Top 10 Tanks of All Time

[C~G]

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

But putting it ahead of T-34? There's definately reality check time if that is the case. Otherwise we should put always the most modern tank whatever battle experience it might have for number one and forget Second World War for good.

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

Yes, I know.

 

[El Justo]

all of this stuff is subjective gentlemen. i mean, it's like comparing apples and oranges as they say...

 

[privatehudson]

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.

Yet the aspects the A7V wasn't better on were some of the most important for the action it saw so not only was it not the best tank I wouldn't even consider it more worthy of being on the list than the MKIV.

The Sherman Firefly had a great gun able to deal with the Panther but still lacked in armour.

So did a Panzer IVJ in comparison to the heavier vehicles such as Churchill's or Tigers.

So a PzKw IV was still able to destroy a Sherman

Nowhere near as easily as a Firefly would swat a Panzer IV.

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.

Panzer IV J was introduced in June 1944, the Firefly around the same time. However I'm not sure you understand my point. If you judge the Panzer IV on all of its variants up to and including the J you are obliged to judge the Sherman on all its variants including the Firefly and 76mm armed vehicles. Saying the Sherman is useless because it only had a 75mm gun and tended to catch fire would be the equivalent of dismissing the Panzer IV as useless because it couldn't take out a T34.

Compare away but at least have the decency to be fair. The point of the comparison is meant to be "which was overall on these factors better" not "what would/did happen if these two met".

 

[deo]

Biased list!.

 

[deo]

I have an Idea, lets take a list of 15-20 tanks and than start a thread with pool like "Tank battle #1 - Mk IV vs FT-17" considering:
- firepower
- mobility
- protection
- production rating
- fear factor

and than the winner battles with the next tank on the list etc. so, we will have an CFC top 10 tanks of all time.

 

[deo]

BTW, I cant belive the probably best tank of WWII isnt even on the list!!! The panther should be at least nr.2 IMO.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I think we're all missing the point.

The T-34 didn't just do the job it was intended to do, but it looked good doing it.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I'm no expert on tanks but isn't it universally agreed upon that A7V was an ugly, poorly designed piece of junk that made no impact on the outcome of the war whatsoever? Even the most fanatical German nationalist would have trouble defending as a "top tank" of all time.

Though not one of the best, the M60 is probably the most well known tank in popular culture just because of the movie industry. They usually end up being portrayed as cannon fodder against alien invasions or monsters in old science fiction movies like Godzilla.

 

[Adler17]

At first the A7V was faster, better armoured, had a longer range and showed in the first tank battle superior to the Mk IV. In this battle 4 British Mk IV were destroyed by 2 German A7V. Although both withdrew after technical malfunctions at last and 1 tank broke down to be salvaged by the Entente, the attack was successful. However the tank had its weaknesses, as one of them is the bad climb rate and low production rate. That's why I would not him on the list. But the Mk IV either. I only compared the Mk IV with the A7V to say this. In contrast I would introduce the FT 17.

Adler

 

[fing0lfin]

I'm no expert on tanks but isn't it universally agreed upon that A7V was an ugly, poorly designed piece of junk that made no impact on the outcome of the war whatsoever? Even the most fanatical German nationalist would have trouble defending as a "top tank" of all time.

Though not one of the best, the M60 is probably the most well known tank in popular culture just because of the movie industry. They usually end up being portrayed as cannon fodder against alien invasions or monsters in old science fiction movies like Godzilla.

May be M60 is the most well known tank in the countries of the NATO packt. I mean that in the Warsaw packt countries and ex-solviet republicas, the most well-known tanks are the T series(34,55,72,90)

 

[privatehudson]

t first the A7V was faster, better armoured, had a longer range and showed in the first tank battle superior to the Mk IV. In this battle 4 British Mk IV were destroyed by 2 German A7V. Although both withdrew after technical malfunctions at last and 1 tank broke down to be salvaged by the Entente, the attack was successful

As I said, the Germans managed to put together 20, the British over 1000. If this was the kind of loss rate (4:1 you claim but I've seen sources that suggest 3:1 and damage to at least one A7V) I imagine the British weren't overly concerned, especially given the limitations of the A7V with regards to where they could be used. Being good at engaging enemy tanks wasn't the deciding factor for a WW1 tank.

But yes, other than perhaps wasting trained men and resources the A7V had no impact on the war that I've ever heard of.

