HomeРазвлеченияRelated VideosMore From: TopTenz

Top 10 Most Destructive Tanks

2006 ratings | 40228 views
Check my other channel TodayIFoundOut! https://www.youtube.com/user/TodayIFoundOut →Subscribe for new videos every day! https://www.youtube.com/user/toptenznet?sub_confirmation=1 Find more lists at: http://www.toptenz.net Entertaining and educational top 10 lists from TopTenzNet! Subscribe to our Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TopTenz/ Business inquiries to [email protected] Other TopTenz Videos: 10 Terrifying Weapons of Mass Destruction https://youtu.be/wqfDxmiIp7o 10 Things That Sound Like BS, But Are True (Part 5) https://youtu.be/64iu9cx31CM Text version: https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-destructive-tanks.php Coming up: 10. MK II Matilda 9. Centurion 8. Panzer III 7. Tiger 1 6. T-54 5. Type-89 4. Rault FT-17 3. Mark V 2. T-34 1. M1A1 Abrams Source/Further reading: https://youtu.be/rD2OQ31h39I https://youtu.be/YeEHfMXThRs https://youtu.be/3BeErFfSDg8 https://youtu.be/Qa4VMvIMfLg https://youtu.be/KcmMyCp8N4Y https://youtu.be/c8WHPgdkdOc https://youtu.be/eIDg_ng-Qi0 https://youtu.be/UVu05Mt-A30 https://youtu.be/QDRjl0LqXmQ https://youtu.be/pm6yYi-JugY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Willie.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Willie1915.jpg https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Land_Forces.Tanks_(26344721714).jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD2OQ31h39I https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MatildaII.jpg https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Matilda_II_Tarakan_(089970).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infantry_Tank_Mk.II,_A12_Matilda_II_Mk.IIA_(23666767501).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Matilda_Compass.jpg https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Matilda-Scorpion.jpg https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:British_Centurion_tank_Korea_May_1953_(AWM_HOBJ4255).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Centurion_tanks_and_infantry_of_the_Gloucestershire_Regiment_advancing_to_attack_Hill_327_in_Korea,_March_1951._BF454.jpg https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:1956_British_tanks_(2).jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeEHfMXThRs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israeli_Tanks_in_Sinai_-_Flickr_-_The_Central_Intelligence_Agency.jpg https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Destroyed_Centurion_in_Sinai.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BeErFfSDg8 https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-788-0006-16,_Nordafrika,_Panzer_III.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-788-0032-19,_Nordafrika,_Panzer_III.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-154-1964-24,_Russland,_Panzer_III.jpg https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-127-0396-13A,_Im_Westen,_deutsche_Panzer.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-185-0139-20,_Polen,_Russland,_Panzer_in_Bereitstellung.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1979-064-06,_Otto_Carius.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1805-16,_Nordfrankreich,_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_I).2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1972-064-61,_Kassel,_Verladen_eines_Panzer_VI_%22Tiger_I%22.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TigerITankTunis.jpg
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (294)
TjažmaK (1 day ago)
sherman?
tasman006 (1 day ago)
Terrible again you said the Japanese tank the Type 89 and have a picture of the Type 95 Ha Go light tank then mention the Type 89 again. Are both tanks in the same spot?
tasman006 (1 day ago)
Terrible Research the Panzer Mk3 started of with the 37mm gun then the short 50mm gun then the Mark 3 Special in 1942 with the longer 50mm L60 tank gun and the last mark then at the end of the war had the original short stubby 75mm gun that was in the Panzer IV at the begining of the war and that replaced it and early Stug Assault gun version.
tasman006 (1 day ago)
The Centurion tank first had the 17 pounder(76mm) then the 20 pounder(84mm) then the 105mm gun and last used by the British using 12 x FV4003 Centurion Mk5 AVRE armed with a 165 mm demolition gun in the 1st Gulf War. Totally skipped the Korean war its first combat debut where its first tank on tank engagement was against a captured Cromwell tank which was blown away and also used in the 1956 Suez Crisis. As mentioned used by Israel to great affect in the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars. My country Australia used them in Vietnam and the Indians did well with there's against the Pakistani's in their 1965 and 1971 wars against Pakistan being able to knock out superior M47 and M48 tanks. Some are still in service around the world the best being South Africa with there upgraded version called Olifant(Elephant.) which where used to great affect against Angola and Cuba in Operation Savannah and other Operations. The South Africans later upgraded the tank to Olifant Mk2 with a 120mm L44 gun. And with this the Centurion deserves a higher spot at least in the top 3.
