Jump to content


Top 5 Most Mediocre Tanks of WWII


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

Crazedtiger77 #61 Posted 23 May 2015 - 06:07 AM

    Major

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

View PostPanzerwerfer42, on 23 May 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

LOL, the M4 and T-34 were war winners....Thanks for the joke.  American and Russian industrial might were the war winners.  M4s and T-34s were simply a means for the US and Russia to get their boys killed at 4-5 at a time.  They were called Tommy Cookers for a reason.

 

 

 


 

1. Mk. I and II, Most surviving chassis' were converted to tank destroyers or artillery.  Greatest impact was the beginning of the war but was quickly being replaced by Mk III and IV's.

2. M3 Lee/Grant - This design was sooo WWI.  Bigger silhouette makes for easier target.

3. Matilda - The two pounder prevented this tank from being effective offensively, armored but slow, you don't see the tanks named mentioned much out side of losing battles.

4. T-34 had a 9 to 1 loss ration against the Panther.  Two man turret for the early models.  The Russians couldn't use it's mobility to their advantage '43-'44.  And being defeated by Mk.III's because of poor command and control is embarrassing.  Its greatest strength was shear numbers, and that's a tell tail sign of an overrated tank.

5. IS-2 Slow, cumbersome, hull armor issues (reason for the IS-2m), very slow reload and only 16 round total capacity.  When a German technical manual says the Tiger is superior and should use its mobility to flank it, that means you have a crappy tank.


 

 

1. I think mediocre is too good for the mk 1 and 2, their guns were useless against anything with armour.

2. The Grant was pretty good for the time and was the first vehicle that scared Rommel because it was superior to the German armour of the time. Granted, it only retained this status for a little while, but nevertheless it was a solid first proper medium for the US.

3. In the early years, the Matilda wrecked German and Italian armour and the losses in Arras and Greece weren't due to the tank itself being bad. It required the long 75mm or 88mm to take it out, meaning it was very good in the early years, earning it the title 'queen of the desert'.

4. T-34 was what the Russians needed at the time - they knew their tanks didn't last long, so the cheap, easy to produce literally anywhere and well-armed (85mm gun) T-34 was a success.

5. Let's be honest, the Germans were biased weren't they? The IS-2s 122mm gun was ideal for the city fighting in late WWII and it wasn't overengineered like the Tiger was.



Matthew J35U5 #62 Posted 29 May 2015 - 11:01 PM

    Major

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

View PostPanzerwerfer42, on 22 May 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

LOL, the M4 and T-34 were war winners....Thanks for the joke.  American and Russian industrial might were the war winners.  M4s and T-34s were simply a means for the US and Russia to get their boys killed at 4-5 at a time.  They were called Tommy Cookers for a reason.

 

 

 


 

1. Mk. I and II, Most surviving chassis' were converted to tank destroyers or artillery.  Greatest impact was the beginning of the war but was quickly being replaced by Mk III and IV's.

2. M3 Lee/Grant - This design was sooo WWI.  Bigger silhouette makes for easier target.

3. Matilda - The two pounder prevented this tank from being effective offensively, armored but slow, you don't see the tanks named mentioned much out side of losing battles.

4. T-34 had a 9 to 1 loss ration against the Panther.  Two man turret for the early models.  The Russians couldn't use it's mobility to their advantage '43-'44.  And being defeated by Mk.III's because of poor command and control is embarrassing.  Its greatest strength was shear numbers, and that's a tell tail sign of an overrated tank.

5. IS-2 Slow, cumbersome, hull armor issues (reason for the IS-2m), very slow reload and only 16 round total capacity.  When a German technical manual says the Tiger is superior and should use its mobility to flank it, that means you have a crappy tank.


 

 

Wehraboo spotted. 

