I can't believe they didn't include the M551 AR/AAV Sheridan! It's fast (although the steering is kind of touchy above 50 mph), it floats, it can be dropped out of airplanes, it has a 152 mm gun that shoots HE, flachettes, white phosphorous, and laser-guided anti-tank missles, and has a laser range finder. It's old now, but it was an innovator and I had tons of fun while assigned on one. The biggest negative is that the heater rarely worked!

i had the joy of operating a reconditioned sheridan at NTC, as part of the opfor unit. we were a mock t-80. it was a fairly good tank, and fun to drive, but yeah, that heater......

M551 was withdrawn from frontline service thank's to being highy susceptible to land mines. Their are better tanks out their

Renault FT 17-- This was the first tank to use the Turret-Hull design that all tanks after it use. It was one of the best tanks of WWI


IS-2 Josef Stalin Bigger Gun then the Tiger (132mm) and a heavy tank with a huge range then most tanks of WWII (149 Miles).

And what about the Leopard 2, T-80, and the Leclerc. They are the great tanks of today. Hell, some experts say the Leopard 2 is better then the M1 Abarams.

I know some will disagree with me, but hey, this is my opinion.

If the M551 was an innovator, what other tank out their are like the Sheridan? I never hear of one after the M551 that had the missile cannon or an Airborne Tank.

Absolutely baffling!

Earlier the Leopard 2 was voted the BEST tank and now it has disappeared from the list!

A tank I didn't see on the list at all was the M60. My Battalion did not convert to the Abrams until after we come back from Operation desert shield/storm

Abrams:
"The gas-guzzling engine loses points for mobility, though it still scores way above average. For its production rating, the score is low. This is a monstrously complex tank, expensive and difficult to engineer."

low mobility? it can use a different engine to save gas when it's going slow, and can max almost 70.

monstrously complex? well it better be, the computer system gives immense benefits to combat, anything not complex is going to be massacred by abrams.

my 2 cents. abrams has awesome mobility. its top speed is moderator regulated to remain at certain level. a turbine engine can easily propell abrams up to 70 mph, but in the process will ruin its transmission.

every modern tank is monstrously complex.

IS-2 was not a very good tank. its main armament, a 120mm was not an actual tank gun, it was an artillery gun. a loader had to put in a round and a charge, which gave it a very slow fire rate. If you want to see good soviet heavy tank i recommend is-7.

soviets stopped production and research into heavy tanks for one reason - they cost alot and it takes much longer for them to be manufactered. Look at the area of the borders of ex-soviet union - its a HUGE line on a map to defend. Thus soviets concentrated on ease of production and cheap construction costs because they NEEDED tens of thousands of T series tanks to defend all that border-length.

Why did UK never really built alot of challengers? Its an island nation, it doesn't border any country via land, it did not nor does not need a huge tank force.

Same can be said about USA. USA borders 2 friendly nations via land. The evil soviet and china empires are over-seas. The only reason USA produced such high number of abrams is because it sold alot of them to its foreign allies.

The show itself was of marginal quality. I think they should re-do that show to include ALL modern tanks, not just pick and choose selected chassis.

the reason that the usa built a lot of abrams is because of the soviets. in a european land war nato would be facing huge numbers of soviet tanks so the nato nations needed enough combined tanks to defeat that force and the usa would have to make up the backbone of the armored force.

as i said, sold to foreign allies

i don't think that most were sold to foriegn allies. most of our allies have their own very good mbts. the le clerc, leo, challenger, merkva and a lot of other nations buy from russia.

vladimir3d- what nations besides USA and Saudi Arabia own Abrams tanks? US and SA are the only ones I know of.

Source www.fas.org

i believe kuwait, and japan & s. korea had their talks about purchasing m1a2s.

also there are talks inside israeli government that it would be cheaper to buy m1s than continue produce m mk4 - but those are just rumors

