Is there such a thing as a bad, soft tank?

>>34964621
Your mom?

File: T-34 Mod.1943.jpg (246KB, 1024x630px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1024x630px

>>34964621

File: IMG_1436.jpg (238KB, 709x498px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 709x498px

>>34964621
Realisticly I would call any tank that couldn't survive the most common weapons it would come across as a soft tank.as far as bad is concerned a tank that can fulfill its objective do to poor speed or inadequate weaponry.

>>34964621
Japanese tanks.

>>34964621
i miss bullet head. he was awesome.

>>34966065
Don't pick on them. They didn't have a need for tank fighting tanks unlike every other world power. Their paper thin boxes were perfect for running over chinks in the mountains and protecting against small arms wich is all they were used for.

AMX-13

>>34964621
Its a good tank

>>34970070
*good, solid tank

>>34964621
GUD SAWLED TANK

File: Strax_hears_the_TARDIS_arriving.jpg (40KB, 686x388px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 686x388px

>>34964621
Yes, tanks made by puny earthlings.

>>34964621
The Sherman

>>34964621

Most IFV's

>>34971749
IFVs are not tanks though

>>34968550
Not having a foreseeable use is not an excuse for unpreparedness. They should have thought to develop a decent tank as soon as they started expanding towards the Soviet border.