NationStates Jolt Archive

Just watched the Discovery special on it. This was their list:

10) Sherman
9) Sheridan
8) Panther
7) T-72
6) S Tank
5) Centurion
4) Merkava
3) T-34
2) M1 Abrams
1) Leopard 2

What do you think? Leopard 2 as the best ever surprised me; I thought it would be the Abrams or a T series tank. It's a good all-rounder, for sure.

I cooked Xmas dinner while my folx where down the pub a few years back, and when they all got home, I was toasted, and my dad said 'Tanks boy!'

That was rather great!

Just watched the Discovery special on it.
What do you think? Leopard 2 as the best ever surprised me; I thought it would be the Abrams or a T series tank. It's a good all-rounder, for sure.

There have been other lists on the same subject on discovery. One named the T-34 as the greatest tank of all time. Anyhow, the Abrams is generally too thirsty. Supplylines are crazy when it comes to that tank due to its gas turbine engine. I mean, for every battalion of tanks you need two battalions of tanker trucks following, that extends and exposes the supplylines pretty hard...

Just watched the Discovery special on it. This was their list:

10) Sherman
9) Sheridan
8) Panther
7) T-72
6) S Tank
5) Centurion
4) Merkava
3) T-34
2) M1 Abrams
1) Leopard 2

What do you think?

Bullshit.

1.You can't compare WW2 tanks with tanks of the '70s and tanks of the '90s.
2.You cant give a "Merkava" entry without stating if it's Merkava 1,2,3, or 4. Same goes of the Leo 2, one should specify, because there's a load of difference between a Leo2A1 and a Leo2A6, or for the M1, etc, etc.

Also, best at what? Mobility? Armour? Kill range? Crew survivability? Operational survivability? AA capability? Sensors? Impact on wars? Performance/cost ratio?

Sucks. Sucks. Sucks.

Bullshit.

1.You can't compare WW2 tanks with tanks of the '70s and tanks of the '90s.
2.You cant give a "Merkava" entry without stating if it's Merkava 1,2,3, or 4. Same goes of the Leo 2, one should specify, because there's a load of difference between a Leo2A1 and a Leo2A6, or for the M1, etc, etc.

Also, best at what? Mobility? Armour? Kill range? Crew survivability? Operational survivability? AA capability? Sensors? Impact on wars? Performance/cost ratio?

Sucks. Sucks. Sucks.

I think it was generally "Which tank would be the most effective overall in a war"?

Bullshit.

1.You can't compare WW2 tanks with tanks of the '70s and tanks of the '90s.
2.You cant give a "Merkava" entry without stating if it's Merkava 1,2,3, or 4. Same goes of the Leo 2, one should specify, because there's a load of difference between a Leo2A1 and a Leo2A6, or for the M1, etc, etc.

Also, best at what? Mobility? Armour? Kill range? Crew survivability? Operational survivability? AA capability? Sensors? Impact on wars? Performance/cost ratio?

Sucks. Sucks. Sucks.

Well, if I remember correctly(I've seen the same documentary.) It classifies the tanks partly in their timeframe, comparing the impact they've had in the world. Though moreso in the other show, which had the T-34 at top. It was the first tank to have sloped armor and it pretty much won the war for the russians :-)

I think it was generally "Which tank would be the most effective overall in a war"?

Of course, it would be next year's model. Of the Leo, of the Merkava, of the M1, of the T-90, of the Leclerc, of the Ariete... whatever... human ability to kill other humans improves every year.

It was the first tank to have sloped armor and it pretty much won the war for the russians :-)

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.

Won't highjack for too long, but human waves are pretty doomed when it comes to entrenched defenders. You need tanks for that. But I'll atleast give the credit to the human waves aswell as the T-34 :-)

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.
Well, by '44/'45 the Soviets were probably applying more sophisticated tactics than the Americans and even the Germans. They learned their stuff.

As for the list...meh, comes up all the time. The Leo's never been used in combat, so who knows what sort of design faults might have to be sorted that only become apparent in warfare.

The Abrams is proven, but the gas turbine just seems like a stupid idea. The Leo's powerpack is exemplary: simple, easy to replace and relatively frugal.

