Top Tanks

[duditz72]

Think this is the best place for this discussion. I just watched a show on the Military channel, which some of you may have seen, on the top ten tanks of all time. The top 4 were in order;
1. T-34
2. Tiger
3. Abrams
4. British WW I tank
there were ranked using the following criteria
1. Mobility
2. Armor
3. Firepower
4. Production
5. Fear Factor
A co-worker and I got into a long debate about these top tanks and thought it might be fun to see what others think about the list and what they might change. Discuss....

[charleswlkr54]

Frankly, I'd put the Abrams in the #1 spot, it's probaboy the deadliest of the bunch.

[NStarkel]

I'd put the Abrams at #1 also.

[CharlieC]

I suppose US cable channels have got to fill the air time with something....

These so called "best of" surveys are fairly pointless as well as under researched. The Abrams is a fine tank for open country work against other armour, provided the logisitic train can keep the thing running, but it's too big and vulnerable for urban warfare. It was designed with a Red Army invasion of Europe in mind - it really isn't a good tank for modern asymmetric warfare. Whenever the Abrams has been exercised against the Israeli Merkavas the Abrams doesn't do well.

Where is the Sherman in this list? Or have the self-induced problems with US Shermans in Europe in 1944 overwhelmed an objective analysis of this tank. Where's the Centurion? - it had a longer service life than just about any other tank and proved to be more than a match for the best tanks of the same period.

Regards,

Charlie

[duditz72]

I think if I remember Charlie the Sherman was number 10 it scored low on armor and other areas but made the number ten spot because of its high production numbers. Let's admit the Sherman was not the worlds best tank but it's sheer numbers were overwhelming. I don't think the Centurion made the list if I remember right. The Abrams didn't take the top spot for the reasons Charlie said it's a gas hog it's difficult to produce and it has never been tested aginst equal tanks and probably never will, let's hope anyway. Does that make sense?

[duditz72]

As far as under researched the show seemed quite adequate from my perspective their reasoning seemed fairly sound. What do you think the top tank should be Charlie the T-34 or something else?

[CharlieC]

Probably the Sherman - once it got a decent gun it could take on just about anything. The 17 Pounder in the Firefly made the Germans very wary of British Sherman formations in WW2. Even the Russians quite liked the lend lease Shermans once they got the 76mm gun version. The Easy 8 version could hold its own against T-34/85s in Korea. The Israelis were using their version (M-51) of the Sherman until the 1980s with a French 105mm gun. The kill ratio against T-54/55s in the 6 day war in 1967 was quite outstanding.

The T-34 would be close but it was a bit of an ergonomic slum for the crew to get the best out of the tank.

Regards,

Charlie

[nothing]

it would seem anti-American sentiment pervades everything these days. the abrams has actually proved quite capable and effective whenever applied. due to the nature of a MBT all of them are vulnerable in an urban setting. which is why they are never fielded without support troops.(a principle learned and utilized since WWII) all modern MBTs are on equal footing these days. although i would say the Merkava has a slight edge with the new point defense system the Israelis are fielding. im not sure where your facts come from concerning Abrams vs Merkava exercises, but i find these so called exercises a bit miss leading as they assume a 1 shot kill. simply not a real world application.

giving the ambiguous nature of this kind of show i think they were quite fair with the results. i see it as an entertaining look at various tanks through the decades. its really hard to compare a WWI tank to a modern tank with any kind of objectiveness as they are so vastly different.

[nebeltex]

the abrams has been tested against modern armor, though only on a limited scale. the apaches got there first...

[duditz72]

I agree with you nothing in particular about judging armor say from WW I from a modern perspective. You have to see from that era's perspective. The WW I British tank for the time period was probably terrifying to the troops when they first saw the metal beast as it was a completely "new" thing. And I mean no disrespect to any armor they all have merit just thought it would be interesting to get the opinion of the experts on here. In particular Charlie. Your knowledge is astounding