For WWII- The King Tiger
Cold War- M60
Modern-Merkava

While somewhat underpowered and again somewhat slow in cross country.

The Tiger is my choice because of the ability to take tremendous punishment and the ability to instill urine soaked clothing on other countries tankers.

WWII: Sherman. Sure not the best but is was plentiful and versatile.
Cold War: M551 Sheridan. Poorly executed but on paper it was awesome. It could be air dropped, it was amphibious and it was armed with ATGMs. Just amazing flexibility. We need something like this again, but done right.
Modern: Merkava. A tank that has extra space for an infantry fire team is the perfect combination for the modern battlefield.

if I was forced to choose an existing tank, I'd definitely go for the Merkava, the MkIII version.

WW11 Panzer IV F2, only just pips the Tiger 1 though .

Coldwar and I'm surprised no one else likes it the Chieftan, cool looking beast, first to have composite armour I think too.

Modern hmmmm, has to be Leopard.

WWII - Got to be the Tiger 1, not the best lines (Panther) nor the most practical (T-34/85) or reliable (late Sherman) but for it's psycholgical effect and the first use of a serious calibre gun with real velocity in a MBT. Although it's 88mm had less muzzle velocity than the Panthers 75mm it's HE shells were more effective, giving it an edge in infantry support; something the russians realized and took on board in there post T-34/76 designs. It had reliability problems, but it was pushing technological limits with it's twin ratio steering box using a steering wheel, pre-selector gearbox, torsion bar suspension, 21/23 liter 60 degree V12 with aligned cylinder banks, (the 21 litre had an Aluminium block!) and the first series was completely submersible, so teething troubles were to be expected especially if you consider how quickly it was designed and the fact that more armour was demanded part way through that. It was quite manouvrable and capable of 42/38kph (on a good surface with a following wind!), it had lower ground pressure than a sherman or T-34. Yes, it's interleaved road wheels caused problems in russian winters and late fall / early spring, but they also saved lives through the extra protection they afforded the hull. and the late steel wheel arrangement solved the problem finally anyway. All that and they figured out a pioneering way to ship it by train as well!
Definitely the father of the modern MBT.

Post WWII - Challanger 2, well I am British and did you see it on Top Gear???

Hmmm tough choices. Tiger or Panther WWII. The panther hits harder due to its higher muzzle velocity but what people don't often know is that is only out to 1,200 meters beyond that the weight of shell put's the 88 above the panther in armored piercing capability.

Ah never mind I choose the Stug IIIG!:salute:

Modern MBT is Abrams or leopard II.

And yes lend lease did save the soviets.

Land Lease
 

Really???I had not idea that the superior weight of the Tiger's 88 mm would offset the higher muzzle velocity( 930m/s vs 795m/s(Tiger) fo the Panther's KwK42! That's very useful information Freiwillige:up:

However it seems that most WWII tank battles were fought at a range of 700 metres according to a report that I read on the Axis history Forum.

Glad you agree with me on the land-lease issue.Too often these days you hear that the Soviets won the war single handedly with its fans not mentioning the crucialo Land Lease assistance which saved Stalin's bacon, the crucial American strategic bombings of German industry, logisitic and the all-important synthetic fuel plants which really nailed Germany's defeat in the late spring 1944 ( the production of fuel fell by 80% which preventted the Luftwaffe to remain an eefctive airforce, and reduced the training of air and panzer crews and German armour offensive capacityin the East) to the point that and the Allies victory in the Atlantic which allowed them to defeat Germany in North Africa and decisevely open a second front in Italy and later Normandy without which Germany would have been able to bleed the Soviets at will in 1943-1944.

The Allies could not have won the war without the Soviets keeping the majority of Germany's resources stuck in the East but conversely the Soviets could nto have won the war single-handedly without the Allies air, sea and land contribution.

Yea often lend lease is under represented when it comes to Russia. I read an article somewhere that summed it up like this. It wasn't the tanks and planes that made the largest contribution although they helped, It was the little things that people tend to forget such as Radio sets for the soviet tanks, fuel, rubber, metal alloys and probably the largest factor was trucks. We sent them so many trucks that they virtually mechanized their entire army over night!

