Now we know: the top ten greatest ever tanks of all time - Page 11




 
--
 
January 4th, 2006  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
But they won the war because of unconventional Warfare!
Yep, seaman is right. America actually won the guerilla war in Vietnam by 1970 and certainly by 1971. If you notice the only major fighting that happened after that where the N.Vietnam invasions in 1972 and 1975, there where no more serious unconventional operations.

That's really the sad part of the Vietnam war is that if we had stayed just a few more years we would have won, 75% of the war was won when we gave up and went home.
January 4th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
Well, cause the support of the war back home in America was damn bad. So the government had no choice but to withdraw!
January 4th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Yep, seaman is right. America actually won the guerilla war in Vietnam by 1970 and certainly by 1971. If you notice the only major fighting that happened after that where the N.Vietnam invasions in 1972 and 1975, there where no more serious unconventional operations.

That's really the sad part of the Vietnam war is that if we had stayed just a few more years we would have won, 75% of the war was won when we gave up and went home.
Quite true. If you really look into the way we fought, you will notice a jump in SF activity in the late 60's and the 70's. Sniper's like Hatcock and J.D. Ward played parts in some Operations like Phoenix, all run by the CIA or SF units.
--
January 4th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Cadet Seaman, did it ever occur to you that maybe that would be a result of the unconventional methods used by the VC and NVA that were meant to sap America's will to fight?
No. The NVA and VC's plans wheren't to sap our will to fight. They had been fighting the French since 45' and in 63' when Kennedy sent in advisors and then U.S. troops the VC where well into Unconventional Op's. They knew that we outnumberered them 10:1, remember we where not the only country there fighting.

The French had been bolstered by or Lend-Lease Program. Why do you think American's found M1 Carbine's and other Amercican weapons on VC dead?
January 4th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
You sure the Vietcons have M-1 ?
January 4th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
You sure the Vietcons have M-1 ?
Pretty, sure. They salvaged them from dead Frenchmen.
January 4th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
oh! M-1 is a good gun!
January 4th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
oh! M-1 is a good gun!
Yes it is.
January 4th, 2006  
Dean
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I disagree, their manoeverabilty was poor as was their relibility. I would image the poll takes all things into account. Relability, Speed, Menueverability, Armor and Firepower. I agree with Doppleganger I dont the the Sherman should be on the list, I would have put the Renault R-1 in that list somewhere. I surprised they didnt included any WWI tanks. I also disagree with the inclusion of the T-72, I think the T-64 was better. I knew a Russian tank commander who said he far preferred the T-64 when he was with the Red Army. Also the British Challenger 2 and the M-24 Chafee, probably the best light tank ever built.
Once again, I feel compelled to insert my 2 cents worth in the hopes that there is someone, somewhere who actually agrees with me. First of all, I do not believe for one minute that the Sherman should be on the list. Yes, they were simple, yes they were so easy to produce that the Allies covered the battlefield with them like ants, and yes, they were reliable. But I don't think that numbers make a good tank. The Germans called the Sherman the Tommy Cooker, and the Russians refused to use them. You can say a lot about the Russians, but the lads do know their tanks.
The T-64 was basically the preliminary version of the T-72, and did not last long. There is a little niggling memory that is trying to get out of my head about the mobility of the T-64. Apparently the T-72 replaced the T-64 (very quickly, I might add) because of problems with mobility and protection. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, the T-64 does not deserve to be on the top thirty list.
The Centurion was a revolutionary tank design and as such, it deserves to be on the list. Challenger II is good, in fact great in many regards, but remember that it is actually the third in a line of tanks, the first two of which were, well, mediocre. As such, the jury is still (rightfully) out on whether or not it should be on the list.
I would have put the original British WW 1 tank on the list, as it immediately altered battlefield tactics for all time to come. In addition, it was copied by the Germans and was a major factor in all battles in which it fought. If the British had waited until they had more before putting them into action, they may well have shortened the war.

Dean.
January 4th, 2006  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I'm going to take a stab at updating my own Top Ten List, but just for kicks, I'm making it a top 12. Prior one missed a lot of great tanks and I was mostly doing it from off the top of my head. Here goes.


12.) Russian T-72
11.) Israeli Merkava
10.) German Leopard 2a6
9.) Challenger II
8.) M1 Abrams
7.) British Centurion MK III
6.) Russian IS-2
5.) British MK IV (WW1 tank)
4.) German Tiger I
3.) German Panther G
2.) German Panzer IV
1.) Russian T-34

Thje order might not be perfect, but those tanks all deserve to be recognized IMHO.