Top 10 Tanks of All Time

[privatehudson]

In defence of the Sherman it wasn't designed to take out tanks, American armoured concepts before the war decided that this was a job for the Tank Destroyers. In addition to this when it started to see action in 1942 it wasn't actually that undergunned or underarmoured. Sure the Germans had Tigers but not a great deal of them. The majority of their panzers in places like North Africa were Panzer IIIs or Panzer IVs. Also the problem of catching fire easily was resolved in later variants. Add to this the adapatability of the design into specialist vehicles and tank destroyers and you end up with a vehicle that is on the list for more than sheer numbers alone.

Oh and the Sherman's gun could penetrate many panzer's armour, especially if you hit it in the flank. Just because the most prominent tanks of the war (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger) were immune to its gun doesn't mean all panzers were. The original T34/76 gun didn't stand a chance against heavier panzers either but no-one's suggesting it was useless because of that.

 

[Adler17]

Well again a very biased list. And again we can discuss much about the tanks.
T 54/55 should be on the list, like also Tiger and T 34. The Sherman by far not. It was never able to reach the PzKw IV (in the different versions). Also I would rate the Panther better than the Tiger. And why is the Leo 2 not also in the list? It is also a better tank than the Abrams. The T 34 was a good medium tank but at last, after the upgrades, not much better than a PzKw IV and that only because it was a bit more reliable.
The British Mark IV was designed to break through the lines. But it had a mediocore armour and was not very fast as well as he had no long ranges. The A7V was superior in every aspect, except the Mark IV was a bit more agile in the terrain.
So again I have to critizise the values here: Only fear factor is a good one. I mean how you can compare a ww1 tank with an Abrams in that category? The same is for mobility and protection. And that a tank was produced more than another is also not that important. To have more does not mean they are better!

Adler

 

[El Justo]

heh - somehow i knew this was coming

i must defend the Sherman also. while it indeed was a 'pea shooter', its production #s simply can't be ignored nor can its multi-role versatility. of course, it's armor was bunk as were her main guns (aside from those that weren't modified). thus its versatility and sheer numbers most definitely helped the allies win the war (not in a 1-on-1 instance rather the whole concept of mechanized warfare for the allies). so considering that and the fact that it is on the very bottom of the list, i wouldn't argue w/ its #10 ranking.

the 'panther v. tiger' argument i could buy into...

i don't think there was another tank on the whole planet that instilled more of a fear factor than the British MkIV in WW1. for this fact alone i think it should be on the list. whether it should be as high up on th elist is certainly a matter that could be contested. however, i firmly believe it belongs. sort of like HMS Dreadnought.

i guess comparing tanks from different eras is an abstract business...

w/ respect to the Leo 2: it was mentioned as being in the same class as the abrams (and the leclerc as well as the challenger)

 

[joycem10]

Im starting to think that El Justo gets off on all the controversy that these top 10 lists generate.

 

[Blazer6]

The Sherman was also a chronic gas-guzzler according to relatives who drove them. It was only good enough for speed so not much else was expected of it.

 

[El Justo]

Im starting to think that El Justo gets off on all the controversy that these top 10 lists generate.

nice one dude

actually - i do enjoy the discussions and the varying opinions. it's the really assanine comments that i think are silly. the ones like "hey u stoole this frum the millatary chanell"

 

[Adler17]

An Abrams facing 100 Mk IV is also doomed although it can destroy 30+, it will not be able to win. So this makes the Mk IV not to the best tank! Sheer numbers alone are not counting but the single tank. 1:1 situations. So we have to compare these tanks with similar ones of the same time and then argue which tank was the best compared with the others and considered the time they were/ are used. Then we can discuss.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

The Sherman by far not. It was never able to reach the PzKw IV (in the different versions)

What do you mean by this?

