Your Least Favorite WWII tank and Why

[laxx]

Hi,

Wanted to start a thread on what is your least favorite WWII tank and why.

Note, i refer to least favorite here as either an AFV that you will never buy or an AFV that your will groan if automatically allocated to you.

I suspect this is gonna tougher to respond than the "most favorite" thread

My least favorite:

Allied:

-------

* M4 Sherman (never buy, goan)

Axis

-----

* Sdkfz 251/1 (never buy becoz it is too expensive)

* StuG in CMBO (never buy) unless there is no Hetzer for sale

* Marder series (never buy, groan). Never had much success with Marders, usually would buy a Nashorn becoz of the 88mm gun.

[ July 05, 2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[isse]

I think that the regular Sherman is quite decent and alot of "bang for the buck"

But i agree with you the Marders aint really good.

[Bengal6]

I have trouble with the axis HT equipped with mortars. As I only play CMBO at present they can't benefit from a HQ unit spotting for them, and as a result I find they go down easier than a two dollar hooker...

[flamingknives]

Sdkfz 251/16

It's got a short range, which means it has to get very close and it has rubbish armour so it dies when it gets close to enemy troops.

Oddly, I don't have the same problem with Wasps.

[Redwolf]

The wasp is much faster and has a greater range.

[Sirocco]

I used to hate being allocated halftracks in small CMBO QB's. I'd be hoping for a StuG, and instead I've have two or three MG equipped halftracks.

[Tank Ace]

Trying to ruin my post aye?? lol My least favorite WWII tank would have to be the T-34. I have studied it and it seems to be overated. Im talking about the 75mm model. The M4A3 sherman could do the same damage against Pnz IIIs and Pnz IVs. Plus it has an ugly design in my opinion.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by TANK ACE:

Trying to ruin my post aye?? lol My least favorite WWII tank would have to be the T-34. I have studied it and it seems to be overated. Im talking about the 75mm model. The M4A3 sherman could do the same damage against Pnz IIIs and Pnz IVs. Plus it has an ugly design in my opinion.

Well since there never was a 75mm version of the T-34 as far as I am aware... I think you mean the 76.2mm L42 . The T-34 does fine against even Pz IIILs, and can hold its own against the early Pz IVs (IVC-IVG not late G because it has L48 Gun). One of my least favorate tanks is Sherman, it has more armor than T-34s (other than the 85mm versions) and it still can't reflect shells from the 75mm L46 AT-Gun which the T-34s can to some dagree.

[ July 09, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[flamingknives]

What always gets me with the Sherman is the number of turret front hits it recieves. On models at ranges that can bounce 75mm fire off the glacis, the turret front always seems to eat the round first.

[Tank Ace]

The T-34 was only praised because it could beat by the pnz IIIs and IVs, Once the panther was produced the 76 mm T-34 was ineffective as a tank except with the 85mm gun. The sherman however was still used because it was the most USEABLE tank of the war. the Western allies had more uses for that tank, such as the crocidile and minesweeper. The sherman DD could go in water where the T-34 could not. That is why I will always love the sherman and not the T-34.

[Dandelion]

Yes, well, the Sherry was extremely practical and all that of course but in the end, there is the issue of T-34 curves. Quite a way away from the obese-hydrocefalus inspired Sherman design I fear.

I mean, the 55+ cleaning lady at work is probably also extremly practical, whereas I wager Catherine Zeta-Jones probably can't even cook soft boiled eggs.

Speaking of which, I do believe the T-34 had some beautiful children as well.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Nippy]

The T-34 was only praised because it could beat by the pnz IIIs and IVs.

And for the fact that it could travel on ground that the PZIII or PZIV (Or the Sherman for that matter) had no chance of driving on without getting stuck.

Once the panther was produced the 76 mm T-34 was ineffective as a tank except with the 85mm gun.

Just as the 75mm Sherman was inneffective against the Panther. Except the 75mm Gun on the Sherman never had special AP rounds developed for it like the Russian 76.2mm did.

The sherman however was still used because it was the most USEABLE tank of the war. the Western allies had more uses for that tank, such as the crocidile and minesweeper.

And the T-34 was made in SU-122s, SU-85s, SU-100s, OT-34s, bridge layers, recovery vehicles, bulldozers, and mine clearers.

*Fun fact, 75% of the SU-100s made during the war had their chasses taken from exsisting T-34s.

The sherman DD could go in water where the T-34 could not.

T-34 had snokel gear that allowed it to cross rivers while being completey submereged. (So did the German Tiger). Sure the T-34 couldn't float, but I don't think that Russia had a need to launch any major sea born invasions.

