Soldier Magazine: ten top tanks that have helped to shape history

[Luddite]

I guess the Abrams and other modern tanks are missing as this is a list about tanks that shaped history.  Modern tanks are in essence secondary, if not obsolete from a military perspective, and therefore don't really shape history anymore.  Do they?

[Fenton]

Is it meant to be tanks that have shaped history through their design or through the actions/battles they have taken part in

[Leon]

... or the P1000 Ratte?

Coming soon.... 

[Ithoriel]

Coming soon.... 

If only. Though I'd sooner have a Goliath team tbh.

[Leon]

If only. Though I'd sooner have a Goliath team tbh.

The Ratte 'tis indeed on the way, we saw some preview pics from the designer at Colours this past weekend.  It's an absolute beast as well, massive piece of kit!

[Ithoriel]

I guess I need to start saving! I only want/ need one and that's really only to scare the bejeezus out of my regular opponents the first time I put it on the table

Is there a Maus coming to the Pendraken range too? I need two of those .... though possibly only one turret

[Leon]

I guess I need to start saving! I only want/ need one and that's really only to scare the bejeezus out of my regular opponents the first time I put it on the table

Is there a Maus coming to the Pendraken range too? I need two of those .... though possibly only one turret

Yep, we've already got the Maus here, we just need to figure out the best way to produce it.  The hull needs to be in resin, so it'll have to go away to be moulded up and cast.

[Russell Phillips]

Yep, we've already got the Maus here, we just need to figure out the best way to produce it.  The hull needs to be in resin, so it'll have to go away to be moulded up and cast.

Issue 12 of the SOTCW Journal (now available as part of a compendium) included a scenario featuring up to three Maus (as well as, potentially, X-7 ATGMs and JS-IIIs). It includes rules, and I've played it a couple of times, it gives a good game. There's a certain amount of randomness involved in the forces, so neither side can be completely sure what they're up against.

[Ithoriel]

The "Steel Panthers : World At War" computer game had a neat little scenario with a couple of Maus tanks and a varied assortment of other German stuff fought the Russians at Kummersdorf. I played it a lot, usually as the Germans. Normally I ended up like this:

[Matt J]

The Ratte 'tis indeed on the way, we saw some preview pics from the designer at Colours this past weekend.  It's an absolute beast as well, massive piece of kit!

just did the math on this. The Ratte was suppose to be 115 ft long on the hull so that'll be about 20cm in 10mm scale, about 8cm wide and 6cm high. Just drew it on a peice of paper holy feck!
I want one, I want one, I want one.

I will never use it ever, but I want one, hell I'll have 2.

[fsn]

Those Germans were clever weren't they? The "Goliath" was tiny and the "Mouse" and "Rat" were designed to be HUGE.

Cunning dastards! Just not sporting.

[Leon]

I'm hoping we might be able to pick it up at the Warfare show in November, and we can get it sorted for the new year.  There'll be a 1946 range coming for the Sci-Fi section, so it'll be going in there.

[Rob]

I think in the artical there are too many early and inter-war tanks. Gotta have the Brit lozenge for starting the whole thing and probably the FT for turrets, but the others I do not think their influence warrents a mention.

Not to mention the German Panther was the base for many post war designs of both east and west.
Panzer IVs were still used in the 60s (70s?) in the Arab/Israeli Wars.

I'd be interested in the "many" post war designs based on the panther. As for PzIVs used by Syria in the Mid-East, so what, Cromwells and Shermans were also used.

For WW2 tanks I would only mention the M4 Sherman due to its vast numbers for the western allies and of course the T34 for the Soviets. Germans must be Panzer IV, Panther and Tiger had much lesser quantities. Interestingly the 75mm gun of the Panther was vastly superior to the Tigers 88mm gun  

I would agree on Sherman and T34 for turning the factory and its production techniques into a sides primary weapon.

I think the Germans should have an entry because of their influence on tank design and I would pick the PzIII. I pick the PzIII because it is the first tank to get the crew roles correct and because it is the first tank to have internal and external communications, therefore making it able to operate at peak efficiany. Because of this the PzIII was able to defeat the "on paper" superior tanks such as Char B and T34.
I would not pick the PzIV because it was developed beyond its capabilities as a stop-gap and in later G and H/J versions was front heavy, because of this only the hull and not the turret front could be brought up 80mm thickness. I would also not pick the Panther which on balance is the best WW2 tank, simply because although good it did not alter history.

Interestingly the Panther was relativly cheap to build considering its power:
Panther 117,100 Reichmarks (RM)
Panzer III 96,163 RM
Panzer IV 103,462 RM
Tiger I 250,800 RM
StuG III 82,500 RM
These figures exclude armement radios etc.

Post War there is of course the Centurion, the M60 (USA) and the Leopard for the West and the T55 for the East.

Centurian changed history as influencing in the west at any rate the "main battle tank" approach to tank design. M60, Leopard and AMX30 for that matter, not sure what they influenced. The M26 Pershing seemed to influence all post war "Patton" tank designs and the T54 all post war Soviet designs.

The biggest joke is the Challenger tank, arguably the worst current tank. Besides a fantastic survivability the number of comparisons and trials the Challenger lost to even older Leopards (L2A4s!!!) surpasses the number of Challengers built. It simply failed to hit anything smaller than an aircraft carrier when moving. Not to mention anyone except the Iraquis would actually USE the firing computers AND move their bloody T55s in combat.

