Posted on 09/08/2014 12:08:25 PM PDT by C19fan
Only the most techno-fanatic would argue that a certain type of tank has changed history. There are so many other causes -- military, political, economic, social -- that explain victory and defeat far better than size of gun or thickness of armor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
British Mark IV
German Panzer Mark II
T-34
Sherman
Chinese Type 59: T-54 knock off
Note more on historical effect than some judgment on how good the tank actually was.
It was a brave crew that faced a Panzer in a Sherman. I wonder how many GI’s from Georgia felt good about driving a Sherman.
M1Ax family in place of the Type 59.
The Sherman was a mediocre tank. From what I understood the US learned the wrong lessons from the early stages of WW II and devised the Sherman more as an infantry support vehicle while lightly armored fast tank destroyers would do the tank-on-tank battles. There were two things going for the Sherman: cheap to produce and very reliable the exact opposite of the German zoo tanks (Panther and Tigers). As the saying goes there is a quality in quantity.
I wonder how many GI’s from Georgia felt good about driving a Sherman.
Why do you say GI’s from Georgia?
Why no M1 Abrams?
5 tanks?
Your welcome, Your welcome, Your welcome, Your welcome, Your welcome.
Cannot believe no mention of the German WWII tank, the Tiger tank.
This tank was easily the most powerful in WWII. It had a powerful 88mm gun which could take out Allied tanks at a distance of two mile away. It’s frontal armor was so thick (100 mm) that Allied shells bounced right off it even at close range. The Tank was virtually indestructible on the battlefield and Allied tanks were pea shooters in comparison. The Tiger was so big and so complicated it was not possible to manufacture them in vast numbers unlike the Allied tanks. It was also a gas hog at a time when Germany was desperately short on fuel.
The best tank of WWII however was probably the German Panther tank. Faster and more mobile than the Tiger, it too carried a power gun. Like the Tiger it had complex engineering and was difficult to mass produce.
Yep.....name what countries the M1XX has liberated vs the Type 59. No comparison.....It should be in the top 5 on technical achievements alone.
I believe the Brits referred to Sherman’s as “Tommie cookers.”
The author was looking at historical impact not what was the best tank from some technological viewpoint. As you mention the Tiger and Panther were an impressive machines but so complicated as to make it not suitable for mass production therefore in the scheme of things not a war winning weapon like the T-34 or Sherman.
Funny you should mention this; it is almost the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Arracourt, where the outnumbered American 4th Armored Division, equipped with Sherman tanks, faced two German Panzer Brigades and parts of two Panzer Divisions, equipped with the latest Panther tanks. The American crews were experienced and well trained, and had excellent leadership from General John Wood and Col. Bruce Clarke.
The Germans were poorly trained, had not fought together in large units, and lacked organic recon elements.
The result was a spectacular American victory, virtually destroying the tank strength of the attacking German units.
Properly handled, the Sherman was a good seviceable tank. They were used in some quantity by the Soviets on a lend-lease basis, and the Soviet crews liked them as much as the T-34s, mostly for the Sherman’s better range, reliability and better crew accomodations.
IMHO, the article stops circa the 1980s, and leaves at least a third of ‘tank history’ un-mentioned.
I think the ‘M1 family’ of tanks should definitely be mentioned. And by M1 family, I am generally referring to the armor. The sandwiching of varied materials between steel plates gives these tanks a distinctive angular appearance. Leopard, Challenger, etc. These tanks are also characterized by fully supported tracks, roadwheel skirting, separate ammunition compartments, and computerized fire control systems.
Currently, no nation would challenge a NATO country in an outright tank battle...possibly Russia, but I doubt that. This is because of the superiority of this family of tanks.
Not to mention an above average track record. /s/
Also Sherman has the unfortunate nickname of Ronsons after a cigarette lighter.
A little extra fuel would have helped jerry...
I don’t think the list is “best tank” or “most innovative.”
It’s “tanks that changed history.”
The Kentucky Rifle, for example, was a fine rifle, not the best, but it changed history.
The M1 is a fantastic tank, arguably among the best ever. It also has not been that game changing in any way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.