Top 10 Tanks! (Just for fun)

[lurrp]

So I was browsing Netflix the other day and came across the Top 10 Tanks of all time, according to the Military Channel. It wasn't nearly as bad as the usual crap their top 10 lists consist of (HMMWVs? In a top 10 IFV list?), but very light in detail and pretty shallow. I took the opportunity to think up my top 10 tanks were, just for fun. These are just WWII vehicles. The top five are pretty much the same no matter who you ask, (Mk. IV, Tiger, T-34, Sherman, Panther or some variation in order). Without further ado:

1. T-34

2. Sherman

3. Panther

4. Panzer IV

5. Tiger

6. Panzer III

7. KV

8. Char B1

9. Matilda II

10. T-26

Feel free to comment!

[Saferight]

I would agree with your selection except maybe switch the Char B1 for the Souma S35 an the T26 for the BT series.

[Cuirassier]

Without putting too much thought into it, I would get rid of the T-26 and the Char B1 and put in the IS-2 and Pz. 38. I would also rate the Pz. III higher than the Tiger. The Pz. III was a fantastic early-mid war tank, when compared to other, competing designs. Five man crew, radio, cupola, reliable, etc.

[Stalins Organ]

It very much depends on the criteria, and unless you are going to publish those then there is little chance of agreement.

For example I'd drop the Tiger several places and maybe even chuck it completely - too big, to heavy, too immobile, and having a bad rep with the opposition doesn't make up for it.

I'd also ignore the T-26 - it's heyday was in the Spanish Civil war and Nomohon, and apart from numbers it has nothing going for it after 1939.

Where's the KV-1?? A formidable machine in all respects in the early war and the forerunner of all soviet heavy tank development all the way to the T-10!

And the Comet - at last the Brits get more than 1 dimension right leading right to the Centurion immediately post-war.

I'd get rid of the Char B - wrong tank for the wrong war! The Souma might rate a low rank - it would be higher but for the turret!!

[Michael Emrys]

I realize the original question is exclusively addressed to tanks, but why not include TDs as well? Those ranged from hopeless through mediocre but useful in the right circumstances to downright scary.

Michael

[Boeman]

I would have to agree on the Tiger needing to be brought down a few rungs. It's effect was primarily psychological; thanks in part to Michael Wittmann's exploits in Caen. As a practical weapon, it was under powered, slow, costly to build, too heavy for many smaller bridges and was by most accounts, a maintenance nightmare.

At the other end of the spectrum was the Sherman which, while being easy to produce, easy to maintain, light enough to facilitate transport almost everywhere, also suffered from numerous technical shortcomings that should see it positioned much lower than second place.

The Sherman was a hastily designed platform with the first iterations using an aviation engine thus, giving the tank its high distinctive profile which presented allied opponents with an easier target.

Although the Sherman was effective against light vehicles and infantry, its protection and armament was wholly inadequate against much of the heavier armour fielded against them. More often than naught, US, British and Canadian Shermans found themselves routinely outclassed by German panzers such as the Panther and most especially the 88 artillery gun.

The Sherman certainly had a few neat innovations going for it, including a stabilized turret that allowed for accurate firing while on the move and a highly adaptive chassis to enable it as a platform for everything from flamer throwers to a makeshift rocket battery. In the end however, it was their massive numbers that overwhelmed the Germans rather than its technical abilities.

In my humble opinion, the M24 Chafee, which successfully addressed all the shortcomings of the Sherman and then some, should be on that list somewhere.

[Michael Emrys]

The Sherman was a hastily designed platform with the first iterations using an aviation engine thus, giving the tank its high distinctive profile which presented allied opponents with an easier target.

The Panther was approximately the same height. Maybe an inch or two taller in fact. Should we assume that made it an easy target?

Although the Sherman was effective against light vehicles and infantry, its protection and armament was wholly inadequate against much of the heavier armour fielded against them. More often than naught, US, British and Canadian Shermans found themselves routinely outclassed by German panzers such as the Panther...

But then, more than half of the German armor in use was either PzKw. IV or StuG III, which the Sherman was fully capable of handling.

...and most especially the 88 artillery gun.

The 88 was an antiaircraft gun. There were also a small number of dedicated ATGs made based on it. While it was sometimes used as an artillery piece, that was not its primary mission.

