The 10 Most Devastating Tanks Ever Built | Greatest Ever | Progress

[@dabouras]

How the M551 Sheridan got on this list is beyond me. As mentioned, firing its 152mm cannon / middle system messed up the alignment and the tank could no longer hit anything. It should be in the bottom 10.

[@jakobquick6875]

It’s Bovington style😂 Best 10 tanks “we” have to film and show off😂 David fletcher says it all😊 love them all❤

[@samlewis4670]

As an ex Sheridan gunner I can tell you we never had a functional missile system by the time we finished tank gunnery. The conventional gun’s recoil would knock the missile electronics out after one or two rounds.

[@selfdo]

@@samlewis4670 Also what doomed the M60A2 "Starship". The funky-looking turret simply couldn't be adapted to the same M68 105 mm tank gun as the other M60s, so the turrets were removed and the chassis used for other purposes, or given an M60 A5 (105 mm) gun turret when available.

[@Driver-ur9mf]

First I heard of it was this video. Got my popcorn out now as we are down to the final 2

[@terrisommella720]

I guess Mike Sparks had a vote.

[@airborneranger-ret]

34:10 - I think I'm in love with the Merkava driver :)

[@uwegebert5118]

She was the best of the doku

[@airborneranger-ret]

:) @@uwegebert5118

[@AntonAdelson]

😍

[@adityaBorPhukon2170]

Marry her. I’ll pray for you.

[@airborneranger-ret]

lol @@adityaBorPhukon2170

[@keithad6485]

The thumb nail shows an image of a Krauss Maffei Leopard 1. My first reaction was, that cannot be a devastating tank. We had them in the Aussie Armoured Corps til 2007 til somone realised, the armour is only good against 25mm. Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War showed tanks need lots of effective armour

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

well when it was developed that wwas logical at the time firepower was much greater than armor protection they did not have that modern armor back than so they considered leo 1 as fast and heavy hitting ( what it did pretty well back then ) and with a minimum of armor

[@keithad6485]

German Bundeswehr seem to have decided mobility was more important than resistance to main armament strikes with the Leopard1, yet when looking at the UK and USA, with their MBTs at the time, Centurion and M48 and M60 clearly show they considered lots of armour is a priority. Germany appears to have gone with lots of armour with the Tiger, to less armour with the Leopard 1 then back to lots of armour with Leopard 2. @@gehtdichnixan3200

[@yoloactual6975]

@@gehtdichnixan3200 just because it was what was done in western European countries that didn't have to actually prove themselves in war time in any capacity, does not mean it was sensible in any way. No tank of any sort was ever going to be fast enough to outrun any enemy guns. That line of thought is just braindead to begin with.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@yoloactual6975 well pretty much all tanks of all nations developed in this time period where like that leo one wwas just one of the best of them all .... and hasenr prove themselves in wwar ? hahaha well when i see the wars america fought like 1000 vs one than a boxer has proven himselve when he koed a 3 year old boy

[@briandiff1459]

Kudos for reuniting Wolfgang with a Panther, probably one of the greatest moments of his life ! You could see how excited he was at seeing it.

[@kayschmitz1155]

my first tank i ran into, i was 6 years old + on visit 2 germany . we were traveling through the lünerburga heide ( back roads ): al of a sudden on the side of the road stood this massive vehicle . i managed 2 convince the driver to turn around . i wanted to see it. IT WAS A CENTURION . i spoke english , the dismounted tankers lifted me onto the tank . after this tanks were the greatest 2 me . what typ of tank this was i only found out many moons later. i rekognised it years later

[@wendyg4382]

The first time during WW2, that the Germans encountered tanks with slopped armour was in France, in 1940, the standard German anti-tank gun of 1940 was unable to penetrate the armour of the French heavy tanks. Furthermore, the T34 /76 was encountered from the first days of Operation Barbarossa.

[@nobodyspecial115]

Technically the French WW1 FT Renault had sloped armor, plenty of tanks even Russian ones had sloped frontal armor way before 1941/42 but for some reason the T34 is always credited for it... Heck even the Panther was already in the design phase before they saw a T34 but it's always claimed that the germans only made it after they saw a T34 and tried to copy it.

[@pike100]

The French had a heavy tank? I bet they all came standard issue with a white surrender flag. 😂

[@Explorer982]

They actually had some tanks like the b1 char that gave the Germans real trouble​ @@pike100

[@andraslibal]

There are design considerations and advantages to not sloping the armor, the main one is more interior space and ergonomics inside the tank (the Tiger was incredibly comfortable for the crew, they could sleep in it etc, and crew fatigue is reduced when the tank is ergonomic, helping them in a fight), also, "early" (up to 1943-44) in the war, Germany had access to all the chrome, molybdenum and other additives needed for good quality steel and that good quality steel could take a hit even if it was straight as in the Tiger. Another thing about sloped armour, the T-34 has it all around making it super cramped (add a Christie transmission it makes it even more cramped, make the turret crew only 2 and have no rotating basket and it is a crew nightmare to work in) ... later tanks all have sloped armor but only in the front.

[@daveknight8410]

Sheridan a failed attempt at a do everything support vehicle with an unreliable missile system that someone then decided to fire through a gun tube making it even more complicated & difficult & extremely expensive, definitely in bottom 10 tanks

[@jimwolaver9375]

Interesting collection of opinions by the editor/producer. None of the testimony from the people interviewed attempts to rank the tanks against each other, they stop at evaluating each tank individually. The ranking seems to be solely the opinions of the video's creators, and those opinions are - - - let's call them "easily questioned."

[@johnbishop-b3p]

He uses the word "devastating" then there's no mention of the Tiger! LMAO Let's ask the Russians about that.

[@luvr381]

Look how young David Fletcher is here!

[@richardwarner3705]

🇬🇧👍😉

[@Jargolf86]

I recognized the Voice instant and my Eyes popped out when i saw the young Gentlemen.

