"10 Greatest" on the Military Channel

[Matt Wiser]

Guys, has anyone here seen the new series "10 Greatest" on the Military Channel? Their debut episode had the "10 Greatest Tanks" and there were plenty of disagreements: The M-551 Sheridan as #9, T-72 as #7, M-1 family at #3, the S-Tank at #5 (I believe), and the Leo 2 at #1! The T-34 was #2 IIRC. I'd put the Leo 2 as the Top tank that has yet to see combat, but #1 in the world? Come on. They did have the Merkava at #4, and they showed an all-female Israeli crew (they're instructors, but want to bet that in dire emergencies those instructors form a battalion or a brigade, a la the old German Panzer Lehr Division? (which was made up from a cadre of instructors in early 1944 out of several Wehrmacht armor and panzergrenadier training schools, along with the cream of combat veterans)

[kato13]

Do you want to redo this poll with more than 10 options. THe leo being missing led me to believe that you might have not had enough space. A poll can now have 20 options. Sorry about that. I think I can add any missing options.

[Matt Wiser]

Not at present: IIRC the Leo 2 family has not seen serious combat (being shot at by angry Serbs in Bosnia or having stones tossed at it by mobs in Kosovo doesn't count). All of those on the list made names for themselves (good or bad) in combat.

[kato13]

Ok Personally the leo would not have made my list either but given you mentioned it I just want to make sure you were not limited by the poll only having 10 options.

[Matt Wiser]

My top 10 would be as follows:

10) Sherman
9) T-54/55 family
8) Chieftain
7) M-48 Patton family
6) Mark IV Panzer
5) Centurion
4) Merkava
3) Panther
2) T-34
1) M-1 Abrams family

[kato13]

I'll be honest I don't know enough to rank all of then but my top three would be:

3) Merkava
2) T-34
1) M-1 Abrams family

[copeab]

Several years ago, there was a different series of Top Ten shows. What IMHO made those shows superior was they ranked the vehicles in five categories (which varied somewhat from one type of vehicle to another). So, for example, when the M113 came in first among APCs, you could see that it wiped the floor with other APCs in service length and versatility.

The problem with the new shows is that there doesn't seem to be any criteria being used at all.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by copeab

Several years ago, there was a different series of Top Ten shows. What IMHO made those shows superior was they ranked the vehicles in five categories (which varied somewhat from one type of vehicle to another). So, for example, when the M113 came in first among APCs, you could see that it wiped the floor with other APCs in service length and versatility.

The problem with the new shows is that there doesn't seem to be any criteria being used at all.

I agree, it doesn't make sense to compare the Panzer IV and the M1 Abrams. However, how would you rank the following tanks?

- Leclerc (France)
- Type 90 (Japan)
- Challenger (UK)
- M1 Abrams Family (USA)
- Arjun (India)
- T-90 (Russia)
- Type 85 (China)
- Leopard 2 Family (Germany)
- Ariete (Italy)
- Merkava (Israel)

If you want you can add the T-84 (Ukraine) and the K-1 (South Korea).

[Raellus]

Most of those tanks you listed Mo haven't seen any significant action. IMO, it's not really fair to rank tanks that have not seen combat. A tank might look great on paper but show serious limitations/weaknesses in combat.

Take for example the Merkava 4. On paper, it's the most modern MBT in the world. In combat in Lebanon in '06 it proved nearly as vulnerable to Russian made top-attack ATGMs as earlier models.

So, the LeClerc looks well and good, but there's really no way to make an accurate assessment until it sees combat.

My top 10:

1. M-1
2. T-34/85
3. Centurion
4. Panther
5. Merkava
6. Mk. IV Panzer
7. Challenger 2
8. M-48/60
9. T-54/55
10. Sherman Firefly

All have seen significant combat.

[Mohoender]

Copeab

That's a point I overlooked, however, I don't really see how you can compare tanks from early WWII with tanks from nowadays. To me it sounds a bit like comparing bow and arrows with assault rifle. Actually, from the given list I can rank every tank first, depending on the time period, on the location and on the given model (for exemple Pz IVC to J). As a rersult, the best way I found to rank them was "how much I love the beast".

