How the M551 Sheridan got on this list is beyond me. As mentioned, firing its 152mm cannon / middle system messed up the alignment and the tank could no longer hit anything. It should be in the bottom 10.

@jakobquick6875

3 ай бұрын

It’s Bovington style😂 Best 10 tanks “we” have to film and show off😂 David fletcher says it all😊 love them all❤

@samlewis4670

3 ай бұрын

As an ex Sheridan gunner I can tell you we never had a functional missile system by the time we finished tank gunnery. The conventional gun’s recoil would knock the missile electronics out after one or two rounds.

@selfdo

3 ай бұрын

@@samlewis4670 Also what doomed the M60A2 "Starship". The funky-looking turret simply couldn't be adapted to the same M68 105 mm tank gun as the other M60s, so the turrets were removed and the chassis used for other purposes, or given an M60 A5 (105 mm) gun turret when available.

@Driver-ur9mf

3 ай бұрын

First I heard of it was this video. Got my popcorn out now as we are down to the final 2

@terrisommella720

2 ай бұрын

I guess Mike Sparks had a vote.

The thumb nail shows an image of a Krauss Maffei Leopard 1. My first reaction was, that cannot be a devastating tank. We had them in the Aussie Armoured Corps til 2007 til somone realised, the armour is only good against 25mm. Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War showed tanks need lots of effective armour

@gehtdichnixan3200

2 ай бұрын

well when it was developed that wwas logical at the time firepower was much greater than armor protection they did not have that modern armor back than so they considered leo 1 as fast and heavy hitting ( what it did pretty well back then ) and with a minimum of armor

@keithad6485

2 ай бұрын

German Bundeswehr seem to have decided mobility was more important than resistance to main armament strikes with the Leopard1, yet when looking at the UK and USA, with their MBTs at the time, Centurion and M48 and M60 clearly show they considered lots of armour is a priority. Germany appears to have gone with lots of armour with the Tiger, to less armour with the Leopard 1 then back to lots of armour with Leopard 2. @@gehtdichnixan3200

@yoloactual6975

2 ай бұрын

@@gehtdichnixan3200 just because it was what was done in western European countries that didn't have to actually prove themselves in war time in any capacity, does not mean it was sensible in any way. No tank of any sort was ever going to be fast enough to outrun any enemy guns. That line of thought is just braindead to begin with.

@gehtdichnixan3200

2 ай бұрын

@@yoloactual6975 well pretty much all tanks of all nations developed in this time period where like that leo one wwas just one of the best of them all .... and hasenr prove themselves in wwar ? hahaha well when i see the wars america fought like 1000 vs one than a boxer has proven himselve when he koed a 3 year old boy

Sheridan a failed attempt at a do everything support vehicle with an unreliable missile system that someone then decided to fire through a gun tube making it even more complicated & difficult & extremely expensive, definitely in bottom 10 tanks

34:10 - I think I'm in love with the Merkava driver :)

@uwegebert5118

3 ай бұрын

She was the best of the doku

@airborneranger-ret

3 ай бұрын

:) @@uwegebert5118

@AntonAdelson

3 ай бұрын

😍

@adityaBorPhukon2170

3 ай бұрын

Marry her. I’ll pray for you.

@airborneranger-ret

3 ай бұрын

lol @@adityaBorPhukon2170

Interesting collection of opinions by the editor/producer. None of the testimony from the people interviewed attempts to rank the tanks against each other, they stop at evaluating each tank individually. The ranking seems to be solely the opinions of the video's creators, and those opinions are - - - let's call them "easily questioned."

@user-gr6vr5bz8q

2 ай бұрын

He uses the word "devastating" then there's no mention of the Tiger! LMAO Let's ask the Russians about that.

Swedish soldiers,teenagers speaking English ,properly educated,lovely.

@markusbalbach7608

3 ай бұрын

A whole part of central europe, from switzerland/Austria up to Norway, we ALL speak/read n write english more o less fluently.

@mrjleex

2 ай бұрын

It is taught in the elementary grades in much of Europe. England speaks it also, but it is harder to understand what they are saying

@billgreen4388

2 ай бұрын

@@mrjleex No idea what tha on abaaart. 😄

Challenger I and II the only tanks in history with extensive combat use that have no losses to enemy fire is not even on the list!

my first tank i ran into, i was 6 years old + on visit 2 germany . we were traveling through the lünerburga heide ( back roads ): al of a sudden on the side of the road stood this massive vehicle . i managed 2 convince the driver to turn around . i wanted to see it. IT WAS A CENTURION . i spoke english , the dismounted tankers lifted me onto the tank . after this tanks were the greatest 2 me . what typ of tank this was i only found out many moons later. i rekognised it years later

Top ten Tanks that we could get access to would be a more accurate title, the most astonishing thing about this is how young Panzer Fletcher's moustache looks.

The S Tank is a Stug by another name. Why was everyone shocked? Also it the basis of the Thunderbirds vehicles?

The first time during WW2, that the Germans encountered tanks with slopped armour was in France, in 1940, the standard German anti-tank gun of 1940 was unable to penetrate the armour of the French heavy tanks. Furthermore, the T34 /76 was encountered from the first days of Operation Barbarossa.

@nobodyspecial115

3 ай бұрын

Technically the French WW1 FT Renault had sloped armor, plenty of tanks even Russian ones had sloped frontal armor way before 1941/42 but for some reason the T34 is always credited for it... Heck even the Panther was already in the design phase before they saw a T34 but it's always claimed that the germans only made it after they saw a T34 and tried to copy it.

