It all depends on what criteria you give it. In terms of a one on one duel across open plains, no tank comes close to the Abrams.
But tanks don't just operate to destroy other tanks in open fields, and they aren't just designed with that purpose in mind. Consider the Israeli Merkava, which is built with an understanding that much of it's operations will be patrolling cities, as a result is has nothing like the top speed of other tanks, but instead has much greater armour protection on the top and excellent crew protection. It was first designed in the 60s and is more than showing its age by now, but I think when the US was trying drive Abrams around Baghdad they might have been better served with Merkavas.
So really, best depends on what you want the tank to do.
The Merkarva doesn't have better armour protection than the Abrams, the crew (not the tank itself) are more likely to survive a penetrating hit than an Abrams but the armour itself is weaker.
The Merkarva is a 'generation' older than the Abrams though.
Nobody builds 'tanks' to patrol cities. If you want to patrol cities you build something else.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?
Define "best tank".
No.
Define "best".
Define "tank".
THEN define "best tank".
Or, do what we were doing -before- Captain thread-crash showed up
I don't know what the best tank is, but that certainly sounds like the best plan!
George Spiggott wrote:The Merkarva doesn't have better armour protection than the Abrams, the crew (not the tank itself) are more likely to survive a penetrating hit than an Abrams but the armour itself is weaker.
The Merkarva is a 'generation' older than the Abrams though.
Nobody builds 'tanks' to patrol cities. If you want to patrol cities you build something else.
Please read more closely. I didn't say the Merkava had the best armour, I said it had greater armour protection on the top and excellent crew protection.
And yes, no-one designs a tank to patrol through cities but any army that thinks equipment will only be used to perform the job it is first and foremost designed is a stupid army. It is a reality that tanks will be tasked with patrolling cities, and it is a reality that there simply isn't the resources available to task some other specialised unit with performing that job and that job alone. So in the case of the Merkava some specialisation was surrendered in exchange for the ability to better perform roles into which it will inevitably be sent.
And yes, the Merkava is a generation older than the Abrams, I said as much when I pointed out that it was showing it's age, yet despite that it would likely perform better in an urban environment, a role Abrams were being sent into in Iraq despite the fact that 'no-one builds tanks to patrol cities'.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is no clear criterion to call any of the modern tanks "the best".
That's what I said, but apparently who dares suggest this is the case is being overly serious. Because, you know, you can't have a serious conversation about large vehicles of destruction on a 40k forum.
Ok.. armor, gun, and speed are all nice but what about:
Adaptability? Dependability? Fuel consumption? Tactical Flexability? Ease of repair?
Most modern tanks are fuel heavy, require modifications for different arenas (sometimes Heavy mods), cannot be repaired "in the field", and most are about 30 feet long, 12 feet wide and 50+ tons, making them unsuited for cities or crossing some bridges.
There is, however a tank that was designed to be adaptable, flexable, easy to fix "in the field", and dependable regardless of the arena......
The M4 Sherman.
Sure, it didn't have the biggest gun, nor was it the fastest..... but it was the most widely deployed tank of WWII. Shermans saw service from 1940 through 1970... Thats 3+ wars..... Lets see your Abrams last 30+ years of constant use.
Uh, it already has? The Abrams was put into use in 1980. It's now 2011. Although arguably its first combat run was in 1991 (previously it was only involved in trial exercises during the cold war), if you mean actual use rather than service. But that means it only has a decade to go... and I don't see it being replaced that soon.
sebster wrote:...I said it had greater armour protection on the top and excellent crew protection.
And yes, no-one designs a tank to patrol through cities but any army that thinks equipment will only be used to perform the job it is first and foremost designed is a stupid army. It is a reality that tanks will be tasked with patrolling cities, and it is a reality that there simply isn't the resources available to task some other specialised unit with performing that job and that job alone. So in the case of the Merkava some specialisation was surrendered in exchange for the ability to better perform roles into which it will inevitably be sent.
The specifics of top armour are irrelevant and unprovable since the armour of the Abrams and Merkava are top secret. More Merkarvas have been penetrated (not just disabled) in urban combat than Abrams. There are a lot of factors involved there but the Merkava 'performing better' cannot be supported. Both tanks have been modified to urban combat though neither were designed for that purpose.
sebster wrote:And yes, the Merkava is a generation older than the Abrams, I said as much when I pointed out that it was showing it's age, yet despite that it would likely perform better in an urban environment, a role Abrams were being sent into in Iraq despite the fact that 'no-one builds tanks to patrol cities'.
