Top Ten Tanks (4 Viewers)

jazzeum

jazzeum

Four Star General
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
38,379
I just watched a program on the Military Channel that rated the top 10 tanks of all time, judging them by factors such as armor, armaments, protection, reliability, ease of production (including numbers produced) and fear factor.

Here is the list:

1. T34 (top rated in all categories, especially ease of production and fear factor)
2. M1 Abrams
3. Tiger
4. Mark IV (World War I)
5. British Centurion
6. Mark IV Panzer
7. British Challenger (this received high marks but only a few hundred have been produced)
8. T54/55
9. Israeli Merkava
10. Sherman
 
Hi Brad,

I missed that show do you know the name. I'll be watching for the repeat. I was surprised the Leopard 2 didnt make it but the list appears to be tanks that were in combat and I dont think any Leopard2 have been in combat yet. Otherwise its a good list and could generate a lot of discussion.

All the best

Dave
 
Dave,

I think it was something like "Top Ten Tanks."
 
I have said it once and I will say it again- the M1A3 Abrams is the reason I joined the army- it is the fiercest battle machine produced on the planet. I cannot imagine anything out there giving it a challenge.

To put the T34 so far above the Sherman is just utter blasphemy.
 
DMNamiot said:
Hi Brad,

I missed that show do you know the name. I'll be watching for the repeat. I was surprised the Leopard 2 didnt make it but the list appears to be tanks that were in combat and I dont think any Leopard2 have been in combat yet. Otherwise its a good list and could generate a lot of discussion.

All the best

Dave
Click to expand...


Dave

I you are right the Leopard 2 has not seen actual combat - I represent KMW - who makes the Leopard as well as many other Armor vehicles. I think that program might be a little bias against current German Armor - General Dynamics has sposorship on the Military Channel and the History Channel - and you see their products given a little more "puff" than most.

Ron
 
Currahee Chris said:
I have said it once and I will say it again- the M1A3 Abrams is the reason I joined the army- it is the fiercest battle machine produced on the planet. I cannot imagine anything out there giving it a challenge.

To put the T34 so far above the Sherman is just utter blasphemy.
Click to expand...

Chris

LEPOARD 2 is a mean machine :D

Ron
 
Hi Guys,

I'll have to see the program and find out what all the criteria were. I cant make an informed judgement until I see it. I will let you everyone one know the deal when I get to see it.

All the best

Dave
 
I've watched that show a couple of times, as well as top ten shows on fighters, bombers, and submarines. They heavily skew the results based on numbers produced and amount of combat. Accordingly, a plane like the F15 Eagle which is virtually undefeated in plane to plane combat is out ranked by the Mustang, because so many more were produced and they saw so much combat. They are not really ranking the ten best of any of these catagories, but the ten most successful in production/combat.
 
These shows are fun, but like any "top ten" they represent any bias of the reviewer. The various AFV sites often get into this list or "best tank" arguments, often just wasting band width to no real end. Any weapon has to be taken into its context. Did it push the technology forward? Did it do the job required of it? , etc. The Sherman wasn't the best technological tank of WW2, but it remains a great because of its adaptability, and because it did the job expected of it. It fit right into American Armored Force doctrine and was ably used. It was also generally well-manned. No tank will ever be better than the men who man it or the system that supports them. That's the question about Leopard II, the tank is untested in actual combat and the crews haven't had to be tested under real fire. A technological terror that hasn't left the maneuver areas or firing ranges. The Centurion, Challenger, Abrams, even the old M48 series all have seen combat and have proved their strengths or weaknesses.

If the History Channel shows prove nothing, they at least provide great tank videos!

Gary
 
Not wanting to ignite a debate, but isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?:)
 

Attachments

  • WS098.jpg
    WS098.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 132
Capitolron said:
Chris

LEPOARD 2 is a mean machine :D

Ron
Click to expand...

Agreed- yeah it's a bad boy too.

When I was at NTC 15 years ago (GAH!! Has it been that long???), one of the most incredible sights I have ever seen was a battalion of Abrams rolling across the desert with a full compliment of Bradley's. I was a good mile- mile and a half away looking down into the valley- they were just ripping across the desert- still brings a tear to my eye:D

One thing I did recall was a discussion I had with some of the NTC OPFOR CADRE out there- They recalled a mockup battle between the 10th Mountain and the 24th ID. The 10th had nothing but hummers with Tow missle systems and the 24th had the Abrams (this was a battalion sized engagement). The 10th decimated the 24th in every comptetion they had. The guys were saying that the Abrams just couldn't manuever as well as those TOW hummers and it was showing. This was before the A3's so I am not sure how that would shape up nowadays.

