I love that in the Challenger video they said it couldn't have a high fear factor because not enough were produced, yet in this video the production level is high yet still the fear factor is low...prime example of crap american logic
i dont know why fear factor is taken into consideration, if i see a tank of any kind that is coming towards me, i run like hell and hope it doesnt shot
2 tanks destroy a entire division? what you think kinds are watching this? and then it gets a low fear factor? eg: a guy in school hits three at a time. low fear factor...
@iiisoposol2020 Problem dint lied with the tanks, but ye, the arab nations...
Syrian, Jordan and others where like=We are superior dont need training. So soviets litterly dropped the tanks off from the black sea with an attitude of=Here you go, enjoy, manual is inside in russian!
The egyptians however, WHERE very well trained and combat went completly diffrent there, with the egyptians even winning battles with very high losses to the isreali's
Like always I´m missing modern German or French or others. Modern tanks are only from USA, GB or Russia (but also not the latest ones). It seems that they don´t even lokk at them.
Why such a low fear factor? IDK about you, but if 2 tanks destroy an entire division of tanks in one battle, I'd be shitting my pants if I was the enemy.
I think it never really built a "omg its that tank" factor because it was really a workhorse, although it was epic, so many people used it it became like the FN FAL, a legend of its own, but unspoken.
holy fuck....2x150 and they finished 60 without being knocked out, and fear factor is low? lmao.....at the challanger their excuse was that it wasnt produced in sufficient numbers to create a solid fear factor, this time there was no excuse so they just gave low fear factor and didnt say anything bwahahaha....
WHAT low Fear factor?? Look ask older generations of Chinese PLA soldiers in the Korean war, ask the Syrian Armored Divisions. Tell u wat they'll wet their pants at the sight of the Centurion
2:24 Thats saying more about how incompetent and badly trained the Syrian crews were.. if it was 60 to 2, why didn't they just swarm the challengers? Just rush up, they might loose 2 or 3 tanks, but then they cam just rip the challengers from the sides and behind.
Must have been a lot more to it then what they tell us here.
Its hard topick an absolute at the end of the day Serviceability Reliability Service Life Effectiveness & Kills make No1.
The Abrams has largely gone against barely trained peasants who truthfully probably barely new how to use the damn thing they were in. And have largely been involved in sit & shoot Turkey shoots. Lots of Kills but little finess required
@MakcSib tbh the tiger II [king tiger] had way to many problems happen with them in the field, it was a great tank but had no time to be perfected, i'd much rather say the T34 was better, heck the Panther was a modified version of it
@DeathByCoco T-34 best tank no question about it.Im totally respect russian tanks&russian warriors,but i have some kinda weakness to german tanks,auto,beer ;) Русские лучшие!!!Всегда.
@invalide014 they were big monsters and represented the future of russian tanks, but they had little to no impact on the war, and they were not used in huge numbers like the t34 and t55 after the war, they were slow and their gun had a slow rate of fire
True... You would think after loosing, say, 15 tanks, they would just talk to each other, split into 3 groups and zerg rush the israelis from 3 sides. Syrian tank crew was something...
During the Yom Kippur war the Centurion got a very favorable kill ratio against the Syrian army. Read Duel For the Golan or Heights of Courage fo more info. The Syrian army lost more than 800 tanks on the Golan, some of which were abandoned still in good working order by paniced crews. So why dosen't the Centurion rate higher in fear factor?
to be honest, when they made this show i think the decided the Abrams was number 2 so they didnt look biased, then threw numbered fucking darts at photos of all the others then made all the other crap fit in around it!
if you watch the rest of the list you can see the clear imbalance of there daft scoring system
I.E
what the hell does numbers have to do with how good a tank is?..if i built 40 identical tanks and painted 21 red and 19 blue does this mean the red ones are now better?..no of course it doesn't if they are going to do this kind of thing then it should be done on the abilities/capabilities of the tank not a mix of opinion and silly scores
@MrMadpenguin the t90 is not better than the abrams, the t90 is an upgraded t72, only the abrams and chally 2 have major combat experience the t90 does not, russian tanks have a poor service record since ww2, the abrams has better armor, a better gun that fires rounds designed to defeat the latest russian konkrat 5 era, the abrams has the 2nd best gun on the planet next to the leo2, which most leo2 have the l44 gun
@jasincl yes the abrams uses the l44 gun, so did the leo2 and only the a6 uses the L55 gun, i kinda hop the abrams will adopt this gun in the future, look out
This show is about tanks that actually did something. Leopard, be it awesome as it is, didn't really do anything anywhere. Entire operationall history consists of firing a couple of shots here and there, hitting 2 or 3 IED's, and having 1 crew fatality.
When they talk about two Centurions fighting 150 T62's, the commander of those two tanks was LT Zvika Greengold, a man Chuck Norris wishes he was as badass as. They have a great article on him on badass of the week.