2. The design is not similar to that of WWI tanks, and one might note that the M3 Lee was quite effective in Africa. If one were to appreciate the constraints under which the Americans were working, the M3 Lee is in fact a rather well designed vehicle. It was never intended to be anything more than a stop-gap, but it served well while American industry prepared to build the Sherman. 
4. Lol. 9:1 loss ratio against Panther. Sourced documentation, or GTFO. Also, T-34 such a bad tank that Guderian demanded Germany produce a copy. So bad that the British want to build them. The absolute worst of tanks. 
5. I want to comment that the IS-2M is a modernization done in the 1950's, and was not prompted by hull armour issues. You are referring to the IS-2 model 1944. You should refer to it that way. 

Anyway, one might observe that Soviet documentation on the IS-2 notes that it is not inferior in mobility to medium tanks, and can undertake maneuvers with them, and also that the IS-2 can carry 28 shells, not 16. The IS-2 model 1943 had relatively poor hull armour, but it seems a bit overcritical to complain about the IS-2 produced between (IIRC) March 1944 and June 1944, when the problem was quickly fixed. 

Also, the sentence, "The Tiger is superior and should use its mobility to flank it" is a bit laughable if you think about it briefly. 

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


FlukenJager #63 Posted 21 June 2015 - 09:19 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18174 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015

View PostKnot3D, on 07 April 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

 

Indeed....and actually, the Pz III was innovative for its time, being (one of?) the first tanks with full radio communication with command and other Panzers- while the tank crew had proper mics and headsets. 

 

This tank evolved all the way from the mid 30's until 1943.

 

The first T34's the Germans encountered relied on signal flag communication and the commander found himself overloaded with tasks, whereas the Pz III was a tactical innovation.

 

In fact, there's supposed to be a report where the Russians bought a couple of Pz III's, tested them against their own early T34's and the Pz III's performed favourably.

People severely overlook the language barrier the red army had (even up into the cold war)….very huge country. MANY languages spoke in the red army, the "white russian" language everyone is familiar with was/is pretty rarely spoken as a universal language.

The signal flag system wasn't used because the russians were advanced enough to have radios.

It was used because they all couldn't understand each other.

 

also note that ALL during world war 2, naval communication was far more common to be done with no verbal means than with radios.

 

Radio encryption back then was super rare and using it could give away the position and intention of very valuable ships…. so they used coded flags and other signals.



FlukenJager #64 Posted 21 June 2015 - 09:26 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18174 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015

another thing… T-34s and shermans were used FAR past ww2.

We didn't see the korean war or conflicts in the middle east using captured tigers or panthers, or even the technology reversed engineered from them.

The future of tanks past ww2 were based on the shermans and t34/kv/is tanks.

 

so this nonsense about the awesome, over engineered , superior, ahead of it's time german tanks is trash.

Otherwise we would have seen copies of them (like the mp 44 was copied) for years to come.

 

Things that germany gave the world that came out of the ww2 war machine.

Swept wing aircraft, Jet fighters, The space race/rocketry, long rang warhead/intercontinetial ballistic missiles, advanced submarine warfare, the assault rifle.

 

Tanks were not one of them.



Panthergraf #65 Posted 21 June 2015 - 07:45 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37469 battles
  • 1,515
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Shermans and T-34s were used after WW2 because 10.000s of them were available in the depots, reserves, factory yards to arm satellite nations like North Korea quick and chreap. There were only few german tanks (and planes) left after WW2, but some Stugs, Panzer 4s and BF109s were still used by countries like Romania, Egypt etc.

On the other hand: german WW2 tank design was a dead end. They started from scrap in the 50ies and did very well doing so.

Matthew J35U5 #66 Posted 21 June 2015 - 08:33 PM

    Major

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

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 21 June 2015 - 04:19 AM, said:

View PostKnot3D, on 07 April 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

 

Indeed....and actually, the Pz III was innovative for its time, being (one of?) the first tanks with full radio communication with command and other Panzers- while the tank crew had proper mics and headsets. 

 

This tank evolved all the way from the mid 30's until 1943.

