I agree^^

Originally Posted by Topgunjn1

Yes your right that the original Tiger tank was underpowered, but I believe the King Tiger or Tiger II with its newer power plant from Porsche. Though it is true that the King was a gas guzzler, and often was abandoned by its crews, I believe this is because the time the King came out Germany no longer possed the ability to continually supply the needs of the King. Thus the need to abandon it.

I didn't actually say that the original Tiger Mk 1 tank was underpowered, although it was. The King Tiger was even more feebly underpowered than the Tiger 1, given that they used the same engine that was fitted to the Panther, a tank that was some 25 tonnes lighter.

The King Tiger could have been an awesome tank but 3 reasons prevented this from happening:

1) It was rushed straight to the battlefield without any pre-production trials. This meant that more King Tigers were lost to mechanical faults than anything else.

2) It was critically underpowered which basically meant it could only really fulfill a defensive role. In practice it was little more than a mobile pill-box.

3) Germany's critical fuel shortages of the last few months of the war meant that many of the 485 examples built simply were abandoned when they ran out of fuel.

Despite this, the King Tiger was one of the most feared weapons of WW2.

I think the best tank today is the Leopard 2 A6 because of its modular design which makes battlefield repair much easier, it's not a gas guzzler like the MI and it has added protection against mines. I'm not the only one that thinks this either.

As much as I'd like to "rah rah" for the American team, I think the best tank of 'today' is the Challenger II. I think it is a superb design. The Brittish, after all, invented Cobum armor and figured out how to use it very efficiently after the disaster that was Challenger I. The Challenger II holds the world record for longest Tank-Tank kill at 2 miles durring the 2003 Iraq War. I believe that the Challener II design is slightlly superior to the Abrams and the other favorites like the Leopard II and Merkava IV are nice on paper but have my skepticism about how they'll perform on the battlefield. Remember the Sho-sho gun was, at the time, though to be the wave of the future!

The Challenger II has proven herself and therefore has earned my respect and my opinion as the best tank on the modern battlefield.




All that being said, when it comes down to an Abrams or Leopard II crew facing a Challenger II... I think it comes much more down to tactics and crew training than it does technology because the vehicles are all quite capable.

I agree that the Leopard 2 A6 is an excellent tank, and I know many others agree with this opionion. Even though the M1 A2 is nearing 10 years in age, it has had several updates.

In the aspects of armour it is still overall the same, but in battlefield communications it has seen several updates, especially, with the IVIS system. The system allows information to be quickly exchanged among tanks on the field, which allows commanders to use their assests efficiently and quickly. In battle this allows the M1 to usually be the first one to engage a target. Also the M1 has one of the best fire control systems. Meaning when the M1 fires at a target it hits dead on.
Though I wish that in futre updates the M1 would have better mine protection and a more powerrful main gun.

With regards to the M1 being a gas guzzler this is very true, however this allows the M1 to get to the engagement quicker. On the other hand it does mean that supplies line have to be stretched to support the M1

Final point the M1 has been proven in battle. Though, I believe that any tank is only as good as her crew. The U.S. Army has the most receint battlefield experience. Giving the U.S. a great source of combat veterans, also the training is top of the line. NTC being an excellent place to train crews for the conditions that future wars will be fought.

I think in the end its almost a toss up between the M1, Leopard, and Challenger II.

The best tank poll has been done before: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...630&highlight=

But we have not had the worst tank.

I believe the worst tank of its time was the last versions of the Sherman tank. Simply because the rest of the world had gone past the Sherman in firepower, suviveability, armor, etc. The only reason the Sherman was still around at the end of the war was sheer numbers. The British called it the tommy cooker.

Ya I know there's a best tank poll not sure how this post became a rating system for today's tanks.

Not real sure what would be considered the best and worst tank of all times. I agree the Sherman was a horrible design even in WWII it lacked good armor proection and firepowe. Like you said it wasn't quality of tanks we had for WWII it was pure numbers. The best tank of WWII I think would be the T-34.

As far as between WWII and now there is a very long list of good tanks. i believe the M60 series should be considered. It was a desgn that survived over 4 decades and was the U.S. main battle tank for 2 of those decades.

Originally Posted by tomtom22

The best tank poll has been done before: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...630&highlight=

But we have not had the worst tank.

I believe the worst tank of its time was the last versions of the Sherman tank. Simply because the rest of the world had gone past the Sherman in firepower, suviveability, armor, etc. The only reason the Sherman was still around at the end of the war was sheer numbers. The British called it the tommy cooker.

I disagree with you there. The Sherman was not a bad tank. The Design of the Sherman was sound. At the time, nobody knew about the Panther, Tiger, or even the T-34. Also lets not forget the the Shermans most often opponent was the Panzer IV series, a tank it was on par with. The problem was the Sherman obsolete compared to the ingenious Panther or Tiger. The British Firefly (modified Sherman M4A3) proved quite successful as a German Cat-Killer. The best German Tank Ace Michael Witteman (in a Tiger I) met his end at the hands of a Firefly.

The Worst Tanks, I'd say the the Polish TKS series. Totally useless against the German Panzerwaffe. They did make OK recon cars. But as MBT they lacked speed, armor and espically firepower. Unfortunatly it was the only tank the Poles had...

The Italian M13/40 wasnt exactly a war winner either, it had a tenency to blow up after being hit by any sort of anti-tank weapon..

Ya I forgot about Polands attempt at armour.
You do have a very good point about the Sherman. Nobody knew about the powerful tanks that Germany and Russia had come up with. However, the Tigers had come out long before the war was over. You would have thought that the U.S. would have done something to seriously update the Sherman.

Originally Posted by Topgunjn1

Ok now that the consencious is that the T-34 is the best tank from Yesterday what about today?

I think its a toss up between The M1A2 Abrams and The German Leopard 2A6.

Leopard 2E or STRV 122 then? :P

This is a US Intelliegnce Bulletin (to update the soldiers on the field, its dated June 1943 from Africa discussing the "New german heavy tank" (the Tiger).

http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerheavytank/index.html

As you see the Americans didnt see the Tiger in Action in mid-1943 (perhaps abit before). But there wasnt much time to design, test, produce and deploy new American Heavy Tanks. The M-26 Pershing showed up right at the end of the war in very limited numbers.