Military Channel - greatest ever Tanks

[Kyle Holgate]

Interestingly they chose the Leopard series of tanks as the best - over the M1A1 and A2 and the Merkava. I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't mention the Tiger anywhere in the top 10. Here's their choices : http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/greatest_ever/tanks/index.shtml

I have some doubts that the Sheridan should be there over the Pz III or IV which were the real work horses of the Panzer forces.

[old_pop2000]

Interestingly they chose the Leopard series of tanks as the best - over the M1A1 and A2 and the Merkava. I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't mention the Tiger anywhere in the top 10. Here's their choices : http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/greatest_ever/tanks/index.shtml

I have some doubts that the Sheridan should be there over the Pz III or IV which were the real work horses of the Panzer forces.

If they were to update that into the year 2000, would an M1A1 with the same 120mm gun and new digital systems be second to the Leopard of the same year. I have doubts.

I do like the diesel better. Gas turbines are gas hogs and have great heat plumes. Oldfashion I guess.

[paladin5]

Why is the Sheridan even on the list, everything I have seen about it says it is a fairly mediocre tank.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Why is the Sheridan even on the list, everything I have seen about it says it is a fairly mediocre tank.


Mike et al:

Once the networks get the hands on a topic it becomes nonsense.:rolleyes:

[paladin5]

Mike et al:

Once the networks get the hands on a topic it becomes nonsense.:rolleyes:


Good point. As far as I have been able to tell the Sheridan's only redeeming quality was that you could strap a parachute to it and shove it out of an airplane.

[djcyclone]

I question whether any tank is better than the Abrams. The leapord may be a better tank as far as construction and armor are concerned, but the Abrams wipes everything out with the onboard computers.

The Abrams can shoot a target moving at nearly 50 MPH and be accurate. The Abram can also shoot tanks, before they even know the Abram is there. This is how a majority of the Iraqi tanks where killed in the first Gulf War.

Most of them never even knew the enemy was nearby.

In my opinion, this makes the M1A1 the best tank in the World. Sure it might not be a match in a point blank shoot out, but you have to get close enough to engage a point blank shoot out, and if it can reach out and touch you before you even see it, well I think it is pretty self explanitory.

[paladin5]

I question whether any tank is better than the Abrams. The leapord may be a better tank as far as construction and armor are concerned, but the Abrams wipes everything out with the onboard computers.

The Abrams can shoot a target moving at nearly 50 MPH and be accurate. The Abram can also shoot tanks, before they even know the Abram is there. This is how a majority of the Iraqi tanks where killed in the first Gulf War.

Most of them never even knew the enemy was nearby.

In my opinion, this makes the M1A1 the best tank in the World. Sure it might not be a match in a point blank shoot out, but you have to get close enough to engage a point blank shoot out, and if it can reach out and touch you before you even see it, well I think it is pretty self explanitory.

Actually DJ the fire control computers onboard most modern first world MBT's can do most of those things. What sets the M-1 series apart is that they are combat proven, but that doesn't make them any better or worse then other current tanks. It just means that people have actual proof that it works. Though I can't help but wonder how well the M-1 would fair against other modern tanks. Personally though If think that a fight like that would be very nasty for all sides.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Good point. As far as I have been able to tell the Sheridan's only redeeming quality was that you could strap a parachute to it and shove it out of an airplane.

Mike:

The Sheridan had a multitude of problems including weak armor, too big a gun for its weight, problems with its electrical system and problems with its ammuniton. Mike M commanded a company of them and could probably tell lots of stories about them (like the time a round went off and knocked him senseless).

[Kyle Holgate]

Mike et al:

Once the networks get the hands on a topic it becomes nonsense.:rolleyes:

In this show, unlike the "top 10" show - they didn't use viewer votes and such, they discussed it with actual tankers, Tom Clancy and others. With so much of modern equipment being classified I'm not sure we can actually know how well many of the modern tanks stack up. I'd actually tend to bet on the Merkava as best given how much experience the Israeli people have with tank operations. Comparing the Leopards and the M1 models, let alone the Leclerc and Challengers is nearly impossible. Challenger has combat experience vs enemy tanks (T-72 models) as does the M1. The Merkava has been combat tested in an urban warfare environment. I don't think the Leopards have been in combat (?).