Oh yeah, 1973 battle for Sinai of Yom Kipur War. 450 egyptian soviet tanks on search-and-destroy for 900 dug in, camouflaged israeli tanks. I'm sure it was a fair fight braindead american fans can masturbate over.
@patrikasLTL Yom Kipur War. The IDF with only around 180 tanks held off hundreds of Soviet tanks manned by the Soviets. Also, the IDF tanks only fear were the deadly Soviet anti-tank missiles. The IDF was too ignorant to change it tactics of moving against the Egyptian at first but when they did the IDF 3rd Army was few miles away from Cairo on Egyptian side of the shore. Luckily for the Egyptian the UN stepped in and stop the war.
Its scored low on fear factor because it only faced the t-60...any tank at that time could nail a t-60, especially ones manned by under-trained Syrians.
@PhoenixNuke It's at tank from fucking 1945, I mean I know they up-armoured and up-gunned it since then but overall that should still say something about the thing.
@Greatherlorre T-55? lol. If M50 SuperSherman can destroyed them. Not mentioning T-72 were inferior to the old M1 and M1A1. What you think the M1A2 will do to the T-55s. T-80 and T-90 are better examples. Crap even the German 120mm are unable to completely destroy the M1 with their first shot using uranium deplete round. It would penetrate but it still function.
Im talking about Korea, back in the fifties, the M1 Abram tank only came around in the nineties. The T-72 as it suggests was first around in the seventies. How is the comparison you make and blatant Pro-americanism even valid to the argument i made? With modern Nightvision/Guidingequipment/Computers and ammunition, even a T34/85 could take out a modern tank.
That and about every modern piece of armor coming from Russia nowadays is able to fire ATGMs from there barrels.
@Greatherlorre The North Koreans never had any T-54/55 during the Korean's war. They have T-34 and IS classes. T-34/85 was matched by the M4A3 Jumbo 76mm. The IS were matched by the M26 Pershing and the British Centurion. The US and its Allied armor preform well against the Soviet trained North Koreans armor. American in their M60 Patton take part in taking out Iraqi T-72s and suffer no loss. So you are valid to the point. Also T-54/55 in South West Asia were roll over by the IDF M50/51 Sherman.
That is again not true, American M1A1 tanks where up against Iraqi T-72B (Export version cleverly named Lion of Babylon by the Iraqis.) With poor equipment and sometimes firing Training ammonition. Alot of them also where dug in into fixed position rendering them immobile for fast paced blitzkrieg like warfare the Americans employed. Next to that Alied airsupport did a good number on the iraqi's aswell. Read up on the battle at 73 easting sometime i can recommend it.
@Greatherlorre The troops the US tank units attacked was the best highly trained Iraq republican guard, they were highly equipped and trained they hold there ground and fight to the death. But they where out match by the M1 tank and there optics/fire on the move and speed of the attack. US tank just out class them. The normal Iraq army would fire a few rounds and give up. The attack on the Iraq RG was so fast they didn't even have time to move out of there staging area they got ran over.
@PSG1JOHN1 They battled to the last man the iraq RG units and they all died 12 M1 rushed them and took out over 200 T72 and over 1000 iraq best died. They were using very good tank tactics in defending position, but the speed of the attack and power of the M1 tank out class them, they got overpowered. This was the largest tank battle T72 vs M1 tank
look russian tanks suck dick, so don't get your beards in a twist. NATO has been training to defeat em for as long as any of us has been alive and with the joint air force they wont last long anyways. They are made with the ideology of "overwhelm with numbers and big guns, but forget crew protection". WAIT BUT ODMNSS SHTORA!! not every tank is going to get that, in fact only command tanks are so that's like one or two for every 5-6? maybe more?
@poonjoo IT's not Soviet tanks that are the problem it's the people controlling them. At Kursk SOVIET T-34's took out Tigers easily, 1 T-34 took out 12 Panzer's and a Tiger.
Crew protection? The Soviet's revolutionized it with sloped armor. Not to mention the Soviet's actually though, easy to use, build, fast and light. Contrary to nearly everyone else
well don't complain about making m1 abrams 1st... they always make propaganda. they did not really want to rank/rate tanks. they only wanted to tell people that they make better tanks. vodkasvictim is right
It's slow, has a really small range and a lousy power to weight ratio. It's most salient feature seems to be the gun, the sites and it's simplicity. Sometimes you don't need to be best in every catagory, as long as you have the best in the most important ones you'll do a number on the other guy.
By concentrating their advance along the road network, Syrian forces set a predictable pattern of movement. This enabled Israeli armor to move unnoticed. After inflicting damage from the flank, the Israeli force would disappear. One lone tank would remain to lure the pursuing Syrian tanks into an ambush.
