Jump to content


Top 5 Most Mediocre Tanks of WWII


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

Matthew J35U5 #1 Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

We aren't looking for war winners like the T-34 or M4 Sherman, or mechanical monstrosities like the Ferdinand or Tiger II, but just overall, "okay" tanks. I think my list would be (in no particular order)

  • M3 Lee: Worked okay in Africa, worked less well in the Soviet Union, but was fairly good considering America's inexperience in tank design.
  • Valentine: Lend-lease Valentines served with the Soviet Union to Berlin, were used as training vehicles throughout the war. I can't think of anything all that special they did, but they were there.
  • Pz. IV: Compared to the main medium tanks fielded by America and the Soviet Union, the Pz. IV was outdated, one could even say obsolete, but it served throughout the war and was always relevant. 
  • KV-1S/KV-85: They were fine I guess.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


LemonGem3021668 #2 Posted 20 December 2014 - 12:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11279 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
  • Churchill: Mechanical flaws in the early years, but proved quite useful. Lack of a powerful gun doomed these tanks to average support roles only.
  • Panther: Not a bad design, but not a good one either. Like most big German tanks it's power plant was had reliability issues, but it was effective against a superior allied force.
  • KV-2: Its powerful gun gave the Soviets a tank that was more that capable of destroying German fortifications. The tank however never really got to see its true potential. It was kind of just a big-gunned tank that blew things up.
  • M26 Pershing: Its use during WWII just showed it was a average tank. It alone could still not go 1v1 with a Tiger, which is what the allies needed. It was just average tank.
  • M3/M5 Stuart: Fine as ambush vehicles but their 37mm armament made them obsolete from the start. They didn't really have a main role against armor or anything else for that matter.

          My stats aren't perfect, but there impressive for me at least!


Crazedtiger77 #3 Posted 20 December 2014 - 10:17 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

Panzer mk 2- Fast and adaptable enough, but the gun was useless against the newer french, soviet and British tanks from the start.

 

Pz Jager 1- The gun on this tank destroyer really needed the rare tungsten shells to be useful against all tanks, but it gave the Germans much needed firepower at the war's start. However, it was too tall and generally unsuccessful in combat.

 

KV-1 - Although the armour was fantastic to begin with, the gun on this tank was disappointing for a heavy, matching the T34-76 in firepower.

 

Crusader- Fast, low and the first tank with a six-pounder gun, the Crusader was restricted by poor riveted armour and unreliability.

 

Sherman- Despite sheer numbers and being reliable, Sherman tanks armed with the usual 75mm were outmatched by the Panzer IV in many areas. Poor armour and reputation doomed the tank, although upgunned versions were very effective.

 


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 20 December 2014 - 10:18 AM.


XxDAFFYxxDUCKxX #4 Posted 21 December 2014 - 08:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19468 battles
  • 12,270
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
Panzer 3: Although very effective at the start of the war, it was a rather short sighted design, and what few tanks the french and the russians did throw at them (Until russia got it's [edited]together and started spamming T-34s.) were nearly totally immune to the Pz 3's 5 cm gun.

R.I.P. Lucky the cat, (2-24-14) you magnificent bastard.

Click here to learn about the math of WoT!


FRsLastStand #5 Posted 31 December 2014 - 01:00 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13320 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

T-28: Never really expected to fight modern tanks of the era as it was already obsolete at the time of WWII suffered horrendous breakdowns during the Finish campaign,was very easy to knock out also had a underpowered engine and armament was not very good.Ended being fed to German tanks like corn to chickens.

 

M3 Stuart: Was a good tank for recon except by the time of WWII it was considered to be alright in the early years against panzer IIs and IIIs but when upgraded panzers came onto the field it proved to be outclassed in terms of armament,mobility, traverse speed it suffered greatly during the North African campaign it's only grace was its speed.

 

Marder II:While proved to be useful during early stages of the Russian campaign as soon as it met tougher tanks such as T-34-85s,ISU-152s,KV-2s and IS tanks it proved to be unable to penetrate unless it was given a side shot but it suffered from having a high structure,open topped making it highly vulnerable to air bursts,mortars,grenades and HE shells, it was only effective when supported by other tanks and infantry.

 

Matilda II: While it proved to be a tough but to crack during the early years it suffered from being meant as a infantry support tank as that two-pounder could only fire AP which meant it was useless against un-armoured targets, it suffered from being slow allowing other tanks to out flank it and it proved to far from adequate when taking on later models of the panzer IV in Africa.

 

Char B1: It was unreliable,suffered from being slow leading to massive fuel consumption when moving under its own power,suffered from having a one man turret making the commander very overworked and stressed out,main gun was placed in a hull sponson meaning the tank had to be pointed at the target, it's cooling radiators were a huge target proving to be its downfall against better German tank crews also it proved to be not able to keep up with modern advances in warfare.

 

 



MrWuvems #6 Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:08 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 19 December 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

  • Pz. IV: Compared to the main medium tanks fielded by America and the Soviet Union, the Pz. IV was outdated, one could even say obsolete, but it served throughout the war and was always relevant.

 

The early Pz4s were infantry support tanks. Once upgunned they were easily a match for the T-34/76, any A-series tank and the early M4.

Hell, we want to talk bad, the T-34/76 was an awful tank that they were able to stamp out in mass numbers, unable to defeat any gun larger than the 5cm or 75mm howitzer. Remarkable only for the early-barbarosa AT guns being bad against and having pretty hefty HE shells for the time



Matthew J35U5 #7 Posted 02 January 2015 - 01:36 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostTheMEagle, on 01 January 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

 

The early Pz4s were infantry support tanks. Once upgunned they were easily a match for the T-34/76, any A-series tank and the early M4.