@pike100

3 ай бұрын

The French had a heavy tank? I bet they all came standard issue with a white surrender flag. 😂

@dinglebeey

3 ай бұрын

They actually had some tanks like the b1 char that gave the Germans real trouble​ @@pike100

@andraslibal

2 ай бұрын

There are design considerations and advantages to not sloping the armor, the main one is more interior space and ergonomics inside the tank (the Tiger was incredibly comfortable for the crew, they could sleep in it etc, and crew fatigue is reduced when the tank is ergonomic, helping them in a fight), also, "early" (up to 1943-44) in the war, Germany had access to all the chrome, molybdenum and other additives needed for good quality steel and that good quality steel could take a hit even if it was straight as in the Tiger. Another thing about sloped armour, the T-34 has it all around making it super cramped (add a Christie transmission it makes it even more cramped, make the turret crew only 2 and have no rotating basket and it is a crew nightmare to work in) ... later tanks all have sloped armor but only in the front.

Look how young David Fletcher is here!

@richardwarner3705

3 ай бұрын

🇬🇧👍😉

@Jargolf86

3 ай бұрын

I recognized the Voice instant and my Eyes popped out when i saw the young Gentlemen.

The Chieftain should have been on the list (Probably not at No1, but on this list) it had one major problem, it's engine. (and that was only a problem because we tried to stick to the doctrine of having a multi-fuel engine. If we had just gone for a basic powerful and robust diesel, it would have been reliable as well!) But it was the best protected tank at the time and had the best gun. The Russians certainly feared it, as they always kept their best tank formations oposite the chieftains.

@dalek3086

3 ай бұрын

Russians would have been surprised to see Chieftains still moving, a crap tank - like many crap British tanks...

@MrAckers75

2 ай бұрын

@@dalek3086lol the centurion beat everything put in its way lol

@gilgamesh101

2 ай бұрын

Most ignorant comment on this entire thread!@@dalek3086

Centurion, the invention of the MBT, the best tank in the world, even when theoretically superseded it still kept winning and winning in battles against US or USSR sourced tanks.

@ronkeefe9048

3 ай бұрын

The centurion was a brilliant tank, the Israelis appreciated it for sure

@sobobwas6871

3 ай бұрын

@@ronkeefe9048 and the Indians, and the South Africans, and the British, and and and.

@selfdo

3 ай бұрын

The 'British Bulldog" proved to be one excellent tank due to how both the Brits and later outfits, the IDF especially, UPGRADED it. Once Centurions got the British-designed L7 105 mm rifled tank gun (the US equivalent, M68, was licensed by IMI for THEIR Centurions, and also up-gunned M48 "Pattons"), the tank truly came into its own, as well as having the decent but somewhat sluggish Meteor gasoline engine replaced with a Continental Teledyne diesel, again, same as in the M48s and M60s that the IDF had, to maintain commonality. However, though from the beginning it was designated as a "Universal" tank, IMO, either the German Panther or the Soviet T-34/85 can make a better claim as "first" MBT. All a matter of "in the eye of the beholder". Even the M4 (I REFUSE to dub it the Sherman as Union General William Tecumseh Sherman was a war CRIMINAL, a THUG in US Army uniform) has a claim as an "MBT" once it got the improved 76 mm gun that gave it decent anti-tank capability, also, although the M3 75 mm was better for "soft targets", due to a faster rate of fire and smaller, easier-to-handle shells, had better overall performance than generally given credit for. Another thing well in favor of the M4 was its VERSATILIY, in addition to mobility and RELIABILITY. It took a variety of tank engines, so, for example, the USMC and the Soviet Army got M4A2 diesels, due to need to share diesel with other units. The Brits generally got a version with a rather "Frankenstein" of an engine, the Chrysler A57 multibank, a 30-cylinder beast, cobbled together from FIVE inline six, flathead truck engines. Surprisingly, this contraption worked well, and Chrysler boasted it could still move the tank if 12 cylinders (two banks) were inoperative. The M4 was adapted to a variety of roles other than as tanks: the chassis was used for the M10 "Wolverine" and M36 "Slugger" tank destroyers. M4s were employed as CEVs and ARVs (M32 and later M74), tracked SP guns (M12 and M40 155 mm self-propelled guns), mine-clearing vehicle, rocket launcher (T334 "Calliope"), as well as the M7B1 "Priest", a continuation of the M7A1 vehicle derived from the prior Lee/Grant tank with a 105 mm short-barreled gun, intended for direct fire support. The end of the Korean War, where the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" was the most common US Army tank, and in the relatively few engagements with Soviet-supplied (to either the DPRK or the PLA) T-34/85s, especially in the August and September 1950 battles along the Naktong river, absolutely CREAMED them! The IDF made use of both supplied and CAPTURED M4s, upgunning them with either French-designed 75 mm (ironically, based on the German KwK 42 75 mm weapon!) or 105 mm tank guns. IDF M4s were credited with wiping out an entire battalion of Egyptian JS-3s at Rafah, Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, w/o a single loss, and they also served with distinction in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As the IDF already had a large fleet of Centurions and M48/M60 "Pattons", as well as a slew of captured Soviet-sourced tanks, mostly T54s and/or T-34/85s, with the occasional SU100 or IS-3 thrown in, the M4 was retired as a MBT, but many were repurposed, given new diesel powerpacks. Some were fitted with a 155 mm gun/howitzer as the L33 by Soltam Arms. Others were even turned into an armored AMBULANCE ("Tankbulance"). Many were converted to M74 ARV specification or also turned into CEVs, and some were simply buried alongside forts on the "Bar-Lev" line up to their turrets after being stripped of their engines and drive trains, to be used as pill-boxes! Few, if any tanks have ever proved as versatile as the M4 "medium".

@GeorgiaBoy1961

2 ай бұрын

I am reminded of a story from the Korean War 1950-1953, when a U.S. general - whose name I am sorry I can't recall now - paid tribute to British Centurions and their crews who got them up mountainsides and other difficult terrain considered impassible - in order to provide fire-support for UN forces against the communists. Korea wasn't ideal tank country, but that didn't matter to those crews and their tanks.

@TwilightxKnight13

Ай бұрын

It does not win vs the Abrams

"Panzer" stands for "armored" in German. Most people confuse this term with "tank". Any armored vehicle is a panzer. Cheers.