Within twenty-four hours the israeli 188th Brigade was almost destroyed. Ninety percent of the brigade's officers were casualties.
Those statistics were from the beggining of the golan campaign. Those were the last Syrian attacks. Later-on Israelis were the ones advancing. So two dammaged centurions could not have been mobile to engage syrians.
Neither could just two tanks destroy 20% of the enemy's entire force in the beggining of the war.
Perhaps this didn't score as high as some would have liked because the British never produced a vehicle that was in service more than it was under repair.
That guys head looks pointed to an abnormal degree. So much so that I don't feel the need to name him or at what point he appears.
Why is fear factor so low for this tank if two damaged ones beat 160 T62s? I suspect that the yanky program makers don't want anything beating M1 Abrams unless it's undeniable (T34)
Because the battle in which the 2 centurions held off 160 t62s was more like 2 centurions taking on the T62s one at a time over and over and over and over.
No i'm just saying that the way the reader said the situation was misleading. If any tank could hold off 60 other tanks all by itself with even odds then of course it would be the best tank ever. I could fight off 60 people if they came at me one at a time, that doesn't make me the best fighter ever.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that you meant that the narrator was being misleading.
By the way, if you can win 60 fights one after the other in a row, I'm impressed, I have enough trouble with one or two on a weekend... maybe I should drink less, lol.
Well actually the fighting thing is kinda of different because for tanks it's basically if the first shot doesn't kill your tank then your probably impervious to their tank rounds for the most part unlike humans + you'd eventually get tired.
I dunno you make a good point. But in all seriousness it probably isn't too high because chances are it was only used in the gulf between isrealis and the arabs so it probably isn't very well known. I'm not trying to be biassed I just think that's why.
It's 2 on 1 at a time. That's why its fear factor is low. ANY 2 tanks can go up against one. That would make the fear factor for every tank on Earth high.
@vodkasvictim because the opposition was syrian noobs, if it was facing 160 russians controlling those tanks instead of syrians we would have zerged rushed those 2 tanks :)
@Communist2012 Thank god I'm not the only one thinking that. Us(if you are Russian) are kinda crazy. T-34 charged Tigers, Russian's use tanks like no one else, hence why no other countries can use them well
@vodkasvictim It said 60 out of 160.The rest was most likely killed by other tech. I personally think Leopard 2 is one of the best tanks, but I argue myself with the Ukrainian T-84 and it's HUGE hp/t. ratio, which makes it great at outflanking anything, if main gun doesn't work (but I doubt, there's something what 125mm gun could not beat, or severely damage).On the other hand latest Leopard 2 with it's L55 120mm is at higher velocity, but I don't like that Germans deny .50 cal (or more) HMGs.
@Egodraco In WWII Cromwell was the fastest medium tank but It it didnt do well in D-Day or Market-Garden. For every PzIV lost 4 T-34 was destroyed.
A tank is a breakthru weapon that needs to withstand heavy fire fight back. Thats why I belive that Challenger II is the best tank today. If you want flank attacks just use Bradley APCs with AT rockets...
@vodkasvictim well it did say its a good tank and there was 1 innovation that placed it on the list if it didn't have that 1 innovation then maybe it would have been lower on the list don't get me wrong i don't like the abram tank either eats too much gas when that the thing the U.S wants
This tank was the answer of the british against German's Panther or Tiger...but WW2 finish before the Centurion could fight against its opponent. The first war this tank saw was the Corea's war in 1950.
because when it first came out petrol engines were the norm but after 1950(?) they were all euqipped with diesels, and many customers made their own upgrades like different engines or better firecontrol
You will think they learn a lesson with the Sherman Tommycooker. Petrol in a tank is very dangerous. Diesel less.The Russians used diesels in the T34.
You'd think people would do some proper reading and understand petrol was not what caused tanks to burn, in reality the main cause of fires in WWII tanks was ammunition fires. This is why the Wet Storage on the later M4 Shermans meant they burned only 10-15% of the time unlike regular non-wet storage Shermans which had a fire rate of 60-80%.
Similarly all WWII tanks burned more often, the Sherman was not particularly worse than any other tank. The Panther had a nasty reputation for burning.
@Keysmusic What like the Tiger & Panther ? (both petrol engined) most WWII era tanks used what were basically aeroplane engines it was not till later sufficiently powerful Diesels and Multi fuel engines were available in the west
Just an observation. I think you will find that the T-34 was diesel powered. British thinking was, (a) gasoline was easier to come by than diesel fuel,(I never did understand that logic!) (b) for the Horse Power required, it was easier to use awhat was on hand, ie. gasoline engines. The Cent tank and some other vehicles were fitted with "power-packs". Guaranteed for a set number of hours /mileage, then power-pack out, new unit in. It's all documented somewhere.
