# Historic tank comparisons, split from Re: Leopard 2's - 100 from the Dutch



## retiredgrunt45 (16 Apr 2007)

> I would argue that the Leo 2A6 is moderately ahead of the M1A2 SEP (latest?) variant.   But that's just an argument for beers, for both are very fine MBTs.  (Fine?  Whom am I kidding?  They both ROCK!)



 The military channel had a program of the all time 10 best tanks in the world, going back to WW I. Taken into consideration that modern tanks are far Superior to any of their predecessors, but still looking at how the older tanks faired in their day.

 The categories were.
 1. Logistical support. (How hard it is to support logistically in the field)
 2. Manufacturered number (How many were built and fielded)
 3. Protection (surviveability)
 4. Speed and mobility
 5. Firepower weaponry
 6. Fear factor

 The M1 came in 3rd place and the Leo 2 came in 2ND place, the first place went to the T34 of WWII.

 The M1 and Leo 2 and British Challenger were identical in almost every category, except when it came to ease of manufacturing and the logistical support needed for the M1's thirsty turbine engine in the field it got dismal points, The Challenger lost points on its mobility and speed and manufacturered number, so the Leo 2 took the lead in those 2 categories, coming out ahead of the M1.

 The top ten tanks were as follows.

 10. M4 American Sherman WW II
  9. British Centurian (Cold war)
  8. German Panzer Mark 4 (WW II)
  7. German Tiger (WW II)
  6. Israel Merkava (Current)
  7. French Leclerc MK 2 (Current)
  5. British Mark 1 (WW I)
  4. British Challenger 2 (Current)
  3. M1A2 Abrams (Current)
  2. German leopard 2-A6 (Current)
  1. Russian T-34 WW II


----------



## JesseWZ (16 Apr 2007)

Hmmm I'm no tanker but that looks like it would have been an interesting program.


----------



## Mourning (16 Apr 2007)

Ehhh... no Panther in the top-10  ???

I know it had its problems at the start of production and was relatively complicated in its day, but after the starting problems were solved it was definitely one of the best tanks of the war. Can't believe it's  not in the top-10.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## geo (16 Apr 2007)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Hmmm I'm no tanker but that looks like it would have been an interesting program.



look at No 7 & 8
BTW.... I think the Panzer Mk IV is a Panther Mk IV


----------



## ironduke57 (16 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> look at No 7 & 8
> BTW.... I think the Panzer Mk IV is a Panther Mk IV


Probably not, as the Panther was the Mark 5.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Mourning (16 Apr 2007)

Mark IV was widely known as the PzkfW IV. The Panther is, like Iron Duke pointed out, the Mark V.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## larry Strong (16 Apr 2007)

Been a while since I saw the show, I don't believe they had the  Mk IV on it .


----------



## geo (16 Apr 2007)

The list differs a little bit from the discovery chanel's top 10 list

top 1 - Germany's Leopard 2
top 2 - US M1A Abraham
top 3 - Russian T-34
top 4 - Israeli Merkava
top 5 - British Centurion
top 6 - Swedish S tank
top 7 - Russian T-72
top 8 - German Panther
top 9 - US Sheridan M551
top 10 - US M4 Sherman

I really think the Sheridan has no business on the list - but that's just me
WRT the T72?... if you thought the Sherman was a "tommy cooker", the T-72 beats it hands down.
WRT ths S Tank -  Interesting concepts but.... not very practical offensive platform.


----------



## Kamaro (16 Apr 2007)

Apparently that discovery channel top 10 (which I watched, and was an excellent show) had an american counterpart which was very similar... except the m1a2 came out 1st


----------



## geo (16 Apr 2007)

M1A2 with it's turbine engine can be a big PLUS or a big MINUS.... 
the remainder of the MBT is pert much the same as the Leo2 A6


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (16 Apr 2007)

I seen the discovery channel top ten list before i subcribed to the military channel, The history channel also had a top ten list, but I can't remember the tank list, been about a year ago.

