Best and Worst Tanks of Today and Yesterday

that right sea cadet. look total different and the challenger 2 has the better armour. it was design by the same guy how gave the US amry chombon but the would now were to imporve it better the any US Army scientists. so it would believe that the challenger 2 is better.
it supose to do with the fact in the challenger it had tungtens rod in it in layers i guess they replace them with du rods or a combine them in different layers.
were the abrams have had bolt on du plates to what i have read.
the many reason know country expect the Britsh army have used it is the fact it use a none nato weopon in the form of a 120mm rifled gun. which in my thoughts is one of the best if not the best anti tank gun out now. it fire charm 1&3 and hesh which i like.
that why the greece did not order it ever with it win most of the trails and same in Australia.
the gun is one of the reason in most tank compertion that the challenger 2 is place low then others as it is slow fire only a round every 5 seconds.
when on fire range it out shots all other tanks. this maybe down to a the crew or it could just be down to the fact rifled gun are more accurate with more first shot hit then any other tank.
mean more first shot kills. as it has the longest comfirmed kill in the gulf war 2003 at 2.3mile. and the longest overall tank to tank kill is take by the older challenger at a 5100m no other tank has a kill that long. this was at night the kill was made i have read.
so why then do most of you all think a tank design in the 70s not name any names "abrams" can bet a tank design in the 90s. As it is the news of this genations tanks in service with a country
one flaw with the abrams is the hull design it does not take kindly to being upgrade cheaply and quickly like most other tanks.
that why the challenger 2 wins.
 
Yes,we had poor technology of tank.
In Nomonghan our type97 couldn,t defeat to soviet BT and in Guadalcanal your tanks Ｍ4 and Ｍ3 neither.
We had too poor transportation to carry heavy tank.
Practicably, We could carry under 13ton tank.
Our tank often broke down though the United States tank was dependable.
Weapons of Japanese army were too poor.
 
Thats True, but Japan didnt need that many tanks. Most of the fighting were on small islands or in terrein unsuitable for tank warfare. I suspect the Japanese were probably right not to invest to heavily on tank warfare.
There were really only two places Japan could have made use of tanks, China and the Phillippeans.

Had I been the Japanese I would have concentrated on mobile AT-systems like a Bazooka for close in work and a more modern range of field artillery for infantry support. The Japense real problem is that they lacked suppressing fire weapons like semi-auto rifles, SMGs (the type 100 SMG came to late) or Heavy Rifles like the BREN or BAR. All they had were LMG, that despite the designation of 'light' were not too easy to lug around.
 
mmarsh said:
Thats True, but Japan didnt need that many tanks. Most of the fighting were on small islands or in terrein unsuitable for tank warfare. I suspect the Japanese were probably right not to invest to heavily on tank warfare.
There were really only two places Japan could have made use of tanks, China and the Phillippeans.

Had I been the Japanese I would have concentrated on mobile AT-systems like a Bazooka for close in work and a more modern range of field artillery for infantry support. The Japense real problem is that they lacked suppressing fire weapons like semi-auto rifles, SMGs (the type 100 SMG came to late) or Heavy Rifles like the BREN or BAR. All they had were LMG, that despite the designation of 'light' were not too easy to lug around.
Click to expand...

Uh, you are perhaps forgetting all the fighting in China, Manchuria, Indonesia? Not exactly tiny islands. Japan could've done better in the tank department. Thankfully, they didn't. They had about as much an idea how to use tanks as they did subs - lucky for us.
 
It was a matter of priorities. their steel went into the fleet. remember, japan never had the economy to really push the war, much like Italy. Just as an example of how they had no production co-ordination; they issued three major calibers of pistols, 7, 8, and 9 MM, they issued 2 type 89 machine guns in 7.7mm, both were different guns and with different cartridges. they issued 20, 23, and 25 MM guns.
the army and navy seemed to hate the other more than the enemy.
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ok sorry, wires got crossed. I was reading on the Tiger II. Only 489 where made, 492 including the three prototypes.


And yes the Sherman was designated medium.
 
warhappy100 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything but the M551. There was mixed feels about it in Veitnam and it was used by the 82nd into the 80's (M551A1).
 
