Top Ten Tanks (1 Viewer)

Hi Guys,

Good posts all! I was especially tickled about the T-72 issues that the Iraqis had I have heard many similar stories but the really big difference is not the guns or the drive train it really is the Optics on the Abrams and the training of the crews. The optics for the Abrams gave our guys a lot of advatanges that the T-72 and other tanks in the Iraqi inventory didnt have, mainly we could see them and hit them at nearly double their range. The Iraqi Armor didnt have a chance to do much other than their own version of German paperweights. I can attest to the fact that with Service Ammo you can hit a target on the M-1 with a 105mm gun at 3800 meters, because my gunner did it. I also know guys who hit targets at well past 4500 meters with the 120mm Gun. Now if the Iraqis were able to close the gap and score a hit they could do some damage to our tanks but they generally did damage that was recoverable and we lost very few tanks to what could be considered catastrophic kills.

All the best

Dave
 
Interesting comments. One can see that the US DID look at German vs. Soviet combat in WW2 when they designed the anti-armor doctrine for the defense of Europe. TacAir and long-range artillery to hit them as they approach, tank guns and long-range missiles to hit 'em as they come on, smaller missiles to engage as they get closer. This layered defense would have taken out a lot of Soviet tanks before they could get into action. The USSR would have needed their immense numbers. If NATO was free to conduct mobile warfare - make the other guy bleed, then pull back and do it again and again, interspersed with counterstrikes and local counter attacks. Even the Russian bear couldn't have kept up the loss ratio forever.

I agree with Dave that the better optics/sighting was helpful, but still feel that the US and British tankers training was what really made the day. Well-trained, properly motivated troops in superb machines with effective logistic support in open "tank country". I think the British still hold the record for long-range tank killing. I believe it was a Challenger, in 1991, that hit an Iraqi tank at something like 5200 meters! WOW!

Gary
 
panda1gen said:
Chris - tried and tried to get the table as a table but.....:D

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?............:confused::rolleyes::eek:

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


Hey Panda-

Sorry for the late response- my wife grounded me from any internet communications this weekend- wanted me to come up from the basement and see the sunlight:D

Yes, from my understanding of our OOB during the PERSIAN gulf, it was very similar to the German/Eastern front setup. I am a former enlisted trooper so my focus was more on men and equipment rather than OOB's- that we left to the brass and they ran that show better than anyone. As I have gotten older though, i am starting to understand it a bit more.

Things are a bit muddier now- more focus on rapid response and deployment to meet the new threat of the terrorist. Some discussions I have read have even discuss more flexibility at the brigade level rather than at a Division or Corps level. Essentially a move from the RCT to a BCT. Dave would probably be better to answer this than myself though with his background.

One insight that I have gathered over the years- it took one US SF brigade 5-6 weeks to essentially overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan- something the Soviets couldn't do in the 8 years they were there- with their 72's and 76's (of course, it wasn't the Taliban either). Also, the SF didn't deploy with a staunch supply of Abrams either- just hummers and Little Birds- and, yes, even the occasional Camel. Warfare for us in the States now is about precision strikes and quick insertion/ extraction- that isn't just the SF/Delta purview anymore- CQB training sites are cropping up at every main US installation and even at some of the bigger guard and reserve posts. Abrams and artillery pieces have a more general use now with the current engagements- ie - well, someone is shooting at us from the roof of that building and we cannot take them out- can I get some HE on that rooftop- and 2-3 seconds later BOOM- it's done.

The traditional OOB's will stay in existence on paper in theory for a massed battle with other countries who could mount a traditional defense but, like I said, with all this other new tech- precision guided munitions, Raptors, Ohio subs, UAVs, Killer satelites, it gets so much different.

Sorry, I know I moved off topic a bit here............
 
DMNamiot said:
Hi Guys,

Good posts all! I was especially tickled about the T-72 issues that the Iraqis had I have heard many similar stories but the really big difference is not the guns or the drive train it really is the Optics on the Abrams and the training of the crews. The optics for the Abrams gave our guys a lot of advatanges that the T-72 and other tanks in the Iraqi inventory didnt have, mainly we could see them and hit them at nearly double their range. The Iraqi Armor didnt have a chance to do much other than their own version of German paperweights. I can attest to the fact that with Service Ammo you can hit a target on the M-1 with a 105mm gun at 3800 meters, because my gunner did it. I also know guys who hit targets at well past 4500 meters with the 120mm Gun. Now if the Iraqis were able to close the gap and score a hit they could do some damage to our tanks but they generally did damage that was recoverable and we lost very few tanks to what could be considered catastrophic kills.

All the best

Dave
Click to expand...


Awesome stuff- just love those 120's- love those long range kills.
 
binder001 said:
I agree with Dave that the better optics/sighting was helpful, but still feel that the US and British tankers training was what really made the day. Well-trained, properly motivated troops in superb machines with effective logistic support in open "tank country". I think the British still hold the record for long-range tank killing. I believe it was a Challenger, in 1991, that hit an Iraqi tank at something like 5200 meters! WOW!

Gary
Click to expand...


Agreed.

GAHH!! 5200 meters!!! That's nearly 3 miles!!! Awesome stuff!!! Sorry, i just love reading stuff like that.
 