 

[Adler17]

PH, we were comparing tanks. And my position is that the quantity of a tank has not much to say about the quality. The crappy PT 76 amphibious tank was produced in large numbers but is total crap. So it isn't on the list. The Mk IV was a tank but had tremendous problems in the beginning. It was a shock for the Germans but soon they learnt how to deal with that thread. In the first battle of Cambrai, where the tank was used first, the terrian won was lost very fast and the few tanks to come into attacking position were soon knocked out.
Yes, the A7V was costly and had its problems. Also the Germans relied more on Stoßtruppen than on tanks. So that most German tank units were fighting with captured Entente tanks.
However if we have to compare the tanks we can only do it directly. Although you are right concerning the loss ratio of 3:1, the German tank was lost by accident. And the only success the British had was damaging the tank of Lt. Blitz who just had destroyed the first tank in a tank to tank combat and damaged another.
So we have to see the capabilities of the tanks. The A7V had a much thicker armour and a speed and range advantage compared to the Mk IV. Only the production numbers let the Mk IV lead by far.
So in the end as, compared 1:1, the A7V was, although having big problems, was the better tank. I only think the Mk IV should not be on the list. And the A7V, too, as it had so much problems. The Renault FT 17 should be OTOH, although being only a light tank.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

PH, we were comparing tanks

So I thought, although your idea of comparison seems to differ from mine (see my last points on Panzer IV's/Shermans)

And my position is that the quantity of a tank has not much to say about the quality

What is the best tank is not purely or even mainly about quality though. The MkIV probably owes its position to fear more than production numbers for example, as does the Tiger. The Tiger was IMO inferior to a Panther but its on the list in large part because it scared the bejesus out of allied tank crewmen wherever it appeared. As I have said before however, production numbers is not irrelevant. A tank is/should be designed to help its country to win wars, if it is unable to do so because the enemy are churning out 50 for every one you can produce then that tank is a failure. If you can produce a tank which is reasonably good whilst being able to mass produce it then you have suceeded.

However if we have to compare the tanks we can only do it directly

The topic evaluates each tank on its own merits depending on a number of factors, not by comparing them directly. As has already been established, and as you agreed earlier, direct comparisons are almost pointless to compiling such a list because you can't compare a Merkava with a MKIV.

On the grounds laid out at the start of the thread the MKIV clearly scores highest in fear factor but is hardly useless in mobility (for its time that is), production and firepower (enough to deal with its most common opponents).

 

[Adler17]

Indeed. But we can compare tanks of the same period with the same task. So I can compare a Sherman with a T 34 or a Pz IV. Or an A7V with a Mk IV. However we need better categories to make a new list as this one is not that good.

Adler

 

[BaneBlade]

Indeed. But we can compare tanks of the same period with the same task. So I can compare a Sherman with a T 34 or a Pz IV. Or an A7V with a Mk IV. However we need better categories to make a new list as this one is not that good.

Adler

The Sherman didn't have the same purpose as t 34 and PZ IV. Which makes it in comparison very weak.

 

[C~G]

The Sherman didn't have the same purpose as t 34 and PZ IV.

Now I'm lost, what was the purpose of these tanks then?

 

[El Justo]

i agree that we can't directly compare tanks from different eras. it's like apples and oranges as they say.

however, it is probably best to compare ones that were indeed from the same era (if a comparison is deemed necessary ~ as is the case w/ the mk4 and a7v).

now, imo, both the mk4 and a7v were bunk. each was prone to mechanical failure. and it wasn't until the Brits introduced the wheel cairrage on the rear that they were able to truly traverse the pock-marked battlefields. iirc, this wasn't part of the 1st mk4's but they were later installed. the cross country ability of the a7v was awful as it had a very, very short underside clearance and thus bogged down easily. its armaments were decent though but this doesn't do a whole lot of good if you're stuck in the mud. couple this w/ the poor production rate for them (and the high rate for the mk4's) and they're way down on my personal list.

i would've much rather have seen the FT17 in place of the MkIV as it set the standard for modern tanks w/ its turret, gun barrel, and sloped armor. granted, it was indeed a lt tank but the model itself was ultimately copied worldwide.

 

[BaneBlade]

Now I'm lost, what was the purpose of these tanks then?

Different doctrines for which they were designed, USA saw them in an support role, not doing operations alone and not in "competition" e.g. combat with other tanks, for which they designed tankhunters.
Edit: though you could say the first model of PZ IV was the same in this regard, but the Nazis adapted much faster.

 

[7ronin]

The Nato tests use picked crews and picked vehicles so the results do not necessarily reflect the overall superiority of one army or tank over another one. You'll have to look at the entire record for that. As for Janes, they have their own agenda they pursue and they are not always unbiased in their reporting.

All in all, a pretty good list though. Keep in mind though that the "Best" tank in the world is just a piece of junk without a well trained crew and a tested doctrine of employment and that with the latter two a lesser vehicle may often best a better one.

 

[C~G]

Edit: though you could say the first model of PZ IV was the same in this regard, but the Nazis adapted much faster.

Now we're on the same page.