Top 10 Tanks of All Time

[zenspiderz]

I am no expert on armour but I have heard over and over from all sorts of people that the T34 is the greatest tank of all time. However these days hasn't the tank had its day. I mean what is the purpose of a tank anymore? What function does it serve. It seems to me from what I understand of modern warfare in the event of light shoulder mounted anti tank missiles even the best armoured tank is nothing more than an expensive target....
Witness Hezbollahs victory over Isreal in 2006 and the failure of US forces in Iraq..

Tanks are going the way of the dinosaur...

 

[El Justo]

I am no expert on armour but I have heard over and over from all sorts of people that the T34 is the greatest tank of all time. However these days hasn't the tank had its day. I mean what is the purpose of a tank anymore? What function does it serve. It seems to me from what I understand of modern warfare in the event of light shoulder mounted anti tank missiles even the best armoured tank is nothing more than an expensive target....
Witness Hezbollahs victory over Isreal in 2006 and the failure of US forces in Iraq..

Tanks are going the way of the dinosaur...

uhh - no - there's plenty of utility left for MBTs. the most modern tanks serve as a high powered & highly mobile weapons platforms capable of destroying almost anything in its path. so, considering that, the MBT has got plenty of life left.

there are certain theaters of war where tanks aren't suited all that well. iraq is one. vietnam was another that comes to mind. however, the tank in the 1st gulf war most definitely earned its stripes. especially the Abrams. so it depends on the military objective, terrain, and the enemy's ability to counter tanks (and a bunch of dudes wielding anti-tank guns will not take out an entire tank division btw).

hezbollah's victory over israel? that's news to me

as stated above, MBTs in iraq from '03 onwards are not suited for the task that is at hand.

 

[dgfred]

I am no expert on armour but I have heard over and over from all sorts of people that the T34 is the greatest tank of all time. However these days hasn't the tank had its day. I mean what is the purpose of a tank anymore? What function does it serve. It seems to me from what I understand of modern warfare in the event of light shoulder mounted anti tank missiles even the best armoured tank is nothing more than an expensive target....
Witness Hezbollahs victory over Isreal in 2006 and the failure of US forces in Iraq..

Tanks are going the way of the dinosaur...

Your last two sentences are highly general in nature. Losing all the territory
that you did hold is not a victory and the US forces literally stomped butt.
An occaisional tank may be knocked out, but you usually don't hear that from
the guy that fired the AT rocket .

 

[zenspiderz]

uhh - no - there's plenty of utility left for MBTs. the most modern tanks serve as a high powered & highly mobile weapons platforms capable of destroying almost anything in its path. so, considering that, the MBT has got plenty of life left.

there are certain theaters of war where tanks aren't suited all that well. iraq is one. vietnam was another that comes to mind. however, the tank in the 1st gulf war most definitely earned its stripes. especially the Abrams. so it depends on the military objective, terrain, and the enemy's ability to counter tanks (and a bunch of dudes wielding anti-tank guns will not take out an entire tank division btw).

hezbollah's victory over israel? that's news to me

as stated above, MBTs in iraq from '03 onwards are not suited for the task that is at hand.

Your one example of how tanks are still worth their cost; the 1st gulf war IMO does in no way contradict my agument. Abrams and co may certainly have won thier 'strips' as you say but that was a battle of young dinosaur versus
old dinosaur.. same goes for gulf war 2 (The empire strikes back less the occupation)

However suppose 1 side in a conflict decides not to invest in hugely expensive tanks and instead invests in a wealth of individually very cheap anti tank missiles and disperses them thoughout their territory in the hands of professional or even part time militia. It is a simple matter for these anti tank 'snipers' to conceal themselves until the noisy and cumbersome tank rolls into his sights.... War is as much a matter of economics and logistics as it is of firepower. How can the tank's military value be defended when its multimillion cost and high maintenance bulk is easily defeated by a £1000 low maintenance shoulder mounted anti tank missile?

Haven't you noticed that although Russia's weapons industry is dramatically improving from its post soviet slump producing new better cutting edge military hardware of all descriptions they are not making a single new tank!

The russians know which way the wind is blowing.

This is modern warfare now not back in 2000. Hezbollah's defeat of Isreal is a clear example of the direction of war in the future.

Perhaps you are an american so you have been told by your pro isreali press
that somehow despite being forced to withdraw and accept a ceasefire Isreal won.

I refer you to some refreshingly non zionist views of the zionist media and this last conflict in lebanon...

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=173

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/16/hizbullahchechens_.shtml

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00125.htm

 

[Adler17]

Tanks were not only once said they were obsolete. The same was said in 1918 as well. Indeed they are costly. But for a real conflict they are still very needed. Despite all dangers for them. Sure, a single missile can crack a tank but for this you will have to use infantry as well to support the tank.
At the very moment there are no new tanks indeed constructed, I mean in a prototype and just pre prototype phse. However there are still thoughts how to upgrade the existing tanks as well as even developing new ones. I only know for Germany that for the Leo 2 is still upgraded, and although it is the top of the tanks, there are thoughts after a new MBT (main battle tank). One of this thoughts is taking the new Puma AIFV as a base as this armoured infantry fighting vehicle should get a protection next to a MBT. If this is carried out or a completely new tank is built, is open.
But the tank is not dead.

