Most important tank?

[DingBat]

Ok, I may be a little bored.

Anyway, I was thinking about which tank I would consider the most "important". By important, I don't mean best. I mean which tank had the most influence or impact on it's times and on the future of tank design and war.

My short list included:

1) Panzer III - The first real "battle" tank for the germans. It really made the blitzkrieg possible. You could say the same, in some ways, about the Panzer II, but it wasn't really a main battle tank.

2) T34 - Even though the french tanks raised some concerns for the germans, it wasn't until they encountered the T34 that they really began to question their tank designs. The T34 showed that a simple, well designed tank in large numbers could do a lot to overcome inferior tactics and doctrine.

3) M4 Sherman - A lot said about the T34 could also be said of the Sherman. The fact that Shermans were still in service in 1973 makes it difficult not to include them in this list

4) T54/55 - The start of the "golden" age of Soviet tank design.

5) Centurion - This tank arguably has the most battle experience (and kills), post WW2. The beginning of a long line of successful british main battle tanks.

6) T72 - Possibly the most successful tank ever designed, in terms of numbers produced??

7) M1 Abrams - Purpose built for the new airland battle philosophy. Designed for speed, protection, and killing power. For a while, enjoyed a reputation as "unkillable"?


Honorable mention:

- M60 - Where the concepts of laser targeting and computer fire control were tested??
- Stug - A turretless tank? But it worked, and well. Started the concept of a tank destroyer?

What are your picks?

 

[EvilAmericanMan]

I'd agree with all your listings, especially the T-34 and T-55. Both (or mayeb just the T-55) are in use with various armies to this day I would bet.

 

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

FT17. Introduced the turreted main gun which has been standard on nearly every MBT since.

 

[malice]

While I agree with all of your tanks I have to say the most important tank ever invented was the Little Willie. It was the very first tank ever made by the british army during WW1. I have chosen this tank since it was the very begining of tank design and use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Willie

PS: The little willie was the prototype of the Mark I Tank

 

[Hans_klempner]

I agree with you DingBat!
Except number 7

The Abrams is a bit overrated tank. But I DO NO mean it is a bad tank, in fact its great, but there are other capable tanks as well
It was certainly proven in combat, but it was talked about too much.
The Leopard II is on par with it, as well as the new Russian Battle tank (forgive me I cant remember the designation)

 

[MkH^]

That has been one large IED! RIP to the crew

 

[MkH^]

I'd put T-34 on the top of the list. No question. Revolutionary design, enormous success in combat. Paved the way for modern MBTs. Still in use by some countries (or militias).

The rest of the list is in non-specified order...

Sturmgesch

 

[Feldwebel Crin]

Panzer IV: This and the Panzer III influenced the design for MBT's up to the modern era. A central turret, radio, turret cannon, coaxial MG, and cupola.

 

[Ranari]

I agree with you DingBat!
Except number 7

So you're saying the M1A2 is "unkillable"? You might want to re-read what he said.

(Moving on)

For all the glory and reputation that Russian designed tanks earned and created, I think most of today's western MBT's follow more influence from German designs than they do from their Russian counterparts. Russian designs tend to focus on economics first, capabilities second, while German/Western designs tended to focus on capabilities first, economics second. The Tiger, while highly capable in the hands of a highly experience crew (and an enormous burden in the hands of a wrong one, or in ****ty terrain), was by no means cheap to produce. The fact that the United States changed its armour doctrine following the war gives evidence to this.

Today, tanks like the M1A2, Challenger2, Leopard II, etc are hugely expensive, yet highly capable battle tanks. They're heavily armored, highly mobile, and can pack an enormous amount of firepower far beyond what their Russian counterparts can do. The terrain might have been perfect tank country, which is was, but the total domination over the Iraqi armoured divisions by the US Army during the First Gulf War completely changed how conventional wars are now fought. Notice how China is modernizing its military now? Cheap small arms will always have their place in modern warfare, because it will always only take a single bullet to kill a human being, but when it comes to the larger equipment, the bigger, badder toy will always prevail.

If I were to narrow what tank gave the most influence to current tank designs for the Western nations (France, Germany, England, USA, etc), I'd honestly have to say it was the Panther. Approximately half the tanks on the Western Front used by the German Panzer divisions were Panthers, and it while they took a beating from the combined Allied air power, they mauled Shermans to shreads. The Sherman had a hard time dealing with the Panther with its heavier armor, superior firepower, and greater mobility, and I think this went a LONG ways to the doctrinal change in armour usage following the war for the western allies.

Rating the Leopard II vs the Abrams just seems silly to me. Until the Leopard II gets thrown into combat, we'll never know how it performs. It's a phenominal tank, don't get me wrong, but the only reason the Abrams is catching the flak that it is is because it IS knee deep in the fighting out there. Its also an outragious gas hog, but with the way the M1 is designed, you can't just plop in a 48L Diesel V12 powerpack that you would find on the Leopard. The engine bay, due to the compact size of the turbine motor (one of the reasons it was chosen for operation inside the M1 - it's small, mechanically simple, and can be completely switched out in just 20 minutes), just isn't large enough to accomodate that big of a motor.

