NationStates Jolt Archive

What do u think is the best Main Battle Tank of the 20th Century?

Im not talking about the Specs of the Tank only, its the meaning to the tank as well. How important or revolutionary the tank was in the history of warfare, or the mass-production Tank was a turing point in the war. For that i go with T-34/85.

Ok here are the reasons why I choose these Tanks

Tanks I listed

Tank Mk V "Mother" :
Basically used in WW1, it was the 1st ever combat sucessful tank that completely demoralized the Germans, forcing them to make their own tanks.

Renault FT 17 :
Best tank in WW1, unlike other WW1 tanks, this was one of the first tanks that can destroy enemy tanks with its 37mm gun.

T-34/85 :
Classic War winner, every Tank Buff would know about the Tanks. When it first rolled off the production lines, the T-34/76 scared off the Germans and forced them to make a new tank to counter this monster.

Sherman:
Genreally the tank of the Western front in WW2, over 40,000 Shermans had been built up to 1945, the largest amount in the history of Tanks for the same model.

PzKpfw IV:
Outclassed every allied tank from 1939-1941, the Panzer IV was the workhorse of the German Panzer armies till 1943 when it was slowly replaced by the Panther.

Tiger:
Deadly killer, allied crews tremble before this monster. Although it was not effective to what hitler had hoped for, the Tiger brought fear among the allied ranks. Tiger Aces could knock up to 200 enemy tanks.

Centurion :
Considered to be one of the best tank designs of the 20th Century, the Centurion was widely used by the Israeli Army in the 1960s-1970s. Until today, many countries still use this cheap yet reliable tank.

T-72 :
If Satan had a tank, it would be the T-72. Low profile, powerful gun and very fast, this is the No.1 fear NATO has. It was the tank that the Soviets would use to fight World War III.

Leopard 2A6 :
Many say its the best tank in the world. Its armour is 3rd strongest in the world (front), losing to Abrams and Challenger 2.

M1A2 Abrams :
MBT of USA armed forces, this tank knocked out thousands of Iraqi Tanks during Operation Desert Storm and no Abrams was lost to enemy fire.

There you have it, all 10 of the tanks i chose :)

The Challenger 2. Obv.

Abrams I spose, although the Leo is pretty much the same.

MBT's are becoming increasingly useless these days in asymmetrical conflicts, for an example of this see how Mervaras did in Lebanon in the recent war, not very well is the answer.

The Challenger 2. Obv.

Yeah. Obv!

I wanted to add that tank in... but that tank didn't make a lot of impact compared to others. Well, like i said this poll is not about the Specs of the tank only... ;)

Oh, I thought MBT= Man-Boy Team. I thought this thread was going to a little odd.:eek:

Erm, to the OP, do you know nothing about tanks, especially German WW2 ones or something?

PzKpfwIV = Underarmoured and generally a bit naff
Tiger (all versions) = Horribly unreliable, chugged down too much fuel to be useful by late 1943 when they were starting to be used at all

The Panther was a far better tank than either of those two, which combined the best elements of German and Russian engineering.



Also, wtf is a Centurion doing on there but not a Challenger?

That's like putting down an M60 Patton instead of an Abrams, or a T-62 down instead of the far better T-80 series. Which, incidentally, you also forgot about.

Erm, to the OP, do you know nothing about tanks, especially German WW2 ones or something?

PzKpfwIV = Underarmoured and generally a bit naff
Tiger (all versions) = Horribly unreliable, chugged down too much fuel to be useful by late 1943 when they were starting to be used at all

The Panther was a far better tank than either of those two, which combined the best elements of German and Russian engineering.



Also, wtf is a Centurion doing on there but not a Challenger?

That's like putting down an M60 Patton instead of an Abrams, or a T-62 down instead of the far better T-80 series. Which, incidentally, you also forgot about.

If your a good tank expert, the Panther was a failure. The Tiger was menace and Challenger did not take part in any major war. The Centurion was a saviour for the Israeli army in many Israeli-Arab Wars. Once again you don't get the point... its not about Stats.

bump...

Technically most of those arent classified as MBTs. ;)

Your mom.

Technically most of those arent classified as MBTs. ;)

I agree Tiger was not reallly an MBT, but i think other than that all of them are MBTs... :rolleyes:

The Panzer (http://www.armoredfistpaintball.com/Panzer_0010.JPG) for the win.

Your mom.

You win! :D

The Abrams wins. Most of the tanks used in the '91 war were T-72s. Although, the Iraqis were poorly trained, had worse morale and loyalty to Saddam and might have even been in poor maintaince. Until war breaks out between us and the Russians, the Abrams is still MBT #1.

toss up between abrams and Leopard 2A6.

MBT's are becoming increasingly useless these days in asymmetrical conflicts, for an example of this see how Mervaras did in Lebanon in the recent war, not very well is the answer.

