The best Tank post WWII

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique

I wrote LATEST versions, meaning with so-called hunter-killer targetting system among other things.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are refering to. Instead it seems that you agree with me, that there's no such thing as THE best modern MBT.

I don't agree with you about the T-10: when it was introduced, it was pretty decent. That it was kept in service too long wasn't the fault of the guys who designed it.

What do you mean "when it was introduced"? The JS-II, the JS-III or the renamed model - the T-10? It was a slow, cumbersome heavy tank with a so-so accuracy but a heavy punch if it could hit. And it rapidly became obsolete. Not exactly the hallmark of good design.

AMX-30: its main problem was its design philosophy was that of a light tank and it was designated as an MBT. The same was true of the Leopard 1, but the Germans had the sense to design a real MBT right on its heels.

Well, since this is a thread about the best MBT, and the AMX-30 was classified by the French as such, I think it's a pretty fair bet.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(6898)]

On a side note:
A few kilometers from my city is former testing ground (proving ground) for parachuters. It was abandoned a few years ago.
Lately I made a trip in order to see this testing ground. I was curious what a mess remained after army.
Among many wrecks of vehicles and guns I discovered T34/85 full of holes. No doubt it serves as a target.
Of course I jumped in
And I was suprised how LITTLE space is in this vehicle.
GEEEEEZZZZZ.....
Half of the space takes engine compartment.
As far as I know the crew of T34/85 consisted of 5 members.
I dont know how they find enough room.
I think the russians had a large populations of dwarfs and they exploited them to serve in their tank armies
Seriously - service in tanks was (and propably still is) very unpleasant and uncomfortable.
The death when tank is hit and armor is pierced must be terrible.

WAR IS HELL!!!
PEACE!!! MAN, PEACE!!!!!

 

[unmerged(5120)]

EUFan:

have a look at this site:

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/

EoE:

Sure we agree. Just like us Frenchmen to always want to have the last word

 

[Intosh]

Originally posted by EUfan

I think the russians had a large populations of dwarfs and they exploited them to serve in their tank armies
Seriously - service in tanks was (and propably still is) very unpleasant and uncomfortable.
The death when tank is hit and armor is pierced must be terrible.

Before my military service, I passed test as every male in France, and I was good enough to become during my service a junior officer, so I can choose my branch in army,

for the tanks, I was to big, I'm 1m85,

so they took me to armored cavalry...

tanks on wheels...

I saw one day the interior of a M1 Abrams, I feel I was in paradise.


For the main question of this thread,

the Ceinturion proved during all the Israeli wars, it was a very good tank,

it is difficult to say which tank is better, it depended of the quality of the crew and the tactics employed.

I'm sure, T54 and T55 are very good tanks, even if in the wars they were employed by arabs soldiers, they were not match even for old Sherman...

bye,

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Intosh
I'm sure, T54 and T55 are very good tanks, even if in the wars they were employed by arabs soldiers, they were not match even for old Sherman...

I beg to differ:

the T-54/5 design had quite a number of shortcomings, including a very poor ammo storage layout, not enough depress for the MA preventing effective use of hull-down positions, no fume extractor on early models, and I remember the armor layout wasn't exactly ideal either but I can't give specifics.

Also, being a post-war design, it had better be better than the Sherman!

 

[unmerged(6898)]

Originally posted by Intosh


I'm sure, T54 and T55 are very good tanks, even if in the wars they were employed by arabs soldiers, they were not match even for old Sherman...

bye,

If I am not wrong , Israelis Shermans (ISherman) were upguned to 105 mm , T-54 had only 100mm

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

T-54 series also had an autoloader to keep down crew size and keep the vehicle as small as possible. Only thing was that this autoloader had the unfortunate tendency to select crew members limbs rather than warshots.

A little while ago I came across Tiger in a static display at the victory park in saratov. unlike most static displays the hatches weren't welded shut. Despite the smell coming from inside I climber in (a little light penetrated through the shell holes on the side), it was stripped, but very claustriphobic (sp).

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by General Winter
T-54 series also had an autoloader to keep down crew size and keep the vehicle as small as possible. Only thing was that this autoloader had the unfortunate tendency to select crew members limbs rather than warshots.

T-64 was the first tank fitted with an autoloader AFAIK.

 

[unmerged(3236)]

I agree that there is no one "best tank" there is not a tank in the world who would win against a swedish leopard in sweden, however the leopard would be trumpeled by a italian tank in italy and so on

 

[unmerged(6898)]

Originally posted by Lars
... there is not a tank in the world who would win against a swedish leopard in sweden...

Nec Hercules contra plures - Mr Lars

 

[unmerged(5709)]

Originally posted by Lars
I agree that there is no one "best tank" there is not a tank in the world who would win against a swedish leopard in sweden, however the leopard would be trumpeled by a italian tank in italy and so on

I don't know about this logic. By this logic there is no tank in the world that could beat an Iraqi tank in Iraq. Pretty sure the M1 did that pretty decisivelly. Okay I streached your argument to the breaking point and totally distorted it. Sorry

 

[unmerged(6898)]

When he said IN THE WORLD he meant of course in the U.S. and Western Europe

 

[unmerged(8008)]

tanks (and aircraft) developed so quickly during ww2 because of so many european and especially american advances being shared with britain pre ww2 tanks were probably not seen as an important defensive unit to the extent that they were for other europeans but for obvious reasong they were in ww 2 . so britain invested a hell of a lot more in research.

 

[unmerged(1255)]

Originally posted by Lars
however the leopard would be trumpeled by a italian tank in italy

Don't think so.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

The best tank in the world was owned by me, circa 1986. It was made out of a large carboard box and was armed with a 40mm main gun made out of the cardboard tube from a roll of kitchen paper.

 

[Jools]

I'm thinking Land Raider here... Come on, 14 armour EVERYWHERE and the ability to transport Terminators. Who could ask for more?

 

[unmerged(5709)]

Originally posted by EUfan
When he said IN THE WORLD he meant of course in the U.S. and Western Europe

Yeh I know I was just ramblling.