On further checking I discovered there are is less than a decade between design inception and less than two years between service entry. They're not actually a generation apart.
I would say not the Abrams. As effective a platform it is in terms of straight up firepower and defensive ability, there are a lot of aspects to its design that make it undesirable (too heavy, costs much more than many foreign tanks, etc.)
Yeah seb has it about right, not bad for a civvie.
Being a soldier in one of the worlds most professional regiments, we spent many many an hour learning AFV recognition, I had a mate who was so good at it he could tell pretty much anything by the sound its engine made. He was a spotter who would sit in his room watching AFV videos made by the Intel guys, and he could tell a T55 from a T60 at about a kilometer. I didn't have half as much interest, but what I can say is that all modern tanks can do the job, and are slightly different.
As seb said, it depends on the job. I think the M1 is the moat heavily armoured, but thats not the only thing to worry about!
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?
Define "best tank".
No.
Define "best".
Define "tank".
THEN define "best tank".
uhh, Tank: "tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"
Best: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing".
do you have some other definitions that are causing confusion?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?
Define "best tank".
No.
Define "best".
Define "tank".
THEN define "best tank".
uhh, Tank: "tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"
Best: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing".
do you have some other definitions that are causing confusion?
What defines quality? Is it the most expensive tank with all the proper features and highest technology... or the most generally useful tank even to countries with lower incomes? Because an Abrams isn't the best tank for a developing country which can't actually afford to maintain, repair, and rearm it.
But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.
Melissia wrote:But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.
Exactly. Or weight considerations or ability to move through heavy terrain.
Melissia wrote:But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.
Yes, that's a valid point. Some historians think that if Germany had focused on making more earlier marks of panzers than less of the shinier, new ones that were harder to complete they would have done better in the war but I guess I do mean best individually. Best overall.
helgrenze wrote:Ok.. armor, gun, and speed are all nice but what about:
Adaptability? Dependability? Fuel consumption? Tactical Flexability? Ease of repair?
Most modern tanks are fuel heavy, require modifications for different arenas (sometimes Heavy mods), cannot be repaired "in the field", and most are about 30 feet long, 12 feet wide and 50+ tons, making them unsuited for cities or crossing some bridges.
There is, however a tank that was designed to be adaptable, flexable, easy to fix "in the field", and dependable regardless of the arena......
The M4 Sherman.
Sure, it didn't have the biggest gun, nor was it the fastest..... but it was the most widely deployed tank of WWII. Shermans saw service from 1940 through 1970... Thats 3+ wars..... Lets see your Abrams last 30+ years of constant use.
The Sherman was a total pos that was rushed into production much like escort carriers and liberty ships. It's only real advantages were that they were cheap, easy to manufacture, and after the Germans would blow them to hell it wasn't too hard to scrape the remains of the crew out of the tank and put it back into service. Sherman tanks were cheap and very expendable, and on a strategic level none of the German WW2 tanks had those assets.
Post war Sherman tanks were nowhere near as bad as WW2 Sherman tank, but that's a low bar to jump.
You do have to note that sometimes those advantages are enough to make it better than a similar tanks that was tougher, faster and better armed, but slower and more heavy maintenance. I would however speculate that the best WW2 would have been either ther T-34/85, or the Panther. Let's not forget that the T-34 descendants like the T-55 were and remain some of the most widely produced tanks in the world.
Also note, the Gulf War is not a valid comparison of Soviet/Russian made tanks versus American tanks. The SOviets had a tendency to strip the export versions of their vehicles down to the bare necessities, and the Iraqi made their own (extremely crappy) tank shells. A real Soviet or Russian tank of the same model would be a much bigger threat than the export versions we see around the world.
As for the Merkava, we must note that the Merkava has been in combat situations alot longer than the Abrams, thanks to being a part of the Israeli arsenal.
The image is ginormous. It's bigger than my monitor. Isn't ther some sort of cap on image sizes? Anyways, question was what's the best tank in the world right now? Pretty sure its not the Sherman. (wasn't even close to being the best in its day).