I think it's important to recognize that in asymmetrical conflicts MBTs must be used properly, which the Israelis did not do with the Merkava. It needs to be entirely sealed, equipped with modified weapons and to work closely with infantry. There have been several proposals for alterations to the M1A2 to carry similar adaptations out, such as making it possible to fire a shell that would turn the main gun into a gigantic shotgun. Asymmetrical warfare is tough, and it can't be fought like one would fight a conventional conflict, but it can certainly be fought, and eventually, defeated.

If your a good tank expert, the Panther was a failure.
I know, it wasn't like its main gun was actually more powerful than the Tiger's, had similar frontal armour in terms of genuine strength, as well as resulting in the crew not getting spalling in their face, as happened with the Tiger, or had much better engine performance, or anything...
The Tiger was menace
For a time, until the Russians got their shit in gear with the T34/85, at which point the Tiger's reign as an essentially unkillable tank was ended.
and Challenger did not take part in any major war.
Erm it was in the Balkans, which was somewhat major, as well as being the most indestrucable tank in the current war in Iraq. The only Challenger knocked out with crew deaths was a friendly fire incident, other than that every loss has been salvagable and repairable, something that can't be said to be true of the M1A2.
The Centurion was a saviour for the Israeli army in many Israeli-Arab Wars.
That was more down to most Arab tanks being poorly maintained and the quality of their crews being low as much as anything else, although the Centurion does get an honourable mention as one of the first 'proper' MBTs, along with the T-44.
Once again you don't get the point... its not about Stats.
Well that's how you'd actually evaluate what the best tank is.

If it was tanks that had the most impact on 20th century wars, that'd be a different kettle of fish indeed.

MBT's are becoming increasingly useless these days in asymmetrical conflicts, for an example of this see how Mervaras did in Lebanon in the recent war, not very well is the answer.
I'm going to assume you mean the Merkava tank. Which IIRC was actually fine in the war, and the tank which was so famously exploded by a really big IED, with that picture of it being upside down and all that, was a Magach, which is essentially an M60A3 Patton tank, which was designed for holding the Fulda Gap against the USSR, rather than getting blown up from underneath by guerrillas.

To be fair, I think that the IDF weren't really expecting to get hit by tandem ATGMs and RPGs from Syria, and this lack of preparedness is what cost them their tank crewmen.

The Abrams wins. Most of the tanks used in the '91 war were T-72s. Although, the Iraqis were poorly trained, had worse morale and loyalty to Saddam and might have even been in poor maintaince.

Yes, that and total air superiority.


(I voted for the T-72, not the best but tis my favourite)

Splintered until now, ur the only one that has not gotten the point of this poll...

Leopard C2!! ALL THE WAY!!

Bump

T-34/85 for sure. It's definitely the most revolutionary and historically important in terms of tank development. The Abrams, and pretty much every post-WW2 tank, takes many concepts from the T-34.

But as for what I feel is the best modern tank. The Leopard 2A6.

The best ones in terms of being able to kill the others would probably be 1999 model NATO tanks.

The best in terms of engineering achievements would probably be the T-55. I don't think anything before that deserves the title MBT - there were light, medium and heavy tanks. The T-55 had a bigger gun than a king tiger, thicker armour both on the turret and the body and had literally half the weight, meaning 3-4 times the range.

Considering that there's just three years between them, I call that quite an accomplishment.

T-72's were always a pretty solid MBT imo.

I agree Tiger was not reallly an MBT, but i think other than that all of them are MBTs... :rolleyes:

The Mark V is an MBT?

The only MBTs I see on there are the last four. Leopard II for the win, though.

I'll take the Abrams. The US finally got the concept right - a machine for killing. Nothing else, nothing less.

My money's on the Centurion.

Although there's a lot to be set for the old British Mk I's et al. It's the only tank of the 20th century which can claim inarguably to have been the best tank in the world in every respect.

Edit: Oh, and it probably can claim to be the first MBT as well. If you only have one type of tank, then by definition it's a 'universal' or 'main battle' tank.

First six immediately disqualified for not being mbt's at all, and the poll is seriosly lacking a "other" option.

As for my vote, it's the Leo, due to being more fuel efficient than that gas guzzling Abrams.

Oh, I thought MBT= Man-Boy Team. I thought this thread was going to a little odd.:eek:

I read it as MTB (Mountain Bike). That would have been more interesting than the tank debate.

I read it as MTB (Mountain Bike). That would have been more interesting than the tank debate.

I like the old fashioned rigid frame than the other contemporary swing arm or what nots.

Rigids are fun and light, unless you go kamikaze downhill, then you'll gonna need those back suspension for added weight and control.

On TOPIC :

T 34/85 for Impact in tank design and for showing the world for the first time what "Soviet Tank Rush" means ( oh noes, Red Alert!).

Leopard 2A6, ease of maintenance, lower fuel consumption, adaptability wins in the long run.

Abrams M1A2, sleek beauty, although a gas guzzling beast.