ElitePainite Miner (2 days ago)
The abrams at number one... Yet no listing of the British challenger 2 or the British chieftain
Peter Hawthorne (2 days ago)
I do like the videos you produce with your succinct delivery AND you ask to subscribe AFTER we watch, not before like many lesser producers.
chris schall (7 days ago)
"(The Abram's) job is to go out and open the enemy armor like a can opener with attitude." -Lee R. Ermy
Chris Hutchinson (8 days ago)
Initially I was going to rage at the bias of putting the American MBT at number one. Now I think about it I realise it truly is the most destructive tank in the world both to enemies and Allies. I think someone needs to point out that blue on blue kills don't add to a tanks kill tally!.
Julianna Nightingale (9 days ago)
Yeah trying to figure out why the Sherman's weren't on here. No they weren't the best in WWII but they could out run the Panzers and they could also out maneuver them as well which made them able to kill a lot of them quite easily. Also to toot my horn of my State, I live 20 minutes away from where all the Tanks are made in this country which is Lima, Ohio. Just at the end of last year we did a shipment for Australia of our tanks for them Not saying I'm too happy about sharing our military gear and things, even thou they are our Allies but still : )
D M (14 days ago)
Centurion also well used by the Australian Task Force in Vietnam
Nick Wanrooy (20 days ago)
The m1a1 has a 120mm gun firing 120mm rounds (not including apfsds because it is sub callibre ammo) and it also is not the tank with the best firepower in the world. Because the abrams usesses a L44 gun where the leopard 2a6 usses a L55 gun. Meaning the leopard gun is longer so more velocity = more penetration
officialgulfofalaska (23 days ago)
The Panzer III was not equipped 75mm cannon it had 37mm cannon or the later versions had a 50mm cannon the panzer IV had a 75mm cannon
Liam S (24 days ago)
Why am I not surprised that a American tank is number one? You also forgot to mention the challenger and leopard tanks!
Levi Zhou (22 days ago)
Liam S The Leopard’s combat performance is actually pretty awful in comparison to contemporary MBT’s, especially the older models. More than a dozen Leopard 2a4 were knocked out in Syria by anti tank missiles that proved ineffective against Russian T90’s.
Gregory Thoman (25 days ago)
It has been proven definitively that depleted Uranium is not a health hazard. This was independently confirmed by multiple researchers.
John Smith (8 days ago)
Ok sarcastic comment here. If it is not a health hazard they should not be shooting it. Of course it is a health hazard it can destroy tanks..... I think that what you are trying to say is that it is not a radiation hazard which is true the amount of radiation coming from DU rounds is minimal less than an X-Ray or taking a high level airplane flight . It's a bit like saying that lead bullets are not dangerous yes they are and lead is also poisonous more so than DU.
georgia bowhunter (25 days ago)
The M1A1 Abrams and newer versions have a 120mm cannon. The M1 Abrams had the 105mm.
Richard Dunton (26 days ago)
The rheimtall gun on the m1a1 is 120 mm
Marko Radić (26 days ago)
Just noted a few mistakes: PZIII was armed with 37mm and later with 50mm AT gun, not 75mm gun - that was PZIV. Secondly: Centurion was mostly armed with 20 pounder gun, late model was produced with 105mm gun. Thirdly: Abrams has 120mm L44 gun which has less penetration than german 120mm L55 gun (same rheinmetall gun, just leopards is more modern with longer barrel and higher penetration/velocity), also without depleted uranium rounds russian 125mm gun has higher penetration.
john nichol (26 days ago)
type 89 is super garbage
TheBernito2 (26 days ago)
Why would a 120 mm canon fire 105 mm shells? It doesn't! While originally equiped with the 105 mm, it proved inadequate and they changed it for the 120 mm smoothbore that fires various 120 mm munitions! How often that this channel gets its facts WRONG?
Finlay Johnman (26 days ago)
An arbitrary list full of inaccuracies
JimBeam (27 days ago)
Why would a 120mm tank gun fire 105mm shells?
Justin Morgan (27 days ago)
I'm probably wrong , but the title said most destructive tanks. I was under the impression that the tigerI or tiger2 / numbers produced versus kill ratio was the highest. Again I only recall someone else speaking of it.