[@terjegrindheim4587]

I really liked how you included the veterans👍

[@rudithedog7534]

Top ten Tanks that we could get access to would be a more accurate title, the most astonishing thing about this is how young Panzer Fletcher's moustache looks.

[@chrisloomis1489]

Great TANK show. Lotsa fun Leopard slalom at the end .... Boys having fun ~ 😃

[@billgreen4388]

Swedish soldiers,teenagers speaking English ,properly educated,lovely.

[@markusbalbach7608]

A whole part of central europe, from switzerland/Austria up to Norway, we ALL speak/read n write english more o less fluently.

[@mrjleex]

It is taught in the elementary grades in much of Europe. England speaks it also, but it is harder to understand what they are saying

[@billgreen4388]

@@mrjleex No idea what tha on abaaart. 😄

[@20chocsaday]

​@@mrjleexI know. Not English, but a native speaker, I have no problem with the "a/the" usage but when I come across people who have been taught how the language works, we don't work that way. As for slang, which part of which country _

[@Ubique2927]

The S Tank is a Stug by another name. Why was everyone shocked? Also it the basis of the Thunderbirds vehicles?

[@RaulSalazar-d6r]

The 88 mm gun was a game changer!

[@Schaneification]

This so so funny to Watch !

[@dennisswaim8210]

Love to see these British heroes reunited with their wartime ride. Thank you gentlemen you and all of our American and allied comrades saved the world.

[@Mark_Bickerton]

The Chieftain should have been on the list (Probably not at No1, but on this list) it had one major problem, it's engine. (and that was only a problem because we tried to stick to the doctrine of having a multi-fuel engine. If we had just gone for a basic powerful and robust diesel, it would have been reliable as well!) But it was the best protected tank at the time and had the best gun. The Russians certainly feared it, as they always kept their best tank formations oposite the chieftains.

[@dalek3086]

Russians would have been surprised to see Chieftains still moving, a crap tank - like many crap British tanks...

[@MrAckers75]

@@dalek3086lol the centurion beat everything put in its way lol

[@gilgamesh101]

Most ignorant comment on this entire thread!@@dalek3086

[@20chocsaday]

A recruiter came round and explained how diesel in the engine gave a better range but if you switched to the fuel used by most cars you really needed a chain of filling stations every 300 yards. But it went faster.

[@stefanjohansson6670]

S-tank is a turret, with tracks.

[@Coole-ee1vg]

I am always amazed by the numbers of so called "experts" in the comment section but in this case it blows my mind......

[@davman115]

😂

[@1guitarlover]

"Panzer" stands for "armored" in German. Most people confuse this term with "tank". Any armored vehicle is a panzer. Cheers.

[@naihillis]

not nesnecessarily armored vehicles or military vehicles get the Labelling SdKfz wich means Sonder Kraftfahrzeug wich in Englsich means somthing like special vehicle this is then splitted in many categorys like Halbketten (halftraks) or SPW Panzerspähwagen (armored scouting vehicle) and more. The name panzer (in the military slang)is reserved for tanks but youre pretty much right with the meaning of the word but it doesnt means armored but it is a not often used word for Armor armored would mean gepanzert

[@Chiron84]

@@naihillis Historically that might have been true, but not any more. In modern terms, almost every armored military vehicle is a Panzer, since, as was correctly stated, the term comes from the armor (Panzerung). An AFV is a Transportpanzer, an IFV is a Schützenpanzer, an armored mine clearing vehicle is a Minenräumpanzer. An armored anti-aircraft gun is a Flakpanzer. a tank destroyer is a Kanonenjagdpanzer. And so forth, until we reach what's in English called a tank, which is a Kampfpanzer in German.

[@wanderschlosser1857]

As a German I can tell you Panzer is the correct translation for tank. An armored vehicle is a Panzerwagen or gepanzertes Fahrzeug. Panzer indeed can also mean armor like the shield of a turtle. But for military use the simple word Panzer means tank. For other armored vehicles we usually use combination words incl. Panzer but not the single word.

[@naihillis]

@@Chiron84 i am german and no not every armored Vehicle is an Panzer Armored Vehicles are panzerfahrzeuge or überpanzertertes Fahrzeug if the vehicle it self as no armor and the armor was later added the vehicle is only called panzer if it has the basis of a battletank such as flakpanzer schützenpanzer or minenräumpanzer

[@davidhines7592]

@@naihillis graf spee was a panzerschiffe

[@LondonSteveLee]

Challenger I and II the only tanks in history with extensive combat use that have no losses to enemy fire is not even on the list!

[@20chocsaday]

Too modern?

[@sobobwas6871]

Centurion, the invention of the MBT, the best tank in the world, even when theoretically superseded it still kept winning and winning in battles against US or USSR sourced tanks.

[@ronkeefe9048]

The centurion was a brilliant tank, the Israelis appreciated it for sure

[@sobobwas6871]

@@ronkeefe9048 and the Indians, and the South Africans, and the British, and and and.

[@selfdo]