The Sheridan was lower on the list than the M4 Sherman. Even if it belongs on the list at all I wouldn't put it there. It's hardly a tank in my view - more a big lightly armored AFV with a big gun. Maybe it had good mobility but a BMP could hammer it without needing to use its AT missile.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In this show, unlike the "top 10" show - they didn't use viewer votes and such, they discussed it with actual tankers, Tom Clancy and others. With so much of modern equipment being classified I'm not sure we can actually know how well many of the modern tanks stack up. I'd actually tend to bet on the Merkava as best given how much experience the Israeli people have with tank operations. Comparing the Leopards and the M1 models, let alone the Leclerc and Challengers is nearly impossible. Challenger has combat experience vs enemy tanks (T-72 models) as does the M1. The Merkava has been combat tested in an urban warfare environment. I don't think the Leopards have been in combat (?).

The Sheridan was lower on the list than the M4 Sherman. Even if it belongs on the list at all I wouldn't put it there. It's hardly a tank in my view - more a big lightly armored AFV with a big gun. Maybe it had good mobility but a BMP could hammer it without needing to use its AT missile.

Kyle:

I think the Merkava is good for the missions it was designed for and the environment it fights in. Put it in Europe and I don't see it as a world beater. Also I think the Israeli army is very overrated. It has never had to fight somebody that has doctrine and equipment to match it. I'm not dissing the Israelis, I'm being realistic here. What do you think a British or American armor force would do to a comparable Israeli force?

[djcyclone]

Kyle:

I think the Merkava is good for the missions it was designed for and the environment it fights in. Put it in Europe and I don't see it as a world beater. Also I think the Israeli army is very overrated. It has never had to fight somebody that has doctrine and equipment to match it. I'm not dissing the Israelis, I'm being realistic here. What do you think a British or American armor force would do to a comparable Israeli force?


I think their reputation comes from the simple fact that they have been fighting for so long. Their forces are no joke, because they have the experience.

If the U.S. was to go to war with Israel (not going to happen), then we would have superior fire power, plus more troops and better equipment, but they have experience.

Sound Familiar?

Vietnam all over again anyone?

[asnrobert]

I think their reputation comes from the simple fact that they have been fighting for so long. Their forces are no joke, because they have the experience.

If the U.S. was to go to war with Israel (not going to happen), then we would have superior fire power, plus more troops and better equipment, but they have experience.

Sound Familiar?

Vietnam all over again anyone?

I don't think so, as Vietnam was more of a guerilla war. Plus Israel is small and with few trees, so they couldn't hide like the VC and NVA forces could.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think their reputation comes from the simple fact that they have been fighting for so long. Their forces are no joke, because they have the experience.

If the U.S. was to go to war with Israel (not going to happen), then we would have superior fire power, plus more troops and better equipment, but they have experience.

Sound Familiar?

Vietnam all over again anyone?

DJ:

Are you saying that the US lacks experience? Can you say two Gulf wars and Afghanistan plus Kosovo? What have you been watching for the last 8 years?:rolleyes:

[Warship NWS]

A few cents for the discussion pot, (note, lets keep it nice in here as well as this topic can be quite controversial)

a) Israel has arguably the most combat experience of any modern military in the world plus they are literally surrounded by threats at arms length in all directions. When you compare a nation where every able bodied person has to serve in the military for certain length of time that says a lot about their level of training.

b) The Vietnam War was nothing like the conventional Arab-Israeli wars which were over very quickly and decisively and were fought almost entirely on conventional tactical and doctrinal terms. No nation building, no ideology transformation attempts, no military use as a police force, etc.. it was a simple shooting war between nations mostly over territorial disputes.

c) As to the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, etc.. I would not consider those true conventional warfare experience. Taking on a competent national fully deployed and well trained military force fighting a full conventional war would be an entirely different animal for our troops to be tested on. Nothing against our troops whatsoever as they are some of the finest and best trained in the world but the USA military arms has never fought a full scale conventional war against a worthy opponent since WW2 and then the Korean War -- and we definitely learned a lot of bitter lessons during both wars -- lessons we may not have time to learn in a modern short and bitter rapidly moving conflict against a worthy adversary. The Isrealis almost had their asses handed to them during the Yom Kippur War as a case and point.

We must always be prepared for the worst possible opponent.

[Ed Rotondaro]

A few cents for the discussion pot, (note, lets keep it nice in here as well as this topic can be quite controversial)

a) Israel has arguably the most combat experience of any modern military in the world plus they are literally surrounded by threats at arms length in all directions. When you compare a nation where every able bodied person has to serve in the military for certain length of time that says a lot about their level of training.

c) As to the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, etc.. I would not consider those true conventional warfare experience. Taking on a competent national fully deployed and well trained military force fighting a full conventional war would be an entirely different animal for our troops to be tested on. Nothing against our troops whatsoever as they are some of the finest and best trained in the world but the USA military arms has never fought a full scale conventional war against a worthy opponent since WW2 and then the Korean War -- and we definitely learned a lot of bitter lessons during both wars -- lessons we may not have time to learn in a modern short and bitter rapidly moving conflict against a worthy adversary. The Isrealis almost had their asses handed to them during the Yom Kippur War as a case and point.