The Sherman certainly had a few neat innovations going for it, including a stabilized turret that allowed for accurate firing while on the move...

Actually that was not so in practice. What the stabilizer was good for—when it was working—was holding the aim well enough so that when the tank halted to fire, it was easier for the gunner to lay the gun on target quickly.

In my humble opinion, the M24 Chafee, which successfully addressed all the shortcomings of the Sherman and then some, should be on that list somewhere.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I can't see where you are coming from to make that statement. Specifically, what shortcomings of the Sherman did the Chaffee address? It was a different kind of tank designed for a different mission and would not have been able to perform the Sherman's mission as well. It was by and large a great improvement on the M5 Stuart, which is the tank it actually replaced.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

Have to laugh at he concept that the Chaffee made up for all the shortcomings of het Sherman - with the same or smaller gun it as no better as an artillery piece, and it had lighter armour at 38mm max, so was even more vulnerable including to the smaller AT guns than the 88's.

The Sherman had plenty of shortcomings - but it was actually quite well armoured - it's turret front was usually 4" (102mm) from memory - as much as a Tiger 1's front hull! It's glacis was usually 89mm at 49 degrees - miles ahead of the Pz IV of any variety.

the problem with the armour wasn't the armour - it was that the German AT weapons had very good performance - after all they'd had to deal with Russian HEAVY tanks...and the Sherman was only a medium!

Comparing it to the Panther and Tiger is like saying the German Pz-III was useless because it was outclassed by the KV-1, or the Spitfire was a failure because any jet was faster than it!

[Boeman]

The Panther was approximately the same height. Maybe an inch or two taller in fact. Should we assume that made it an easy target?

In the case of the Sherman, lessons from the M24 and M18 revealed that two transfer cases could have significantly lowered the profile and so in effect, it really should have been lower. It was an engineering failure that cost many lives.

But then, more than half of the German armor in use was either PzKw. IV or StuG III, which the Sherman was fully capable of handling.

True. But in turn the Sherman proved quite vulnerable to the Stug and Panzer IV. It was only versus Japanese light tanks in particular did the Sherman have any overwhelming advantage in tank vs tank engagements.

The 88 was an antiaircraft gun. There were also a small number of dedicated ATGs made based on it. While it was sometimes used as an artillery piece, that was not its primary mission.

Artillery is often defined as "large-caliber guns used in warfare on land" and it is in that context that I classify the 88 as an artillery piece. Yes, it was created primarily as an anti-aircraft gun initially but its use was quickly expanded to encompass two other roles; that being anti-tank and as conventional artillery, all of which it was able to do with equal ability. In effect, the 88’s primary role was whatever the Germans wanted it to be as need arose.

Actually that was not so in practice. What the stabilizer was good for—when it was working—was holding the aim well enough so that when the tank halted to fire, it was easier for the gunner to lay the gun on target quickly.

Sure, I can accept that. Still, it is an innovation worth mentioning.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I can't see where you are coming from to make that statement. Specifically, what shortcomings of the Sherman did the Chaffee address? It was a different kind of tank designed for a different mission and would not have been able to perform the Sherman's mission as well. It was by and large a great improvement on the M5 Stuart, which is the tank it actually replaced.

Yes, the M24 Chaffee was a light tank built for reconnaissance. The armour was lighter but it did have the speed to scoot and shoot, a tactic best employed on the European front given what they had to work with. It's smaller size made it quite difficult to hit and the armament allowed for it to hold its own, It was certainly able to deal with any recon vehicles the Germans had. For the mission it was assigned, the M24 was certainly not left wanting whereas the Sherman, designed as a break-through tank and then forced into the role of the main battle tank, proved problematic in the roles it was asked to perform.

In any case, insofar as WW2 tanks are concerned, the M24 Chaffee belongs somewhere in there – my humble opinion of course.

[Stalins Organ]

In the case of the Sherman, lessons from the M24 and M18 revealed that two transfer cases could have significantly lowered the profile and so in effect, it really should have been lower. It was an engineering failure that cost many lives.

those would be 2 vehicles designed AFTER the Sherman....so how are you going to incorporate that aspect exactly - time travel??:cool:

BTW the Hellcat was a whole 8" shorter than the Sherman, and the Chaffee was 1" TALLER!