The M3 Grant/Lee was actually very effective in the early part of WWII. Although the sponson gun had a limited traverse, it's 75mm gun made short work of the early German armor. The British used it to great effect in el Alamein.

The Panzer III rolled through France and the low countries in a literal "lightning war". I don't see how anyone in their right mind could call it a bad tank.

The Sheridan and the Patton were both effective tanks and although better things came later, they were hardly failures.

Surprising how little so many of you tank "experts" seem to know when you keep mentioning the same poorly selected choices. I've had few people agree with me yet about the Soviet multi-turreted tanks being the worst of all time (as their attempted use clearly showed - I say "attempted" because they didn't do a damn bit of good except add to Russian misery). There can be no arguement though about it. M3s, Mk IIIs, M551s, and M60s all kicked ass. The multi-turreted tanks only got their asses kicked, overun, and frozen dead.
 
The M3 Grant/Lee was very effective in North Africa in the hands of the British. It was superior to the Matildas and Crusaders not to mention the Pz II Pz III and the various tanks it faced.

The Sheridan was a good tank, it was designed as a Airborne Light Tank similar in concept to the obsolete 'Infantry tanks' of WWII. Its job was to support infantry and was not intended to face Russian Heavy Armor. So to compare it to MBTs is unfair. T46/47/48 Patton was an average design. It did terriably against India in the 1965 War and very well in the hands of the Isrealis. Basically its success depended on how it was used, not a bad design but nothing to write home about either.

As for the Multiturret Russian Tanks such as the T-28, it actually did OK in the Spanish Civil War where it faced the Pz I, but by the Russo-Finnish War it was outclassed by Finnish AT-Guns. By Barbarossa is was already out of production, the Russian War Machine had moved on to the far superior T-34.

I still go with my original vote as the worst tank which was the Polish TKS Tankette series.
 
The Panzer III wasn't a bad tank, but it was very quickly made obsolete. The reason why it was so effective in the early part of WW2 was because of the tactics used by the German Army, rather than the abilities of the tank itself. The best thing about it was its mobility which is exactly what won Germany her early victories.

The Sheridan and Patton were both solid designs - nothing remarkable but certainly not bad tanks. Like the Panzer III it's how these tanks were used and I agree with what mmarsh said.

I don't know enough about the Soviet multi-turreted tanks to say much except that a lot of early Soviet tank design was hit or miss. But you have to say their methods worked when they produced the T-34 and IS-2 tanks. The IS-2 is a dark horse for being the best tank of WW2. It was a 'Royal Tiger' killer and the Germans feared it.
 
How does one really compare the tanks of WW2 with tanks of today, it really should be done conflict by conflict to make any sense out of it.
 
Charge 7 said:
The M3 Grant/Lee was actually very effective in the early part of WWII. Although the sponson gun had a limited traverse, it's 75mm gun made short work of the early German armor. The British used it to great effect in el Alamein.

The Panzer III rolled through France and the low countries in a literal "lightning war". I don't see how anyone in their right mind could call it a bad tank.

The Sheridan and the Patton were both effective tanks and although better things came later, they were hardly failures.

Surprising how little so many of you tank "experts" seem to know when you keep mentioning the same poorly selected choices. I've had few people agree with me yet about the Soviet multi-turreted tanks being the worst of all time (as their attempted use clearly showed - I say "attempted" because they didn't do a damn bit of good except add to Russian misery). There can be no arguement though about it. M3s, Mk IIIs, M551s, and M60s all kicked ass. The multi-turreted tanks only got their asses kicked, overun, and frozen dead.
Click to expand...

I agree on the multi-turrets (very crappy) and the M60A2 and M551. The M60 and M551's where very effective , had huge 152mm gun/missile launchers, state-of-the-art FCS, the M60A2 was one of the best protected tanks in the NATo arsenal at the time, the M551 was quite mobile and could take out a T-72.
 
The Grant was a good Tank, but the big problem was that you could not use this tank in a hull down position as you would lose the use of your main gun. When crossing the sand ridges in North Africa it could not just pop its turret over the ridge to open fire but the whole tank would have to silhouetted on the ridge making it an easy target for the 88 mm Gunners.
The Sherman was a good tank and would have been even better if they had just changed the storage bins for the ammunition inside the tanks. Even if a shell did not penetrate the tank it would knock of a peice of metal in side the Sherman which would flay around inside the tank red hot. Now most times this peice of shrapnel would penetrate the brass hell casing inside the turret setting of the cordite and turning the tank into a blast furnace. Now just why it took them so long to try and remedy this is beyond me. I would have thought it would not be beyond some one to design some thing to protect the shells from and add it to the tank with even stopping the production lines. This one thing cost thousands of allied soldier their lives.
 
