Tanks!

[Strazdas]

I play World of Tanks, so there is too much to choose.

what i really loved was this little baby:

Spoiler

brittish tanks are great design too in my opinion. the crusaders cromwells and comets. and lets not even get to Tortoise. Then of course there is the King Tiger, that could take 10 other tanks on alone and win, too bad (or maybe luckily since nazis were using them) by the time it was designed Germany was in severe lack of quality metal, so their armors were made of shit.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

>.>

<.<

BANEBLADE INCOMING!

Spoiler

Even though I no longer play Dawn of War (and I have no interest in DoW 2) the Baneblade is the one thing you don't fuck with in those games.

It's not even a tank, its a fortress of weaponry on tank treads.

LOOK AT IT!!

DOES IT NOT INSPIRE FEAR IN THOSE PUNY SPEHSS MEHREENS?!

 

[Rowan93]

Spoiler: Maus desu!

Aside from that obligatory post, I think there's an astounding lack of love for modern tanks in this thread. Challenger 2, anyone? Abrams? Leopard 2? The Israeli Merkava? Any one of those could mop the floor with every other (real) tank in this thread.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

Ah, yes, the cruiser tanks! The M3 Stuart (or "Honey") was another favourite of mine. The Cromwell's initially riveted armour in particular has a strange sort of rugged charm to it.

(Snip).

Well, I guess I didn't specify that they had to be real vehicles...okaaay, have that one on me. It'll never match their legions of metal bawkses, though.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I am going to commit Heresy and say that I am not a big fan of the T-34. While I cant deny it was influential to future tank design, it was ugly as all get out, the gun was underpowered, fixing that problem created another one (creating a massive weak spot), and it relied on swarm tactics, which I reflexively have an aversion to.

Cant have a thread about WW2 tanks without mentioning the Panzer VIII Maus.

Spoiler

I will see your Panzer VIII Maus, and raise you one LandKreuzer P-1000 Ratte:

Spoiler

Came with two 8" inch guns from a battleship, a 128mm cannon (same as the Maus) in a forward flexible mount, at least two 15mm autocannons, and no less than 20 20mm AA guns. It was to weigh 1000 metric tons and be powered by 6 V-20 Diesel engines from a destroyer, they estimated it could get up to 20 mph. Obviously, it would have had enough armor to turn it into an even bigger fortress than the Maus. And of course, it would have been entirely amphibious, because why the hell not? Oh yes, did I mention that the man in charge of designing and building it was an admiral in the German Navy? Cant imagine why.

So on to the real tanks:

Spoiler: M24 Chaffee

An American light tank built in the tail end of WW2, and used in Korea, it was equipped with the same 75mm gun from an M4 Sherman. That deserves repeating. THEY BUILT A LIGHT TANK WITH A MEDIUM TANKS GUN!! So while it would have still been on the fragile side, it was fast and you can bet your ass that it would have packed a wallop.

Spoiler: M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo

Remember how the normal M4 Sherman only had its numbers going for it and was so weak armor wise against German guns it got such nicknames as "Tommy Cooker" and "Ronson"? Well you can forget those with the Jumbo. They welded an extra 8 inches of forward armor to the tank, which gave it enough armor to survive a shot from an 88mm gun. Unfortunately, this robbed it of its speed, since it still used the stock Sherman suspension and the engine was only slightly more powerful than the normal Sherman.

Spoiler: M4 Sherman Firefly

A British modified version of the Sherman, this thing was designed as a tank killer. They replaced the weak 75mm cannon of the normal Sherman with the feared 17-pounder anti-tank gun. Meaning this tank could kill just about anything it came across. How feared was it? German Tiger crews were told to shot at any Fireflys first because they could kill the Tiger from long range with one or two shots. So fear it.

Spoiler: Panzer VI Tiger Ausf. E

Come, you cant talk about tanks without the Tiger. It is one of the most well known tanks in the world, and it is a monster on the battle field. I would also argue it was the last of the mega-tanks Hitler designed that was actually good in design and combat. Its replacement was unreliable and a gas-guzzler, and they only went down hill from there.

Spoiler: M1A2 Abrams

Now, while this is entirely subjective, I would argue that the Abrams represents the current pinnacle of armored warfare in the world. It is the fastest tank on the planet (limited to 55mph, but they have been known to get up to 70mph without the limiter). The 120mm gun shots ultra-high velocity rounds and it can equip any round for the job, guaranteeing that, yes, when you pull the trigger, what ever you are shooting at is no longer going to exist. Its only problem is that it is a thirsty beast thanks to its gas-turbine engine, but even that isnt all bad, as it can run on any combustable liquid (Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosene, etc) while its diesel rivals can only run on......well diesel.

