The Best Tank in the World

[Penguin]

^--- excuses for the most part. American tanks generally had thinner armor, a weaker gun and a bigger silhouette, but dominated the encounters almost every single time. The Russian design philosophy has never worked as advertised.

BTW, one of the myths of WWII was that the Germans had superior tanks over all in 1941 vs the USSR. Germany had few modern tanks and was still using the pz II in a direct tank role in some units. It also had large numbers of Pz 35,Pz 38 and Pz III 37mm gun tanks that were not markedly superior to the T-26 which had been the best tank in the war in Spain just a couple of years earlier.

Taking out a tank like Panther and Tiger I/II often also cost 3-4 Shermans (Germans nicknamed the petrol fueled Sherman the 'Ronson', after a popular cigaret lighter ...).

 

[zraver]

Taking out a tank like Panther and Tiger I/II often also cost 3-4 Shermans (Germans nicknamed the petrol fueled Sherman the 'Ronson', after a popular cigaret lighter ...).

German, Russian and British tanks were not any better. The T-34 would explode like a roman candle after just about any front hull hit due to the placement of a fuel tank there. Unless the tank was full the lack of baffles meant the fuel-air line and above would be filled with aersol deisel from the fuel sloshing around. German tanks were rarely reusable after penetrating hits because of the exposed ammo and gasoline powered engines. The US Army was the only major power to look into reducing the risk of ammunition explosions and the wet storage system (ammo stored in water and gylcol filled tins) was standard on all of the 76mm armed Shermans and many of the 75mm armed ones as well.

Much of the Shermans bad reputation comes from using one of the best tanks in the world in 1942 for the invasion of France in 1944 when tank technology had advanced. The ultimate American version of the Sherman the M4A3E8 the famed easy eight met the T-34/85 in combat in Korea and dominated it.

 

[Penguin]

Russian T34/85 had a gun decent enough for to take out a Sherman but the Russians didn't use tungsten carbide sabots. Sherman had weaker gun (75mm) compared to T34/85 (85mm gun) but used tungsten carbide sabots and with this ammo the gun was about as powerful as IS-2 122mm gun in antitank role. With HE shells it was weaker than 85mm gun in T34/85.

 

[zraver]

Russian T34/85 had a gun decent enough for to take out a Sherman but the Russians didn't use tungsten carbide sabots. Sherman had weaker gun (75mm) compared to T34/85 (85mm gun) but used tungsten carbide sabots and with this ammo the gun was about as powerful as IS-2 122mm gun in antitank role. With HE shells it was weaker than 85mm gun in T34/85.

The Shermans the T-34/85 encountered in Korea were armed with the high velocity M1A1C gun firing the M93 round designed to defeat the Panther and Tiger. They were not firing the 75mm M3 gun of the original M4, M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3 series used by the USAR, UK, USMC, and USSR.

 

[JK!]

Zraver whats your view of the UK Challenger 2?

Some would argue its on par or better than the M1

 

[zraver]

Zraver whats your view of the UK Challenger 2?

Some would argue its on par or better than the M1

Not a big fan of the bagged two piece ammo system, but that would be my only complaint. The tank has good enough mobility, good enough fire power, awesome FCS, awesome armor and awesome crews.

You can't really rank the the best heavy MBT's against one another for the most part, its splitting hairs. They reflect differences in design philosophy so where one excels the other might be lacking. Of the 60 ton plus designs (or the newest 55 ton plus 3 man tanks) the only one that cannot be number 1 is the Merkava IV. Putting the engine in the front is STUPID for a number of reasons. None of which are made up for by having the rear of the tank free.

You can argue all day about is the Abrams better than the Challenger, or is the leopard better than both, but what about the TK-X and the Black Panther.... The trueth is those tanks are in their own category with each other like avatars of war other tanks wish they could be.

 

[Penguin]

The Shermans the T-34/85 encountered in Korea were armed with the high velocity M1A1C gun firing the M93 round designed to defeat the Panther and Tiger. They were not firing the 75mm M3 gun of the original M4, M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3 series used by the USAR, UK, USMC, and USSR.

Yep, I know, the Easy Eight has the long '76' (i,e, 76 mm L/52 M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2 gun) but the point was that versus T-34/85 it was the ammo that mattered....