@naihillis

3 ай бұрын

not nesnecessarily armored vehicles or military vehicles get the Labelling SdKfz wich means Sonder Kraftfahrzeug wich in Englsich means somthing like special vehicle this is then splitted in many categorys like Halbketten (halftraks) or SPW Panzerspähwagen (armored scouting vehicle) and more. The name panzer (in the military slang)is reserved for tanks but youre pretty much right with the meaning of the word but it doesnt means armored but it is a not often used word for Armor armored would mean gepanzert

@Chiron84

3 ай бұрын

@@naihillis Historically that might have been true, but not any more. In modern terms, almost every armored military vehicle is a Panzer, since, as was correctly stated, the term comes from the armor (Panzerung). An AFV is a Transportpanzer, an IFV is a Schützenpanzer, an armored mine clearing vehicle is a Minenräumpanzer. An armored anti-aircraft gun is a Flakpanzer. a tank destroyer is a Kanonenjagdpanzer. And so forth, until we reach what's in English called a tank, which is a Kampfpanzer in German.

@wanderschlosser1857

2 ай бұрын

As a German I can tell you Panzer is the correct translation for tank. An armored vehicle is a Panzerwagen or gepanzertes Fahrzeug. Panzer indeed can also mean armor like the shield of a turtle. But for military use the simple word Panzer means tank. For other armored vehicles we usually use combination words incl. Panzer but not the single word.

@naihillis

2 ай бұрын

@@Chiron84 i am german and no not every armored Vehicle is an Panzer Armored Vehicles are panzerfahrzeuge or überpanzertertes Fahrzeug if the vehicle it self as no armor and the armor was later added the vehicle is only called panzer if it has the basis of a battletank such as flakpanzer schützenpanzer or minenräumpanzer

@davidhines7592

2 ай бұрын

@@naihillis graf spee was a panzerschiffe

I am always amazed by the numbers of so called "experts" in the comment section but in this case it blows my mind......

@davman115

2 ай бұрын

😂

S-tank is a turret, with tracks.

I really liked how you included the veterans👍

The Sherman was a true death trap for the men that fought in them , how it always gets buttercup and glossed over is beyond me.

That young soldier at 48:45 minutes is clearly having a blast in the Leopard tank 🤘

My Humble opinion on Tank drive control for Tracks. Why did none of them design the CASE track Dozers ( 450&850) control levers between the legs. I ran an 850-B track Loader on a very muddy big mainline sewer job in the 70s. It ran as fast as a wheel loader, and are work running sewer lines in unimproved roadway, with that track control levers right between you legs, was amazing at turning.😊

If they made this today.. They would have issues with how the Ukraine deals with modern tanks..

@Nebris

3 ай бұрын

Yeah. Especially during the T-72 section, I kept seeing in my mind FPV drone feeds going straight in and doing the old turret flip.

@d.e.b.b5788

3 ай бұрын

Tactics change with newer developed ones, using new weapons. But it's interesting learning other's opinions, unless they are morons.

@dirkvonriegen5267

3 ай бұрын

@@Nebris They see something like this on both sides. But the fact is that both the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and the Leopard tank have changed from a "miracle weapon" to "scrap metal". Too heavy, too complicated, too expensive, too unreliable and almost impossible to repair in the field, almost analogous to World War II...

I agree with the leopard 2A7 being number one because it looks the most awesome with that arrow head armor on the turret. Oh and its fire control system was a great engineering marvel.

How tf the Sheridan on this list💀💀

The T-72? Seriously? How is it devastating? The impact crater when its turret returns from low orbit after getting launched by a Javelin? The loud boom when it gets blasted by a NATO tank that outranges it by a kilometer?

@Kraxi95

3 ай бұрын

Don't forget the slow speed in reverse gear , big downfall

Great TANK show. Lotsa fun Leopard slalom at the end .... Boys having fun ~ 😃

Here’s another fact, no one ever talks about the T 72 tanks barrel good only fire 100 shells after that the file was extremely dangerous to the operator

I was US Army soldier. I came up with a lot of tank and anti tank tactics. I had the defending anti armor units pre prepare multiple fallback positions for the "shoot and scoot" tacticks. I also taught them howvto mask the round signature long enough to give them time to move before being spotted. It all depends on terrain but it opend the eyes of a lot of commander's. So many years ago. I went into active duty in 1980.

@TwilightxKnight13

Ай бұрын

LoL

Notice the Sherman with the 76.2mm Firefly cannon is not mentioned. That could handle most German tanks, though just barely the Tiger 1 ANF King Tiger. The Israelis had a super Sherman with a 90mm cannon as a stopgap.

@Anglo_Saxon1

3 ай бұрын

Yes,exchanging the gun for the British 17 pounder definitely turned it into a tank killer.

@wayneabbott652

3 ай бұрын

76mm is a US gun

@MrT67

3 ай бұрын

​@@wayneabbott652 The 76.2 is the British 17 pounder.

@bigenglishmonkey

3 ай бұрын

quotes from guys who drove it probably knocked it down the list. "The Firefly tank is an ordinary Sherman but, in order to accommodate the immense breech of the 17-pounder and to store its massive shells, the co-driver has been eliminated and his little den has been used as storage space. ... The flash is so brilliant that both the gunner and commander need to blink at the moment of firing. Otherwise, they will be blinded for so long that they will not see the shot hit the target. The muzzle flash spurts out so much flame that, after a shot or two, the hedge or undergrowth in front of the tank is likely to start burning. When moving, the gun's overlap in front or, if traversed, to the side is so long that the driver, gunner, and commander have to be constantly alert to avoid wrapping the barrel around some apparently distant tree, defenseless lamp-post or inoffensive house."