 

The first T34's the Germans encountered relied on signal flag communication and the commander found himself overloaded with tasks, whereas the Pz III was a tactical innovation.

 

In fact, there's supposed to be a report where the Russians bought a couple of Pz III's, tested them against their own early T34's and the Pz III's performed favourably.

People severely overlook the language barrier the red army had (even up into the cold war)….very huge country. MANY languages spoke in the red army, the "white russian" language everyone is familiar with was/is pretty rarely spoken as a universal language.

The signal flag system wasn't used because the russians were advanced enough to have radios.

It was used because they all couldn't understand each other.

 

also note that ALL during world war 2, naval communication was far more common to be done with no verbal means than with radios.

 

Radio encryption back then was super rare and using it could give away the position and intention of very valuable ships…. so they used coded flags and other signals.

So the Russians began putting radios in their tanks not because they finally were able to produce enough radios to equip all of their units, but because they had managed to teach russian to all of the people in the army? An interesting interpretation. 

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 21 June 2015 - 04:26 AM, said:

another thing… T-34s and shermans were used FAR past ww2.

We didn't see the korean war or conflicts in the middle east using captured tigers or panthers, or even the technology reversed engineered from them.

The future of tanks past ww2 were based on the shermans and t34/kv/is tanks.

 

so this nonsense about the awesome, over engineered , superior, ahead of it's time german tanks is trash.

Otherwise we would have seen copies of them (like the mp 44 was copied) for years to come.

 

Things that germany gave the world that came out of the ww2 war machine.

Swept wing aircraft, Jet fighters, The space race/rocketry, long rang warhead/intercontinetial ballistic missiles, advanced submarine warfare, the assault rifle.

 

Tanks were not one of them.

 



Nocturnal814 #67 Posted 21 June 2015 - 09:11 PM

    Major

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

You're going to need to expand that one matthew. As far as I know the stg-44 was the first operational assault rifle, the V-1 was the first operational cruise missile, the v-2 was the first ballistic missile, and the me262 was the first operational jet fighter. What did I miss?



something, something, something, dark side...

Nocturnal814 #68 Posted 21 June 2015 - 09:13 PM

    Major

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

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 21 June 2015 - 01:26 AM, said:

another thing… T-34s and shermans were used FAR past ww2.

We didn't see the korean war or conflicts in the middle east using captured tigers or panthers, or even the technology reversed engineered from them.

The future of tanks past ww2 were based on the shermans and t34/kv/is tanks.

 

so this nonsense about the awesome, over engineered , superior, ahead of it's time german tanks is trash.

Otherwise we would have seen copies of them (like the mp 44 was copied) for years to come.

 

Things that germany gave the world that came out of the ww2 war machine.

Swept wing aircraft, Jet fighters, The space race/rocketry, long rang warhead/intercontinetial ballistic missiles, advanced submarine warfare, the assault rifle.

 

Tanks were not one of them.

 

panthers were used by the French for many years after the war, pz ivs served in the Syrian army as late as the 1967 war, the fact that tigers, tiger iis, and jagdtigers didn't really have much postwar service was likely due to the fact that there weren't any left...

something, something, something, dark side...

Thirsty German #69 Posted 21 June 2015 - 10:34 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13585 battles
  • 92
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 21 June 2015 - 03:26 AM, said:

another thing… T-34s and shermans were used FAR past ww2.

We didn't see the korean war or conflicts in the middle east using captured tigers or panthers, or even the technology reversed engineered from them.

The future of tanks past ww2 were based on the shermans and t34/kv/is tanks.

 

so this nonsense about the awesome, over engineered , superior, ahead of it's time german tanks is trash.

Otherwise we would have seen copies of them (like the mp 44 was copied) for years to come.

 

Things that germany gave the world that came out of the ww2 war machine.

Swept wing aircraft, Jet fighters, The space race/rocketry, long rang warhead/intercontinetial ballistic missiles, advanced submarine warfare, the assault rifle.