Adler

 

[El Justo]

Your one example of how tanks are still worth their cost; the 1st gulf war IMO does in no way contradict my agument. Abrams and co may certainly have won thier 'strips' as you say but that was a battle of young dinosaur versus
old dinosaur.. same goes for gulf war 2 (The empire strikes back less the occupation)

However suppose 1 side in a conflict decides not to invest in hugely expensive tanks and instead invests in a wealth of individually very cheap anti tank missiles and disperses them thoughout their territory in the hands of professional or even part time militia. It is a simple matter for these anti tank 'snipers' to conceal themselves until the noisy and cumbersome tank rolls into his sights.... War is as much a matter of economics and logistics as it is of firepower. How can the tank's military value be defended when its multimillion cost and high maintenance bulk is easily defeated by a £1000 low maintenance shoulder mounted anti tank missile?

Haven't you noticed that although Russia's weapons industry is dramatically improving from its post soviet slump producing new better cutting edge military hardware of all descriptions they are not making a single new tank!

The russians know which way the wind is blowing.

This is modern warfare now not back in 2000. Hezbollah's defeat of Isreal is a clear example of the direction of war in the future.

Perhaps you are an american so you have been told by your pro isreali press
that somehow despite being forced to withdraw and accept a ceasefire Isreal won.

I refer you to some refreshingly non zionist views of the zionist media and this last conflict in lebanon...

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=173

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/16/hizbullahchechens_.shtml

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00125.htm

huh?

young dinosaurs vs old? dude - what are you talking about? those abrams smashed to poop out of tanks (t62s iirc) that were not all that old. certainly not as old as you make them seem. sure these t62s were a half a generation or so behind the abrams and other UN led MBTs. however, you seem to think that the allies rolled in w/ howitzers while saddam had a bunch of pea shooters. i would suggest you do some research on that conflict (and the hardware used) before posting such comments.

your example of a nation armed w/ anti tanks guns sounds like an insurgency to me. and please pay attention to what i've been posting b/c as i posted in my previous comment, some conditions (insurgencies, terrain, etc) simply aren't conducive to tank warfare.

please refrain from posting links like that b/c quite frankly, i don't care. and while hezbollah may have achieved some sort of political victory of sorts, i challenge you to prove that they defeated israel on the battlefield

on second thought - keep this thread about tanks. not some political agenda you seem to want to put forward...

 

[Red Door]

EL J, this guy tried to post a link that also said Al-Qaeda was an American government conspiracy, just ignore him.

 

[Spartan117]

the tanks are losing their effectiveness,in my opinion, because of helocpters, anti tank weapons, airforce, etc. however if tanks are complemented with air superiority and such, then it is a deadly weapon and will likely remain a deadly weapon.(if used correctly)

 

[nivi]

What you fail to see in this hizballah "victory" over Israel, is that since the start of the war, 29 heavily armored vehicles were taken out of use by AT missiles, hizballah fired more then a thousands of them(not all at armored vehicles of course, but most), that includes D9's, Pum"a's and of course, tanks. Of that most tanks of them are already operational. Not to mention the 4000~ tanks IDF has.

What does this mean? I'll let you decide.

 

[El Justo]

please all - let us not get side tracked here. i agree nivi. trust me - i do. and it's got nothing to do w/ what is alleged to be a "Zionist American press" (which is offensive to me actually). i don't need the US press to clarify the IDF's sweeping military victories in southern lebanon.

i just don't want the thread to spiral out of control and off topic. leave that crap for the other forum in the Colosseum.

 

[Verbose]

the tanks are losing their effectiveness,in my opinion, because of helocpters, anti tank weapons, airforce, etc. however if tanks are complemented with air superiority and such, then it is a deadly weapon and will likely remain a deadly weapon.(if used correctly)

For preference you can use helicopter gunships to kill tanks. But the helis can't really hold ground. The tanks can. Ideally you need both. If you can afford it. If you can't have both, go for the tanks. Better value for money still I should think.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I am no expert on armour but I have heard over and over from all sorts of people that the T34 is the greatest tank of all time. However these days hasn't the tank had its day. I mean what is the purpose of a tank anymore? What function does it serve. It seems to me from what I understand of modern warfare in the event of light shoulder mounted anti tank missiles even the best armoured tank is nothing more than an expensive target....
Witness Hezbollahs victory over Isreal in 2006 and the failure of US forces in Iraq..

Tanks are going the way of the dinosaur...

With the advancements in composite armor, it is getting harder and harder to take out a tank, and you will also never lose it's infantry supporting role.

I grant you, with all the advances in mobile warfare (i.e. helicopters and such) the tank will take a smaller role, but it will never fall by the wayside. Tanks are like artillery, they will take a smaller role, but will never be completely removed.

How do you see that Hezbollah achieved victory over Israel, when the Israeli's over-ran most of Lebanon, and we won the Iraq war, the peace-keeping effort is another story. There will always be a need for peace-keepers, and tanks are not really suited for peace-keeping. Tanks are offensive weapons, they are designed for this first and foremost, they are not as effective in a defensive role. Defense is best left to infantry.

Also, most tanks taken out in Iraq are from IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices if you don't know). All those are bombs, not shoulder launched rockets or anything like that.

 

[7ronin]

Some people seem to be forgetting that the range of the gun on a tank is greater than the range of any anti-tank missile.

Secondly, artillery fire often solves the problem of anti-tank weapons.

And lastly, active and passive defenses for tanks against anti-tank missiles has been and continues to be a priority R&D item in most major armies. New solutions are continually being fielded.

In both Gulf I and Gulf II the Iraqis had large numbers of all kinds of anti-tank weapons including missiles but didn't manage to do much damage.

 

[wingcmdr7777]

back on subject.....
T55/54 plus: low profile
wide tracks= good crossing terrain
good smoke maker

T55/54 bad: Mechanically unreliable
ammo cannot be accessed rapidly
sub-standard fire control system
fire-on-the-move= non existent

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I'm taking your advice wingcmdr (as you are most often right in these circumstances), my old rs friend. Should probably keep that separate from here.