We must always be prepared for the worst possible opponent.

Chris:

Couldn't you make that same argument about Israel and the opponents she faced? Until the '73 war Israel had a definite edge in leadership and troop quality. This is especially true of her junior officers who are expected to display iniative and lead from the front as opposed to the more centralized style of warfare that the Arabs used (based on Soviet doctrine).

And I really can't say that the Iraqi army was either poorly equipped or inexperienced in the first Gulf War. Iraq had just concluded a long bloody protracted struggle with Iran and had a battle hardened army. The US main advantages were air superiority and a new style of maneuver warfare that the Iraqis could not adapt to.

Who besides NATO do think fields a modern, well trained and well equipped army that would provide a test for a US army? Just curious?

[JMS]

Who besides NATO do think fields a modern, well trained and well equipped army that would provide a test for a US army? Just curious?

China (though were both sides could go head to head is questionable), Pakistan and India (why would the US fight a conventional war in any of those?), Chile, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia though none of those are adversaries.

[Kyle Holgate]

I agree with Chris. Israel has more experience generally speaking with all forms of warfare (including insurgents) than anyone I can think of. Granted they are limited to a particular environment and as Ed says, maybe wouldn't do as well in Europe. I suggest though that anyone coming to make trouble with them, including the US. Of course in some mythical battle with Israel we'd bury them in numbers, but quality wise - tank to tank, soldier to soldier, pane to plane (barring the F-22) - I'd bet they give on heck of a run for our money.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I agree with Chris. Israel has more experience generally speaking with all forms of warfare (including insurgents) than anyone I can think of. Granted they are limited to a particular environment and as Ed says, maybe wouldn't do as well in Europe. I suggest though that anyone coming to make trouble with them, including the US. Of course in some mythical battle with Israel we'd bury them in numbers, but quality wise - tank to tank, soldier to soldier, pane to plane (barring the F-22) - I'd bet they give on heck of a run for our money.


Kyle:

It would be interesting to see how a Merkava stacks up against an Abrams. Of course we can say the same thing about the new LeClerc tank, the Challenger II and the most recent Leopard II. All are solid designs with well trained crews. That's when the intangibles come in: artillery support, close air support (especially choppers), IFVs and C3. In that case I give the nod to the US with Britain coming in a close second. The others have no modern combat experience outside of special ops. Israel's most recent combat experience against Hizbollah was pretty much a disappointment, but that was urban warfare, not conventional warfare.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think the C3 of the US, assuming that the forces deployed in our wargame with Israel - would have the latest data link computer systems. Modern war is becoming more and more like a wargame with maps and top down views and information on where everyone is and what they are. That is one heck of a battlefield advantage that I don't think the Israelis have (but if they had it, would we know?).

It's much easier to figure out historic forces as we have access to much of the data on armor penetration, armor, speed, tactics, etc. With modern equipment you just don't know - which is the idea of course. Part of the assurances that Hitler had for his attack on the Soviets in 1941 was based on how badly they did against Finland. It's better for the enemy to not know what you can do, maybe they'll be worried enough not to make trouble with you.

[Warship NWS]

And I really can't say that the Iraqi army was either poorly equipped or inexperienced in the first Gulf War. Iraq had just concluded a long bloody protracted struggle with Iran and had a battle hardened army. The US main advantages were air superiority and a new style of maneuver warfare that the Iraqis could not adapt to.


There was a huge disparity in technology and training. There was NOTHING in the Iraqi Armed forces that held a head to head candle to the M1A1s, AH-64s, F-15s, AWACS, C3, cohesive leadership, A-10s, artillery effectiveness, F-117s, etc. Our technological level by the mid-1980s was already moving the hypothetical Warsaw Pact Cold War opponents from a situation of "quantity vs quality" to a "target rich environment".. the Iraqi Army never stood a chance - plus many Iraqis never wanted to fight us anyways. Sure we could have suffered worse losses had the Iraqi troops been more determined but in the end.. they never stood a chance of stopping the coalition forces deployed against them. We were deployed to fight exactly the war our forces were trained and equipped for.. a conventional traditional ground war. Battle hardened does not mean being prepared for a technologically more competent and advanced armed forces. There have been many times in history where the experiences vs one opponent did not work vs another opponent - especially one that did not fight using the same hardware and tactics.

Again, my personal opinion.

