Your favourite tanks

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's. :grin:

The:
Stuart
M-10 Tank Destroyer
Stug
Merkava
Panzer Mk IV
Panzer Mk III

Leopard II
Abrams
Panther

Technically not tanks:
M36
Hetzer
Stug's of all colors
Jagdpanther


In no particular order. The Merkava is pretty cool too, but I don't know a ton about it. Oh and I would like to second that the A-10 Warthog is clearly the best tank ever built!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's. :grin:

---

Do you mean the King Tiger or the Tiger I? :beam:

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

Most Cost Effective AFV = STG-III series

The Panther wasn't an MBT...the closest WWII equivalent would be the IS-2.

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

EDIT:
Of course, we're talking favorites here, so I don't guess stuff like that matters :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

---

What are your parameters? The King Tiger was actually the better tank in terms of combat performance, but that doesn't take cost into consideration, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

---

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned any WW2 British tanks. They may not have always been the best.. or even decent.. but they were always cool in their own quarky way.

---

The Churchill was a very nice tank, not anything particularly special, but it did it's job and had many variations.

Hobart's Funnies were a personal favorite as a kid,

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

Sturmtiger

The best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best SIR!

Rare footage of it

Also in terms of british tanks that I like

Cromwell takes the cake

My favorite is the Panzer II with a 2 cm cannon capable of firing 280 shots per minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

---

Well, the Jagd- series of tank hunters, developed from experiences with the StuGs, had a completely different set of tactics, and were not particularly effective when used in the traditional tank role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

---

Plus a tank generally (okay not the earliest versions from WWI) has a chassis, tracks, and at least one turret. So the Jagd series, Stugs, and Sturmtiger weren't tanks, but assault guns or tank destroyers because of their lack of a turret. One could however argue that the American tank destroyers (M36 and so on) were tanks because they had a turret, but the fact that this turret was often open and that these vehicles often had extremely light armor they are probably best classified as tank destroyers.

I think the definition of tank is any heavily armored vehicle on tracks, operated by a 3 or more man crew. While wiki puts it at this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Firepower is normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotating turret and secondary machine guns, while heavy armour and all-terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield.

---

Merkava and the Abrams takes the cake for me!
nothing beats them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's very swedish-centric, you should have said the swedish uparmored/modified Leopard 2.

---

I think the S Tank was a unique design in a Cold War environment, and it preformed fairly well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

Merkava and the Abrams takes the cake for me!
nothing beats them!

---

If I'm not mistaken the Merkava is really great for urban combat but I've never seen it up in the top ten when it's about tank vs. tank, it does look really cool though. :2thumbsup:

I have always respected the M-24 Light Tank. It was arguably the best light tank ever produced by the United States and one much respect from its opponents. I know a veteran of WW2 who absolutely loved this vehicle and said he staked his life on it. He would rather crew it than a Sherman any day, which he complained of as much to slow even though it had slightly better protection. The M-24 was very spry and could often outmaneuver its heavier opponents to deliver an ambush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M2...e-latrun-1.jpg



A very attractive vehicle as well I'm sure one would agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If I'm not mistaken the Merkava is really great for urban combat but I've never seen it up in the top ten when it's about tank vs. tank, it does look really cool though. :2thumbsup:

---

well, its never really had the chance for tank-tank combat. im sure itll do fine though.

While I will always think that the T34 is the best tank of all time in its combination of firepower, mobility, ruggedness and versiltility, I have always had a soft spot for some of the more unfashionable or quirky. I think the BT5 and 7 were good tanks - very fast and the forerunners of the T34. I love the strangeness of the T35 with all its turrets - probably useless in combat but it must have been frightening. I have always liked the Lee and Grant - a clever design when first thought of - a capable AT gun in the 37mm and a good HE weapon in the 75mm - shame that it was soon outmoded when the 75 had to be the main AT weapon and they could not go hull down.

I also like the Sheridan - the light tank with a MBT weapon - except that everytime it fired the main gun the electronics were shot - but I believe it came into its own in Vietnam where a 155 cannister style round was very effective.

Finally - what about the Ontos?? - strictly a SP gun, but who in their right mind would think that putting 6 recoiless AT guns on one chassis was a good idea!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

Finally - what about the Ontos?? - strictly a SP gun, but who in their right mind would think that putting 6 recoiless AT guns on one chassis was a good idea!!

---

It worked fairly well though, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It worked fairly well though, no?

---

Actually it rocked. Particularly because it was basically facing infantry in an environment where there was often little notice of an encounter with enemy troops and a great need for massive firepower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Actually it rocked. Particularly because it was basically facing infantry in an environment where there was often little notice of an encounter with enemy troops and a great need for massive firepower.

---

I suppose the point is that when it was concieved they had not envisaged the use it eventually carried out. It was only picked up by the Marines as they were desparate for any light armour. In Vietnam it became a mobile huge shotgun - with a round consisting of lots of small darts and so it could clear large areas of jungle. But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

I suppose the point is that when it was concieved they had not envisaged the use it eventually carried out. It was only picked up by the Marines as they were desparate for any light armour. In Vietnam it became a mobile huge shotgun - with a round consisting of lots of small darts and so it could clear large areas of jungle. But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

---

I don't know, it was pretty fast, so if it had some cover it could have used those recoiless rifles fairly effectively if they were accurate. Especially since with a well-trained crew I bet you could fire six shots rapid-fire into different targets, hopefully taking out multiple enemies. Though of course a one volley, six shots six kills ratio is unimaginable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

---

In an urban environment or anywhere with keyhole lines of sight, it would be great! I can definitely see a role for it vs. Soviet armor.

The Jagdtiger will eat everything for breakfast! I mean, just the sheer amount of tons must count for something, right?!? All those peashooters mentioned here can do whatever they want while the Jagdtiger will just slowly roll over ‘em and get it over with while the ground trembles with fear of its mighty presence. :laugh4:

Hell, it don’t even need to use its massive gun with whatever monster caliber it had - and it will still look good in the process! The jagdtiger is the way to go and still the grand daddy of cool!

- Cheers

The T-34 was a thing of beauty. near perfect balance of Armor, Range, and Speed compared to most tanks of that time. Sort of the Holy Grail most modern tank designers seek, but can never get quite as close as the T-34.

This is just favorites. No justification required.

I’ll take the M-1 Abrams

Does anyone know anything about the Mark I tank?

It sure was like an iron shoe box, but owning a replicate would be my day. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coalition

Does anyone know anything about the Mark I tank?

It sure was like an iron shoe box, but owning a replicate would be my day. :2thumbsup:

---

It is difficult to fully comprehend the impact these monsters must have made in 1916. In a time when a sight of a lorry was relatively rare, the vision of these iron monsters looming out of the mist must have been terrible in deed. They were slow and clumsy and for the large crew inside very unpleasant places to be. They were hot, fumey and when ever the outside were hit by a shell or bullets pieces of the inside plate would spall off and fly around the interior. The crew took to taking armour, especially to cover the face - a sort of throwback to medieval helmets with eye slits and chain mail.

It is worth looking around to find a bit of background about them and especially how their use grew through the war until they were a crucial part of the final allied offensives in 1918.