10. M4 Sherman
I would NEVER put this vehicle in a top ten armor list as simple availability means /nothing/ when the vehicle in question is so poor that it is effectively superceded by airpower and artillery as the primary methods by which the Allied Advance was secured. Nicknames like 'Ronson' and 'Blowtorch' come to mind here as an illustration of it's shortcomings but flat out: if it had been a tank vs. tank battle without any intercession by indirect or overhead fires, the Germans would have beaten the Allies in France with the Panther and Tiger.
If you must pick an allied tank to match the German units, go with the Crusader (Silouhette, Speed, Range, Adaptability to other platform variants) or M26 Pershing (heavy armor, heavy gun, the precursor to the M26).
POINT BLANK: _We hand no decent tanks_ for the majority of the war.
9. Merkava.
Highly overrated. Engine up front, weight in the rear and a massive addon penalty for troops underarmor all compromise the types armor, firepower and mobility advantages. It has some decent electronics in the later versions but nothing which has prevented several from being lost to late generation Soviet ATGW and mines as recently as 2006. The notion that a tank-APC combination is a good idea in fact is a waste of volumetrics in a country which doesn't need to go anywhere to fight it's wars. Don't be suckered by the 'made in Israel so combat proven' advertising.
8. The T-54/55
Represents a baseline entry point to the The French FT-17
By far and away superior to the Mk.IV in both design elements (turreted gun, suspension, engine in a sealed rear compartment, range over 40 miles top speed as high as 10mph) production (some 10,000 IIRR). The latter threat of which is principally credited, along with the failure of the German spring offensive in 1918, to the decision to sue for peace. That FT-17/18 tanks were still around during the invasion of French North Africa in 1942 should tell you something.
to the 'medium' class Soviet tanks. Given the mauling they received at the hands of higher pressure German gun tubes (from quite average armor protection tanks) and the certainty of annihilation that massing armor in the face of nuclear weapons represents, they clearly took the wrong road in moving to a followon T-34 class platform instead of sticking with the blocky but effective KS/IS range of systems which would have been more costly but eventually supplied them with a Leo-II equivalent tank. Even so, if you MUST pick a modern Russian tank, start with the T-62/64. At least these systems pioneered a caliber (higher MV) and round (APFSDS) overmatch compared to the Western 90-105mm equivalents while the T-64 specifically actually attempted to take the next step in armor evolution with such things as advanced sighting/stabilization and guided rounds as well.

7. Challenger 2
Not a bad tank and one which certainly shows a continuing British understanding of fundamental armor principles (protection, then firepower, then mobility) in the BAOR and thus NATO environments. That said, ringing the bell on the 5km shot and the 2003 'worst case' survival motifs doesn't really mean much when you consider that smoothbore RM guns could have made the same shot with the same likelihood of penetration on a fleeing target IF the round struck (the Brit gunner was himself shocked at the hit). While surviving a crippling attack merely means that you weren't cooked or satchel charged before friends arrived. And that you lacked sufficient APS and closein mortars to protect yourself. If you are going to talk problems, you need to talk about availability in the era when it was most needed (Challie 1 was nothing compared to the Leo-2 or even the baseline M1) and systems capabilities at that time. The rifled gun is a poor choice for sabot rounds and Sabots were the #1 tank killer as early as 1965. They also effectively deny ammunition commonality across your tank force. Something that 'seemed to be important' given that the L7 is the basis of the M68 and the AMX/Leo-1 series. NOW, the platform is at the height of technology but only to the extent that the bar has already been established.

6. Panzer IV
Had to laugh at this one. First off, the French Char-1bis was easily the better of this platform, even in 1940, just because of the low velocity 75mm howitzer. I'd even put the Pz.III (with the 50mm) atop it as the higher pressure gun and all-sector armor inherited from it's 'infantry support tank' mission made it a generally better balanced vehicle. I think the commentators were 'mistaking the mystique' of Blitzkrieg with the /technology/ of the forces that enabled it. Something which is itself an insult to Liddel Hart and various other pioneers of the concept of mechanized maneuver warfare. It was not Guderians baby alone. That said, it is equally ludicrous to call the Pzkpfw IV 'hard to produce' for there has to be a certain baseline performance level (the Pz.III dated itself) just to be in the game and the 9,000 odd Pz.IV vastly exceeded the production numbers of BOTH the Pz.V and VI models combined. Indeed, when armed with the later KWK 40/L48 gun (basically the same technology as was in the initial Panthers) and with addon armor packages, the Panzer IV was the tank that particularly the Western Allies would CALL the Panther or Tiger when in fact it was not. The Pz.IV was what the Sherman and T-34 were: A volume production medium tank. Unlike Particularly the former vehicle however, it had the adaptabiltiy to double it's frontal armor and mount the kinds of guns that were required to win. Thus a mediocre tank at the start of the war became a very good, very _reliable_ one, by it's end. A title that the Sherman could never say and the T-34 could only be granted with qualifications.

