Top Ten Tanks - Printable Version

Top Ten Tanks - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards)
+-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Top Ten Tanks (/showthread.php?tid=50980)

Pages: 1 2 3

Top Ten Tanks - wigam - 04-16-2009

I know we have had these threads before but I have just got home from rugby practice and watched a military channel program on the discovery channel about the top ten tanks of all time.

They were as such:

10: M-4 Sherman
[Image: sherman.jpg]

9: Merkava
[Image: merkava.jpg]

8: T-54-55
[Image: t55.jpg]

7: Challenger
[Image: challenger.jpg]

6: MKIV Panzer
[Image: mkIVpanzer.jpg]

5: Centurion
[Image: centurion.jpg]

4: WW I tank
[Image: ww1Tank.jpg]

3: Tiger

2: M-1 Abrams
[Image: m1.jpg]

1: T-34

They ranked them on the following points:

1. Firepower
2. Mobility
3. Protection
4. Production
5. Fear factor

I agree with some of them but others make me think ??

Any thoughts ?

RE: Top Ten Tanks - Steel God - 04-16-2009

Wigam Wrote:They ranked them on the following points:

1. Firepower
2. Mobility
3. Protection
4. Production
5. Fear factor

I agree with some of them but others make me think ??

Any thoughts ?

I've seen that program Marcus, and the crux of the matter is in the point you mention at the end. High production numbers put the T-34 into the top spot, and merit the Sherman being included at all. Things like fear factor are somewhat subjective. All of this series of programs (Top Ten ____) are interesting for what they're worth, but for my money you really need to narrow the discussion to seriously debate what is best. For example, you can discuss the T90, the Abrams, and the Merkava for example because they're apples to apples, but how to you compare a MkIV and the Abrams?

RE: Top Ten Tanks - Vesku - 04-16-2009

I'm familiar with the series too and take it as good fun, not to be taken seriously.

RE: Top Ten Tanks - Weasel - 04-18-2009

Yeah, very subjective and the ranking was adjusted to fit how they wanted the tanks rated. I am sure a German soldier would me just as scared of a Sherman coming at him as an Allied soldier staring at a Tiger.

RE: Top Ten Tanks - seabolt - 04-18-2009

While I wholly agree that it's a very subjective list, I'll be a little contrarian and suggest that it's actually a pretty good stab at what it's trying to do.

I mean, how can you *not* rank the T-34 as the top tank in history (and probably of all time)? The handful that fought in 1941 were instrumental in eroding panzertruppen morale and the legions that took the field from 1942 were the backbone of the greatest counteroffensive that likely ever will be witnessed. And did another AFV ever provide a greater bang for buck?

Meanwhile, the Abrams undoubtedly deserves a top ranking as the only truly blooded killer of all the modern designs. It's probably not the technically best modern AFV (likely the Merkava makes this list in that role), but like the T-34 its resume outstrips its specs.

I'd be inclined to roughly swap the Centurion and the T-55 in reflecting their importance on western and eastern design philosophies, but overall it's an informed comparison of today's apples to yesterday's oranges.

RE: Top Ten Tanks - Vesku - 04-18-2009

Why not just rate them by the production numbers? I'm pretty certain that it reflects quite well how cost effective and modern it was at it's age .... excluding Sherman of course :)

RE: Top Ten Tanks - seabolt - 04-18-2009

Vesku Wrote:Why not just rate them by the production numbers? I'm pretty certain that it reflects quite well how cost effective and modern it was at it's age .... excluding Sherman of course :)

Hm, a good argument could be made that no one really knows what some of those incredible Cold War Soviet production runs translated into in real military effectiveness, and we're all the more fortunate for it. The Sherman isn't the only craptacular U.S. design that got overproduced and pawned upon the Third World's strongmen. I don't see a huge correlation.

And of course there's the Tiger. A handful made, nearly all of them died in action ... but man, if and when it could get there it made an impression. The Tiger most decidely was anything but cost efficient, in and of itself. But it cast a shadow far exceeding its actual battlefield triumphs, one that made every lurking panzer into something dreadful. Chris argued that any tank is fearsome to the other side, but you never heard of a Tiger commander begging his air support to drop rockets right on top of him to kill a Sherman. A U.S. commander did that once, explaining to the pilot that his chances were decent with the rockets, nil with the panzer. Hard to argue the Mk VI's rightful place near the top of that list.

RE: Top Ten Tanks - zeiss - 04-19-2009

A Top 10 tank list without the King of the battlefield. Madness I say!

[Image: Strv_103c.jpg]

The mighty Kugelpanzer would probably get the lowest score possible with those criteria. :)

[Image: Kugelpanzer.jpg]

RE: Top Ten Tanks - seabolt - 04-20-2009

Are those ... petrol tins being used as standoff armor for the treads? :eek1:

RE: Top Ten Tanks - klanx171 - 04-20-2009

I saw that episode as well, I felt it didnt really get it as it had a long time frame and range of technology and Ian Dickinson from iron Maiden?