Operation begration would not and could not have happened if it wasn't for the trucks.

The ballistics comparison of the 88 and 75 is understood best with the basic
understanding in physics. The energy required to propel an object of a
given mass to a given velocity will increase with the mass of the bullet.
However, the energy required to stop it cold becomes enormous .
Even to deflect the heavier bullet of course requires more energy.

As for what saved Stalin's beacon - frinik I love ya bro but I disagree with
you. What saved Stalin's hide was the deliberate and determined effort that
the corrupt hypocrites in London and Washington D.C. made in regards to the
mass murders going on in Russia during the 1930s. This gave Stalin more
then a green light. By being silent they (Stalin's wonderful allies) became
complicit. This knowledge [Russian mass murders] was very well known by Germans
and it was fuel to the fire of communist paranoia that was the foundation
of the German support in the war against Soviet Russia.
As for the mass bombing of German cities by the US air force. I believe that
it was all theater and totally unnecessary for winning the war with the despised
Germany. Although it did help with the desired population reduction that was
planned by a Soviet victory.
As for London's hand in the war on the women and children of Germany. I wonder
is there anything the friends of "Old Joe" would have done in the dance to win
approval from Moscow. Please don't think I want to argue any point here, this
is just one man's humble opinion here and just find me guilty of not buying the
mandatory narritive.

ZeeWolf

WWII and Reality
 

Sorry to disagree brother Zee but it's the British who were mostly responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of German cities with their imprecise night bombings and use of incendiary and phosphorus bombs.The Americans with their day raids focussed on precision bombings and were interetsted in destroying Germany's war production, logisitics and fuels supplies not out of love for German civilians simply because they were pragmatic.They did a very good job especially in 1944 bringing German industry to its knees.....

As for the reduction in Germany's population I think Hitler and the National Socialists did a pretty good job on their own.

As for the Allies well they had their own skeletons in the clmoset so to spek, I mean the UK was the greatest colonialist of the dayt maintaining 100 of millions of people subjugated and indentured in their own countries, likewise the French and as for the Americans afte rimprisoning their fellow Japanese-Americans, they had a virtual Apartheid system against their black citizens and anti-semitic policies and quotas as well.Their alliance with Stalin was a pact with the Devil.So the when I hear WWII being callled the Crusade for Freedom and Democracy I try not to laugh too loud:D

That being said, no matter how horrendous and awful stalinist-communist crimes were one can not gloss over the horrible crimes committed by the Nazis in Germany's name pursuing ridiculous and idiotic racial policies nor the brutalities inflicted against the Slavic people of Eastern Europe in the name of Racial superirority.This is disregarding the fact that the German people itself is made up of various strains, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic etc and Hitler was probably the gretaest mongrel of all:). Being of German( Prussian) stock myself I firmly believe all Europeans are brothers and are so inter mixed anyway as to make racial theories preached by the NS as ridiculous as those propopagated in the Red paradise.

I think you missed my point about the US bombing of Germany. However the
bombing of Dresden is where the lies come bursting through concerning the
non-military nature of the senseless mass murder of women and children are
made so glaring. And on top of that, the whole "collective guilt" conspiracy
that was to be implemented on all Germans during the occupation
was authored by some sick minds to say the least. Of course we can't forget
about the "six million" in which all this slaughter of the German population
is used as justification now can we. Now, it must be said, that if you don't
get the numbers right or you have to many questions about certain aspects
of the official account can get yourself thrown in prison (for up to five years)
in the tolerant and enlighten EU. :o So I got to be careful!

ZW

I'm not going to argue about the whole Lend-Lease thing because people who have already made up their mind that lend-lease singlehandedly saved the incompetent Russians aren't going to be convinced by my internet ramblings. However, I will say the one thing which the numbers can prove, and this is that (As I said before) the amount of trucks received by the Soviets in Lend-Lease constituted a far smaller percentage than the amount of trucks that were produced by the Soviets themselves or received through other means. Therefore it couldn't possibly have been "We sent them so many trucks that they virtually mechanized their entire army over night!", since if anything they mechanized (Motorized, technically) themselves and Lend-Lease merely constituted a sizable help.