@arriviste2020 Yes thats why I said Diesels unavailable in the west. I do wonder if the marine diesels fitted to E boats could have been adapted to tanks as they made the E boats by far the fastest surface vessels of the war But they may have been just too big and heavy
The RR Meteor tank engine was a RR Merlin Spitfire engine detuned. The Meteor was the best allied tank engine of WW2. It was made until 1964. Diesel engines were later fitted. many countries re-powered the Centurion with US engines.
The Meteor was dropped because the newer Chieftain tank had new opposed piston engines than used any fuel.
Australia was in Vietnam many Aussie Vietnam vets including my uncle would disagree with you on that one.
Australia was the second largest contributor with troops after the United states.
Check out AATTV they were in vietnam when the war was only between North and South before complete western intervention they were advisors the U.S did the same thing too also check out the battle of Long Tan.
Canada vetoed on sending troops or involvement they did help shelter draft dodgers
We often highly rate the superb fire power & armour of the Centurion, but the exterior Christie Suspension System was as obsolete as its underpowered engine! In the modern tank warfare, good movebily prevent the tank from being discovered & aimed rate better than strength to overcome being hit. this tank is like the Elephant, slower than the Tiger! The side -exhaust pipe & the suspension system are easier get damaged / jammed than common torsion bar type by fragments or small arms.
2 of those destroy 60 T-62s...and they were both damaged....but low fear factor???
mrsupaflymoosie 3 days ago
I love that in the Challenger video they said it couldn't have a high fear factor because not enough were produced, yet in this video the production level is high yet still the fear factor is low...prime example of crap american logic
empdraco 3 days ago 4
i just hate this fatheaded american gays who think their weapon is good
luka2298 3 days ago
i dont know why fear factor is taken into consideration, if i see a tank of any kind that is coming towards me, i run like hell and hope it doesnt shot
spidlenexor 4 days ago
Arabs don't need tanks, they have Allah. And manipulate the hell for Western People.
Myanleader 5 days ago
The Indians used the Centurion to destroy the American M-47 Pattons and the upgraded (guns) Shermans in the 1962 conflict with Pakistan !!!
MrBoon008 1 week ago
2 tanks destroy a entire division? what you think kinds are watching this? and then it gets a low fear factor? eg: a guy in school hits three at a time. low fear factor...
fluidbuffalo 2 weeks ago
2 vs 150 tanks, 60 destroyed. I wonder how the Arabs used their tanks
iiisoposol2020 1 month ago
@iiisoposol2020 Problem dint lied with the tanks, but ye, the arab nations...
Syrian, Jordan and others where like=We are superior dont need training. So soviets litterly dropped the tanks off from the black sea with an attitude of=Here you go, enjoy, manual is inside in russian!
The egyptians however, WHERE very well trained and combat went completly diffrent there, with the egyptians even winning battles with very high losses to the isreali's
F4Wildcat 1 month ago
Like always I´m missing modern German or French or others. Modern tanks are only from USA, GB or Russia (but also not the latest ones). It seems that they don´t even lokk at them.
DennisAnderson96 1 month ago
Challenger is better than the Centurion IMO
mastercheif0124 1 month ago
@mastercheif0124
1 was made in 45, the other a few decades later, :p
MitchofSmeg 1 month ago
it was lucky to arrive late in for wwii otherwise the king tiger would had annihilated it :)
DarkBlitzkrieg46 2 months ago
Sorry two take out SIXTY in thirty hour battle; this should be the the NUMBER ONE TANK by a COUNTRY MILE
proprioceptive44 2 months ago
No 5 and low fear factor???? Welll two knockedout 150 T-62 and you gotta be very very very stupid to not fear this tank.
Lukeclout 2 months ago
leo 2 sucks
uzickimajmunac 2 months ago
Why such a low fear factor? IDK about you, but if 2 tanks destroy an entire division of tanks in one battle, I'd be shitting my pants if I was the enemy.
tankhunters 2 months ago
@tankhunters
I think it never really built a "omg its that tank" factor because it was really a workhorse, although it was epic, so many people used it it became like the FN FAL, a legend of its own, but unspoken.
MitchofSmeg 1 month ago
if this tank arrived a few years earlier that would have been epic
mrfantazzz 3 months ago
holy fuck....2x150 and they finished 60 without being knocked out, and fear factor is low? lmao.....at the challanger their excuse was that it wasnt produced in sufficient numbers to create a solid fear factor, this time there was no excuse so they just gave low fear factor and didnt say anything bwahahaha....
Lightblinder 4 months ago
WHAT low Fear factor?? Look ask older generations of Chinese PLA soldiers in the Korean war, ask the Syrian Armored Divisions. Tell u wat they'll wet their pants at the sight of the Centurion
Lukeclout 4 months ago
like ZG said, those guys at the Military Channel are so biased they cant even make good televison
Dagreatdudeman 5 months ago
@Dagreatdudeman
Well, hearing at the descriptions and stories of war machines and seeing some footage is fun.