But it basically comes down to the situation, the crew and the support structure behind it.

Well, if I remember correctly(I've seen the same documentary.) It classifies the tanks partly in their timeframe, comparing the impact they've had in the world. Though moreso in the other show, which had the T-34 at top. It was the first tank to have sloped armor and it pretty much won the war for the russians :-)

In this case, I'd nominate:

Early WW2
Skoda LT vz.38 (it allowed the Germans to use blitzkrieg against Poland and France, so it had a great impact - german designation was Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) )

Late WW2
T-34/85 (the early T-34/75 had good armour but low firepower, while the T-34/85 was near perfection)

Late Arab-Israeli wars
Merkava (Merkava 1 iirc, the idea of improved crew survivability)

That's all, I think.

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.

meh, at Stalingrad CCCP used more a large-scale commando approach. Nothing like the humanwave of WW1 (like that fucking idiot Cadorna of Italy's, q.v.).

In this case, I'd nominate:

Early WW2
Skoda LT vz.38 (it allowed the Germans to use blitzkrieg against Poland and France, so it had a great impact - german designation was Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) )

Late WW2
T-34/85 (the early T-34/75 had good armour but low firepower, while the T-34/85 was near perfection)

Late Arab-Israeli wars
Merkava (Merkava 1 iirc, the idea of improved crew survivability)

That's all, I think.

All well and good, you should complain to discovery for the incompleteness of their list ;-)

I'd nominate the tank in Emir Kustoricas 'Underground', just because it was simple enough to be operated by a monkey... or maybe Tank-Girls tank (http://www.kideternal.com/Jetgirl/Pictures/Jet%20Drives%20Tank.JPG)... that was awsome:D

those Jerry's will never know what hit them!! (http://www.maasai-association.org/slideshows/water_tank1.gif)

... or maybe Tank-Girls tank (http://www.kideternal.com/Jetgirl/Pictures/Jet%20Drives%20Tank.JPG)... that was awsome:D

Sucks. No sloped plates, no ERA, not even an Arena APS. I bet it also lacks missiles. ;)

http://www.gizmology.net/images/tank11.jpg

The Merkava had an interesting idea in it's construction, it put the engine at the front to increase crew protection, unfortunately this didn't go so well when a Palestinian militant fired an RPG into the back and detonated it's munitions.

Also Ferrous Oxide your comment about Soviet tactics is ridiculous and shows your ignorance, the stand or die comment was only used in Stalingrad because they couldn't afford to loose the city (a similar command was also given by Hitler). In actual fact US military doctrine at the time of WWII was infantry first, while Soviet doctrine was about mass armored equipment deployment. Unless your only source is 'Enemy at the gates', you don't know what your talking about, Soviet military technique was quite advanced and tried, which was remarkably demonstrated in the resounding victories at Kursk and August Storm, victories not achievement through force of numbers.

Sucks. No sloped plates, no ERA, not even an Arena APS. I bet it also lacks missiles. ;)

You gotta be kidding... it fires both shells and coke cans, has an afterburner(Though I woulnd't dare think of the fuel consumption on that one...), reacts to voice commands, has somewhat sophisticated AI and it looks freaking... eh... freaky! Besides, the pilot is pretty hawt too...

Just watched the Discovery special on it. This was their list:

10) Sherman
9) Sheridan
8) Panther
7) T-72
6) S Tank
5) Centurion
4) Merkava
3) T-34
2) M1 Abrams
1) Leopard 2

What do you think? Leopard 2 as the best ever surprised me; I thought it would be the Abrams or a T series tank. It's a good all-rounder, for sure.
A Challenger 2 is far and away better than all of those on that list, and a Sheridan in particular is an utterly woeful choice.

Seeing as they've put the completely un-combat proven, other than about 3 skirmishes with the Taliban, Leopard 2 at the top, I'd say that them putting a Panther BELOW a T-34 (even a T34/85 is poorer than a Panther) is utterly criminal.

Oh and as to the Sherman - what a joke, and a cruel joke at that. It was never a particularly effective tank, underarmoured, undergunned and over-rated. Its only advantage was that it was being produced Really A Lot. Even a T-34 was better in almost every way.

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.

