Now we know: the top ten greatest ever tanks of all time

"The Sherman was one of the Greatest Tanks in History" has become a self-perpetuating myth that won't die. I know some of my countrymen might take it personally, as though saying
"The Sherman Tank pretty much sucked." = "Down with you American Capitalist pigs."

I'm willing to be convinced that the Sherman was a wonderful design, and I'll prolly be waiting a long time. Doesn't speak anything against the USA. Japan had worse tanks.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
"The Sherman was one of the Greatest Tanks in History" has become a self-perpetuating myth that won't die. I know some of my countrymen might take it personally, as though saying
"The Sherman Tank pretty much sucked." = "Down with you American Capitalist pigs."

I'm willing to be convinced that the Sherman was a wonderful design, and I'll prolly be waiting a long time. Doesn't speak anything against the USA. Japan had worse tanks.
Click to expand...


Ok compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was a good design.
 
Doppleganger said:
It wasn't an 'ability' of the Sherman to be produced in such massive numbers. What you really should be saying is that it was an 'ability' of Allied industrial capability that so many Shermans could be built. Can't you see the difference?
Click to expand...


Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.
 
Damien435 said:
Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.
Click to expand...


Or maybe just stuck with the M5 Suart.
 
Damien435 said:
Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.
Click to expand...
The US should have come up with a better design in the first place. There are quite a few things they could have done to the Sherman to improve it. It took long enough to correct the most glaring fault, that the ammo would often blow up if the tank was struck anywhere on the turret.

It was easy to produce, but then so was the T-34 and Panzer IV, both better designs. Even the Panther and Tiger would have been easier to produce if the Germans were not so insistent on making each one as if it were a gold-plated swiss watch.

What the US should have done was focus more on the M-26 "Pershing" and get more of those tanks into action. It's all very well saying that the Sherman was produced by its millions but try telling that to the sorry GIs who had to crew the things and many who lost their lives needlessly as a result of the Sherman's poor design.

Reading the following link and the book it references; "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", is quite an eye-opener.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/cooper.html
 
Last edited:
Cadet Seaman said:
Ok compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was a good design.
Click to expand...
No, compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was pretty crappy. Examples of other Mediums that were vastly superior:
Panther G
Panzer IV
T-34

I'll have to agree with Dopp, dropping production of the Sherman and focussing on the Pershing would have been the smart thing to do. Its all understandable though. Pre-WW2, we had pretty much 0 tanks available for production, so we had to throw something together in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
M4 Longevity

The Sherman became known as the Ronson or Zippo for good reason but there is no doubt that it's sheer numbers made it an effective weapon system. Victory through attrition isn't a pretty philosophy but victory is the ultimate goal.
What I found amazing was the number of Shermans that continue in service throughout the world until the 70'. Granted, from an aviator's perspective, tanks fall into the broad catagory labelled "Targets" but a system that continues to provide service 35 years after design and manufacture has to be considered sufficiently special to make the list.
 
True, but the Pershing didn't even hit the battlefield until 45'. I'm not saying it's the best desgin, I'm saying compared to what was around and what we had before it was a good design.

Compare it to the M5 which we had quite a few of. The Sherman did an OK job.

After reading a bit on Wikipedia, I must go with the statement that the Sherman was better fitted in the cavalry role.

I also after reading some commentson Wikipedia. In the book The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair it states that on Korea the M26 was seen as a failure, and the M4A3E8 was prefered over the M26 by tankers because of it's effectiveness against the T-34.
 
Last edited:
Cadet Seaman said:
True, but the Pershing didn't even hit the battlefield until 45'. I'm not saying it's the best desgin, I'm saying compared to what was around and what we had before it was a good design.

Compare it to the M5 which we had quite a few of. The Sherman did an OK job.

After reading a bit on Wikipedia, I must go with the statement that the Sherman was better fitted in the cavalry role.

I also after reading some commentson Wikipedia. In the book The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair it states that on Korea the M26 was seen as a failure, and the M4A3E8 was prefered over the M26 by tankers because of it's effectiveness against the T-34.
Click to expand...

Cadet Seaman, if you haven't done so already read the link I posted to in my last post. Pershings could have reached the front in 1944 had the US Army agreed to it. A lot of the US war effort smacks of cost cutting with regard to the Sherman.

It was a not a good design, period.

I don't think the M26 was a great design either but it was much better than the M4.
 
Doppleganger said:
Cadet Seaman, if you haven't done so already read the link I posted to in my last post. Pershings could have reached the front in 1944 had the US Army agreed to it. A lot of the US war effort smacks of cost cutting with regard to the Sherman.

It was a not a good design, period.

I don't think the M26 was a great design either but it was much better than the M4.
Click to expand...

Actually if I'm not mistaken, it was Patton that delayed the M26's deployment.

Ok, it wasn't a good design, but it did the job and thanks to that it helped win the war.


I think that the U.S. Army had a bad designing flaw in it's tanks from the M4 to the M47.
 
