Tanks!

Malty Milk Whistle

New member
Oct 29, 2011
617
0
0
I think WH40K is going to be quite major in this thread. On that note, let me say for real life, it's got to be either the t-42 super heavy for general symbolism and greatness, or fictionally, the Baneblade
IT HAS 13 MASSIVE GUNS.
So impractical.
So wonderful.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
T0ad 0f Truth said:
Germans definitely had this problem in World War Two. Their tanks were the best one on one, but then you'd have like 2 or 3 inferior American/Russian Tanks to their one, which more than even'd the odds.
By the mid point of World War 2 the numbers were more like twenty or thirty allied tanks to each German tank.

In Bletchley Park there are some blackly funny transcripts of decoded messages between German high command and officers in the field where Wermracht armoured units were being expected to hold ground with ten to fifteen tanks (only two or three of which would be Panthers or Tigers) against hundreds of Allied tanks with air and artillery support.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Barbas said:
How can you go about making a list of the most powerful tanks of all time, and leave out the Merkava battle tank? This is one ungodly beast. However, my favorite tank of all time has to be Leopard 2A7 This thing is a beast with multiple battle field applications (such as medical retrieval due to the back hatch and extra protection provided by a forward engine, anti-infantry with its 360% remotely controlled machine cannon mounted turret, and a real seated massive cannon capable of firing multiple types of munitions (such as airburst, bunker busters, and anti-armor rounds)).

All in all, we have some very interesting technology when it comes to tanks, you should really look into it. In fact i wish the game manufacturers would look into it, so I don't have to see M1A1s, M1A3s, and Panziers all over the damn games all the time.
 

A_Parked_Car

New member
Oct 30, 2009
627
0
0
As a military historian I take almost a sadistic joy in deflating people's obsession with WWII German military hardware, but I must admit that the Panzer III was a beautiful machine. Honorable mentions go to the T-34/76 and T-34/85.

My favourite tank of all time is probably the T-72B (with plenty of ERA please!). I just love that thing. I don't really have any interesting facts on hand unfortunately. XD
 

infohippie

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,369
0
0
I've always been quite fond of the M50 Ontos, used in the Vietnam War. Light and fast, with six recoilless rifles rather than the usual guns of other tanks, it was designed as a tank destroyer but saw most use as infantry fire support. It was an extremely effective design that could go where heavier tanks couldn't, and was highly manoeuverable. It had very light armour but excellent firepower, and was quite cheap to make.

 

Fijiman

I am THE PANTS!
Legacy
Dec 1, 2011
16,509
0
1
First off I would have to say the Da Vinci Tank.

It may have been designed/destined to fail, but it's still pretty cool.

Next, we have some of the first successful tanks to see battle.


They may have been incredibly slow and not great all around, but they were some of the first.

Out of all the tanks I've used so far on World of Tanks, this one is probably my favorite.

The Jagdpanther is simply an awesome tank.
 

maturin

New member
Jul 20, 2010
702
0
0
Vegosiux said:

But I will say the T-34 fascinates me. As in, it wasn't even that "good", it's just that the sheer quantity of them the Soviets could field (because it was cheap to build and easy to replace units) was something the Germans simply couldn't keep up with.
Calling the T-34 "not good" takes a whole lot of nerve.

It is a medium tank that kills all other medium tanks better than they can kill it back. Quality and Quantity both. For a brief moment that Germans had very little that could pierce its armor, which was thicker than anything but their heavies.

As one of the very few examples of a weapon that actually won a war (instead of the tactics/bravery of the men using them)
Statements like that can only ever be hyperbole against the backdrop of something so massive and relentless as the Eastern Front, so far as I'm concerned.

It was a modern total war. If you cut the enemy's supply and disrupted their organization, numbers and weapons cease to matter. There were times in 1941 (ie, before Germany's best tanks were operational) that Soviet armored groups lost battles while using T-34s against a tenth that number of German armored vehicles.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
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.
the Abrams can run on whisky if it needs to man, and can basically kill your tank from about a mile out. (whats funny is I believe it was a German who said the Abrams has a targeting system he likes to call "I wish it was dead" because its that good)

OT: Ive been in both the Abrams and the crusader 2 and gotta say I wouldn't want to bet on which is better, and I thank god everyday that we are not enemies of Brittan. (between those tanks and the SAS you guys are just scary)

WW2 tanks though gotta go with the Sherman. able to be mass produced and modified that tank was the work horse of the US, and the fact that you didn't have to break your legs to get in it made it a bit more fun to drive then the T-34.
 

