Top 5 Tanks

[Blackwolf]

I thought it was the opposite, with hatches all over the place.  But again, I might be mistaken.

I believe Fram is mixing up the Churchill with the Cromwell.

[Cubs]

I believe Fram is mixing up the Churchill with the Cromwell.

I'll be honest, I've never read anything about the armour underneath being thin and vulnerable to mines either. That would surprise me in tanks chosen to be specialist in mine clearers!

[Unlucky General]

What about the impact a tank had, or rather the impression they made on the enemy?

I'm sure everyone is familiar with 'Tiger Terror' ... so it made it's mark on the opposition from very early on. We armchair analysts can talk over stats till the cows come home but what was the perspective of the crews they were up against or the men on the ground?

[FramFramson]

I believe Fram is mixing up the Churchill with the Cromwell.

That might be the case.

Though the Cromwell...goddamn, I'm sorry British tank fans but the box-shaped flat-armour turrets on the Cromwell and Comet were an embarrassment - and ugly as sin (the REAL crime, of course).

[FramFramson]

I'm surprised the Hellcat hasn't been mentioned yet. Fastest tank of the war, killing more than a few enemy tanks with the sheer speed for flanking and rear shots.

Crews must have had balls of absolute diamond though. I'm not even sure the armour was capable of repelling larger calibre infantry weapons, let alone anti-tank anything.

[Blackwolf]

That might be the case.

Though the Cromwell...goddamn, I'm sorry British tank fans but the box-shaped flat-armour turrets on the Cromwell and Comet were an embarrassment - and ugly as sin (the REAL crime, of course).

I like the look of the Cromwell,it’s very British,and I am an Anglophile   

[FramFramson]

I mean, everyone else in the war had sloped or at least rounded armour for SEVERAL YEARS before that. And even the British had SOME, e.g. the Covenanter!

It's just sort of baffling. WHY. WHY.

The Comet has much nicer proportions than the Cromwell at least. You can see the roots of the Centurion coming up there.

[jon_1066]

What about the impact a tank had, or rather the impression they made on the enemy?

I'm sure everyone is familiar with 'Tiger Terror' ... so it made it's mark on the opposition from very early on. We armchair analysts can talk over stats till the cows come home but what was the perspective of the crews they were up against or the men on the ground?

That wasn't anything new though - Tank Terror was seen in 1940.  In essence any infantry man faced with a tank he can't hurt is going to suffer from this to some extent - even when it's "only" a Panzer II.

You also have the effect of every other Panzer IV being mistaken for a Tiger (in the same way every other German anti tank gun was an '88).

[Cubs]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with 'Tiger Terror' ... so it made it's mark on the opposition from very early on. We armchair analysts can talk over stats till the cows come home but what was the perspective of the crews they were up against or the men on the ground?

Funny enough, I've just been reading Alan Moorhead's 'Desert War' trilogy and he was very scathing about the Tiger in Tunisia. He claims the Allied troops thought it was a poor tank, under-armoured and even being taken out by 2pdrs! Having said that, his account was absolutely on the spot and written very soon after events happened. It may well be what someone had told him, but perhaps there wasn't enough time for the accounts to be fact-checked or circumstances to be investigated fully. But I can certainly imagine a heavy tank like the Tiger struggling in the wet muddy conditions of the last weeks of the North African campaign. 

[Cubs]

That might be the case.

Though the Cromwell...goddamn, I'm sorry British tank fans but the box-shaped flat-armour turrets on the Cromwell and Comet were an embarrassment - and ugly as sin (the REAL crime, of course).

They all look like Lego tanks don't they? Stuck together by an excited toddler with no real thought process. But I do believe I'm right in saying the hulls weren't built/designed by the same people who made the turret and gun? Which would explain a lot.

[fred]

I think with many tanks series in WWII there was the constant desire to add a bigger gun to the hull you already had. The Churchill started out with 2pdr, and ended up with a 75mm gun. Pz IIIs started with 37mm guns, and ended up with 75mm kurz ones.

Does this mean gun development was faster than tank development? Or just that existing bigger guns were used in tanks, rather than for their original purpose?

[Elbows]

I think that's just a result of the original idea that tanks weren't really made to fight other tanks.  Originally they were used for breakthroughs, tackling bunkers, fortifications, etc.  Keep in mind more than half of the tanks in WW1 only had machine guns (the 'female' tanks with the Brits).  Some of this lingered into WW2.

The Germans learned (quickly) in the Spanish Civil War when the Soviet tanks showed up with 45mm guns compared to their machine guns and 20mm autocannons, etc.  It was a kind of rude awakening that tanks were now mounting some decent anti-tank weapons.

So you had the situation where suddenly tank vs. tank combat was becoming a thing, and the Soviet thick armour proved that light 20mm and 37mm guns weren't going to cut it.  Couple that with the discovery that high-velocity anti-aircraft guns turned out to be pretty damn good at punching armour.  The Soviets used an 85mm just like the Germans used their famed 88', etc.

PS: Generally speaking, defeating armour has always outpaced armour - I'd argue that's the same today.  We've increased the chances that tank crewmen are not immediately killed...but most anti-tank weapons today can easily destroy a tank, or immobilize it.

[leadfool]

In terms of survivability there is tank survivability and crew survivability.  If a knocked out tank can be quickly repaired and put back into the line that is great for logistics but hell on the crew. 

Israel is a small country and has to keep in mind the soldier of today is the father and worker of tomorrow.  The Merkava is designed with crew survivability in mind.  As such the crews tend to be even more aggressive as they come to believe in their own invincibility.  Unique features include a back door and the engine up front, protecting the crew compartment.   

[Moriarty]

Top five tanks?

Apologies for the threadnomancy, but I have to add my 2p worth.

Renault FT. The first ‘true’ tank, the original ‘driver front, engine back, crew & gun in turret’ design.

Valentine. The first British design with ‘room to grow’.

Sherman. The one that got mass production down pat, with a good balance of gun, armour & speed.

KV 1. Good armour, good gun, good speed. How, I don’t know. I suspect witch-craft . . .

Czech LT 38. The gift that kept on giving (at least to the German army).