Daniel Hatcher (24 days ago)
Justin Morgan 3rd generation German tanks were very unreliable and broke down often
Sheriff of Rock Ridge (27 days ago)
Does Oddball know about the tigas
thedungeondelver (27 days ago)
Also the long-rod penetrator "dart" of the M827 round that the Abrams fires is a 40mm projectile, not 105mm. It would actually be disadvantageous to fire an AP round with that diameter. The narrower cross-section puts more stress in a smaller spot on the armor. The HEAT rounds the M1 fires are full-diameter, 120mm, but use a different principal to punch through armor (or whatever): an inverse cone shaped charge, lined with copper, forms a penetrator jet when it explodes on contact. This burns through armor, with the added shock and blast effect of the HE filler forming the jet charge.
thedungeondelver (27 days ago)
"Thirty years is an impressive run for any military hardware." *Laughs in B52*
Ian Davidson (27 days ago)
One of your clips during the Panzer III section showed a Tiger PZKW VI And I think Challenger 1/2 should of been mentioned. since it introduced Cobham armour and has a better rifled barrel gun.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
Where? I see following wrong tanks in that clip: 4:40 Panzer IV C, 5:00 Panzer II B. If you meant the last picture before the Tiger, that's a Panzer III E, the first production version and last with the 37mm KwK 36 "Panzeranklopfgerät" (tank knock device). By the way, nobody knows how effective Chopham really is in a real situation. I bet, if we really would see a conventional world war 3, all recent tank designs would show as obsolete as the french interwar designs between WW1 and 2. Nobody knows how effective Nato and Russian tanks are in a real fight.
John Smith (27 days ago)
Tank nerds unite and ATTACK so many things wrong in this. Far too many to count.
John Smith (8 days ago)
Within the first 5 mins there are many and some statements can be iffy like the centurion was started in 1943 and was not ready at the end of WWII. Whilst the centurion did not see combat during WWII but it was combat ready or at least the initial production versions were and they were trying to get them into combat to gain experience in the final days of WWII in Europe. So whilst true they not see combat but they were ready. Very similar to the idea of testing new equipment in combat the USA Pershing tanks had this done about 20 of them were actually in combat during the last part of WWII in Europe . There is a famous film of a Pershing VS a panther in Cologne. Many of the armaments quoted as being on the tanks were later upgrades the PZ III did not have a 75mm gun in 1940 but was upgunned during its production run. Many of the pictures shown are not the same as the tank being talked about. I am not a "true" tank nerd but can spot many of these errors. I do not have the time and inclination to do a full detail listing of what they have gotten wrong that I can spot However I hope that some tank nerds will be able and willing to do this. Hence my call for them to point out the many flaws in this. Besides the definition of most destructive is not explained beyond the tank has to have seen combat so cannot be challenged. What does this mean? most tanks destroyed ? Most men killed ? Most influential in battle ? Most ground gained? Most fear generated?
jonathan smith (14 days ago)
How many?
Jackie Santos (27 days ago)
I think the best tank be the M1 A-1 Abrams
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
No, that's not how "Leopard II A6" is spelled.
John Clark (27 days ago)
CR2. end of conversation.
Chally 2 needs new kinetic rounds to stay relevant even against export tanks like the newest T-90MS, but for usual third world country visits is more than capable to do the job. Hopefully, upgrades will soon give him active protection, so these tanks will not end as wreck due to hit with obsolete unguided rockets into the poorly protected engine compartment.
Jason Gray (27 days ago)
Challenger 2's have never been knocked out and the longest range confirmed kill was done by a challenger 2. Just saying lol
Jason Gray (27 days ago)
@PCmasterRacist close enough lol
PCmasterRacist (27 days ago)
The longest tank vs tank kill was done by a chally 1 not a chally 2
Duffman15000 (27 days ago)
1) The 105 isn't Rheinmetall and was defeated by unimproved T64 frontal armor forcing NATO to look for a better alternative. 2) The 120mm knock off L44 found on M1A2s is less accurate and has a lower muzzle velocity than the OG L55 on the leopard. 3) Most of Iraqi armor was destroyed by ATGM fire which the Abrams is incapable of using through its gun.
Robert Knight (27 days ago)
Y the centurion number 9 this tank is awesome come on this was unbelievable I bet it could still work today and Israel’s made the tank a legend in the the sinai and Golan Heights
Liam Garrett (27 days ago)
I am surprised the Sturmgechutz III/IV didn't even make the list.
Vermilion77 (8 days ago)
@Jason Gray Joke? Yeah right... I already heard this one a thousand times, but in a serious context. By the way, the original designation of the Tiger 1 prototype was Durchbruchswagen 1 (breakthrough wagon 1) sooooooo... not a tank...
Jason Gray (8 days ago)
First off, I just meant it as a joke/explanation as to why it might not have been on the list. Secondly, it isn't about US/UK definitions, its about what the word means (it means assault gun). And just as an FYI, if I were to see one, I would say "oh look, it's a tank" lol
John Smith (8 days ago)
By the definition used the MK IV and MK V of WWI are not tanks and many others of the era having no turret. But these are definitively tanks.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
@Jason Gray In german definition, it's a tank. Don't come with the american/british definitions. In those the same vehicle is a tank, a tank destroyer or a self propelled gun, depending on which part of the army mans it...