 The military channel top ten was rerun 4 times in the past 6 months along with a program called weaponology, that highlighted the history of the tank from WW I to modern day tanks. The categories were the same, but results were a bit different. The M1 came out number 1. They explained why the German WW II tanks were very good tanks, but they were never able to produce them in sufficient numbers, because of the complexity of the machines and that's why they were at the bottom of the list. 

 Its hard to make a comparison between the M1, Challenger and Leo 2 because they are so similar in capabilities. Like the narrator said, these tanks would probably never meet each other on the battle field and that's the only place were we would see which one would come out on top.


----------



## Genetk44 (16 Apr 2007)

If I remember correctly,and my memory is like collander ;D it seems to me that the "scoreing parameters" if one can call them that,were slightly different on each show which would help explain the differences in the final listings. As an example I believe that one of the main or decideing reasons that the T-34, one of my favorite WW2 tanks, finished #1 in one of the lists was the ease of production/numbers produced. In the end its all subjective I think.


----------



## ironduke57 (16 Apr 2007)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Been a while since I saw the show, I don't believe they had the  Mk IV on it .



Why? The Panzer 4 is IMO a good tank. Dangerous to any allied armor till the end of war. Relative simple to produce and to maintain. Low on armor to the end, but still on the same level than the Sherman.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## rz350 (16 Apr 2007)

I'm no tanker, but it seems all the modern MBT's are awesome pieces of kit. (leo 2 M1a1 Challenger 2, merkava, type 98/99 chicom and the T-80 or higher from the Russians) They can all go though each others frontal armour, they are all quite maneuverable, fast, and high tech. Of course this is just a layman's opinion based on public info. But I would not want to be on the down range side of any one of them.

For historic tanks, I think the T-34 has to be number one, just based on its track record, cheap, fast to make, and pretty effective. The King Tiger was a very amazing piece of kit for its day, with its heavy sloped armour and its powerful (for the time) gun. But its bad workmanship kind of countered its armour, as it tended to Spall when hit, which to me knocks it down past the t-34, IS-2 and the Sherman.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (17 Apr 2007)

If anyone is interested and subscribes to the "Military Channel" the top ten tanks in the world will be aired again on saturday May 5 at 8:00 pm est. Also the program "weaponology" will air the history and development of the tank from WW I to todays modern tanks, will be aired again on Sunday May 6 at 9:00 pm est. If you have Rogers cable its channel 243.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 Apr 2007)

Which Sherman was the 17 pounder firefly? Too bad we didnt have more tanks with decent guns in normandy.....
Too bad the Allies did not have the centurion during ww2.....
 intresting, thanks for the list


----------



## geo (17 Apr 2007)

The centurion was part of our lessons learnt.

Too bad the A Bomb wasn't ready in 1942
Too bad the Allies didn't have jets in 43 or 44

It would appear the US wasn't comfortable using an English gun in it's M4 Sherman.... so only the Cdn & UK forces had something like the firefly.... so too bad the US didn't have a comparable gun to place in their M4 Sherman before Normandy.


----------



## JasonSkald (17 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Which Sherman was the 17 pounder firefly? Too bad we didnt have more tanks with decent guns in normandy.....
> Too bad the Allies did not have the centurion during ww2.....
> intresting, thanks for the list



Sherman Firefly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly


----------



## FascistLibertarian (18 Apr 2007)

Sigh, I should have checked wikipedia before asking on here....  ;D
geo I am no expert but it seems to me, and I could be wrong here of course, that the Allies should have known before D-Day that their tanks needed heavier guns and that they had far to many tanks which were not armed well enough to disable or destory german tanks. (I am sure I just said something that will get me ripped to shreds by everyone on here who knows about tanks).


----------



## larry Strong (18 Apr 2007)

IIRC yes they knew that, but they figured they could swamp them with quantity. A very simplified version.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Sigh, I should have checked wikipedia before asking on here....  ;D
> geo I am no expert but it seems to me, and I could be wrong here of course, that the Allies should have known before D-Day that their tanks needed heavier guns and that they had *far to many tanks* which were *not armed well enough to disable or destory german tanks*. (I am sure I just said something that will get me ripped to shreds by everyone on here who knows about tanks).