The 'British Bulldog" proved to be one excellent tank due to how both the Brits and later outfits, the IDF especially, UPGRADED it. Once Centurions got the British-designed L7 105 mm rifled tank gun (the US equivalent, M68, was licensed by IMI for THEIR Centurions, and also up-gunned M48 "Pattons"), the tank truly came into its own, as well as having the decent but somewhat sluggish Meteor gasoline engine replaced with a Continental Teledyne diesel, again, same as in the M48s and M60s that the IDF had, to maintain commonality. However, though from the beginning it was designated as a "Universal" tank, IMO, either the German Panther or the Soviet T-34/85 can make a better claim as "first" MBT. All a matter of "in the eye of the beholder". Even the M4 (I REFUSE to dub it the Sherman as Union General William Tecumseh Sherman was a war CRIMINAL, a THUG in US Army uniform) has a claim as an "MBT" once it got the improved 76 mm gun that gave it decent anti-tank capability, also, although the M3 75 mm was better for "soft targets", due to a faster rate of fire and smaller, easier-to-handle shells, had better overall performance than generally given credit for. Another thing well in favor of the M4 was its VERSATILIY, in addition to mobility and RELIABILITY. It took a variety of tank engines, so, for example, the USMC and the Soviet Army got M4A2 diesels, due to need to share diesel with other units. The Brits generally got a version with a rather "Frankenstein" of an engine, the Chrysler A57 multibank, a 30-cylinder beast, cobbled together from FIVE inline six, flathead truck engines. Surprisingly, this contraption worked well, and Chrysler boasted it could still move the tank if 12 cylinders (two banks) were inoperative. The M4 was adapted to a variety of roles other than as tanks: the chassis was used for the M10 "Wolverine" and M36 "Slugger" tank destroyers. M4s were employed as CEVs and ARVs (M32 and later M74), tracked SP guns (M12 and M40 155 mm self-propelled guns), mine-clearing vehicle, rocket launcher (T334 "Calliope"), as well as the M7B1 "Priest", a continuation of the M7A1 vehicle derived from the prior Lee/Grant tank with a 105 mm short-barreled gun, intended for direct fire support. The end of the Korean War, where the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" was the most common US Army tank, and in the relatively few engagements with Soviet-supplied (to either the DPRK or the PLA) T-34/85s, especially in the August and September 1950 battles along the Naktong river, absolutely CREAMED them! The IDF made use of both supplied and CAPTURED M4s, upgunning them with either French-designed 75 mm (ironically, based on the German KwK 42 75 mm weapon!) or 105 mm tank guns. IDF M4s were credited with wiping out an entire battalion of Egyptian JS-3s at Rafah, Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, w/o a single loss, and they also served with distinction in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As the IDF already had a large fleet of Centurions and M48/M60 "Pattons", as well as a slew of captured Soviet-sourced tanks, mostly T54s and/or T-34/85s, with the occasional SU100 or IS-3 thrown in, the M4 was retired as a MBT, but many were repurposed, given new diesel powerpacks. Some were fitted with a 155 mm gun/howitzer as the L33 by Soltam Arms. Others were even turned into an armored AMBULANCE ("Tankbulance"). Many were converted to M74 ARV specification or also turned into CEVs, and some were simply buried alongside forts on the "Bar-Lev" line up to their turrets after being stripped of their engines and drive trains, to be used as pill-boxes! Few, if any tanks have ever proved as versatile as the M4 "medium".

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

I am reminded of a story from the Korean War 1950-1953, when a U.S. general - whose name I am sorry I can't recall now - paid tribute to British Centurions and their crews who got them up mountainsides and other difficult terrain considered impassible - in order to provide fire-support for UN forces against the communists. Korea wasn't ideal tank country, but that didn't matter to those crews and their tanks.

[@TwilightxKnight13]

It does not win vs the Abrams

[@gordonhulcombe9604]

Well done Gentleman, a excellent, entertaining production!

[@Atropos-Lachesis]

I agree with the leopard 2A7 being number one because it looks the most awesome with that arrow head armor on the turret. Oh and its fire control system was a great engineering marvel.

[@ichmalealsobinich]

Where is the Tiger and especially the StuG-III?

[@sharis4130]

Where is the Panzer 4? It was, along with the Panzer 3, the most efficient tank Germany fielded at the time. The Tiger has an unecessarily exaggerated reputation and the StuG was just the most produced armoured vehicle the germans had back then.

[@MikeyRumi180]

How's the Tiger Tank not on this list??? Sure it wasn't perfect BUT it's probably the most legendary Tank OF ALL TIME.

[@ErenYega747]

49:44 all that maintenance stuff… certainly they learnt well from what happened before in WW2 when their tanks broke down all the time, spare parts were scarce, and there was no ease of fixing

[@POEDLINYUSNSWVET25]

A fact about the German Panther tank. It was built as an answer to the Soviet T-34! It had sloping frontal armor. A high velocity, but a longer barrel, 75mm. main gun.

[@Byepolarchaos]

There was sloping armor in Italy to Czech republic. Sherman at soaping armor, sloping armor goes almost back to the end of World War I.

[@20chocsaday]

Lozenge shaped trench crossers on view at the Tank Museum. Vulnerable to artillery, surprise, and specially developed rifles and bullets.

[@TheHardHatHardHead]

“Germany had been banned from making tanks after ww2; they just hadn’t played nice with the ones they had”😂😂

[@WizzRacing]

If they made this today.. They would have issues with how the Ukraine deals with modern tanks..

[@Nebris]

Yeah. Especially during the T-72 section, I kept seeing in my mind FPV drone feeds going straight in and doing the old turret flip.

[@d.e.b.b5788]

Tactics change with newer developed ones, using new weapons. But it's interesting learning other's opinions, unless they are morons.

[@dirkvonriegen5267]

@@Nebris They see something like this on both sides. But the fact is that both the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and the Leopard tank have changed from a "miracle weapon" to "scrap metal". Too heavy, too complicated, too expensive, too unreliable and almost impossible to repair in the field, almost analogous to World War II...

[@feanor70115]

The T-72? Seriously? How is it devastating? The impact crater when its turret returns from low orbit after getting launched by a Javelin? The loud boom when it gets blasted by a NATO tank that outranges it by a kilometer?

[@Kraxi95]

Don't forget the slow speed in reverse gear , big downfall

[@City-hellcat-monkey-theft]

How tf the Sheridan on this list💀💀

[@rp1645]

My Humble opinion on Tank drive control for Tracks. Why did none of them design the CASE track Dozers ( 450&850) control levers between the legs. I ran an 850-B track Loader on a very muddy big mainline sewer job in the 70s. It ran as fast as a wheel loader, and are work running sewer lines in unimproved roadway, with that track control levers right between you legs, was amazing at turning.😊

[@glenjohnson9302]

I was US Army soldier. I came up with a lot of tank and anti tank tactics. I had the defending anti armor units pre prepare multiple fallback positions for the "shoot and scoot" tacticks. I also taught them howvto mask the round signature long enough to give them time to move before being spotted. It all depends on terrain but it opend the eyes of a lot of commander's. So many years ago. I went into active duty in 1980.

