Now we know: the top ten greatest ever tanks of all time - Page 6




 
--
 
December 28th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Okay, so based on that qualification, what did the Centurion see for Battlefield use. I ask because I just don't know, but I expect it saw its fair share of the Battlefield. I just don't know a lot of cases where it demonstrated its superiority.

Personally, to squeeze in all those tanks that I feel deserve a lot of mentioning, it would take a "Top 20" list. Please note, fixed the typo on the British MK IV. Regardless, I think my list is a helluva lot better than the Discovery Channel's extremely dubious list. I don't know why you'd leave out the Merkava since it's done more than just Urban and Desert in its time of service. Its a superb design and it really really has proven itself on the field of battle. I think its really pretty sad to have to leave out the Leopard 2a6 and the Merkava. Those are two first-class designs that deserve mentioning.

I still must object to the Sherman being given honors anywhere close to the top 10. It was better than some tanks, but it was very poorly protected and too easily killed for me to really like it.

Lets put it this way: You have 30 flavors or horse-crap sandwhich. I have 1 flavor of ham sandwhich. You make 10,000 horse-crap sandwhiches to every 1 ham sandwhich that I make. Is your horse-crap sandwhich better than my ham sandwhich??

This goes farther than I intend, but the Sherman was not a very good tank. Producing an insane number of them or reconfiguring it dozens of ways does not make it magically become a good tank.
I wonder if he heard a word I said. The tanks I listed have in some way effected or changed to armor world.

The Sherman, America's main tank from 1940-1946. Over one million produced, as I like to call it "It's the little s**t that helped save the war."

I did not include the Merkava because it has in noway really effected the world of armor.

You may not see the Sherman as a beefed-up, uber mocho tank, but that is because it isn't it's a medium tank. It did it's job and did it well.
American had a good design and stuck with it, the M26 Pershing was more of a medium/heavy tank.

I did include the Leopard 2 as in all variants/models, not just the 2A6 variant.
December 28th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
The T-64 should be on this list. Not the T-72.


Im also not sure the M60 should be on this lift. It wasn't that great.
December 28th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
What? No M60, it had the best thermal sight the U.S. Army ever had, custom fit. She had an awseome Red Ruby laser rangefinder, and had the ability to be uparmored with composites and uparmed to 120mm in the M60A4 program. Besides, it was our armor main stay from 61'-93'.

Also she gave emple reason in Israel on why the U.S. Army was stupid to drop her.

Now the T-72 is horrible. Thats why I put the T-64.
--
December 28th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Okay, so based on that qualification, what did the Centurion see for Battlefield use. I ask because I just don't know, but I expect it saw its fair share of the Battlefield. I just don't know a lot of cases where it demonstrated its superiority.

Personally, to squeeze in all those tanks that I feel deserve a lot of mentioning, it would take a "Top 20" list. Please note, fixed the typo on the British MK IV. Regardless, I think my list is a helluva lot better than the Discovery Channel's extremely dubious list. I don't know why you'd leave out the Merkava since it's done more than just Urban and Desert in its time of service. Its a superb design and it really really has proven itself on the field of battle. I think its really pretty sad to have to leave out the Leopard 2a6 and the Merkava. Those are two first-class designs that deserve mentioning.

I still must object to the Sherman being given honors anywhere close to the top 10. It was better than some tanks, but it was very poorly protected and too easily killed for me to really like it.
The Centurion saw service in Korea, where by all accounts it was the best tank, outperforming contemporary tanks from both the US and the Soviet Union. The Centurion was adopted by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and upgunned and uparmoured, demonstrating what a versatile design it was. In many ways it was the next generation Panzer IV.

I did explain in the preceeding paragraph why I left out excellent designs that would certainly be in my top 10. Both the Merkava and Leopard 2A6 I mentioned by name, the latter of which I think is the best tank ever made. But it hasn't seen large scale engagements. I'd be willing to compromise with the Merkava though and it would probably figure at #8 in my list with the T-72 dropping out.

@CadetSeaman

You know better than to put such a mediocre design as the Sherman at #2 - don't you? This is a tank that literally exploded when hit, and had to be sacrificed in large numbers to knock out a Panther or Tiger. You listed the huge amounts that it was made in as a reason for inclusion. Well, the East German car industry turned out millions of Trabants but does that make them good cars? For those of you who don't know what a Trabant is go and google it and you'll see what I mean.