Tanks will be a mainstay of our combat forces but I think we are going to start seeing a shift in priorities- Strykers. etc. Vehicles will be much more high tech and more manuverable to assist with Rapid "get in get out" types of missions like we are seeing in Iraq. Still, nothing beats having the 155 out there!!

STANDS ALONE!!
CC
 
Hi Guys,

Having been a Tank commander on two versions of the M-1 (M1 and M1-IP with a rollover training done on the M1A1) I will agree with Chris on the maneuverability and the firepower! As for the Tow mounted HMMWVs we pretty much disproved the bulk of their claims to superiority and when it comes down to it the big kicker for the HMMWVs is lack of survivability when exposed to Artillery and well coordinated combined arms direct fires.

Of course I have to ask what Bn of the 101st were you in when you were at the NTC because I was an OC around about that time and we may have eaten the same dust. I was on the Scorpion Team which vexed me to no end being a Tanker with a bunch of Infantry guys but I was also sent to work with the Trantulas and the Cobras so we may well have crossed paths.

Brad, thanks for the links and the TV info I will check my tv listings here and see when the show is on and either watch or tape so we can get back to the meat of the discussion.

All the best

Dave
 
Hey Dave:

When I was in the dustbowl, I was with the 3/3 ADA C battery out of Fort Polk- 5th ID. I was in a pretty useless Vulcan battery- we used old beat down raggedy 113's- couldn't hope to keep up with the pace of the Abrams or Bradleys. They were constantly breaking down. This was November 92. After that rotation, we moved to Ft. Hood and became 2/5 ADA and gobbled up with the 2nd Armored.

I was never in the 101st unfortunately- I was in the 1/506 in Camp Greaves Korea back in 1991. Back then, the 1/506 was attached with the 2ID. I am not sure if they are back with the 101 now or not- I am thinking that they aren't though based on some articles I have read.

I am kind of surprised that the M60 Patton didn't make the list- that thing had quite a combat record- they were used all the way back in Korea right?? Their combat record would technically have been the longest having Korea, Nam and the Persian Gulf under it's belt- not to mention the prolific Hollywood run of that tank!!! :D :D
 
I really don't agree with some of those "Top 10" shows on the History or Military Channel. I just watched the Top 10 Submarines and they rated the Type 7 U-boat as the top sub ever. Well, I am sorry, the Type 7's may have a distinquished WWII career, but there are so many new and better subs now then there has ever been. The Germans have just started lauching a series of diesel boats that are actually silent. No noise what so ever. The Swedes have a history and so do the Russians of creating very powerful and silent subs. Nothing but nothing can top an Ohio class fleet ballistic missle submarine. They each have 24 Trident I and II multiple warhead thermo-nuclear missile tubes with enough destructive power that if all of 18 of them were to lauch their missles they would knock the earth off its axis if they all had correct placement for detonation.

So for all you tankers out there, I will always take an Ohio class sub every time. Want'a duel to see which is better? I will give you a 30-minute head start anywhere on planet Earth.
 
Last edited:
How can that list not include a Panther? Don't get it. On The Military History Channel tomorrow evening (I am pretty sure), there is a program telling the story of a Panther that was restored. I've seen the one on the Sherman........
 
Hi Guys,

The Panther was a great tank ture enough but it was a maintenance beast and was a technological pain to manufacture. So it would have scored poorly in these areas. Otherwise I cant think of another reason it didnt make the list.

Dave
 
Hi Chris,

Hell on Wheels Brother!

I was in 1-66 AR Iron Knights and boy oh boy did I love watching the Vulcan in the ground support mode! I have to admit they were pretty slow and top heavy but could they dump some rounds down range! Very impressive at night under the glow of arty and 4 deuce flares.

I was already out of the Division by the time you made it there and was over in Germany eating dust (mud) at Hohenfels. We'll have to chat sometime and see if we know anyone in common.

Semper in Hostes!


Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top