After having watched several episodes of "Top Ten", I have discovered that I am frequently bewildered by what made the list, what didn't, as well as things that made the list for the entirelty wrong reasons.

For instance, the Soviet BMP revolutionized the IFV world, yet it got nothing for innovation. Yes, in hind sight, it WAS a bad designed, but it became the basis behind all further infatry fightng vehilcle design the world over.

The F/A-22 raptor mde the top ten fighters, yet it has barely seen active duty service, much less combat.

In top ten ships, the HMS dreadnaught did not make the list, and, by todays standards, it is a pathetic ship, it revolutionized warship design, and ushered in a whole new class of capital ships.

While I do enjoy watching the "Top Ten" show, I would like to learn a little more about the matrix that the analysts use to determine the list.

I 100% agree. I just watch Top Ten Heavy Bombers and was floored mostly by their ranking of payload and defensive armor. They gave the DeHaviland Mosquito a mid ranking for defensive ability, yet it carried not defensive guns or any guns for that matter. Then gave it low score for inovation when the show said itself what an innovative aircraft it was for being produced from plywood.

And they ranked the B-17 at barely #10, when we all know that had it not been for the B-17, the war may have gone the other way. Then to add insult to injury, they listed a WWI bomber as number 9. This aircraft carried less then 1/4 the payload of the B-17 and was scored higher on payload. WTF!

The matrix is severely flawed but they are ranking these things relative to other examples of their time. For a world war one bomber it had a high payload.

I watched this one too and came to the same about the B-17. The B-17 and the B-24 were two of the most heavily defensively armed bombers ever built, but I don't recall the B-24 even getting honorable mention and it was used in possibley the most dangeous bombing mission of the European conflict, not to mention it carried a higher payload then the B-17. The DeHaviland Mosquito on the other hand shouldn't even have been concidered as a "Heavy Bomber", because it wasn't (a heavy bomber that is).

"They gave the DeHaviland Mosquito a mid ranking for defensive ability, yet it carried not defensive guns or any guns for that matter"

I agree on the lack of defensive guns, however there were many varients of the Mosquito and yes, it did have guns which were located in the nose, a mix of 20mm cannon and .303 MG's. It was used in attack missions against Axis ships while in port, against dams, and of course it played a role in combating German troop movements. There was even a night fighter version. I think it should have been placed in the Attack catagory.

I would like to see a top ten for attack aircraft, and i feel that some of these should be included (in no particular order)
1. SBD Dauntless
2. TBA/M/F Avenger
3. B-25 Mitchel medium bomber (especially the Marine Corps H and J attack versions)
4. Ju-87 Stuka
5. Supermarine Typhoon
6. B-26/A-26 Marauder
7. G4M 'Betty' Bomber
8 A-6 Intruder
9. F-105 Thunderchief
10. A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
11. F-15E Strike Eagle
12. AV-8B Harrier
13. IL-2 Sturmovik
14. DeHaviland Mosquito
15. A-4 Skyhawk
16. Su-25 "Frogfoot"
17. Bristol Beaufort
18. A-1D Skyraider
19. A-20 Havoc
20. PBY Catalina (the "Black Cats" interdiction unit especially
21. Curtis SB2C Helldiver
22. D3A 'Val' Dive Bomber
23. Panavia Tornado IDS (ground attack version)

IF you think about it they are rating the things on their time. The B-17 carried the same load as the little mosqueto, The Landcaster carred up to 24,000 pounds, WAY more then the Flying fortress. The WWI bomber probably carri ed a hugh load for its time. Don't compair things based on modern eyes.

They clearly have a World War Two fetish, and more specifically a European Theater fetish. I mean, I just saw Top Ten Fighting Ships and it was insane.

What was the HMS Hood doing on there? The only thing it's famous for is getting blown to smithereens by the Bismarck.

Where was the HMS Victory? Yes, the wooden one. Trafalgar? Nelson? Hello?

And speaking of the Bismarck, it wasn't that great. Where was the Yamato? I don't know if it would make a list that wasn't so focused on WW2, but it certainly deserves to be above Bismarck in any comparison.

Ugh.

The people who write these "Top Ten" shows clearly have a very limited knowledge of the subject matter being presented...

Yamato was a joke. It spent most of the war sailing around and only fired at a ship only once. Also the ship could destroy its own guns. The sister ship Musashi did it in its only battle. At least Bismark fired off at four ships of its own class and sank one.

I like the Top Ten series very much; each of us may have different opinions, but I have found I would have rated at least 7 of the 10 in my top ten, and would agree with 3 of the top 5, too. Often I would have different rankings on some weapon systems, but that is just what it is, an OPINION.

One thing i do find extremely annoying is the use of Dr. A. Nusbacher as an "expert". This guy is so far off base most the time that he can best be 'rated' as a "twit". Guess the British do need some comic relief at Sandhurst. (lol). [u]NO[u] this is not an anti-Brit comment, the other two or three British gentlemen analysts seem extremely knowledgable, logical, analytical and well spoken; Mr. Nusbacher possesses none of these characteristics.

Military Channel Producers and Executives, please take note.

The 'Top Tens' are a consistent disappointment. They seem to get the obvious choices on their lists, but that's about it. Some of their chopices are mind boggling. The Harrier as a top ten fighter?! No Bf. 109 on the list? The AUG as a top ten rifle? Why, because its a bullpup? No HK G3 on that list, but you'll have the M14(an updated Garand) and the 1903(a Mauser copy)?! Even more remarkable was the tank and IFV lists. What on earth is the Stryker doing on that list. Low production, mediocre combat history, innovation..where?; its an upgraded armored car!
Also, somehow the T-55 makes the list at #7, with perhaps the poorest combat record of any post WW2 tank, and the Panther isn't even on the list. This is even more remarkable, when you consider that the Panther exceeds all the combat capabilities of the Tiger(#3 on the list) save side armor and had a better production rating than the Tiger. Note I said production rating, not numbers produced. These analysts don't seem to differentiate between ease of production and numbers built.
The worst though was probably the fighting ships program. The Pocket battleships had no business on that list whatsoever. They were obsolete prior to the opening of the war and their dismal combat record shows it. The Hood was an equally ridiculous choice. Even the Bismarck and Carolina classes were dicey choices, considering the limited impact these ships had in WW2. Overall, I would rank these shows as among the worst on the channel.

The Major problem with the 'Top Ten' shows are their limited scope. Ships of war have been plying the seas for centuries. Personal firearms go back beyond the Mauser. If my only knowledge of firearms came from this channel, I would have thought the Mauser was the first rifle ever invented!!! Even worse, people who are interested in the show are the people who expect intelligent designations! And to say that the P-51 has a long service length is ridiculous!!!!

The show is pointless. As the OP stated, the more I watch it the less sense it makes. Honestly, you might as well pick a handful of us and ask us to list our pet favorite ships/tanks/whatever, because that's all this show amounts to.

Tigers are completely overrated; Panthers were more important than them. Also, the IL-2 Shturmovik should have been in the top ten bomber list imo, seeing as how much credit was given by the soviets. They wrecked many panzers with it.
The IFV definition was poor; Humvee and Bradley are not comparable. as mentioned, the BMP was a revolution, but was sidelined in their list.

quote:

Reply

I was wondering why the long bow, sword, crossbow, and gunpowder didn't make the list. What about the nuclear bomb itself? Surveillance and communication satellites didn't make it either. The pen also has had a pretty good service record. The internet is also a nasty weapon along with the computer. Aside from that the best weapons are the ones we don't know about. If you believe in the bible the slingshot should have made it.