WORST overall tank (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Capt. Pixel -> WORST overall tank (6/24/2002 2:30:29 AM)

Just reading the "Best overall tank" and thought a comparison thread for 'Worst ... " would produce some interesting results. :D

I figure there are going to be a few models that will show up on BOTH lists! ;)

My nomination: Any Japanese tank. :p



Hades -> (6/24/2002 2:54:14 AM)

The M1917. Only a 30cal, I dont even thik it can be considered a tank.



Belisarius -> Re: WORST overall tank (6/24/2002 2:59:33 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
[B]My nomination: Any Japanese tank. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

Then you haven't used them. :D :D

As I just found out vs. Scharfschütze, pitted against equal resistance (read: USMC, M3!), they can too hurt! :)

Are tankettes eligible for nomination?



Capt. Pixel -> Re: Re: WORST overall tank (6/24/2002 3:33:45 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]

Then you haven't used them. :D :D
[/B][/QUOTE]

More likely, I never used them correctly. :rolleyes:

Tankettes? Sure, why not! :D



Egg_Shen -> (6/24/2002 1:02:29 PM)

I find when using Japanes tanks you get only about 1 or 2 when the USMC get about 20, so it's kinda hard to hit them head on.



tanks I dont like are the Russian's little square ones, I've never used them but when I have P4's tigers and panthers they are a 1 shot 1 kill deal, plus there seems to be a crap load of them around too.



antarctic -> (6/24/2002 1:06:52 PM)

[QUOTE]My nomination: Any Japanese tank[/QUOTE]

Well, you have to take that in context. Japanese Tanks were designed with the fact that they would mostly fight in jungle, as infantry support. I think in that role, they seem to do pretty well...
Just play the Aussie defense of Malaysia scenarion in SPWAW, and you'll see the point.

Respectfully

Antarctic



stevemk1a -> (6/24/2002 1:44:19 PM)

I think that the true test of a really bad tank should be based on an analysis of what threats it was designed to face. If crews were given a piece of equipment that was incapable of dealing with any expected opponent then that is a truly bad AFV.



Capt. Pixel -> (6/24/2002 2:54:58 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by willy
[B]I think that the true test of a really bad tank should be based on an analysis of what threats it was designed to face. If crews were given a piece of equipment that was incapable of dealing with any expected opponent then that is a truly bad AFV. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's more along the lines of what I was thinking in "The Worst Tank".

Items like one man turrets, underpowered, undergunned, under-armored, over-sized.

I don't think doctrine can be considered here, either. The Char B1 and Somua tanks might have actually proven quite effective in the early war years had it not been for questionable tactical doctrines. That doesn't necessarily make them 'bad' tanks. :)

I've got to admit I fail to see the use in the FT-17. It isn't even particularly capable as a machinegun.



screamer -> (6/24/2002 6:26:57 PM)

the T35 T37 and FT17 pop up in mind



Seagull -> (6/24/2002 7:18:43 PM)

The FT-17 has my vote, too.



Penetrator -> (6/24/2002 7:46:26 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seagull
[B]The FT-17 has my vote, too. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's not really fair is it? It actually was the BEST tank in the world in its time. How else would it still be in service 20 years later?



Penetrator -> (6/24/2002 7:48:13 PM)

For a major tank type, I would submit the italian M13-14-15 series.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/24/2002 9:03:07 PM)

I agree on the Italian tank nomination.

How could the nation with the best cars produce that tank?



Seagull -> (6/24/2002 9:08:14 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penetrator
[B]

That's not really fair is it? It actually was the BEST tank in the world in its time. How else would it still be in service 20 years later? [/B][/QUOTE]

A one-man, manual traverse turret on a tank whose commander/gunner is obliged to stand :eek: won't win any praise from me. I can't imagine sharing that space with a 37mm gun, either.

French faith in the Maginot Line and a doctrine that placed all tanks in dispersed infantry support roles account for its continued use in service at the start of WWII. ;)



Penetrator -> (6/24/2002 10:34:53 PM)

My point is that it is unfair to measure it up against WW2 tanks, as per the argument for "intended adversaries".



