Jump to content


Top Ten Tanks of All-Time

top 10 top ten best tanks

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

Poll: Modern Tanks (121 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Would you like to see modern tanks in the game?

  1. Yes (36 votes [29.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.75%

  2. No (85 votes [70.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.25%

Vote Hide poll

XxHonorless83xX #21 Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:21 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 2931 battles
  • 1,488
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013

If I was Ranking the TOP 5-7 Modern Tanks it'd have to be 

#1 A. U.S. M1A2 Abrams with the T.U.S.K. Kit on it- It's a Monster Beast that is better because we have Plenty of Officers that have BEEN In Combat and used it in the Open Desert but also Urban Enviroments but the Engine sucks up Gas to much thats Is the ONLY Downside.

#1 B. GER LEOPARD 2A7- I love this Tank, It's a German Original CAT baby! Same Gun as the Rest, But the Fastest MBT with a DIESEL not Gas Engine plus a Low Profile makes it such a Beast BUT a Lack of #'s & XP Hurts.

#2 BRITISH CHALLENGER 2- Not as Fast as other Main Battle Tanks but it's RELIABLE as Hell and like the Abrams has had Battle XP.

#3 ISRAELI MERKAVA Mk.4- The Tank is Built for the Protection of the Crew in Mind 1st, Period. It also has Combat XP but that Frontal Engine is a Huge Life Saver but also it can Shoot down Low Flying Helicopters.

#4 SOUTH KOREA K2 BLACK PANTHER- This Tank is not yet in Full Production but is basically a Lighter Leopard 2 but also has powerful diesel engine. It is fast and has a state-of-the-art hydro-pneumatic suspension. This will Take out 10 North Korean Tanks Per 1 Black Panther.

#5 FRANCE- LECLERC- It's got Good Armor that also was use don other Western Tanks, a Smaller 3 Man Crew with a Auto Loader, it also has a Solid Diesel Engine with a hydro-pneumatic suspension also.

#6 JAPAN- TK-X- Right now one of the MOST Advanced Tanks in the World, Great 120 mm Smooth-bore Gun like the LEOPARD & the ABRAMS. It's lighter than Most MBT's but less Armored but it's Agility and Variable Transmission, Great Fire Suppression & the hydro-pneumatic suspension.

#7 RUSSIAN- T-90- Not as Sophisticated as NATO Tanks or Asian Tanks but it has Great Proven Equipment with A LOT of Different Forms of Armor with other Protection plus a Low Profile. BUT it, like ALL Soviet Tanks Store Ammo in the Front of the Tank which is a Building Muck Up, it has a Under-powered Engine though they've been addressing that Problem plus the Accuracy but also one of the Few Tanks that has Anti-Tank Missiles to make up for it's Lack of Accuracy BUT it is a Highly Exported Tank since it's a Solid Main Battle Tank for a Good Price to those Countries that need 1. 

 

This List does NOT Take in the #'s of Tanks but how Great they'd be 1 v 1


Edited by Honorless8301, 29 May 2014 - 06:22 AM.

Tanks In My Garage- U.S./French- T224 AMX Chaffee,T26E4 SUPER PERSHINGT26 Pershing, M-18 Hellcat, T-29, M-103, CHINESEType 59, GER-VK 45.02 (P) Ausf. A, PANZER V/IV, Tiger II, E-75, LOWE , JagPanther II, Stub Emil-Grinding, E-25, Dicker Max, 8,8 cm Pak 43 Jagtiger SOVIET- IS-3, T-43 & KV-220.


Assassin3Fox #22 Posted 29 May 2014 - 09:52 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostBGUNTER, on 22 May 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

OK I watched that top ten greatest tanks video I have question you guys might know. They said M4 had issue of catching fire because it had a gas engine. But most of what I've researched said issue was improper ammo storage. That was fixed and the issue was solved. Is that correct? M4 was far from only gas powered tank so would all of them have its issue they spoke about?


