Sexiest and Ugliest Tanks of WWII

[SimpleSimon]

I've seen the Panther in real life and while its smaller than I thought it would be it's still a very...sinister looking tank. Has a predatory vibe like its namesake. 

The multi turret monstrosities look pretty stupid-the rationale behind them was that they could multitask and cover each other or suppress multiple enemy positions etc but in practice it didn't work on only one tank commander and tanks with all those turrets just look really crowded. I certainly wouldn't laugh at a T-28 if it came at me, but the turrets definitely don't contribute to why i'd view running into it as a major bad day for me and the boys. 

 

[DerKommissar]

43 minutes ago, Probus said:

Yeah, especially the color!

Not a flattering photo, to be sure.

Even with fancy paint and a new turret, it still looks like a junkyard pig.

9 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

I certainly wouldn't laugh at a T-28 if it came at me, but the turrets definitely don't contribute to why i'd view running into it as a major bad day for me and the boys. 

I think the 28 is underrated. It had a 3 man turret with a 76mm gun, a bad ass V12 bomber engine, and standard issue radios. I may fear this as much as an early war P4.

[marais]

Least attractive: the Bisons. Made out of concrete, some with lines from the wooden forms visible.

 

(Image from Wikimedia Commons.)

[marais]

The Bisons aren't really tanks, of course, and they are arguably not vehicles.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Vickers D3E1 looks like a steam cabinet, a tractor, and a lawnmower had whatever the stuff from Transformers was poured over them and out sprang this:

[danfrodo]

OK,that is the ugliest tank I have ever seen

[Vacillator]

2 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Vickers D3E1

Agreed, but

1. it's not a tank (as in the OP's original question)

2. it's well before the WW2 time period (as in the OP's original question)

3. it was an experiment (which did not meet with success) not a production vehicle (not in the OP's original question)

4. It has a nice 'front step' on which to sit and savour one's tea.

5. I'm not the tank appearance police, so whatever .

 

[Probus]

3 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Vickers D3E1 looks like a steam cabinet, a tractor, and a lawnmower had whatever the stuff from Transformers was poured over them and out sprang this:

Yeah, that one fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.  May be an early inspiration for a Darlek also. I guess the tires must pivot up when not on a road? 

4 hours ago, marais said:

Least attractive: the Bisons. Made out of concrete, some with lines from the wooden forms visible.

That looks like a mobile bunker. Never seen it before. 

[RockinHarry]

Hm.... I like curves. So I´d likely go with T-34 (B/C) and Panther coming next maybe. As for ugliest there´s many, but this Vickers D3E1 is hard to beat admittedly.

[dbsapp]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

The Crusader looks great.  It looks like it should have been much better performance.  But, all those rivets...

I believe weapons should exist only for aesthetic purposes, not for the actual use

[Vergeltungswaffe]

6 hours ago, Vacilllator said:

Agreed, but

1. it's not a tank (as in the OP's original question)

2. it's well before the WW2 time period (as in the OP's original question)

3. it was an experiment (which did not meet with success) not a production vehicle (not in the OP's original question)

4. It has a nice 'front step' on which to sit and savour one's tea.

5. I'm not the tank appearance police, so whatever .

 

1. It's has everything a Pz I or II has, so I don't think it's a stretch to call it a tank.

2-5 Duuuuuude  

[SimpleSimon]

18 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I think the 28 is underrated. It had a 3 man turret with a 76mm gun, a bad ass V12 bomber engine, and standard issue radios. I may fear this as much as an early war P4.

I think the net effect of many decades of media familiarization, video games, movies, tv, books, etc is that there's an inability to see things the way people saw them in 1941. Many people in the world in 1941 did not have electricity or indoor plumbing, had never seen a car or an airplane before, and essentially still lived as peasants. Even the ones that did had very little familiarity with something like a tank aside from maybe hearing about it as the nebulous "land battleship" of the Great War. If a T-28 emerged from the treeline it would for many soldiers I think it would be equivalent to something quite actually biblical, and would not be laughed at. It just so happened that by 1941, German troops were pretty seasoned and also probably had a pretty good idea of what its limitations would be. (Avoid its line of sight, wait until it runs out of gas). If you were green and did not know these things as many conscripts in many armies in 1939-41 it would be much worse. Until the advent of credible infantry anti-tank weapons though, such as the Panzerfaust and Bazooka there really wasn't much you could do to challenge a tank assault except hope engineers chose your sector to mine. Most early war infantry anti-tank weapons were improvised weapons or just placebos. By 1943 there was enough warning, enough collective experience, and most importantly of all just enough anti-tank weapons around to at least keep the frontline from melting rapidly in a tank assault-as long as it was a smaller than a Corp attack. It really wasn't until the 1980s that there was much prospect of stopping a Tank Army though...