As for Operation Bagration, it could easily have happened. There were massive offensives conducted concurrently with Bagration in Karelia, Poland and Romania; a diversion of resources from any of these could have given Bagration the same amount of trucks as it had historically without Lend-Lease. While the destruction of the Germans on the Eastern Front would have certainly taken longer, it would still have been achieved.

EDIT: Also, apparently the majority of these trucks also arrived after 1944, with nearly half arriving after Bagration was already underway.

Raptor, your quite wrong as my mind is easily changeable with the facts.:yeah:

And this argument has gone on long enough that I shall do some research backed up with facts and draw a factual conclusion either for or against the argument. As most of what I am saying is based on what was read years ago, The thing with world war 2 is that things often written and parroted get debunked all the time so in fairness I will look deeply into this issue over the next few days and return with an unbiased conclusion backed up with sources.

That's the gentlemen's way or one could say "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!":D

Freiwillige that is the mark of a noble character! :salute: Looking forward to
result of your research.

ZW

WWII
 

Raptor , I never said the Soviets were incompetent nor did I say that the land-lease single-handedly saved them from defeat.Their victory on the east front was sealed by blood and huge material losses. I was just quoting an article whcih showed comapring Soviet war production with their losses that the material supplied by the Allies during 1942-1943 allowed them to be able to conduct effective defence and offensive action against the Germans.Without this they would have been unable to prusue any offensive action in mid to late 1943 .The land-lease gave them a puff of oxygen that compensated for the catastrophic loss of industrial production due to the occupaiton of the Ukraine and parts of Russia where heavy industry was located and the additional loss of production caused by the relocation of the armement industry to the Urals and beyond.

However there has been for ideological reasons tied to Cold War politics to minimise the impact of the Allies assitance to the Soviet Union and its victory in the east.Likewise in the US,particularly,there has been an exaggeration of the US contribution to the victory in Europe to the point that the British and Soviet contributions are almost side-shows. The victory was not the result of the Soviet superman or Hollywood superhero as depicted by the propaganda of both sides.German errors often the result of of a National Socialist leadership who believed their own propaganda and disbelieved reality.

The outcome of WWII in Europe was a combination of many contributions( British decoding of enigma is one important and their mastery of the seas) , the Soviets massive human and material contribution and he Americans immensive logistical and material contribution to the British and Soviet war efforts.Remove any of the 3 and the outcome have been different or not so conclusive.

Interesting debate:up:

WW2- Tiger 1
Cold War- Russian T-55
Modern- As much as I want to say T-90 and like the looks of the Chinese Type 99, I think the Abrams is unbeatable in this category.

Somebody convinced on the internets? Ha, that'll be the day. :O:

Very well, I'll be quite interested to see any information which contradicts my conclusions.

Sorry, I deduced that from all the talk about Lend-Lease saving the Soviet's skins, but perhaps I misunderstood.

So this is what I initially dug up on the topic.

Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy

Lend Lease

The data on materials in the first link is just what I was missing, thanks!

Now, both sources seem to have fairly reliable numbers, but they are still somewhat problematic:

The second link clearly uses numbers sent, rather than numbers received, so it fails to account for units which were lost on the way or otherwise diverted. So it for example lists around 400,000 trucks and jeeps sent, but the number which actually arrived seem to be around 300,000.

About the first link, I don't know if it uses numbers sent or numbers received, so I'll have to assume that it is the latter. However, it clearly doesn't account for production before the German invasion, which is stated, and also doesn't account for stockpiles which existed from before the war. This is a very large difference in some cases; for example, the link shows that Allied locomotives account for some 81% of Soviet wartime-acquired locomotives, but when combined with the amount they had from before the war Lend-Lease locomotives only amount to some 6%. Of course this number is also lower than the effective contribution of the Lend-Lease locomotives since most of Soviet rail losses would have happened early in the war, before Lend-Lease, but it is still nowhere near 81%.