Daniel Ferguson

New member
Apr 3, 2010
423
0
0
I read about tanks on tvtropes and it seems the military is moving away from them. But, I'm writing a book that has all kinds of cool stuff, like a pair of tanks - one slow but powerful and well-armoured, the other a spider tank - fast, agile, but a bit more fragile. Why am I using tanks? Rule of cool I guess. That's not really contributing much, but I just wanted to pitch in about sci-fi tanks I want to use.

I might have to read the rest of this topic. For a small sense of accuracy.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Leopard 1A5DK


As an example of its bad-assery I'm just gonna quote the wikipedia page on "Operation Bøllebank" in the Bosnian war. This thing dot only did well, but did well while being caught in an otherwise well-executed ambush and outnumbered by the Serbians.

"Operation Bøllebank (English: Operation Hooligan Bashing) was the first combat operation conducted by Danish Armed Forces since World War II. In April 1994, a Danish contingent with elements of the Jydske Dragonregiment on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia, as part of UNPROFORs Nordic battalion (Nordbat 2) located in Tuzla, was ambushed, when trying to relieve a Swedish observation post, Tango 2, that was under heavy artillery fire by the Bosnian Serb ?ekovići brigade at the village of Kalesija, but the ambush was dispersed when the UN forces retaliated with heavy fire.

The Incident:

The ambush started with grenade attacks near Saraci, 8 km southeast from Tuzla, which were ignored. The column, however, came under attack by anti-tank missiles when they reached the village of Kalesija, further east. The UNPROFOR column requested air support, which was rejected. Due to restrictive rules of engagement imposed by the United Nations, Lt. Colonel Lars R. Møller was hesitant, but he decided to return fire. The attack on them ceased after this, but intensified again later, provoking an even stronger response.

The seven German-made Leopard 1A5 tanks fired 72 rounds and destroyed several Serb artillery pieces, an ammunition dump and several bunkers. Serb forces brought three T-55 tanks to the scene, but apparently the Danes did not engage them, as they made no offensive moves. The Leopards, however, fired 19 armour-piercing rounds. The Danes could see in their thermal tank sights that the guns on the T-55s were cold and therefore had not taken part in the engagement according to a non-official report. However, an Italian source claims that, despite the UNPROFOR rules of engagement, the three T-55 were actually hit by the Leopards.

Post-incident:

This was the first time a Leopard 1 fired its guns in anger and is one of the largest engagements that took place between UNPROFOR forces and military units involved in the war in Bosnia. It was also the first time since WWII that Danish soldiers were involved in combat operations.

The Danish commander characterized the incident with the words: "the mouse ate the cat", and subsequently named "Operation Hooligan Bashing".

Another incident took place later that year between Danish peacekeepers and Serb forces near Gradacac, in the course of the Operation Amanda."

And here is an image of Colonel Lars "Badass" Møller himself.
 

Thomas Hardy

New member
Aug 24, 2010
31
0
0
Daniel Ferguson said:
I might have to read the rest of this topic. For a small sense of accuracy.

If you're writing a story about tanks and you're already a reader of TV Tropes, I'd suggest you look up "Literature: Bolo" and the Bolo wiki at bolo.wikia.com. The "Bolo" tank is actually a concept going back to the 70's that is part of a shared Universe now. It might be worth looking into.



"You knew what was at stake here. It was the ultimate test of your ability to perform correctly under stress, of your suitability as a weapon of war. You knew that. You knew that General Margrave and old Priss Grace and the press boys all had their eyes on every move you made. So instead of using common sense, you waded into that inferno in defiance of all logic-and destroyed yourself. Right?"

"That is correct, sir."

"Then why? In the name of sanity, tell me WHY! Why, instead of backing out and saving yourself, did you charge? .....Wait a minute, Unit DNE. It just dawned on me. I`ve been underestimating you. You KNEW didn`t you? Your knowledge of human psychology told you they`d break and run, didn`t it?"

"No, sir. On the contrary, I was quite certain that they were as aware as I that they held every advantage."

"Then that leaves me back where I started. Why? What made you risk everything on a hopeless attack? Why did you do it?"

"For the honor of the regiment."


----Excerpt from "Field Test" by Keith Laumer"


I know this thread is mostly about real-life and historical tanks, but I was going to do a post on BOLOs or Mobile suits regardless.
 

Sir Shockwave

New member
Jul 4, 2011
470
0
0
BOOM headshot65 said:


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.
I take your Abrams and raise you...any European Tank ever made. Seriously, the only thing the Abrams has over other Tanks is it's Engine - a Engine that if the governors were ever removed would rip the tank to shreds, so it's full speed advantage can never be used.