That and the use of things like massed artillery/rocket fire, superior air support (the IL-2 Sturmovik was just as important as the T-34), and a modestly impressive submarine warfare campaign.

No, the Russians won the war because of human waves tactics. But that's another thread.
No, they didn't.

And you can make that topic if you like, because I will absolutely plaster your argument, because the Red Army of WW2 is a topic I know quite a lot about, and its doctrines after the disasterous events of 1939/40 immediately changed.

What could more plausibly be said to have won the war for the Russians, if you were feeling stupid and wanted to put it down to one thing, was their extremely maintainable and effective artillery. It caused around 65% of all of the casualties of the whole of the Red Army.

A Challenger 2 is far and away better than all of those on that list, and a Sheridan in particular is an utterly woeful choice.

Seeing as they've put the completely un-combat proven, other than about 3 skirmishes with the Taliban, Leopard 2 at the top, I'd say that them putting a Panther BELOW a T-34 (even a T34/85 is poorer than a Panther) is utterly criminal.

Oh and as to the Sherman - what a joke, and a cruel joke at that. It was never a particularly effective tank, underarmoured, undergunned and over-rated. Its only advantage was that it was being produced Really A Lot. Even a T-34 was better in almost every way.

The S-tank is a wierd one to have on there as well, since, to my knowledge, it has NEVER been used in combat and many consider is design archanic.

Its argueable whether the T-34 was superior to the Panther though. The Panther had a LOT of issues and much more difficult to manufacture than the T-34.
WWII was about finding the balance between quality and quantity in tank design. The Americans went for quantity, the Germans went for quantity initially (Panzer's II-IV), then quality (V-VII), and the Russians managed to find a balance point, although their initial tanks focused on 'quality' of a sort.
It could be said that the Panther/Tiger helped lose the war for Germany.

The S-tank is a wierd one to have on there as well, since, to my knowledge, it has NEVER been used in combat and many consider is design archanic.
Yeah, quite. And it wasn't even that good.
Its argueable whether the T-34 was superior to the Panther though. The Panther had a LOT of issues and much more difficult to manufacture than the T-34.
The 75-L/70 gun was the best in the whole war, when all things are considered. The Panther had it, as well as the amusing if not very useful Nahverteidigungswaffe and also a couple of machine guns and, realistically, the best armour in the German tank army. Yes, that of the Tiger II was a bit thicker, but it was also flatter and hence prone to spalling.

The T34 was easier to produce, but other than when used in quite some mass, it wasn't particularly effective, although the T34/85 sorted out quite a lot of the issues with the original design (the 2-man turret etc.) and was a pretty decent tank.
WWII was about finding the balance between quality and quantity in tank design. The Americans went for quantity, the Germans went for quantity initially (Panzer's II-IV), then quality (V-VII), and the Russians managed to find a balance point, although their initial tanks focused on 'quality' of a sort.
Yeah, quite. Not really sure that the Americans did things the right way, but there you go.
It could be said that the Panther/Tiger helped lose the war for Germany.
What lost the war for Germany was the fact that they didn't produce their wire-guided SAMS that they'd already designed by early 1942 until it was far too late.

If they'd have bothered with that, then the strategic bombing campaign by the Western Allies would have been held off for a great deal of time, allowing for the procurement of larger stockpiles of metals such as Tungsten that German was running out of at a fast rate due to constantly using them all up carelessly because the munitions factories were being continually bombed, and time rather than economy was of the essence.

Hitler's love of the 'big cats', however, did help this process along by taking away production from the far, far more useful StuGs. But there you go.

a Sheridan in particular is an utterly woeful choice.

I know a guy who was on Sheridans during the early 80s. He said out of the 4 tanks he'd used (M48, Sheridan, M60 and M1) the Sheridan was the worst.

I know a guy who was on Sheridans during the early 80s. He said out of the 4 tanks he'd used (M48, Sheridan, M60 and M1) the Sheridan was the worst.
Aye. That's because Sheridans had the armour protection of the average shoebox and a gun with about as much potency as Lance Armstrong.

Ford Pinto
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Subjects/more/images/76_Ford_Pinto_03.jpg

Greatest gas tank ever.

