Jump to content


Top 5 Most Mediocre Tanks of WWII


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

Killer Mosquito #41 Posted 16 February 2015 - 04:51 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11346 battles
  • 789
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostVictorious Nox, on 16 February 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

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.

 

I agree with you on that but it is over shadowed by tanks like the Sherman, T-34, Tiger etc.. because they either glamorized on TV or produced in greater numbers. 


Edited by K1LLER MOSQUITO, 16 February 2015 - 04:53 PM.


Knot3D #42 Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 22828 battles
  • 3,341
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015

View PostMoistNugget9130, on 15 February 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:

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.

 

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.



FlukenJager #43 Posted 26 April 2015 - 04:36 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 19 December 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

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.

 

PzIV huh???

 

You DO realize this was the most common on most used in combat Axis tank of the war… often misidentified as a Tiger late in the war…. this tank did MOST of the fighting (and tank killing) for the germans in the entire war.

That's hardly ho hum.



FlukenJager #44 Posted 26 April 2015 - 04:39 PM

    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.

 

do you know why they russian military (even into the late 20th century) relied mostly on those flag communications?

Because the country is SO big and their people speak SO many languages, that most units were comprised of soldiers that didn't speak each others languages.

Like much of the american soldiers, Illiteracy was rather high in that era.

EUROPE by contract (and especially germany) was extremely accustomed to multilingual and more educated citizens.

 

Russians used flags like that because even if they had radios, they couldn't understand each other.

It was STILL like that in the 90s when I met and talked with Russian soldiers.

You'd be surprised how many languages the Soviet union had to deal with.



Matthew J35U5 #45 Posted 26 April 2015 - 06:06 PM

    Major

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

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 26 April 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

 

PzIV huh???

 

You DO realize this was the most common on most used in combat Axis tank of the war… often misidentified as a Tiger late in the war…. this tank did MOST of the fighting (and tank killing) for the germans in the entire war.

That's hardly ho hum.

And it was still basically obsolete...


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


Nocturnal814 #46 Posted 27 April 2015 - 02:39 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 26 April 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

And it was still basically obsolete...

 

which is sad that it was able to stand up to tanks which weren't obsolete as well as it did...

something, something, something, dark side...

FlukenJager #47 Posted 27 April 2015 - 03:29 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 26 April 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

And it was still basically obsolete...

 

obsolete compared to what?

The easy 8? That was pretty late war.

The tiger and panther that either ran out of fuel or broke down, or were produced in such small numbers they never made a serious impact in the actual war effort?

PZIV carried the german army, not these stories of entire armies of tigers that never actually happened.



Matthew J35U5 #48 Posted 27 April 2015 - 04:40 AM

    Major

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

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 26 April 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

obsolete compared to what?

The easy 8? That was pretty late war.

The tiger and panther that either ran out of fuel or broke down, or were produced in such small numbers they never made a serious impact in the actual war effort?

PZIV carried the german army, not these stories of entire armies of tigers that never actually happened.

The Pz. IV is more-or-less equivalent to a T-28 that was upgraded with 80 mm frontal armour (I think at least one of these was made), armed with the 85 mm F-30. (Which was proposed I think.) Does that really seem like we shouldn't be describing it as (comparatively) obsolete?


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


FlukenJager #49 Posted 27 April 2015 - 07:03 AM

    Major

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

something can't be "elite" without a standard to compare it to.

 

Army Rangers would not BE elite if everyone received ranger training.

 

A Tiger/Panther would be ELITE if they were the standard tank.

 

the sherman/PZIV was the standard tank. there were tanks that were better, and tanks that were worse.

 

Odd memories of the german army make MP44s and Tigers everywhere, In reality most german soldiers fought the war with bolt action rifles and Panzer 4 tanks… the elite (rare and few) had better weapons.

 



AGiganticRanga #50 Posted 27 April 2015 - 07:03 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12430 battles
  • 372
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
most mediocre tanks of WWII. ANYTHING JAPANESE

Leopard 1 Expert

 

"Give me two Australian divisions and I will conquer the world for you." - Erwin Rommel


Joco3000 #51 Posted 28 April 2015 - 11:28 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26909 battles
  • 28,516
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 February 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

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.

 

Object 115, T-29 and T-28-85 say hello.

The T-28 had far more upgrade potential than any 1931 multi-turreted tank has any right in having.


You can PM with with questions, if you wish. I don't bite.

Compilation thread of my ideas


Aschenblume #52 Posted 28 April 2015 - 11:33 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26029 battles
  • 11,530
  • [DP]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
I wouldn't know as I don't care much for bad tanks. Although the Grant was pretty crude.

       -Dreadnought-

Signature by Desyatnik Pansy

Super-Unicum - WN8 - 3200 -- Check out my tank guides for the: ConquerorLeopard 1STB-1Chieftain,

TigerCenturion Mk. 7/1Jagdtiger, and T26E4 Super Pershing


Metalrodent #53 Posted 07 May 2015 - 07:46 AM

    Major

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

View Postl PanzerFaust l, on 28 April 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

Although the Grant was pretty crude.
Odd one to single out, it was very similar to the Lee

<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


Matthew J35U5 #54 Posted 07 May 2015 - 12:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
The Lee was surprisingly good considering what the US army had been building before-hand. 

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


WidowMaker1711 #55 Posted 07 May 2015 - 01:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Im going to throw the Cromwell in there.

Having seen a BBC documentary by an ex member of 5 RTR.

5 RTR were recalled to UK and reequipped with Cromwells which as I recall didnt go down too well with the crews owing to its outdated design.

For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


JASON BOURNE450 #56 Posted 17 May 2015 - 09:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9396 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Forgot to mention most of the Japanese tanks of the war, M3 Stuart's were more than a match for even the Type 97.

"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 

 


Nocturnal814 #57 Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:09 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
I love that the Italian tanks have yet to be mentioned.

something, something, something, dark side...

lem891 #58 Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6288 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 17 May 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

I love that the Italian tanks have yet to be mentioned.

 

Well it is the Top 5 Mediocre Tanks thread not the Top 5 Worst Tanks.

Matthew J35U5 #59 Posted 17 May 2015 - 11:43 PM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 17 May 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

I love that the Italian tanks have yet to be mentioned.

 

Not good enough. They need a new category, "So bad that we don't feel like its okay to mention how bad they are."

Though to be fair, they were probably good enough in their role of oppressing people in Africa. 

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


Panzerwerfer42 #60 Posted 23 May 2015 - 03:48 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11593 battles
  • 1,459
  • Member since:
    12-29-2014

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 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users