Very interesting discussion. Although the Sherman tank came in 10th, it's place in history as one of the greatest tanks ever cannot be denied. Most of the tanks on the list had better armor and firepower than the Sherman, but the greatness of the sherman goes beyond that. Simply put, the allies do not win WW-2 without the Sherman tank. It proved to be one of the best mechanically sound tanks ever built. The reliability of this tank was one of its strong points. The genious of the American soldier, proved that the sherman was the most adaptable tank ever built. Too many variations to count. Flame-thrower, hedge cutter, bulldozer, screaming mimi, firefly, 105mm howitzer, floatation tanks, tank tow truck, etc,etc. Even some of the tank destroyers were built on her chasis. Now, even more important, was her unmatched longevity. In 1973, when the Israelis backs were to the wall during the two front assault from Egypt and Syria, the IDF was short tanks, as they did not have enough centurians to go around. Some 350 remaining Sherman tanks were taken out of storage, and drove up to the Golan Heights and the Sinai and preceeded to demolish much younger Russian T-54/55 tanks. The M-50 super Sherman with its 105mm main gun drove across the suez canal under the command of Col Dani Matt, and helped Israel win the Yom Kippur War. Why is this important? Because some 30 plus years after its introduction in 1941/42, the Sherman Tank was still fighting valiently and saving a country from defeat as it did with the allies in WW-2. Israel sold its remaing Shermans after the war to the Chile armed forces. The tank remained in active service with them until 2002. That adds up to 60 years of active service, which is unmatched in the annals of tank history. It is for these reasons that I must consider the Sherman Tank as the most important tank ever built.
 
The Sherman has been a source of controversy on this and many other military forums. Suffice to say the allies won WWII in spite of it and the Israeli's prefered the Centurion, but the Brits were reluctant to sell them more as they were having an arguement at the time ;)
 
Is it really fair to equate the Israeli "Super Sherman" with the Shermans that saw service in WWII? That's like taking a model T-Ford chasis, putting in a brand new modern engine, transmission, & suspension out of the 2007 Shelby Mustang, and calling it a Model T. The Israeli "Super Sherman" may have looked a little like the WWII version, and had the same name, but it had a different engine, different supension, different armor and a much-much larger and more powerful gun. The Sherman as it originally saw service was a death trap. It was far too tall with an enormous profile that made it an excellent target, its armor was a joke, it "brewed up" virtually every time it was hit (hence its nickname the Ronson, after the lighter), due to ammunition and fuel stowage problems, it had a pea shooter for a main gun which couldn't penetrate any of the German main battle tanks except at extremely close range or from the rear, had such thin tracks that its off road performance was far inferior to that of much heavier German Tanks. And the vast majority of the innovations discussed in the first post above were British innovations (Hobart's Funnies) which the U.S. Army failed to put into service.
 
Steel wheels, sorry to burst your Christams bubble, but the Sherman really doesn't deserve all the hype it receives. And of course the German big cats also had their downsides, especially in the mechanical area, which was one place where the Sherman was excellent.
 
OzDigger said:
Steel wheels, sorry to burst your Christams bubble, but the Sherman really doesn't deserve all the hype it receives. And of course the German big cats also had their downsides, especially in the mechanical area, which was one place where the Sherman was excellent.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with OZDigger:eek:
The Sherman was not a great tank , it was good in 1942 /43 but it was out gunned by the time of D-Day :(
The British tank crew called the sherman Ronson after a lighter because just like the lighter it would burn after one strike :(
The German called them Tommy cooker
When you start reading about the Tiger tank your find that the Tiger tank was very unreliable mechanical & a lot of times the Germans had to destroy there tanks because it would not work
 
I must say, I feel like I started an argument! The truth of the matter, is that I never implied that the Sherman was a tank that was on the level of a Panther, or Tiger or a T-34. Louis you make a good point about the M50 super sherman, however, is it any different then calling it a modern day firefly? The firefly was an upgunned Sherman, which was one of many innovations that made the sherman tank what it is. The Brits made lots of innovations to the sherman, but so did the Americans. Sgt Curtis G. Culin is the American soldier who devleoped the Rhinocerous[hedgecutter], which was one of many important innovations for the Sherman. Montgomery doesn't win the desert campaign without the Sherman. We must keep in mind, that during the early going ons of WW-2, thats all we had. The allied infantry were able to move like lightning because of the tanks reliability. And let me say, that those heavy tigers got stuck in the mud plenty. I certainly know that the sherman was no match for the big German tanks one on one, but that should not prevent the Sherman from being recognized as one of the most important tanks ever built. It's just to bad that every Sherman built did not have a 17 pounder as a main gun! Now that would have been something.
 
If the idiots in charge of our armored doctrine would have understood that the Germans weren't going to cooperate, every Sherman could have been armed with a 17 pounder. Additionally, what about the armor piercing round that was provided to the crews of the M18 Hellcat, which also had a 76mm main gun? Why the heck wasn't that issued to Sherman Crews from the get-go?
 
Louis Badolato said:
If the idiots in charge of our armored doctrine would have understood that the Germans weren't going to cooperate, every Sherman could have been armed with a 17 pounder. Additionally, what about the armor piercing round that was provided to the crews of the M18 Hellcat, which also had a 76mm main gun? Why the heck wasn't that issued to Sherman Crews from the get-go?
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that one Louis. The more I read the more it seems unbelievable to me.

Perhaps they should have place those in DC responsible for making these decisions in the lead Sherman facing the amour onslaught in Normandy.

Oh heck with Normandy put them in the lead Shermans in Sicily and Italy. Maybe then we would have avoided the carnage at Normandy and beyond.

Carlos
 
steel wheels said:
I must say, I feel like I started an argument!
Click to expand...

:D:D Get used to it SW :D:D
Doesn't matter what you say, someone, somewhere, will disagree and chip in with his tuppence-worth. It's mostly in good humour though, kinda, maybe, perhaps. :):rolleyes::rolleyes:
Fact is, I tend to agree with your point of view. The Sherman maybe wasn't a GREAT tank, but it certainly was an IMPORTANT tank.
Cheers
H
 
I wouldn't argue with the Sherman being number ten on the list, but that's about the best I could say about it ;) :D
 
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