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 #21 Posted 09 February 2015 - 02:47 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 08 February 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

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.

I don't know. It's hard to feel excited about the rough equivalent of what the Soviets would get if they kept developing the T-28 instead of changing over to the T-34. 


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


Crazedtiger77 #22 Posted 09 February 2015 - 07:16 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 08 February 2015 - 10:45 PM, said:

 

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

 

Even so, Jagdpanzers were better in the defensive role than mk IVs and were cheaper, so I'd say they were a success.


Crazedtiger77 #23 Posted 09 February 2015 - 07:27 AM

    Major

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

View PostTGS Killinitems, on 09 February 2015 - 01:36 AM, said:

But still World War II started 1932 or 1939-1945 so T-34 would some what be considered as during war tank.

 

The great patriotic war began in 1941, but the T-34 entered service in 1940 so it is pre war.


Nocturnal814 #24 Posted 09 February 2015 - 07:43 AM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 09 February 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

 

Even so, Jagdpanzers were better in the defensive role than mk IVs and were cheaper, so I'd say they were a success.

 

not when you consider they filled a role already filled by 2 more than adequate tds. (Jagdpanzer 38 (t) and stug iii)

something, something, something, dark side...

Dennis420b #25 Posted 09 February 2015 - 08:43 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I disagree. When speaking in terms of technology the term "Pre-war" would denote before the war started period. This is largely seen as 1939. If you are speaking of something specific than yes 1941 could be used for the USSR. But in general terms like this it is defining an era not specific to a nation. IMHO the T-34 is a war time tank.

KuroFelidae #26 Posted 09 February 2015 - 09:16 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9826 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

Here's my top  mediocre tank :P

 

1. The Cavalier A24 was a pretty meh tank. More of a stop gap in between the Crusader and Cromwell. Just a bigger target with the same 6pdr gun.

 

2. Panzer III was pretty mediocre as well throughout the entire war really. Used in the purpose of being the tank used o take down hostile tanks it's armament was pretty horrific. Of course there were the 7.5cm L/24 armed ones for infantry support, but not early in the war. The main tank killer in North Africa for example were the towed anti tank guns, while the Panzer III was just cannon fodder really. It wasn't errible, but it wasn't special.

 

3. Crusader was another meh tank, fast and armed with a decent gun for taking down early German tanks, but only when the tank worked. Reliabilty was horrific, and the armour on the tank was rubbish.

 

4. The Italian Fiat M13/40 was nothing special either. Armed with a 47mm cannon the gun was not anything special although it wasn't terrible and with a maximum of 42mm riveted armour it's survivability wasn't good. The tank had a reasonably high profile too and the engine was relatively weak giving only around 8 hp/t which left it rather sluggish, but not overly slow. Could still reach a decent-ish speed on road.

 

5. Type 95 Ha-Go a Japanese light tank was the first Japanese tank to engage enemy tank units in the pacific  (US M3 Stuarts, Phillipines). It also has the distinction of being the only enemy tank to ever land on North American soil. It was mass produced by the Japanese with numbers in their thousands but it wasn't particuarly good. It was sa fast tank weighing only 7.4 tonnes and armed with a 37mm cannon which was good enough for lightly armoured US vehicles but not much else. Armour was non-existent and there were times where US forces managed to disable the with .50 machine gun fire (can't confirm if true). Due to the environment it's main advantages couldn't really be used aside from it's small size. As a light tank it was more or less outclassed by the Stuart's in nearly every way. It was also modified and adopted for different roles which included the Ta-Se AA vehicle, Ho-Ru a turretless SPG mounting a 47mm cannon, and the Ke-Ri mmounting a 57mm Model 97 gun.


R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


DistastefulDodo #27 Posted 11 February 2015 - 09:10 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 13159 battles
  • 3,702
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Nashorn.

While it had the powerful 8.8cm KwK L71 (by 1943 as well), it was a stop-gap at best. It's high profile made it hard to hide in the Russian Steppes.


Nevertheless, a bit over 400 were made ans some were still being used by 1945


Edited by Panther013, 11 February 2015 - 09:11 AM.


