Top Ten Tanks (1 Viewer)

[woodenwarriors]

Good point George- How did I miss that one too?? The panther was a beast!!

Is this the one they called the mobile pillbox ?
Charlie

 

[OzDigger]

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

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

The old mobility versus armor debate, personally I'd rather not be in a Hummer in a hostile environment.

 

[Currahee Chris]

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.

HOOAAH!!!

Yeah, those Vulcan's were pretty wild. Very distinct sound- I always got a kick out of the exhaust they would kick of as well. The night live fires were always a treat- especially the brush fires afterwards

 

[Currahee Chris]

Is this the one they called the mobile pillbox ?
Charlie

I'll probably have to defer that to someone else a bit more knowledgeable. I cannot say I have ever heard of that espression though for the Panther, I would think it could fit.

 

[aujj65]

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........

I have seen the programmes about the Panther and Comet, talk about a labour of love!

Jeff

 

[binder001]

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!!!

Sorry, the M60 series had minimal actual combat in US service. The M60 entered production in 1959 as an evolutionary outgrowth of the M48 series. The M60A1 came about 1962, and the M60A3 about 1977-78. The israelis were the first to take M60s into combat, using M60A1s against Egypt in October, 1973. They later received more M60A1s and older M60s from the USA.

The tanks in Korea were M4A3E8 "Shermans", M26 "Pershings", and M46 "Pattons", the M47 and M48 upgraded "Pattons" were each rushed into production, but neither made it to Korea. The M48A3 was the primary US combat tank in Viet Nam (along with a few M48A2 mogassers). The only M60-types to get to Viet Nam were M60 AVLBs and M728 CEVs. Viet Nam also use of the M551 AR/AAV (light tank). After the 1973 Arab-israeli war the US realized that our tank reserve stocks were too low, and many older M48A3 and even older M48A1 tanks were upgraded to the M48A5 - that's why it's rare to see a Viet Nam vintage M48A3 in a museum.

The last combat for the M60s in US service were the M60A3s used by the USMC in Kuwait in 1991. Most of the CEVs are retired also, but I think the AVLB is still in service pending the Wolverine assault bridging vehicle.

The most common Hollywood tanks from the 1950s through 1970s were M47s, M48s and M41 light tanks, mostly from European armies (or the California National Guard)

Gary

 

[Capitolron]

In my opinion it is silly to compare WWII Armor to todays Armor - not even in the same ballpark. And for those of you who have not been in a Leopard Tank well - it gives our stuff a run for its money. I have been in both and let me say - I am glad the Leopard is a NATO Weapon !

 

[Rob]

I have seen the programmes about the Panther and Comet, talk about a labour of love!

Jeff

I saw this series and really enjoyed it.Had no idea of the huge amount of work and over such a long period that goes into restoration.I'd really like Andy to make a Comet one day,an overlooked Tank in my view.

Rob

 

[Warrior]

Dave,
Great point by you regarding the mechanical problems with the Panther, most of them crapped out mechanically at Kursk so you are 100% correct, that is huge factor in it's overall score...........

 

[Capitolron]

You know - I still love that LEE TANK - very cool.

 

[Currahee Chris]

In my opinion it is silly to compare WWII Armor to todays Armor - not even in the same ballpark. And for those of you who have not been in a Leopard Tank well - it gives our stuff a run for its money. I have been in both and let me say - I am glad the Leopard is a NATO Weapon !

Sounds like we have detected a German army sympathizer in our ranks- let the floggings begin!!!!

If memory serves, Brad stated that there were several factors to include which didn't really make it a straight on comparison but more of a "in it's class" sort of thing.

Brad- you got this started- I can talk tanks all day!!!

Tried to offer all my 2 cents worth- was in Philly today for a training seminar.

Gary- thanks for the rundown on the M48 and M60- I wasn't exactly sure how all that played out. Was the M48 and the M60 on the same chassis?
My knowledge goes from Sherman to Abrams- there is a good 30+ year gap in there- Does anyone disagree that the M60 might actually be the ugliest tank in history?? I really didn't like the look of it- not a really menacing sillhouette.