Jason Gray (27 days ago)
Because its a self propelled assault gun, not a tank :P
Zandandido (28 days ago)
Gotta have the Bob Semple tank
Ymir the Primordial (28 days ago)
This was more "10 random tanks" then any sort of Top 10, but sure, lol. However your research team is slacking, there were a ton of errors here. About a third of the pictures of the tanks were not the tank being discussed, and you kept referring to tank guns as "Artillery" for some reason. The PzIII never had a 75mm cannon, it got a 75mm howitzer very late in the war, but it wasn't big enough for a full 75 cannon. It used a 37mm cannon for most of the war. You listed the Mk V tank, and then talked exclusively about the Mk IV tank. Mk Vs didn't come in until very late in the war. You kept rolling a bunch of different tanks together in many of your numbers, so it isn't clear what you are talking about for most of them. For instance you talked about the M1A1, and then gave it both a 105 and a 120mm gun in the same sentence. It also is nowhere near the most powerful gun out there right now, Leopard 2A5s are using the L/55 version of that gun, which is about 10% stronger. I mean technically none of it matters, but when you make a video on tanks you are going to attract tank nerds, lol.
John Smith (27 days ago)
Tank nerds can argue about the number of rivets used to make an A10. Whilst I am more aware than the average viewer but not a true "tank nerd" there were far far too many errors in this particularly for me describing tank A but showing tank B on screen. Whilst the actual statement the ten most destructive is a non definable concept without further clarification of the terms meant I feel the M4 Sherman should have been in the top 10. As part of the concept of this video was that the tank had actually to see combat? Then for me the top has to be the T34 for multiple reasons the sheer number built and used, the worldwide use of the tank during and post WWII. It is IMHO the most used and influential in battle and design of WWII. It may not have been the technically the best at the end of WWII which I believe to be the panther, which fails due to low production numbers so cannot compete on overall effectiveness. The T-34 beats the Sherman on numbers and influence.
Andrew Oconnor (28 days ago)
4:15 Blitzkrieg was not armoured forces acting independently of infantry. It was armour, motorized infantry and close air support working together. Lazy research!!!!
Ian Davidson (27 days ago)
Plus it was an idea developed by the British in the 1920's
kokofan50 (28 days ago)
Depleted uranium DOES NOT come from nuclear power plants. It comes from the enrichment of uranium.
kokofan50 (27 days ago)
John Clark, you don’t know a damn thing about uranium enrichment or nuclear reactors. The uranium we get out of the ground is called natural uranium. Natural uranium doesn’t have enough fissile isotopes to use in most reactors, so we have to mechanically separate out the fissile isotopes. The uranium with more fissile isotopes is called enriched uranium or yellow cake. The uranium left over from left over from the enrichment process is called depleted uranium because it’s been depleted of the fissile isotopes. As for nuclear reactors, after the fuel has been used in a reactor, it’s called spent fuel. Spent fuel is a bit of a misnomer because the spent fuel rods are 97% unused uranium.
John Clark (27 days ago)
DEPLETED. you mong. as in used up.
Skit Patrol (29 days ago)
Pz 3 was a 50mm
corey davis (29 days ago)
As per usual they forget to mention the best tank the Bob Semple ;) Not that this video is accurate in many of the facts thrown out as per usual for these types of videos.
Frank wilson (29 days ago)
USA USA USA cool video
stan theman (29 days ago)
I need something to get me to work. What do you recommend?
Cascadian Rangers (28 days ago)
Start small and nimble. BT-7 Dailey driver for lifez
Isaiah Mesa (29 days ago)
Centurion the 1st mbt
warhawkjah (30 days ago)
No mention of the Sherman?
warhawkjah (28 days ago)
Cascadian Rangers Some of them were sold to Russia, that counts.
Cascadian Rangers (28 days ago)
No, nobody cares about a tank they made 50,000 of unless its Russian
SPQR2755 (30 days ago)
PZ 3 did not have a 75mm gun other than the infantry support N version.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
Also the picture at 5:00 shows early Panzer II.
rafi sanders (30 days ago)
Honorable mention, the Israeli merkava mk4
DAZZLER DAZ (26 days ago)
>Honourable >Israeli Yeah these words are mutually exclusive Also the merkava is by even the most generous evaluation a terrible modern tank design, which it only gets away with because the most it's designed to go up against is rocks wielded by children
manzilla48 (30 days ago)
why has this channel got such few viewers these days...
Aceofdeath4life (30 days ago)
120mm not 105mm for the m1a1 i should know i was a loader on the m1a1
thedungeondelver (27 days ago)
2nd time today I've seen a video with that mistake in it.