Russian built tanks like the T-90 have a very different design in mind then Western built tanks. They tend to be less heavily armored, and a bit smaller. They are offensive tanks, pure and simple, built to be on the attack. They don't really care too much about surivablity, and usually have smaller crews than Western tanks. (Russian tanks use an autoloader, which reduces the rate of fire, but lets them build the tanks even smaller). On a one on one basis, in an open field, a T-90 could probably take on a Western tank and have an equal probability of winning.
However, the question comes down to the crew. A Western crew is going to be better trained, and more comfortable in their vehicles, (the Russians just can't afford live in vehicle training, and rely on simulators). However, Western tankers--especially American ones--have gotten a mild sense of arrogance and complacity after running the Iraqis over without a problem two times in a row. Against a decently trained and equipped army in similar equipment, they'd likely take casualties before they fell back on their training.
Now, I'm not sure about the modern ones, but older Soviet tanks had a problem with when they were destroyed, they tended to Jack in the box (the turret flies off). Modern Western tanks are designed to be very survivable...they can be rendered completely combat ineffective, but the crew will survive, and the tank can likely be repaired.
Leopard 2 A 6. A Leo 2 would be just the basic first version of it.
HEHEHEH we have few of these.... hired believe me, i was 4 years in the army (with a bit of luck, i can return^^) and never i liked those tracked cans... you choose, die with a clear shoot, or become instactly incinerated by a HEAT round... or even worse. And a single rifleman as i was, can handle something to knock out a beast like that ones....
anyway, my vote goes for the Leopard... the only problem i see is the fact that it haven't seen as many action that the Abrams or the Merkava
Frazzled wrote:
Although Dogs Rule Cats Drool, I like what you've done here.
Proof that Frazzled is training an army of Canine Shock Troopers to help him conquer the State of Texas and some of the more Americanized areas of Mexico:
Gander was a Newfoundland dog posthumously awarded the Dickin Medal, the "animals' VC", in 2000 for his deeds in World War II,[1] the first such award in over 50 years.[2]
Gander, initially a family pet named Pal, accidentally scratched a child's face with his paw. Worried that he would be forced to have Pal put down, the original owner gave the large dog to the Royal Rifles, a regiment of the Canadian Army stationed at Gander International Airport, Newfoundland and Labrador. The soldiers quickly renamed him Gander and "promoted" him to sergeant. When the unit was shipped to Hong Kong in the fall of 1941, Gander went along.
The Battle of Hong Kong began on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Gander helped fight the Japanese invaders on three occasions. The last time, Gander picked up a thrown Japanese hand grenade and rushed with it toward the enemy, dying in the ensuing explosion, but saving the lives of several wounded Canadian soldiers.[3]
After efforts by the Canadian War Museum, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals awarded Gander the Dickin Medal on October 27, 2000, the first such award since 1949. The citation reads:
For saving the lives of Canadian infantrymen during the Battle of Lye Mun on Hong Kong Island in December 1941. On three documented occasions, Gander, the Newfoundland mascot of the Royal Rifles of Canada, engaged the enemy as his regiment joined the Winnipeg Grenadiers, members of Battalion Headquarters "C" Force and other Commonwealth troops in their courageous defence of the island. Twice Gander's attacks halted the enemy's advance and protected groups of wounded soldiers. In a final act of bravery, the war dog was killed in action gathering a grenade. Without Gander's intervention, many more lives would have been lost in the assault.[1]
At the insistence of survivors of the battle, his name was listed with those of 1975 men and two women on the Hong Kong Veterans Memorial Wall in Ottawa, Canada.[3]
Automatically Appended Next Post: Canadian War Hero and Victoria Cross recipient. All cats do is crap in your house.
As an expierenced "tread-head" or "tank-Jockey" if you will, I have to put my vote in for the M1A2 Abrams....
Yes, thats right.... A2.
Why? The "top secret" armor saved my ass in the sandbox. We had an Iraqui sabot round sticking out of our turret like a spear. It stopped after about an 2 inches of penetration (after hitting the second angled interior plate). Another tank in out division got hit by a H.E.A.T. round, and the ensuing "fire" just rolled out the "venting ports" at the bottom of the tank. (looked like it had explosive gas)
Now; I say the A2 due to the new targeting/fire control suite. The gunner selects what round he wants, locks the target, moves on to the next target, locks it (tank shoots at first target, begins traverse to second) & so on.
Kinda like fire and forget.
Saw this on the range in '03 and was effin amazed!