But when they try to put them on a "best of" list, my bullshit senses start tingling.
1337soldiahs 5 months ago
"...First appeared in 1945, just too late to be abused in WWII" :p
Dagreatdudeman 5 months ago
Israel Army used these tanks in the "Battle of Golan Heights"
zergmon9999 5 months ago
POOPTANK, PANZER IS BEST
HyakuZaku 5 months ago
I think the Challenger is one of the scariest, if i see one i would shit myself more than the abrams
minja30000 5 months ago
Comment removed
dmax631 5 months ago
how the hell could this get low on fear factor this should be number 2 not the abrams
gta1771 6 months ago
Low fear Factor? they just said 2 of those damaged tanks took down 60 freaking tanks and it still gets a low fear factor!?
That tank is beast!
ZGzoids 6 months ago
This tank was designed and made in WW2.
NearAbbeyRoad 6 months ago
@NanKingRaddish it would be a short fight XD centurion ftw
nutterforever 7 months ago
2:24 Thats saying more about how incompetent and badly trained the Syrian crews were.. if it was 60 to 2, why didn't they just swarm the challengers? Just rush up, they might loose 2 or 3 tanks, but then they cam just rip the challengers from the sides and behind.
Must have been a lot more to it then what they tell us here.
evildeathmonkey1 7 months ago
@evildeathmonkey1 woops, I meant Centurion.
evildeathmonkey1 7 months ago
They completely forgot about fear factor : /
RandomEuropeanKid 7 months ago
Its hard topick an absolute at the end of the day Serviceability Reliability Service Life Effectiveness & Kills make No1.
The Abrams has largely gone against barely trained peasants who truthfully probably barely new how to use the damn thing they were in. And have largely been involved in sit & shoot Turkey shoots. Lots of Kills but little finess required
TheTabellarius 8 months ago
i love King Tiger tank,the best tank in WW2
MakcSib 8 months ago
@MakcSib tbh the tiger II [king tiger] had way to many problems happen with them in the field, it was a great tank but had no time to be perfected, i'd much rather say the T34 was better, heck the Panther was a modified version of it
DeathByCoco 8 months ago
@DeathByCoco T-34 best tank no question about it.Im totally respect russian tanks&russian warriors,but i have some kinda weakness to german tanks,auto,beer ;) Русские лучшие!!!Всегда.
MakcSib 8 months ago
like IS3 tank more
another505 8 months ago
isreals hero
gergar121 8 months ago
wat? so are they sayin that b4 the centurion a tank crew had 2 guess where their shots landed?
guns1312 8 months ago
wat? so are they sayin that b4 the centurion the tank crew had 2 guess where their shots landed?
guns1312 8 months ago
i dont know much about tanks but arent the IS tanks suppose to be somewhere in this list?
invalide014 8 months ago
@invalide014 they were big monsters and represented the future of russian tanks, but they had little to no impact on the war, and they were not used in huge numbers like the t34 and t55 after the war, they were slow and their gun had a slow rate of fire
packr72 7 months ago
Kind of fun how they give high marks for firepower but give low marks for fear factor.
adamcrookedsmile 9 months ago
Comment Removed By Centurion.
jasincl 9 months ago 26
0:51 Egghead wahahah
burrabit39 10 months ago
2 tanks vrs 160 lol dumb syrians they coulda just drove up jumped outa their tanks and wrestled them lol
MrRuffnecks 10 months ago
@MrRuffnecks
True... You would think after loosing, say, 15 tanks, they would just talk to each other, split into 3 groups and zerg rush the israelis from 3 sides. Syrian tank crew was something...
ArtypNk 10 months ago
@ArtypNk lol
MrRuffnecks 10 months ago
@MrRuffnecks it was more like 6 centurions vs about 100 t55s and t62s, 4 of the centurions were knocked out
packr72 7 months ago
where is pz5 panther?
zawadzkus1 10 months ago
the brits really had tank production and engineering down after WWII
MagnumPI4 10 months ago
loool low fear factor but it crushed sirian tanks...
acvaticlifE 10 months ago
cant wait to see this bad boy in World of Tanks
bigdog5994 10 months ago
During the Yom Kippur war the Centurion got a very favorable kill ratio against the Syrian army. Read Duel For the Golan or Heights of Courage fo more info. The Syrian army lost more than 800 tanks on the Golan, some of which were abandoned still in good working order by paniced crews. So why dosen't the Centurion rate higher in fear factor?
vampyregirl100 11 months ago
to be honest, when they made this show i think the decided the Abrams was number 2 so they didnt look biased, then threw numbered fucking darts at photos of all the others then made all the other crap fit in around it!
Fairyliquid2 11 months ago 64
@Fairyliquid2 lmao
MrRuffnecks 10 months ago
@Fairyliquid2 how come the German Leopard didnt make the list?