[@TwilightxKnight13]

LoL

[@RobertBailey-y3h]

One Sheridan in Viet Nam had "Peace Pipe" painted on the gun tube. --Non Bailey in Maine

[@dabouras]

Notice the Sherman with the 76.2mm Firefly cannon is not mentioned. That could handle most German tanks, though just barely the Tiger 1 ANF King Tiger. The Israelis had a super Sherman with a 90mm cannon as a stopgap.

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

Yes,exchanging the gun for the British 17 pounder definitely turned it into a tank killer.

[@wayneabbott652]

76mm is a US gun

[@MrT67]

​@@wayneabbott652 The 76.2 is the British 17 pounder.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

quotes from guys who drove it probably knocked it down the list. "The Firefly tank is an ordinary Sherman but, in order to accommodate the immense breech of the 17-pounder and to store its massive shells, the co-driver has been eliminated and his little den has been used as storage space. ... The flash is so brilliant that both the gunner and commander need to blink at the moment of firing. Otherwise, they will be blinded for so long that they will not see the shot hit the target. The muzzle flash spurts out so much flame that, after a shot or two, the hedge or undergrowth in front of the tank is likely to start burning. When moving, the gun's overlap in front or, if traversed, to the side is so long that the driver, gunner, and commander have to be constantly alert to avoid wrapping the barrel around some apparently distant tree, defenseless lamp-post or inoffensive house."

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

@@bigenglishmonkey lol,that must be how the Germans felt aswel.(with the long barrels😉)

[@Dray-Wilder-Garton]

Why isn’t a Challenger on the list?

[@williammaxwell1919]

This isn't a fair comparison, to do so, you'd need to compare tanks from the era /theatre of war they fought in? It would be like comparing 1903 cars with 2023 cars

[@bigenglishmonkey]

cars are easy. yeah the new ones can go faster and are more comfortable, but the further back you go the better they looked, to about the mid 1900s anyway.

[@d.e.b.b5788]

@@bigenglishmonkey Oh, I don't know. The 2005 Mustang was just as good looking as the 1969 ones it was patterned after. So they're not all bad. Oh, and that 4 door open top Cadillac Ciel from about back in 2011, now that was gorgeous. There are good designs in every era, it's only that in whatever current era we are in, we are surrounded by the ugly ones!

[@howardsellick8307]

Am i the only one thinking that the leopard 2 has a massive shot trap between the turret and the hull?

[@ericvanlede481]

Could be. Many tanks have this weak spot. Even the Merkava, the pretty driver precisely explain why they added balls around ... seems thar it pleased her ... 😊

[@gerlachsieders4578]

Oddly enough, the Leopard 1 on the thumbnail is not on the list...

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Swedish S tank was suited to defense. But the lack of a revolving turret was a disadvantage in the attack

[@johnadams5489]

The Sherman HAD a Revolving Turret

[@Le-Cardinal]

Most T-72s I have seen on KZbin lacked a turret. I see your point.

[@gilgamesh101]

What has the Sherman got to do with his comment. Yu realise he's very clearly referring to the Swedish S tank right??@@johnadams5489

[@2121Sloth]

Yes, David Fletcher! I miss that little mustache

[@mynameismin3]

Look how young David Fletcher is in this, his retired now. This must be at least 20 years old.

[@waswolltihr1526]

Wow, the first sentence is already wrong. What an achievement.

[@jodyhaberfield5308]

Where’s challenger 2? That’s by far the best

[@reddevilparatrooper]

I used to be an M1A1 Abrams Tank Commander after my life as a Paratrooper at first. The M1 series is a very easy tank to drive for the driver, other jobs like the loader he can load a round under 5 seconds. The gunner is very capable when trained properly with endless hours on the MCOFT simulator before gunnery. You as the Tank Commander has to be up to standards to maintain, command, tactics, and be able to take over the job of Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, and Company or Troop Commander. The education of a tank crew man is a progressing process from maintaining the tank, individual crew duties, tactics, command structure, which all requires each crew member to know 2-3 positions above their rank in order to be an effective fighting crew. A crew capable of going through a gunnery cycle and making Qualification Standard 1 is golden. Proficiency to a higher standard is what the US Army Armor and Armored Cavalry wants all of its soldiers.

[@F15ElectricEagle]

True, a well-trained, disciplined and experienced tank crew is more valuable to most armies than the tank they drive.

[@ahmedakhan1]

@@F15ElectricEagle Michael Wittman comes to mind!

[@svensvensson2724]

Well, the standards have been lowered, so this is not true anymore.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

@@svensvensson2724 So what was your MOS?

[@svensvensson2724]

@@reddevilparatrooper Airforce. What does it matter? They are all terrible now.

[@MrAndyBearJr]

The Sherman tank had many design flaws that were fatal to its crews. The side armor was perfectly perpendicular to the angle of fire of enemy guns making it easier to penetrate than the sloped armor of other tanks. The armor itself tended to spall on the interior when it took a hit, causing lethal metal splinters to fly about. But the most egregious design flaw was using a gasoline engine to power it. Where as diesel fuel has a much lower flashpoint, gasoline is highly combustible. It was nicknamed the Ronson lighter by its crews, because it lit up first time, every time. The Germans called it the Tommy cooker for its tendency to immediately catch fire when hit, not allowing its British crews time to escape.. Its original 75mm gun was underpowered, and vastly outmatched by the German 88mm. Many of its crews were aghast to see its main gun rounds bounce relatively harmlessly off German tank armor. Can't understand why it made the list. No need to stroke American egos here.

[@d.e.b.b5788]

The 'First time, every time' slogan of Ronson wasn't created until way after WW2; so nobody called it that. Get another story. You have to get your facts straight, because once anyone catches a mistake or worse, a lie, it makes EVERYTHING you say or write, assumed to be incorrect until proven otherwise. As such, it makes all information from you useless, because all of it must be backed up by another verifiable source, and so why bother to pay any attention to yours, since we will have to access another one anyway?