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/showcase2004/images-04/jn_pinto.gif

As for best tank ever. Wow.

I'd have to say that since tanks differ widely in application, power, speed, effectiveness, time period, etc. the best tank ever does not exist. Mainly because there is no tank that fulfills all applications yet. A tank that has tremendous firepower, incredible survivability, able to travel extremely fast, is light, agile, difficult to hit/detect, low supply requirement, and of course many, many applications does not exist, to my knowledge. Otherwise, Leopard 2.

to be fair
they should the program with
10 greatest Tank Busters

I think we have enough pictures of T-34s, Shermans, Phanters, Merkavas burning.

to be fair
they should the program with
10 greatest Tank Busters

I think we have enough pictures of T-34s, Shermans, Phanters, Merkavas burning.

And really, shouldn't Mythbusters put the tanks to the test, to see which one is best? Fire frozen turkeys at them with high-velocity quicksand drainers while running them on alternative fuels. That would be something worth watching.

With tanks, you need to measure:
maintainance and fuel economy
armor
guns
speed
manueverability
production
general usefulness.

For example, the Sherman. It wasn't as well armored or armed as a Panzer, but could outrun and outmanuever one. It was also mass produced at a faster rate than the enemy could destroy. Plus, while it was kinda pathetic as a tank killer, it was pretty useful. You could put a flamethrower on one and have it clear out an enemy bunker. Add a mine-clearing attachment that cleared mines by spinning long chains at high speed against the ground a safe distance away from the tank. Bad at killing late-war tanks. Good at being not completely useless.

That was one example.

You gotta be kidding... it fires both shells and coke cans, has an afterburner(Though I woulnd't dare think of the fuel consumption on that one...), reacts to voice commands, has somewhat sophisticated AI and it looks freaking... eh... freaky! Besides, the pilot is pretty hawt too...

http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/msg/mechanics/images/ms_guntank_a.gif

Gundam's Guntank überpwns TG's tank. :p :p :p

also, Letajus'ij Tank (the Flying Tank) ! Mil Mi-24 (Nato: Hind)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Mi24CP.jpg/250px-Mi24CP.jpg

look at its operational history on wiki, it's like a REAL tank!

edit: it also carries the AA-11 (R-73)!

makes you think again about the potential of T-72s right?

I cooked Xmas dinner while my folx where down the pub a few years back, and when they all got home, I was toasted, and my dad said 'Tanks boy!'

That was rather great!

i'll drink to that one, and i don't even drink. well you know, not "spiritus liquours" anyway.

i'm also rather fond of railway tank cars, multiwalled storage tanks, that sort of thing too. how and why a military fighting vehicule would be named after a large storage vessle for liquids has always somewhat defied my comprehension.

and i'm pretty sure it wasn't the other way arround either, as there are very ancient records of catchement basins and cistrens being refered to as tanks as well.

i wonder if there are any etimologists if that's what there called, word history studyers, on here, who could shed further light on the subject. i'd be somewhat curious. considerably more so then about one particular kind of admitedly OTHERWISE fascinating mechanical object, who'se usefulness is somewhat limited to distructiveness.

=^^=
.../\...

they're called tanks because the British used the manufacture of water tanks as a cover for the construction of portions of them when the entire project was still a big secret in ww1.

or something reasonably similar to that, anyway.

Its argueable whether the T-34 was superior to the Panther though.

Well, the Germans modified the original Panzerkampfwagen V project when they saw the innovative T-34 sloped armour. The Panther's modernity derives directly from the T-34 design.

Anyway, Kursk proved that the Panther wasn't free from problems.

http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/msg/mechanics/images/ms_guntank_a.gif

Gundam's Guntank überpwns TG's tank. :p :p :p

also, Letajus'ij Tank (the Flying Tank) ! Mil Mi-24 (Nato: Hind)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Mi24CP.jpg/250px-Mi24CP.jpg

look at its operational history on wiki, it's like a REAL tank!

edit: it also carries the AA-11 (R-73)!

Pfff... the Gundam look like a shiny toy. Nah, give me rust and psycadelic graffiti
any day.

But I gotta agree on the Hind, that's an awsome flying tank. Weighs in like one too! :-D