EDIT: I completely forgot about another tank:

Spoiler: Merkava Mk. IV

Made in Israel, it may be slow, but it was designed with defense and crew safety in mind. The drive sits on the left side of the tank rather than the middle, the engine is mounted in the front so it is destroyed rather than injuring the crew, and there is a door on the back allowing for quick access. It can even carry 4 soldiers in addition to the crew, giving it limited troop carrying capacity. All round good tank.

 

[Strazdas]

I will see your Panzer VIII Maus, and raise you one LandKreuzer P-1000 Ratte:

Spoiler

rattle wasnt actually ever built though, while chasis of Maus exists (though no period engine is powerful enough to run that armor).

 

[Generalissimo]

are we forgetting something?

I think we are!

No tank thread is complete without the FV4034C2

Spoiler

That's the Challenger 2 to you and me. great british engineering at it's finest, eh?

 

[JoJo]

I'll confess I don't know very much about tanks, but I've always thought amphibious tanks like the old DD (Duplex Drive) ones were funny:

Spoiler

Shame their effectiveness was mixed in practice and often ended in disaster for the crews on-board when they sunk :-/

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Oh yes. The Russian output of tanks outnumbered anything the Germans could field by tens of thousands at one stage, I think. Add to that the Wermacht's decisions to design wholly new tanks while the Russians could simply keep upgrading the same ones, plus unprecedented Partisan harassment, poor road and rail links, the coldest winter in 50 years, narrow German tank tracks that would get bogged down in the snow, a lack of winter clothing, frozen tank wheels and a shortage of machine parts and anti-freeze, and things weren't looking good for the average Panzer crewman on the Ostfront.

I remember reading in a book about German spies that went into Russia to assess their armour capabilities when Hitler was gearing up to begin the invasion of Poland, and it was discovered that due to the Soviet Unions massive industrialisation push, insane work ethic and emphasis on speed over flourish, the output of a single Soviet tank factory was 10 times that of the entire German tank production output at the time.
Hitler threw a wobbly and nearly had the poor spy executed for treason, the other generals found it further proof of how screwed they would be from picking a fight with Russia, and we all know how that went.

On Topic:
Personally I love the current British Tank, The Challenger 2.

Not because it looks good (It's way too bulky IMO)
Not because it's flawless (It's way too heavy)

But because it has the best tank armour in the world: Chobham tank armour. Made in Britain.

So good that the Americans with their 400 billion dollar research budget still have to borrow our Chobham armour to use on their M1A2 Abrams battle tank.

It's the little victories.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The Abrams is a decent tank, but I still prefer the Leopard II when it comes to modern MBTs. The Abrams is faster (only slightly), but it runs on jet fuel, which lights it up like a christmas tree for infrared. Meanwhile, the Leopard II runs on good old fashioned Diesel.

 

[Barbas]

I find it quite shameful that no one has mentioned the best tank of WWII. It combined the best elements of the t-34, Panzer IV & VI

Spoiler

By 1942 Soviet tank production had almost reached it's peak, and yet they could only field 5 tanks for every German one (favourable odds for Germans who generally broke even at 7:1). Ultimately it was Allied bombing of German industrial centres that destroyed the Reich's ability to provide the Wehrmact with the parts, fuel and replacements to keep the war machine going. Even so, the Panther was hands down the most effective tank of the war.

I shall have to add that one to the OP by popular demand, I think...along with a few others (my lips are sealed!)

It does look well-made, doesn't it? Sleek, deliberate and purposeful. That's what you want out of an effective machine, I guess.

The Abrams is a decent tank, but I still prefer the Leopard II when it comes to modern MBTs. The Abrams is faster (only slightly), but it runs on jet fuel, which lights it up like a christmas tree for infrared. Meanwhile, the Leopard II runs on good old fashioned Diesel.

I like the Leopard II, although it does look a little bit like a squashed pancake. IT's strange that I can't recall seeing much sloping turret armour on tanks these days. I heard the current model of Abrams can run on various different types of fuel, though I don't understand how that'd work in practice. Jet fuel seems...flamboyant, expensive and potentially disastrous, to be honest, but I haven't really designed an effective tank before. :/

 

[shootthebandit]

Jet fuel seems...flamboyant, expensive and potentially disastrous, to be honest, but I haven't really designed an effective tank before. :/

I dont really know much about tanks but I know that jet fuel is actually very similar to diesel. Ive known of people with diesel cars using jet fuel

The difference between jet fuel and diesel is simply the additives that they use.