I would say for the best tank in World War 2 would be the Panther Tank.
Alot of german tank drivers prefered the panther to the Tiger Tank due to its speed and its engine being more reliable.
Mind you the german got the chassie design from the Soviet T34 tank so It could be a hard call on which 1 is better.
Because the T34 was cheap to and quick to make, had a deciant gun, well armoured and used desiel which was useful in the eastern front due to it have a higher freezing temperature.
In a 1v1 fight the Panther would win most of the time but the T34 was still a deadly tank.
The american M4 Sherman on the otherhand is one of the worst tanks to be used in world war 2 it was cheap and quick to build but out classed by superior german tank
As for the modern tanks it would be hard to assume which 1 is better.
Not many battles are known to have had tanks fighting each other.
The Abrams tank could proberly be the most widely used tank at the moment
Not many modern tanks are used to fight other tanks these days.
George Spiggott wrote:The specifics of top armour are irrelevant and unprovable since the armour of the Abrams and Merkava are top secret. More Merkarvas have been penetrated (not just disabled) in urban combat than Abrams. There are a lot of factors involved there but the Merkava 'performing better' cannot be supported. Both tanks have been modified to urban combat though neither were designed for that purpose.
Sure, the exact specifics are classified, but increased upper armour was an unusual stated design goal of the Merkava, and I've never seen anyone suggest it was replicated on any other tank.
And yes, more Merkava have been penetrated. The Israelis have been driving the things around cities since the 70s, while Abrams have been deployed into urban environments in the second Iraq conflict.
On further checking I discovered there are is less than a decade between design inception and less than two years between service entry. They're not actually a generation apart.
Except the Abrams is currently among the most advanced tanks in the world. While the Merkava was designed with last generation tech for the most part, and has already been slated for phase out once.
Yak9UT wrote:Because the T34 was cheap to and quick to make, had a deciant gun, well armoured and used desiel which was useful in the eastern front due to it have a higher freezing temperature.
In a 1v1 fight the Panther would win most of the time but the T34 was still a deadly tank.
The Panther was built as a T-34 killer and it was fantastic in that role, it's just that that role didn't decide the war. Heavy tanks dedicated to taking out other tanks were nice, but the real meat and potatoes of winning a war with a tank involves light and medium tanks exploiting a breakthrough in the enemy positions, quickly moving into his rear areas and messing gak up, or threatening to encircle the forward enemy positions.
The Panther was a much heavier tank and as a result it's relatively fewer numbers and much reduced operational range (200 to 250 kms compared to the T-34s 400+kms) meant it was poorly suited to doing that. Look at the encirclement campaign in Operation Uranus, and tell me that could have been performed by Panther and Tiger tanks.
It isn't as glamorous as the idea of the best tank taking out masses of enemy tanks, but it's operational mobility that wins wars.
The american M4 Sherman on the otherhand is one of the worst tanks to be used in world war 2 it was cheap and quick to build but out classed by superior german tank
Thing is, massed numbers decided the war. I'd much rather have a dozen Shermans than a Panther. Mind you I'd rather have a dozen T-34s than either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah seb has it about right, not bad for a civvie.
Yak9UT wrote:Because the T34 was cheap to and quick to make, had a deciant gun, well armoured and used desiel which was useful in the eastern front due to it have a higher freezing temperature.
In a 1v1 fight the Panther would win most of the time but the T34 was still a deadly tank.
The Panther was built as a T-34 killer and it was fantastic in that role, it's just that that role didn't decide the war. Heavy tanks dedicated to taking out other tanks were nice, but the real meat and potatoes of winning a war with a tank involves light and medium tanks exploiting a breakthrough in the enemy positions, quickly moving into his rear areas and messing gak up, or threatening to encircle the forward enemy positions.
The Panther was a much heavier tank and as a result it's relatively fewer numbers and much reduced operational range (200 to 250 kms compared to the T-34s 400+kms) meant it was poorly suited to doing that. Look at the encirclement campaign in Operation Uranus, and tell me that could have been performed by Panther and Tiger tanks.
It isn't as glamorous as the idea of the best tank taking out masses of enemy tanks, but it's operational mobility that wins wars.