LeEnfield

That was only true of the M4, M4A1, and M4A2. But the M4A3 (which was the most common most built varient) introduced a 'wet storage' (Ammo surrounded by tanks of water) ammo locker. This kept the ammo from cooking off...
 
Same Reduced scale

Germany PZⅤ
panther_d.jpg

US Ｍ4
sharman1.jpg

Soviet T-34/85
t34.jpg

Japan Type-97
chi-ha_b.jpg


ｆｒｏｍ my view ,western tanks are all good tanks.
Ｉ never fight with poor Tank!
 
The Sherman brewed up so often the Germans nicknamed it the Tommy Cooker, the Canadians called the Sherman the Ronson after a slogan for a cigarette lighter, which said " lights first time every time".
 
The worst Tanks of All Time is easy. Any of these is top notch candidate (disregarding the tanks that Japan imported, some of those were actually almost decent tanks.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_tanks_and_armoured_vehicles_of_the_WWII_period

Best tank of all-time based upon dominance and performance on the field of battle would be the Panzer IV, but even the German Panzergruppen knew that it was inferior to the T-34. That tank's dominance can be creditted to the concepts introduced by Heinz Guderian in his book "Achtung Panzer". The T-34/80 was an incredible tank for it time. So was the Panther G. Had the Tiger I or II been better powered and more reliable, they'd both have a strong case in their favor. Unfortunately, they were a huge pain in the ass to fix if they ever broke down. The Tiger II was not in production long enough to make a serious mark on the WW II battlefield. The Tiger I, despite its flaws, would get my vote for best ever tank. It did have a solid run of being the most overwhelming terror tank on the field. The T-34 never even broke even with the Germans for kill ratio, and frankly, I don't like the forward turret. If the T-34 had been better used when it was the baddest thing on the field of battle, I might be more conviced of its greatness. In truth, the T-34 wasn't used to its full potential for much of the war, so its a hard case to make.

The biggest problem with every other generation of tank is that the entire world has remained very competative, everybody trying to one-up everyone else. Modern tanks see a very level playing field for the most part, with NATO and US Allies probably having slightly higher quality tanks.
 
i would say as you have the panzer IV was the best tank of ww2 not for being that best in the tech field but being the best in the why it was used.
You have to think that some of these commanders had been using panzer IV for the whole war.
the armour was not the best but it was good it had one of the best guns of the war the long 75mm gun some were ever fit with a expirmant type that fire a cude sabot in stend of a whole metal shell that was the ap round of the day. it had a lot of good thing for it like a lot of back mech inside. and had good speed and range on fuel.
a fact of the war many sherman tank crew thouth the were fight tiger but were against panzzer IV as of the way the german commander used them.

As to the modern tank that is best i would say the challenger 2 hand down is the best in all department expect one that is speed. But that does not matter that much.

the worest tank of ww2 has to be the sherman it was guping in all ways.
the 75mm gun was a design on the franch light 75mm gun of ww1 which had been design at the start of the 20th cen this was because there was lots of ammo for it. it used a petrol engine come boy what were they think. No ammo bin for the ammo so one hit even if it didn't go though could cos bang with red hot lump of metal for the side bouch round.
the hight of it was a down side you could see it for miles.

for modern i would say in some way the abrams tank all mk's.
my reasons are a easy it use to much fuel it. the why it was design does not lend it self to being easy upgrade in area like armour and engine like the challenger 2 and leap 2.
it has one of the biggest thramel sign you can find. makeing easy to find at night. even when off for a long time it tharmal sign can be seen for miles.that why it the worst right now i now russian tank are bad but you can spend a little and get an ok tank out of them but the abrams you have to spend load on them to see little imporment on them.
 
Am I the only one to mention the unbelievably crappy Japanese WW2 tanks? They make the Sherman look like a Tiger. Awful things. US anti-armor guys loved destroying them cuz it was too easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top