5. Centurion.
One tank that I whole heartedly agree with, if only because it's competitors in the M47/48 series were so awful in all compareable areas. That said, it must be noted that the tanks it faced in the period 50s/60s time frame were -as good- if not better. The T-62 specifically was the Centurions easy match and the T-64/72 its considerable better. Such is a dangerous position to put yourself in when facing a threat of global dominoism for which 'V3' (Vae-Victis-Vickers) style arms exports are the only means available to sustain effectively a war by proxy status. It is both a hallmark of the Centurions quality and the limitations of better alternatives that it remained in production long after it should have been replaced by an equivalent tank (The Leopard 1 is better in-class. The Chieftain was a heavy tank with many deficiencies...). Another tank sustained (like the similar looking Pz.IV) by it's adaptability to upgrade and varianting.

4. Mk.IV Male
What a load of horse manure. I realize it is tempting to 'start at the beginning' but /really/. Particularly given it was effective combined arms drill, a better understanding of infantry logistics and _infiltration style tactics_ tactics that truly leveraged Cambrai` for as much as it really did, to include the British 1st gen tank at all seems ridiculous. OTOH, the French FT-17 was _by far and away_ the superior example of what was to come in both design elements (turreted gun, working suspension, engine in a sealed rear compartment, range over 40 miles, top speed as high as 10mph) and production (some 10,000 IIRR). It was the latter threat which is principally credited, along with the failure of the German spring offensive in 1918, in the Imperial German decision to sue for peace. That FT-17/18 tanks were still around during the invasion of French North Africa in 1942 should tell you something. That U.S. Marines were using them in 1918 should help get over the francophobic tendency to underrate all things Gallic.

3. Tiger Schmiger.
Another overblown reputation leading the ignorant around by a propogandized myth. There even starting as late as 1942 when the type was first introduced, there were some 100,000 Allied tanks built vs. about 1,600 Tigers of all flavors. If the Tigers score /20:1/ kill ratios, they are still gonna end up 70K short of victory. The tank's basic design was dated (it's shape is that of a scaled Pz.IV if you look at it) and while it's armor was credible, it was the gun that made the Pz.VI superior. And yet it wasn't... Because the KWK 42 L/70 on the Pz.V Panther was giving you 75-80% of the armor penetration at more realistic combat ranges (1,500+m is ridiculous without maginfied sights and stabilization) in a hull that was 20 tons lighter. The Panther had it's own problems of course. Bad Suspension and questionable turret and frontal slope design problems. But with only 20mm less frontal protection than the Tiger -and- (in the Panther F) the very same 88mm tank rifle, you are looking at the difference between what I consider to be _technically_ the top tank of WWII. And the 'the best' alternative only as a function of maxing out the engineering vs. pragmatic capabilities of overall armor design. Ultimately, shows designed to teach history should not give into the pablumaic expectations of their audiences by failing to provide proper illustration of the 'enemy of good enough' realities of overreachign the last 10%.

2. M1 Abrams.
Don't think it's really a valid comparison. If you want the best weapons system on the planet _for the time_ the Leo-2 was still better than the M1 due to the 105 vs. 120mm Rheinmetall differences and the monoblock turret design. The M1A1 and HA models may have achieved equality in protection and firepower but they didn't do anything specifically /better/ than the later 2A4 Leopards did. Now we have the 1A2 and 1A2SEP/TUSK variants becoming ever more specialized in smaller and smaller (reman) numbers. And still the Leo-2A5 and A6 have dominance over them with the longer caliber barrel. Right now, what it basically comes down to in armor design is providing a mixed capabilities set sufficient to protect a vehicle from close in threats in urban zones. But with ranged overmatch on heavy threats in open field conditions. All off of a C-17 X3 or C-5 X4 minimum loading for expeditionary roles. In this, everything from the Stingray to the CCVL and XM8 (along with STAFF and TERM guided rounds) have pointed the way forwards while the tendency to simply take the Bolo if not Tiger route towards ever more sophisticated, heavy, 'MBT' shows a divorce of understanding between the realities of modern 4GW flex-threat warfare and the pursuit of armored engineering along a rutted path for it's own sake.

