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.

 jhe90 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.

I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.

Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Heaviest APC built to date probbly.

Have a friend who used to putter around in the predecessor, the Achzarit. Known to all who rode in her as "the bitch".

 chromedog wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.

I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.

Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Heaviest APC built to date probbly.

Have a friend who used to putter around in the predecessor, the Achzarit. Known to all who rode in her as "the bitch".

Well it's fitting for a female warmachine.
"cruel".. Israelis never fail to find good tank names.

Very fond of Wespe self propelled guns.

I like the old crusader;

KTG17 wrote:
Sorry I missed this. Yeah I heard about this, but when they configure the tank like this, I think they have to remove some of the stuff inside, like the ammo for the main gun. Which is fine if you are driving around the West Bank. But I also heard they were able to blow one up that was carrying troops (as rare as that has been), so I am not sure they are quick to do that anymore. There was a time when it was really tough to blow a Merkava up.

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

Modern anti-tank weapons are really sophisticated. Even the most heavily armoured tanks pop like corn in the microwave if you hit them right. That is why the newest tanks like the Russian Armata have a lot of systems designed to prevent a tank getting hit in the first place (like active defenses that destroy incoming projectiles). Defeating anti-tank weapons by armour alone simply isn't feasible, because it is far cheaper to design a new anti-tank weapon to defeat new armour than it is to design new tanks with armour to defeat new anti-tank weapons.
Turkey's Leopard tanks likely aren't the most high-tech vehicles around (the Leopard designs aren't exactly new anymore, and Turkey probably does not have the newest models either). ISIS meanwhile has probably captured advanced Soviet anti-tank weapons from the Syrian army, so it is only logical they are capable of destroying some Turkish tanks. Destroying Leopard tanks is exactly what those Soviet weapons were designed for, after all.

great....this tread is making me want go watch Fury later

hard call between the A-34 comet and the centurion, the centurion made the t-34 effectively extinct in korea and has been in active service from 1945 all the way to 1990 in some places, fought in 12 wars with distinction./

I always loved the Sherman as a kid. I liked the OD green color for some odd reason, I liked the shape of them, and I liked how many different variants of the same tank there were. My favorite Sherman was the Easy 8 (M4A3E8) because it was the most improved Sherman of the war and it may have been the last Thunderbolt Abrams commanded. I've read mixed articles saying that Thunderbolt VII was actually an M4A3 76 and not an E8. My close second is the Panther because of how advanced that tank was for its time period. The tank was designed that you could remove and work on the engine and transmission in the field without requiring an actual shop. That tank did a number on my poor little Shermans...

I like modern tanks as well, but the armour of WW2 is my sweat spot because I spend so much time reading about the great wars.

Mine is definitely the Abrams tank. . . Fun story. . .When I was a young private in the army, I showed up "late" to the unit's deployment (not by fault. . . my AIT being what it was, my orders were cut such that I joined a unit already deployed)

Anyhow, because I was the FNG in the unit, I was put on Port Detail. For those who don't know what that means. . . basically, we put vehicles that came from up north, through the wash rack, into the "sterile" yard, through the rinse rack, and onto the boat.

On day one, we were told "if you dont have a license, dont drive it" by lunch of day 3, we were told "don't wreck it" So, I had gone from driving a vehicle for all of 5 minutes (and an LMTV at that), to driving all kinds of crazy stuff. . .

By far my favorite though, had to be the Abrams. One of the most unique driving systems I've ever encountered. Surprisingly smooth ride all things considered, and a very "relaxed" driving position (seriously, it's like sitting in a recliner)

My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.

I was initially going to say the Challenger 2, but then I remembered the Chieftain and finally the M60 Patton:



If you ask a 5-year old to draw a tank, this is pretty much what you get; the tankiest tank. Plus it was used as the art for the GDI and Allied MBT in Command and Conquer / Red Alert, which brings me to my favourite fictional tank, the Soviet heavy tank:



Yes, it’s a silly double barrelled monstrosity, but damn, if it didn’t get the job done in game.

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?

Oh this is a hard one to answer. For ww2 British I’ve got a thing for the firefly and cromwell, Germans I have to say the panther and tiger.
Once the problems were sorted out on the panther it was a beast of a machine, it’s main fault was there were never enough of them, I’m sure if there were things might have been a lot harder for the allies.

The Tiger next while not the best tank of the war, it’s easily the most notable. Having seen the Tiger 131 run a fair few times the novelty never wears off. Armed with the famous 8.8 gun and only about two miles and hours slower than a Sherman.
With about 1200 built I think it’s reputation far exceeded it true impact. One common thing that seems to come up in a lot of tankies books is that the allies were quick to call out what they thought was a tiger when in fact it was more often a panzer 4. Goes to show the fear impact of that thing.

Hmm modern I’ve got to say the Abrams, to me it just screams killing machine. On a side note while not a tank more of a multi role ifv the new British Ajax looks good too.

I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.

 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.

It was also cheap, easy to mass produce and could be fielded in the thousand, repaired by crews, easy to keep running and reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XuQishi wrote:

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?

Yeah. They seem to be used more like artillery units, without the advantage of being able to park 10 miles away and bombard in safety. Though given of they lack cominocations infrastructure long range. Needing the tank in range direct fire to support you may happen.

They have to get inside the range of thr anti tank weapons to fire, and the AT crew is alot smaller and less obvious than a tank.

Gotta say. I've always been partial to the M-10, which isn't technically a tank I guess but it has a gun and treads so w/e XD

XuQishi wrote:

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?