If we're allowed to introduce the upgunned Panzer IVH or J then we should consider the Firefly and 76mm Sherman rather than the 75mm basic Sherman. The 17pndr gun on the Firefly would go through a Panzer IV of any type, frontal armour or not. If you want to limit the discussion to just the 75mm Shermans then we should limit our observations on the Panzer IV to when it was still using a short barreled 75mm gun...

The A7V was superior in every aspect, except the Mark IV was a bit more agile in the terrain.

The Germans built 20 of them, a fraction of the British tank production. I don't consider numbers produced an irrelevant point, a useless tank will not be continually produced in the thousands long after it has past its sell by date. The point about terrain you dismiss so easily is extremely relevant, a tank that couldn't cross decent sized trenches or operate in muddy ground is not so valuble in the kind of fighting seen during WW1.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

On performance the Sherman is out but speaking about historical relevancy it deserves an spot in the list IMO but in the last positions. Of course since it is a american production they put the Abrams second. It deseverses an spot in the list since it is one of the most important current tanks in the world and widely used in combat but i see no reason to put it in the second spot, ahead of the tiger for instance. I miss the JS2, Panther or even the T-72 and M-48/M-60 because how extensively were produced and used.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Admittedly the best of those Top Ten lists so far.
The only one really missing is the Panther, who was simply proven to be the 'best' WW2 tanks by statistics, ahead of the Tigers.
Now of course, for that performance they needed the IVs to keep their flanks safe.
And the A7V, C'mon on...even with every national bias, that one was crap, compared to the importance of the Mk's or the FT17 who still was around often enough in WW2.

 

[El Justo]

the A7V was bunk imo. sorry friend

i'd even go so far to say that the MkIV could be replaced on the list w/ the FT17. after all, that little fella was the forerunner of all modern tanks (turret, armor, etc).

the M1A2 Abrams proved itself in combat in the gulf wars and absolutely anihilated the russian-made t72s, et als. granted, the crews manning the iraqi tanks were lacking in training compared to the Yanks. however, the Abrams absolutely shredded them. my only personal dislike for this tank is the gas-guzzling nature of the engine (must be an American thing i guess). long fuel convoys can spell disaster sometimes...

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It is not fair to confront the Abrams with the T-72 et als to know how good the T-72 is since the abrams is at least a generation newer along with the Leopard the Lecrerc or the Challenger. You should better compare them with the M-60 for instance.

 

[CruddyLeper]

the M1A2 Abrams proved itself in combat in the gulf wars and absolutely anihilated the russian-made t72s, et als. granted, the crews manning the iraqi tanks were lacking in training compared to the Yanks. however, the Abrams absolutely shredded them.

You forget their lack of depleted uranium AP ammunition.

Without that no tank gun is effective at penetrating a tank at average range, even if it does hit it.

Personally I'd have swapped Merkava with T34. It's a lot easier to transport an infantry squad with a Merkava.

Fear factor is miles higher as well.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you mean by this?

If we're allowed to introduce the upgunned Panzer IVH or J then we should consider the Firefly and 76mm Sherman rather than the 75mm basic Sherman. The 17pndr gun on the Firefly would go through a Panzer IV of any type, frontal armour or not. If you want to limit the discussion to just the 75mm Shermans then we should limit our observations on the Panzer IV to when it was still using a short barreled 75mm gun...

Don't forget the other versions of the Sherman, too. Like the Duplex-Drive. Sure it didn't prove to be as good as it we hoped (thus the Omaha Beach mess), but you never saw a Panzer IV zooming around the water!

 

[C~G]

Personally I'd have swapped Merkava with T34. It's a lot easier to transport an infantry squad with a Merkava.

Fear factor is miles higher as well.

Are you serious?

We're talking about T34, the core of the red army against zee-Germans.
Comparing it to Merkava is a bit...strange.

Don't forget the other versions of the Sherman, too. Like the Duplex-Drive. Sure it didn't prove to be as good as it we hoped (thus the Omaha Beach mess), but you never saw a Panzer IV zooming around the water!

Not sure are you trying to approve or disapprove Sherman's presence in the list with that statement.