A post war tank that has changed history but no one has mention would be the T62 for introducing smooth-bore guns, auto-loaders, and fin stabilised rounds. Challenger should also get a mention because it enabled tanks to carry on being the foremost battlefield weapon by enhancing the tank attribute of protection in the form of CHOBHAM armour, that had been eroded so much by HEAT missiles and FIN rounds.

Won't comment on the Challenger 1 (as opposed to Chally 2) competition results as essentially your comments seem a little uninformed  and this nice place is not the for that. Try Tanknet, Harkonnen loves Leopards, mention your theories to him

[Sunray]

Is there a dichotomy between "changed history" and an innovative design that did not itself distinguish itself on the killing ground at the precise game changing moment?

As has been claimed in an above thread,  M4 Sherman was not a great tank, but mass production meant that it was there in the numbers and thus changed history - the DD models on D Day and Hobart's funnies.

It is possible to argue that M3 Grants were the tanks at Alamein, and that that desert victory changed history as psychological proof that the until then invincible Nazi war machine could be beaten in battle.

Similar arguments could be made about the Burma campaign where tanks that were inferior on the European theatre opened up the road to Mandalay.
Likewise in the early days of history changing blitzkrieg - the humble PzII and the Czech 38(t) were at the cutting edge of the new style of warfare 

Or in the final days of WW2, the bitter Berlin battles that crushed the Nazi regime  thus "change history" with the debut of JS2 and JS3?

None of the above are great tanks in the classical sense.

[get2grips]

It is possible to argue that M3 Grants were the tanks at Alamein, and that that desert victory changed history as psychological proof that the until then invincible Nazi war machine could be beaten in battle.

Could argue this but I think it's not great history.  The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology.  The desert war was won on numbers alone.  Monty was not a great general and the M3 was not a great tank IMHO.

[sebigboss79]

Won't comment on the Challenger 1 (as opposed to Chally 2) competition results as essentially your comments seem a little uninformed   and this nice place is not the for that. Try Tanknet, Harkonnen loves Leopards, mention your theories to him

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

Quoting high weight, smaller radius of action, outdated gun (was upgraded with the Leopard 2 gun now) for all 3 lost procurement initiatives and one quoted to prefer the 3 crewmen Leclerc tank. The results of "live fire" exercises you can google yourself. I am too lazy to find the link where on day one the British crew had to continously fix the fire control computers and on the second day they finished with 48 % of targets neutralized compared to 68% for the Abrams 74% for the Leclerc, 80 something for the Leopard 2A4 and stunning 92% for the K2.

I sincerely cannot see how the Challenger 2 can be argued to be among the greatest tanks when the almost 40 year old Leopard 2 outperforms it. Just as a note the latest version is the Leo2A7+ and the German army deploys the A5 version - both superior to the A4. It seems my uninformed theories are the basis of multiple rejection the Challenger (bot 1 and 2) has received.

Some non-academic links:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17459
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

40 % targets hit is actually worse than my uninformed self suggested....  

This goes so far that no Challenger 3 will be developed quoting the MoD "in lack of conventional threats". Possibly ther high cost, poor comparison to other (older!) designs has played a role in this decision as well.

The Challenger is maybe not the worst tank of all times and admittedly among the best protected fighting vehicles but certainly offers less than optimal performance. Whether you like the Germans or not, we do build better tanks than the Brits.

[get2grips]

Whether you like the Germans or not, we do build better tanks than the Brits.

Unless they need to function in snow or mud 

[sebigboss79]

Could argue this but I think it's not great history.  The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology.  The desert war was won on numbers alone.  Monty was not a great general and the M3 was not a great tank IMHO.

We actually lost the moment when Adolf decided to go for it. Even if Germans had successfully completed Sealion the Brits would have come back from Canada. No need for American help but it was certainl useful to speed up the downfall.

Mora of story: never let a Private do the job of a Fieldmarshal (or politician).

[sebigboss79]

Unless they need to function in snow or mud  

Thats the Russian domain  , although the Leo2s of Sweden perform quite well I have heard...
Alas the British vehicls have one advantage after all: Built in kettle

[Sunray]

Could argue this but I think it's not great history.  The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology. 

Sorry "Get to Grips", but simply cannot let this myth sit unchallenged.   The act of the Americans entering the war did not in itself defeat the Nazis.

The German war machine had plenty of fight and spirit left in it.   As the Americans were to find at Kasserine, Omaha, the Ardennes.  Indeed the Master Race dismissed the Yanks as an assortment of racial mongrels with no sense of destiny.  You only have to listen to the commentary to German war film of the Bulge offensive as  US prisoners  are paraded past.

I suspect you suffer from post modernity present mindedness .  The Suez canal alone justified the Desert War, and as the son of a Desert Air Force Veteran , I recall my late father recalling the significance of the watching the "master race" troop into the bag.   That is how the DAK perceived themselves - read the contemporary literature -  beating them in the desert was a game changer to British morale. 


It is not mere declarations of war that beat the evil of Nazi Germany it was Russian blood, US dollars and  British Intelligence......along with a lot of lives lost in the killing fields.  - often with inferior kit such as the M3 Grant at el Alamein....