That is why I will always love the sherman and not the T-34.

Low profile, wide track base, sloped armor. The T-34 had all these traits, the Sherman had none, and all the above qualites can be seen in today's modern battle tanks. After all, it wasn't the Sherman that inspired the Germans to develop the Panther.

Now, for Russian flub ups, let's talk T-26. I'd rather have towed AT guns than than a mechanized bread box.

[laxx]

Danelion said:

I mean, the 55+ cleaning lady at work is probably also extremly practical, whereas I wager Catherine Zeta-Jones probably can't even cook soft boiled eggs.

LOL!

if

Sherman m4 = 55+ Cleaning Lady

T-34 = Catherine Zeta-Jones

then

I wager the T-26 is like Cher, nice to look at, at first, but way past her prime and never really had a chance...

the StuG in CMBB would be Christine Baranksi ( here

) , sexy and very underrated.

[OZ77]

Just wantad to respond TANK ACE's post but Nippy was the first. Nippy thanks for saving my time.

I would like to add this:

"On 26 May 1942 General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberccomando des Heeres distributed the following "Instructions to units on the Eastern front for Combating the Russian T-34 with our Panzers"

Characteristics of th T-34:

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross country mobility then our Pz-3 and 4. Its armor is stronger. The penetration ability of its 7.62 cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK and the 7.5 cm KwK40(unfortunately we dont see it in CMBB). The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear(!!!!), where is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring , even with high explosive shells or muchine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, AP shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams...."

Thats what Germans thought about T-34. I am sure they had no the same opinion about Sherman.

In addition T-34 is very simple in construction, cheap in production and simple in repair(Soviets mostly repaired damaged T-34's close to front line in contrast to Germans).

In regards to design as Nippy said it has Low profile, wide track base, sloped armor -all modern tanks qualites, that cant be said about Sherman which in addition had easily burned(even in CMBB)engine , dissatisfied mobility, short range km and high profile.

TANK ACE,

If you compare T-34 to Sherman you should do this according to years i.e.

T-34(76)M1941 - Sherman M1941( poor tankette)

T-34(85)M1944 - Sherman M1944

,you will see that figures dont speak well for Sherman.

[flamingknives]

If you're comparing M4 and T34, you can also do it in other years, i.e. 1942, 1943, when the M4 was used in the western desert. In '42 and early '43, the M4 has some significant advantages. In addition to being practically impervious to the 50mmL60 from the front, it had; 3 man turret, better gun and a radio. Later models had sufficient glacis armour to bounce the 75mm/L48 at ranges above 500m - only the turret front was vulnerable. the T34 never had that much armour. With the addition of a 76mm gun or a 17pdr, the M4 is quite a capable tank.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by OZ77:

[QB] The penetration ability of its 7.62 cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK and the 7.5 cm KwK40(unfortunately we dont see it in CMBB).

Depends how this is meant. I think it is meant as "5cm KwK and short 75mm KwK can penetrated T-34 armor only at short range while 7.62 gun can penetrate Pz III and IV". And that's in CMBB.

Note that it is mentioned that T-34 armor can be penetrated from side, rear and gun mantlet at short ranges. Tha's in my BB as well.

Despites this and the lack of radio and 3 man turret the T-34 is the better tank in '41 - better than the Pz III, IV and the Sherman. No Shermans around at the time...

And the T-34 comes with a very affordable price tag in BB as well!

Worst tank in BB would be T-26 series. Slow, lousy armor, puny gun, just a crappy tank. But then you can't expect too much for the few points it costs

[flamingknives]

But the T34 still has a two man turret with no radio in '42 and early '43 too, whereas the Sherman was serving in Africa by late '42.

By '44, you have the T34/85, but then you also have later model Shermans, including 76mm armed and up-armoured vehicles

In either case, both are capable tanks, and I probably wouldn't complain about receiveing either, unless I knew I was up against German Heavies, in which case they're both lousy.

[Tank Ace]

Nippy It seems you hate shermans, But the M4A3E8 sherman could knock out panthers and on some occasion tigers, so it was more effective than the T-34. I have never read nor seen T-34s with the snorkel device in use, there are hardly large water areas in eastern russia for it to be used.The shermans could have the bulldozers, minesweeper, HEDGEROW PLOW, and crocodile attachments added to just that tank where as the T-34 didn't. The sherman also had the snorkel which was used on D-day and a # of occasions. And just because a SU was made from a t-34 chasis doesn't mean it's the same tank. No matter what facts you show to support your theory, I will always love the sherman tank. I'd rather have 1 sherman than 100 T-34s I like to think of it as an All purpose american tool.