I don't think the Abrams is overrated to be honest. If any tank is being overrated, its the Leopard II. A mighty fine tank it is, but tanks just aren't designed for urban warfare, which through American ingenuity, they're making pretty good use out of the Abrams as it is. You put the Leopard II in the same situation and it's going to feel the same heat. I just don't think the difference between today's western heavy MBT's is really all that significant. They all use the same armor designs (British Chobahm). They all, with the exception of the British Challenger, use the same Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore. Heck, they all look very similar! The only thing that really seperates them is the way they're marketed. The companies that design them are looking to make a profit afterall.

 

[JudgeMental]

So you're saying the M1A2 is "unkillable"? You might want to re-read what he said.

(Moving on)

For all the glory and reputation that Russian designed tanks earned and created, I think most of today's western MBT's follow more influence from German designs than they do from their Russian counterparts. Russian designs tend to focus on economics first, capabilities second, while German/Western designs tended to focus on capabilities first, economics second. The Tiger, while highly capable in the hands of a highly experience crew (and an enormous burden in the hands of a wrong one, or in ****ty terrain), was by no means cheap to produce. The fact that the United States changed its armour doctrine following the war gives evidence to this.

Today, tanks like the M1A2, Challenger2, Leopard II, etc are hugely expensive, yet highly capable battle tanks. They're heavily armored, highly mobile, and can pack an enormous amount of firepower far beyond what their Russian counterparts can do. The terrain might have been perfect tank country, which is was, but the total domination over the Iraqi armoured divisions by the US Army during the First Gulf War completely changed how conventional wars are now fought. Notice how China is modernizing its military now? Cheap small arms will always have their place in modern warfare, because it will always only take a single bullet to kill a human being, but when it comes to the larger equipment, the bigger, badder toy will always prevail.

If I were to narrow what tank gave the most influence to current tank designs for the Western nations (France, Germany, England, USA, etc), I'd honestly have to say it was the Panther. Approximately half the tanks on the Western Front used by the German Panzer divisions were Panthers, and it while they took a beating from the combined Allied air power, they mauled Shermans to shreads. The Sherman had a hard time dealing with the Panther with its heavier armor, superior firepower, and greater mobility, and I think this went a LONG ways to the doctrinal change in armour usage following the war for the western allies.

Rating the Leopard II vs the Abrams just seems silly to me. Until the Leopard II gets thrown into combat, we'll never know how it performs. It's a phenominal tank, don't get me wrong, but the only reason the Abrams is catching the flak that it is is because it IS knee deep in the fighting out there. Its also an outragious gas hog, but with the way the M1 is designed, you can't just plop in a 48L Diesel V12 powerpack that you would find on the Leopard. The engine bay, due to the compact size of the turbine motor (one of the reasons it was chosen for operation inside the M1 - it's small, mechanically simple, and can be completely switched out in just 20 minutes), just isn't large enough to accomodate that big of a motor.

I don't think the Abrams is overrated to be honest. If any tank is being overrated, its the Leopard II. A mighty fine tank it is, but tanks just aren't designed for urban warfare, which through American ingenuity, they're making pretty good use out of the Abrams as it is. You put the Leopard II in the same situation and it's going to feel the same heat. I just don't think the difference between today's western heavy MBT's is really all that significant. They all use the same armor designs (British Chobahm). They all, with the exception of the British Challenger, use the same Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore. Heck, they all look very similar! The only thing that really seperates them is the way they're marketed. The companies that design them are looking to make a profit afterall.

Excellent post and a good read. Just a couple of things I'd take issue with , heck you knew that was coming didn't you.

1.You mention that modern tanks are almost generic, same armour etc.
Its a fact that the armour is fairly important and whose is it that is used? British. You mention Chobham armour, the latest version Dorchester is acknowledged to be the best.
2.The guns used, it wasn't that long ago that the 105 was the 'de rigeur' gun. Who made that? British again.
3.Much has been made of the gas guzzling M1 though the trade off is that the engine compartment is compact and the engine is reliable and can be quickly changed. The Chally 2 CV12 engine can be removed in 17 minutes (I know, I've done it) and quicker and while it takes longer to refit, its not THAT much longer. There are guys in other FRG's and 1st line armour who have done it quicker. The Leopard pack can be removed quicker that that, though to split it down to its constituent parts for repair takes ages.The CR2 pack can be split to its component parts Coolant Group,TN54 Transmission,CV12 Engine,Fan Group in 40 minutes (again I've done it). Incidentally, all these figures were completed in operations, not in 'ideal' circumstances.
4.Tanks lost in operations in modern warfare, I don't have the figures, but I KNOW from speaking to tankies, that their faith in the armour and armament of their 'Challys' was absolute.
5. What I guess I'm saying is don't discount the Chally, I have worked on ALL British MBT's from Cent,Cheiftain,Cheiftain Stillbrew,Chally1 and Chally2. It seems fashionable to knock Chally but its a damned fine tank.

As far as 'best' tank is concerned? For what its worth.