Hummvee versus Abrams- yeah, I would probably take an Abrams as well. Not as up to speed as I once was about AT weapons but I would still like to sit behind some reflective armor. It isn't like the Abrams cannot move out- they most certainly can, they are just not as manuverable as a Hummer- of course, if something like a house or rice paddy gets in the way, just CRUSH IT- (HOAAH Team Spirit 91)

Sceic- yeah, an Ohio class sub- super, super machine. You will win there hands down-saw a discovery channel show on it a couple weeks ago- just love that thing. Too bad I am too much a chicken to go down in the depths like a sub guy.

 

[binder001]

Chris,

You are right, the M60 was a basically a redesigned M48. The frontal armor was improved, the hull was fitted with the AVDS-1790 diesel engine (everything before were all mogassers), the turret was based on the M48's but had subtle changes in contour and was fitted with the US 105mm M68 gun (the tube of the British 105mm L7A1 with a US-designed breech) and the distinctive M19 commander's cupola. The M60A1 introduced the "sharpnose" turret, which basically carried over to M60A3. M60A2 was the "odd duck" with the gun-missle system.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I did time on the M60A3 as well as the aforementioned Abrams and will tell you it was a really nasty tank to work on it would break torrsion bars just sitting in the motor pool and they were a major pain in the a** to remove. The Cdrs cupola and accompanying 50 cal mg was also a total piece of junk and my favorite weapon was the coaxally mounted MGs fondly remembered at the jamamatic. Now when we went to the M1 it was like trading in the 70's Gremlin for a top of the line Mercedes. I will always have a very fond spot in my heart for that tank! I think most of the questions have been answered about the tanks listed so I will try really hard to watch the show when its on next.

All the best

Dave

Also the Comet would be a very cool one to see done along with the Pershing.

 

[Capitolron]

Gentlemen

There is nothing like German Armor - WWII or Present.

 

[binder001]

Gentlemen There is nothing like German Armor - WWII or Present.

Yes, it nicely decorated the roadsides in France, Belgium, and Germany as the Allied armies rolled by! Sort of like a fine, precision-engineered PAPERWEIGHT! When a tank stops moving (as most German ones did) it's simply a target. Granted, a dangerous target, but just a target neverless.

Gary

 

[Capitolron]

Yes, it nicely decorated the roadsides in France, Belgium, and Germany as the Allied armies rolled by! Sort of like a fine, precision-engineered PAPERWEIGHT! When a tank stops moving (as most German ones did) it's simply a target. Granted, a dangerous target, but just a target neverless.

Gary

Gary

I am not so sure German Armor had problems moving starting with 1939 until 1944

They seemed to move well at Dunkirk ?

 

[Louis Badolato]

Yes, it nicely decorated the roadsides in France, Belgium, and Germany as the Allied armies rolled by! Sort of like a fine, precision-engineered PAPERWEIGHT! When a tank stops moving (as most German ones did) it's simply a target. Granted, a dangerous target, but just a target neverless.

Gary

They were paperweights courtesy of the RAF and 8th Airforce. If the mighty 8th and the RAF don't knock out german oil production, causing massive fuel shortages, and their Typhoons, P47's and P51's don't provide extremely effective close air support, those German Tanks might have done a lot more than decorate the roads in western europe.

 

[panda1gen]

Guys, what a great thread.....thanks Brad but especially thanks to Dave and Chris for their insight and experience.

I am not surprised that the T34 made it as the tops and would think all us armchair tank boys would probably put it there or thereabouts. I was recently reading an eastern front book that told me a few things that I didn't know, hope I don't bore you if I share...apologies for a long post.

A T34 tank - and in most cases its crew - had a life expectancy of six months from factory to destruction in battle. Frequent German reports commented upon the poor training of the Russians (such as driving along crests) and the Russians upon short experience as they were killed so quickly. The losses were so bad they equated to U boat crews, bomber command and German fighter pilots towards the end of the war.

The T34 was crude, had no turret floor and the loader's life was a hazardous one as he or she scrambled around for ammo whilst ducking the breech. Its tracks were not rubberized - this and its unmuffled diesel made it one of the loudest tanks ever to rumble into action - in its own way a psychological weapon like the stuka with its siren. It had one disadvantage though as it took 30 minutes to warm up giving plenty of notice to the Germans that they were coming.

Russian tank losses, many of these of course would be T34s, especially from 43

1941 - 22,600
1943 - 22,400
1944 - 16,900

(66% destroyed in action, rest breakdowns) 10% could be repaired by the unit, 15% at the factory. 75% beyond repair and their crews killed or wounded.