 

Tanks were not one of them.

 

German tanks were awesome! But... most tanks were. As cool as the German tanks were, they really didn't do much to influence modern design. That being said, they were used by LOTS of people after WW2. Those tanks were already there, why not use them?

 

View PostNocturnal814, on 21 June 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

 

panthers were used by the French for many years after the war, pz ivs served in the Syrian army as late as the 1967 war, the fact that tigers, tiger iis, and jagdtigers didn't really have much postwar service was likely due to the fact that there weren't any left...

 

Eastern European armies used them too, in addition to whatever equipment the Soviets brought with them.

Matthew J35U5 #70 Posted 22 June 2015 - 02:24 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 21 June 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

You're going to need to expand that one matthew. As far as I know the stg-44 was the first operational assault rifle, the V-1 was the first operational cruise missile, the v-2 was the first ballistic missile, and the me262 was the first operational jet fighter. What did I miss?

Well, the Stg-44 wasn't the first assault rifle, the V1/V2 were an evolution of an American's work, and the Allies had parallel projects to the Me262. That is to say that the Germans did not invent assault rifles, they didn't invent rockets/spaceflight/missiles, and whomever started working on jet fighters first (idk if it was Germany or Britain), Britain didn't copy Germany when they created the Meteor. 


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


Nocturnal814 #71 Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:08 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 June 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

Well, the Stg-44 wasn't the first assault rifle, the V1/V2 were an evolution of an American's work, and the Allies had parallel projects to the Me262. That is to say that the Germans did not invent assault rifles, they didn't invent rockets/spaceflight/missiles, and whomever started working on jet fighters first (idk if it was Germany or Britain), Britain didn't copy Germany when they created the Meteor. 

 

what was the first assault rifle then? 

How come didn't the allies have any cruise missiles during the war and scrambled so hard to go the German scientists that developed said rockets?

parallel projects to the me262, what about the German prewar jet fighter? The he-178? You know, the first jet powered aircraft to fly...



something, something, something, dark side...

Matthew J35U5 #72 Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:21 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 21 June 2015 - 10:08 PM, said:

 

what was the first assault rifle then? 

How come didn't the allies have any cruise missiles during the war and scrambled so hard to go the German scientists that developed said rockets?

parallel projects to the me262, what about the German prewar jet fighter? The he-178? You know, the first jet powered aircraft to fly...

 

This article lists some good contenders:
www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/
I rather like the Federov Avtomat, but there are several in there that qualify. 

Because the Americans ignored Goddard completely. Von Braun was surprised at the allies not having a rocket program because of how influential he felt Robert Goddard was. 

How is the meteor a copy/derivation of the He-178? The Germans had a project and the british had a project, neither seemed to have copied from the other...

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


Nocturnal814 #73 Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:27 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 June 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

 

This article lists some good contenders:
www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/
I rather like the Federov Avtomat, but there are several in there that qualify. 
there is no denying ,however, that the fact the stg-44 was in relatively widespread use first and influenced other countries to come up with effective versions of their own
Because the Americans ignored Goddard completely. Von Braun was surprised at the allies not having a rocket program because of how influential he felt Robert Goddard was. 
again, German use of the weapon influenced other countries to follow suit with improved designs
How is the meteor a copy/derivation of the He-178? The Germans had a project and the british had a project, neither seemed to have copied from the other...

to say allied weapons didn't influence German and German weapons didn't influence allied weapons doesn't make sense. At the very least the he-178 as well as other German jets gave the British more urgency to complete their own models.

 



something, something, something, dark side...

amanwiththree #74 Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:01 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 30411 battles
  • 1,934
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Am I right in my interpretation that we are talking about "underrated" tanks?

 If so, the humble Stug III was the only armour the Germans could call upon on the Eastern front on some occasions late in the war.

They were used to plug gaps in the line as well as counter-attacks, they made a hugely disproportionate number of kills.