Problem with the Sherman tanks was there was a multitude of things that would cause it to burn...

yes the ammo rack would light up and they later fixed it by surrounding/storing the shells in a "water jacket" which is basically a hollow rack filled with water...if shrapnel or a bullet passed through the jacket to pen the shell, the water would come through as well and douse the powder...but that cut into ammo storage so I don't think it was universally adopted...

Engine also had a propensity for catching fire...and the transmission...at one point I believe they found that poor ventilation in the engine compartment (coupled with an iffy cooling system) would lead to fuel vapor explosions (I am not sure if this problem was associated with the Sherman variants or not) ...

 

I know when I used to read about the greatest tanks of world war 2 etc. The Sherman never seemed to be on that list except by dint of the fact that nearly 50000 were manufactured.  Also when I read about the development of tanks after the Sherman during the cold war I think the propensity of the M4 to burn if you looked at it crosswise scarred the US Army.  Whenever you read about the development of specifications documents there is always a reference to fire safety/automatic extinguishers etc.

 

Modern Halon extinguishers were used on US Army Armor for a time...our guys were trained to get out of the vehicle if they go off because if you are not prepared those extinguishers can kill you by asphyxiation...I suppose it is preferable to burning but god help you if your pressure system ain't working.



Aschenblume #23 Posted 29 May 2014 - 09:55 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25998 battles
  • 11,530
  • [DP]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

its last century tank fights not modern century.

there is another developer, Bethesda i think, that is making a modern tanking game


       -Dreadnought-

Signature by Desyatnik Pansy

Super-Unicum - WN8 - 3200 -- Check out my tank guides for the: ConquerorLeopard 1STB-1Chieftain,

TigerCenturion Mk. 7/1Jagdtiger, and T26E4 Super Pershing


Corpse Brewed #24 Posted 29 May 2014 - 11:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10438 battles
  • 14
  • [SLAG]
  • Member since:
    04-04-2014

To my dismay i had to vote "no". Modern Tanks are simply vastly more lethal. and way more accurate.

 

 

Plus I love the historical setting of the game, but that's just me.

 

 


Sergeant: "jump">>Private:"did it move?">> Sergeant:"No, Jump again" (stifled laughter from the crew)>> Private: (hearing now rolling laughter from fellow platoon mates "what?"

Platoon Sergeant:"Tanks don't have shocks; they have torsion bars so you can stop jumping on it in order to test the shock absorbers now"


Gyrfalcon 642 #25 Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:33 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12614 battles
  • 343
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Block Quote

 OK I watched that top ten greatest tanks video I have question you guys might know. They said M4 had issue of catching fire because it had a gas engine. But most of what I've researched said issue was improper ammo storage. That was fixed and the issue was solved. Is that correct? M4 was far from only gas powered tank so would all of them have its issue they spoke about?

 

Many Shermans had airplane engines that required high octane aviation gasoline.  That is one of the major reasons the Sherman burned so easily.  German tanks used gasoline engines, but with lower octane gas so they were not as prone to catch on fire.

Other factor is the thin armor of the Sherman vs. Panther and Tiger guns resulted in massive penetration.  In Belton Coopers book "Death Traps" he recounts a case where a King Tiger killed three Shermans with one shot.  The shot went all the way through 2 shermans and still had enough energy to penetrate and knock out the third.

When you have 88mm shell completely going through the Sherman, that just makes the chance of fire all the more likely.  With German tanks, a shell would most likely penetrate one side and not go all the way through leading to less damage and less chance of fire.

 



Assassin3Fox #26 Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:15 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostZexxRaven4, on 29 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

To my dismay i had to vote "no". Modern Tanks are simply vastly more lethal. and way more accurate.

 

 

Plus I love the historical setting of the game, but that's just me.

 

 

 

I agree with your comment on the historical setting it is pretty sweet...