[@Idahoguy10157]

After 1991 European countries sold off over 2000 Leopard II tanks. At bargain prices. While the USA kept their Abrams tanks.

[@MadHatter-ek7vh]

Difference in armor secrets is a big reason..same as usa planes and other weapons that are classified in the m1a2 the depleted uranium in the armor plus other composites.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@MadHatter-ek7vh …. Except now the Europeans wish they’d had those Leopard II tanks. The USA army has thousands of Abrams in storage. I’m waiting to see if NATO countries start buying those from the US army. For their armies.

[@20chocsaday]

Europe does not have large deserts to use for car parks.

[@telmooliveira8480]

And then FPV Drones ended the Tank Era....😂

[@HE-pu3nt]

I think some of the tanks in this list are some of the worst tanks. The T34 had a gun tube that could fire only 100 anti-tank rounds, good velocity, poor metallurgy. It's engine was the same, it would need a rebuild after one tank of petrol. Panzer V, VI and VII were all deeply flawed. They had overly complicated gearboxes with 1000+ parts, it was kind of semi automatic, but very difficult to set up. As the Panzer VI & VII got heavier and heavier the gearboxes became hopelessly over-stressed. The engines for these tanks were meticulously lightened, sadly this also ment weakened. As the tanks became heavier, cooling the engines became very difficult. Fire was a constant worry. Though the running gear was excellent in the field, working on it in the field was regarded as a total bastard of a job. So Panzer V, VI, VII. Excellent guns, excellent, though overly heavy, armour, crappy engines, transmissions and running gear. For me, the best tank, the one that balanced firepower, protection, mobility and producability. Panzer kampfwagon IV. If the German's had developed a new turret for this tank, incorporating some of the new armour alloys from krupp steel, a moderate increase in gun calibre for better muzzle velocity, and sloping armour, both in the turret and chassis. These improvements would have given Germany a war winner that it could've produce in quantity. Happily Hitler, as always, stuck his nose into a subject he knew bugger all about, and hammered another nail into the coffin of German defeat.so my vote goes to, ☆ Panzer IV ☆

[@Boni-i1l]

While I certainly agree with the comment on the German WW2 tanks (my grand dad had to repair them in the field), I disagree with the comment on the T34. The USSR in the late 20s and 30s was a leading force in many scientific fields, particular oil production, electrification, mining, metallurgy and heavy industry (besides many other scientific fields). In summer 1941 the Soviet armament industry had to flee very fast East to the Urals (and further beyond) so some quality issues might occurred. Also probably not all necessary metallurgic materials were available. The T34 very quickly became very reliable, except for the gearboxes, although with some improvement. Those were of simple design (5-gear forward + 1 reverse) without synchromesh. The other mechanical components (clutch, planet drives etc.) were good for many 100th of km to be driven on long marches through the vast country on own power, while Panthers and Tigers needed trains. Really unique and advanced was the engine, a V12 Diesel on an aluminium block - the German motor industry never managed to achieve this until the 1970s (?? with the Golf 1). It means that the T34 was extremely fuel economic and hard to ignite when hit. The torque, power and power-to-weight-ratio was absolute superior to all the other German tanks. The engine soon became very reliable too (it never ran on gasoline, it is a pure Diesel engine). It also was designed to start in extreme cold, another issue the German tank industry had difficulties to take care of. It was a simple and easy to repair / maintain engine too. It was also known that the Diesel fuel did not require high grade quality or pureness, the T34 engine would just except it even with crude contamination in it, be it water or dirt to a certain degree. The real downer of the T34 were missing radio equipment (soon sorted) in the beginning, cramped crew space and total lack of any crew comfort (no heating, bad fume extraction, ergonomics etc.). The early 2-crew turret was also not a good idea but soon changed to 3-man turret, so the commander finally could do his job. The guns (76mm and 85mm) and optics were not so precise as with the German counterparts but when the Red Army advanced West became less and less of a disadvantage since fighting distance shortened rapidly due to changing geography, more frequent urban combat plus hard-on-the-heels chase by the Red Army's rapid advance after Kursk. Long distance tank duels were no longer the norm, short distance dog fights more common. The manoeuvrability made now the difference for survival, fast speed but also fast turret and gun movements too. Also I never read or heard about worn-out gun barrels of Soviet-designed tanks; written war memories of WW2.crew members NEVER mention such thing. The main gun always fired, both machine guns had a slight tendency of jamming, which could be easily sorted (same type as with the T55). T34/85 and the Sherman (Firefly) were the most suitable tanks in WW2, the Panther was flawed with some problems (later corrected) but still too complex, too heavy, too slow and extremely gas (gasoline!) guzzling. The tiger family and the Ferdinands were pure failures, as even German Generals admitted in written statements back to the armour industry at the time. The field repair guys also hated them: too hard to recover and too complex to field-repair them, plus they exhausted senseless the diminishing industrial resources of Germany's war industry. All other previous German tanks (P38(t), P1 - P4) were outclassed with the appearance of the T34 in 1941 at the battle field. They were just no match. I am a German engineer and served as a tank commander of a T55, which had the same type of T34 engine (with a bit more horse power), so one can trust a bit or two on my comments. My crew also had to maintain, repair and replace this engine but of course also operated it inside our T55. Driving it was great fun, Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@HE-pu3nt]

@gerdlunau8411 I think the one thing about the T34 that made it great was the shear number produced. It had many shortcomings, but when you have a 20 to 1 advantage in tank numbers and 10 to 1 advantage in soldiers, you can not lose. A Soviet Steamroller. I think a Panzer IV, improved in the way I described, would have been a very useful tank. Very embarrassed 😳 about the petrol/diesel bugger up. I should have re-read my comment before I posted it.