Hell, we want to talk bad, the T-34/76 was an awful tank that they were able to stamp out in mass numbers, unable to defeat any gun larger than the 5cm or 75mm howitzer. Remarkable only for the early-barbarosa AT guns being bad against and having pretty hefty HE shells for the time

Well, sure, if you want to compare a tank at the absolute end of its upgrade possibilities to units that can still be upgraded further. I would name it as mediocre because at its most upgraded its only about comparable to the base models of the Sherman and T-34.


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


CIA Lizard #8 Posted 01 February 2015 - 03:47 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3263 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
Tiger: While undoubtedly the most feared tank to the allies during WWII, it's fear was a little overly hyped. The tank had a painful turret rotation speed, numerous mechanical issues, unfriendly to new tanker crews, and had a high tendency to get stuck in the mud.

Red Dough Boy #9 Posted 03 February 2015 - 09:05 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 27761 battles
  • 5,438
  • [_POI_]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
How about Japanese or Italian tanks? They made M4 Shermans look like Tigers comparatively.

If I only had a Baneblade....

 

 

 


MoistNugget9130 #10 Posted 08 February 2015 - 03:30 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6872 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

The M3/M5 Stuart which was only really useful in the Pacific theater and resented by the Soviets.

The M3 Lee/Grant which was purely stopgap tank for the 75mm before the Sherman was ready

The KV-1S which was more mobile than the KV-1, but compromised the thickness that was the KV-1's redeeming factor in the first place

The Valentine because it was an infantry tank yet had a 2-pounder that lacked HE rounds as well as the armor that redeemed the Matilda

The JagdPanzer IV because the StuG and Hetzer were sufficient lighter TDs and it just got in the way of actual tank production

 

 

 


Edited by MoistNugget9130, 08 February 2015 - 03:31 AM.


TGS Killinitems #11 Posted 08 February 2015 - 07:55 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7799 battles
  • 651
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013
Pz. Mark 4
Council men of TGS

Crazedtiger77 #12 Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostMoistNugget9130, on 08 February 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:

The M3/M5 Stuart which was only really useful in the Pacific theater and resented by the Soviets.

The M3 Lee/Grant which was purely stopgap tank for the 75mm before the Sherman was ready

The KV-1S which was more mobile than the KV-1, but compromised the thickness that was the KV-1's redeeming factor in the first place

The Valentine because it was an infantry tank yet had a 2-pounder that lacked HE rounds as well as the armor that redeemed the Matilda

The JagdPanzer IV because the StuG and Hetzer were sufficient lighter TDs and it just got in the way of actual tank production

 

 

 

 

I agree with the first 3 tanks, but not sure about your last points. The Valentine was pretty good: reliable, decent armour compared to its early war peers, low so easily went hull down and cheap to produce. It also mounted the six pounder gun (which had HE) on later models or the 75mm (like the one off the Cromwell).

The Jagdpanzer IV was cheaper than a normal Mk IV (I believe) and was lower. It could mount the long 75mm of the Panther and so Germany may have been better producing these instead of the big, expensive Panthers. However, I'm not going to dispute that the Stug and Hetzer were excellent.



Nocturnal814 #13 Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:43 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 02 January 2015 - 01:36 AM, said:

Well, sure, if you want to compare a tank at the absolute end of its upgrade possibilities to units that can still be upgraded further. I would name it as mediocre because at its most upgraded its only about comparable to the base models of the Sherman and T-34.

I actually disagree about the panzer iv making this list for the sole reason that it is one of only 2 prewar tanks that was able to remain competitive throughout the war.



something, something, something, dark side...

Nocturnal814 #14 Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 08 February 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

 

I agree with the first 3 tanks, but not sure about your last points. The Valentine was pretty good: reliable, decent armour compared to its early war peers, low so easily went hull down and cheap to produce. It also mounted the six pounder gun (which had HE) on later models or the 75mm (like the one off the Cromwell).

The Jagdpanzer IV was cheaper than a normal Mk IV (I believe) and was lower. It could mount the long 75mm of the Panther and so Germany may have been better producing these instead of the big, expensive Panthers. However, I'm not going to dispute that the Stug and Hetzer were excellent.

 

the long 75 severely overtaxed the suspension on the Jagdpanzer iv.

something, something, something, dark side...

Metalrodent #15 Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:46 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 08 February 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

one of only 2 prewar tanks that was able to remain competitive throughout the war.

And the other out of curiousity?

 


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Nocturnal814 #16 Posted 09 February 2015 - 12:30 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostMetalrodent, on 08 February 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

And the other out of curiousity?

 

 

other 1 actually, t34

something, something, something, dark side...

TGS Killinitems #17 Posted 09 February 2015 - 12:33 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7799 battles
  • 651
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 08 February 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

 

other 1 actually, t34

The T34 is not pre war


Council men of TGS

Nocturnal814 #18 Posted 09 February 2015 - 12:38 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostTGS Killinitems, on 09 February 2015 - 12:33 AM, said:

The T34 is not pre war

 

it's from prior to Russia entering the war.... so technically it qualifies...



something, something, something, dark side...

TGS Killinitems #19 Posted 09 February 2015 - 01:34 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7799 battles
  • 651
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 08 February 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

 

it's from prior to Russia entering the war.... so technically it qualifies...

 

You are right TECHNICALLY by a year.
Council men of TGS

TGS Killinitems #20 Posted 09 February 2015 - 01:36 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7799 battles
  • 651
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013
But still World War II started 1932 or 1939-1945 so T-34 would some what be considered as during war tank.
Council men of TGS




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users