For exemple, the M1 proved to be the best tank in open field (1991 and 2003) but it never had to face a tank of its class (unlike the M60 Patton). Since, it can be assumed that it suffers more in urban settings (80 tanks lost in Iraq but I find the crew survival rate outstanding). The Merkava proved very good (even better) in that kind of theater until the last israeli offensive over lebanon. Then, nobody knows how the Abrams would perform in front of the tactics used by the hezbollah. Moreover, Lebanon is not Iraq and the ground is more difficult. Abrams have been used in Open (almost flat) deserts, what about mud, jungle, mountainous setting, Siberia... The only thing you can add is that it performed well also during peace mission in Bosnia and Kosovo but that was also the case for the Leclerc.

Comparing tanks is always hard.

[copeab]

I didn't mark three tanks in the poll. The reasons are:

Panzer IV: A fairly average tank. Although at any given time it was slighty ahead of the Sherman in firepower, armor was nearly the same. It also wasn't produced in remotely the numbers of the Sherman. While it did have a three-man turret and radio as standard, so did the earlier Panzer III.

Merkava: Mainly a defensive tank that hasn't really stood out in the combat it's seen. Came close to making the list.

M48 et al: Generally inferior to Russian tanks of it's era (primarily in armor) and not nearly as good as the Centurion.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I agree, it doesn't make sense to compare the Panzer IV and the M1 Abrams.

That's not what I said/ I said that the new series doesn't appear to have any rhyme or reason to how they are ranked. Personally, I think you compare vehicles to other vehicles of it's era, then you use the final marks to compare vehicles against those of different eras.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by copeab

That's not what I said/ I said that the new series doesn't appear to have any rhyme or reason to how they are ranked. Personally, I think you compare vehicles to other vehicles of it's era, then you use the final marks to compare vehicles against those of different eras.

I've seen a few episodes of the series of which you speak, Brandon. It was helpful to have clearly identified criteria by which the comparisons were made. That said, some of their rankings seemed a little weird to me.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've seen a few episodes of the series of which you speak, Brandon. It was helpful to have clearly identified criteria by which the comparisons were made. That said, some of their rankings seemed a little weird to me.

They reshowed the ones on subs tonight. While I dearly love the I-400 class sub, it has no business being in the top 10. Yes, it's the most impressive diesel-electric sub ever built, larger than most modern nuclear attack subs. Yes, it had fuel to travel 1.5 times around the earth. Yes, it carried over 20 torpedoes and 4 attack planes. However, only two were finished and it never saw combat.

(Of course, the idea of sub-launched attack aircraft was a good one, and we have them today with the pilot removed, in the UGM-84 Harpoon and UGM-109 Tomahawk)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

That's not what I said/ I said that the new series doesn't appear to have any rhyme or reason to how they are ranked. Personally, I think you compare vehicles to other vehicles of it's era, then you use the final marks to compare vehicles against those of different eras.

I think they were trying to compare the relative effects on the battlefield or in service at the time they were actually in service. Sort of. Like you said, a bit screwy.

You can't really directly compare most tanks from different eras. The Tiger and Panther were terrors of the battlefield in World War 2, but even an early M-60 (as in not even an M-60A1 yet) would trash either one of them. (The Syrians actually found that out in the 1968 war -- that was the last recorded use of Tigers in combat.)

You can't really even compare tanks in the "Abrams-class" with others. There aren't that many tanks today that compare -- the Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6, Merkava, Leclerc (maybe).

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

You can't really directly compare most tanks from different eras. The Tiger and Panther were terrors of the battlefield in World War 2, but even an early M-60 (as in not even an M-60A1 yet) would trash either one of them. (The Syrians actually found that out in the 1968 war -- that was the last recorded use of Tigers in combat.)

I thought those were Panzer IV's, and they were used as static pillboxes.