The american M4 Sherman on the otherhand is one of the worst tanks to be used in world war 2 it was cheap and quick to build but out classed by superior german tank
Thing is, massed numbers decided the war. I'd much rather have a dozen Shermans than a Panther. Mind you I'd rather have a dozen T-34s than either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah seb has it about right, not bad for a civvie.
Cheers mate.
Yes thats apsolutely true.
I mearly compared as a 1v1 but your right massed production is what its true strength is as go with the sherman.
But you say dozen shermans on to a panther aie?
hmm thats a hard call thier have been battles were its been 1 panther onto a few shermans mind you the shermans being in numbers could easily flank the panther but I would say it
could be a close match up.
As for a dozen T34s. A easy match for the soviets.
sebster wrote:Sure, the exact specifics are classified, but increased upper armour was an unusual stated design goal of the Merkava, and I've never seen anyone suggest it was replicated on any other tank.
And yes, more Merkava have been penetrated. The Israelis have been driving the things around cities since the 70s, while Abrams have been deployed into urban environments in the second Iraq conflict.
So no specifics to back up your claim of the Merkarva's top armour being superior to the Abrams then? I think I suggested there could be a range of reasons why the figure for Merkavas is higher but you can use the figures for Merkava IVs if you want to narrow the field (2004 to present). Evidence for the Abrams superiority exists, evidence for the Merkava does not, barring the specifics of the engine/hatch placement which is specific to penetrating frontal attacks and crew survival.
Except the Abrams is currently among the most advanced tanks in the world. While the Merkava was designed with last generation tech for the most part, and has already been slated for phase out once.
That's great, and worthless. That it was one of the earliest of this generation does not make it part of the last generation. Unless you want to add the T-90 to the last generation, it's already obsolete in India. The T-34 and the M3 Grant/Lee are of the same generation, in some cases some tanks are just better than others.
I see your Gander, and raise you Unsinkable Sam. Never before has a cat wreaked so much havoc.
As for the best tank of WW2 debate, one should also note that the very design of the later named German tanks is very reflective of Germany's war footing at the time. The Tiger, Konigtiger, and maybe even the Panther were not blitzkrieg tanks. They were defensive tanks, that weren't mean to be exploiting gaps in the enemys line. They were mean to hold the Germans own line, and if necessary, attack to plug up holes in their own lines.
Of course, let us not forget that the good ol' Panzer IV was the true backbone of the Heer's armored groups throughout the mid to late war.
I wouldn't be championing the Abrams armor. I seem to recall that early in the Iraq war, the Iraqi's were exploiting a weakness in the rear armor that made it exceptionally easy to knock out its drive gear. The crews were safe, true enough, but an immobile tank isn't a very useful one.
And the exceptionalism of the tank comes at a price. On a per unit cost the Abrams (A2) is only about 1 million dollars more than the Merkava... but they built over 9000 copies of the Abrams, compared to only about 2000 for the Merkava. Given the way the Pentagon/DoD and the American defense industry works, this makes the cost of the Abrams MUCH higher than it implies. Typically (in the US at least) the per unit cost also factors in the cost of R&D and other associated costs. The F-22 for example, costs 150million as of the end of its production run. 70 more units would bring the unit price to below 100 million dollars. So, if the cost of an A2 is sitting at about 6 million per, despite 9000 of them being made, and a merkava sits at 5 million per, with only 2000 made, I think that says a lot. AND, this doesn't even factor in the additional costs of things like TUSK and all the other post-production add-ons that have since been applied to it in an effort to cover up the various deficiencies in the design.
George Spiggott wrote:So no specifics to back up your claim of the Merkarva's top armour being superior to the Abrams then? I think I suggested there could be a range of reasons why the figure for Merkavas is higher but you can use the figures for Merkava IVs if you want to narrow the field (2004 to present). Evidence for the Abrams superiority exists, evidence for the Merkava does not, barring the specifics of the engine/hatch placement which is specific to penetrating frontal attacks and crew survival.
The increased emphasis on strengthening upper armour was a stated design goal of the Merkava III redesign. You can accept this, or pretend it didn't happen. I don't care which, the fact that the Merkava is designed with urban engagements and has protection to match, while the Abrams was designed to engage Russian tanks on the steppes of Eastern Europe.
This isn't a contentious point. It doesn't make one tank better than the other. It just means they had different design goals. Why are you arguing this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yak9UT wrote:Yes thats apsolutely true.
I mearly compared as a 1v1 but your right massed production is what its true strength is as go with the sherman.