Sgtkillbot 7 months ago
@Fairyliquid2 Possibly true but the Centurion's definitely the tank of it's generation, fairly easily the best of the post-war tanks
AmurTiger 7 months ago
@Fairyliquid2 They still look bias, it would be less bias if they make Leopard 2 number 1.
Josetismo 4 months ago
@Fairyliquid2 i dont agree. this video is pretty accurate. i bet ur mad because ur german or british.
bensonwu8 2 months ago
@bensonwu8
yes im British but im not mad (dont care tbh)
if you watch the rest of the list you can see the clear imbalance of there daft scoring system
I.E
what the hell does numbers have to do with how good a tank is?..if i built 40 identical tanks and painted 21 red and 19 blue does this mean the red ones are now better?..no of course it doesn't if they are going to do this kind of thing then it should be done on the abilities/capabilities of the tank not a mix of opinion and silly scores
Fairyliquid2 1 month ago
@Fairyliquid2 Adolf hitler was a bigger tyrant than Saddam Hussein. The T-34 is more significance in history compared to Abrams.
Redwing9107 1 month ago
@Fairyliquid2 whatever, t-34 stays #1
mrsayrocknoanime 4 days ago
The Centurion IS NOT better than a Challenger.
MrMadpenguin 11 months ago
I just found out that Aryeh Nusbacher -the military historian on this show- actually had a sex change; who would have guessed?
Bond1721 1 year ago
@Bond1721 Great,girls like tanks to!
Keysmusic 11 months ago
Dont worry too much about the "yankee propaganda" The fact that 3 of the 10 tanks in the program are british speaks for itself ;)
fireflyman 1 year ago
Where the hell is the T-34!?
InfantryFodder93 1 year ago
@InfantryFodder93
Its #1 on the list.
Fearosius 1 year ago
@Fearosius
ive got a tougher question: wheres the leopard2A6
giroditalia 1 year ago
@giroditalia Yes. Where is the leopard? I think its better than the Abrams. The fact that the Abrams guzzles so much fuel is ridiculous.
EZdrifter21 11 months ago
@EZdrifter21 Also, the T-90 is not there, that thing is much better than the Abrams.
MrMadpenguin 11 months ago
@MrMadpenguin the t90 is not better than the abrams, the t90 is an upgraded t72, only the abrams and chally 2 have major combat experience the t90 does not, russian tanks have a poor service record since ww2, the abrams has better armor, a better gun that fires rounds designed to defeat the latest russian konkrat 5 era, the abrams has the 2nd best gun on the planet next to the leo2, which most leo2 have the l44 gun
packr72 7 months ago
@packr72 actually The Abrams uses the L44 lol but its a German gun
jasincl 6 months ago
@jasincl yes the abrams uses the l44 gun, so did the leo2 and only the a6 uses the L55 gun, i kinda hop the abrams will adopt this gun in the future, look out
packr72 6 months ago
@giroditalia
This show is about tanks that actually did something. Leopard, be it awesome as it is, didn't really do anything anywhere. Entire operationall history consists of firing a couple of shots here and there, hitting 2 or 3 IED's, and having 1 crew fatality.
ArtypNk 10 months ago
hmm.... why not take that tank metal and build new JOHN DEERE TRACTORS?
yanikivanov 1 year ago
When they talk about two Centurions fighting 150 T62's, the commander of those two tanks was LT Zvika Greengold, a man Chuck Norris wishes he was as badass as. They have a great article on him on badass of the week.
NAMEMEPLEASE 1 year ago
Centurian is a classic British tank. highly sophiscated, mobile and are design to fight out numbered out gun and are expected to win
Lukeclout 1 year ago
Oh yeah, 1973 battle for Sinai of Yom Kipur War. 450 egyptian soviet tanks on search-and-destroy for 900 dug in, camouflaged israeli tanks. I'm sure it was a fair fight braindead american fans can masturbate over.
patrikasLTL 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL Yom Kipur War. The IDF with only around 180 tanks held off hundreds of Soviet tanks manned by the Soviets. Also, the IDF tanks only fear were the deadly Soviet anti-tank missiles. The IDF was too ignorant to change it tactics of moving against the Egyptian at first but when they did the IDF 3rd Army was few miles away from Cairo on Egyptian side of the shore. Luckily for the Egyptian the UN stepped in and stop the war.
916ppl 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL I meant Syrian T-55s. Did not know why I put the Soviets.
916ppl 1 year ago
Its scored low on fear factor because it only faced the t-60...any tank at that time could nail a t-60, especially ones manned by under-trained Syrians.
PhoenixNuke 1 year ago
@PhoenixNuke It's at tank from fucking 1945, I mean I know they up-armoured and up-gunned it since then but overall that should still say something about the thing.