Two points in my bold-
A. It was not far to many, it was just enough and ensured that the allies had superior numbers and could absorb loses.
B. They were not well enough armed to go head to head, but the Sherman could destroy any German tank with rear or flank shots.

Point A sometimes allowed the Allies enough time to execute Point B.  Sounds callous, but its war.  Had they delayed the invasion until every Allied tank was a Tiger killer at 1000 yards the Atlantic wall would have that much harder to crack and all those wonderful tanks might not have made it off the beach.


----------



## time expired (18 Apr 2007)

I feel any top ten list that had the M551 Sheridan on it to be highly suspect.What possible justification
could there be for putting that turkey on the list?.By the way the Cent. only missed WW2 by a matter
of days,it was on its way to the front as the war ended,armed with the 17pdr.gun.
                                 Regards


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Apr 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> I feel any top ten list that had the M551 Sheridan on it to be highly suspect.What possible justification
> could there be for putting that turkey on the list?.By the way the Cent. only missed WW2 by a matter
> of days,it was on its way to the front as the war ended,armed with the 17pdr.gun.
> Regards



What about the S-Tank?

What did it ever do?

I thought that was the strangest name on the list even moreso than the Sheridan.


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2007)

The Sheridan and the S tanks were designed for specific tasks. The Sheridan was to give air-mobile forces a vehicle capable of killing any Soviet MBT, the gun system was ahead of it’s time and paid the price for it, only now are you seeing semi-successful gun/missile combo. Plus at the time the ATGM was seen as the pinnacle of tank killers. Every time they fired the main gun it would knock out the missile tracking system, which would have to be realigned. Upon opening the screw breech the gunner would have to be very careful of still burning propellant. The gun was really to big for the tank, even though it was Low pressure. Had they retro-fitted the tank with the HP 60mm, 75mm from the M41 or a LP 90mm it would have been more successful. Nevertheless  the tank performed well in Vietnam because of it’s mobility and the 152mm canister round which very useful in clearing ambushes. 
The S-tank was really a tank-killer/ mobile AT gun. It was designed to be used in the terrain of Sweden, fighting from prepared position and slowing down and stripping the Soviet armour. It was not meant to be an offensive tank like the Centurion, chieftain, M60. It would have been interesting if the Israelis had some in the Golan in 73.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Sheridan and the S tanks were designed for specific tasks. The Sheridan was to give air-mobile forces a vehicle capable of killing any Soviet MBT, the gun system was ahead of it’s time and paid the price for it, only now are you seeing semi-successful gun/missile combo. Plus at the time the ATGM was seen as the pinnacle of tank killers. Every time they fired the main gun it would knock out the missile tracking system, which would have to be realigned. Upon opening the screw breech the gunner would have to be very careful of still burning propellant. The gun was really to big for the tank, even though it was Low pressure. Had they retro-fitted the tank with the HP 60mm, 75mm from the M41 or a LP 90mm it would have been more successful. Nevertheless  the tank performed well in Vietnam because of it’s mobility and the 152mm canister round which very useful in clearing ambushes.
> The S-tank was really a tank-killer/ mobile AT gun. It was designed to be used in the terrain of Sweden, fighting from prepared position and slowing down and stripping the Soviet armour. It was not meant to be an offensive tank like the Centurion, chieftain, M60. It would have been interesting if the Israelis had some in the Golan in 73.



But how was the S-Tank in any way more important than let's say the ISU-122/ISU-152 or even SU-85/SU-100, each of which were produced by the thousands, pounded the hell out of the Nazis, as opposed to the S-Tank which was produced in the hundreds and never saw combat?

I would also rank the Stug III Ausf G as more important....and that still omits the fact they're all actually a tank destroyers as opposed to tanks.