@Anglo_Saxon1

3 ай бұрын

@@bigenglishmonkey lol,that must be how the Germans felt aswel.(with the long barrels😉)

One Sheridan in Viet Nam had "Peace Pipe" painted on the gun tube. --Non Bailey in Maine

Without a moving turret , it is not considered to be a tank. It’s mobile artillery.

Wot no Challenger 1 or 2 longest ever tank on tank hit, best armour took more hits then any other tank & survived, just goes to show lack of research in these compilations!!!

@GeorgiaBoy1961

2 ай бұрын

I don't have the data handy, but if memory serves, the Challenger platform was also the first to debut Chobham Armor, at the time the top-secret composite layered armor that proved superior to any other of its kind in the world. The formulation of the armor is still highly-secret and it has been improved upon in the Chobham/Dorchester package. That distinction alone merits the Challenger being included, let alone its superb combat record. It was inevitable that sooner or later one would be knocked out. That is the nature of military secrets and advances; they are ephemeral in nature and do not last forever - but only until suitable countermeasures can be found by the enemy. The UAV-drone revolution and top-attack weapons have - for the time being anyway - somewhat negated the advantages conferred by composite armor, but only until the pendulum swings back the other way. As it must sooner or later. And in the meantime, the Challenger series of tanks have an enviable record of effectiveness and survivability in combat.

49:44 all that maintenance stuff… certainly they learnt well from what happened before in WW2 when their tanks broke down all the time, spare parts were scarce, and there was no ease of fixing

This isn't a fair comparison, to do so, you'd need to compare tanks from the era /theatre of war they fought in? It would be like comparing 1903 cars with 2023 cars

@bigenglishmonkey

3 ай бұрын

cars are easy. yeah the new ones can go faster and are more comfortable, but the further back you go the better they looked, to about the mid 1900s anyway.

@d.e.b.b5788

3 ай бұрын

@@bigenglishmonkey Oh, I don't know. The 2005 Mustang was just as good looking as the 1969 ones it was patterned after. So they're not all bad. Oh, and that 4 door open top Cadillac Ciel from about back in 2011, now that was gorgeous. There are good designs in every era, it's only that in whatever current era we are in, we are surrounded by the ugly ones!

I always assumed, incorrectly that is, since there was the Tiger tank, the Panzer meant a Panther similar to the Lepard tank. Live and learn. 😁

I used to be an M1A1 Abrams Tank Commander after my life as a Paratrooper at first. The M1 series is a very easy tank to drive for the driver, other jobs like the loader he can load a round under 5 seconds. The gunner is very capable when trained properly with endless hours on the MCOFT simulator before gunnery. You as the Tank Commander has to be up to standards to maintain, command, tactics, and be able to take over the job of Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, and Company or Troop Commander. The education of a tank crew man is a progressing process from maintaining the tank, individual crew duties, tactics, command structure, which all requires each crew member to know 2-3 positions above their rank in order to be an effective fighting crew. A crew capable of going through a gunnery cycle and making Qualification Standard 1 is golden. Proficiency to a higher standard is what the US Army Armor and Armored Cavalry wants all of its soldiers.

@F15ElectricEagle

3 ай бұрын

True, a well-trained, disciplined and experienced tank crew is more valuable to most armies than the tank they drive.

@ahmedakhan1

3 ай бұрын

@@F15ElectricEagle Michael Wittman comes to mind!

@svensvensson2724

3 ай бұрын

Well, the standards have been lowered, so this is not true anymore.

@reddevilparatrooper

3 ай бұрын

@@svensvensson2724 So what was your MOS?

@svensvensson2724

3 ай бұрын

@@reddevilparatrooper Airforce. What does it matter? They are all terrible now.

Oddly enough, the Leopard 1 on the thumbnail is not on the list...

The main tank (and anti tank) gun in 1939 was 37mm (2 pounder). The 37mm PAK (incl carriage) weighed 450Kg. 50mm and 57mm (6 pounder) were quickly introduced and were the main weopons until 1943. The 50mm PAK weighed 1062kg. The 57mm remained in UK service until late 1950s. The 75mm on the Sherman, T34, StugIII and PzIV were then the main guns until the end of the war (76mm, 85mm and 88mm were a minority in 1945). The 75mm PAK versions weighed 1500-1800kg. The 88mm PAK in some ways was impractical weighing 3.6-4.5 tonnes. Post war 90mm became standard. By ~1960 105mm was universal. By 1980 120mm.

@TheSycotik

3 ай бұрын

T-34 had 76.2mm gun, later 85mm, so I wouldnt call em minorities.

Well done Gentleman, a excellent, entertaining production!

Am i the only one thinking that the leopard 2 has a massive shot trap between the turret and the hull?

@ericvanlede481

2 ай бұрын

Could be. Many tanks have this weak spot. Even the Merkava, the pretty driver precisely explain why they added balls around ... seems thar it pleased her ... 😊

After 1991 European countries sold off over 2000 Leopard II tanks. At bargain prices. While the USA kept their Abrams tanks.

@MadHatter-ek7vh

3 ай бұрын

Difference in armor secrets is a big reason..same as usa planes and other weapons that are classified in the m1a2 the depleted uranium in the armor plus other composites.

@Idahoguy10157

3 ай бұрын

@@MadHatter-ek7vh …. Except now the Europeans wish they’d had those Leopard II tanks. The USA army has thousands of Abrams in storage. I’m waiting to see if NATO countries start buying those from the US army. For their armies.

What a load of do do. The Panther was so prone to breaking down that it was effectively useless. One of the reasons Germany lost WWII. You have Leopard II and the Abrams, but no Challenger II ,,(,only one ever lost to enemy action and the. Longest tank on tank kill).

The Tiger has to be in the top ten and there is no way the Leopard is better than the Abrams. I've seen the later in action. Its one perceived weakness, fuel economy, is way overstated because the US has (arguably) the greatest logistical support ever which neutralizes any issues regarding refueling. Entire units of Abrams can push across long distances at very high speeds almost continuously with staggered refueling. Mobility is a not an issue. Add to that its incredibly strong defensive armament and the only thing left is its ability to destroy targets which is where it really shines. The fire control system is easily the best in the world. I would put 2-3 Abrams against an entire unit of any other tank with absolute confidence.