What comes to the list in overall T-72 is kind of missing but it might be understood somehow. But the lack of Panther isn't. I cannot comprehend why it's missing. IMHO it's clear that the two big german cats should be in almost any tank list there is to be done. I think Sherman should be in the list because of the numbers manufactured and the versatile role it had. But leaving Panther out and letting Sherman crawl in instead, is a mistake.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are you serious?

We're talking about T34, the core of the red army against zee-Germans.
Comparing it to Merkava is a bit...strange.

The Merkava is the only tank that can pop an Abrams without thinking about it.

In regards to the other question, I was rooting for the Sherman.

 

[privatehudson]

The only thing you can say in defence of including the Tiger over the Panther is the increased fear factor involved.

 

[Adler17]

At first I was only saying the A7V was better than the MkIV in several aspects, however it is not the best tank and should not be on the list. The Renault FT17 should replace the MkIV. In so far I agree with El Justo. I only wanted to show the MkIV was not so good to have him here.
Concerning the Panther it is strange to have him here not on the list indeed. It was IMO the best ww2 tank and definately a must on the list.
The Sherman Firefly had a great gun able to deal with the Panther but still lacked in armour. So a PzKw IV was still able to destroy a Sherman. And IIRC the Firefly did not enter service before 1944 and in that situation the Pz IV J was introduced, so I can compare the "normal" Sherman with a Pz IV H or J.
The Abrams has the very same gun as the Leo 2 and a compareable one to the Leclerc (Version M1, Leo 2 A4; Leo 2 A6 has a new gun). Also the armour is comparable. However the gas turbine is much more fuel consuming and making the tank to stop earlier than the Leo 2, although the speed is compareable to both, perhaps the Leo 2 a slightly bit faster, but nothing to be a significant advance. Nevertheless the Leo 2 was more than once able to "beat" the Abrams in show fights. The last time a A 6 was facing an M1A2.
The Leclec is only slightly behind these monsters. The Challenger 2 however has another type of gun. This gun has a greater range but lacks in much in pernetrating armour so that this advantage is in fight tank vs. tank irrelevant. That's why the British forces think of introducing a gun similar to the guns of the Leo 2/ Leclerc. Also the tank is heavier than the Leo 2, higher and has a much smaller range in territory.
The Merkava is a good tank but IMO it is not good enough to play in the league of the other mentioned tanks. Although being a danger for all of these tanks, most of this is depending on the training of the crew. In 1:1 situations with compareable crews the Merkava has problems with the Leo 2/ Abrams/ Leclerc.
The most modern Russian tanks, T 80, T 90 are much lighter and do have not the armour the other tanks have. That's why, and because of some other problems, they should not be on the list.

Adler

 

[Asclepius]

...The Challenger 2 however has another type of gun. This gun has a greater range but lacks in much in pernetrating armour so that this advantage is in fight tank vs. tank irrelevant. That's why the British forces think of introducing a gun similar to the guns of the Leo 2/ Leclerc.

This isn't entirely accurate. It is wrong to suggest the upgrade is being performed because the British want to copy the Leo 2 weapon. The change from rifled to smoothbore is an expedient which allows the UK to utilize readily available NATO munitions (such as DM53), without having to go through the terrifying expense of developing a new generation of APFSDS, which ultimately would not be used by any NATO nation other than the UK. The change is cost based but also political as the tungsten LRP in DM53 appears to out perform DU tipped CHARM.

 

[BaneBlade]

NATO MBT-tests says Leo2 is slightly ahead of Abrams (on place 2). Can't remember source right now, maybe JANEs?
Merkava is based on a very interesting concept though it's hard to figure his special abilities(transport capacity,survivability for crew and transported) against other MBTs imho. Can't remember if he was even involved in the test i mentioned before.
WW2 era: T34, Panther and Tiger. While Tigers importance and performance can be disputed he "set signals" and is one of the forefathers of our todays nicest toys