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2007)

I suppose it could be considered the evolutionary end of the line for tank destroyers. It did have a successful Hydro-pneumatic suspension, which is more than can be said for most tanks so equipped.
My 10 best
Renault 6 ton tank (first tank designed and produced with a turret)
Centurion (first real MBT)
JSII (Likely the most successful heavy tank produced)
M41 (Likely the best light tank ever made, however the PZ38T, might be tied with it or the Russian T26, the only amphibious, air delivered tank until the Sheridan)
T55 (A fairly sound design that will likely take the cake for the longest serving gun tank in the world)
Sherman M4E8 (Likely the best medium tank of the war that saw combat, tough to decide if the Panther is really a medium in the sense of WWII. Plus it’s evolution was cut short by the end of the war, although it continued to serve in France and as static bunkers)
PT-76 The most successful and numerous amphibious tank
T-44 (although short lived it started the T-54,55,64,72.80,90 series)
Chieftain (barring it’s initial engine problems, this tank laid the groundwork for the present generation of tanks) 
Panther (evolutionary step from medium to MBT)


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 Apr 2007)

Another Opinion:

Tank Assessment Survey Ranks Leopard 2A6 Tops, With M1A2 the Runner-up
Prepared by Jon Clemens, ARMOR Managing Editor, ARMOR — July-August 1999
http://doc.danfahey.com/Tanks-ArmorMag.pdf

"What’s the best tank in the world? A lot of U.S. tankers would disagree, but a consulting firm called Forecast International, asked to rate the world’s tanks, argues that the most recent version of the German Leopard 2 edges out the M1A2 as world’s best."...................

GERMAN LEOPARD 2A6
U.S. M1A2 ABRAMS
JAPANESE TYPE 90
FRENCH LECLERC
BRITISH CHALLENGER 2
RUSSIAN T-80UM2
KOREAN TYPE 88/120
RUSSIAN T-90
RUSSIAN T-72
ISRAELI MERKAVA MARK III


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2007)

I noticed that they don't mention which T-72 is the best as there are many version of it and the Merk IV is not even mentioned, likely as the IDF does not release information on their equipment. I will take their list with a large bag of salt.

Of all the western tanks the Abrams is the most combat proven, followed by the Merk and the Chally. Our deployment will be the most intense trial of the Leo 2 since Bosnia.


----------



## geo (23 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Of all the western tanks the Abrams is the most combat proven, followed by the Merk and the Chally. Our deployment will be the most intense trial of the Leo 2 since Bosnia.



and the same can be said for the Leo1s employment.

which, to a certain extent, explains Germany's willingness to loan us an interrim supply of Leo2A6M.


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I noticed that they don't mention which T-72 is the best as there are many version of it and the Merk IV is not even mentioned, likely as the IDF does not release information on their equipment. I will take their list with a large bag of salt.



Colin,
there is a fair bit of information around about the Merk IV some I posted in an earlier forum/thread including where I discovered it. Most of which came from the Israeli press kits and advertsing. A few staff studies have recently surfaced vis via the tanks performance in it's AO. One of the problems with it though is the Israeli's refusal to export. "The second was the cost of development which despite cost sharing attempts no other country was interested. In this regard one of the more interesting features is the fuel tank suppression system. This system was offered to the US but the US refused. It is the main reason that the Merk's went with an up forward tank thus allowing for carrying space in the rear.(Conversation with Israeli Armoured Officers). Having said that there has been recently quite a bit of public source information regarding off the shelf purchases of components from Israel by the US. Business do like to publish their recent successes. Additionally, the book Chariots of the Desert: the Story of the Israeli Armoured Corps  by retired Col. David Eshel is an excellent reference source to the IDF armoured genre. Incidentally, anything by Eshel is worth the read as he has both written and spoken quite effectively in the US. Most recently his area of expertise has been the role of armour in urban counter insurgency warfare.

VP

Edit to add:

"I would also rank the Stug III Ausf G as more important....and that still omits the fact they're all actually a tank destroyers as opposed to tanks."