Thank you for talking about great tank builds. The Germans over engineered there ( Panzer) plus they outrun there FUEL supply/Refueling lines. Good for British. The ( Israel) Tank is my favorite The Drive on the side just like a vehicle The capacity to carry troops. Its up armor Suspension A+ 😊

Wow, the first sentence is already wrong. What an achievement.

Where’s challenger 2? That’s by far the best

How's the Tiger Tank not on this list??? Sure it wasn't perfect BUT it's probably the most legendary Tank OF ALL TIME.

There was sloping armor in Italy to Czech republic. Sherman at soaping armor, sloping armor goes almost back to the end of World War I.

l really like the MERKAVA its design was made with a purpose that s proven in battle over n over technically more than most on this list . The S tank was also built this way and has proven its abilities in mach battles . NOW as for the the top two big boys have proven their abilities with the same gun 120mm smooth bore ,l saw the first L2 s get winter tested at my base back in the early 90s prior to the new amour very boxy like a tiger 1 . they can change the motor in one in less than 10mins !!

Yes, David Fletcher! I miss that little mustache

I think some of the tanks in this list are some of the worst tanks. The T34 had a gun tube that could fire only 100 anti-tank rounds, good velocity, poor metallurgy. It's engine was the same, it would need a rebuild after one tank of petrol. Panzer V, VI and VII were all deeply flawed. They had overly complicated gearboxes with 1000+ parts, it was kind of semi automatic, but very difficult to set up. As the Panzer VI & VII got heavier and heavier the gearboxes became hopelessly over-stressed. The engines for these tanks were meticulously lightened, sadly this also ment weakened. As the tanks became heavier, cooling the engines became very difficult. Fire was a constant worry. Though the running gear was excellent in the field, working on it in the field was regarded as a total bastard of a job. So Panzer V, VI, VII. Excellent guns, excellent, though overly heavy, armour, crappy engines, transmissions and running gear. For me, the best tank, the one that balanced firepower, protection, mobility and producability. Panzer kampfwagon IV. If the German's had developed a new turret for this tank, incorporating some of the new armour alloys from krupp steel, a moderate increase in gun calibre for better muzzle velocity, and sloping armour, both in the turret and chassis. These improvements would have given Germany a war winner that it could've produce in quantity. Happily Hitler, as always, stuck his nose into a subject he knew bugger all about, and hammered another nail into the coffin of German defeat.so my vote goes to, ☆ Panzer IV ☆

@gerdlunau8411

3 ай бұрын

While I certainly agree with the comment on the German WW2 tanks (my grand dad had to repair them in the field), I disagree with the comment on the T34. The USSR in the late 20s and 30s was a leading force in many scientific fields, particular oil production, electrification, mining, metallurgy and heavy industry (besides many other scientific fields). In summer 1941 the Soviet armament industry had to flee very fast East to the Urals (and further beyond) so some quality issues might occurred. Also probably not all necessary metallurgic materials were available. The T34 very quickly became very reliable, except for the gearboxes, although with some improvement. Those were of simple design (5-gear forward + 1 reverse) without synchromesh. The other mechanical components (clutch, planet drives etc.) were good for many 100th of km to be driven on long marches through the vast country on own power, while Panthers and Tigers needed trains. Really unique and advanced was the engine, a V12 Diesel on an aluminium block - the German motor industry never managed to achieve this until the 1970s (?? with the Golf 1). It means that the T34 was extremely fuel economic and hard to ignite when hit. The torque, power and power-to-weight-ratio was absolute superior to all the other German tanks. The engine soon became very reliable too (it never ran on gasoline, it is a pure Diesel engine). It also was designed to start in extreme cold, another issue the German tank industry had difficulties to take care of. It was a simple and easy to repair / maintain engine too. It was also known that the Diesel fuel did not require high grade quality or pureness, the T34 engine would just except it even with crude contamination in it, be it water or dirt to a certain degree. The real downer of the T34 were missing radio equipment (soon sorted) in the beginning, cramped crew space and total lack of any crew comfort (no heating, bad fume extraction, ergonomics etc.). The early 2-crew turret was also not a good idea but soon changed to 3-man turret, so the commander finally could do his job. The guns (76mm and 85mm) and optics were not so precise as with the German counterparts but when the Red Army advanced West became less and less of a disadvantage since fighting distance shortened rapidly due to changing geography, more frequent urban combat plus hard-on-the-heels chase by the Red Army's rapid advance after Kursk. Long distance tank duels were no longer the norm, short distance dog fights more common. The manoeuvrability made now the difference for survival, fast speed but also fast turret and gun movements too. Also I never read or heard about worn-out gun barrels of Soviet-designed tanks; written war memories of WW2.crew members NEVER mention such thing. The main gun always fired, both machine guns had a slight tendency of jamming, which could be easily sorted (same type as with the T55). T34/85 and the Sherman (Firefly) were the most suitable tanks in WW2, the Panther was flawed with some problems (later corrected) but still too complex, too heavy, too slow and extremely gas (gasoline!) guzzling. The tiger family and the Ferdinands were pure failures, as even German Generals admitted in written statements back to the armour industry at the time. The field repair guys also hated them: too hard to recover and too complex to field-repair them, plus they exhausted senseless the diminishing industrial resources of Germany's war industry. All other previous German tanks (P38(t), P1 - P4) were outclassed with the appearance of the T34 in 1941 at the battle field. They were just no match. I am a German engineer and served as a tank commander of a T55, which had the same type of T34 engine (with a bit more horse power), so one can trust a bit or two on my comments. My crew also had to maintain, repair and replace this engine but of course also operated it inside our T55. Driving it was great fun, Peace! from Dresden / Germany

@HE-pu3nt

3 ай бұрын

@gerdlunau8411 I think the one thing about the T34 that made it great was the shear number produced. It had many shortcomings, but when you have a 20 to 1 advantage in tank numbers and 10 to 1 advantage in soldiers, you can not lose. A Soviet Steamroller. I think a Panzer IV, improved in the way I described, would have been a very useful tank. Very embarrassed 😳 about the petrol/diesel bugger up. I should have re-read my comment before I posted it.

