The worst tank

Originally posted by Cyrus

Originally posted by Nerdling
Anything made in 1950's russia, you all know my distrust/contempt for Stalin era steel and machinery.

agreed....but after that era came the magnificent Mammoth Tanks, now tell me, how can you possibly diss these beast-like machines???
i thought so

As for the French tanks being the best in the world

who r u to say so greenkoolaid?? have you seen what the opposition has?
*sighs*
i suppose i am likely to acknowledge your existence once in a while as -that-certain-canadian who thought he sounded smart stating such BS.
circumstances prevail to change virtually any optimistic values regarding a battlefield...
in other words...hope you have fun typing some rhetorical comment on this, formulate away little man

self-righteous

Cyrus, shut the # up.

I never said that the French had the best tank, I said they have one of the best. Why don't you look up the Leclerc tank. Many people actually do think it is the best tank in the world. No I haven't seen what everybody has in action. Have you? Has anybody on this whole Website? No!! We are all stating out opinions. Most of us try to do it in a civilized manner without issuing personal insults. Who the hell are you to say what I said was bull#. You are no tank expert. You don't have to acknowledge my existence, I would rather you just ignore everything I say, because your opinion means nothing to me anymore.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
The T-34 is The Suxx0r cUz the USA r da b3st 1n ww2 and th3 russiAns R Just 2 G4y..

J/K

Yeah,

You better be joking,

As M4 Shermans are one of the worst tanks EVER..

Had nasty habbit of burning and killing it crews,

Also they could now stand hits from any other German AT weapons than 37mm AT-Gun..
(This weapon was obsolete 2-3 years before M4s were issued..)

(Mod Hat On).


Two people have already been warned for their flaming contributions to this thread. Any more from anyone and there will be more.

This is NOT the mud pit, attack the other tanks all you want, but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Any problems with this u2u me or complain, do not discuss it in this thread.

(Mod Hat Off)

Originally posted by gooking
What modern tank do you guys think are the worst in the world? Only post about tanks that were designed from the 1980's to now (just so we wont compare them from different time periods).

I think the worst modern tank is n.korea's M-2002, I don't know much about it other then its n.korean made (and thats good enough for me).

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by gooking]

For those who dont know much about tanks (me), you could give more reasons than just because its north korean. And maybe an example of a good tank?
You really should base your threads with more evidence and facts. this is just #e... sorry

Is any where near capability of T-90 or even the T-72 of which T-90 is a modified variant..

Its good enough.

If used by troops that know how to fully handle such machines.

And what i have heard NKs training and such is quite good..

They are good.
(much better than Iraqis, and even in Iraq US got off easy just because Iraqis didnt really fight.. they choose mostly not to fight..)



[Edited on 13-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

If you are looking for a really bad tank,

It would be US M551 Sheridan or Russian PT-76..

But even these are good for the missions they were build to.

If one is to find really useless tanks one must go back to the ww2 and look at the Brittish tanks..

All but Firefly were almost completely useless, and US M3/M4 better them only because they had the numbers, quantity.. quality of those too was horrible..

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Is any where near capability of T-90 or even the T-72 of which T-90 is a modified variant..

Its good enough.

If used by troops that know how to fully handle such machines.

And what i have heard NKs training and such is quite good..

They are good.
(much better than Iraqis, and even in Iraq US got off easy just because Iraqis didnt really fight.. they choose mostly not to fight..)

[Edited on 13-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

I agree the n.korean training standards are very high and their troops are well-motivated. They're a dangerous foe with or without good equipment.

Originally posted by gooking

I agree the n.korean training standards are very high and their troops are well-motivated. They're a dangerous foe with or without good equipment.

Thanks,



This is what i was trying to say..

In a very complicated way..



They will make things 'go kaboom' even if their equipment is inferior to that of enemys..
(Enemys things..)

They are well trained and fanatical..

Lets remember..

People there (all..) have lots of bad feelings for US.. after the last war..

They tryed to unite their nation and almost succeeded before American came to 'rescue'..

T-34 = big piece of #tily made metal scraps that had a huge ass gun. The only reason the T-34 was superior to the German counterparts was because the Russians could produce 3-1 in their favor.

Midway through the war on the eastern front German technicians captured an intact T-34. When they took it apart and checked it out, they proclaimed that not only would it have never passed their own stringent tank tests, but that it was the worse piece of machinery they had seen in that war.