But you say dozen shermans on to a panther aie?
hmm thats a hard call thier have been battles were its been 1 panther onto a few shermans mind you the shermans being in numbers could easily flank the panther but I would say it
could be a close match up.
As for a dozen T34s. A easy match for the soviets.
Ah, but the trick is that the Shermans wouldn't be taking on the Panther one on one. They'd be moving past the Panther, and threatening it's lines of supply. Well, they'd try, their operational range wasn't any better than the Panther, one reason they weren't anywhere near as good a tank as the T-34.
sebster wrote:The increased emphasis on strengthening upper armour was a stated design goal of the Merkava III redesign. You can accept this, or pretend it didn't happen. I don't care which, the fact that the Merkava is designed with urban engagements and has protection to match, while the Abrams was designed to engage Russian tanks on the steppes of Eastern Europe.
This isn't a contentious point. It doesn't make one tank better than the other. It just means they had different design goals. Why are you arguing this?.
Because better top armour than the Merkava MkII doesn't equal better top armour then the Abrams (and you know that). Superior top armour is not a unique requirement of urban combat.
George Spiggott wrote:Because better top armour than the Merkava MkII doesn't equal better top armour then the Abrams (and you know that).
Except the light top armour of the Abrams is widely noted. Especially over the engine ports (those very powerful engines generate a lot of heat).
Superior top armour is not a unique requirement of urban combat.
The Israelis thought it was.
What is your objective here, are you trying to make the claim that the Abrams is absolutely the best tank for all possible situations? Are you just butthurt from misreading my original post on the Merkava, and all this is just to avoid saying 'sorry, I see you didn't claim the Merkava was better armoured other than on the top'?
sebster wrote:Except the light top armour of the Abrams is widely noted. Especially over the engine ports (those very powerful engines generate a lot of heat).
Widely noted where and by whom? Disregarding 'in this thread' and 'by sebster' obviously.
George Spiggott wrote:Superior top armour is not a unique requirement of urban combat.
sebster wrote:The Israelis thought it was.
They thought is was unique to urban combat? Superior top armour has no other use? Really?
The challenger 2. Relatively cheap, well armed and armoured and very maneoverable.
The thing about the abrams, is that you have to have a huge supply train to actually repair/refuel/rearm the tanks, and the cost of doing so is huge. I think it was 10 thousand worth of fuel a week or so.
Spiggot if a tank was near a tall building any potential anti tank weapon could hit its top armour and if its no suffcient thickness/strong could be penetrated
As I've said before, the Centurion is the best tank ever built. To quote an old post...
It was the first of the vehicles that we would describe as a modern battle tank, unlike the more specised and irregularly shaped vehicles of WW2 and had less of the drawbacks. It was well armoured and relatively fast. It moved with the ages, upgrading form a 17 pounder to a 20 pounder to a 105mm main gun and has been adapted to many specialist uses. It's fought in more wars than any other western tank including the Korean War, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Vietnam war and Gulf war. It has been in armed forces all around the world and has been in service longer than almost anything else. Introduced in 1945 it was still being used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and that's just the UK. The IDF used them in Lebanon in 2006.
As for the modern tanks today, well the victor would largely be determined by the specific scenario and environment of their meeting. I think the Leopard is probably the best overall though I would like to say Challenger 2.
Howard A Treesong wrote:As I've said before, the Centurion is the best tank ever built. To quote an old post...
It was the first of the vehicles that we would describe as a modern battle tank, unlike the more specised and irregularly shaped vehicles of WW2 and had less of the drawbacks. It was well armoured and relatively fast. It moved with the ages, upgrading form a 17 pounder to a 20 pounder to a 105mm main gun and has been adapted to many specialist uses. It's fought in more wars than any other western tank including the Korean War, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Vietnam war and Gulf war. It has been in armed forces all around the world and has been in service longer than almost anything else. Introduced in 1945 it was still being used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and that's just the UK. The IDF used them in Lebanon in 2006.
As for the modern tanks today, well the victor would largely be determined by the specific scenario and environment of their meeting. I think the Leopard is probably the best overall though I would like to say Challenger 2.
Im assuming you have never spoken to someone who has worked in/on, then a challie I&II
sebster wrote:Are you honest to God claiming that the Merkava isn't widely recognised as having greater top armour than other tanks?