A standard Sherman model mounted the 75mm M3 L/40 main gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_(US)

The M4A1(76)W was the first to be fitted with the improved 76.2mm main gun.
76 mm gun M1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(note the penetration comparison table with T-34/85: there is no equivalent russian round for M-93)

Likewise, the British Sherman Fireflies featured the Royal Ordnance QF 17-pounder gun of 76.2mm which was significantly better than the American M3 main gun (with better penetration value than even the fabled German "88").
Ordnance QF 17 pounder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though the 76mm gun was a much better anti-tank weapon than the 75mm M3 gun it replaced it did not have enough power to penetrate the front of the new heavy German tanks that were seen in the ETO. These tanks were the Tiger II and the Jagdtiger, and both had frontal armor that was well sloped and too thick for the 76mm gun to penetrate even with the APCR-T M93 projectile.
The M93 ammo could penetrate the front turret armor of the Panther at ranges over 1,500m and could penetrate the sides and rear of the hull and turret at ranges over 2,500m. Penetrations of the front glacis plate of the Panther with the M93 ammo varied greatly due to the variation in the quality of the armor present on each Panther. Penetrations were recorded up to 800m on some vehicles whereas on others, the M93 projectile could only penetrate at ranges closer than 100m and in some cases, not at all.
Combat HQ - Articles

The 76 mm L/52 M1A1 gun performed poor when compared Kwk42 L/70
3" (76mm) HVAP-T T4, USA,WW2 [Archiv] - Militaria Fundforum

In Korea, the M4A3(76)W Shermans with their HVSS suspension systems were the primary mount of the US Army at the time. The M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" was similar in fitting the '76mm' main gun
M4 Sherman variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The North Korean T-34s lost their momentum when faced with U.S. M26 Pershing medium tanks, ground-attack aircraft, and when the U.S. infantry upgraded their antitank weapons to 3.5-inch Super Bazookas hurriedly airlifted from the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34-85

See also (using babelfish.altavista.com)
Ñàéò «ÎÒÂÀÃÀ» • ÒÀÍÊÈ ÑÒÐÀÍ ÌÈÐÀ • Â áîÿõ
Òàíêè Ò-34 â Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå
Ò-34  ÁÎßÕ ÏÎÑËÅ ÎÊÎÍ×ÀÍÈß ÂÒÎÐÎÉ ÌÈÐÎÂÎÉ ÂÎÉÍÛ
ÒÀÍÊÈ Ò-34 Â ÊÎÐÅÅ

Pics:

Easy Eight 'close up'
http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m4a3e8_4id_pettit_106_20051202_700.jpg

Easy Eight 'in the middle'
http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m4_sherman_full.jpg

 

[zraver]

Yep, I know, the Easy Eight has the long '76' (i,e, 76 mm L/52 M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2 gun) but the point was that versus T-34/85 it was the ammo that mattered....[/quite]

Not really, the T-34/85's protection isn't all that good even by the standards of the time.

A standard Sherman model mounted the 75mm M3 L/40 main gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_(US)

Not after mid 1944 they didn't, and none in Korea except a few dozer and mine flail tanks.

Likewise, the British Sherman Fireflies featured the Royal Ordnance QF 17-pounder gun of 76.2mm which was significantly better than the American M3 main gun (with better penetration value than even the fabled German "88").
Ordnance QF 17 pounder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahh the OQF 17pdr shot twice and hit once! Yup shoot twice hit once, the gun had serious accuracy problems with its best AP round.

Even though the 76mm gun was a much better anti-tank weapon than the 75mm M3 gun it replaced it did not have enough power to penetrate the front of the new heavy German tanks that were seen in the ETO.

Couple of questions for you.

can you find any proof of a Jagdtiger in combat on east Front.

can you tell me what kampfgroup Pieper was and what tanks it had?

These tanks were the Tiger II and the Jagdtiger, and both had frontal armor that was well sloped and too thick for the 76mm gun to penetrate even with the APCR-T M93 projectile.

The jagdtiger never saw combat in the east, and the Tiger II saw combat on both fronts. No gun mounted by any allied vehicle that faced them ever penetrated the front of the Tiger II, jagdtiger or Elephant.

The 76 mm L/52 M1A1 gun performed poor when compared Kwk42 L/70

Yup, but the US like the rest of the world wasn't iterested in a better 75 with no burstign charge but a bigger bore that could do both AP and HE roles equally well. The Kwk 42 would only survive WWII in the form of the CN-75-50 mounted on the AMX-13. The gun it was designed to replaced the Kwk 40 actually outlived it seeing service in some countries into the late 60's.

In Korea, the M4A3(76)W Shermans with their HVSS suspension systems were the primary mount of the US Army at the time. The M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" was similar in fitting the '76mm' main

The North Korean T-34s lost their momentum when faced with U.S. M26 Pershing medium tanks, ground-attack aircraft, and when the U.S. infantry upgraded their antitank weapons to 3.5-inch Super Bazookas hurriedly airlifted from the United States.

