Top Ten Tanks (1 Viewer)

DMNamiot said:
Chris,

I am on the road and dont have good email connectivity I got you message and will reply next week. Good to hear from you. By the way The Abrams Rules The Field and dont let that lobbist sell you on the LeoII.

Hell On Whells!

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, very glad you like your kit (Abrams) - don't they usually tender for the impossible then buy the cheapest? Maybe they got it wrong (i.e. correct) this time...stay well.
 
Hey guys, first post here - coming over from the connoisseur boards, but could not resist my early modeling interests when I saw this thread!
How do you guys define the best tank? Is it the tank that is most easily produced in numbers to win a war (the Sherman or T-34)? Or is it the tank you, as a crew member, would like to be in when the lines are drawn and the “lead” (SABOT, HEAT etc.) starts flying?
As a former Infantryman who got stuck as a Bradley commander with dreams of being a “Panzer” hero and after that assignment, I will always beg to fight on the ground.
For me the best tanks are the ones that won the big one (WW II) and those are the Sherman and the T-34.
Now, If I had to crew one of these vehicles I would want to be in a Sturmgeschütze, preferably on the Eastern Front.
Just some quick thoughts - Scott
 
Oh yeah, I understand the Stug is not a "tank" but I can't get the image of the veteran NCO stug commnder stamping (read painting during down time) imges of knocked ot t-34s on the side of his hull out of my head!
Sorry for scewing up this thread.....
 
oldtrousers said:
Hey guys, first post here - coming over from the connoisseur boards, but could not resist my early modeling interests when I saw this thread!
How do you guys define the best tank? Is it the tank that is most easily produced in numbers to win a war (the Sherman or T-34)? Or is it the tank you, as a crew member, would like to be in when the lines are drawn and the “lead” (SABOT, HEAT etc.) starts flying?
As a former Infantryman who got stuck as a Bradley commander with dreams of being a “Panzer” hero and after that assignment, I will always beg to fight on the ground.
For me the best tanks are the ones that won the big one (WW II) and those are the Sherman and the T-34.
Now, If I had to crew one of these vehicles I would want to be in a Sturmgeschütze, preferably on the Eastern Front.
Just some quick thoughts - Scott
Click to expand...


Hi OT, and welcome to the 'ready made' model forum :D

I don't think a definition has been mentioned before but I can't see that number produced has anything to do with how good a tank is, and the Sherman is a good example of that. I guess most people would consider the best tank as being the most effective on a battlefield on a 'tank v tank' basis. The Sherman was a good Infantry Tank in areas such as the Pacific Theatre where it had little opposition but in Europe it was soon outclassed by the Main Battle tanks in that theatre.
 
The Military channel delcared the t-34 as the all time best tank, of course those that decided didn't have to fight in it and go up against a Tiger. I think if I had a vote I'd vote for the tank that gave me the best chance for survival, but that's just me.
 
OzDigger said:
I don't think a definition has been mentioned before but I can't see that number produced has anything to do with how good a tank is, and the Sherman is a good example of that. I guess most people would consider the best tank as being the most effective on a battlefield on a 'tank v tank' basis. The Sherman was a good Infantry Tank in areas such as the Pacific Theatre where it had little opposition but in Europe it was soon outclassed by the Main Battle tanks in that theatre.
Click to expand...

THere's a bit of a sticky wicket there - how do you define "best". The Sherman was NOT initially designed to beat the other guys' tanks directly. Right before the US Army formed its Armored Force the infantry ruled that the mission of a tank was to "facillitate the advance of the rifleman in the attack" and the cavalry arm looked at light tanks as a modern mobile arm for exploitation of a breakthrough. Due to the later entrance of the US into WW2 they didn't have the hard won lessons of North Africa and Russia that clearly pointed out that the best answer to a tank is another, hopefully better, tank. Anyway the Sherman was designed as a weapon of exploitation with engaging enemy armor as a secondary function. Was the Sherman a success? By its design criteria - heck yes! It was an excellent weapon of exploitation warfare. The Panther was designed to use technical excellence to overcome superior numbers of enemy armored forces. Was the Panther a success? Not really - it caused casualties but it never stopped any of its enemy's armored forces from advancing right into its home country. So one has to look at the intended use for judging a vehicle's design. Did it live up to expectations of the designer or the user?

Gary
 
binder001 said:
THere's a bit of a sticky wicket there - how do you define "best". The Sherman was NOT initially designed to beat the other guys' tanks directly. Right before the US Army formed its Armored Force the infantry ruled that the mission of a tank was to "facillitate the advance of the rifleman in the attack" and the cavalry arm looked at light tanks as a modern mobile arm for exploitation of a breakthrough. Due to the later entrance of the US into WW2 they didn't have the hard won lessons of North Africa and Russia that clearly pointed out that the best answer to a tank is another, hopefully better, tank. Anyway the Sherman was designed as a weapon of exploitation with engaging enemy armor as a secondary function. Was the Sherman a success? By its design criteria - heck yes! It was an excellent weapon of exploitation warfare. The Panther was designed to use technical excellence to overcome superior numbers of enemy armored forces. Was the Panther a success? Not really - it caused casualties but it never stopped any of its enemy's armored forces from advancing right into its home country. So one has to look at the intended use for judging a vehicle's design. Did it live up to expectations of the designer or the user?

