INGO TOP TENS:Battle Tanks

[danielson]

Best battle tank in your opinion, or course were considering for their time, no one is pitting a T34 against an Abrams here...

 

[Tombs]

Panzer V Panther

 

[danielson]

How the crap did you vote before the poll was even completed?
Holy jump the gun, batman!!!!

 

[9mmfan]

I went with the Tiger simply because it was way ahead of it's time. It could take out Shermans and T-34's until it ran out of ammo.
Those Germans really make good war machines.

 

[Trigger Time]

Tiger! It changed the way all other tanks were designed an struck true legit fear in anything in its path

 

[danielson]

How did it change the tank world? It just upped the game. That renault changed the tank world, ENTIRELY changed it!!! The MKII was the proof of concept, the FT made tanks what they are today!

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm not a tank expert. I can't be an expert on everything for you danielson. I'll let you have this one

 

[indyjohn]

I voted Tiger. But I was looking for the Leopard...

[video=youtube_share;lkCzu9KKV2E]http://youtu.be/lkCzu9KKV2E[/video]

 

[danielson]

I'm not a tank expert. I can't be an expert on everything for you danielson. I'll let you have this one

BAHAHAHAHA

 

[thej27]

The Tiger was over-engineered, slow, unwieldy, and prone to getting stuck or breaking down.

 

[Leadeye]

Depends on what you consider the best use of a tank, tigers and panthers were well armored and had excellent guns and optics, very useful in a defensive role. Slow speed on the tiger and mechanical reliability problems with both made them less useful in the exploitation phase. Shermans and T-34s were designed more for movement in the exploitation phase where armor is at its strategic best. Sloped armor on the T-34 76 model gave the Germans fits early in the war.

Abrams does both of these jobs very well, probably the high water mark of tanks for some time.

 

[eric001]

Went with the Tigers simply based on their fear factors. Unless a Sherman could land a shot into its engine area, the Tigers were close to impervious to Shermans and swatted them like bugs.

What I was really hoping to see was the Israeli Merkova tank--putting the engine up front and making room to actually carry troops in a main battle tank without sacrificing (much) in maneuverability or firepower is pretty revolutionary. I think that's perhaps the only tank that might be safer for the crew than the Abrams.

 

[KS588]

I went with the Tiger because it was the new tank in the Panzer division on Hogan's Heroes.

 

[danielson]

Always with them negative waves....

OOOPS, that was KELLY'S heroes...

 

[roadrunner681]

best at what? the t34, panzers 4 and the Sherman were reliable and quick and later in the war they all had good guns on board the Sherman firefly for example good for mobile warfare and across soft ground. the tigers and JS tanks were heavily armored and had very effective guns the tiger for example was able to disable other tanks almost out to 3000 meters a t34 would have to get to at least 500 meters with a apcr round to even have a chance of penetrating the front plate of a tiger but at 60 tons they sink in soft ground and the tank had to have a well trained crew to function also the tigers always operated in pairs so they could recover each other if they were stuck. as far as modern tanks the m1's only disadvantage is it absurd fuel use and ive been told the tension bars are a SOB to change.

 

[DurangoUSMC]

I voted for the M1 Abrams. Im no expert but it seems to do pretty well for this day and age.

 

[JR50]

I voted for the M60, actually the M60A1-E3.
I'm biased as I was the works metallurgist for the armor program that cast the turrets and hull segments.
There was a great tank museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. There you could see the folly of being in the tank corps. While the proving grounds are still there, I believe the museum has been moved to a different post.