[ July 06, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: TANK ACE ]

[v42below]

The main reason why the t-34 was a better tank than the Sherman (and most other tanks, I must add) is because they were very easy to produce. By the end of the war, with the Soviet evacuated industry in the Urals going into full swing, the sheer numbers, rather than the quality of the tanks, did the trick.

v42below

[ July 07, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: v42below ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by TANK ACE:

Nippy It seems you hate shermans, But the M4A3E8 sherman could knock out panthers and on some occasion tigers, so it was more effective than the T-34. I have never read nor seen T-34s with the snorkel device in use, there are hardly large water areas in eastern russia for it to be used.The shermans could have the bulldozers, minesweeper, HEDGEROW PLOW, and crocodile attachments added to just that tank where as the T-34 didn't. The sherman also had the snorkel which was used on D-day and a # of occasions. And just because a SU was made from a t-34 chasis doesn't mean it's the same tank. No matter what facts you show to support your theory, I will always love the sherman tank. I'd rather have 1 sherman than 100 T-34s I like to think of it as an All purpose american tool.

Most of the points you make don't really effect the tanks performance... T-34s didn't have to fight in Normandy so why would they need a plow to go through Bocage? And if speed is an issue the T-34 was fast with a top speed of 34 MPH. The T-34/85 can kill Tigers and Panthers just fine... head on at that. The Sherman and the T-34 are hard to compare because they were designed at different times. The T-34 was an old design (4-6 years old) by the time the German cats came along. Oh and by the way there was a FT model of T-34... called the OT-34 (A T-34 with FT built in) from 1942 and beyond. Since most German tanks were ether Pz IVs or StuGs I would take a T-34/85 over almost any model Sherman tank. Both T-34s and Shermans had Tungsten shells by the end of the war.

[ July 07, 2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[gibsonm]

Or to put it another way.

Which of the two (T-34 and Sherman) had such endearing nicknames as “Ronson” and “Tommy Cooker”?

[flamingknives]

But all of this hardly means that the Sherman was the worst tank of the war. The Cromwell was inferior in most respects to either, for the sake of example - vertical, thin plates, short 75mm gun. About the only thing going for it is the earlier models turn of speed. Nonetheless, I'd still not be that annoyed if I was issued one in CM.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by laxx:

Wanted to start a thread on what is your least favorite WWII tank and why.

I generally dislike all self-igniting spamcans, which includes the Soviet T-26 and BT series at the start of the war. The BTs' higher speed means that they will become burning wrecks a couple of hundred metres closer to the enemy than the T-26s will, even under desultory ATR fire.

Steve Zaloga's description of the T-60 as a "toothless death-trap" also seems quite apposite.

I dislike the German half-tracks for the same reason, although at least they don't claim to be tanks.

Anything that doesn't stand a fair chance of keeping out ATR and HMG fire really has no business being on the direct-fire battlefield.

All the best,

John.

[Fortinbras]

This debate about the M4 series vs. the T-34 series is pretty interesting and reminds me of the zillions of arguments I've heard over the the last 15 or so years regarding the M1A1/A2 vs the Leopard 2 series.

I think the biggest thing to keep in mind in both of these arguments is that if you had a head to head fight, you would need to do a "best out of 7" type series where they fought on steppe, forest, snow, jungle, desert... By that I mean that with both the M4 and M1 series of tanks, we (i.e., America) had to design something that would function "good enough" in ALL environments, and the M4 did that while obviously the M1 series has worked better than "good enough" in almost every environment. Obviously the Germans had only western Europe (and hopefully eastern Europe ) to worry about with the Leo, and the Soviets had Europe and, to a lesser extent, the Far East (but that was "steppe like" as well) with the T34.

Whether you are talking M4 or T34, both were phenomenally functional and successful given what needed to be accomplished. I would argue that ALL German designs were "sexier" in just about every way (except probably mobility, which isn't sexy), but just like the real world, there are a lot more ugly girls (i.e., T34 and M4)out there than super models!

[Tank Ace]

v42, 50,000 shermans were produced during the war. Im not sure on the #s of T-34s, i've seen 50,000 and 90,000. It's a wonder how the got started, I said i disliked the t-34, and said it wasn;t a good tank in my opinion (yea i said "my opinion" read my post) then eveyone tried to promote there opinion on mine and say that my opinion was wrong.

[ July 07, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: TANK ACE ]