@MrT67

3 ай бұрын

​@@gerdlunau8411 while the Panther had its issues as did all tanks of WWII, I'm not sure why people occasionally criticise it's speed. It's speed wasn't much different to the Sherman. It was also only about 1.25 times the cost of the Panzer IV to produce. I've always felt that if the Germans flagged the idea of the Tigers and focused on the Panther, they could have improved the design around production efficiency, reliability and battlefield maintenance to produce a tank that would have been without question the best tank of the war. I know that those are significant obstacles to overcome, but the basis of a brilliant tank was already there. The early issues with the Panther were by and large resolved and further development potential was there also.

Where is the Tiger and especially the StuG-III?

@sharis4130

3 ай бұрын

Where is the Panzer 4? It was, along with the Panzer 3, the most efficient tank Germany fielded at the time. The Tiger has an unecessarily exaggerated reputation and the StuG was just the most produced armoured vehicle the germans had back then.

the abrams chugs fuel .6 mpg but it's scary that the early pattons drank 2X as fast and at half the power .33 mpg, so it's kinda better than you might think. google also says sherman .87 to .4 mpg, tiger .4 mpg, m60 .8, cromwell .5-1.5 mpg.

@TwilightxKnight13

Ай бұрын

the Abrams' fuel economy is often derided but it is not an issue for the US. We have the most advanced logistical systems in the world so refueling is not a detriment to the warplan. It is simply put, the greatest battle tank ever built. Period, full stop

Why isn’t a Challenger on the list?

The Sherman tank had many design flaws that were fatal to its crews. The side armor was perfectly perpendicular to the angle of fire of enemy guns making it easier to penetrate than the sloped armor of other tanks. The armor itself tended to spall on the interior when it took a hit, causing lethal metal splinters to fly about. But the most egregious design flaw was using a gasoline engine to power it. Where as diesel fuel has a much lower flashpoint, gasoline is highly combustible. It was nicknamed the Ronson lighter by its crews, because it lit up first time, every time. The Germans called it the Tommy cooker for its tendency to immediately catch fire when hit, not allowing its British crews time to escape.. Its original 75mm gun was underpowered, and vastly outmatched by the German 88mm. Many of its crews were aghast to see its main gun rounds bounce relatively harmlessly off German tank armor. Can't understand why it made the list. No need to stroke American egos here.

@d.e.b.b5788

3 ай бұрын

The 'First time, every time' slogan of Ronson wasn't created until way after WW2; so nobody called it that. Get another story. You have to get your facts straight, because once anyone catches a mistake or worse, a lie, it makes EVERYTHING you say or write, assumed to be incorrect until proven otherwise. As such, it makes all information from you useless, because all of it must be backed up by another verifiable source, and so why bother to pay any attention to yours, since we will have to access another one anyway?

What about the King Tiger?

Look at that young whipper snapper David Willey!

If you compare numbers in wwII, you should compare economic strength too. Germany also had mass production. They build over 10k StuGIII. The tank was cheap, difficult to hit due to the flat profile and had the highest kill-to-loss-ratio (16:1) of all tanks throughout the war. Thats not a list of devastating tanks. The sherman was not a devastating tank. kill-to-loss-ratio (2:1). They only built it in many variants and numbers. US M18 Helcat was a little bit better. kzread.info/dash/bejne/d6WasrptfbHImNo.html

Crash gearbox is an issue. That is a training problem Most trucks use a "crash gearbox" Using a road ranger transmission generally takes a day.

Sherman should be much higher up. Was it the best? No, but it did its job very well and for what it was supposed to be it was devastating. The top two for me are the T34 and Sherman. I think the crews of the Sherman were pretty much all delighted with it. I know the British tankers liked it. Panther was a great piece of kit but it was nowhere near as reliable as the other two. These tanks were tested over and over again in battle and not against vastly inferior tanks. They performed brilliantly relative to what they were supposed to do. And why the Challenger 1 isn't in here is beyond me. It performed brilliantly in Desert Storm.

I wonder if you could get a mission kill on a tank by making concertina with heavier gauged wire with hooks and barbs interspersed in it.

50K of destroyed T-34 during WW2. Absolute record of all times. Could win a worst tank title ever as well. They were cheap as dirt the same as Russian soldiers and plenty in amounts. That's the key of their success.

29:45... He looks like an officer driving a tank... Lol.

A kettle of tea off the Sherman please. No sugar. 😂

Nice introduction video about tanks glory and dignity, after the WW2...airplanes are looted glory and dignity from tanks

“Germany had been banned from making tanks after ww2; they just hadn’t played nice with the ones they had”😂😂

T34 MYTH CONTINUES WAS NOT THE FIRST TANK TO SLOP ARMOUR

@gerdlunau8411

3 ай бұрын

This is correct but compared to the WW2 German tank designs it was a true first-timer - at the Eastern front. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

@nobodyspecial115

3 ай бұрын

An a far cry from being "The Best" at anything. It was a terrible tank, but good enough to get the job done and when you have thousands to burn through it doesn't matter if you lose 10 taking out 1 when the 1 isn't as easily replaced. Although when looking at it as a individual tank it's one of the worst for the poor souls operating it ie. the slope armor left almost zero room inside which is why most never went with that design. However the USSR wasn't known for caring about the conditions it forced it soilders to fight in, so of course they were the first to really push sacrificing the crews ability to perform for better armor.