 

No disrespect intended but I think your perception of modern tank lethality is more based on the success of the M1 in the first Persian gulf war.  The actual reality of modern front line tanks is is much less clear. Going into that conflict much media coverage was devoted to the Soviet tanks and how they were the equal of the west etc. etc.  However, the reality of the Iraqi tanks was that they were basically a stripped down model with homogenized plate, devoid of any soviet systems for stabilization, thermal, warshots etc...and those were the Iraqi T-72s...most of there armor consisted of 50/60's era tanks that were never upgraded to anything approaching modern standards in 1990.  They also lacked DU penetrators, laminated armor, or modern range finding self adjusting sights.

 

Essentially the M1's were going up against a tank that was two generations worth of technology out of date before it started...add in 15 years worth of Iraqi maintenance standards and predictably it did not end well for the republican guard. Like a hundred Tier 10 tanks duking it out with 200 tier 7 or 8 tanks.

 

DU penetrators have been shown to bounce off sloped laminated armor since that conflict and at this point I would be certain that the Russians have developed a DU round for their tanks and I think it would be a much more balanced fight. A current generation tank going up against an equivalent tank would probably be a little like out tier 8,9,10 battles IMO



MashdTaytuz #27 Posted 01 June 2014 - 08:20 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

Modern tanks means modern artillery. People think that they hate how "accurate" artillery in this game is, and from how far away it can shoot, but trust me, a Paladin firing the Excalibur round would be a tankers worst nightmare in a game like this.

 

Ultimate Weapons- M109 Paladin/Excalibur:


Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


Assassin3Fox #28 Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:15 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostMashdTaytuz, on 01 June 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Modern tanks means modern artillery. People think that they hate how "accurate" artillery in this game is, and from how far away it can shoot, but trust me, a Paladin firing the Excalibur round would be a tankers worst nightmare in a game like this.

 

Ultimate Weapons- M109 Paladin/Excalibur:


Lol...I agree with the sentiment but the reality of Excalibur is a little less clear...there are several limitations to this technology that are not discussed in detail...

 

1) Area of effect.  Excalibur will only be effective against stationary forces or defensive positions probably not tanks unless they are in stationary defensive positions. 

 

2) Availability.  Will be limited. They never wanted us to carry a full load of Copperhead (5 stinking rounds per tube) due to the cost of the projectile...this will probably be about as bad.

 

3) It is completely ineffective against everything else. Even a 30 meter move will protect a command armored vehicle never mind a tank.

 

I am glad they finally got a Copperhead replacement system fielded, those things were Blue Fire in a Box. They had a pronounced tendency to ride the beam right back to the observer...and they had a shelf life where they would occasionally only deploy some of the air foils and then spin off into oblivion screaming while corkscrewing all over the sky. Guaranteed to kill someone on your side eventually. But I have to say I am actually profoundly disappointed.  When I was in we were waiting for SADARM to be Fielded.  That was the system that we were most looking forward to seeing.

 

 



MashdTaytuz #29 Posted 03 June 2014 - 01:12 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

There was plenty more info available in the Excalibur, but I was at work when I posted that, so I didn't have time to include any more. As for area of effect, and how many they will carry on board, I'd imagine that's info they wouldn't normally provide. A HE 155 round has a blast radius of around 150 meters, and I'd guess this is about the same, however it depends upon how the round is packed.

 

As for 30 meter moves protecting tanks and other vehicles, I think it's the block three Excalibur that will have the ability to track moving targets. As for effectiveness, you'd have to imagine that a projectile that weighs somewhere around 100 pounds would do damage to a tank when it hits the top of the vehicle, cause that round is gonna be hitting that tank with some major force.

 

I'm unsure about availability, but I do know production has been increased. Also, with gps guidance, nobody will be riding beams back to the observers now. And yeah, SADARM will be the sh!t. 


Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


Assassin3Fox #30 Posted 03 June 2014 - 02:34 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostMashdTaytuz, on 02 June 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

There was plenty more info available in the Excalibur, but I was at work when I posted that, so I didn't have time to include any more. As for area of effect, and how many they will carry on board, I'd imagine that's info they wouldn't normally provide. A HE 155 round has a blast radius of around 150 meters, and I'd guess this is about the same, however it depends upon how the round is packed.

