Com-Central.net

Joe_D

This will get ugly,

The biggest fundamental problem I see will be with the modern/currently used tanks. Too much of their true capabilities, and more so, limitations are very closely gaurded secrets by the countries who produce them. What a tank in theory is capable of on paper by no means reflects it's true performance. Case in point, M60A2. I am sure there are some participating or just lurking Wink

who know of some serious flaws with certain weapon systems currently in their countries that they cannot speak of . I suggest we exclude these because there really is no way for us to truely compare them to each other.

One other issue I see will be combat history. The best tank in the world is worthless unless it has a trained and motivated crew. How you compare a Patton to a T55 to a Centurion greatly depends on who's inside when the fighting starts Neutral

.

With that in mind, I will abstain from this fray for now. Mr. Green

Joe D

Doug_Kibbey

- Joe_D

This will get ugly,

The biggest fundamental problem I see will be with the modern/currently used tanks. Too much of their true capabilities, and more so, limitations are very closely gaurded secrets by the countries who produce them. What a tank in theory is capable of on paper by no means reflects it's true performance. Case in point, M60A2. I am sure there are some participating or just lurking who know of some serious flaws with certain weapon systems currently in their countries that they cannot speak of . I suggest we exclude these because there really is no way for us to truely compare them to each other.

One other issue I see will be combat history. The best tank in the world is worthless unless it has a trained and motivated crew. How you compare a Patton to a T55 to a Centurion greatly depends on who's inside when the fighting starts .

With that in mind, I will abstain from this fray for now.

Joe D

Good point, Joe, as usual.

One way to avoid the "security" issue and "my current tank is better than your current tank" (or not, for reasons I dare not speak) is to establish a "cutoff" date to eliminate the current generations, say about 1985-1990 or so. Keep it "historical"...something like that?

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

- Joe_D

This will get ugly,

The biggest fundamental problem I see will be with the modern/currently used tanks. Too much of their true capabilities, and more so, limitations are very closely gaurded secrets by the countries who produce them. What a tank in theory is capable of on paper by no means reflects it's true performance. Case in point, M60A2. I am sure there are some participating or just lurking who know of some serious flaws with certain weapon systems currently in their countries that they cannot speak of . I suggest we exclude these because there really is no way for us to truely compare them to each other.

One other issue I see will be combat history. The best tank in the world is worthless unless it has a trained and motivated crew. How you compare a Patton to a T55 to a Centurion greatly depends on who's inside when the fighting starts .

With that in mind, I will abstain from this fray for now.

Joe D

Me too!

clausb · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 146

Hmm...

Something like this...?

Tiger I
Longevity: About 2 years. - 1 point
Versatility : Sturmtiger... and thats about it - 1 points
Adoption : One sold to Japan, never left Europe, perhaps a few others? - 1 Point
Combat Record : Impressive - for about a year or two. - 6 points
Innovation: Not really.. 0 Points

Total: 9 points out of 50. What a sucker! Wink

cbo

oldertop · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Oct 20, 2006 Posts: 76

Having spent over 20 years in armor, tanks, amtracks, SP arty, and anti-tank vehicles and been on the receiving end of anti-armor weapons and mines the one thing I looked at was crew survieability such as that rolling death trap the LVTP-5 and its family..say 6 points as tops . This and services/maintance.

bsmart

- Joe_D

This will get ugly,
...
With that in mind, I will abstain from this fray for now.

Joe D

Chicken!

piney

I think reliability ought to be a factor too, you can have a fine design but if it don't run, what good is it?

Piney

Dontos

My top 5 in no particular order of the 'modern era...

1) IPM1 very reliable; Great M68 Gun with the good ole 105mm round. perhaps best in Korea.

No real service except COLD WAR. Mr. Green

2) M1A1HC (bugs worked out and very reliable) Iraqi Freedom service. Finally got cannister round to fill that void.

3) Leo I
Mass produced and widely used. Continually upgraded to be relivant.

4)Leo II
Improved FCS along with Hunter/Killer TC sight (CITV on M1A2 idea is borrowed from LEO II)

Not sure of any combat service (Does OOTW in KOSOVO count??)

5) Chieftain (of course)

Hard to do, but MHO and didn't want to shy away from the topic. Going closed hatch, for the counter-fire.

Don

Coldsteel · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 61

- piney

Boy is this thread gonna get bloody

My vote is the M4 Sherman for the following reasons
used by
...,Australia,...

No it wasn't. We got 3 of them and they were only for trials.

clausb · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 146

- piney

Boy is this thread gonna get bloody

My vote is the M4 Sherman for the following reasons
used by
...Denmark...

Denmark got 8 M4A3E4 and one M32B1 in 1952. The M32B1 wasn't really used for a couple of years, then it was used to tow Centurions for a while before being used to tow M10s. Was scrapped at the end of the 1950ies. The M4A3E4s were used briefly for training (in case of war, a reduced squadron was to be formed), then used for tasks like observation on the firing range, only to be scrapped in the late 1950ies as well. Rather short and inglorious career.