@THEFORBIDDENMAN-lk7of

3 ай бұрын

IT WAS THE BEST THEY COULD AT SHORT NOTICE THEY DID NOT DEVELOP SLOPE ARMOUR IT WAS COPIED FROM OTHER EARLY TANK DESIGN

@THEFORBIDDENMAN-lk7of

3 ай бұрын

IT WAS THE BEST THEY COULD AT SHORT NOTICE THEY DID NOT DEVELOP SLOPE ARMOUR IT WAS COPIED FROM OTHER EARLY TANK DESIGN

@sharis4130

3 ай бұрын

@@gerdlunau8411 The Panzer 1 had sloped armour too, so did the BT-5 and the BT-7. . . and the StuG. The T-34 was just known for it's pyramid shape and the Soviets had to make some propaganda about their stuff because otherwise nobody would have wanted that poorly produced garbage. Post-War produced T-34 were nice though.

Leo2 is nice, but the boys at Ft. Knox would disagree

there was an inventor who came up with independent suspension for tanks no one jumped on it except the soviets the result better drive ability for there tanks

@pgmer-ok3ik

2 ай бұрын

Christie suspension. American tank designer. Used by T-34. See Wikipedia.

What about the Tiger & king Tiger, then T-90M ?

I wouldn’t personally put a Sherman in this category , the tigers called them Remington lights in one.

@lilbenzo3561

3 ай бұрын

Well during the liberation of France the number of tigers fielded you could count on one hand. There were more panthers in France than tigers. Keep in mind a tiger isn’t even a standard tank. It’s a breakthrough vehicle ment to punch through enemy lines and create chaos after which it was brought back behind friendly lines. The medium tanks like panzer four which were way more common than the big cats were the real work horse of the waffen ss. They saw combat in every battle the German fought. They’re very reliable and lethal being able to effectively dealing with t-34s and m4a with its 75mm long barrel. They were also 4 times cheaper than panther. Panzerjager case mate tank destroyers like stug 3/4 and jagdpanzer 38t or hetzer if you’re uncultured were more effective at engaging enemy tanks than tigers/e, panther, and tiger b. Out off all the tanks mentioned from a pragmatic perspective m4 was by far the best tank during ww2. Extremely reliable, decent sloped armor and later being fielded with a 76mm m1 this tank was lethal not only to tanks but more importantly infantry which make up the backbone of any nation. Remember tank on tank combat was very rare. Especially more so nowadays. Fun fact about m4 was that the states had no plans to bring any of those tanks back so Europe has more m4s than America does. This is also reflected by dod completely changing their tank designations. Americas tanks were the best tank killers but that’s not the war they had to fight after the North African campaign.

@MrT67

3 ай бұрын

​@@lilbenzo3561 The Panther was not 4 times the cost of a Panzer IV. It was more like 1.25 times. And those numbers are based on the most expensive cost for a Panther that I could find. The Panzer IV was relatively expensive for a tank of its size and type at 117k RM, while the Panther was 145k RM. I've read expert opinion from some that the Germans would have been better off not producing Tigers and eventually ceasing production of Panzers IV's altogether in favour of the Panther. More development would have been required however in regards to simplification of design with regards to production, battlefield maintenance, etc. But its probable that the Panther came on the scene a year or so late for that. However, I still believe that Panther design and production would have benefitted in the absence of the Tiger.

@d.e.b.b5788

3 ай бұрын

No, they didn't. That's a common misconception; Remington and Ronson lighters didn't have those sales words until way after WW2.

@sharis4130

3 ай бұрын

@@MrT67 I heavily disagree. ceasing the productions of the Panzer 4 would have been the worst step to take, especially when you replace it with the Panther (which was statistically one of the least efficient tanks Germany could have fielded). They design improvements (like crew comfort or the comparably simple way of operating it, If you were able to drive a car, you were able to drive a Tiger) they achieved with the Tiger should have been transfered to the Pz.4 and the Panther should have been rejected from it's beginning. It "solved" problems that had already been solved on previous vehicles, it was very heavy, the cannon was only suited for Tank to Tank combat at long ranges like the plains of the USSR, it required resources for production that were not available in sufficient amounts, it used a lot of fuel and was extremely unreliable.

@MrT67

3 ай бұрын

@@sharis4130 The Panzer IV had reached the limits of its development potential by April 1943 in regards to it's main gun and was left behind by it's rivals increasing their firepower such as the T34 -85 and the Sherman Firefly.

Sloped armour is something people knew long time ago and it’s not a Russian “discovery”. It’s just that Germans at that time didn’t apply it because of much needed space inside the tank and because there weren’t many guns so powerful in the field. It was just a trade.. German tanks had nothing at all to do with Russian tanks that to be honest, beside the numbers had no other strength

The M4 Sherman a Devastating Tank... Really??!!!! Even the Panzer IV with the Long 75mm gun could take on any allied tank in the West, specialy the Sherman at distances that the M4 only could Dream off. Like Guderian wrote " In Normandy the use of the Panzer IV was more than enough to Deal with any allied Armor. There was no need to deploy Tigers and Panthers on that Battlefield when they were so much needed on the Eastern Front. The Panzer IV along with some StugIII units were more than capable to engage any allied Armor and delay the outcome off the battle and at the same time inflicting a Heavy toll on the Allied Armor divisions." PS: if you are including the M4 Sherman as One of the most Devastating Tanks Ever,i wonder where the Tiger and the KingTiger Fitt in your concept of a Devastating Tank...??!!! Unbelivable.

@atomicwedgie8176

3 ай бұрын

Sherman- Simple, easy to fix and made in huge numbers. Any Panzer type- Complex, more prone to break downs. More expensive to produce = far fewer produced.

@jpmtlhead39

3 ай бұрын

@@atomicwedgie8176 more Devastating Tank...???!!!! Didin't you nottest the Thumbnail..??!! Guess not.

