Greatest ever tank

Anyone with a brain knows the M1A2 Abrams is the best tank

Listen to this, from wikipedia,

The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet-era T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as degraded Russian T-72s which lack night vision and any modern range finders and locally-produced copies (Asad Babil tank).

Makes sense, an tank over 20 years older than the M1 with no modern technology would probably not fair well.

As I said before, the T-72 was the best tank of its time, and by the 90's that time had pasted. I'd like to see a M-60 defeat a T-72.

T-34 was simply the most famous and probably the most effective tank in history, as many people agree.

the panther was the model for western tanks the t34 saw not that great of a tank, highly overrated due to numbers, if the us was producing the panther like they did the sherman guess which tank would be.

The future of tanks was not to be found in the t34 but in the panther and king tiger, those were the first mbt the t34 was not.

Plus without the ft17 and char2c tanks would look much different than they do today, it would be a strange world if in ww2 they were still using non-turreted or primitive turret designs. Would be a strange world indeed.

NOT ME!

It can't be me you're refering too, because if you'd read my thread properly, youd've seen what I stated was that in their opinion - NOT MINE - that Leopard 2 was the best tank.

I respectfully suggest that you read my thread from its start!

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
I saw a different program called 'Top Tens' on Discovery channel. It had the top ten tanks of all time according to expert opinion and polls. There were 5 different ratings for each tank. Firepower, protection, mobility, Production rating and fear factor.
10. M4 Sherman
9. Merkava
8. T-54/55
7. Challenger
6. Mark IV Panzer
5. Centurion
4. British WW1 tank
3. Tiger
2. M1 Abrams

And the top tank of all time (according to this show)

1. The T-34

That makes even less sense than the 1st list, the M1 Abrams, T34, and the British WW1 Tank r right, the Tigers and Centurions[which 1s]....well...maybe, but everything else is in the wrong place. The Merks and Challenger, I guess u mean II, y r they so low, and the T-54/55s, Panzers, and M4 Shermans. How in the world did those 2 get up there? Geez man, good gosh. I'm sry 4 the way it sounds, but it doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by SEAL Trident
That makes even less sense than the 1st list, the M1 Abrams, T34, and the British WW1 Tank r right, the Tigers and Centurions[which 1s]....well...maybe, but everything else is in the wrong place. The Merks and Challenger, I guess u mean II, y r they so low, and the T-54/55s, Panzers, and M4 Shermans. How in the world did those 2 get up there? Geez man, good gosh.

I'm sry 4 the way it sounds, but it doesn't make any sense.

i guess they trying to compare the tanks that were a factor in their respective timeline. the T-34 tank was the best tank to match against the German tanks and rule the land at the time.

Grr... you Must remember that you arent lining up these tanks side by side and comparing them, then obviously the new one would be better, rather they are lining them up against their rivals at the time of deployment and their effectiveness in terms, not only of combat, but in logistics, numbers, and servicability.

Not surprising, the T-34 is #1, because it had all of these qualities, rather the German tanks were few and troublesome to repair, and American tanks lacked combat effectiveness. The same goes for the post war era, and the modern era, as well as during WWI, in which the british mark I was quite a surprise and a weapon that dominated the battelfield.

I wouldn't say that the list doesn't make sense, but I'd like to see them break it down into eras. I think it's a pretty cool idea though to make this list. Interesting to see how the different tanks stack up, just that I'd like to see it more along the lines of WWI, WWII, Modern Era, or something like that.

I take this opportunity to thank one and all for bringing this thread down to your usual mud slinging, 'them and us' and the usual armchair warrior 'we know best' scenario!

Most of you offering an opinion, with a few exceptions, have never seen or even heard the 'crack and thump' of a bullet going over your head, let alone have experienced the smell on a battlefield and, I expect, even a battlefield exercise!

So what gives you the right to question combat veterens and their wartime experiences?

What makes you think that you can laugh at an Israeli combat veteran, just because she says her Merk can't be destroyed 'because the engine is in front - and all you have to do it shoot the engine!' (Actually on the Merk, the differential and gear box is in front of the engine - the Merk can be still be driven with the dif and gearbox out of action - albeit slowly!)

What makes you qualified to say that because the Leopard has never fired a shot in 'anger', that it is not a great tank desaign?

I personally have never said that Leopard is better than Abrams or Chally 2 for that matter, but these veterens were stating things as they saw it! Even the Yank combat vets said the Abrams they used in Iraq had it's drawbacks (i) 10 gallons just to start the tank and (ii) the massive heat source you call an exhaust - ideal for heat seeking missiles (their view) and (iii) the atrocious fuel consumption.