German tank losses in comparison (all fronts)
1943 1944
Pz111 2,633 220
Pz1V 2,396 3,103
Panther 493 2,803
Tiger 291 788

This data emphasises how hard they were to kill in comparison.

The production war was won hands down by the Russians despite much lower steel and coal capacity. In January 1943 German tank strength in the East peaked at 2,803 of which 1,475 were operational. That is about 1 tank give or take for each mile of front - hardly 1940 density.

In comparison, the Russians had 8,500 tanks and assault guns at the front plus nearly 5,000 in training and reserve. After 1941 they only built 4 types - T34, KV1, T60 and 70 light tanks, later converted to production of SU76. T34 were by far and away the most prevalent - 24,000 AFVs in total built in 1942 (despite the factory dislocation) only 2,553 were KV1.

The Russians outproduced in a ratio of 2.5 : 1 - maintained throughout the war despite the work that Speer did to massively boost productivity. Even Britain with Canada more or less kept pace on her own and later the whole Valentine run went to Russia on lend lease via Murmansk - they liked western engines but hated the petrol engines - an M3 Lee for example was 'a coffin for seven comrades'. Given the life expectancy in battle the engine longevity was perhaps not a high priority so they used them for training

The Germans produced about 1/3 AFVs as stugs and tank destroyers, the Russians only 1/6. In 1943 when the Russians still faced the Germans alone they lost four tanks to one German but the factories more than kept pace.

In terms of impact then, I agree the T34 effectively won the war - more than the Sherman as it fought longer and harder from 41-45, and was 'the best'.

On any other measure though, the panther should win from WW2 for balancing mobility, armour and firepower. They killed and survived at a far far better rate.

None can compare with modern MBTs though would hordes of T80s or whatever overun fewer M1s and Challengers in the same way as their predecessors overan the panzers????

 

[Currahee Chris]

Great Post PG1!!! Staggering to look at the German tank losses- in the MILLIONS!!

After reading that, I do remember seeing, sometime ago, a History channel show on T34 crews- it was interesting and for the most part, they were saying the same things as Sherman crews- we were dying in a few seconds, the tank was unGodly uncomfortable, etc, etc. Yeah, it was a real mess for any of them. The Eastern Front was more suited to tank warfare than the Western, so you really got to see these things play out in a much larger scale. While watching that show, the Soviet tankers mentioned that a lot of them were selected from farming areas because they had tractor operating experience. I think their entire training course was about 2-3 weeks long.

The rumbling noise from those things were a little secret to them though- they did play a huge psychological card on the Germans, especially towards 44 and 45.

T80's versus an Abrams M3- yeah, I'd pay money to see that, Pay per View special perhaps . I think we would still prevail, in fact, I am fully confident of that fact- but I am not unbiased here either Helicopter gunships and now the new UAV's not to mention the crazy supersonic fighters are really going to make the old tank slugfest a thing of the past.

From what I understand, the T70 series had a lot of mechanical issues. A fun story I like to tell is from some buddies of mine who were in the Third Armored during the Persian Gulf- the CG was giving a briefing and he pulled out some ball bearing from a 72 and laid them on the table "Gentlemen, this is what we are going against" the ball bearings weren't round

Trust me, I cannot be counted on for an objective point of view here- too much American pride (or prejudice) to believe that the Soviets did a better tank than us- even if we gave them the tech I am still Shermans, Abrams all the way!!

 

[panda1gen]

Chris - tried and tried to get the table as a table but.....

I was interested to read the post about the Humvees etc and your latest comments. Again, I'm just an armchair driver but am I right in understanding that the current US doctrine is similar to the German on the Eastern front about the use of air power? To augment their relatively poor artillery (not ever US doctrine!!!!!) but also their anti tank capability.

From the same book, I have had it many years so not sure if it is in print but very good read - Ostfront, Hitlers war on Russia 1941-45 - Charles Winchester - ISBN 1-85532-711-2, also talks about the increasingly impossible demands on the Luftwaffe for infantry divisions with less intrinsic artillery than in WW1.

As long as the US enjoys current superiority, fine. but if there had have been a long war with the Soviets would that have been sustained?............

BTW, friends of mine who drove chieftains suggested they were more effective with a few six packs in the cab!