Both at a dozen tons lighter.......

True. But in turn the Sherman proved quite vulnerable to the Stug and Panzer IV. It was only versus Japanese light tanks in particular did the Sherman have any overwhelming advantage in tank vs tank engagements.

the German L48 75mm was approximately as powerful as the US 76mm - the problem was the gun. the Stug had a low profile and reasonably good armour that made it very tough, but the Pz-IV was very weakly armoured with only 50mm on the turret front - the Sherman did not have an "overwhelming advantage" - but it was also at no great disadvantage, if any.

Which is what you expect from tanks of similar era and weight!

Yes, the M24 Chaffee was a light tank built for reconnaissance. The armour was lighter but it did have the speed to scoot and shoot, a tactic best employed on the European front given what they had to work with. It's smaller size made it quite difficult to hit and the armament allowed for it to hold its own,

No it didn't. The 75mm was a great improvement over the 37mm of het Stuart.......but no improvement at all over the 75mm of the Sherman and worse than the 76mm.

It was certainly able to deal with any recon vehicles the Germans had. For the mission it was assigned, the M24 was certainly not left wanting whereas the Sherman, designed as a break-through tank and then forced into the role of the main battle tank, proved problematic in the roles it was asked to perform.

Which does not make the chaffee a great replacement for the Sherman - it makes it a great replacement for the earlier light tanks!

the Sherman was NOT supposed to be a "breakthrough" tank - it was always designed to be a MEDIUM tank - in particular it was optimized for combat against infantry with its medium velocity but high HE capacity 75mm gun as part of an infamous combat philosophy that saw tank destruction as being the job of specialized tank destroyers.

And in that role it remained very good for the entire war!

What's more with the addition of a decent AT gun it became a good tank destroyer too!

In any case, insofar as WW2 tanks are concerned, the M24 Chaffee belongs somewhere in there – my humble opinion of course.

It's a good light tank no doubt - but it came too late to have any material effect.

[lurrp]

I put the Tiger on because it really was revolutionary. Yes, it was heavy and unreliable. But, it was pretty badass up till the end of the war, and heavily influenced Allied anti-tank doctrine. And it was likely one of the most feared, if not THE most feared, tanks of the war. IMO, that counts for something. Looking back over this, I think I might rewrite it as such:

1. T-34

2. Panther

3. Sherman

4. Panzer IV

5. IS-2

6. Panzer III

7. KV-1

8. Panzer 38(t)

9. Tiger

10. S-35 (or maybe still T-26)

As to criteria, I really don't have any. I guess it has to be at least somewhat influential in design and have been built in large enough numbers to see a good amount of combat. Having a very versatile chassis helps, as does being particularly effective. I do think being feared by the enemy is a contributing factor.

[Vanir Ausf B]

When evaluating the Sherman it seems a little disingenuous to only consider the vanilla 75mm version. One of the Sherman's strengths was it's adaptability as a platform, the Firefly and Jumbo Shermans being prime examples. Post-war the Israelis were even able to up-gun their Shermans with 105mm cannons.

[Boeman]

I put the Tiger on because it really was revolutionary. Yes, it was heavy and unreliable. But, it was pretty badass up till the end of the war, and heavily influenced Allied anti-tank doctrine. And it was likely one of the most feared, if not THE most feared, tanks of the war. IMO, that counts for something. Looking back over this, I think I might rewrite it as such:

1. T-34

2. Panther

3. Sherman

4. Panzer IV

5. IS-2

6. Panzer III

7. KV-1

8. Panzer 38(t)

9. Tiger

10. S-35 (or maybe still T-26)

As to criteria, I really don't have any. I guess it has to be at least somewhat influential in design and have been built in large enough numbers to see a good amount of combat. Having a very versatile chassis helps, as does being particularly effective. I do think being feared by the enemy is a contributing factor.

The Tiger is disqualified from some of that criteria due to the aforementioned reasons previously given. Although Wittman helped to cement the Tiger's reputation in Caen, ironically enough he was also responsible for helping to dispel the Tiger invincibility mythos when he lead an attack with four Tigers. Three of them were knocked out by a single Sherman Firefly and Wittman's Tiger was itself supposedly destroyed by a fighter bomber.

It you were listing tanks based on infamy alone however, then the Tiger would certainly rank at the top.