Top Ten Tanks

[Imp]

The point remains, why? A metal grate would do the same thing with far fewer side effects.

Either they are into recycling & had a lot of spare cans or they feel it does indeed act as a form of ERA armour & hence is more effective.

The sticking point with this is the speed & enormous heat of the jet might vaporise the diesel straight off but I suppose if normal ERA can go bang before vaporising the diesel may be able to also.
We are assuming they are either empty or filled with diesel could well be something else or have an additive to aid the process. The chances of diesel & the width of the can being just right seem a bit remote.
Filling with something like Acetylene or Propylene could well produce a bigger bang & Acetylene is unstable once vaporises, depends on several factors but normally produce a bigger shock wave than diesel much higher adiabatic flame values.

[zeiss]

Primarily, it's a convenient way to store reserve fuel. The added HEAT protection is a bonus and comes from a; the spacing created by the cans, b; "the HEAT jet will dissipate faster in diesel than in air".
The cans are also easy and cheap to replace if the tank survives a hit. I have no idea if diesel has some special anti-HEAT abilities but I guess the cans could just as well be filled with water from a protection point of view. Hard to refuel with though..

The S-tank was designed in the 50s, built during the 60s and phased out in the 90s. In the mid-80s the tank received a major upgrade (strv103C) and it was then the cans were added.

The point remains, why? A metal grate would do the same thing with far fewer side effects.

Note that the tank is meant to be deployed in forest terrain. It would be unpractical to have metal grates sticking out on the sides.

Either they are into recycling & had a lot of spare cans or they feel it does indeed act as a form of ERA armour & hence is more effective.

The cans are custom made for the tank and it's regular diesel. :smoke:

[seabolt]

"the HEAT jet will dissipate faster in diesel than in air".

I saw that the first time. My skepticism was only increased by its hand-waving nature. "Don't worry your head about it soldier! It's science! Those four-eyes in the lab coats know their business!"

I guess the cans could just as well be filled with water

I'd hazard that water may do the job better, actually. Water can be compressed into superhot ice in far less time than the ~0.0001 seconds we're dealing with here. That might be a more disruptive effect than the Hollywood pyrotechnics that diesel would generate.

The S-tank was designed in the 50s, built during the 60s and phased out in the 90s. In the mid-80s the tank received a major upgrade (strv103C) and it was then the cans were added.

Ah, OK, no TC rounds in that period IIRC. This probably is a straight up spaced armor concept. I still think it's a hazardous rationalization to deal with fuel tankage issues in a convenient fashion for planners who don't envision being the guy actually sitting between twin walls of potentially flaming hell in a firefight ...

[Jumbo]

Hi Fellas,

I like the T-34 choice primarily because of it's inovative design for the time, And the fact it was the main tank for the Russians that was instrumental for helping them defeat the Germans in the largest armored warfare front of all time. Many nice features and some poor features. It's nice features more than made up for it's poor features. The Sherman deserves a slightly better ranking IMO. Keeping in mind that the Sherman wasn't initially designed to engage other tanks. Rather it was an infantry support tank. In that roll it really was outstanding if one were to look at all the Sherman variants and what rolls they performed. The Sherman was a tank designed to win a war and not neccassarily win any individual tank on tank duels. If a Sherman was put out of action as they often were. It more than most any tank known to me, Could be repaired or recieve canibilized parts from another KO'd or disabled Sherman in relatively short period of time compared to most any other tank of it's time. It's simple and strait forward design allowed for that. And the Allied armies took full advantage of that feature. On the flip side. Most German designs like the Tiger and Panther for example were fine machines in working order. But in warfare taking all kinds of damage is something that should really be considered. A Tiger or Panther would take an incredibly longer time to repair for common issues like transmission or boogie repair/replacement. Most other designs were far to complex and over engineered for the time when a tanks life expectancy was just months, weeks or even days. The Russians themselves truely liked the M4A2(76) they recieved and issued them to their Guards divisions. The quality of the Shermans armor was of better quality and far less prone to spalling than found on the T-34. The T-34's armor layout and profile were better however. As for the U.S. 76mm gun. The Russians even said it out performed their own 85mm gun found on the T-34 against armored targets. The Sherman was a bit better of a tank than most people are led to believe.

[seabolt]

I like the T-34 choice [...] Many nice features and some poor features.

Well, it had a *lot* of poor features, which is why some people would disagree with this list. In fairness, the T-34 probably struggles to crack the Top 10 Best Tanks list but deserves top billing in a Top 10 Most Important Tanks list.

The Sherman [...] Could be repaired or recieve canibilized parts from another KO'd or disabled Sherman in relatively short period of time

While you make many valid points on the Sherman, I feel obligated to point out that this one is mostly legend. The Sherman was a maintenance headache, because it was built by several different companies using several different drivetrains.

Three factors led to the Sherman gaining this unearned reputation.

One, as can currently be seen in Iraq (ice sculptures on the buffet tables ...), the U.S. Army does not go to war without re-establishing the bar in logistics. Despite a tail that had to cross the Atlantic, the ETO Army had a wonderful supply train compared to its contemporaries.

Two, internal combustion was the personal computing of 1944. Any red-blooded American boy knew how an engine worked, how to keep it working, and how to make it do things it wasn't designed to do. His British and German contemporaries had yet to pick up this enthusiasm. (Being far from obtuse, both countries tried to close the gap with their prewar youth clubs and the like. But these were childhood pastimes only for the affluent in Europe. Any determined American teen could get his mitts on an old "jalopy.") European enlisted technical MOSs had to be trained from a mean knowledge level close to zero. U.S. techs could be advanced straight to the military specifics.

Third, U.S. gear was the only truly mass-produced gear of the era. Though you needed a bewildering array of parts for a mixed Sherman group, if you had the right part you pretty much knew it would fit. This could be an iffy proposition for a panzer part, and the cynical took it for granted that no British replacement part would actually match spec well enough to do its job.

Most other designs were far to complex and over engineered for the time when a tanks life expectancy was just months, weeks or even days.

To be fair, I would argue that the most thoughtfully designed tank of the era was the Panzer III. In real terms it was cheaper than the Sherman. It maximized what few concessions were made to crew comfort. Given that panzer crews had to change powerplants more often than you and I change our oil, its engine compartment was designed to make this process ludicrously easy.

It and the Panzer IV were developed by steely-eyed military professionals, with the luxury of a prewar development lead time, and it showed. The Sherman was a potluck of whoever had an assembly line, the T-34 had to be buildable with the crudest tools, and both the Tiger and Panzer had Hitler and his yes men poisoning their design objectives.

[Nomade]

Agree with the Panzer III (as well as IV) choice.
It had a 3-man turret (which was adopted by nearly all nations during the war, but rare before, if you look at 30s french, russian or some british tanks), it was mobile on operational level (means: it wasnt as slow as Mathilda and didnt have to refill every 2h as some french tanks) and it had radio in every tank. These things made it possible to form a large and effective armored unit and enabled those encirclements like in soviet union or france. Though a mediocre tank since 42, when it's small gun and thin armor mattered, it was quite good in 39-41.