"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

[Mohoender]

My favored one would be the Panther but I'll rate the T-34 first in reality as this tank represented one of the most important breakthrough in tank making. Almost everything used on today's tank was experienced on this tank.

Nevertheless, I would recall that the T-34 owes many thanks to the christies tanks that were turned down by the US Army during the 1930.

Then my top list would be
10) Mk.IV Panzer (how did the German managed to get success with that)
9) T-54/55 family (not much more than an oversize T-34, cheap then)
8) Challenger (never made me dream)
7) M1 Abrams Family (wouldn't trade it for a merkava but great at long range)
6) Sherman (just came in time, not the best but very good, nevertheless)
5) Merkava (impressed me when I first discovered it in the 1980's)
4) M-48 Patton family (The best american tank family in my opinion)
3) Panther (as I said I love this one, nothing more to say)
2) Centurion (slow but great, ask the israelis)
1) T-34 (just a wonderful tool)

[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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

My favored one would be the Panther but I'll rate the T-34 first in reality as this tank represented one of the most important breakthrough in tank making. Almost everything used on today's tank was experienced on this tank.

OTOH, a two-man crew in the turret and lack of radio in most cases were severe limitations.

Nevertheless, I would recall that the T-34 owes many thanks to the christies tanks that were turned down by the US Army during the 1930.

The T-34 also owes a lot to the earlier BT series.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by copeab

OTOH, a two-man crew in the turret and lack of radio in most cases were severe limitations.



The T-34 also owes a lot to the earlier BT series.

BT series were made from the christies. About the turret, most tanks had a two-man crew (including many panzers) and it was the single-man turret (standard on most french tanks) that represented a limitation. However, at the beginning the lack of radio and poor tactical use (small tank formations) represented severe limitations.

[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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

About the turret, most tanks had a two-man crew (including many panzers) and it was the single-man turret (standard on most french tanks) that represented a limitation.

The Panzer III and IV used three man turrets, which meant the commander wasn;t distracted by having to load or fire the main gun.

[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.

[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.

[Brother in Arms]

I didn't vote in this one because I kinda always liked the M60 MBT. Especially in the M60A3 version....they have even developed a more modern design of it that incorporates many of the best features of M1A1 Abrams.

Nothing like a tank with an escape hatch on the bottom!

Brother in Arms

[Matt Wiser]

The Merkava has seen tank-v-tank combat: Lebanon 1982, against Syrian T-72s. ISTR a Newsweek blurb that said the U.S. Army was very interested in the results, as the Israelis were using a 105 sabot round that opened up T-72s at 3,000 meters.

The T-90 has probably been used in Chechnya, but unless the Chechens used captured armor against the Russians, no real info on how it performed (unless you believe the hyperbole of the manufacturer).

The Arjun, according to Strategypage.com, is in, to use a Hollywood phrase, "Development Hell." If it was being built in a Western country it'd be cancelled, but national pride in India means it's still on life support. The Indian Army went ahead and ordered the T-90.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

The T-90 has probably been used in Chechnya, but unless the Chechens used captured armor against the Russians, no real info on how it performed (unless you believe the hyperbole of the manufacturer).

According to what I have found the T-90 (as olders T-72) in Chechnya faced the same type of problems that the Abrams in Iraq. Survival in Urban setting is not that good and that is also true for IFV s and APC. As a result, the Russian like the US are working on solutions to improve equipments survival in Urban fightings.

[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)

[Twilight2000v3MM]

How about the Tiger I? Yes it looked great on paper and was good in battle as long as you could keep it running.

But where it realy hit home was morale on the WWII battlefield.

[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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by copeab

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

I think that at least a few of the Syrian IV's were mobile. I've never read anything about Tigers in Syrian service, though*.

You're dead on about the Tiger's psychological impact, Paul. Aside from some mobility and maintainance issues, it was a very good tank and hard to beat. On our poll, the T-34 ranks very high (and rightly so) but quite a few Tiger aces destroyed scores of T-34s on the battlefield.

*I've should have a book about the '67 Six Day War coming for Christmas so I get back to ya'll on it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think that at least a few of the Syrian IV's were mobile. I've never read anything about Tigers in Syrian service, though*.

You're dead on about the Tiger's psychological impact, Paul. Aside from some mobility and maintainance issues, it was a very good tank and hard to beat. On our poll, the T-34 ranks very high (and rightly so) but quite a few Tiger aces destroyed scores of T-34s on the battlefield.

*I've should have a book about the '67 Six Day War coming for Christmas so I get back to ya'll on it.

Screwed up -- the war was in 1967. Anyway, the blurb about Tigers was something I read in a Jane's Defence Weekly when I was stationed at Ft. Stewart in the mid-1980s (you board veterans know how my memory for odd facts works) though it was a long time ago and I could be mistaken. The Syrians tried to use them as operational tanks, the few they di got trashed quickly, and they pulled them back to their borders, dug them in, and used them as pillbox/antitank guns -- where they still got trashed.

If any of you have read Joe Haldeman's The Forever War you get a good idea of different tech levels encountering each other in combat. I remember one scene in the book where Mandella's lower-tech troop carrier is attacked by a Tauran ship a couple of hundred years ahead of it in tech -- Mandella's ship lost a good half of the crew and troops, his girlfriend nearly died, the ship was heavily dosed with radiation, the computers were almost totally toasted by EMP, and they had no communications -- after they got hit by something "all in a package the size of a grape."

[O'Borg]

You can find a Military Channel Top Ten Tanks on YouTube.

Must be a different version to the one Matt watched as the Leopard doesnt even make the list!

From 10 - 1 it goes :

10 - M4 Sherman
9 - Merverka
8 - T54/55
7 - Challenger1/2
6 - Panzer MkIV
5 - Centurion
4 - WW1 British Tank
3 - Tiger
2 - M1 Abrams
1 - T34

[Matt Wiser]

I know the show you mean: it's frequently on the Military Channel, and I'd have the M-1 and the T-34 change places. One could argue that the M-1 series is the best in the world today, while the T-34 is the best "classic" tank. One does wonder why the producers of the new show included tanks that never saw combat (like the S-Tank or the Leo series)?

[pmulcahy11b]

Of course, I'd take the weapon I have over the best one in the world I don't have any day...

[cawest]

after actions in north Syria, I think the Leo's are going to drop in any tank ranks.