FOUR 'Great' WWII Tanks That Were Actually Terrible

Discover the truth behind WWII's most overhyped tanks! Join us as we debunk myths and explore the flaws of iconic tanks like the Tiger I, Panther, and T-34. Uncover history, reimagined!

[mrsanity]

German tanks also had the issue that due to the regular use of less than voluntary labour to make, had occasional 'accidental' flaws in the mechanical gizmos.

[patwilson]

T-34: one other bad point is the almost complete lack of situational awareness of the crew. Most did not have a way to communicate with the infantry or anybody else. In addition, the crew was almost blind when buttoned down. Visibility in any WWII tank was not great, but the T-34 took it to a new level.

[thejackal]

Forgot to mention one of the other major problems of the T-34: The two-man turret. The original models had the commander do double duty of commanding the tank as well loading the main gun. What this means in the field is that the commander cannot correct fire or observe the area for targets or threats because he has to take his eyes off the periscope to load the gun.

[someonefromabroad]

Soviet quality issues with their products may explain why their tank troops still valued american lend-lease Shermans, especially the 76mm version, even though they lacked the punch or the armor sloping of the T-34....when you basically live in your tank, good interior fittings and better working conditions become important too. Plus some may have found it preferable to actually hit a target with american optics of a weaker gun, than miss repeatedly with a more powerful soviet gun that has crappy sights....

[mannofdober]

Our Tiger II's aren't very reliable you say? Weight problems?

Let's make them even heavier! And let's put a bigger gun on it! So big it can't have a turret! Genius!

And thus the Jagdtiger was born.

[timothyhouse]

Tiger II is best described as a semi mobile pillbox. You just hope you got to where you wanted to park it before it broke down or ran out of gas.

[petersmythe]

The Sherman may actually be under hyped. Like, statistically the gun is average, the engine is average, the armor is alright. But practically it was much better than those statistics imply because, well, it just worked. And if it stopped working, you could just get out and get a new one. On average, a killed T-34 lost 3 out of 4 crew. A Sherman lost 0.8 out of 5.

[TRAjim]

The Tiger 1 greatest impact was - fear of the Tiger 1. “Tiger Fear” got to be a real issue for the allies, as any German armored vehicle was often identified as a “Tiger”. This psychological impact far outshone its performance in the field.

[unbindingfloyd]

A decent tank is better than a tank that does not show up.

[deathrider_cze]

Am I stupid or weren't there only four tanks? Tiger, Panther, T-34 and Tiger II.

Edit: The title used to read "FIVE 'Great' WWII Tanks...." before it was corrected.

[phillip]

You failed to mention that German tank were built like fine German cars...needing regular maintenance and specific procedures carried out that were nearly impossible to do I the feild.
And the T-34 had many shortcomings.
Like gaps in armor plate you vould stick your fingers thru.the treads were held together by pins instead of bolts.pins that could slip out and allow the tracks to come off.do their solution was to weld a striker plate on tge the pins would hit during travel and get pushes back in.leading to the particular clanky sound the tank was known to male during travel.

[DoBraveryFPS]

It is estimated that those 1, 300 Tiger I tanks killed ~10, 300 enemy tanks. The Tiger I essentially invented the term Panzer or Tank Ace. It was designed to be a breakthrough tank--not a standard unit. It wasn't necessarily 'plagued' by issues. It was more often pressed into service beyond its recommended maintenance schedule.

[WingnutJC]

I don’t think Tiger I was a “terrible” tank, but it was waaayyy over-hyped. The negatives that Simon pointed out are absolutely correct. However, it needs to be pointed out that it was designed as a breakthrough tank, but almost never performed that role. The idea for its design was to spearhead an offensive and breakthrough enemy lines at which point, Tiger I would withdraw to the rear and medium tanks like Pz. IV would take over the attack. Fuel efficiency isn’t really important for a breakthrough tank that is supposed to stops fighting once the breakthrough has been achieved. The design choices that made Tiger I a good breakthrough tank meant that it struggled as a medium tank.

Documentaries like to point out the “hard” traits of armor, firepower, and reliability, but they rarely mention the “soft” traits like crew comfort, communications, or how easy it is for the crew to see and target enemy tanks. Tiger I had good “soft” traits. I’d argue that the soft traits are as important, if not more important, than the hard traits. A crew that isn’t tired from a bumpy ride, has reliable radios, and better optics will perform better than a tank crew that doesn’t have them. This is critical because it gives Tiger crews a better chance at shooting first. In a tank battle, the tank that fires first, usually wins - regardless of the “hard” traits.

I’m not suggesting that Tiger I was a great tank because it wasn’t. However, it wasn’t a terrible tank either. The truth is in the middle and requires nuance.

The myth of the invincible Tiger is a result of very effective N—I propaganda. It caused fear among allied tankers, who then came home after the war, wrote and talked about their experiences, which made their way into textbooks which perpetuated the myth of Whermacht superiority on to later generations. The N—is where evil liars. Don’t believe them.

[myplane]

All of these tanks did actually get a bit better late in the war (outside of the Tiger 2). The E8 Sherman was awesome, the T34/85 was certainly better than the T34/76. Lastly, the Panther G was pretty darn decent. Some say the best in the war. Two things the German cats did best: canons and sights.

[bobthegoat]

4:02 a fuel consumption of 9 L per km would mean 0.11 km pr liter or 0.26 miles per gallon. Wow.

[danielsprouls]

One big contribution to the fear allied tank had, was a tiger1 and a mark4 had basically the same profile. Every mark 4 became a tiger. The later versions of the mark4 had a pretty good 75mm gun so they were effective. One infantry captain wrote that it was impossible to tell if you were being shot at by a 75 or an 88, both are supersonic and all you hear is a nasty explosion.

[walnzell]

Stalin: I need this many T-34's completed by the end of the year. OR ELSE.

Factories: **Put out sh-t tanks made even sh*ttier by cutting corners to not get sent to the gulags.**

[jeffbosworth]

To me, the most fascinating thing about WWII tank design is how fast they became obsolete. Many a 1940 tank was hopelessly out of date by 1943 or so. Yet today we are using 20 year old tanks (30 if you're a Soviet in Ukraine).

[Hillbilly]

Factboi must be cleaning out the basement with all the marathon vids.

[RichelieuUnlimited]

Panther was conceptually a great vehicle, it fell just short of being the first MBT, but the course of the war and the fascist way of governance prevented it from ever reaching its full potential. Rushed development, design oversights, ever poorer crew training and deteriorating production quality. But it had firepower and armor comparable to heavy tanks of its era, while retaining the mobility and price tag of a medium tank.
Let’s imagine a variant with early war production quality, Jagdpanther final drives, the Schmalturm of the Ausf. F and a well trained crew.