1. Chally2 for being the best 'all round' package
2. Little Willy for being the first
3. T34 for being the best 'mass produced' tank
4. Panther for being the best (once its teething probs were fixed) all round mix from WW2
5. Tiger for being the most feared psychologically
6. T72 for original thought (well, nearly, Conqueror was there first) with its autoloader eliminating a crewman. Just a shame the autoloader could also load an arm if you weren't careful

 

[Ska Wars]

While I agree with all of your tanks I have to say the most important tank ever invented was the Little Willie. It was the very first tank ever made by the british army during WW1. I have chosen this tank since it was the very begining of tank design and use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Willie

PS: The little willie was the prototype of the Mark I Tank

FT17. Introduced the turreted main gun which has been standard on nearly every MBT since.

Have to go with these two lads.

 

[BuddyLee]

IDK which Tank is best, but I would rather have a Turbine Motor than a Diesel.

The Merkava is a neat tank, with it's rear exit doors, and front mounted engine. The Israelies seem to be losing quite a few of them when compared to the M1A though. In fact that dead M1A in that picture above was probly taken out with a giant burried arty shell or anti-tank mine that would have killed any modern tank. I think the M1A's record of crew protection is un-rivaled, with it's ammo compartment blast doors. Most M1A's that are knocked out of commision, still manage to protect the crew from injury.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Well, I'd have to go with the IS-3. While it was produced too late to take part in WWII, it was hugely influential on post-war tank design... It was the culmination of everything the Soviets had learnt both in fighting the Germans and from examining their tanks.

For the record - 122mm main gun, frontal armour of 120mm, sloped at 56 degrees - and sloped off to the sides. Turret armour of 110-220mm, curved and heavily sloped and merging with the hull sides...

 

[JudgeMental]

Sorry to take you to task Buddy but my comments in italics

"IDK which Tank is best, but I would rather have a Turbine Motor than a Diesel."
It uses about 8 gallons, just to start it, scary.

"The Merkava is a neat tank, with it's rear exit doors, and front mounted engine."
A tank and also an APC, but the more tasks you ask a device to do the less well it can do them. The doors let out the section of infantry the tank can carry, but are also a weak point

"The Israelies seem to be losing quite a few of them when compared to the M1A though. In fact that dead M1A in that picture above was probly taken out with a giant burried arty shell or anti-tank mine that would have killed any modern tank. I think the M1A's record of crew protection is un-rivaled, with it's ammo compartment blast doors. Most M1A's that are knocked out of commision, still manage to protect the crew from injury."
The ammo storage is required because the Abrams uses 1 part ammo whereas the Chally uses 2 part ammo and stores the propellant (a bag charge) in the lower part of the hull, where its more out of the way.And as stated before the protection being Chobham isn't quite unrivalled as we had it first .

Don't get me wrong, the Abrams is a good tank, just not the best tank

 

[Dheepan]

If the Abrams uses a helicopter engine so of course it uses a lot more fuel, but at the same time it has more power than a regular disel tank. So it's a good trade off. US army has the best logistic skillls in the world. So gas shouldn't be a problem.

I think what makes the Abrams so effective is that it's built in such huge numbers compared to the Leopard, Challenger, Le Clerc etc. It's made in the thousands not the hundreds (8,800 produced). While easily being on the same level as the European tanks.


T-34 is probabley the first true MBT so that I will pick for most important.

 

[BuddyLee]

The Turbine engine is also quieter than the diesel.

1 part ammo FTW!!

and I think we all know that USA and the UK use the same armor.

 

[DingBat]

Well, I'd have to go with the IS-3. While it was produced too late to take part in WWII, it was hugely influential on post-war tank design... It was the culmination of everything the Soviets had learnt both in fighting the Germans and from examining their tanks.

For the record - 122mm main gun, frontal armour of 120mm, sloped at 56 degrees - and sloped off to the sides. Turret armour of 110-220mm, curved and heavily sloped and merging with the hull sides...

Yeah, I debated quite a while between the IS-3 and the T-54/55. You could say the IS-3 was really the grandfather of soviet post-war tank design. Tough call, judging which was the more influential tank.

 

[JudgeMental]

1 part ammo means the shell propellant/projectile is all in one. CR2 uses a separate bag charge and projectile. It means that they need a separate breech sealer called an obturator as the bag charge obviously can't seal the breech in the same way that a brass shell can.

 

[DingBat]

To all:

I'm not saying the M1 is the greatest tank, or that it is unkillable. Remember, this list was about most important/influential tanks.

Right now, you could probably take your pick of M1A2, Challenger, Leo 2, <add your favorite tank here> and create a fine armored unit. That's not the point.

Prior to the M1, american tanks were, er, satisfactory. Solid, but not spectacular. In the early 80's, if you had to choose between a Chieftain, Leopard, T62/64/72, or M60, you might have to think twice. The M1 was a real breakthrough for american tank design. It also enabled the americans to revive the concept of the blitzkrieg.

The M1 (and to a lesser extent, the Challenger) is also the only modern main battle tank to have extensive battle experience. I added the Centurion to the list primarily for it's battle experience, it would have been unfair to ignore the M1 after that.

 

[JudgeMental]

To a lesser extent???????? shome misteak sorely