The M60 also never saw large scale combat, but even if it had it would not be on my list. IMO the Leopard 1 was a superior tank and the best tank of its generation.
December 28th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
Ok, why is it that a tank that can be made cheaply, easily and in huge numbers should not get on the list? Why is it that a tank that quite frankly won the war for us should no get on the list? Being able to produce it in large numbers is another desirable trait in a tank and it worked well, just because something is so amazingly advanced doesn't mean it will be that effective if it can not be used in large enough numbers.
December 28th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Ok, why is it that a tank that can be made cheaply, easily and in huge numbers should not get on the list? Why is it that a tank that quite frankly won the war for us should no get on the list? Being able to produce it in large numbers is another desirable trait in a tank and it worked well, just because something is so amazingly advanced doesn't mean it will be that effective if it can not be used in large enough numbers.
The ability of the US war economy to produce the Sherman in large numbers did not make it a good tank. The US war economy could have made ANY tank in sufficient numbers. Just because you can make a lot of something it does not follow that what you make is necessarily good. The Trabant was a 2-stroke car made from cardboard that was so poorly designed it was in effect a mobile bomb yet it was produced by the millions. Does that make it a good car? How, in any reasonable way, can it be justified that a tank that used to light up so often after being hit that its own troops called it 'Ronson' (lights up every time) be one of the top 10 tanks of all time?

The Sherman did not win the war for anyone. What won the war for us was overwhelming Allied air power, overwhelming Allied logistics/industrial output and the Red Army.
December 28th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
no, the Sherman's ability to be produced ir such massive numbers was crucial to the war effort, Germany had two of the world's best tank at the time let they have such limited number that their effectiveness were minimal.

Did't the Red Army use quite a few Sherman's because of their ability to cross long distances in very little time.
December 28th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
What? No M60, it had the best thermal sight the U.S. Army ever had, custom fit. She had an awseome Red Ruby laser rangefinder, and had the ability to be uparmored with composites and uparmed to 120mm in the M60A4 program. Besides, it was our armor main stay from 61'-93'.

Also she gave emple reason in Israel on why the U.S. Army was stupid to drop her.

Now the T-72 is horrible. Thats why I put the T-64.
Are you kidding me? One of the best things the US Army did was drop the M60. Talk to any tanker that has served on both the M60 and M1, they don't even begin to compare.
December 28th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
On this point you are correct: The Sherman did help with the war effort. It did make a substantial impact upon WW2. So did the Liberty Ship for that matter. In both cases, I'd be scared to death to actually sail/drive either one in WW2.

I suppose that we need to answer one very big question here: Does sheer numbers count? If it does, then we need to completely rethink everything here.

BTW, I'm not 100% that the M-60 belongs on my list, but I still think I did better than the Discovery Channel, etc.
December 28th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
no, the Sherman's ability to be produced ir such massive numbers was crucial to the war effort, Germany had two of the world's best tank at the time let they have such limited number that their effectiveness were minimal.

Did't the Red Army use quite a few Sherman's because of their ability to cross long distances in very little time.
It wasn't an 'ability' of the Sherman to be produced in such massive numbers. What you really should be saying is that it was an 'ability' of Allied industrial capability that so many Shermans could be built. Can't you see the difference?

If I have 1000 elephants and my neighbour has 10, my elephants can produce a heck of a lot more dung than my neighbour's elephants can. But it's still dung, no matter how much of it I have. A turd is still a turd at the end of the day.

Perhaps if the Sherman had been a better design, it wouldn't have needed to be made in such massive numbers. I mean, if I have to assume that my tank needs to outnumber my enemy's tanks by at least 5:1 to be successful it hardly speaks volumes about the design of my tank does it?

The T34 was also produced in its thousands but the difference is that the T34 was a great design that influenced every tank from the Panther to the M1A2. The Sherman was a dead-end design that led nowhere. I suppose the bottom line would be, given the choice, whether you would choose the Sherman over any of its rivals

No, you wouldn't. Nor would I.