M10s, however, were delivered from 1953 and served until 1982!

oldertop · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Oct 20, 2006 Posts: 76

I would like to noinate the Renault FT-17 light tank as the number one tank, after all if it wasn't for this "tank" we wouldn't know what a tank looked like. Its design layout was proved to a winner, were would we be without the turret with the main gun(s) mounted in it! all the major world powers built a variation or copy of it, in service for over 20 years. Just think about it, a bunch of frenchmen put their heads together and come up with the idea of taking a new never seen before on a battlefield armored tacked innovation and placeing the weapons system in a revolving turret for all around deployment and this idea is still in use over 90 years later. Its another "knock-my-socks-off" thing.

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

thank you oldertop!!! at times i feel like i am by my lonesome on this point. yes, that is why i mentioned reliability... that knocks out alot of contentors that otherwise would be at the top of the list...
they just touched on it briefly on the littlefield panther overhaul when they talked about the maybach engine and the trans... very inadequate for such a heavy tank. but anyway...

i will sound biased by i rate anglo/western armor among the best.

i put the M1 abrams breed at the top of the list. i put the T34 and M4 at the very tops of my list
followed the Leo II and Challenger,
the Patton series makes the list (werent perfect but lead to the place we are today, was imported abroad, saw wide use in many foreign services, has had a fair combat record). as known, the qualities of the crews are just as important as the quality of the tanks so the
russian T55 (T series) follows closely due to its wide use and importation, combat record.
the M4 series and T34 make the list. the both series saw more importation, modification, and combat than probably any other 2 tanks in history... the israelis pushed the M4 longevity and evolution to the max! (M4 is mechanically reliable.)
the T34 makes my reliability rating (not that in my mind it equals the western automotive standards). alot of credit, it was made to survive the very hot and very cold weather extremes of the russian front/E. europe. what the hell, tigers and panthers are frozen but the 34â€™s keep on a rolling.
german armor though fearsome and good at tank killing, make the very bottom of my list due to reliability and the whole logistical/mechanically flawed design aspects... the elephant still sits in the back of my mind because it has an electric drive trans.

shawn

oldertop · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Oct 20, 2006 Posts: 76

For most of my military career the big boogyman tank was the T54,55,and 62, all you ever heard was how good they were, how effective they were, every military magzine, book that brought up tanks , every "paper expert" couldn't praise it enough. Then one day in late 1978 my CO (at Mirmar NAS) calls me and says clear a space for a lowboy in your barn, it'll be there for a week or so. So up drives this M-123 tacktor which parks a canvas covered lowboy in my center bay and drives off. Well now it looks like a tank and I and my crew are itching to take a look, just then a door bangs open and its my CO and our tank-leadership instructor, the boss say go ahead pull the tarp..and what do you think...its a T62, a gift from one of our middle eastern friends to the U.S. After a good-looking over inside and out my you couldn't pay me to go to war in that pile of over rated junk!, by the way the reason it was sent to Mirmar was to be "de-gusezed ".
PS.. after pokeing around in Jacque Littlefields T72 feel sorry for the crews who have't fight in them, you had better be 5' nothing high and pray not to take a hit any where because you'll never get out in one piece

Doug_Kibbey

- oldertop

For most of my military career the big boogyman tank was the T54,55,and 62, all you ever heard was how good they were, how effective they were, every military magzine, book that brought up tanks , every "paper expert" couldn't praise it enough. Then one day in late 1978 my CO (at Mirmar NAS) calls me and says clear a space for a lowboy in your barn, it'll be there for a week or so. So up drives this M-123 tacktor which parks a canvas covered lowboy in my center bay and drives off. Well now it looks like a tank and I and my crew are itching to take a look, just then a door bangs open and its my CO and our tank-leadership instructor, the boss say go ahead pull the tarp..and what do you think...its a T62, a gift from one of our middle eastern friends to the U.S. After a good-looking over inside and out my you couldn't pay me to go to war in that pile of over rated junk!, by the way the reason it was sent to Mirmar was to be "de-gusezed ".
PS.. after pokeing around in Jacque Littlefields T72 feel sorry for the crews who have't fight in them, you had better be 5' nothing high and pray not to take a hit any where because you'll never get out in one piece

I don't know if Roy was still there or recalls this event, but when I was waiting to manifest out of Vietnam, a demo was arranged at Long Binh between a well-used M48 and a captured T54/55 (or Chinese Type 69 or whatever) in a huge dirt arena and to everyones' surprise, it did NOT run rings around the M48. Furthermore, the turret rotation speed was almost half the rate of the 48. Placed side-by-side, vehicles that had both spent time "in the field", that well worn Patton came off instilling a lot of confidence in those present who were 11 Echos.

Dontos

I would say that we should keep away from listing the least favorite so not to insult any of the diverse contributors to this site.

If in the service of ones 'home' country, there tends to be no choice in the types of vehicles utilized. No one wants to man the worst Tank in the world. If thats what you find yourself on, you try to do the best job possible.

Lets keep this a top 10....

JMHO
Don

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big