TheGarand01 1 year ago
@PhoenixNuke
It faced quite rugged T-62's, T-55's and a load of enemy formations in Korea and Vietnam with the aussies. So i woudent count it out just yet.
Greatherlorre 1 year ago
@Greatherlorre T-55? lol. If M50 SuperSherman can destroyed them. Not mentioning T-72 were inferior to the old M1 and M1A1. What you think the M1A2 will do to the T-55s. T-80 and T-90 are better examples. Crap even the German 120mm are unable to completely destroy the M1 with their first shot using uranium deplete round. It would penetrate but it still function.
916ppl 1 year ago
@916ppl
Im talking about Korea, back in the fifties, the M1 Abram tank only came around in the nineties. The T-72 as it suggests was first around in the seventies. How is the comparison you make and blatant Pro-americanism even valid to the argument i made? With modern Nightvision/Guidingequipment/Computers and ammunition, even a T34/85 could take out a modern tank.
That and about every modern piece of armor coming from Russia nowadays is able to fire ATGMs from there barrels.
Greatherlorre 1 year ago
@Greatherlorre The North Koreans never had any T-54/55 during the Korean's war. They have T-34 and IS classes. T-34/85 was matched by the M4A3 Jumbo 76mm. The IS were matched by the M26 Pershing and the British Centurion. The US and its Allied armor preform well against the Soviet trained North Koreans armor. American in their M60 Patton take part in taking out Iraqi T-72s and suffer no loss. So you are valid to the point. Also T-54/55 in South West Asia were roll over by the IDF M50/51 Sherman.
916ppl 1 year ago
@916ppl
That is again not true, American M1A1 tanks where up against Iraqi T-72B (Export version cleverly named Lion of Babylon by the Iraqis.) With poor equipment and sometimes firing Training ammonition. Alot of them also where dug in into fixed position rendering them immobile for fast paced blitzkrieg like warfare the Americans employed. Next to that Alied airsupport did a good number on the iraqi's aswell. Read up on the battle at 73 easting sometime i can recommend it.
Greatherlorre 1 year ago
@Greatherlorre The troops the US tank units attacked was the best highly trained Iraq republican guard, they were highly equipped and trained they hold there ground and fight to the death. But they where out match by the M1 tank and there optics/fire on the move and speed of the attack. US tank just out class them. The normal Iraq army would fire a few rounds and give up. The attack on the Iraq RG was so fast they didn't even have time to move out of there staging area they got ran over.
PSG1JOHN1 1 year ago
@PSG1JOHN1 They battled to the last man the iraq RG units and they all died 12 M1 rushed them and took out over 200 T72 and over 1000 iraq best died. They were using very good tank tactics in defending position, but the speed of the attack and power of the M1 tank out class them, they got overpowered. This was the largest tank battle T72 vs M1 tank
PSG1JOHN1 1 year ago
what does that ''V'' on tanks mean?
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
2 vs a division and victory? and so low fear factor? Come on yanky! More fear factor!
malmman 1 year ago
A reliable workhorse-a great tank in any situation.
TruthApple88 1 year ago
wtf! 2 against 160? now that's quality. bloody yanks won't rank it higher :(
AAV47 1 year ago
look russian tanks suck dick, so don't get your beards in a twist. NATO has been training to defeat em for as long as any of us has been alive and with the joint air force they wont last long anyways. They are made with the ideology of "overwhelm with numbers and big guns, but forget crew protection". WAIT BUT ODMNSS SHTORA!! not every tank is going to get that, in fact only command tanks are so that's like one or two for every 5-6? maybe more?
poonjoo 1 year ago
@poonjoo IT's not Soviet tanks that are the problem it's the people controlling them. At Kursk SOVIET T-34's took out Tigers easily, 1 T-34 took out 12 Panzer's and a Tiger.
Crew protection? The Soviet's revolutionized it with sloped armor. Not to mention the Soviet's actually though, easy to use, build, fast and light. Contrary to nearly everyone else
Potts132 1 year ago
@Potts132 have you read the casualtys at both sides in the battle of kursk?
the germans lost way less tanks than the soviets ps:sorry for my bad english
a2k2k2k 1 year ago
Isn't that a Chieftain at 2:42?
Mahros1 1 year ago
@Mahros1
Yep.
Hey - this must be the first time this series of shows has ever made a mistake ... (wink)
Twirlyhead 1 year ago
did he say the range was 120 miles?
gtaj03 1 year ago
I guess they forgot the Panther
DeathHammer1994 1 year ago
Thanks for liking my comment people, I'm glad I have your approval :-)
vodkasvictim 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim I liked your comment becouse I am russian and I love the T-32
camo999999999 1 year ago
Great tank.
politirel 1 year ago
well don't complain about making m1 abrams 1st... they always make propaganda. they did not really want to rank/rate tanks. they only wanted to tell people that they make better tanks. vodkasvictim is right
Janforth04 1 year ago
Israel OWNED WITH 2 TANKS! RAISE THE FEAR FACTOR!
