Your favourite tanks

[Noddy The Beefy Egg]

not a tank but it looks cool , the ISU-122

[Sheogorath]

The Soviet military fielded roughly 100 divisions, with each motor rifle division needing about 100 MBTs and each Tank division needing about 320. Moreover, all of the Warsaw pact divisions were similar and similarly equipped.

Plus, they loved to stockpile great warehouses of the things just in case AND the exported the bejeebers out of it.

The Russians age-old policy is 'Never throw anything away, ever.'
I've heard that they're still uncovering WWI/WWII weapons caches that have been forgotten about/lost in paperwork/were going to be sold but the seller got killed. Generally in working condition, although given the typical construction of Russian hardware that's hardly surprising :P

Also, I think the Russians themselves only built something like 55,000 T-54/55s. It is, however, still the most produced tank in history. Amusingly, the T-34 still holds second place at 50,000 or so, as far as I know.

[Azathoth]

The Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster because holy ****, that ****** will **** you like **** ************* *******. ****.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sheogorath]

The Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster because holy ****, that ****** will **** you like **** ************* *******. ****.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

[Samurai Waki]

I mean... apart from the crazy amount of resources something like that would gobble up (The Kriegsmarine could've actually built a few more Mega Battleships) There is no way something like that could've been practical, between the Fuel they didn't have, and the Insane Engine that would've pushed the thing at a whopping 15km per hour, the Germans (And rightfully so) could build ten King Tigers, or 30 Panthers. And besides that, Sheogorath is pretty much right, everyone wants to get the big Target.

[Azathoth]

Practicality is not a factor when it comes to super tanks.

[al Roumi]

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.

It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.

It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.

Sucker's big enough where you could carpet bomb without the edges of the bomb quadrant going past the AFV!

[Crazed Rabbit]

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

Bah! You could've probably mounted several anti-air turrets on the thing.

CR

[Sheogorath]

Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.

It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.

You wouldn't even need bombers. You could just hit it with artillery. Even WWII era artillery wouldn't have trouble hitting something like that. You could probably hit it with ROCKETS.

Bah! You could've probably mounted several anti-air turrets on the thing.

CR

But, all things considered, you'd expend a lot less resources in planes taking it out than the resources required to build it in the first place.

I mean, the time and effort that would go into something like that would produce, like, a five hundred T-34's.

[Husar]

It would also have really thick armour though so the question remains whether normal shells would be able to penetrate it at all. I'd think if it had, say 1m of steel armour, a 500 pound bomb's explosive blast might just spread along the surface instead of really denting the armour. I'm not an explosives expert though.

[al Roumi]

It would also have really thick armour though so the question remains whether normal shells would be able to penetrate it at all. I'd think if it had, say 1m of steel armour, a 500 pound bomb's explosive blast might just spread along the surface instead of really denting the armour. I'm not an explosives expert though.

Yep, the designs certainly talk about thick armour (I don't think the Porsch designers were that silly) -and AA guns too.

This is what would have taken it out though: Tallboy bombs.

As I mentioned above, they were used to finish off the Tirpitz and destroy U-boat pens, as well as other undergroung/bunker targets.

Tanks this big are just a crazy idea - must have been what inspired the Mammoth tanks in C&C Red Alert

[AggonyDuck]

The problem with the P.1500 Monster is the fact that while the hull can be armoured, the gun can't really be that well armoured. So even if you might not be able to destroy the vehicle itself, the main armament is big enough to be a relatively easy and vulnerable target.

[Vladimir]

Where would you use it? What kind of bridge would support it? What kind of ship could transport it? It looks more like a proof-of-concept design than anything anyone would actually build.

[Sheogorath]

The problem with the P.1500 Monster is the fact that while the hull can be armoured, the gun can't really be that well armoured. So even if you might not be able to destroy the vehicle itself, the main armament is big enough to be a relatively easy and vulnerable target.

I wonder what would happen if an artillery shell were to, say, bounce down the barrel :P

Considering the sheer size of the weapon they've got on the Monster, it's not unthinkable that some ordinance might end up setting off the vehicles own shell inside the gun.