JASON BOURNE450 #28 Posted 11 February 2015 - 10:22 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9396 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

I'm shocked the king tiger did not get a mention, It's weight prevented it from going over a lot of bridges, it had a weak power to weight ratio and as a result, broke down regularly. And when it was introduced, the heavy tank was being debated, meaning it was coming obsolete with the MBT on the horizon. Plus the allied air-forces could pick these off easily as they were such a huge target.

 


Edited by King oF Tatin, 11 February 2015 - 10:23 AM.

"The two most Powerful Warriors are patience and time" - Leo Tolstoy

 

Tanks Owned: JP E-100, Tiger(Otto), E-100, Jagdtiger,, PZ 38H, T110E5, Birch gun, Matilda, T-62A, KV-2, Churchill III, IS-3, ISU-152  Goal tanks: FV304 

 


Aidan43 #29 Posted 11 February 2015 - 12:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20711 battles
  • 871
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
  1. BT-2
  2. BT-7
  3. T-26
  4. T-46
  5. T-28
  6. I would say all these tanks are mediocre what a pain it was to play these tanks.

Signature by Sqn Ldr B

t0iislh.png

Re-searching, Centurion 7/1, T34-2, AMX 50 120, Indien-Panzer, E-75, 113, ISU-152, Sturer-Emil


Matthew J35U5 #30 Posted 11 February 2015 - 08:46 PM

    Major

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

View PostKing oF Tatin, on 11 February 2015 - 05:22 AM, said:

I'm shocked the king tiger did not get a mention, It's weight prevented it from going over a lot of bridges, it had a weak power to weight ratio and as a result, broke down regularly. And when it was introduced, the heavy tank was being debated, meaning it was coming obsolete with the MBT on the horizon. Plus the allied air-forces could pick these off easily as they were such a huge target.

 

The King Tiger is left out because calling it mediocre is an insult to mediocre tanks. 

View PostAidan43, on 11 February 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

  1. BT-2
  2. BT-7
  3. T-26
  4. T-46
  5. T-28
  6. I would say all these tanks are mediocre what a pain it was to play these tanks.

T-28 is pretty good for a tank that was designed in 1931. 


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


WirePaladin52 #31 Posted 11 February 2015 - 09:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17289 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

M4 Sherman - tankers nicknamed it the "Ronson" after a cigarette lighter that had the motto "Lights first time, every time". Their only advantage is they were mass produced and usually had an overwhelming number against the Germans.

 


Block Quote

 "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Mark Twain

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #32 Posted 11 February 2015 - 10:52 PM

    Major

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

View PostWirePaladin52, on 11 February 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

M4 Sherman - tankers nicknamed it the "Ronson" after a cigarette lighter that had the motto "Lights first time, every time". Their only advantage is they were mass produced and usually had an overwhelming number against the Germans.

I think you're in the wrong neighbourhood mate. We aren't big fans of history-channel-history 'round here. 


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


v Skoll v #33 Posted 11 February 2015 - 11:43 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9977 battles
  • 1,744
  • [GRU]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostPanther013, on 11 February 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

Nashorn.

While it had the powerful 8.8cm KwK L71 (by 1943 as well), it was a stop-gap at best. It's high profile made it hard to hide in the Russian Steppes.


Nevertheless, a bit over 400 were made ans some were still being used by 1945

 

While true, it was a stop-gap, I would be hard pressed to call the Nashorn mediocre or simply "okay".  In it's intended role, it was a good gun platform, capable of defeating virtually all armor fielded against it from considerable range.  That is where the Nashorn was at it's strongest, as it's armor was clearly never meant to stop anything but small arms fire.  In it's intended role it was quite good, outside of it is where it suffered.  Yes, it had a large silhouette, but that often meant little when it was engaging effectively at ranges that many of the Soviet vehicles (like the T-34's) it was engaging, could not effectively return fire from. 

 

Like the M3 Lee it was a stop gap, and both had powerful guns when they entered the fray, but the L/71 proved to be effective throughout the whole war where as the 75mm M2 and M3 did not.