It was less about the advanced technological virtue of the tank (Tigers Panthers etc) but the fact that the Stug didn't require nearly as much logistics, it was mechanically reliable and could actually travel long distances by road without breaking down. It also used a fraction of the fuel. 

And there were quite a few of them by comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Camping is killing this game

 

 


Crazedtiger77 #75 Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:47 AM

    Major

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

View Postamanwiththree, on 22 June 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

Am I right in my interpretation that we are talking about "underrated" tanks?

 If so, the humble Stug III was the only armour the Germans could call upon on the Eastern front on some occasions late in the war.

They were used to plug gaps in the line as well as counter-attacks, they made a hugely disproportionate number of kills.

It was less about the advanced technological virtue of the tank (Tigers Panthers etc) but the fact that the Stug didn't require nearly as much logistics, it was mechanically reliable and could actually travel long distances by road without breaking down. It also used a fraction of the fuel. 

And there were quite a few of them by comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More like the meh tanks which weren't terrible like the FCM 36, but not as good as the Stug. A prime example of a mediocre vehicle is the Tiger 1 Tank.


Matthew J35U5 #76 Posted 22 June 2015 - 11:45 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 22 June 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

 

So we've gone from the "strong" position that these things were invented by Nazi Germany to the much weaker position that they were somewhat influential in causing these bits of technology to enter more widespread use? Seems almost a bit like "no except yes". To reiterate, the first person was basically saying that if not for Nazi Germany none of this stuff would exist in the modern world, which just isn't true at all. 


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


Nocturnal814 #77 Posted 22 June 2015 - 12:41 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 22 June 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

So we've gone from the "strong" position that these things were invented by Nazi Germany to the much weaker position that they were somewhat influential in causing these bits of technology to enter more widespread use? Seems almost a bit like "no except yes". To reiterate, the first person was basically saying that if not for Nazi Germany none of this stuff would exist in the modern world, which just isn't true at all. 

 

on the other hand, much of this stuff wouldn't exist in it's present form were it not for the war. Wars are known to cause massive leaps forward in technology that just wouldn't get the funding were it not needed immediately.

Also, would you not say that apple didn't invent the computer or the phone, yet by putting these together they changed communication completely? Inventions are rarely the work of one person (or country) and generally credit for the invention goes to the one to put it together and market (or field) the invention first.



something, something, something, dark side...

NSW Mntd Rifles #78 Posted 03 July 2015 - 04:28 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39247 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

I am amused that the Matilda II is mentioned in this thread. While very much a pre-war design it was a very effective weapons platform and was one of the few tanks in front line service from 1939 until the cessation of hostilities in 1945. It devastated panzer columns in the defence of the Dunkirk beachhead in 1940 and served well in North Africa. The Australians mounted flamethrowers on them and also fitted them as bulldozers. By any measure a tank that served in the European, North African and Pacific Theatres, and was in active service throughout the war, should be regarded as more than mediocre. https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Matilda_II

 



Nocturnal814 #79 Posted 03 July 2015 - 10:56 AM

    Major

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

View PostThirsty German, on 21 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

 

German tanks were awesome! But... most tanks were. As cool as the German tanks were, they really didn't do much to influence modern design. That being said, they were used by LOTS of people after WW2. Those tanks were already there, why not use them?

 

 

Eastern European armies used them too, in addition to whatever equipment the Soviets brought with them.

 

I must actually disagree that German tanks did not influence post war tanks. Some served as great examples of what NOT to do when building tanks.

something, something, something, dark side...

Matthew J35U5 #80 Posted 03 July 2015 - 12:30 PM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 03 July 2015 - 05:56 AM, said:

 

I must actually disagree that German tanks did not influence post war tanks. Some served as great examples of what NOT to do when building tanks.

 

I still rather like the example of the Soviets copying the Ferdinand's electric transmission, and having their prototype set itself on fire almost immediately. 

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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users