Best and Worst Tanks of Today and Yesterday

Yes I think the Strv 122 is another excellent tank that should be talked about to. Yet again maybe its not a question what tank is the best as we can see there are several contenders out there. Maybe we should ask who has the best tankers. An experienced tanker in a mediocre tank I believe would win against a superior tank with a novice crew.
[/quote]
While probably being the best tank in the world the crews have to be well trained to take advantage of all the technical merits. In the coming years it will be pitted against the basic Leopard 2 or Strv 121 as well as the old warhorse, the Centurion. The Centurion has proven itself capable to hold its own against units with Strv 121. We will soon know if the skill of these crews will be sufficient to frustrate the Strv 122 crews as well. ADDITION 980524. During three different encounters at Kvarn in early April this year a total of 10 Strv 121 with the targetdata of the 122 in their mounted battlesimulator, in effect making them 122:s, were killed by a numericly inferior force of Centurions that lost a total of four tanks. Almost impossible to kill frontally the Leopards were still vulnarable to flanking shots by the skilled Centurion crews. Truly no sword is more powerful than the arm wielding it!
 
Topgunjn1 said:
Yes I think the Strv 122 is another excellent tank that should be talked about to. Yet again maybe its not a question what tank is the best as we can see there are several contenders out there. Maybe we should ask who has the best tankers. An experienced tanker in a mediocre tank I believe would win against a superior tank with a novice crew.
While probably being the best tank in the world the crews have to be well trained to take advantage of all the technical merits. In the coming years it will be pitted against the basic Leopard 2 or Strv 121 as well as the old warhorse, the Centurion. The Centurion has proven itself capable to hold its own against units with Strv 121. We will soon know if the skill of these crews will be sufficient to frustrate the Strv 122 crews as well. ADDITION 980524. During three different encounters at Kvarn in early April this year a total of 10 Strv 121 with the targetdata of the 122 in their mounted battlesimulator, in effect making them 122:s, were killed by a numericly inferior force of Centurions that lost a total of four tanks. Almost impossible to kill frontally the Leopards were still vulnarable to flanking shots by the skilled Centurion crews. Truly no sword is more powerful than the arm wielding it!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the best but you do mention Leopard 2A6 but not Leopard 2E which is better then Lopard 2A6, STRV 122 is technology vice more advanced then Leopard 2A6 (it lacks the L55 gun)

And yes the Swedish Cnturion crew was alot better then that of the STRV 121. Also the STRV 121 with target data of the STRV 122 doesn't make it to a STRV 122 in anyway. The STRV 121B has no LSS that I know of which the STRV 122 has. (I know it was a quote)
 
mmarsh said:
tomtom22 said:
The best tank poll has been done before: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2630&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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The Sherman wasn't a bad design (nor was it a great one) I agree, except for one big problem. When the tank was hit it caught fire very easily because of the unprotected ammo stowage. Hence the reason why the Germans called them 'Tommy Cookers'. It also had a rather high profile.

You're right to say that the M4 was designed to combat the Panzer III and Panzer IV. The Panzer IV was still a better design IMO and in its upgunned capacity was more than a match for most variants of the Sherman.
 
Just got back from seeing a Discovery show of the TOP 10 tanks, and guess what (yeah its still opinions) STRV 122 became the number one!!

They even showed the LSS which hasn't been filmed before (well not much anyways) and it had a race with a Volvo :lol: S-Tank was in 6th place, centurion was at 5th and T34 was at 3rd, think Merkava Was at 4th (the reason wasnt that it was bad, its because it was developed for Israels needs and to the point that it was less of intrest for all other countries, so it had nothing to do with performance to why it got only a 4th place, the same verdict was put on the S-Tank, was aparently somehing most armies ware impressed by but it was made for Swedish tactics, terrain and to use against our enemy (Soviet)

the 2nd place was given to Abrams of latest make.
The first place was given to Leopard 2 of latest make (STRV 122 when the program was made) so they had a showcase on the STRV 122 :D

Lovly to see, shot from where my friend works at :D

Also showed the $15 000 computer they use to diagnostic the tank with, which i've had lying next to me (i think it was the diagnostic computer i had lying next to me, wasn't allowed to tuch it though :(), nice little computer (actually quite big for being a labtop)
 
The subject of the best tank of all time may be open to much dispute as there are so many things to consider and not the least of those being the tank in the context of its time.

However...

I don't think there can be any question that the Soviet multi-turreted tanks (the so-called "land battleships") of the 1930s were without a doubt the worst tanks of all time. Not only was the concept a blind alley but it actually contributed to the Soviet Army's dismal showing in the war with Finland in 1939.

Here's an example of one of them. This is a T-35 which is not to be confused with the highly successful T-34 that actually came later.