Exactly. Just look at the combat record of Iraqi army Abrams.

http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

Several have been destroyed by ATGMs and infantry-placed charges apparently.

It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.

Challenger II.... cos it looks sexy

 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.

Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.

Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.

Yeah that was a big US advantage, any truck tank, jeep could be serviced, bodged or tyre swapped, by a farm boy or hot rodder with a few tools, a hammer and abit of old fashioned muscle power.

One other US story, a US solider unjammed a tompson, reloaded a magazine and used it on Germans faster than seemed possible.

Turned out In the 30's they where a booze runner and had to unjam them in a car doing 50+ mph on bad roads evading cops n other runners.

LOOTED ONE, COSE IT WUZ NOT MINE AND NOW ITZ MINE!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.

Yep.

The vast majority of tanks fielded by the Germans during the Normandy campaign were inferior or at best equal to the Sherman. The deciding factor or a tank-on-tank engagement is who gets the first shot off, not who has the "best" tank. Of course, "better" is a subjective word, because like I said earlier — a big gun and thick armor not the best tank make. Considering the propensity for the Panther to set it's own engine of fire, the final drive to fail after only 150km, and the turret motor not being able to hold position if the tank is on more than a 20 degree incline, it's kinda hard to be the best tank on the battlefield when you can't even reach the battlefield in the first place. The Germans knew this, hence why they would transport the tank on rail for a little as 25km (Shermans and Cromwells were expected to, and did, get from their disembarkation point off a transport ship to where the fighting was under their own power).

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.

So much fuss is made over "German engineering" and it shouldn't be. It is no question that they fielded some good stuff: Pz.IIIs and Pz.IVs were good (although severely outdated by the war's end), the MG 42 was a phenomenal general purpose machine gun, and the Bf 109 was the best fighter in the world when it debuted. Most of their vaunted armored vehicles were developmental dead-ends, especially the Panther. The Allies were so far ahead of the Axis in most areas, especially the ones that count. What do you think was responsible for more battlefield causalities: the 1300 Tiger tanks the Nazis managed to build or several thousands of American M2A1 105mm howitzers firing shells with VT fuses and utilizing time-on-target tactics? The Nazis also never developed a long range heavy bomber while the US ended the war with the B-29 Superfortress with its pressurized cabin and computer-controlled fire-control system to aim all of its machine guns, and it was used to deploy the single most technological advanced weapon of the war: the nuclear bomb. As great as some of them were, the Germans didn't have all the best small arms as the American infantryman went into battle armed with the M1 Garand, arguably the best fighting rifle of the war.

Of course the British had the best radar and then anti-radar technology, their 6-pounder and 17-pounder AT guns were firing APDS rounds in 1944, and their signals intelligence was second to none. They also debuted the Meteor jet fighter a month after the Me-262, and while not as fast or heavily armed, its engines lasted ten times as long as the 25-hour service life engines on the 262. It also wasn't built by slaves.

The Soviets debuted the T-34 which revolutionized tank development and forced the Nazis to start building heavier tanks while the Soviets were building their own superior heavy tanks and assault guns. The Soviet strategic doctrine of deep battle and the tenacity of her troops is what beat the Germans on the Eastern Front, not the "winter." Plus, they were equipped with the PPSh-41, the best submachine gun of the war.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.

have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.

Duxford, Cambridge CB22 4QR, UK

Hours:
Saturday 10AM–4PM
Sunday 10AM–4PM
Monday 10AM–4PM
Tuesday 10AM–4PM
Wednesday 10AM–4PM
Thursday 10AM–4PM
Friday 10AM–4PM

Phone: +44 1223 835000

shameless plug for a great museaum...

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.

have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.

Duxford, Cambridge CB22 4QR, UK

Hours:
Saturday 10AM–4PM
Sunday 10AM–4PM
Monday 10AM–4PM
Tuesday 10AM–4PM
Wednesday 10AM–4PM
Thursday 10AM–4PM
Friday 10AM–4PM

Phone: +44 1223 835000

shameless plug for a great museaum...

Seconded. Ground war section is far end from the entrence.

Make a day of it.. There's alot of walking and alot to cover, UK section, the Restoration hangers and the old war birds that still fly, the US section and hanger and a large ground mesuem.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.

Soviet tank crews too, loved the Sherman (we called it Emcha). It was a good tank and incredibly comfy compared to the T-34.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.

Soviet tank crews too, loved the Sherman (we called it Emcha). It was a good tank and incredibly comfy compared to the T-34.

having had the "privilege" of riding in a T-34/85 restored before, I can attest it is less comfortable at half speed than sitting in a dumpster filled thumbtacks.

The Cobra H.I.S.S. !!!

Think il add the Chaffee to the list. A pretty nippy little light tank, it just looks so cool. Argh there really are to many too choose from.

 thekingofkings wrote:


have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.

I’ve been to Duxford a few times as MAFVA used to hold their annual model show there. I’ve never seen rides offered though. They have a couple centurions. One in the hall is in Suez markings. Bovington has lots of Centurions and variants/prototypes including the massive FV4005 that’s on the gate outside, but they’ve several main tanks and recovery vehicles, a BARV. I’ve also been to the museum on the Isle of Wight that sometimes offers tanks rides, I went with the hope but they weren’t doing them. They have several Centurions and Conquerors, they have the shell of the FV3805 prototype that supposedly is being restored but it’s mostly a shell from what I could see and has no gun.

Couple pics from Isle of Wight...

https://i.imgur.com/o9H4Rma.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yV7vBY1.jpg