Mad Geordie (30 days ago)
The Centurion tank was a high point of British military engineering, being one of the most successful tanks ever. The same cannot be said for it's connection with murky international arms deals. Britain sold the Centurion to the Israeli and Arab armies, giving both sides the impression that they, and they alone, had this weapon. Hence much embarrassment subsequently ensued when both sides rolled out this tank in the course of the Middle Eastern wars. Everyone was pleased with the tank. No one was pleased with the British government (unsurprisingly!!)
nick oakley (1 month ago)
True. But I was assuming the list only includes 1 type of usn carrier.
spider0804 (1 month ago)
still not showing up in my subscribed list feed
MarBearCat (1 month ago)
Cats In Tanks >"<7
Fei Gao (1 month ago)
You've overestimated the strength of the M1A1, and greatly underestimated the 2 most produced tanks in history
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Which are? Id say the M1A1 is right up there with the T-72, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. None have seen actual combat that would truly test the tank to its limits, the closest I can think of is the battle of 73 Eastings, and that was a major defeat for the T-72 at the hands of the M1A1 and M2. Its unlikely we will ever know the true effectiveness of any of those tanks, since a large scale conflict between the countries who made them is extremely unlikely. So its all academic to discuss really.
Captainconkerboy1 (1 month ago)
What about Challenger 2? Or is that one not applicable because it's still in active service?
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
M1A1 is still the MBT of the US Army. I think he just picked the M1 as his entry for a modern battle tank.
uta gordon (1 month ago)
Surely you omitted the Israeli Meharva 4 which is more than equal to any now
herpderpherpd (1 month ago)
The Centurion was built with an 84mm gun, (technically designed to originally carry a 76.2mm gun but that was replaced before production began) not a 105mm. That 105mm gun wasn't added until 1959...
herpderpherpd (1 month ago)
Also, on field kill counts are always exaggerated, just look into how often units would claim to destroy more vehicles than the enemy had in a 100km radius of the battlefield.
MrLeo2A6 (1 month ago)
What about the Leo 2 ?
MrLeo2A6 (26 days ago)
@The Inquisition fair enough smart arse, Abrams shouldn't be there either in that case, it's hardly been a nation victory tank, without other service's support to back it up, has been proved to be vastly deficient (as all armoured vehicles are) Fact remains Leo 2s have been in active service far longer than most modern armoured vehicles, they have served in Syria and Afghanistan
The Inquisition (28 days ago)
MrLeo2A6 Name me a conflict in which it was crucial to a nations victory....this is why it isn’t in this specific video. It isn’t a best tanks in the world video.
willythemailboy2 (1 month ago)
I see this video was attacked by the algorithm . A tenth of your usual view count.
Dreathnor (1 month ago)
How could one not mention the Pz IV alongside the Pz 3? They worked in tandem. Just a note: It would have been nice to know what was used to determine "most destructive".
sparkplug1018 (26 days ago)
@Vermilion77 As he mentioned, this video was about destructive potential. The US could put as much fuel, ammo and men into the M4 (and M26 when it arrived) as we needed to. And not entirely sure where you got junk gun from, the D25-T was selected for its ability to penetrate the turret of a Tiger at 1Km. The optics, yeah may not have been that great. The Tiger I and II were not this wonder tank everyone thinks they were.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
@sparkplug1018 Are you joking? The Pershing came far too late to the party to be of any practical use... the Tiger on the other hand, had a powerful psychological effect. The IS2 had a junk gun. Much too heavy projectile and like other russian tanks bad optics. Panthers and Tiger IIs could easily kill a IS2 in long range battle.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Was kind of wondering that too. Because id have taken the M26 or IS-2 over the Tiger.
Razar Campbell (1 month ago)
@TopTenz You forgot to include which tanks were capable of love...
Deus Vult (27 days ago)
M60 patton cupola is the testicles of the tank making love possible ❤
wimpow (28 days ago)
LOL. Have you played Panzermadels: Tank dating simulator?
Joseph Stalin (1 month ago)
The executive producer's name is Shell
Joseph Stalin (19 days ago)
@TopTenz it's a video about tanks. They fire tank ammunition, or 'shells'.
TopTenz (26 days ago)
Correct. I am also the owner of the channel.
Amadeus Kurisu (1 month ago)
Just thought i'd drop in a small correction there were 84.07 thousand T34's built
MojoPup (1 month ago)
Seriously? No speed mentioned for the M1 Abrams!?
Deus Vult (27 days ago)
Literally could drag race with it's extremely high acceleration to beat muscle cars since diesel or gas lowered engines can't go 0-60 quite like a turbine in an Abrams except electric cars
KAT Erwhall (1 month ago)
No Leopard? great tank. great video.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
@The Inquisition Name me a conflict in which the Abrams was crucial in... please not the persian war... that army could've propably been beaten with Pershings....