 

As for 30 meter moves protecting tanks and other vehicles, I think it's the block three Excalibur that will have the ability to track moving targets. As for effectiveness, you'd have to imagine that a projectile that weighs somewhere around 100 pounds would do damage to a tank when it hits the top of the vehicle, cause that round is gonna be hitting that tank with some major force.

 

I'm unsure about availability, but I do know production has been increased. Also, with gps guidance, nobody will be riding beams back to the observers now. And yeah, SADARM will be the sh!t. 


+1; The drawback on Excalibur Block 3 is not actually tracking a moving target it is more tracking the RIGHT target.  I can talk for hours on the subject of artillery...the big draw backs on "Fire and Forget" self seeking artillery rounds is 1) Its Indirect fire which means you are always going to pull tail blind, without seeing the target; and 2) Time from call for fire to rounds down range...that lag in time from the Observer call to Splash is a solid block of time for the best of artillery units and to make matters worse we live in an environment where Blue fire is treated as manslaughter/murder which makes clearing the target area extremely important, which means very time intensive.

 

By the time the round is in acquisition mode there is no telling what vehicle, if any, will be in the acquisition zone or how large that zone will eventually be...so how do you designate the RIGHT target? A laser is handy and common on the battle field...incredibly dangerous too because even a puff of dust (can you say desert?) makes the entire beam visible and the brightest spot on that beam is the designator itself.  Milimeter wave radar could work but is currently found only on Apaches that I know of...using helicopters as forward observers can be done but is generally not the best use of the attack birds IMO.

 

The US Army has been trying to develop an IFF for land based systems for at least 30 years...NEVER successfully usually because anything that identifies you as a friendly tells the enemy where you are.  They are going to have to address that issue in order to use the block 3 at the front.

 

[edit: BTW general kill radius on the 155mm projectiles (HE-A, -B, and RAP) is generally considered to be 50 meters, effects at 150 are not unheard of but I have personally been as close as 35M unprotected and survived without injury since there was a terrain feature between me and the shrapnel.  For that matter even a berm as low as 12"-18" will project you from the shrapnel. Found that out at a controlled blast in 99.  Even though it is a 100lb projectile the net explosive weight is a lot less since it has to survive the stresses of firing.  Surprisingly the 120mm mortar has a slightly better casualty radius due to less metal more filler]


Edited by Assassin3Fox, 03 June 2014 - 02:44 PM.


MashdTaytuz #31 Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:50 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
I could talk for a while about artillery also, having been a 13B I'm not ignorant on the subject. Compared to firing "dumb" HE rounds, the capabilities that Excalibur brings to cannon artillery, to me at least, are exciting. I understand that no weapons system, or ammo type, are going to ever be the be all end all of warfare. Anything that makes us better at stopping the enemy and helping friendlies come back alive is a good thing. 

Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


Assassin3Fox #32 Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:59 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostMashdTaytuz, on 03 June 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I could talk for a while about artillery also, having been a 13B I'm not ignorant on the subject. Compared to firing "dumb" HE rounds, the capabilities that Excalibur brings to cannon artillery, to me at least, are exciting. I understand that no weapons system, or ammo type, are going to ever be the be all end all of warfare. Anything that makes us better at stopping the enemy and helping friendlies come back alive is a good thing. 


Lol...I am with you former 13A here...that's also why I was all excited about SADARM then I started looking at the draw backs and limitations of the munition...as an example I would use the RAP dud rate (Rocket failure to ignite).  Those things scared the crap out of me cause I was the clown that had to clear everything 5500M short on the GT line at Brigade FS for 6 months...in a Paladin unit where everything is scattered to hell and gone and the GT lines are everywhere its not easy.  I had thought that SADARM would end up replacing DP as the munition of choice within a couple of years of my ETS but they have currently pigeon holed it as not cost effective.  Just like Crusader.  And if you haven't ever seen a Crusader video look it up...the way it chewed through rounds was literally like something out of a sci-fi book...155mm machine gun.



MashdTaytuz #33 Posted 04 June 2014 - 02:37 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

I understand that they never did get the propellant to work out like they wanted on the Crusader. But yeah, it would've been an awesome weapons system had it worked as advertised...cough cough, F-35, cough cough...

