It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Greatest ever tank

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I have just watched a Brit Channel 5 programme on the greatest ever tank. The guys who did the testing were US forces from Iraq (Abrams) Brits from WWII (Sherman & Cent) a woman soldier from Israel (Merkava) a German (Panther), a Russian (T-34/76 & T-72), a Swede (S-Tank) and a couple of millionaires (Tom Clancy, a Rock Star and one Yank billionare who has more tanks in his collection than a small well off country!)

No: 10 was the Sherman, No 9: the Sheridan, No: 8 the Panther, No: 7 the T-72, No: 6 the Swedish S-Tank, No: 5 the Centurian, No: 4 the Merkava,
No: 3 the T-34/76, No: 2 the Abrams

and the winner at No: 1 is the Leopard A2.




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
cant velieve i missed this

who was presenting it?


M6D

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
sounds very biased, no mention of the chally 2 hmm? very odd, considering the Leopard isnt combat proven..and how the hell did the T-72 get in there? all the T-72 acomplished was getting massacred by coalition tank forces!



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Colonel Bruce Dickinson - ex Kings Royal Hussar (not too sure about that) but he is a world renowned authority on armoured warfare and has taught at the RAC Centre at Bovington, Dorset.

Apart from Tom Clancy, the rock star and the billionare, all were combat vets on their chosen tanks - including the Israeli woman tanker. The German was simply drooling over the T-34/76 and said it was best WWII tank ever made. Surprised me that, as I always rated the Panther 'G' over all allied afvs.

The Yanks with their M1 Abrams were explaining how he survived an RPG attack whilst standing in the turret hatch when one took out his .50. The hatch was in 'protection' mode - whatever that is.

All the vehicles were tested under simulated combat conditions but the Swedes came out on top with the way they 'threw' their Leopard through the air more often than driving it cross country. (And the driver was just 18 years old. What a great job!)



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Err M6D, I don't know.

Perhaps it was because of the innovations those sneaky Russiand made:

Like err doing away with the Loader by using an automatic ammo feeder, thus reducing the weight, thus improving speed and manoeuvrability and reducing the tank's silhouette.

Got nothing to do with combat M6D - the programme was asking the question of combat vets which tank was in their opinion the greatest tank ever? All to do with the sacred triangle - Speed, Protection and Firepower.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The military decided to keep the laoder position because the auto-loader had a slower rate of fire compared to the human loader. That and it is allways nice to have an extra set of hands for maintinace and repairs

Really tho most tanks these days are being specialized base on the countries and what they except to enounter, and it gets harder and harder to compare tanks and say one is "the best"



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
lame lame lame what no ww1 tanks? boooo

ft-17



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
how the hell did the T-72 get in there? all the T-72 acomplished was getting massacred by coalition tank forces!


TY!!! WHAT IS WITH THAT?!?!?!?!
If they wanted autoloaders 4 this, they should of picked the t-80 or something like it, BUT CMON,
. Plus, yeah, the Leapord hasn't been combat proven, so this is bull in a way.


[edit on 4-7-2005 by SEAL Trident]


M6D

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
hahaha yeah! thats how i felt!

I did also find it almost funny, how the isreali woman went..'nothing can stop the mirk' or somthing like that, but the engine block is right in the front.....so surely you an stop a mirk just by shooting the engine block?
it would seem to make sense to me.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I would rank the T-72 as the best tank of all time. Yes you heard me right.

This tank is the pinnacle of soviet military experience during WWII, having fielded more tanks than any other military. They were also directly responsible for the T-34's excellent design and characteristics than indirectly defeated German armor production.

The T-72, when first introduced, was obviously the best and most cost, and battlefield effective, tank in the world.

The tank is quick, has an excellent traction system. It also has a sufficient engine and good range. It is a very low tank and offers a very poor target, compared to American tanks of the time, which still had turrets over 4 feet tall. It also had a ballistic turret and forward glacis plate, which, at 450mm+ could defeat virtually any round.

The tank also had the excellent 125mm main gun, which was very effective against other tanks, simply due to the experience during WWII against German armor, and experience during the Korean war, in which the earlier 121.1 gun of the IS-2 was used.

Finally, it is still a very useful and modern tank. It lacks the latest electronics, and its armor is not enough to stop the latest 120 smoothbore and missile rounds, but it is very plentiful, and has been sold to more countries than I dare try to name. It is simply one of, if not the best tank ever designed.

The T-90 is a serious improvement, but still has the major advantages and disadvantages of the T-72, and even though the T-72 did not perform against armor over 20 years newer, it was mostly due to inferior training by Iraqi crews, and lack of command and control.

For its time, it was the best, without a doubt. However, its time has pasted.


M6D

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
let me tell you a few disadvantages hmm? well, a nice little firstie, the autoloader is slower then a real abrams loader! the targetting and fireing computers arent as good as other modern tanks! so it first shot ability isnt the best! in war it was shown that 125mm rounds bounced off the frontal armour of coalition tanks!

sure you might rate it the best tank....but as long as your in your little T-72 and im in my challenger 2, im fine....your not however..