Last edited:
LOL, if you ask my opinion, the USA only finally got its very first relatively flawless design with the M1 Abrams. Everything prior to that, there was always something to complain about. I'm wracking my brain, but I can't think of an exception.

The beautiful part about the M1 was that we went from middle-of-the-pack for our MBT directly to #1. Course then everyone else came out with their own new design, but I've always viewed the Abrams as America's very first astoundingly good tank. It was the first time that the USA unquestionably led the world to the next level of tank designs.

Cadet Seaman said:
Actually if I'm not mistaken, it was Patton that delayed the M26's deployment.
Click to expand...
I forgive Patton for that mistake, he more than compensated for that by being such an excellent battlefield commander.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for interupting but I got a question for the more familiar with tanks..

What about the older tanks:

- Matilda

and

- Churchil?

What do u say?
 
"LOL, if you ask my opinion, the USA only finally got its very first relatively flawless design with the M1 Abrams. Everything prior to that, there was always something to complain about. I'm wracking my brain, but I can't think of an exception.

The beautiful part about the M1 was that we went from middle-of-the-pack for our MBT directly to #1. Course then everyone else came out with their own new design, but I've always viewed the Abrams as America's very first astoundingly good tank. It was the first time that the USA unquestionably led the world to the next level of tank designs."

Shouldnt the joint german - american project be credited for taking the the tank to the next level?
 
Cadet Seaman said:
Yas, that a couple of German Leo 2A5's where attacked by RPG's and at least one tank.
Click to expand...

Yep and what is the difference to any other tanks thats so called "combat proven"? :-P

Opps sorry for that, so confusing when your supposed to quote 2 very different posts and then post them in one post, so sorry for the dubble post. Should add that option for multiple quoting of posts that are avalible for vB :)
 
Doppleganger said:
Yes. Both the M1 and Leo 2 came directly from the MBT-70 project.
Click to expand...

Exactly so it wouldnt be fair to mention one tank that derived from a joint project as the next big step in tank design, rather mention the joint projekt as the key point of the next level tank.
 
AlexKall said:
Exactly so it wouldnt be fair to mention one tank that derived from a joint project as the next big step in tank design, rather mention the joint project as the key point of the next level tank.
Click to expand...

True, but the MBT-70 was a failure. After the project American and Germany setoff on their seperate ways and both built awesome tanks, both tanks sharing alot of design and tech.
 
Huh, some reason I thought the Leopard 2 initially came out a lot later than it did, but apparently it was 1979. Therin lies the problem with me relying on my own memory. I had it at 1989 or so. Only off by ten years, right?? LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
M1-Abrams was 1980, and I'd remembered that one correctly. The two designs deriving from MBT70 essentially came out at about the same exact time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

On the other hand, the Leapard 1 was the very best of its era of tanks. The M-60 which was the USA's main MBT, really wasn't. Middle of the pack at best.

Leopard 1 --> Leopard 2 = Good progressive move forward in tech and design.

M-60 --> M1 Abrams = A giant leap forward!! <---That was my main point. Also, that the Abrams was the first instance that I am aware of the USA's MBT was among the very best in the world, if not initially the #1 MBT in its own right.

Both of them are top-notch tanks and IMHO belong in any all-time top 10 list.

Its all sortof wandering offtopic anyways.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
True, but the MBT-70 was a failure. After the project American and Germany setoff on their seperate ways and both built awesome tanks, both tanks sharing alot of design and tech.
Click to expand...

Yes but none the less, it was the project that made the leap forward in tank design as the two tankes that came to be was both based on that project so in sides of this it was the joint project that made the leap not the tanks that came to be from it.

"Huh, some reason I thought the Leopard 2 initially came out a lot later than it did, but apparently it was 1979. Therin lies the problem with me relying on my own memory. I had it at 1989 or so. Only off by ten years, right?? LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
M1-Abrams was 1980, and I'd remembered that one correctly. The two designs deriving from MBT70 essentially came out at about the same exact time.
<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams"[/b" target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams"

That explains it, and yes they ware pretty much out on the same year, not even a year between them.

"M-60 --> M1 Abrams = A giant leap forward!! <---That was my main point. Also, that the Abrams was the first instance that I am aware of the USA's MBT was among the very best in the world, if not initially the #1 MBT in its own right. "

I do see your point but in my opinion it was a leap forward in world tank design but rather a offspring of the world leap in tank design and there for i think it can be mentioned as the leap forward in US tank design and leave it at that, same with the Leopard 2, it wasnt a leap forward in world tank design either it was a offspring of the one world leap in tank design. :)
 
My main point was, the M1-Abrams was the first US tank design that was a really really great design.

But yeah, the Sherman just screams: "Shoot me, I'll die fast for ya!" High profile, big target, no armor sloping, thinner armor than other mediums of the era and we've already covered the part about it being a Deathtrap. If you can crack the "Top Ten" by numbers and historical importance alone, then the Liberty Ship was the best naval vessel in the history of the world, LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top