Where would you use it? What kind of bridge would support it? What kind of ship could transport it? It looks more like a proof-of-concept design than anything anyone would actually build.

I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.

[Husar]

I guess it would be like one of those railway guns, yes, except with more manouverability, meant to destroy bunkers and perhaps hurt enemy morale.

Otherwise I'd prefer the Ratte though, the enemy tankers might just pee in their pants when it comes along.

[Sheogorath]

I guess it would be like one of those railway guns, yes, except with more manouverability, meant to destroy bunkers and perhaps hurt enemy morale.

Otherwise I'd prefer the Ratte though, the enemy tankers might just pee in their pants when it comes along.

Or laugh when they realized that they could walk faster than it :P

[Azathoth]

I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.

Yeah, they made one of the 280 mm guns and later shipped it to the Netherlands to be a fixed coastal defence emplacement.

Or laugh when they realized that they could walk faster than it :P

40 kph is a lot faster than a human can walk. At any rate, it wouldn't have ended up like the steamroller scene in Austin Powers if that's what you were thinking.


Remember, the point of one of these IS NOT practicality or effectiveness in combat. The point is to make you **** in awe when you see it. And just imagine a column of IS-2s getting hit by a 800mm shell point blank - epic stuff right there.

[Vladimir]

Are you sure it's not just a battleship gun? What are the specs on that cannon anyway? I know the Germans love big artillery.

[Samurai Waki]

Are you sure it's not just a battleship gun? What are the specs on that cannon anyway? I know the Germans love big artillery.

hmmm... Probably not a BB Gun, the Germans had a love of monstrous artillery weapons, didn't they have a huge railroad gun that could hit the outskirts of Paris during WWI, and they had to lob those shells a good distance behind their front lines...

[British Mutt + Viking]

Hitler loved big, radical things, be it social policy or weapons. Anyone who worked for Hitler knew that the way to get promoted was to do things that Hitler liked. Therefore, what the rest of the world treated as purely hypothetical design exercises for intellectual development, Hitler would order into reality. The result was a whole host of weapons which the very people making them knew were ridiculous and pointless. However, if any of these people objected and told Hitler that it was stupid or impossible, they were effectively ending their careers (and on very rare occasions, their lives) because Hitler despised people who didn't literally believe that nothing was impossible. Also, if you objected to Hitler, there were a dozen people around you who would happily say that they could do that job because they wanted the chance to impress Hitler, so it was not as if objecting would stop a project anyway. Someone somewhere would be willing to work on it if it pleased the big man.

As for my favourite tank, it is the Leopard 2.

The reason I like this tank is because it more efficient than the M1 Abrams. Its armour is proof against all likely opponents, its gun is the same as the American vehicle, and best yet, there is not one vetronic device or mechanism that is fitted to the Abrams that cannot be put into a Leopard at a cheaper price. Last but not least, its advanced diesel engine has twice the endurance of the American tank which means that one is les likely to hear the driver screaming "I'm on empty!" when the enemy sends another battalion. 10 hours on 504 gallons of JP8 Av-Gas versus up to hours on 255 gallons of regular and cheap diesel is a no contest in the court of military opinion.

In short, the Leopard Two is only limited by the budget the Germans have decided to impose on it. In the event of a real war, for only a few hundred thousand dollars, a leopard two can be equipped with the latest vetronics equal to and often superior to those fitted in the much more expensive Abrams. The Leopard is lighter so it does not have to worry about collapsing bridges. Its superior fuel economy means longer battle performance, easier logistics (less fuel consumed means less demand for trucks or risk of depleting local supplies). Hell, you can fill a leopard two up at a gas pump and it will run just about as well as it does on standard diesel. Do the same for the Abrams and you will see a performance drop, even if it not huge. Finally, the Leopard 2 is readily adaptable. The Abrams is so expensive to produce and operate as it is that despite having a vastly larger budget behind it than the PanzerWaffe, the US tank force is constantly cancelling upgrades and improvements while the Germans readily upgrade theirs. The US tank force runs out of money for upgrades because fuel costs rise, the Germans cancel upgrades because they want to spend that few million on making a babycare in Potsdam. Got to love Social Democracy! (Joke)

[trailmobile]

The Renault FT-17. My grandfather was a tank gunner in France in WWI with the American Army and beat the Hun!