 

 

Anyways, my list is:

 

KV-2:  The SU and ISU-152 proved to be far better designs, and more survivable and realistic when used in destruction of fortifications, infantry support, long range bombardment, and in ambush.  The KV-2 was obviously an earlier design, but it was also a poor design.  It overburdened the chassis thanks to the turret, and made the vehicle blatantly obvious on the battle field as it was so tall, and had further serious complications thanks to the turret and gun.

 

Pz.Kpfw.III:  While the Panzer III was a well built, relatively cheap to produce, and agile vehicle, whose chassis would serve as the basis for a good number of other vehicles, it proved to be near useless in it's intended role as a main battle tank meant for engaging enemy tanks.  It was a great design for the inter-war period, but proved ineffectual very early into hostilities with the Soviet Union thanks to the T-34 and KV series vehicles.  Further, while it had it's strengths, it was not a forward thinking tank in terms of gun adaptability.

 

Churchill I:  An outdated mode of thinking, which would have been great if WWII was WWI :P  Initially thought to be used in trench warfare scenarios, they were then developed into infantry support vehicles, but they proved far too slow for this role when compared to how the combatants were equipped even prior to WWII.  The motorized vehicles had come a long way since the WWI period, and were much faster and more capable in cross country and other environments, so very slow vehicles like the Churchill were outdated for quick infantry support.  Even with horses instead of motorized vehicles, the Churchill was still too slow.  Don't get me wrong, the Churchill still enjoyed some success, but it was a poor design made worse by the fact it entered service after France and Poland had become a lesson in quick mobile warfare.

 

All Italian tanks:  :trollface:.......but seriously......they were bad

 

Type 97 Chi-Ha or the BT-7 would be my next pics.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Matthew J35U5 #34 Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:27 AM

    Major

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

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 11 February 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

 

While true, it was a stop-gap, I would be hard pressed to call the Nashorn mediocre or simply "okay".  In it's intended role, it was a good gun platform, capable of defeating virtually all armor fielded against it from considerable range.  That is where the Nashorn was at it's strongest, as it's armor was clearly never meant to stop anything but small arms fire.  In it's intended role it was quite good, outside of it is where it suffered.  Yes, it had a large silhouette, but that often meant little when it was engaging effectively at ranges that many of the Soviet vehicles (like the T-34's) it was engaging, could not effectively return fire from. 

And it isn't as if a Nashorn is more vulnerable than a towed PaK 43 would be. A much more economical solution than a Tiger II or Jagdpanther. 


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


Crazedtiger77 #35 Posted 12 February 2015 - 07:10 AM

    Major

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

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 11 February 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

While true, it was a stop-gap, I would be hard pressed to call the Nashorn mediocre or simply "okay".  In it's intended role, it was a good gun platform, capable of defeating virtually all armor fielded against it from considerable range.  That is where the Nashorn was at it's strongest, as it's armor was clearly never meant to stop anything but small arms fire.  In it's intended role it was quite good, outside of it is where it suffered.  Yes, it had a large silhouette, but that often meant little when it was engaging effectively at ranges that many of the Soviet vehicles (like the T-34's) it was engaging, could not effectively return fire from. 

 

Like the M3 Lee it was a stop gap, and both had powerful guns when they entered the fray, but the L/71 proved to be effective throughout the whole war where as the 75mm M2 and M3 did not.

 

 

Anyways, my list is:

 

KV-2:  The SU and ISU-152 proved to be far better designs, and more survivable and realistic when used in destruction of fortifications, infantry support, long range bombardment, and in ambush.  The KV-2 was obviously an earlier design, but it was also a poor design.  It overburdened the chassis thanks to the turret, and made the vehicle blatantly obvious on the battle field as it was so tall, and had further serious complications thanks to the turret and gun.

 

Pz.Kpfw.III:  While the Panzer III was a well built, relatively cheap to produce, and agile vehicle, whose chassis would serve as the basis for a good number of other vehicles, it proved to be near useless in it's intended role as a main battle tank meant for engaging enemy tanks.  It was a great design for the inter-war period, but proved ineffectual very early into hostilities with the Soviet Union thanks to the T-34 and KV series vehicles.  Further, while it had it's strengths, it was not a forward thinking tank in terms of gun adaptability.