Gary
Click to expand...

As I said, the Sherman was an Infantry Tank and therefore it was not designed to take on heavy armour. However that doesn't change or excuse the fact that it was still in use as a Main Battle tank WELL after it was realized it wasn't suitable for the job and the US tank doctrine was proved woefully out of step with reality.

And of course any old tank would be ok when the enemy is retreating as the Germans were in face of the overwhelming forces against them, However when the Germans had time to establish in-depth defences the Sherman wasn't even much use as an Infantry Tank due to its poor armour.

The Panther is usually rated in the top ten of most Best Tanks lists and most experts consider it a successful tank albeit with some design faults. To say it wasn't successful because the Germans lost the war is grasping at straws imo.
 
eborris said:
The Military channel delcared the t-34 as the all time best tank, of course those that decided didn't have to fight in it and go up against a Tiger. I think if I had a vote I'd vote for the tank that gave me the best chance for survival, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% with eborris on this one. Its all about survivability of the crew for me. I really don't give a dang what the purpose of a weapon is, once its on the battlefield, the only question that matters is does it get the job done, and keep the crew serving it alive.

It is pretty evident to me that during WWII, the best tank (i.e. the tank that best enabled its crew to survive) was the Tiger or the Panther. The last tank I would want to be crewing is anything the Allies built (especially an M3 Lee or Grant, a Matilda, a Crusader or a Sherman). Whatever the genius planners designed them to do, be "infantry support" in the case of the British tanks, or to exploit a "break out" in the case of the American Tanks, such intentions and strategies only work if you can impose your strategy on the other side. The Germans were able to force our tanks to fight theirs or to beat themselves to death on dug in 88mm gun emplacements, with horrible results for our tank crews. If it wasn't for the Soviets tying up 75% of the German forces, and our total air supremacy making it virtually impossible for the Germans to move during daylight hours, knocking out all of the Nazi's support vehicles and horse drawn conveyences (thereby stopping the german tanks by depriving them of fuel and ammunition), and pinning down and destroying any German tank they could locate, our tanks would have totally failed to accomplish any of their goals.

Today, the best tanks are clearly the tanks fielded by the NATO countries: the Abrahms (USA), the Leopard (Germany), the Merkova (Israel) and the British and French main battle tanks. The combination of Chubbum Armor and reactive armor, that German made 125mm main gun, and the speed and maneuverability of these tanks make them nearly impossible to defeat, as is evidenced by the unbeliveable kill ratio and crew survivability statistics from the Gulf War and the present conflict.
 
hey guys,
Nice discussion here - I just wondered if you guys cosidered what the average dude in a tank would want or if you looked at the bigger picture when conidering a tank - Scott
 
Louis Badolato said:
I'm 100% with eborris on this one. Its all about survivability of the crew for me. I really don't give a dang what the purpose of a weapon is, once its on the battlefield, the only question that matters is does it get the job done, and keep the crew serving it alive.

It is pretty evident to me that during WWII, the best tank (i.e. the tank that best enabled its crew to survive) was the Tiger or the Panther. The last tank I would want to be crewing is anything the Allies built (especially an M3 Lee or Grant, a Matilda, a Crusader or a Sherman). Whatever the genius planners designed them to do, be "infantry support" in the case of the British tanks, or to exploit a "break out" in the case of the American Tanks, such intentions and strategies only work if you can impose your strategy on the other side. The Germans were able to force our tanks to fight theirs or to beat themselves to death on dug in 88mm gun emplacements, with horrible results for our tank crews. If it wasn't for the Soviets tying up 75% of the German forces, and our total air supremacy making it virtually impossible for the Germans to move during daylight hours, knocking out all of the Nazi's support vehicles and horse drawn conveyences (thereby stopping the german tanks by depriving them of fuel and ammunition), and pinning down and destroying any German tank they could locate, our tanks would have totally failed to accomplish any of their goals.

Today, the best tanks are clearly the tanks fielded by the NATO countries: the Abrahms (USA), the Leopard (Germany), the Merkova (Israel) and the British and French main battle tanks. The combination of Chubbum Armor and reactive armor, that German made 125mm main gun, and the speed and maneuverability of these tanks make them nearly impossible to defeat, as is evidenced by the unbeliveable kill ratio and crew survivability statistics from the Gulf War and the present conflict.
Click to expand...

Good points, my vote for best WWII tank would be the T34/85 and the new Leopard for the best modern tank.
 
Sounds like the new Challenger II's have good survivability based on their Iraq experiences.
 
OzDigger said:
Good points, my vote for best WWII tank would be the T34/85 and the new Leopard for the best modern tank.
Click to expand...

I certainly cannot disagree with your choices, Oz, both are excellent tanks. The upgunned T34-85 was an excellent tank which more than held its own against the best German armor. Its one shortcoming was the small size of its turret, which forced two men to do jobs (loader, gunner, tank commander) better left to three. The Leopard is certainly every bit as good as any of the other NATO tanks, which makes it one of the best around (just ask Ron;)).

As as aside, I made a typo in my post: the Leopard and the Abrahms both have a German made 120mm gun, not a 125mm as I mistakenly indicated above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top