@atomicwedgie8176

3 ай бұрын

@@jpmtlhead39 Hard to be devastating if your complex tank is broken down and you can't get parts. Plus they were too big for many bridges and roads... plus fuel pigs.

@jpmtlhead39

3 ай бұрын

@@atomicwedgie8176 but the Point here is "The Most Devastating Tanks.." Most Devastating...got it??!!! For God's Sake man,what part you dont understand abaut being the Most Devastating...??!! Forget the bridges,the broken engines,etc..ok.

@vitaliyavrutin5484

3 ай бұрын

The M4A2(76)W HVSS version with a long barrel 76mm M1 gun was supplied to USSR. This one can take on German tanks from a quite long distance. The reason why Americans mostly used a short barrel version was probably related to very strong and well-organized American field artillery, which handled the most of ant-tank needs.

Especially the Pz.5 Panthers and the T-34s were the most devastating tanks for their own country. Expensive and partly under engineered designs which went through a very poor production quality and had massive reliability problems. All that only to be part of the least efficient tanks produced in the second World War.

Where's challenger?

Sheridan and T72? Really? Centurion didn't see action in WW2.

Το Leopard 1A5 Η Ελλάδα το έχει ακόμα Αν το πήγαμε στην Ουκρανία

What I would like to see is a diesel power-pack like the Leopard II adapted to the Abrams. About 40 years ago I saw the test course run with the General motors offering against the Chrysler built Abrams and the General motors diesel was quite impressive. The only advantage the Abrams had going for it was POLITICS. I found pictures of the G.M. tank and occasionally I look them over to remind myself of the slimy bastards that run the Swamp. So many lives wasted; so much money siphoned off.

@danzielinski5036

3 ай бұрын

The turbine engine was chosen over the diesel because change out only took an hour per engine swap. 30 min to remove, 30 to replace. Secondly, the turbine engine can run on 4 different kinds of fuel. The turbine engine was also lighter than the diesel. The turbine is also much quieter compared to diesel because It doesn't reciprocate making extra noise.

@tomgoodwin9161

2 ай бұрын

@@danzielinski5036 Compare the time it takes to swap out the Leopard diesel power pack and it will work out fairly well. A few minutes or an hour is not always an unreasonable price to pay. I do not know how much the diesel power pack will weigh out; maybe more than the turbine. Yes quieter is an important factor, or can be. Now there something like 30 or so Abrams tanks in Ukraine. The Ukrainians ain't Americans and do not have the logistical resources the US has. By that I mean they will utilize the Abrams with its gargantuan fuel thirst and......We'll see what we will see.

Elinor Kusnir looks and sounds like a nice English country Lady. I can just see her going pheasant shooting in her Merkava.

just make sure to let that shell casing cool down or you'll cook your sausage!.

Very succesful in the Dobass

Who made this list? Look I love the panther. Just an absolutely beautiful tank. But as far as combat effectiveness is concerned it was pretty much useless. The t-34 was crap. I mean absolute garbage. I'm down to like number four on this list and so far I think I found maybe one tank on here that deserves to make the top 10.

Bull about the T-34 No tank won or lost the war Period. Tank to tank the T34 could not stand up to a Pz 1V long They just had lots of T-34's

What about the challenger 3

It worked perfectly considering time is it encourages dehydration starvation well, hell everybody born in the Soviet Union at some point will probably fit in that tank

T-34 ? Is it list of the most devastated ones ?

Where's the M10 Booker?

Denmark had the Centurion for about 30 years

The S tank is NOT A TANK - it's a self propelled gun, not an MBT .

Merkava is ONLY 5 generation with armor on top 4M Briliant

@bryanb6931

3 ай бұрын

I was shocked to see the videos of Merkavas completely destroyed for less than $200.

Equipment is only as good as the person/crew operating it.

@sharis4130

3 ай бұрын

Certainly doesn't speak for the T-34 and the Panther. When the equipment is poorly designed and/or produced you can have the best crew in the world. when poor quality equipmnent breaks it's because it is poor quality.

Montreal locomotive works.

In World of Tanks if you discount a S Tank you are gonna get wrecked

Did that S tank just poop???

a leopard better than a leclerc omg what's this ?

Just curious, did the Leopard 2 and the S-Tank see actual combat? If not maybe rethink this list.

@M1984FA

3 ай бұрын

Does the Ukraine ring a bell? Plenty of videos of knocked-out Leopards. No doubt soon you can see a few of those in the St Petersburg war museum, next to those old Tigers and Panthers.

@SIXITHS

3 ай бұрын

Yes, they have seen combat: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZZyoq8xrZcnce6w.htmlsi=B2CO8iZyODNpiKJf

@ronaldgrove3283

3 ай бұрын

​@M1984FA Definitely less than total lost Russian T-90's on the Ukraine fields.

The merkava tank is great and unique desing but same as strw same merkava is specificly build for its own country, the problemis that new modern APFSDS rounds really dont care about the engine and trasmision and penetrate traight thru into turret compartment or driver side and this is bad. For IFV this is key feature cuz those kind of wehicles fight mainly vs infantry with smaller guns not to mbts but merkava have double role same as IFV or tank but the armor on the MK4 is still worse than its western brothers. But over all very good and definitelly unique mbt.

from the German perspective the StuG had the most kills. I knew a few people the operated the Tiger 1. Some said it was a fine machine some said it was a peace of shit. Tiger 1 and 2 and the Panther were no easy access systems. when. Tiger 1 had some expericend crews. But Tiger 2 and Panther appeared late in the war and crews were more and more not that experienced and the logistics were awful. The Leo 2 is more a shot and scoot Tank. The war in Ukraine is the wrong scene for that tank. But luckily it saves the lives of most of their crewmembers.

wasn't the best tanks of WWII the SU-100 and the Stug?

@Stewsie80

3 ай бұрын

The Stug is not a classed as a tank i

challenger 2 ?