The reason tanks and pretty much all military vehicles can run on diesel and jet fuel is because if you operate from a base with aircraft then jet fuel is readily available rather than having multiple sources of fuel. If aircraft are taken on detachment its a lot easier and efficient to take one type of fuel that can be used universally

Edit: @soviet heavy is correct the jet fuel will burn hotter which will show up on infrared but a diesel engine will run on jet fuel (with reliability issues) and it will run pretty reliably with certain additives

 

[shootthebandit]

Snip

Jet fuel is kerosene but more specifically Jet A. Jet B is a more naptha based. The main problem as ive already said is that kerosene is a dry fuel (not lubricated) if you want to run an interal combustion engine on it you need a lubricating additive and it will run fairly reliably in a diesel engine

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel (click on the "piston engine use" section) although it basically says everything ive just said

gas turbines are pretty robust and can take various fuels but its just a case of choosing a specific fuel to optimise the engine. Having said that most aircraft are optimised for jet A as its pretty much a standard in most airports

you'll find that most ground support vehicles in airports and even more so in military airfields will be run on jet fuel (with additives). This is probably why the military run tanks on it because it saves storing various types of fuel.

The main reason ive known people to run cars on it is because a lot of it goes waste and would otherwise be disposed of. Granted its not 100% legal but it saves wasting fuel and it means people can fill up their car for free. Considering a 777 takes 181,000 litres to fill a 40-50 litre tank is only a small amount of fuel

 

[SckizoBoy]

Spoiler

You... I like you! Love the Panther... and rather bizarrely, once Albert Speer got his hands on the production lines, the Panther was only a little more expensive to produce than a T34-85 was when it first rolled out of the factory...

IT's strange that I can't recall seeing much sloping turret armour on tanks these days.

Sloped armour is/was only really good for shot deflection, but that was only for muzzle velocities below a certain point. Once capped rounds became normal, sloped armour ceased to be as effective as it was viewed and the emphasis on armour research went to spaced and composite. The height in sloped armour technology came in the 50's as a result while the Brits came up with Chobham armour in the 80's/90's (I think) which was the (then, again, I think) height of composite armour. Sloped armour of any composition is no more useful or less useless against a solid piece of tungsten from an APDS(FS)/LRP round that travels at almost two kilometres a second (fast enough to enter one side of a tank, turn the organic contents of said tank to a primordial soup because of the inrush of air caused by the lack of air pressure behind the round, then suck it out the hole made as it leaves the tank).

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

Modern tank armour is ceramic or reactive, isn't it? I've heard of some very nasty grave developments in their ammunition as well. Thinking about the sort of weapons pointed at humans today tests my constitution.

Well, I suppose I ought to get around to adding the Panther to the OP...any other vehicles you might like to see?

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Let's try my hand at this.

Spoiler

The Sherman Firefly. More, or less, it was a M4 Sherman tank armed with the British 17 pounder gun, so named for the weight of it's projectile. The greatest challenge in developing this tank was mounting the far larger(in size of the mechanism, not caliber) gun into the standard M4 Sherman turret. The only way they found they could do it was by turning the whole thing on it's side. Even so, maneuvering around the turret was a bit more awkward. However, that's a small price to pay. The standard American 76mm couldn't hurt enemy German tanks frontally at acceptable combat ranges. Yes, even the lighter Panzer III and IV's could shrug off a round if the tank was properly angled against incoming fire(changing the angle from 90 increases the effective armor of a tank just like sloping does), unless it was using the rare HVAP(high velocity armor piercing) ammo. The 17 pounder did not give a shit. At ranges up to 1000m, standard ammo could go through the front of a Tiger. The biggest issue was though the gun could kill most any German tank it came across, the armor was still that of a Sherman and the profile was still gigantic. The Germans could still kill a Sherman Firefly from far beyond it's own effective range with any tank except the Panzer III. Hey, at least you got a fighting chance.

 

[Davey Woo]

If fictional tanks count, my favourite is definitely the Baal Predator of Warhammer 40k (Blood Angels chapter)

It has two miniguns on the turret, then a guy on the hatch with another machine-gun, and then it has PIVOTING SIDE-MOUNTED FLAMETHROWERS. It shoots bullets and fire.

Glory and wonder behold!

Spoiler