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Actually, the T-72 didn't perform well against the Coalition because it was outclassed. Plain and simple. The M-1s were hitting them at two-three times the range they could shoot back at. Three T-72s took on an M-1 that was stuck in the mud, at a range of between 100 and 400 meters, and all they did was groove the armor on the M-1 before they were all blown apart. One of them was even hiding behind a berm when the Abrams punched a shell through the berm, and it then continued on through the T-72 and blew it apart. There was at least one case of two T-72s being taken out by 1 shot from an Abrams. The Sabot round went through the first one, before continuing on into the second one, blowing them both apart.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   
The US M1A1's were much better than the early and most likely "monkey" versions of the T72. Russia basically only exported "monkey" versions of theire tanks, aircraft etc. Only very few countries were given non "monkey" versions of theire equipment.

The T72 isnt as good as the M1 is but it is easily upgradable and even today its a quite effective tank for cost. As long you take the never versions ofcourse. I think this tank can be best compared to the Panzer 4 of WW2. That tank was never obselete during the whole war because of its upgradabillity.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The US M1A1's were much better than the early and most likely "monkey" versions of the T72. Russia basically only exported "monkey" versions of theire tanks, aircraft etc. Only very few countries were given non "monkey" versions of theire equipment.

The T72 isnt as good as the M1 is but it is easily upgradable and even today its a quite effective tank for cost. As long you take the never versions ofcourse. I think this tank can be best compared to the Panzer 4 of WW2. That tank was never obselete during the whole war because of its upgradabillity.


the russians were using T-64s and T-80s.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
greatest tank ever




IS-3 the best tank in WW2


revolutoinary in design and had massive firpower and protection



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Guys, CHILL OUT!

This thread was intended to illustrate what veterans of WWII thought of tanks of the WWII era against the modern tank of today.

These were the guys who took M4 Shermans, T-34/76s and Panthers into the lion's den, took them on, and lived to tell the tale.

These men were the guys who went head to head, often against superior enemy vehicles, against overwhelming odds, and came out on tops.

They are not the guys who entered the shooting galleries of Iraq with superior weaponry and computer aided fire control and targeting systems and came up against a collection of 'rag-heads' who didn't know what the hell they were doing.

Their opinions, no actual battle experiences should count. None of us have ever experienced what they went through and to dispute their findings and lower this thread into another 'them and us' slanging match, denegrates what they achieved.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I saw a different program called 'Top Tens' on Discovery channel. It had the top ten tanks of all time according to expert opinion and polls. There were 5 different ratings for each tank. Firepower, protection, mobility, Production rating and fear factor.
10. M4 Sherman
9. Merkava
8. T-54/55
7. Challenger
6. Mark IV Panzer
5. Centurion
4. British WW1 tank
3. Tiger
2. M1 Abrams

And the top tank of all time (according to this show)

1. The T-34



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, the T-72 didn't perform well against the Coalition because it was outclassed. Plain and simple. The M-1s were hitting them at two-three times the range they could shoot back at. Three T-72s took on an M-1 that was stuck in the mud, at a range of between 100 and 400 meters, and all they did was groove the armor on the M-1 before they were all blown apart. One of them was even hiding behind a berm when the Abrams punched a shell through the berm, and it then continued on through the T-72 and blew it apart. There was at least one case of two T-72s being taken out by 1 shot from an Abrams. The Sabot round went through the first one, before continuing on into the second one, blowing them both apart.


This is true, was the start of the battle of Medina Ridge:



It was raining heavily, and one M1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole. As they were waiting for a recovery vehicle, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. The crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm armor-piercing round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72s turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately dispatched this T-72 with another 120mm round. After that the third and last T-72 fired a 125mm armor-piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully the M1's crew fired a third 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.


The T-72 is a joke. I've been in both the M-1 Abrams and the T-72 (one from the 1st gulf war as a matter of fact). It's not much of a comparison. Some of our SUV's are bigger and seem better armored than those things. The only thing that came to my mind in the T-72 was "Coffin on tracks".



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I have just watched a Brit Channel 5 programme on the greatest ever tank. The guys who did the testing were US forces from Iraq (Abrams) Brits from WWII (Sherman & Cent) a woman soldier from Israel (Merkava) a German (Panther), a Russian (T-34/76 & T-72), a Swede (S-Tank) and a couple of millionaires (Tom Clancy, a Rock Star and one Yank billionare who has more tanks in his collection than a small well off country!)

No: 10 was the Sherman, No 9: the Sheridan, No: 8 the Panther, No: 7 the T-72, No: 6 the Swedish S-Tank, No: 5 the Centurian, No: 4 the Merkava,
No: 3 the T-34/76, No: 2 the Abrams

and the winner at No: 1 is the Leopard A2.


Well too bad they're wrong. Anyone with a brain knows the M1A2 Abrams is the best tank. When was the last time the Leopard IIA6 has seen combat, oh right, it hasn't. You dolt.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
I saw a different program called 'Top Tens' on Discovery channel. It had the top ten tanks of all time according to expert opinion and polls. There were 5 different ratings for each tank. Firepower, protection, mobility, Production rating and fear factor.
10. M4 Sherman
9. Merkava
8. T-54/55
7. Challenger
6. Mark IV Panzer
5. Centurion
4. British WW1 tank
3. Tiger
2. M1 Abrams

And the top tank of all time (according to this show)

1. The T-34


Saw the same thing on the Military Channel, great program.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join