To contrast - the British Challenger 2 has better armor (with the only Challenger 2 ever destroyed was done...by a faulty explosive shell inside the tank, compared with the Abram's record being tarnished during the War in Iraq where Iraqi infantry were able to disable many by way of short range AT Rockets, and post invasion were reliably damaged by IED's and the RPG-29), the German Leopard is a more technologically advanced vehicle, the Leclerc has a superior rate of fire, and the Russian T-90 is known as the "Flying Tank" for a reason. Much like the American Sherman, it's a rather overrated vehicle.

Moving on with personal nominations however, we have (and it escapes me why it was missed off by everyone) the Mammoth Tank.


Be it the original X66 or the more up to date versions seen in C&C 3 and C&C 4, everyone loves the Mammoth Tank. Able to take on any other heavy vehicle and demolish them in one on one combat, when that base absolutely had to die, everyone goes to the Mammoth.

Unless you're a Noddie.

Also, there's the Vanu Magrider.


The love child of a Tank and a Helicopter Gunship, the Magrider's hover capability gives it's crew of two mobility none of the other tanks in Planetside have as it runs circles around them with it's plasma cannon. With the right Certs, the Tank can even pop up into the air for ambush attacks!

I'd nominate more realistic tanks, but the one's I'd put forward have all been mentioned by previous commentators.
 

TheSYLOH

New member
Feb 5, 2010
411
0
0
Lets get some tanks from the other end of the awesome spectrum.

Type 95 Ha-Go
They say you design a tank to fight a certain kind of war. This tank was designed to fight a war against near medieval Chinese peasants and second string colonial defense troops. At which it admittedly did a bang up job.
Unfortunately it wound up having to fight World War 2 after the allies were done with Hitler.
The much maligned Sherman Tank? It was a Tiger compared to these things...
The moment it hit real opposition well... this quote from an encounter with the Russians: "no sooner did we see the flash, then there would be a hole in our tank! And the Russians were good shots too!"

Asad Babil
You know in that movie Multiplicity; When you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as, well, the original?
Well the Asad Babil is a cheap knock off of the T-72M, which is in turn a cheap export knock off of the T-72.
The result is a T-72 shaped....thing.....
This store generic brand tank went up against the US and lost embarrassingly badly. When your enemies scouting elements are inflicting significant casualties, and losing more material to friendly fire, you know that you got shitty equipment.

And the WORST tank in history?
Bob Semple Tank
JUST LOOK AT IT! It doesn't even start with dignity! Resistance fighters under Nazi Occupation have literally built better armored vehicles! Its a tractor with a work shed on top of it, with some machine guns. The "armor" is manganese roofing material. One of the gunners is lying on top of a mattress which is directly on top of the engine. The only contribution is shaming the Kiwis into working harder for the war effort. It can't even serve as an example to others because nobody is stupid enough to even try it.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Since it hasn't been posted, I should like to introduce the Trailer for White Tiger:


Unfortunately, the trailer is better than the film itself. You look at that and think 'holy shit! It's Moby Dick on tank treads!' A ghostly, action packed cat and mouse game between an unkillable driver and an unstoppable tank!

Which it is... at least for the first half. The second half is really hard to get any enjoyment from at all.

...except perhaps if you really like frozen strawberries... yeah don't ask.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
BOOM headshot65 said:


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.
Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.

Also, you don't need to compromise yourself with a massive IR signature to get good speeds.

The Leopard 2A5 (and upgraded versions) does the same kind of performance (1500hp, and 72km/h), and it has a V12 twin-turbo multi-fuel diesel engine.
 

BOOM headshot65

New member
Jul 7, 2011
939
0
0
Sir Shockwave said:
I take your Abrams and raise you...any European Tank ever made. Seriously, the only thing the Abrams has over other Tanks is it's Engine - a Engine that if the governors were ever removed would rip the tank to shreds, so it's full speed advantage can never be used.

To contrast - the British Challenger 2 has better armor (with the only Challenger 2 ever destroyed was done...by a faulty explosive shell inside the tank, compared with the Abram's record being tarnished during the War in Iraq where Iraqi infantry were able to disable many by way of short range AT Rockets, and post invasion were reliably damaged by IED's and the RPG-29), the German Leopard is a more technologically advanced vehicle, the Leclerc has a superior rate of fire, and the Russian T-90 is known as the "Flying Tank" for a reason. Much like the American Sherman, it's a rather overrated vehicle.
First off, I have to admit that there is a massive "Home Team" bias involved. Because when it comes to cars, guns, warplanes, tanks, and basically everything else, I am basically Richard Hammond: The fact that it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it is 95% of the reason I like it. There are still things I like from overseas, but they are rare (like the Israeli Merkava I added to my list just recently).