[@MrT67]

​@@Boni-i1l while the Panther had its issues as did all tanks of WWII, I'm not sure why people occasionally criticise it's speed. It's speed wasn't much different to the Sherman. It was also only about 1.25 times the cost of the Panzer IV to produce. I've always felt that if the Germans flagged the idea of the Tigers and focused on the Panther, they could have improved the design around production efficiency, reliability and battlefield maintenance to produce a tank that would have been without question the best tank of the war. I know that those are significant obstacles to overcome, but the basis of a brilliant tank was already there. The early issues with the Panther were by and large resolved and further development potential was there also.

[@ColinFreeman-kh9us]

The Sherman was a true death trap for the men that fought in them , how it always gets buttercup and glossed over is beyond me.

[@Byepolarchaos]

Without a moving turret , it is not considered to be a tank. It’s mobile artillery.

[@carrickrichards2457]

The main tank (and anti tank) gun in 1939 was 37mm (2 pounder). The 37mm PAK (incl carriage) weighed 450Kg. 50mm and 57mm (6 pounder) were quickly introduced and were the main weopons until 1943. The 50mm PAK weighed 1062kg. The 57mm remained in UK service until late 1950s. The 75mm on the Sherman, T34, StugIII and PzIV were then the main guns until the end of the war (76mm, 85mm and 88mm were a minority in 1945). The 75mm PAK versions weighed 1500-1800kg. The 88mm PAK was impractical weighing with carriage, up to 4.5 tonnes. Post war 84-90mm became the standard tank gun. By ~1960 105mm was universal. By 1980 120mm.

[@TheSycotik]

T-34 had 76.2mm gun, later 85mm, so I wouldnt call em minorities.

[@carrickrichards2457]

​@@TheSycotik Soviet T34's 76mm F34 tank gun was L42 (short). I meant the high velocity US/UK 76mm L52, long German 75mm L48 or Soviet 85mm L55.

[@TheSycotik]

@@carrickrichards2457 "The 75mm on the Sherman, T34, StugIII and PzIV" that implies that T-34 used 75mm. They made 35 000 with 76mm and 22 000 with 85mm, allies didnt even have that caliber, so I dont really know what you meant.

[@haalstaag]

A great tank doesn’t have 44,900 losses

[@hjmason5527]

What about the Tiger & king Tiger, then T-90M ?

[@Byepolarchaos]

Here’s another fact, no one ever talks about the T 72 tanks barrel good only fire 100 shells after that the file was extremely dangerous to the operator

[@dougieh9676]

A kettle of tea off the Sherman please. No sugar. 😂

[@bulldozer99]

That young soldier at 48:45 minutes is clearly having a blast in the Leopard tank 🤘

[@ijoseluis]

My only comment: a piece without historical value.

[@torukmahtomahto409]

Merkava and the caporal...is the all in one best ride winner...

[@ianmarshall170]

Wot no Challenger 1 or 2 longest ever tank on tank hit, best armour took more hits then any other tank & survived, just goes to show lack of research in these compilations!!!

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

I don't have the data handy, but if memory serves, the Challenger platform was also the first to debut Chobham Armor, at the time the top-secret composite layered armor that proved superior to any other of its kind in the world. The formulation of the armor is still highly-secret and it has been improved upon in the Chobham/Dorchester package. That distinction alone merits the Challenger being included, let alone its superb combat record. It was inevitable that sooner or later one would be knocked out. That is the nature of military secrets and advances; they are ephemeral in nature and do not last forever - but only until suitable countermeasures can be found by the enemy. The UAV-drone revolution and top-attack weapons have - for the time being anyway - somewhat negated the advantages conferred by composite armor, but only until the pendulum swings back the other way. As it must sooner or later. And in the meantime, the Challenger series of tanks have an enviable record of effectiveness and survivability in combat.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Nice introduction video about tanks glory and dignity, after the WW2...airplanes are looted glory and dignity from tanks

[@JustinWillis-gq5ew]

T-72 is a very good tank but it's not for ww3.

[@mattblack118]

Look at that young whipper snapper David Willey!

[@POEDLINYUSNSWVET25]

One other thing about the Israeli Merkava tank is, surprisingly not mentioned in this video, that IT HAS A BUILT-IN AIR CONDITIONER!! Yes. You're reading that right, an air conditioner!!

[@Mountainlake1]

the abrams chugs fuel .6 mpg but it's scary that the early pattons drank 2X as fast and at half the power .33 mpg, so it's kinda better than you might think. google also says sherman .87 to .4 mpg, tiger .4 mpg, m60 .8, cromwell .5-1.5 mpg.

[@TwilightxKnight13]

the Abrams' fuel economy is often derided but it is not an issue for the US. We have the most advanced logistical systems in the world so refueling is not a detriment to the warplan. It is simply put, the greatest battle tank ever built. Period, full stop

[@marcusallen35]

Leo2 is nice, but the boys at Ft. Knox would disagree

[@richardcheek2432]

A manual loading canon is twice as fast than an automatic loader.

[@themilitarychannel1300]

What about the King Tiger?

[@richardcarr6493]

l really like the MERKAVA its design was made with a purpose that s proven in battle over n over technically more than most on this list . The S tank was also built this way and has proven its abilities in mach battles . NOW as for the the top two big boys have proven their abilities with the same gun 120mm smooth bore ,l saw the first L2 s get winter tested at my base back in the early 90s prior to the new amour very boxy like a tiger 1 . they can change the motor in one in less than 10mins !!

[@GeorgePalmer-m8m]

I wonder if you could get a mission kill on a tank by making concertina with heavier gauged wire with hooks and barbs interspersed in it.