 
Yep I forgot about the T-35. Guess they thought they could float. As it looks like they wanted a battleship design. Though back then Russia had trouble with her Navy as well.
 
Many of you mentioned the Leopard 2A6, but I would prefer the A5 version, because in firing while driving the A5 is better than the A6 because of the longer canon of the A6 vibrating in rough terrain and thereby losing its hit exactness
 
Jäger said:
Many of you mentioned the Leopard 2A6, but I would prefer the A5 version, because in firing while driving the A5 is better than the A6 because of the longer canon of the A6 vibrating in rough terrain and thereby losing its hit exactness
Click to expand...

Yeah heared about that, might be the reason to why the Swedes still havent opt for the L55 gun :)

I guess that one tank fitted with L55 gun per 3-4 tanks that are equiped with L44 gun would be a nice compromice, the firepower of the L55 and the stability of the L44 working togather :)
 
BangorRamsJROTC said:
I agree with AlexKall that the S tank is the worst and the best would be the Leo 2

Canadain Zipperheads say Shake and Bake the target
Click to expand...

Hehe, never said that S-Tank was the worst, it came on 6th place on the top ten tanks of the world :p
 
Topgunjn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Sherman was a Light Support Tank not a Heavy Tank. You can't just throw on some extra armor and a larger gun.

From 1944-1946 the US Army has the T-28, T-29 and T-29E2 tanks. The T-29 "SUPER HEAVY" was a giant turtle. All had 105mm to 120mm guns.

Besides, the germans only produce 435 Tigers and less than 50 Royal Tigers.

The Russians had serious defects on the T-34 and it wasn't upgunned to 85mm until late in 44'.
 
Germans did produce more than 1000 Tigers....but still, most of them were a total waste of resources in my opinion, they could use the same amount of time and money to build like Panther

by teh way, I think Panther is one of the best tank in world war 2, it is a lethal combination of armor, mobility and firepower, but luckily, U.S airforce bombed the crap out of Panther factory.

Sherman was a very fast tank and easy to maintain..however, it was a weak one if you look at this fact: usually U.S troops had to put in 5 shermans to kill one tiger and often have to lost 3-4 shermans during the fighting.

T-34 is sort of like Soviet Union's vision of a tank for mass production like Sherman, but it seems T-34 is a bit better than Sherman according to the impression of German tankers left by T-34.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
The Sherman was a Light Support Tank not a Heavy Tank. You can't just throw on some extra armor and a larger gun.

Besides, the germans only produce 435 Tigers and less than 50 Royal Tigers.

The Russians had serious defects on the T-34 and it wasn't upgunned to 85mm until late in 44'.
Click to expand...

The Sherman was not a 'light support' tank it was a designated medium tank.

The Germans produced rather more than 435 Tigers, 1,355 to be precise, and 485 King Tigers were built.

What serious defects did the T-34 have exactly?

Sometimes I wonder where you get your info Cadet Seaman.
 
AlexKall said:
BangorRamsJROTC said:
I agree with AlexKall that the S tank is the worst and the best would be the Leo 2

Canadain Zipperheads say Shake and Bake the target
Click to expand...

Hehe, never said that S-Tank was the worst, it came on 6th place on the top ten tanks of the world :p
Click to expand...

Oppss my bad But I still think it is the worst tank :p
 
BangorRamsJROTC said:
AlexKall said:
BangorRamsJROTC said:
I agree with AlexKall that the S tank is the worst and the best would be the Leo 2

Canadain Zipperheads say Shake and Bake the target
Click to expand...

Hehe, never said that S-Tank was the worst, it came on 6th place on the top ten tanks of the world :p
Click to expand...

Oppss my bad But I still think it is the worst tank :p
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't the best thats for sure, it did have big flaws :(
 
It doesn't really matter how you look at it, the sherman was one of the worst tanks to be in. One hit was all it took to knock it out. It was no match for what the germans were fielding against it.
 
yesterday worst M3 Grant/Lee,Panzer MKIII,M551 Sheridan&M60A2 these
last 2 for the gun/missle launcher set up.
Best today Leo2A6 along the with A5 for $ reasons those that use it are getting there moneys worth. But the M1A2 and CH2 stand alone for protection though the facts that both use DU in armor makeup has me placing them in there categroy in regard to protection.
 
"But the M1A2 and CH2 stand alone for protection"

Really? A Swedish test told another thing, to bad CH2 didn't make the tests, that is the only thank I have doubts with, well besides Merkava but its in a league of its own ;)
 
CH2 from the looks of it is the same as the Abrams, except I know it has completely different armor, in my opinion the Challenger 2 is the best tank as of now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top