All said and done T-34 = big pieces of scrap metal with a monstrous gun.

Well actually the T-34 only had a 76mm gun, small compared to most of the time. Unless you are talking about the T-34/85.

The Germans copied the ideas incorporated in the T-34 to design the Panther and Konigstiger, namely the sloped front armour, Germans had a bitch of a time because their anti-tank rounds would simply deflect off of this angled armour.

The T-34 was considered the best tank of WW2 because of its cheap construction, ease of use (most Soviet tankers were not as experienced or trained as well as the Germans opposite), reliability, speed and ability to withstand a great deal of punishment.... having produced 50,000 odd of them can't of hurt either.

I don't know why people are criticizing the T-34. It was one of the best tanks in WW2.
www.battlefield.ru...
Although most of the pictures are of destroyed T-34's, I feel that weapons such as the T-34 and the PPSh-41 machine gun weren't necessarily the "best" weapons but they were innovative and contributed greatly to their victory.

The M4 Sherman wasn't very good...they just had so many of them. In the modern world, I'd have to say the M551 Sheridan or any of those "light tanks" they are pointless.

On another note, the new active defenses outlined in the earlier posts (can't remember what they are called) are amazing. especially the one against the 105mm recoiless rifle. I couldn't believe my eyes but something has be done about those pesky land/anti tank mines.

id say anything french or north korean.

actually the LECLERC tank is far better than the abrams

As M4 Shermans are one of the worst tanks EVER..

AS much as I hate to agree with ANYTHING Fulcurm says he is right on this one even the crews hated it. I saw on the discovery channel an interview with one of there tank crewmembers and they called them the ronson because the lit up on the first try

actually the LECLERC tank is far better than the abrams

No one will know unless some one they sold them to uses them, the ones they have probly come equipped with white flags

I read a book once about modern-day tanks and there was one I thought was pretty good, but I dont remember the name. There was a Karl Krusczelnicki article about anti-tank weapons and defences. The US developed depleted uranium armour. Before anyone bad-mouths this (read 'Shoktek'), It's not just a buzz-word. The armour is made from monocrystal uranium, and is VERY strong. The only problem is that when it is broken dwn(by weapons or whatever), the neutron count triples. Though the crew of a tank whose armour is disintegrating has more to worry about than the neutron count.

Worst tanks of modern times:
Anything that has "made in china" somewhere on it except Type 98
North Korean Chonma-Ho (Just a T-62with some korean crap)

WARPAC- T-64 as it was both underpowered for the weight and the automatic loader had the unfortunate habit of loading the gunners arm.

NATO- Sheridan, it failed to meet specs from the get go and the missle/gun system was so delicate that firing a round tended to knock it out of action. They were relegated to serve as bases for OPFOR simulators.

All the T-55/T-62 spin offs are decent medium tanks but nothing to write home about and are not in the league as modern MBT's fielded by the western powers including Russia.

Originally posted by FULCRUM


All but Firefly were almost completely useless, and US M3/M4 better them only because they had the numbers, quantity.. quality of those too was horrible..

i must agree

anything by, drumroll plz.......... CANADA! dah dah dah dahhhhhhh!

Originally posted by Russian
i really dont like the s.koren hyundai...

ummmm......isn't that a car?

Originally posted by FULCRUM
A report in Chosun Ibo on June 17, 2002 indicates that North Korea may have developed a new tank with capabilities similar or nearly identical to the Russian T-90 that was developed in the 1990s.

The tank, who as yet does not have an official designation but is believed to be called the M-2002 (for the year it was produced) was developed by the Ryu Kyong-su Tank Factory, located in Shinhung, South Hamhgyong Province.

North Korea's interest in the T-90 was demonstrated in August 2001 when Kim Jong-il, during his trip to Russia, visited the Transmesh defense plant which builds the T-90. Reports indicate that Kim either tried to purchase a T-90 or was trying to have one donated to North Korea, though it is unclear if those efforts were successful.

The tank underwent performance tests outside Pyongyanf on February 16, 2002.

HOLY MOTHER OF KAZAN! GIMME A LINK!!!!!!!

anything by, drumroll plz.......... CANADA! dah dah dah dahhhhhhh!

Actually, you #ing moron, the Canadian Ram inspired the Sherman.

The worst tank ever made is the Bob Semple. PERIOD. NOTHING COMES EVEN CLOSE IN TERMS OF SUCKAGE!

[Edited on 4/23/2004 by necro99]