 

Yeah, we never fooled with the Copperhead. It was easier just to call in an airstrike if it absolutely had to be knocked out. The only plus side to cannon artillery an old grunt told me once is that we were usually closer to them than anybody else, and he said when you're pinned down ToT is everything to a grunt, so artillery, even with its accuracy issues, was preferable to waiting for an F-16 to show up.

 

 


Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


Assassin3Fox #34 Posted 04 June 2014 - 01:10 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014
The rumor I heard at the time (unconfirmed) is that the first time they attempted to use the Liquid propellant it blew the breech through the side of the testing house.  I was lead to believe that they did in fact solve the problem of over-pressure and later the problem of premature ignition but the solutions added too much weight to use the propellant in the weapon system.  They got MACS to work and I am told it is fielded but given the amount of green, white, and red in storage I wonder if anyone has even used it yet even though it is listed as fielded.  I remember going to the field with ammuntion with a manufactured date of 1969 or 1972.  I was freaking born in 1976.


KuroFelidae #35 Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:08 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9825 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

Type 10 and the K2 are the most advanced tanks in the world right now. Between the two the Type 10 is probably the best. They are 4th generation tanks while the like so fthe Abrams are still 3rd generation. The Challenger 2 is also 3rd generation.

 

The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Type 10, Most advanced/best tank in the world currently. Fact.

 

inb4Abramsnoobshateme


R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


MashdTaytuz #36 Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:38 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
What makes the M1 a great tank is our crews. Without them, it's only so much metal.

Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


KuroFelidae #37 Posted 23 June 2014 - 12:24 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9825 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

View PostMashdTaytuz, on 20 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

What makes the M1 a great tank is our crews. Without them, it's only so much metal.

That is true, likewise for the British and Israeli forces.


R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


Taffwob #38 Posted 24 July 2014 - 03:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7351 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
I'd like to see a fun tier with WW1 vintage tanks MkIV & A7V heavies, Schneider as an SP, St. Chamond as AT & Renault & Whippets as light/mediums.

SurgicalMedusa #39 Posted 24 July 2014 - 03:38 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 11275 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

they should add modern tanks eventually.  Lets get China, Japan, and the others on xbox before starting a new venture of modern tanks.  Modern tanks if added will have to be seperated into their own battle, not with WWII style tanks.  So new tanks battle new tanks, old tanks battle old tanks.  that would work.

 

I am not interested in playing them mixed together.  would not work.



Assassin3Fox #40 Posted 24 July 2014 - 04:16 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

View PostSurgicalMedusa, on 24 July 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

they should add modern tanks eventually.  Lets get China, Japan, and the others on xbox before starting a new venture of modern tanks.  Modern tanks if added will have to be seperated into their own battle, not with WWII style tanks.  So new tanks battle new tanks, old tanks battle old tanks.  that would work.

 

I am not interested in playing them mixed together.  would not work.

lol...in order to separate "Modern" from "Old" you would have to define the two first.  As a for example, the M48 Patton is still in use today...same for the T54 and T62, I believe one of the British tanks was retired in the last 15-20 years too.  For that matter, the M103 and T110 series tanks and both Pattons were fifties/sixties era designs...likewise the M60 which is on the PC was (is?) still in use within the last decade in foreign countries.

 

If you define "Old" as 1950 and earlier the American line pretty much ends at Tier 8, the only 9 is the T95 (or maybe the tier 9 Patton), Soviet line ends at 8, British mostly ends at 8, Only the German tanks at tier 10 were on the drawing board in the 40's...and those just got nerfed...I am assuming because they were still better than the tanks of other nations in game.  The Leopard 2 and M1 were both initially placed into service in the early 80's they are now approaching 35 years of age and both of the original designs are hopelessly obsolete compared to the current variants in service...are they 'Modern' or 'Old'?

 

I think as long as WG applies the same type of balancing act to these more recent tank designs they can be incorporated into the game without imbalances.

 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users