Jump to content


Worst tank ever built ?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

Tupinambis #241 Posted Mar 06 2012 - 22:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 34944 battles
  • 15,141
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
Worst tank ever built is the Lion of Babylon tank. Downgrade of a downgrade of a downgrade of a T-72. Not exaggerating. Made out of mild, non-ballistic steel.

Vollketten #242 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 17:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29557 battles
  • 8,561
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostDeegee, on Sep 07 2010 - 19:19, said:


The British tactics were also very basic; the tanks headed into "No mans land", intending to reach the German lines. Once the tank had reached their target, the crew were expected to disembark and capture their target.


Where the hell did you get that!. WW1 British tanks weren't ever intended for fighting other tanks (there weren't any others to fight when they came out!). They were to break through wire and provide support for infantry. I have never heard of a crew getting out and capturing a German position as a tactic, with what a Webley? They were only to be used with infantry.


View Postcheesellama, on Nov 01 2011 - 01:00, said:

Whatever happened to little willie?

Little Willie is in the collection At Bovington, England and is not a true tank in the meaning of things as it was a proof concept vehicle and was never armed.

Will people stop trashing the T-72- It is a great tank and much feared by the West when it came out-you only have to consider how much work was taken in trying to develop counters to it from better ammo (like DU) to attack helicopter weaponry, infantry AT-GW's etc. Using the 'proff' that Saddams tanks were used badly does not back up the fact that they were rubbish.
If I get a blind child to drive a Ferrari into a tree does it prove the Ferrari is a rubbish car?

Worst tank ever is the Italian M13/40. Absolute crap. Even makes Jap tanks look good. (At least Jap tanks were good for what they were designed to do, the Italian ones weren't good at anything.

_Freddy_ #243 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 17:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 412 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostVollketten, on Mar 14 2012 - 17:28, said:

Worst tank ever is the Italian M13/40. Absolute crap. Even makes Jap tanks look good. (At least Jap tanks were good for what they were designed to do, the Italian ones weren't good at anything.

The M13/40 was still a huge improvement over the M11/39 so hardly the worst tank.

Vollketten #244 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 17:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29557 battles
  • 8,561
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View Post_Freddy_, on Mar 14 2012 - 17:52, said:

The M13/40 was still a huge improvement over the M11/39 so hardly the worst tank.

That is true certainly but I would argue that it IS the worst since they have not learned anything since the M11/39 when they made the M13/40 so can't even use this as an excuse for making such a POS.

Perhaps the thread should have nominated the top worst tanks since there is not much in many of them between different levels of crapness.

_Freddy_ #245 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 18:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 412 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostVollketten, on Mar 14 2012 - 17:58, said:

That is true certainly but I would argue that it IS the worst since they have not learned anything since the M11/39 when they made the M13/40 so can't even use this as an excuse for making such a POS.

Perhaps the thread should have nominated the top worst tanks since there is not much in many of them between different levels of crapness.

The M13/40 was designed when the Italians had had no combat experience except against poorly armed tribesmen and in the Spanish Civil war with their L3's.
It was a poor tank compared to some of the period but the main British tank in 1940 was still the Light MkVI, the Germans had the Panzer II, Panzer 35(t), Panzer 38(t), Soviets had the T26. It was equivalent to all of those (and better than the Light MkVI for AT work).

Its biggest problem was not being replaced by a better design earlier, just evolving instead into the M14/41 and M15/42.

At least they were deemed fit for combat and were even used by the Germans and British Commonwealth forces in combat, unlike the British piece of rubbish the Covenanter (which was also built in far larger numbers while being unfit for operational use and barely fit for use as a training tank).

capnhuff86 #246 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 20:35

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10480 battles
  • 89
  • Member since:
    07-28-2010

View Postrubb4rducky, on Mar 14 2012 - 18:57, said:

Har har, nice one. I will reword the post.


I second the bob tank.

Here is a full page of information and lots of pictures
ford M1918

http://www.fiddlersg...8-WWI-Tank.html

http://www.fiddlersg...k-in-museum.jpg

Vollketten #247 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 21:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29557 battles
  • 8,561
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View Post_Freddy_, on Mar 14 2012 - 18:50, said:


At least they were deemed fit for combat and were even used by the Germans and British Commonwealth forces in combat, unlike the British piece of rubbish the Covenanter (which was also built in far larger numbers while being unfit for operational use and barely fit for use as a training tank).

I give you that...the covananter was truly awful.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users