1. T-34 Tank.
Nothing that I would really call great. Particularly since it was both American metallurgy and suspension design that made this 'Russian Wonder' what it was. If there was any particular success story in the vehicle it was in the establishment of Chelyabinsk beyond the reach of any German tactical weapons platform ability to strike and return from. While such a gift of geography cannot be ignored or denigrated in and of itself. And was further exacerbated by the failure of German airpower to interdict the sole transport arteries (rail) both during and after the initial 1941 exodus from The West; it _does not_ make the T-34 particularly superior to any of the German weapons it faced. A fact proven by the 15:1 exchange ratio in Soviet forces to every German equivalent lost when in fact, with such huge numerical advantages as the T-34 represents, in a breakout platform like armor is ideally intended to be used as (and further given Russian terrain to move thru), it should have shattered the extended German lines and slaughtered their rear areas, repeatedly. Yet never did so.
The T-34 is extreme example of the principle of giving a non-innovative armed force sufficient hammers to pound their enemies into the ground. But the immense cost in 'broken hammers' as lives expended in doing so highlights the fact that the T-34 itself was not so dominant that it could be said to be 'decisive' at all. In this, I would also like to add that the best combat variant of the tank was in fact the T-34/85 which finally began to approach the caliber capabilities of the German guns (lower pressure, bigger bore) and thus overcame the _entirely mythical_ assumption that 'sloped armor is all'.
It is not.
As a function of casting and/or welding production technologies and just on a physics basis of understanding, extreme slopeage actually /hurts/ armor performance because the effective thickness' vs. sheer plane stresses on the plate or cast shape quickly cross a decreasing returns threshold whereby the tank actually becomes harder to build to the level of tolerances required to keep entire sections from buckling and/or franging upon impact. Most of the 'unstoppable tank' casepoints used to magnify the T-34s early reputation were in fact attributable to nothing less than KV-1 and 2 _heavy tanks_ with massively thick, entirely un-sloped, armor.


CONCLUSION:
There are frankly not enough casepoints of as-equals wardate technology, terrain and logistics supportative, armor battles to really provide what I would consider to be a definitive 'Top Ten' list of AFVs of any type. As with all conditions of war, a lot of what success you achieve today depends on how well you bring together whatever _combined arms_ elements you have by training integrated yesterday (such is the true basis of 'Blitzkrieg' for instance). Yet as you teach your enemies with your victories so too does your success today not usually transition to tomorrow when the same tactics face new technologies and doctrines specifically designed to date the methods of their application. Failing to convey this one concept alone cheats any 'top ten' rendition of military platform comparison of valid evolutionary meaning.

****THE MILITARY CHANNEL**** should do better with their empaneled experts and 'technical' selection process ('fear factor' is ludicrous compared to period opposed equivalencies and tactical conditions) in overriding what amounts to the base ignorance of popular opinion poll selections.

At the very least, I expect more than 10 second sound bytes from each SME carefully cut into the running commentary to support a given argument. You can do better. And for the sake of never implying what isn't true about the deadliest of mans' bad habits, you must.


CJ

The FT-17 deserves recognition for the reasons others have stated.

The Sherman also deserves recognition. It was superior tank to most in WWII being a quality machine that could also be produced in quantity. It performed quite well. The "Ronson" moniker was true of the early production models but no the late models. The problem for the early models was the stowage of ammo in the sponsons, which was eliminated in the later models. Panthers used the same sponson stowage and they burned just as quickly as the early Shermans. The Sherman's armor protection was better than a T-34's in both design and contruction. Its 76mm gun outperformed the T34's 85mm and the Firefly's 17 pounder outperformed the Panther's 75mm and Tiger's 88mm. Most of the Sherman's shortcomings were corrected, which is more than can be said for the T34 or Panther. There are also plenty of incidents where the "poor" Sherman out fought the German's Big Boys. The Sherman could fight on equal or superior terms any other German tank.

The Crusader was not so great a tank. Mechanically unreliable, etc.

The T55 was not a continuation of the T34 series. The T62 is nothing more than a revamped T55. Both vehicles had such primitive sighting that the full range of their guns could not be exploited. The 115mm provided no significant advantage over NATO's 105mm. In fact, the T62 was out performed in combat by M48's, M60's, Centurions and even "poor" Shermans. Poor gun depression has always been a flaw in Soviet tank design. The T64 was an interim tank design with numerous problems that was soon out of production.

