys want to pull stuff from late 45 (rpgs) when the first people facing tigers had zero reasonable way to deal with them short of send WAVES of tanks and hoping for a lucky side/rear shot. Of course nothing Soviet or American every had any growing pains RIGHT!

 

Also if all German armor was so horribad why did the Germans come within days of beating the 2 biggest superpowers in the world.  Funny how you guys act the the 75l70 was a terrible gun when for AT is was one of the best of the war. 

 

Within days? Tell me more about how they captured Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow and got all the way to the great bend of the Volga. Tell me more about how they'd deal with the UK pulling their planes out of the airfields under direct attack.

 

Regarding the Tiger: I think you just described how the Germans had to counter the B2, Matilda II, and KV-1. The US 76mm, British 25 pounder with AP, Russian 85mm and many other guns were all capable of penetrating Tigers. You're arguing the centerpiece of a combined arms team is effective. This shouldn't be surprising with all the support they had. KV-1s achieved similar results in much worse situations.

 

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:05, said:

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:03, said:

That is pretty dumb. 1 vs. 1 duels rarely, if ever, happen.

Yes, but you wouldn't compare the performance of 100 Prius's against that of 1 Ferrari, would you?

 

How does someone compare tanks to cars? Tanks are terrible cars and cars are terrible tanks. Tanks are tanks and have different criteria. If you can't drive into position, deliver violence to the enemy and exploit gaps now filled with pieces of the enemy, you're in a bad tank. The Panther failed at two of those criteria. It was a bad tank.



Priory_of_Sion #75 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:12

    Major

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

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:05, said:

Yes, but you wouldn't compare the performance of 100 Prius's against that of 1 Ferrari, would you?

Apples and Oranges Orangutans. Cars != tanks

 

The M4 actually had a very surprising combat record versus the Panther. If you look at the US Army's Ballistic Research Lab's assessment of tank engagements of 3rd and 4th Armored, you will see that the M4 was 3.6x better than the Panther. Armor and a high penetration gun does not a good tank make. 



Zinegata #76 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:14

    Major

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

View Postnicodeimous, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:11, said:

I see a lot of German tanks in these lists - really funny considering how many bad tanks were produced by the various factions in the game.

There are far too many to even get a top five, but I am fairly sure the Tiger, KV, Panther and others named in the above posts wouldn't even make a list of the worst.  Even the Sherman wouldn't ... because there simply are too many utterly garbage tanks made.  I will give one example of each country - though by no means exhaustive of the garbage made.  They will be commonly re-searchable though.

 

1. Italian tanks [M13/40]

2. Japanese tanks [Chi-Ha]

3. most British tanks up to the comet [Valiant]

4. most pre-t-34 tanks the Russians made [T-28]

5. most pre war German tanks [Pz II]

 

The Italian and Japanese tanks are only awful if you don't take into account that their industry for making tanks was almost non-existent to begin with.



schaghticokekid #77 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:15

    Captain

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

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:07, said:

 

No, fact. People who spew bad information are ignorant. Sorry, but if that hurts, solve it. The book’s a great read, you will be so happy after reading it and taking in all the wonderful content, you will come back full of factual info, and be more pleasant. 

 

 

Hearing the same ignorant debunked crap over gets old, this stuff was covered in the thread that spawned this one and hundreds of others. Fact is, the Sherman was a better tank than any of the cats, not because of numbers, but because of its design superiority and how it fit into a better Armys combined arms team. 

 

So.... you deny that you made and ad hominem attack, then proceed to explain your ad hominem attack... Sometimes I forget that I'm on an internet forum. Good to see we're at least sort of on the same page here.



schaghticokekid #78 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:16

    Captain

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

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:12, said:

Apples and Oranges Orangutans. Cars != tanks

 

The M4 actually had a very surprising combat record versus the Panther. If you look at the US Army's Ballistic Research Lab's assessment of tank engagements of 3rd and 4th Armored, you will see that the M4 was 3.6x better than the Panther. Armor and a high penetration gun does not a good tank make. 

Apples to oranges would be comparing a tank to a car. I'm not. I believe the word is "metaphor".



Xplato #79 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 18734 battles
  • 4,502
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

In no particular order.They are all worthless crap tank designs.

1:King tiger

2:Tiger

3:Panther

4: Maus

5: M3 Lee


Edited by Xplato, Jan 28 2014 - 07:17.


Zinegata #80 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:18

    Major

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

View PostDracoArgentum, on Jan 28 2014 - 12:49, said:

 

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

 

Everything before the Cromwell was inexcusably unreliable and suffered from the patently insane "cavalry" idea. The infantry tanks were also unreliable and are the unenviable mixture of not being armored enough to actually bounce the plentiful German 88s while still being slow enough to be badly outmaneuvered by most German tanks.

 

The Cromwell/Comet was okay but by then most British Divisions were getting Shermans already anyway. It was simply inexcusable for the Brits to go without an actual good tank for so long and that it was the Americans who ended up supplying them for the most part.

 

There is a reason why every documentary trying to glorify British tanks tends to focus on Hobbart's funnies. Those were among the only few tanks the Brits made which were actually good.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users