Edited July 15, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[Probus]

2 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

It really wasn't until the 1980s that there was much prospect of stopping a Tank Army though...

I agree with much of what you said except for maybe the last sentence. I think it's a bit earlier than the '80s. At least the Arab-Israeli Wars. Massed tank attacks were stopped on both sides. 

As for placebos. I just watched a video on how the US Army said you could take a Japanese tank out with just a rifle. One way was to shoot the rim off the forward tank wheel. That's one good shot. 

[MOS:96B2P]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:32 PM, fry30 said:

I like the Grant (or the Lee). I just think they’re neat.

+1  These look interesting and would be fun to have in CM. 

For the modern titles the Merkava would be interesting to use in scenarios.  The Merkava looks cool and its ability to carry dismounts inside the tank is something I would like to try in a CM scenario.        

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

I agree with much of what you said except for maybe the last sentence. I think it's a bit earlier than the '80s. At least the Arab-Israeli Wars. Massed tank attacks were stopped on both sides. 

Something like 3000 armored vehicles were destroyed in a week. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

One way was to shoot the rim off the forward tank wheel. That's one good shot

Lol - may as well say to shoot the driver thru his slit, or crack the vision slit blocks.   Mind you, that is what the Russians mass-deployed ATR's were supposed to do.

[Probus]

38 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Lol - may as well say to shoot the driver thru his slit, or crack the vision slit blocks.   Mind you, that is what the Russians mass-deployed ATR's were supposed to do.

The vision slits were the other place you were supposed to shoot as a matter of fact.

If you happened to have a machine gun, you could shoot the engine grill on the side OR walk up to it, lift the engine grill, and drop in a couple grenades. Sounds easy, no?

[Warts 'n' all]

On 7/14/2021 at 6:58 PM, marais said:

Least attractive: the Bisons. Made out of concrete, some with lines from the wooden forms visible.

 

(Image from Wikimedia Commons.)

Park one of these outside The Tate and you'd make a fortune.

[Erwin]

56 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Park one of these outside The Tate and you'd make a fortune.

lol.  Sadly probably true...  Looks like the inspiration for the South Bank "Cultural Complex" monstrosities.

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

lol.  Sadly probably true...  Looks like the inspiration for the South Bank "Cultural Complex" monstrosities.

I know that all of @Warts 'n' all post's are clear as mud, but what are you guys talking about?

[Vacillator]

15 minutes ago, Probus said:

what are you guys talking about?

They're referring to arts facilities (if that's the right word) on the South Bank of the Thames, which have a certain concrete 'je ne sais quoi'.  Didn't the Romans use a similar mixture, but with more appealing (and no doubt longer lasting) results?

[Warts 'n' all]

53 minutes ago, Probus said:

I know that all of @Warts 'n' all post's are clear as mud, but what are you guys talking about?

I think that you are confusing my comments with "Estuary English", which is as clear as mud, and comes out of a wide mouth. Personally I think that we should have built a wall at Greenland Dock to keep the semi-literate Saxons out of the great Kingdom of Kent many years ago.

In the meantime I think that what you meant to write was "Warts 'n' all's posts". But, given the fact that Mr. Axeman is otherwise occupied, you are spared the big chop.

[Warts 'n' all]

41 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

They're referring to arts facilities (if that's the right word) on the South Bank of the Thames, which have a certain concrete 'je ne sais quoi'.  Didn't the Romans use a similar mixture, but with more appealing (and no doubt longer lasting) results?

Spot on. The pretty pink-ish concrete was called "Opus signinum" much loved by Time Team fans and presenters alike. The other variant was called "Opus Caementicium". Chamberlian wanted all British tanks made out of it, but Taylor Woodrow said "No".  .. Allegedly.

[Erwin]

part of the South Bank complex of concrete buildings. 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

Meanwhile here is a Tiger on Horse Guard's Parade, which I hasten to add is on the north bank of the Thames.