[@robertdacquisto6871]

Goes without saying, tiger needs to be on here. How many T34s were lost compared to how many tigers? If the video is titled most devastating tanks, how is that not considered? I’m not saying most reliable or cost effective, but most devastating, the tiger certainly fits that category

[@rp1645]

Thank you for talking about great tank builds. The Germans over engineered there ( Panzer) plus they outrun there FUEL supply/Refueling lines. Good for British. The ( Israel) Tank is my favorite The Drive on the side just like a vehicle The capacity to carry troops. Its up armor Suspension A+ 😊

[@THEFORBIDDENMAN-lk7of]

T34 MYTH CONTINUES WAS NOT THE FIRST TANK TO SLOP ARMOUR

[@Boni-i1l]

This is correct but compared to the WW2 German tank designs it was a true first-timer - at the Eastern front. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@nobodyspecial115]

An a far cry from being "The Best" at anything. It was a terrible tank, but good enough to get the job done and when you have thousands to burn through it doesn't matter if you lose 10 taking out 1 when the 1 isn't as easily replaced. Although when looking at it as a individual tank it's one of the worst for the poor souls operating it ie. the slope armor left almost zero room inside which is why most never went with that design. However the USSR wasn't known for caring about the conditions it forced it soilders to fight in, so of course they were the first to really push sacrificing the crews ability to perform for better armor.

[@THEFORBIDDENMAN-lk7of]

IT WAS THE BEST THEY COULD AT SHORT NOTICE THEY DID NOT DEVELOP SLOPE ARMOUR IT WAS COPIED FROM OTHER EARLY TANK DESIGN

[@THEFORBIDDENMAN-lk7of]

IT WAS THE BEST THEY COULD AT SHORT NOTICE THEY DID NOT DEVELOP SLOPE ARMOUR IT WAS COPIED FROM OTHER EARLY TANK DESIGN

[@sharis4130]

@@Boni-i1l The Panzer 1 had sloped armour too, so did the BT-5 and the BT-7. . . and the StuG. The T-34 was just known for it's pyramid shape and the Soviets had to make some propaganda about their stuff because otherwise nobody would have wanted that poorly produced garbage. Post-War produced T-34 were nice though.

[@jpmtlhead39]

The M4 Sherman a Devastating Tank... Really??!!!! Even the Panzer IV with the Long 75mm gun could take on any allied tank in the West, specialy the Sherman at distances that the M4 only could Dream off. Like Guderian wrote " In Normandy the use of the Panzer IV was more than enough to Deal with any allied Armor. There was no need to deploy Tigers and Panthers on that Battlefield when they were so much needed on the Eastern Front. The Panzer IV along with some StugIII units were more than capable to engage any allied Armor and delay the outcome off the battle and at the same time inflicting a Heavy toll on the Allied Armor divisions." PS: if you are including the M4 Sherman as One of the most Devastating Tanks Ever,i wonder where the Tiger and the KingTiger Fitt in your concept of a Devastating Tank...??!!! Unbelivable.

[@atomicwedgie8176]

Sherman- Simple, easy to fix and made in huge numbers. Any Panzer type- Complex, more prone to break downs. More expensive to produce = far fewer produced.

[@jpmtlhead39]

@@atomicwedgie8176 more Devastating Tank...???!!!! Didin't you nottest the Thumbnail..??!! Guess not.

[@atomicwedgie8176]

@@jpmtlhead39 Hard to be devastating if your complex tank is broken down and you can't get parts. Plus they were too big for many bridges and roads... plus fuel pigs.

[@jpmtlhead39]

@@atomicwedgie8176 but the Point here is "The Most Devastating Tanks.." Most Devastating...got it??!!! For God's Sake man,what part you dont understand abaut being the Most Devastating...??!! Forget the bridges,the broken engines,etc..ok.

[@vitaliyavrutin5484]

The M4A2(76)W HVSS version with a long barrel 76mm M1 gun was supplied to USSR. This one can take on German tanks from a quite long distance. The reason why Americans mostly used a short barrel version was probably related to very strong and well-organized American field artillery, which handled the most of ant-tank needs.

[@IlijaStokic-o2g]

Wher is T54/55 the AK47 of tanks?

[@wilfriedschuler3796]

Very succesful in the Dobass

[@schwatzy6362]

Bull about the T-34 No tank won or lost the war Period. Tank to tank the T34 could not stand up to a Pz 1V long They just had lots of T-34's

[@ringo196]

Where's challenger?

[@forzauk1]

What about the challenger 3

[@Ubique2927]

29:45... He looks like an officer driving a tank... Lol.

[@wojtek5596]

T-34 ? Is it list of the most devastated ones ?

[@dwayneroberts6616]

As a world of tanks and War thunder tank comander😂. Given the choice of tank lines to win the most battles while grinding to the top tiers. I'll take the German tank line. If I was stuck having to pick one countries tanks from ww2 to current day. I would go with German armor. Give me a panther or Tiger for ww2. I'll take the leopard line after that. I'm an American I love the Abrams line and we have had some beautiful tanks as well but I just love German engineering and design. Especially ww2 German armor. They had to protect their crews. They didn't run out of tanks they ran out of well trained experienced crews. Even then those crews did exceptionally well do to the ability to absorb hits and live long enough to gain experience and kills. Just look at the statistics of the German tank aces vs allies tank aces. The numbers for the German tank aces are astronomical compared to the allies. Better guns better sights better armor better design for survivability.

[@TwilightxKnight13]

The Tiger has to be in the top ten and there is no way the Leopard is better than the Abrams. I've seen the later in action. Its one perceived weakness, fuel economy, is way overstated because the US has (arguably) the greatest logistical support ever which neutralizes any issues regarding refueling. Entire units of Abrams can push across long distances at very high speeds almost continuously with staggered refueling. Mobility is a not an issue. Add to that its incredibly strong defensive armament and the only thing left is its ability to destroy targets which is where it really shines. The fire control system is easily the best in the world. I would put 2-3 Abrams against an entire unit of any other tank with absolute confidence.