The Pzkpw IV was not an impressive machine even in its later models. A support tank impressed as a main battle tank by virtue of its larger turret ring, as opposed to the Mark III, it was mediocre at best. It was inferior to the Sherman. Having a higher velocity gun meant little as the Sherman could still beat at comparable ranges.

I'm a little confused as to why rifled guns are a poor choice for sabot. APDS was designed for rifled guns.

The Sheridan was a case of nice idea, no so great in practice. The missile system was always buggy and antitank mines were particularly deadly for them.

Judging modern tanks is a bit difficult as most info is classified. What concerns me about the Abrams and such is the complexity. If there were to be another "world" war where vast numbers of tanks were needed again, we could not afford nor sustain our tank fleet.

I just finished watching the show on the Military Channel entitled "The Top Ten Tanks of All Time," and I can't believe they included the German Mk IV and VI, but not the Mk V Panther! How can that be? It was superior to their number one tank, the T34, on the battlefield, and though it was not produced in great quantities, deserved to be in the top ten. They probably should have tossed the Mk I from WWI and replaced it with the Panther. Anyone else surprised that it was omitted. It was arguably the best tank of WWII.

Didn't they state at the beginning of these "Top 10" shows that these are the ones voted on by the viewers?

Unfortunately these sorts of lists are compromised by the "it's not what you've got, it's how you use it" factor.

The fact was that up until 1943/44, the German tank forces were better trained, better organized and (especially compared to the Red Army) better led.

So when you compare the historical combat performance of these machines, you need to allow for that somehow.

And I think that you have to allow for how the machine takes combat adaptation. Does it have the ability to be quickly up-gunned and up-armoured dated without major revision?

Notice that the Tiger I was essentially unmodified during the war. But the PzIII, IV and V designs were able to evolve (so to speak). Modifying a tank in wartime is better for the economy and the army than having to start from scratch.

One could also ask the following question for instance: how many major upgrades (versions or marks) had to be prepared before the definitive, bug-free version that delivered combat parity/superiority arrived. That should answer help determine whether the initial design concept was sound.

And again...
HOW CAN THEY COMPARE WWI,pre-WWII, WWII, SEMI-MODERN and Modern tanks?!!!
It' s just silly.

Comment on Panther vs T-34- it's transmission is a MESS... So does TIGER, TIGER-2. Reliability/repair-ability is damn low.

Also T-34/76 and T-34/85 are a bit different tanks. 85 mm gun is far "stronger" than 76 mm and could penetrate Panther even Tiger.
Comment on RUSSIAN Tanks.
T-34/85 design has given birth to T-44 (stronger armour) which was then updated in T-54 (85mm gun, stronger armour), which in its turn was furher updated into T-55 (100mm gun, better protection) and T-62(115 mm gun) crowned the whole series.
The T-64 was a beginning of a new series. It was never exported. From this design T-72 and T-80 were developed. Exported T-72's (T-72M) lacked "composite armour" and thus had not much greater protection than T-62 - :-). But RUSSIAN ARMY's versions (T-72A, T-72B, T-72BM, T-90, T-90A) are a BIT different. They DO have "composite armour", ERA, SHTORA, Laser-guded missiles launched through the main gun... I guess uncle Abrams won't be so happy to met them in the field.
T-80's is another story. Their 1000-1250 hp engine and weight of 46,5 tons. :-) Shpuldn't it have GOOD mobility? Also add ERA, SHTORA, guided-missiles) - so you understand? The highlight of T-80 series is Black Eagle... unfortunately we won't see any more of them as OmskTransMash has gone bankrupt...

I'm really surprised and disappointed that the Leopard 2 was not on the list... Leopard 2

Just some corrections on the T-34. The 76mm gun firing APCR has about the same performance as the 85mm gun up to about 500 meters. The 76mm APCR tapers off rapidly after that. The 85mm was a modest improvement but not a great gun. Aside from gun and turret, the differences between the the T-34-76 and the T-34-85 are trivial, except for the latter's increase of side hull armor to 60mm, but the front remained at 45mm.

The T-34's transmission was bad until late/post war, even then not a great peice of equipment. Drivers had to use both hands or their knee, or have the bow machinegunner help them shift gears. This could take several seconds resulting in a loss of power/speed. Yes, Tigers and Panthers were bad mechanically and in other ways.

T-44 was not a descendant of the T-34. It was a completely different design and not a successful one. However experience with the T-44 gave birth to the T-54 and its descendants.