KAT Erwhall (28 days ago)
@The Inquisition Point taken.
The Inquisition (28 days ago)
KAT Erwhall name me a conflict in which the Leopard 2 was crucial in it. That is why it isn’t in this video. This isn’t a greatest ranks video.
Jimmy (1 month ago)
Great video. More military top 10z is always welcomed. Cheers
armvex (28 days ago)
It already has plenty, Enjoy.
Nuukas :/ (1 month ago)
13:29 + 13:50 false (leo 2A6-7 and armata)
Yang M (1 month ago)
I'm fairly sure that the most destructive tank is the Purity Distilling Company tank. - 19/01/1919, Boston, a single tank in 5 minutes caused 21 dead, 150 injured, and over $600,000 ($9million adjusted for inflation) in damage. 🤣
Geoffery George (1 month ago)
The current production Abrams use a 120mm gun.
Ashish (1 month ago)
Isn’t that a war crime that the Americans did. I don’t think this should be celebrated.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Which war crime would that be?
Nathan Pether (1 month ago)
You forgot to mention the British 🇬🇧 Challenger mk2, during the gulf war six tank's took on 30 Iraqi tank's destroying all without losing a single one
sparkplug1018 (28 days ago)
@Ymir the Primordial Was honestly the first engagement that came to mind, and one a lot of people are likely familiar btw.
sparkplug1018 (28 days ago)
@Ymir the Primordial Obviously. However, the British 1st Armoured Division was also there. The VII Corps consisted of The US 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armoured, 1st Infantry, 210th Field Artillery Brigade, 2nd Armoured Cav, 1st Squadron 4th Cav and British 1st Armoured. So yes the British were there with us with the main battle being conducted by the 2nd ACR. Thank you for correcting me that it was the Challenger MBT that took part though. Of course it could have been any number of engagements though.
Ymir the Primordial (28 days ago)
There were no Challenger 2s at 73 Easting. It was an American Cavalry Troop. Also none of the numbers he stated are reflected in that fight. So clearly he is referring to a different engagement. The war consisted of more then one battle!
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Im assuming you are referring to the battle of 73 Easting. 160 tanks, 180 APC's, 12 artillery pieces and 80 random vehicles. The M1A1 and M2 played a significant roll in that decisive victory along side the Challenger 2. Unfortunately we did loss one M2 Bradley.
Kenneth Besig (1 month ago)
All Nazi tankers were Totenkopf units, that is Death's Head units, and these particular Nazi butchers routinely mass murdered Jews and Slavs with their tank machine guns and crushing the defenseless civilians with their tank treads.Never forget that all the Totenkopf units were composed of mass murderers.
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
What? Ok, first off all, No, it's called Waffen SS, not "Totenkopf" units (would you call navy seals "eagle with trident" units?). Second, no, the by far largest tank force of the germans was the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen SS, as this was a relatively small and autonomous elite unit, serving Heinrich Himmler. Third: it's german units, not nazi units. Or are the US Army, the "Neo-con" tankers. How do you know which political believe the wehrmacht soldiers had? They where mostly recruits and had no choice as to fight.
Whistler Trainer (1 month ago)
Panzer III had a either a 37mm or 50mm, not a 75mm. The 75mm wouldn't fit into the Panzer III turret.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
The Ausf. N actually did have a LV 75mm.
The Angry Brit (1 month ago)
Whistler Trainer Weird, because the Panzer III Ausf N had a 75mm Low Velocity Cannon
Jacob L (1 month ago)
The M1A1 also has an option for a 120 mm cannon
Aaron Woodruff (1 month ago)
I love that I recognize some of these tank names thanks to Girls und Panzer
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Shame he didn't mention the upgrade the T-34 got, if the T-34 was a problem, the T-34-85 was an even bigger one.
Dean Buss (1 month ago)
👍
San Bruno Beacon (1 month ago)
Great topic. You should also do a video about British Intelligence and spy operations during WW2. It wasn't until World War 2 that the British finally took the US under their wing, taught us their spycraft, and how to become master international rogues and spies.