I just... I mean... does every fething thing on the internet no matter how widely acknowledged it is have to get debated?
No, just the things you can't find sources for, if it was widely recognised you'd have pulled up some evidence by now. Your word alone is not good enough.
sebster wrote:Oh, I see. Yes, very clever. You said unique. Well then yes, superior top armour isn't only valuable in urban combat.
But that's why the Israelis installed it. This is, again, a thing that sensible people really shouldn't be arguing about.
I see your Gander, and raise you Unsinkable Sam. Never before has a cat wreaked so much havoc.
As for the best tank of WW2 debate, one should also note that the very design of the later named German tanks is very reflective of Germany's war footing at the time. The Tiger, Konigtiger, and maybe even the Panther were not blitzkrieg tanks. They were defensive tanks, that weren't mean to be exploiting gaps in the enemys line. They were mean to hold the Germans own line, and if necessary, attack to plug up holes in their own lines.
Of course, let us not forget that the good ol' Panzer IV was the true backbone of the Heer's armored groups throughout the mid to late war.
Gander is actually saving lives in combat. Sam appears to be blowing up warships...on both sides no less!
Howard A Treesong wrote:As I've said before, the Centurion is the best tank ever built. To quote an old post...
It was the first of the vehicles that we would describe as a modern battle tank, unlike the more specised and irregularly shaped vehicles of WW2 and had less of the drawbacks. It was well armoured and relatively fast. It moved with the ages, upgrading form a 17 pounder to a 20 pounder to a 105mm main gun and has been adapted to many specialist uses. It's fought in more wars than any other western tank including the Korean War, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Vietnam war and Gulf war. It has been in armed forces all around the world and has been in service longer than almost anything else. Introduced in 1945 it was still being used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and that's just the UK. The IDF used them in Lebanon in 2006.
As for the modern tanks today, well the victor would largely be determined by the specific scenario and environment of their meeting. I think the Leopard is probably the best overall though I would like to say Challenger 2.
Im assuming you have never spoken to someone who has worked in/on, then a challie I&II
Gander is actually saving lives in combat. Sam appears to be blowing up warships...on both sides no less!
Exactly! Gander may be awesome, but is he so awesome the Royal Navy was forced to send him to Gibraltar and appease him with mice just to keep him from sinking every ship we was assigned to?
Howard A Treesong wrote:As I've said before, the Centurion is the best tank ever built. To quote an old post...
It was the first of the vehicles that we would describe as a modern battle tank, unlike the more specised and irregularly shaped vehicles of WW2 and had less of the drawbacks. It was well armoured and relatively fast. It moved with the ages, upgrading form a 17 pounder to a 20 pounder to a 105mm main gun and has been adapted to many specialist uses. It's fought in more wars than any other western tank including the Korean War, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Vietnam war and Gulf war. It has been in armed forces all around the world and has been in service longer than almost anything else. Introduced in 1945 it was still being used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and that's just the UK. The IDF used them in Lebanon in 2006.
As for the modern tanks today, well the victor would largely be determined by the specific scenario and environment of their meeting. I think the Leopard is probably the best overall though I would like to say Challenger 2.
Im assuming you have never spoken to someone who has worked in/on, then a challie I&II
Can you clarify what you mean please?
I work with/for several people who are ex/current RAC (and/or REME) etc, and this discussion came up the other day. They (almost to a man) said that whilst centurion was good, it cant really be compared to challie 1 or 2. It wasnt built for same era or requirements, etc (it would be like comparing a Mk1 432 with a bulldog).
It did have a fantastic amount of varients, some of which are sadly lacking today.
Also the IDF used them as AFVs not tanks-and they are so modified its untrue.
Having only ever been in challies, I cant verify it, but its a fairly informed opinion,
Gander is actually saving lives in combat. Sam appears to be blowing up warships...on both sides no less!
Exactly! Gander may be awesome, but is he so awesome the Royal Navy was forced to send him to Gibraltar and appease him with mice just to keep him from sinking every ship we was assigned to?
Exactly indeed! Dogs serve humans but humans serve cats!
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."
-Winston Churchill
believe me, i was 4 years in the army (with a bit of luck, i can return^^) and never i liked those tracked cans... you choose, die with a clear shoot, or become instactly incinerated by a HEAT round... or even worse. And a single rifleman as i was, can handle something to knock out a beast like that ones....