It [the programme I refered to] was about WWII experiences, battlefield tank design and innovations that has led to tank concepts and the ultimate design of (if Calrsberg were to make tanks) probably the greatest tank in the world.

I admit that I have never heard the crack of bullets, but not for lack of trying. I was going into the military but failed the physical through no fault of my own. Again, this is a neat idea, I just would have liked to have seen tanks from the same era compared to each other, instead of a T-34 against an M-1 etc. But over all I agree with their list, most of the tanks on it are great tanks, and great designs.

Not really a tank, but the atomic cannon came to mind. Nevermind, it wasn't tested in battle anyway.








[edit on 6-7-2005 by Vajrayana]

i guess they trying to compare the tanks that were a factor in their respective timeline. the T-34 tank was the best tank to match against the German tanks and rule the land at the time.

Yeah you're right. The WW1 tank was terrifying to the enemy in 1917 so it had a high fear factor. And the armour was better than anything at the time so it got a higher armour score. The challenger was in a low position because it was produced in such low numbers. The T-34 came out the best because it was produced in large numbers, had revolutionary sloped armour, good firepower and good mobility and fear factor because of the large numbers. It wasn't my opinion anyway it was the Top Tens show.

Weird they didn't mention the tiger.....every other tank show I've ever seen has always mentioned them. Due to the armor at least. They did a test and showed the tiger could more easilly destroy an abrams than the abrams could destroy the tiger.

I wish I remember where I saw this.

I luv it how ppl don't read it correctly and/or don't get all the info they should, then critizis me.

1. M1, T-34, Centurion, and British MK1[I think] r correct
2. Tiger .....maybe
3. Merk and Challenger[WHICH 1??? I or II] r 2 low
4. M4, Panzer IV, and the T-54/55s shouldn't even b up there. How sad.

I was talking bout the time line, if I wasn't then I wouldn't agree 2 having the T-34 up there. If u mean wars, Y THE M4 SHERMAN!?!?!?!? The thing got wasted at EVERY turn, even the upgrades didn't help much. In fact, I call it 1 of the worst tanks of WW2, along with the M3 Lee 4 the U.S. side.

The Panzer IV sucked after 1 yr or 2, and it was no match 4 the T-34 and many other tanks throughout the entire war......

The T-54/55, WHAT THE?!?!?!!?!?! It only had numbers on it's side, nothing more. It got wasted in the Mid East during the wars with Isreal by Centurions and M48s, SO CMON!!!

Tiger, it's flaws were mobility, speed, consumption or fuel was 2 high, and production. Yes, it had all the firepower and armor, but what a waste of time, they got stuck everywhere, but in comparsion 2 a lot of tanks, it killed tanks left and right.

BUT, even the Tiger IIs couldn't stand a chance against the Russians IS-2s and IS-3s, so y rn't they up there, they didn't have many of the probs as the Tiger, and were still the strongest tanks 4 more than about 2 decades sense 1943 when they entered production.

Man, like the MP7 vs. P90 and 4.6mm vs. 5.7mm all over again.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by SEAL Trident]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by SEAL Trident]

The sherman was in there because it was produced in such large numbers, I do agree with you though, it was crap. The challenger was challenger 1 I think. On the show it just said challenger. Merkava was low because of poor mobility and production rating.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by UK_05_XM29]

ahh, okay, tnx 4 answering those, I still don't get how they could put a tank in there just because of numbers, how gay. but y did they just put the Challenger 1? When was this episode created??? And looking at this now, it seems they looked at production as like +50% of judging: T34[yes, good tank, but look at the numbers ], T-54/55, M4, Panzer IV, the low numbers of the Merk= man, what a sad pattern.

Whoever told you that a WWII Tiger could defeat a modern Abrams, or any other tank, was lying through his !@#$ing teeth. No way in hell. The armor on most tanks is 450mm+

The Tiger has around 100mm.

Modern HEAT rounds can go through over 800mm of armor.

German rounds bounced off Soviet IS-2 with 120mm sloped armor.

Speaking of the Tiger, I thought this was way cool.

www.tiger-tank.com...

I still find it incredibly unfair, why no challenger? its not like its got the longest range kill...or perhaps the best battlefield armour or somthing....

Originally posted by Raideur

German rounds bounced off Soviet IS-2 with 120mm sloped armor.

LOL, actually they didn't. Several IS tanks were destroyed by Panther tanks with the long 75mm gun in Prague. Let alone using the 88mm KwK 43 (Tiger II) cannon, which could easily pierce IS armour.

I think that the British Challenger 2 is the best Tank in the world. The Abrams is good, but it has it flaws. Beacause the show on Channel 5 put the Abrams at number 2 instead of number 1, because it had a flaw that I couldnt remember.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by jonesey_dude]