Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Sounds like the same programme I saw earlier this year - the ratings are identical. I don't agree with the Sherman being at No 10. Just because something is easy to make and is reliable, that doesn't change the fact it was a mediocre design.

Mediocre is an understatement IMHO, but I think Dopp would already know that. The Sherman was super easy to take appart and put back together. It was also among the most easily killed tanks that was ever mass produced.

yes, they had a real problem with catching fire. Shermans were extremely susceptible to "combustion problems"

Sure, a Sherman vs. a Tiger is no contest. But when you pump out 30,000 Shermans compared to the 600 Tigers things are a little differet. That's 50 Shermans for every 1 Tiger, and I don't think that the Tiger was that good.

Originally Posted by CanadianCombat

Well according to the Discovery Channel the top ten greatest ever tanks of all time are:

1-Leopard 2
2-M1A1 Abrams
3-T-34
4-Merkava
5-Centurion
6-S Tank
7-T-72
8-Panther
9-M-551A1 Sheridan
10-Sherman

so its official

Well aparently the Discovery channel is about 20 years behind, the most recent M1 variant is the M1A2. And thier is no way in that the M551 is one of the best. I would like to know how they see the T-72 as something great aswell, and where is the Chally 2?

This is are most correct list:

1.)--- Challenger 2 (M1A2 and Chally are at a tie.)
--- M1A2 SEP
---Leopard 2

2.) Merkava Mk. 4 (Great UCT)

3.) T-34/85 (Had really radio's)

4.) M60A1/A3 (only because it was the U.S. Armor backbone for more than 30+ years and has a great Thermal sight.)

5.) Panther G. (All arounds superb tank)

6.) Tiger's 1 and 2 (Only because of thier superb design and firepower, they lose points for horrible fuel and engine problems and being slugish in the mud.)

7.) T-64 (Only because it is favored over the T-72 by Russian gunners.)

8.) Sherman (only because of it's wonderful ability to to modified into most anything.)

9.) Centurion (Only because it was the British Armor backbone for 20 years and was planned to be well into the future.)

10.) Lerlec (First French tank to actually have balls.)

I would have thought the Sheman would have been further up the list, it was outstanding in the North Africa campaign in WW2

What about the Chieftain, its also said to be the mainstay of british army and seems like a good design to me?

I agree with cadet sea man about the M1A2.. its better if I am not mistaken..
Also the centurion is agreed upon. As well as the German Panther , and theAmerican Sherman.

T 72 shoudnt be underestimated though..

Originally Posted by Welshwarrior

I would have thought the Sheman would have been further up the list, it was outstanding in the North Africa campaign in WW2

Outstanding? 'Adequate' would be a more fitting term IMO and only then because much of the Afrika Korps were still using Panzer IIs and IIIs. In fact, there were still even some Panzer Is being used. The Panzer I and II in particular were little more than training machines and were never intended to be in front-line service. So the Sherman ought to be doing well against such opposition. The Panzer III was a bit better but still a light tank by definition. There were only a scattering of Panzer IVs (short barrelled versions) and Panzer VIs (Tigers) did not arrive until early 1943, too late to change the initiative.

The Sherman only had 2 things going for it as a design - it was mobile and it was easy to repair. Other than that it was a poor design by any standard and no wonder it earned the nicknames of 'Ronson' and 'Tommy Cooker'.

Originally Posted by The Cooler King

Sure, a Sherman vs. a Tiger is no contest. But when you pump out 30,000 Shermans compared to the 600 Tigers things are a little differet. That's 50 Shermans for every 1 Tiger, and I don't think that the Tiger was that good.

Ah, but you're missing the point entirely. Sure the United States had unbelievably high production levels for the Sherman. But we're not making a comparison based on being able to outnumber your opponent 30 to 1. With those kinds of odds, the quality of your tank is pretty much irrelevant. Hey, I can take 30 ninety point weaklings and prolly beat the crap out of Lennox Lewis. Does that make me a better fighter than him?

The Sherman was much like the Liberty Ship: Not extremely impressive, but it was amazing what you could do with a overwhelming numbers of them. So in terms of going one on one, the Sherman definitely doesn't belong in the top 10. In terms of its impact on history and its ability to be modified, its a great fit in the top 10 of course.

Their listing of the T-72, Sherman and others would seem to demonstrate that they were intending "impact and influence upon history." Of course, the Panzer IV is mysteriously missing from the list as well. Several others, I can only wonder at.

Originally Posted by MightyMacbeth

I agree with cadet sea man about the M1A2.. its better if I am not mistaken..
Also the centurion is agreed upon. As well as the German Panther , and theAmerican Sherman.

T 72 shoudnt be underestimated though..

While the T-72 was a pretty good design it had too many flaws and early models prefer to load the gunner rather than the shells. Besides, one too many have been blown up by M1's and Challenger's.