 

Churchill I:  An outdated mode of thinking, which would have been great if WWII was WWI :P  Initially thought to be used in trench warfare scenarios, they were then developed into infantry support vehicles, but they proved far too slow for this role when compared to how the combatants were equipped even prior to WWII.  The motorized vehicles had come a long way since the WWI period, and were much faster and more capable in cross country and other environments, so very slow vehicles like the Churchill were outdated for quick infantry support.  Even with horses instead of motorized vehicles, the Churchill was still too slow.  Don't get me wrong, the Churchill still enjoyed some success, but it was a poor design made worse by the fact it entered service after France and Poland had become a lesson in quick mobile warfare.

 

All Italian tanks:  :trollface:.......but seriously......they were bad

 

Type 97 Chi-Ha or the BT-7 would be my next pics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only one of your choices I disagree with and that is the Churchill (I assume you were thinking about about all Churchill models?). Although the Churchill 1 was undergunned and suffered many teething problems, later models were excellent. It's armour was the best of any tank the western allies could field and its off road abilities allowed this tank to reach areas the axis deemed impassable to tanks. The Churchill also formed the basis for many of Hobarts funnies which were vital in the success of D-Day. 

The major issues with the Churchill were mobility and only using a 6 pounder or 75mm gun, but unlike Shermans, the tank had the armour to survive long enough to be able to use these guns at closer range.Overall, the Churchill was an evolutionary dead end but served it's purpose at least decently in WW2. If you want to see one of the even worse alternatives, look at the tank in my signature.


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 12 February 2015 - 07:44 AM.


Geisterwaffen #36 Posted 12 February 2015 - 08:27 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3456 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

1. T-35: an interesting design, but woefully ineffective.

 

2. Carro Armato P40: Italian heavy tank (keyword is Italian)

 

3. Turán: Hungarian tank that always failed to meet the needs of it's military

 

4. Bob Semple tank: New Zealands tank! A converted tractor armed w/ 6x Brem LMGs

 

5. FCM 36: French prewar, 'nuff said



Nocturnal814 #37 Posted 14 February 2015 - 03:06 AM

    Major

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

View PostProtoss1914, on 12 February 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

1. T-35: an interesting design, but woefully ineffective.

 

2. Carro Armato P40: Italian heavy tank (keyword is Italian)

 

3. Turán: Hungarian tank that always failed to meet the needs of it's military

 

4. Bob Semple tank: New Zealands tank! A converted tractor armed w/ 6x Brem LMGs

 

5. FCM 36: French prewar, 'nuff said

 

the carro p40 was actually viewed as an acceptable design as far as I know. Not mediocre at all, actually the only Italian tank of the war to have any real effectiveness against other armored vehicles. 

something, something, something, dark side...

Geisterwaffen #38 Posted 14 February 2015 - 11:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3456 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 13 February 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

the carro p40 was actually viewed as an acceptable design as far as I know. Not mediocre at all, actually the only Italian tank of the war to have any real effectiveness against other armored vehicles. 

 

The biggest issue is it's a two man crew. Other than that it's slow off-road, and lacks a commander coupla.


MoistNugget9130 #39 Posted 15 February 2015 - 01:11 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6904 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 11 February 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

Pz.Kpfw.III:  While the Panzer III was a well built, relatively cheap to produce, and agile vehicle, whose chassis would serve as the basis for a good number of other vehicles, it proved to be near useless in it's intended role as a main battle tank meant for engaging enemy tanks.  It was a great design for the inter-war period, but proved ineffectual very early into hostilities with the Soviet Union thanks to the T-34 and KV series vehicles.  Further, while it had it's strengths, it was not a forward thinking tank in terms of gun adaptability.

 

The Panzer III was actually designed to adapt a 50mm gun in anticipation of the 37mm becoming inadequate, which became the only reason it stayed in use up to 1943.



Victorious Nox #40 Posted 16 February 2015 - 03:44 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10285 battles
  • 2,305
  • [P4NDA]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2013
such dislike for the Churchill, people seem to forget how disastrous D-day and bocage country fighting could have been without support from Churchill and Hobarts Funnies.

1st wave EU Beta Tester

​Immortals Member

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users