[@The_Ninedalorian]

In World of Tanks if you discount a S Tank you are gonna get wrecked

[@wockawocka5293]

Leopard 2 should not be ahead of M1 Abrams. The myth of being a "gas guzzler" is just that, a myth. Yes, the M1's fuel economy isn't great on paper vs a deisel engine. Thats why the engineers designed it to carry more fuel. It has the same range as it's desiel counterparts. Also, it can run on any liquid that is flammable. The turbine engine is MUCH quieter than deisel and it is 100% modular. Can be swapped in the field in an hour. "Engine pack". The U.S.A. could have chosen a diesel. They didn't for a reason. Next, the M1 Abrams is one of only two tanks with the classified chobbam armor. The other being the Challenger 2. Same gun as the Leopard 2 but clearly better armor. So I don't really see a valid argument for the Leopard 2 over the Abrams. The Abrams is battle tested as well. Not the export version that doesn't have classified armor. Those are probably "equal" to a Leopard 2. A closing quote from an actual Abrams driver. "Funny, if the fuel consumption is a problem I must have just never noticed". If it needs "a line of fuel trucks following it" then explain how it drove through the Iraqi dessert at full speed and flanked a Republican Guard division of T-72's without fuel trucks. Because it has the same range as other western MBT's. So based on that the Leopard would also need a convoy of fuel trucks. It's always the people who know squat that go on these films as "experts". Abrams is #1 MBT period.

[@nnnnitro]

The problem with the fuel efficiency stems from two sources: Idle consumption and established U.S. logistics. They are logistically heavier than diesel counterparts since you are not driving a tank at full blast 24/7, even if those high-RPM numbers are similar to conventional modern diesel and multifuel engines. At standby, the Abrams consumes much more fuel and without the robust and well-funded logistics system of the U.S. by its side (like in smaller countries who may be interested in purchasing Abrams tanks), the Abrams will consume more fuel by a noticeable amount. I have no idea where you got the idea that the turbine engine is MUCH quieter than diesel, surely you've heard a jet start up at least once in your life? No tank is quiet, I have experienced that in the military first-hand. The problem with the Abrams is that its sound is unique and identifiable, even at long distances. It was quite easy for us to confuse an incoming Leopard 2 for a truck we thought was much closer. About the armour, with both the newest M1A2 SEP tanks and Leopard 2A7 tanks utilising unspecified composites there isn't much to say about performance comparisons against APFSDS between the two until more information is declassified or combat performance is shown. However, with the added NERA and spaced armour elements that the Leopard 2 has offered with the pike nose turret front since the 2A5, it at least offers superior protection against chemical rounds (HEAT and most ATGM payloads), which are still playing a part in tank combat today as we have seen in the russo-ukrainian war. The Leopard 2 fuel tanks are also located as additional armour above its tracks on either side, as diesel fuel is inert and safe in this configuration which can absorb spall from kinetic penetrators or work as spaced armour against explosive rounds when hit. All this goes even without mentioning new developments in anti-tank weapons such as top-attack missiles like the TOW-2B or drones which strike from above, which the Leopard 2 (and especially the swedish counterpart in the Stridsvagn 122 with its increased top armour) are better suited for. We have yet to see how effective the TUSK armour package for the Abrams is in real combat scenarios, but I wager that added ERA will balance the scales a bit more in the U.S.' favour, with the old urban equivalent Leopard 2 PSO featuring no ERA. The Abrams was a good tank when it was first introduced but war is advancing rapidly and the Abrams is largely archaic by modern standards. The torsion bar suspension is not only difficult for maintenance but offers inferior performance and results in a larger overall profile compared to modern pneumatic suspension systems. The turbine engine requires a sturdy logistics structure, but was truly beneficial at the time due to its smaller size and high power output. However, I would wager that the next U.S. MBT will not be fitted with one without significant innovations that outweigh its negatives (thermal footprint, fuel consumption and noise).

[@draken68]

Crash gearbox is an issue. That is a training problem Most trucks use a "crash gearbox" Using a road ranger transmission generally takes a day.

[@Chris-hz8ll]

If you compare numbers in wwII, you should compare economic strength too. Germany also had mass production. They build over 10k StuGIII. The tank was cheap, difficult to hit due to the flat profile and had the highest kill-to-loss-ratio (16:1) of all tanks throughout the war. Thats not a list of devastating tanks. The sherman was not a devastating tank. kill-to-loss-ratio (2:1). They only built it in many variants and numbers. US M18 Helcat was a little bit better. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6LJgYtqgrOVntk

[@AlMount]

I always assumed, incorrectly that is, since there was the Tiger tank, the Panzer meant a Panther similar to the Lepard tank. Live and learn. 😁

[@burninhellfish]

a leopard better than a leclerc omg what's this ?

[@SimonFord-bz8un]

Germany should have the stug 3 for the main tracked armoured. Vehicle

[@larskunoandersen5750]

Denmark had the Centurion for about 30 years

[@ercanyesiltas]

the list has sherman but not tiger ...

[@nicholasburns7970]

What a load of do do. The Panther was so prone to breaking down that it was effectively useless. One of the reasons Germany lost WWII. You have Leopard II and the Abrams, but no Challenger II ,,(,only one ever lost to enemy action and the. Longest tank on tank kill).

[@20chocsaday]

Panther looked so good. It hurts to know that the power and transmission was not spot on.

[@HawaiiJetboat]

Just curious, did the Leopard 2 and the S-Tank see actual combat? If not maybe rethink this list.

[@M1984FA]

Does the Ukraine ring a bell? Plenty of videos of knocked-out Leopards. No doubt soon you can see a few of those in the St Petersburg war museum, next to those old Tigers and Panthers.

[@SIXITHS]

Yes, they have seen combat: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZnXep1oasupgassi=B2CO8iZyODNpiKJf

[@ronaldgrove3283]

​@M1984FA Definitely less than total lost Russian T-90's on the Ukraine fields.

[@joshm3484]

Where's the M10 Booker?

[@uldisparstrauts]

50K of destroyed T-34 during WW2. Absolute record of all times. Could win a worst tank title ever as well. They were cheap as dirt the same as Russian soldiers and plenty in amounts. That's the key of their success.

[@guythomas7051]

The S tank is NOT A TANK - it's a self propelled gun, not an MBT .