Rank the Tank! - Page 8




 
--
 
April 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Well obviously, more learned analysts and historians than either of us don't agree with you. The people from Janes, Aberdeen, Sandhurst and other groups all agreed that it was the design itself that allowed for such mass numbers along with the industrial might.
April 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?
The Brittish won the Zulu wars.
April 11th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
modern day
1. m1a2
2. merkava mk4
3. leopard 2

world war 2 era
1. panther
2. t34 series
3. panzer iv
--
April 11th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Well obviously, more learned analysts and historians than either of us don't agree with you. The people from Janes, Aberdeen, Sandhurst and other groups all agreed that it was the design itself that allowed for such mass numbers along with the industrial might.
I'm sure there was some political or artistic license taken there. It's the only reasons I can think of for such a bizarre top 10.

Forgive me Charge, but I'm unable to question those experts directly, or I would. As you've stated the list is virtually your picks it does mean that I can question you. I have some questions for you on your list.

1) What makes the M1 so much better than the Merkava and Challenger when all 3 are very close in capability?

2) Why was the Leopard 2 omitted when the above 3 tanks were included?

3) Why was the Panther omitted?

I'll leave the Sherman out of this debate for now because it seems our opinions are polarised there.
April 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
1.) Simple enough. Production again is the answer. The original Merkava was very slow in production and required a great deal of field maintenance as well. Although the Challenger didn't have as great a problem with maintenance, relatively few were ever made - just over 300 of them.

As for 2.) and 3.) I can't answer for the experts anymore than you can question them. For myself, I would've included the Leopard II but probably had it in a tie with the Challenger. As for not having the Panther, well you have to remember that the tanks were considered in the context of their time. The Mark IV was the tank of the blitzkrieg era and the finest the Germans had at the time. The Tiger, of course came later as did the Panther so of the two the Tiger was superior for their time in terms of capability, however the Panther had the edge in production. It would be a close call though between those two and I could accept either for their era.

Oh and in defense of the experts, I don't think they would risk their professional credibility on something so transient as politics.
April 11th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
1.) Simple enough. Production again is the answer. The original Merkava was very slow in production and required a great deal of field maintenance as well. Although the Challenger didn't have as great a problem with maintenance, relatively few were ever made - just over 300 of them.

As for 2.) and 3.) I can't answer for the experts anymore than you can question them. For myself, I would've included the Leopard II but probably had it in a tie with the Challenger. As for not having the Panther, well you have to remember that the tanks were considered in the context of their time. The Mark IV was the tank of the blitzkrieg era and the finest the Germans had at the time. The Tiger, of course came later as did the Panther so of the two the Tiger was superior for their time in terms of capability, however the Panther had the edge in production. It would be a close call though between those two and I could accept either for their era.

Oh and in defense of the experts, I don't think they would risk their professional credibility on something so transient as politics.
A reasonable reply Charge, thanks for that.

However, I'll state for the final time that 'production' as a measure of the superiority of a weapon or weapon type is absurd IMO. In no way does the Sherman belong in the Top 10 Tanks of all time - that is also absurd IMO. Finally, to leave out one of the finest tanks of all time, the Panther Ausf G, renders the list incomplete and really kills its credibility, experts notwithstanding

For the record I am not an expert but I am a very well informed amateur - had I chosen military history as a career then I would have been an 'expert' but I doubt very much my opinion on this matter would have changed.
April 12th, 2005  
beardo
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?
The Brittish won the Zulu wars.
not the battle of... ...forgotten its name...

the one from the film
April 12th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?
The Brittish won the Zulu wars.
not the battle of... ...forgotten its name...

the one from the film
Rourke's Drift.
April 12th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
The British didn't "win" the Battle of Rourke's Drift so much as the Zulus let them be. They still had thousands of warriors and would've eventually overwhelmed the Brits. Only their admiration for the bravery and skill at arms the British showed caused them to decide to leave and let them live. If you've seen the movie, you should know that.
April 12th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
The British didn't "win" the Battle of Rourke's Drift so much as the Zulus let them be. They still had thousands of warriors and would've eventually overwhelmed the Brits. Only their admiration for the bravery and skill at arms the British showed caused them to decide to leave and let them live. If you've seen the movie, you should know that.
In 90% of the cases movies arn't correct, theres always something thats untrue in them even if they are based on a real event. :P