Seagull -> (6/24/2002 11:44:28 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penetrator
[B]My point is that it is unfair to measure it up against WW2 tanks, as per the argument for "intended adversaries". [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I just tried a platoon of FT-17M's against a platoon of GE MG34 MMG's. I thought that the machine guns would rip the FT-17's apart. Not so. The tanks suppressed hard, but no effective hits were scored. I tried closing the gap, and the MMG's got chewed to pieces by op fire. Maybe they aren't so bad, in the right context.

I still think that a design which requires the commander to stand all the time has serious flaws, though. ;)



stevemk1a -> (6/25/2002 11:22:56 AM)

The FT-17 was designed in 1917 with a rear mounted engine and a fully traversing turret, and set the pattern of almost every tank to come. It was designed as an Infantry support weapon to kill MG nests, not tanks. It was a very successful tank for it's time and was exported to many countries, armed with MG's or small cannon (up to a 75mm howitzer). By WWII it was obsolete, and not intended for a modern war. On the other hand, the Soviet T-35 was a waste of resources with a big crew and three seperate main guns (two 45mm and one 76mm). It was highly mechanically unreliable, and impossible for a commander to control effectively, on top of all that, the armour wasn't very good. The 10 man crew could have manned two tanks with the same investment in training, and the guns could have equipped three tanks!



Egg_Shen -> (6/25/2002 10:34:58 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by willy
[B]The FT-17 was designed in 1917 with a rear mounted engine and a fully traversing turret, and set the pattern of almost every tank to come. It was designed as an Infantry support weapon to kill MG nests, not tanks. It was a very successful tank for it's time and was exported to many countries, armed with MG's or small cannon (up to a 75mm howitzer). By WWII it was obsolete, and not intended for a modern war. On the other hand, the Soviet T-35 was a waste of resources with a big crew and three seperate main guns (two 45mm and one 76mm). It was highly mechanically unreliable, and impossible for a commander to control effectively, on top of all that, the armour wasn't very good. The 10 man crew could have manned two tanks with the same investment in training, and the guns could have equipped three tanks! [/B][/QUOTE]

T-35 AHH! :eek: is that the Monster Huge tank!!!
I saw it and it scared me but then a 37mm from a Panzer3 took it out I was like phew! :)



troopie -> (6/26/2002 12:56:45 AM)

The French St. Chamond, that extended far over the front and rear of the track, and got stuck easily. Or the German Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. It had all of 40mm of ground clearance, and short tracks and also got stuck easily.

troopie



Capt. Pixel -> (6/26/2002 3:25:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by troopie
[B]The French St. Chamond, that extended far over the front and rear of the track, and got stuck easily. Or the German Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. It had all of 40mm of ground clearance, and short tracks and also got stuck easily.

troopie [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah see! This is the kinda stuff I was looking for. Truly Godawful design concepts.

40mm ground clearance? :eek:



Svennemir -> (6/26/2002 5:58:33 AM)

Cap.t Pixel: THIS is what you were looking for: (and all of you reading this)

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/tsartank1.htm



Capt. Pixel -> (6/26/2002 8:37:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir
[B]Cap.t Pixel: THIS is what you were looking for: (and all of you reading this)

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/tsartank1.htm [/B][/QUOTE]

Boy! that is one ugly momma. Looks like something that should have been US Civil War period. :)



Hussar -> The Bob Semple (6/26/2002 6:45:17 PM)

OK everyone,
This Tank just has to take the first prize. There is no contest, this is absolutely the worst!!!
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newzealand/newzealand.html



Capt. Pixel -> Re: The Bob Semple (6/27/2002 3:04:54 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hussar
[B]OK everyone,
This Tank just has to take the first prize. There is no contest, this is absolutely the worst!!!
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newzealand/newzealand.html [/B][/QUOTE]

If you haven't already taken the time to look at the "Bob Semple", take the time! :D



Suvorov -> Garbage-pickers (6/28/2002 11:11:25 AM)

Its quite halarious when garbage-pickers comment on engineering marvels, alas it is my duty to educate their dumb asses.

