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

Doppleganger said:
You are comparing tanks from different generations. The IS-2 was a Soviet WW2 tank. It was the IS-3, later designated the T-10, that became the main Soviet heavy tank immediately post-war. Even then, the T-10 was the better tank design.
Click to expand...


M103A1 Patton.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
M103A1 Patton.
Click to expand...
AFAIK it's the M47 'Patton', which was a medium tank that was quickly replaced by the M48. The M103 was a heavy tank to the medium M47/48s but the M48 adopted the main battle tank role which was just coming into favour. Of course the Centurion Mk III was regarded by many as the first great mbt.
 
While I prefer the IS-3 over the IS-2 design, it was the IS-2 that was the USSR's best heavy in WW2. It is questionable whether the IS-3 was ever used in WW2, but it certainly was created for the war. It may or may not have been present in Manchuria right at the end. The IS-2 shows up early enough on the Eastern Front to make a serious impact. For the largest clash of tanks in history (WW2 Eastern Front), your star players were:
German Panzer IV (medium)
German Panther (medium)
Tiger I (heavy)
T-34 (medium)
IS-2 (heavy)

The IS-3, Tiger II, Sherman Firefly, Pershing (etc.) are all examples of tanks that did not see enough action in WW2 to truly influence the outcome of that war. They were also part of the Post-WW2 generation of tanks, so comparing them to those deployed through most of WW2 is unfair.
 
I can get a clip up on everyone of those tanks in the list of the first post, the STRV 122 (Leopard) is done, the other once needs prepping.
 
Doppleganger said:
AFAIK it's the M47 'Patton', which was a medium tank that was quickly replaced by the M48. The M103 was a heavy tank to the medium M47/48s but the M48 adopted the main battle tank role which was just coming into favour. Of course the Centurion Mk III was regarded by many as the first great mbt.
Click to expand...

Actaully M46 - M60 are Patton's. The M103, is a variant of the M48.
 
zander_0633 said:
Hey , I ask you all, If I out a stone into the barrell of the tank, can it still fire?
Click to expand...

You really need to watch "Myth Busters". They plug a shotgun with alll types of items and then fire it. It's not a tank barrel, but its the same basic principle.

But yes I think if you wedged a stone into a tank barrel it could still fire.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
You really need to watch "Myth Busters". They plug a shotgun with alll types of items and then fire it. It's not a tank barrel, but its the same basic principle.

But yes I think if you wedged a stone into a tank barrel it could still fire.
Click to expand...
Might or might not, but I sure as heck wouldn't be willing to try it. :wink:
 
I doubt it would stop the tank round but it might bust the seals if its lodged thight enough and have a unearthly stone that fits perfectly and that doesnt let the gases escape, but i doubt it would happen as there are things in a tank that passes the gass out of the gun with high presure air. So It would probebly have a chance of 10 billion to work on a modern tank, That is if you find the perfect stone.

Nah don't even think it would be that big of a chance heh
 
Well, so nothing will happen if a person stuff a cloth into the barrell? Then I think the person needs to open the hatch on the tank and throw a grenade! I think that will do the job! Wad about if you throw a grenade into the barrel of the tank? will the tank then be useless?
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, so nothing will happen if a person stuff a cloth into the barrell? Then I think the person needs to open the hatch on the tank and throw a grenade! I think that will do the job! Wad about if you throw a grenade into the barrel of the tank? will the tank then be useless?
Click to expand...

You can't just open a hatch, there are locks on them. For the sake of argument lets say somehow a guy gets close enough to drop one it the barrel.

I doubt it would cook the round in the tube, I'm guessing the explosion would be channeled out of the barrel, or cause a rupture. Now once again for sake of arguing lets say the barrel ruptures, and the main gun is inoperable the tank still has a coax, and two AA roof guns.
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, so nothing will happen if a person stuff a cloth into the barrell? Then I think the person needs to open the hatch on the tank and throw a grenade! I think that will do the job! Wad about if you throw a grenade into the barrel of the tank? will the tank then be useless?
Click to expand...

This is assuming infantry a person can get that close to the tank without being blown up or shredded by the machine guns or supporting infantry.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
You can't just open a hatch, there are locks on them. For the sake of argument lets say somehow a guy gets close enough to drop one it the barrel.

I doubt it would cook the round in the tube, I'm guessing the explosion would be channeled out of the barrel, or cause a rupture. Now once again for sake of arguing lets say the barrel ruptures, and the main gun is inoperable the tank still has a coax, and two AA roof guns.
Click to expand...
Despite the unlikelihood of it 'blowing up in my face', I'd surely not risk firing off a round with something jammed down my main gun's barrel unless it was a very desperate circumstance. If anyone else wants to try it out, go for it, but I'm not willing to see what happens if I beat the odds and make the one-in-a-million shot and have it kill me. But this guy can do it.
:tank:
:stupid:
 
Thanks!~ Is it possible to get close to the tank in a Urban warfare and kill the driver of the tank with an RPG?
 
zander_0633 said:
Thanks!~ Is it possible to get close to the tank in a Urban warfare and kill the driver of the tank with an RPG?
Click to expand...

Sure, if his hatch is open or if you hit the hatch with an RPG-7v round.
 
If the tank has a coaxial machine gun and its in a hostile zone, the hatch will not be open. Therein lies one of the drawbacks to the M1a2, unless they've changed it recently and I never heard about it. You have to open the hatch to use the M60's.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
If the tank has a coaxial machine gun and its in a hostile zone, the hatch will not be open. Therein lies one of the drawbacks to the M1a2, unless they've changed it recently and I never heard about it. You have to open the hatch to use the M60's.
Click to expand...

Actuall you don't need to open the hatch on the M60, thats the M48 that the TC prefer to open the hatch on it.

But you are correct on the M1, the hatch is not open when in a combat zone, unless it's an A2 without CIWS.

m60-a3.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m60-a3.jpg
 
Why wasnt the challenger 2 included on the show? Its the best protected tank in NATO and possible the world!

Oh and the m1a2 thing , they probably didn't show it because its fairly new and hasn't been in much combat. Currently, almost all American tanks but a few prototypes are m1a1 abrahams and a few original m1 tanks.
 
prolific said:
Why wasnt the challenger 2 included on the show? Its the best protected tank in NATO and possible the world!

Oh and the m1a2 thing , they probably didn't show it because its fairly new and hasn't been in much combat. Currently, almost all American tanks but a few prototypes are m1a1 abrahams and a few original m1 tanks.
Click to expand...

Huh? No M1A1's are prototypes the IPM1 was a testbed and the U.S. Amry hasn't used a baseline M1 since 96' and that was for training. The M1A2 has been in the U.S. arsenal since 1996.

The U.S. has 7,000 M1A1's and about 300 M1A2's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top