However:
The Challenger is slow and loud, and its rifled gun cant shoot the sabot AT rounds we use that can one shot almost any tank.
The Leclerc gets its ROF from an auto-loader, which can be a pain in combat and in some cases shoots slower than a well-trained human.
The Leopards tech works against it to make it overly complicated. The Abrams was built to be "GI-proof" after all (the man the tank is named after once said that if you leave a GI in the desert with nothing but an anvil for 3 days, he would find a way to break it).
The T-90 is EXPENSIVE, has the same auto-loader problems as the Leclerc, and is complicated to build.

Plus, the Abrams turbine gives it one thing you wouldnt expect with a tank: Stealth. I remember reading about one incident where a company of Abrams was doing war-games with a German Leopard company, and the Leopards lost because they got ambushed by the Abrams. Turns out, not only couldnt hear the turbines from the Abrams, because they run more quietly than a Diesel engine. So when they rolled into an area and didnt expect anything because they couldnt hear/find them, here comes several Abrams charging out from the trees, and wiping them out before they can fight back.

MrFalconfly said:
Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.
And? Its still a mostly American design, and a good one at that. There is a reason we have left the skeleton and the major guts unchanged since the 1980's.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
BOOM headshot65 said:
MrFalconfly said:
Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.
And? Its still a mostly American design, and a good one at that. There is a reason we have left the skeleton and the major guts unchanged since the 1980's.
Well seeing as both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams can trace their past to the joint MBT-70/KPz-70 Keiler project and they both perform about the same, I think I'll go with the one that instills a primal fear in its enemies hearts just by its name (Leopard. One of the fiercest, most aggressive big cats), and not the one named after some random general (who the hell was Abrams anyway?).

Just remember that the business-end of your Abrams is a German piece of hardware and we'll get along fine.
 

Sir Shockwave

New member
Jul 4, 2011
470
0
0
BOOM headshot65 said:
First off, I have to admit that there is a massive "Home Team" bias involved. Because when it comes to cars, guns, warplanes, tanks, and basically everything else, I am basically Richard Hammond: The fact that it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it is 95% of the reason I like it. There are still things I like from overseas, but they are rare (like the Israeli Merkava I added to my list just recently).

However:
The Challenger is slow and loud, and its rifled gun cant shoot the sabot AT rounds we use that can one shot almost any tank.
The Leclerc gets its ROF from an auto-loader, which can be a pain in combat and in some cases shoots slower than a well-trained human.
The Leopards tech works against it to make it overly complicated. The Abrams was built to be "GI-proof" after all (the man the tank is named after once said that if you leave a GI in the desert with nothing but an anvil for 3 days, he would find a way to break it).
The T-90 is EXPENSIVE, has the same auto-loader problems as the Leclerc, and is complicated to build.

Plus, the Abrams turbine gives it one thing you wouldnt expect with a tank: Stealth. I remember reading about one incident where a company of Abrams was doing war-games with a German Leopard company, and the Leopards lost because they got ambushed by the Abrams. Turns out, not only couldnt hear the turbines from the Abrams, because they run more quietly than a Diesel engine. So when they rolled into an area and didnt expect anything because they couldnt hear/find them, here comes several Abrams charging out from the trees, and wiping them out before they can fight back.
At least you've come out and admitted there was home team bias. That said, again - the Abram's one thing it does well is in it's Engine.

The Challenger is slow and loud, but then I recall it's a Main Battle Tank, not the Ezekiel's Wheel. It's designed to punch people in the face, not skulk around the battlefield. Besides, no other Tank in the world has an inbuilt Kettle for onboard cups of tea while punching people.

Most tanks last time I looked used Autoloaders. However, the Leclerc's Autoloader was specially designed for the tank to mitigate most issues with autoloaders you'd find on something like - for example - the M1 Abrams, so it had to count for something (plus I had to find at least one good thing to say about a French Tank, and we really scraped that one together).

Again, I do think the Leopard 2's technological edge still puts it out there. Also, the fact that Canada, Chile, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Poland and a shit tonne of other countries use it says a lot about how effective the tank can be. Would it benefit more from an experienced crew? Yes, but so would any tank in existence ever.

As mentioned above, the T-90 does not have the same autoloader problems as the Leclerc. That said, there are a few other tricks it has to compensate for it. Also, FLYING TANK.

In comparison, the Abrams has only it's Engine still going for it. The stealth thing? ENGINE. It only further proves my point.