[Kyle Holgate]

Even if the Coalition had gone into Iraq with similar ground technolgy as far as tanks and artillery and what not air power would have decided the war. At least Soviet forces attacking would have had some cover, in the desert there's not much to hide in or much to provide concealment.

[john964]

Chris:

Couldn't you make that same argument about Israel and the opponents she faced? Until the '73 war Israel had a definite edge in leadership and troop quality. This is especially true of her junior officers who are expected to display iniative and lead from the front as opposed to the more centralized style of warfare that the Arabs used (based on Soviet doctrine).

And I really can't say that the Iraqi army was either poorly equipped or inexperienced in the first Gulf War. Iraq had just concluded a long bloody protracted struggle with Iran and had a battle hardened army. The US main advantages were air superiority and a new style of maneuver warfare that the Iraqis could not adapt to.

Who besides NATO do think fields a modern, well trained and well equipped army that would provide a test for a US army? Just curious?Ed, Hussen was famous for taking out his best leaders when they became to popular with the troops and citizens. IIRC there was a very capable general who had risen through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq War. He started out at the begining as a brigade commander at the end he was a corps commander in line to take command of the Republican Guard when Sadam decided he was to popular. He died in a "Helicopter Accident" in 1989. This happened to at least 11 divsion 5 corps and 2 army commanders and possably at least 6-10 more between 1988 and 1990.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, Hussen was famous for taking out his best leaders when they became to popular with the troops and citizens. IIRC there was a very capable general who had risen through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq War. He started out at the begining as a brigade commander at the end he was a corps commander in line to take command of the Republican Guard when Sadam decided he was to popular. He died in a "Helicopter Accident" in 1989. This happened to at least 11 divsion 5 corps and 2 army commanders and possably at least 6-10 more between 1988 and 1990.

John:

Yes I'm aware of the late Saddam's paranoia and his penchant for killing off his best officers. The point being that at least the army had seen heavy combat with combined arms and was probably one of the more effective militaries in that region (at least against another regional foe except Israel). I just refuse to take the combat experiences of the US in both wars and dismiss them as not represenative of the abilities of the US. You can train, equip, etc. But you still have to be able to walk the walk as they say. I'm not convinced that had Israel been forced to launch a major offensive against Iraq, that she would have knocked that country out in 100 hours. She doesn't have the overall air resources that the coalition hurled against Iraq. Am I saying that the Israelis aren't great soldiers? No, I'm merely saying they have not fought that kind of war since 1982.

[paladin5]

Ed, Hussen was famous for taking out his best leaders when they became to popular with the troops and citizens. IIRC there was a very capable general who had risen through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq War. He started out at the begining as a brigade commander at the end he was a corps commander in line to take command of the Republican Guard when Sadam decided he was to popular. He died in a "Helicopter Accident" in 1989. This happened to at least 11 divsion 5 corps and 2 army commanders and possably at least 6-10 more between 1988 and 1990.


I would not have wanted to be a helicopter pilot or crewman in Saddams military. It doesn't like a good career move.

[djcyclone]

I would not have wanted to be a helicopter pilot or crewman in Saddams military. It doesn't like a good career move.

No it was pretty much any position that had anything to do with Saddam. Not just helicopter pilots.

I mentioned in another post about Saddam's top military advisor, and the only man that was considered to be his friend.

When he offered a solution for the Iraqi, Iranian War, he was killed in a vary gruesom way.

Yea, I did not shed any tears for that man, but I think they wasted a good rope.:D

Should have used like barb wire or something.:eek:

[paladin5]

No it was pretty much any position that had anything to do with Saddam. Not just helicopter pilots.

I mentioned in another post about Saddam's top military advisor, and the only man that was considered to be his friend.

When he offered a solution for the Iraqi, Iranian War, he was killed in a vary gruesom way.

Yea, I did not shed any tears for that man, but I think they wasted a good rope.:D

Should have used like barb wire or something.:eek:

DJ the other post mentioned senior commands suffering from sudden helicopter "accidents", that could not have been encouraging to the pilots that flew seniors commander around.

[paladin5]

No it was pretty much any position that had anything to do with Saddam. Not just helicopter pilots.

I mentioned in another post about Saddam's top military advisor, and the only man that was considered to be his friend.

When he offered a solution for the Iraqi, Iranian War, he was killed in a vary gruesom way.

Yea, I did not shed any tears for that man, but I think they wasted a good rope.:D

Should have used like barb wire or something.:eek:

DJ the other post mentioned senior commands suffering from sudden helicopter "accidents", that could not have been encouraging to the pilots that flew seniors commander around. That is why I wouldn't have wanted to be a helo pilot in Saddams forces. Not only would he have killed the commander he would have wasted valuable flight crews.