Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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!
"If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie." - Insaniak, Dakka Mod
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/02/25 00:32:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/25 01:03:34
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
Yeaaaah, let's forget that the Lee exists for a moment.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/25 01:54:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Hssssss. *sharpens knife* No. no such thing exists. Carry on.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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'?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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?
EDIT: On topic, what's wrong with the tank that shall not be named?
<<<not a history buff>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/25 05:18:13
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
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.
George Spiggott wrote:Widely noted where and by whom? Disregarding 'in this thread' and 'by sebster' obviously.
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?
George Spiggott wrote:They thought is was unique to urban combat? Superior top armour has no other use? Really?
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.
Please be sensible.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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
Elysian Drop Troops 1500pts
Renegades & Heretics 2056pts
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