The T-34/85's were stopped cold not just by Pershings but 76mm armed Sherman and and Bulldog tanks.

 

[Penguin]

The T-34/85's were stopped cold not just by Pershings but 76mm armed Sherman and and Bulldog tanks.

DId I say T-34/85s were stopped cold by only M26 Pershings?

The Walker Bulldog saw limited combat with the U.S. Army during the Korean War, but for the most part, the conflict served as a testing ground to work out the tank's deficiencies, especially with its rangefinder. At the time, it was designated as the T-41, and was rushed to the battlefield even before its first test run.[citation needed] This was due to the fact that the North Koreans were supplied with Soviet T-34 tanks, which were superior to the M-24.

M41 Walker Bulldog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The M26 also saw service in the Korean War, although few armored units were sent because the initial response from battlefield commanders was "Korea isn't good tank country." The official US Army history states a number of M26s were pulled from pedestals at Fort Knox, where they had been WWII memorials. The Pershing and its derivative M46 were credited with almost half of the North Korean T-34s destroyed by the US Armored Corps. The M4A3E8, whose anti-tank performance was improved thanks to availability of the HVAP shells, is responsible for most of the remainder.

M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/kw_armor.shtml
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/armor-of-the-korean-war.asp

 

[hj786]

Hi Zraver, I'd like to hear more about your opinions of the French LeClerc? In case some here don't know, the Al-Khalid actually has the same transmission as the LeClerc, the SESM ESM500 5 speed automatic. I think it has French thermal imaging sights too.

 

[zraver]

Hi Zraver, I'd like to hear more about your opinions of the French LeClerc? In case some here don't know, the Al-Khalid actually has the same transmission as the LeClerc, the SESM ESM500 5 speed automatic. I think it has French thermal imaging sights too.

If you think it has the French Catherine TI system I'd like a source.

The Leclerc has proven to be a maintenance night-mare at any one time a good percentage of the French and UAE tank fleet is down. The tank was cutting edge in a lot of ways, and it might have been too cutting edge. I don't know which batches are the most problematic so it might be a case of the early ones suck and it got worked out to a flaw with a later batch, or it could be a shortage of parts due to the low production run, I just don't know.

My .02 is there is something up with the design, Leclerc tanks in Storage (not subject to routine maintenance) are covered in environmentally controlled cocoons... when does a tank need pampering?

The gun is an L52 rated to fire all NATO standard 120mm ammuntion so it would give better performance with the German DM53 than would the the German 120mm L44 but slightly less than the 120mm L55.

France via the Thales Catherine TI family makes really good imagers, but making them and deploying them are two different things altogether. I am not sure the Leclercs have been upgraded to newest generations.

The Leclerc claims to be the fastest tank in the world when it comes to fire on the move, able to hit a target 2000m away while traveling at 50km/h. That sounds really impressive, the video looks good too, until you notice its being done on a specially prepared track.

 

[Penguin]

Dutch army has climate controlled storage buildings for Leopard 1 tanks as early as the late 1970s. IMHO cocooning the tank itself allows for storage in a greater variety of buildings, including unconditioned ones. Climate control is necessary to preserve the equipement. It is common for ships and aircraft, don't see why not also common for multi-million dollar MBTs (esp. modern ones with lots of electronics and what not).

 

[zraver]

Dutch army has climate controlled storage buildings for Leopard 1 tanks as early as the late 1970s. IMHO cocooning the tank itself allows for storage in a greater variety of buildings, including unconditioned ones. Climate control is necessary to preserve the equipement. It is common for ships and aircraft, don't see why not also common for multi-million dollar MBTs (esp. modern ones with lots of electronics and what not).

None of that changes the fact that the Leclerc seems unreliable.

 

[Penguin]

None of that changes the fact that the Leclerc seems unreliable.

Did I say anything regarding the reliability of AMX-56 LeClerc?

I read there were spare part shortages at some point, but not much by way of explanation for them.

 

[Arsalan]

well where do you guys think that AlKhalid falls in this list!
for me it is one of the best!

the only short fall i can find out is its less armor, it have a super engine, superb gun and targeting system and good round firing speed and capacity!

it is alos good in both hilly and desert terrain so a good option for PA!

so what do you guys think of this tank!?

to make it simple, the russian T90 is the only tank AlKhalid might have to fight with so what do you see about the balance of power between T90 and AlKhalid!