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
10 Things That Sound Like BS, But Are True (Part 5)
Text version: https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-destructive-tanks.php
10. MK II Matilda
8. Panzer III
7. Tiger 1
4. Rault FT-17
3. Mark V
1. M1A1 Abrams
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.
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.
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!.
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 : )
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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...
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
@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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!)
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.
@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
@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.
@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.
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. 🤣
@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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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).
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.
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 :)
@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
My kingdom for your Bee Saving Paper says the queen. This biodegradable paper becomes an “energy drink” for bees. To attract them, the paper contains a paste made from the same form of energy-rich glucose that beekeepers use during the … Read More.
A Futuristic Self-Contained Eco-Village of Homes Enclosed in Greenhouses.
Imagine living in a self-sustaining eco-village of homes enclosed in greenhouses?
A new community in the Netherlands will harness the latest technologies to create a closed-loop system that will produce its own solar and biogas power, grow organic vegetables,
New High-Tech Air Conditioned Jackets Keep Japanese Gardeners Cool in Summer Heat.
Excessive heat can cause both plants and gardeners to wilt. While a hat and a wet bandana can help during the hot summers months, some gardeners are keeping cool with new high-tech air-conditioned jackets.
In Kagoshima, Japan, scorching summer temperatures … Read More.
Hive Five for Largest Solar Farm Apiary in America.
The largest solar farm apiary in America will come alive at Old Sol Apiaries in Oregon, with 48 hives arriving on the site just in time for National Pollinator Week, June 18-22.
Old Sol’s founder, John Jacob, says that the … Read More.
Farmerettes: Women Who Farmed and Gardened for Victory.
They were known as “farmerettes”–the hard working women on the home front who mobilized by the thousands to fill agricultural labor shortages during the First and Second World Wars. On big farms and in small Victory Gardens, they challenged conventional … Read More.
26 Last Minute Home and Garden Mother’s Day Gifts.
It’s not too late to celebrate your cultivated Mom with these last minute Mother’s Day gardening gifts for the gardener!
1. Monticello Gardener’s Gift Basket From the shop of Thomas Jefferson’s plantation residence, Monticello, comes this artfully arranged keepsake basket … Read More.