Donald Raver (1 month ago)
Simon you forgot the most important tank made. The M4 Sherman. Oh not the Sherman. If it wasn'tfor the Sherman you might be speaking German. The Sherman had to operate in every theater of war that the u.s. operated in and its allies from Russia to the Sahara desert from Papa New Guinea to the beaches of Normandy. The Sherman performed well in all environments show me any other World war II tank that did so well. The Sherman had one feature a lot of tanks did not it's most important feature cast in lifting loops for without them it would be much harder to ship the Sherman anywhere in the world. Check Nicholas Moran aka The Chieftain on YouTube he explained the Sherman better than most historians ever have it's kind of long but it's well worth the watch
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
Man, I wished you would speak german... that would be so great... far better language, by the way, as this composite thing out of old english, danish, french and frisian... fewer words, logical spelling rules, no silly pronounciation, like silent letters as in sword,... also we have four letters more ÖÄÜß and the best thing: compound words, like Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. (spell this 3 times), if you think Sdkfz (Sonderkraftfahrzeug) or KwK (Kampfwagenkanone) was bad.
theemissary1313 (1 month ago)
Great. Now I want to collect Bolt Action again...
Justin Tucker (1 month ago)
No Killdozer?!
Nathan Pether (1 month ago)
@Justin Tucker Yeah but a cool project.
Justin Tucker (1 month ago)
@Nathan Pether For a civilian made tank, it did a tremendous amount of damage. Probably not on this list since he wasn't aiming to kill anyone (and didn't) and his only goal was to damage the property of the ones whom wronged him (basically the whole town).
Nathan Pether (1 month ago)
Justin Tucker I'm from England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 and I came across that on YouTube the other day completely mad but neither the less a great peice of engineering and thought I think it should be on the list.👍
MississippiRebel (1 month ago)
No, no, no, no!!!!! Come on guys if you are going to talk about stuff, at least get it right. The M1A1 Abrams doesn't have a 105mm gun, it has 120mm cannon! The only time that the Abrams had a 105mm cannon was when it was first produce. Those are called M1 Abrams. Also the armor on the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams makes the armor on a T-72 look like toilet papaer. As far as the Abrams having the best firepower, well pretty much all western tanks use a 120mm cannon, but slightly different varients. What gives the Abrams the upper hand is the type of ammunition it uses. The Abrams has the best APFSDS round in the world.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
I thought he said it fires 105MM ammunition, referring to the sabot rounds that it uses. At least thats what I thought he said anyway.
Nikodem Fiedorow (1 month ago)
You made a big mistake with T-54. It wasn't developt until 1946. The tank developed during WW2 but never used was T-44 which after many modifications (updating canon from 85mm to 100mm and changing the turret) became T-54. it also is quite possible that you merged T-54 with T-55, as I can't find any records of T-54 being used any longer as it was completly replaced by T-55 which was basicly the same, but with ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) protection. Other than that great video :)
nick oakley (1 month ago)
Great job Simon. Could you do the next one on the top 10 most powerful aircraft carrier models of all time?
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
What are the criteria for that list? Because we could flesh the top 5 out entirely with USN carriers.
Miguel Moreno (1 month ago)
What about the Leopard????
Carl Kiehne (1 month ago)
For days now your videos don't show on my recommendation list, why?
Robert French (1 month ago)
M1-A1 over the challenger 2 which did not make the list. Wtf!! Unsubscribe I think.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Honestly, they are about even with each other, and the Leopard 2. Possibly even the T-72, but thats debatable.
GmMef1st0 (1 month ago)
T-34, especially early ones, are overrated AF.
Daniel Hatcher (24 days ago)
The Angry Brit you also forgot that early models had 2 man turrets, which is not effective
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
@The Angry Brit Don't forget, no turret basked. The crew had to turn manually with the turret. Also, the strongly sloped armor, makes the tank extremly cramped, reducing the crew effectiveness because of discomfort. That's why germans didn't used sloped armor in small tanks and the Panther is such a monstrous beast for a "medium" tank.
The Angry Brit (1 month ago)
GmMef1st0 True. If you ever get into a debate, this is why early T-34s (until maybe those in 1942/43) were overrated. 1. The ammo was stored on/in the floor, so the gunner had to bend over and pick the ammo to load it. Which I bet caused back pains. 2. If the engine caught fire, the crew compartment 99% would instantly catch fire as well as it was not separated well enough from the engine room. 3. The ventilation fans that are meant to pull the toxic fumes out of the turret that come from firing the gun were placed so far away from the gun that the crew got poisoned or died a fair bit of the time. 4. Most T-34s had terrible crew hatch placements, or sometimes not even enough. The best case scenario in 1941 for crew survival was 2 people survived an internal engine fire (usually the commander and driver) 5. T-34s had terrible vision. Most vision devices either didn’t work, fogged up/got covered due to weather or the gun firing, or simply weren’t there. Commanders usually kept their hatches open to peek out of, to the point that German Soldiers were told to spray T-34 commander hatches to reduce the vision of the tanks. 6. The tank overall was prone to catching fire
Nate Schlegel (1 month ago)
Great video!