In disagreeing I think the Stug got the press and in this view mostly from western sources and writtings. Recently most German opinion revolves around the Panzerjäger 38(t) Hetzer. Small, manoeuvrable, good gun and a vehicle by vehicle infantry protection team consisting of a Jnr NCO and three other infantry types. The Americans however faced another dilemma as exemplified " Some American tanks posed a hazard to friendly troops merely by virtue of their construction. In September 1944 the 1st Infantry Division cautioned its units that extreme care should be exercised in firing the bow machine gun with which some US tanks were equipped because the gun was mounted in a low position and was impossible to aim accurately, thereby creating a serious hazard for infantry in front of the tank"(Shrader) In  the conclusion of "THE EVOLUTION AND DEMISE OF U.S. TANK DESTROYER DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR" by Bryan E. Denny his closing statement sums it all up in that "Ultimately, it could be said that each of the tank destroyers worked well if was placed on the terrain that most negated its weaknesses." Echoing is the thoughts of Col. Joesph Greene in the tank verses anti tank role in that the "............vulnerbilty of the tank is one of long range, the gun one of short range.......the factor of audibility will be an advantage soley on the side of the anti tank...the factor of visibility, too, will almost invariably favour the anti tank......"

Despite the effectiveness of equipment you still have scenarios such as;

"Despite the obvious problems of a night passage of lines (by the 3d Battalion), the attack jumped off smoothly at 2230. By midnight the 1st and 3d Battalions had taken Kirchtroisdorf and Kleintroisdorf respectively, and three hours later the 2d Battalion passed through and took Putz before daylight in a short but stubborn fight. Only one incident marred the generally well coordinated and successful moonlit attack. The platoon of British flail tanks (four tanks) detailed to follow the 1/117th in the attack on the right toward Kirchtroisdorf strayed left into the 3/117th zone. After proceeding several hundred yards the platoon leader realized his mistake and turned his platoon around. As his tanks again approached the 3d Battalion axis of advance, they were spotted by elements of the 3d Battalion, which had jumped off ten minutes late. The 3/117th and its accompanying armor (B-743d Tank Bn and Troop A, 1st Lothian and Border Yeomanry (-)) and tank destroyer elements (one platoon of C-823d TD Bn) assumed that the tanks were German and took the hapless flail tanks under fire, destroying the entire platoon. In an otherwise well planned, well coordinated and well executed attack, chance, an error, and reduced visibility making identification difficult resulted in a serious case of ground amicicide, as it had so many times before in the European battle area." Interestingly though the author Charles Shrader also states with regard to the 823d TD Battalion "took two prisoners which were its first, suffered its first fatal casualties, was shot up by its own Infantry and Armored Force and in turn shot up our own Infantry and Armored Force but under all circumstances came through their first critical engagement in fairly good shape and without too serious losses." (Shrader)

Source:

DENNY, BRYAN E. , MAJ, US ARMY "THE EVOLUTION AND DEMISE OF U.S. TANK DESTROYER DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR" Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, 1990.http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA416377&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Shrader Charles, " Amicicide: the problem of friendly fire in modern war."U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, KS
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Shrader/shrader.asp


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2007)

Thanks, I have seen pictures of the interior of a Merk I donated to the French Armour museum, the IDF stripped it of most fittings before sending it and didn’t allow pictures of the inside for many years. 

I did know about the fuel tank built into the armour, if I recall correctly there was a number being kicked around that 4” of fuel had the same effect as 1” of RHA (I think this is reference to HEAT rds, can’t see it effecting KE rods), I always though that number high, but there may be some sort of insert into the fuel tank to help achieve that figure.

I think the T-72 and it’s variants is a decent tank, but not better than the Merk 3. Also the tanks were built with two completely different missions in mind. Also if I had to go into battle I would take the Merk over the T-72 just on crew survivability alone. Having played around on a East German T-72, they are pretty tight to get out of.


----------