T-35
Battle mass: 50t
Crew: 11
Armament:
76.2mm KT-28, 2x45mm-1932, 6x7.62mm DTMG
Respective ammunition:
96/220/10080
Armour:
30mm welded plates
Powerplant:
M-17T, V12 carburator 500hp engine
Speed:
30kmh
BTD:
120km

It is important to note that the prototype for this tank was made in 1931 NOTE YEAR 1931<--- as a heavy-cruiser tank. The typical cruiser tank was developed at that time in most countries practicing arms developement (France, British Empire,

The British Empire has a tank quite similar in design A1E1 Independant, its a 4 turret (45mm/4MG) 31.5t tank with an 8 man crew with armour 13-28mm. OBVIOUSLY MUCH INFERIOR

In 1931 Germany isn't even allowed tanks, however they make a few resembling ww1 tanks with much of the same characteristics "Reinmetall".

Italy has a similar tank at the time the Fiat 2000 a 40t 10 man crew 15-20mm armoured tank with a 65mm cannon and seven 6.5mm MG's however there's a problem with this powerhouse!.. an old man can outWALK this tank in a walking competition, since it only reaches the spead of 6km/h!

France has a similar to T-35 tank which was used to battle germany for a few days... the 70t FCM 2C with a 12man crew 13-45mm armour plates 75mmgun and 5 8mm GcMG, the problem again is the powerplant a 180hp GIIIa later 250hp Maibach engine giving blazing speeds of 12km/h TRULLY A WEAPON OF BLITZ CREIG! if it could only keep up with the infantry.

You want armour? here you go:
Churchil Mk IV (A22) an impressive piece of junk metal made in 1939!!! 39.5t 5 man crew turtle with the speed of 12.8km/h offroad! armour? 12-102mm! WOW! but a 2lbs / 3 inch gun make my grandma more threatening.

Let's sum it all up.
The T-35 a tank in its time for its time... a masterpiece. With a 76mm main gun of 16.5 calibers capable starting velocity of 530m/s (note: 1931!!!) with the 45mm guns 46 caliber! anti tank guns capable of knocking out 45mm of armour!!! With observation towers implemented by other nations only in 1934-1942. Equiped with a radiostation for 15km com radius on movement and 30km stationary with 7 channel instant communication. Exerting a ground pressure of .78kg/cm^2 (note PzKpfw IV Ausf. D has .95kg/cm^2 hence less off road capability for a medium tank!!!)
On the chassis of the T-35 the SAU-SU-14-1 with a 203mm gun was later made.
Obviously by the begining of the German-Soviet war the tank was mediocre, but by no means bad! Since even the PzKpfw III Ausf. E is lighter armoured with only a 37,mm gun and similar speeds!
The T-35's majour drawbacks are the complexity of the tank. Only a skilled crew could operate this machine, as well a breakdown meant that the tank would have to be towed for repair. However for a tank of 1931 these are very minimal drawbacks when compared to the benifits.

Hope I haven't bored ya'll to death.



stevemk1a -> (6/28/2002 12:45:34 PM)

O.K. I got egg on my face! I didn't realize that the T-35 was actually designed in 1931. It also seems to be part of a trend of multi-turreted tanks. When you compare the Soviet design to the other European efforts, it actually comes off favouably! I guess we can blame the Brit Independent tank for this dead end of AFV design. - The T-35 still sucks, however it seems to represent the peak of the "Land Battleship" concept and as such is not a candidate for "Worst Tank". I withdraw my suggestion and I will admit that the T-35 still kinda facinates me....



stevemk1a -> Masterpiece (6/28/2002 12:51:26 PM)

P.S. Even in my esteemed capacity of a Dumbass, I will not support the T-35 tank as a "Masterpiece".



Suvorov -> (6/28/2002 6:55:49 PM)

lol we can agree on that ;)
I think I went overboard too hehehe



Belisarius -> Re: The Bob Semple (6/29/2002 5:34:05 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hussar
[B]OK everyone,
This Tank just has to take the first prize. There is no contest, this is absolutely the worst!!!
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newzealand/newzealand.html [/B][/QUOTE]

HAHAHAHA!

I vote for Bob! :D :D



OKW-73 -> (6/30/2002 8:43:43 PM)

I think its much harder to say what is worst tank than best tank...there are just too many bad tanks around, but ofc it depends of a lot things like what year and so on...one that pop-up on my mind was first series of T-34's with short barrel...they didnt hit anything compared to German panzers, but im sure there are more worst tanks around also...

Was just reading Anthony Beevors Stalingrad and in book he says T-34 was best tank in WW2...he dont say any specific model, but makes me wonder a bit cause i always tought that Germany had best panzers anyway...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625