Notice the signature on my grandfather's discharge papers? Cool, eh?

Hello Beirut,
I 'm a french guys who is found of history in génral and ww1 in particular.
With my organisation, since two years, we made and historical studies on the first tank corps in france in 1917 built by Patton in our area.
When i search for patton document's on the web, i see your grand father's discharge paper !
Do you know if your grand-father made a stay at "Bourg" (Close to "Langres - Haute-Marne in France) ?
It was the light tank school in france, a training area built by Patton. The main subject of our research is on this place because we live close to this little village.
Perhaps could you contact me directly if you want in order the exchange our knowledge ?
Thanks in advance for your repply. Nicolas.

[Beirut]

Hello Beirut,
I 'm a french guys who is found of history in génral and ww1 in particular.
With my organisation, since two years, we made and historical studies on the first tank corps in france in 1917 built by Patton in our area.
When i search for patton document's on the web, i see your grand father's discharge paper !
Do you know if your grand-father made a stay at "Bourg" (Close to "Langres - Haute-Marne in France) ?
It was the light tank school in france, a training area built by Patton. The main subject of our research is on this place because we live close to this little village.
Perhaps could you contact me directly if you want in order the exchange our knowledge ?
Thanks in advance for your repply. Nicolas.

En francais, svp.

[Brennus]

I'm gonna have to go for
1. T-34/85
2. Centurion
3. T-72

[Centurion1]

m1 abrams.

[Brennus]

m1 abrams.

I never understand why people like the Abrams, in terms of combat statistics its inferior to the Challenger 1 and 2 (few casualties proportionally speaking) and I doubt it can be classed as decisive when you consider the opponents it has faced have mostly been poorly maintained T-55s and other sub-standard Soviet export models.

[PanzerJaeger]

I never understand why people like the Abrams, in terms of combat statistics its inferior to the Challenger 1 and 2 (few casualties proportionally speaking)

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

[Brennus]

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

I mean that (although my understanding is by no means authorotative on the subject) in cases where the M1 Abrams and Challenger 1/2 have been employed Challengers have performed better in terms of losses, proportionally speaking. By that I mean although greater numbers of Abrams have been deployed in combat (and for that matter produced) even when you account for the fact that more Abrams were exposed to danger the Challenger still has fewer casualties. I hope I worded that in a way which is easy to understand.

Plus, on a personal note its not the prettiest tank in the world.

[CBR]

The number of tanks involved and actual engagements are way too small to make any conclusions. In 2003 there were only 120 Challenger 2's in Iraq and they were focused primarily in the Basra area IIRC.

Both tanks are well protected but precise data is top secret, so those who do know won't tell and those who tell can only make educated guesses. The M1 does have its ammo separated from the crew so that will increase crew survivability.

The other factors like firepower and mobility is a bit easier to judge, and AFAIK several trials have been made where the Challenger did not show any advantage over other Western tanks: The Greek Main Battle Tank Competition in 1998 put the Challenger 2E (export model) in a fourth place below the Leopard 2A5, M1A2 and LeClerc.

If the M1 has a problem then it is logistics as it is a terrible fuel guzzler. But it has improved somewhat since they added an Auxiliary Power Unit (at least on some M1 versions)

Overall I doubt they really are that different in capability, and they have all received several upgrades over the years

[PanzerJaeger]

If the M1 has a problem then it is logistics as it is a terrible fuel guzzler. But it has improved somewhat since they added an Auxiliary Power Unit (at least on some M1 versions)

Even in this regard, IIRC, the Abrams has a greater operational range. I'm not sure whether that is because the Abrams has more fuel capacity than the Challenger 2, or whether it has greater fuel economy. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel, so I doubt it is the latter- but it must carry a lot less fuel. Do you know anything about this?