Gordon Lawrence (1 month ago)
By the time the M1 was actually in combat they had been upgunned to 120mm. The dart in the APFSDS round is only about 30mm diameter. The original 105 was a Royal Ordanance L7 produced under licence and the 120mm is a shorter (and therefore less powerful) version of the Rheinmetal gun on the Leopard II. IE L/44 compared to L/55. That extra 1.32 meters of barrel on the Leopard II significantly increases muzzle velocity.
Vermilion77 (25 days ago)
@Gordon Lawrence Yeah, as I said: In the A6 variant 2001. The Abrams got the L/44 1985, so both tanks had the same gun for 16 years.
Gordon Lawrence (25 days ago)
@Vermilion77 The L55 was retrofitted as soon as it was available on Leopard II
Vermilion77 (26 days ago)
But only there more modern Leopard II A6 has the L/55. Initially the guns where the same.
RealityVeil (1 month ago)
Hey, look at that. They found a way to make Americans look like bad guys in yet another video.
The Angry Brit (1 month ago)
RealityVeil I never felt that? Why do you say so?
Derek Carey (1 month ago)
Why wasn't this in my subscription feed??????
LocalHeretic 1127 (1 month ago)
I like Matilda tank.
Devon Fields (1 month ago)
Who’s the best dog fighter ever? Red Barron🤔...do a top 10 on fighter pilots
Devon Fields (30 days ago)
sparkplug1018 thanks for the knowledge 💪💯
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
That honor belongs to a German pilot named Erich Hartmann 352 confirmed kills. Would be a pretty boring list honestly, since the top 10 were all Luftwaffe pilots. The first none German is Ilmari Juutilainen with 94 from Finland.
Colonel Overkill (1 month ago)
The panzer 3 only had a 3.7cm cannon at war start, then was upgraded to a 5cm. Very late war it got a short barrel 7.5cm howitzer but was never equipped with a true 7.5cm cannon. The panzer 4 on the other hand had a 7.5cm cannon the whole war.
The Inquisition (28 days ago)
Colonel Overkill StuG III long barrelled assault gun however was very successful.
Colonel Overkill (28 days ago)
@The Inquisition correct. While they finally were able to put in the long 7.5cm cannon eventually it came at the cost of the turret and required conversion into an assault gun.
The Inquisition (28 days ago)
Colonel Overkill panzer III couldn’t handle the long 7.5cm cannon, turret would need a complete overhaul and that wouldn’t do for the tank itself is designed too small for it.
Nathan J Martucci (1 month ago)
The M1 series tank hasn't used 105mm rounds since the '80s. Only the M1 did, the M1A1, M1A2, and all variants since have used 120mm rounds.
ninjajagyr (1 month ago)
Now not to ignore the effectiveness of the Abraham MBT but I consider the m4 Sherman to posses far greater historical logistical significance. It was built to be far more mechanically reliable, safe, easy to operate, and strategically flexible than any other tank of its time. Not even making the list is an insult to American contributions to ww2
ninjajagyr (29 days ago)
@Sophi Psych tank doctrine and tank design are two different things. The sherman was designed to fight both tanks and infantry, hence the strong turret and sloped frontal armor. the idea that the sherman was never meant to fight tanks is a myth.
Sophi Psych (29 days ago)
Insult is a bit outlandish. Should it have made the list? Maybe, it was an effective vehicle but it wasn't designed for tank vs tank battles in the first place.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
Making a list like this without separating it into pre and post 1950 is next to impossible imo.
David Koch (1 month ago)
I do believe the 120MM gun fires 120MM rounds, not 105MM.
Colonel Overkill (1 month ago)
Ironically the shells are both larger and smaller. The HEAT-MP shell is a full 120mm while the AP shell is only 27mm for the armor piercing dart itself
Hayden Hatcher (1 month ago)
Just think about that 160 tanks took on over 1000 tanks and won insane!!!
RussianThunderrr (1 month ago)
Pz-III main gun was 37mm, and later 50mm gun, not 75mm, but I watched your work with great interest, as you spot light many "lesser" known facts about tanks, from not so stereotypical angles, kudos to you for doing that.
RussianThunderrr (1 month ago)
@sparkplug1018 -- Yes, and it de-facto became a fire support tank, aka Begleitwagen. It was not an anti tank gun by any means.
sparkplug1018 (1 month ago)
The Ausf. N model actually did mount a low velocity 75mm this was the last model produced in 42/43. I believe it was the cannon that was removed from the early Panzer IV tanks when those were upgraded.
rgerber (1 month ago)
I hit that like button with a depleted Uranium Shell
Aric Castro (1 month ago)
M1A1 also has depleted uranium in it's armor.
armvex (28 days ago)
Deadly friends and foes alike.
Owain Shebbeare (1 month ago)
"Australians made the best use..." not for the first time, or last.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.