357951ish 1 year ago
@357951ish Yeah - there must have been plentty of Syrians on that occasion who would find the program's "fear factor" for the Cent rather low.
Twirlyhead 1 year ago
nr 1 abrams what a joke stupid program
slapperdepap 1 year ago
@slapperdepap
T-34 is #1...
OlderG0ds 1 year ago
It's slow, has a really small range and a lousy power to weight ratio. It's most salient feature seems to be the gun, the sites and it's simplicity. Sometimes you don't need to be best in every catagory, as long as you have the best in the most important ones you'll do a number on the other guy.
deezynar 1 year ago
I FUCKING HATE ADVERTISEMENT
jackuy12345 1 year ago 42
Propaganda.
By concentrating their advance along the road network, Syrian forces set a predictable pattern of movement. This enabled Israeli armor to move unnoticed. After inflicting damage from the flank, the Israeli force would disappear. One lone tank would remain to lure the pursuing Syrian tanks into an ambush.
Within twenty-four hours the israeli 188th Brigade was almost destroyed. Ninety percent of the brigade's officers were casualties.
Israelis lost 107 tanks
Syrians lost about 300
patrikasLTL 1 year ago
Those statistics were from the beggining of the golan campaign. Those were the last Syrian attacks. Later-on Israelis were the ones advancing. So two dammaged centurions could not have been mobile to engage syrians.
Neither could just two tanks destroy 20% of the enemy's entire force in the beggining of the war.
patrikasLTL 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL eh, look up zvika greengold.
dvdprui 1 year ago
Fear factor is very low
Kriegerdammerung 1 year ago
In '73 the Centurion sent a lot of lucky fellows off to get their "72 Virgins"...
randy95023 1 year ago
how is the Centurions fear factor that low? 2 of them knocked out 60 russian tanks. Personally I'd shit myself.
UberLordHindle 1 year ago
Perhaps this didn't score as high as some would have liked because the British never produced a vehicle that was in service more than it was under repair.
Sierra688 1 year ago
This is no bulldog! This is a wolf! <3 Centurium forever! I am truly speachless. <333
Tyco200 1 year ago 2
dose the centurion have night fighting sights?
KHfreak7526 1 year ago 2
@KHfreak7526 yes infa red
driftrunner5015 1 year ago
vyvinut proti hitlerovy,bojuje dodnes
hirosimaona 1 year ago
Centurion is a great tank. Simple, Robuust, a powerfull gun, good armor
I mostly like the Centurion AVRE. With a 165MM Demolition gun, thats the thing you want behind your tanks when you assault a position or a city
F4Wildcat 1 year ago 2
why has my commentt been removed???
diadorim1234 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
2 damaged centurions knocking out 60 syrian russian built tanks? That means the israelis are better then the best german tank commanders in ww2
diadorim1234 2 years ago
@diadorim1234 that only means that the israely soldiers had far supirior tanks.
derschatten82 2 years ago
More like supirior training.
Israely men get drafted for 3 years. Tankers probably serve their country longer.
Paciat 1 year ago 2
That guys head looks pointed to an abnormal degree. So much so that I don't feel the need to name him or at what point he appears.
Why is fear factor so low for this tank if two damaged ones beat 160 T62s? I suspect that the yanky program makers don't want anything beating M1 Abrams unless it's undeniable (T34)
vodkasvictim 2 years ago 60
Because the battle in which the 2 centurions held off 160 t62s was more like 2 centurions taking on the T62s one at a time over and over and over and over.
It wasn't 160 vs 2, its was one tank at a time.
yootubematt 2 years ago 2
So what? It's still a combat proven tank. Being used with good tactics shouldn't gain the vehicle a mark down.
vodkasvictim 2 years ago 3
No i'm just saying that the way the reader said the situation was misleading. If any tank could hold off 60 other tanks all by itself with even odds then of course it would be the best tank ever. I could fight off 60 people if they came at me one at a time, that doesn't make me the best fighter ever.
yootubematt 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that you meant that the narrator was being misleading.
By the way, if you can win 60 fights one after the other in a row, I'm impressed, I have enough trouble with one or two on a weekend... maybe I should drink less, lol.
vodkasvictim 2 years ago
Well actually the fighting thing is kinda of different because for tanks it's basically if the first shot doesn't kill your tank then your probably impervious to their tank rounds for the most part unlike humans + you'd eventually get tired.
k28xl 2 years ago 2
I dunno you make a good point. But in all seriousness it probably isn't too high because chances are it was only used in the gulf between isrealis and the arabs so it probably isn't very well known. I'm not trying to be biassed I just think that's why.
k28xl 2 years ago
It's 2 on 1 at a time. That's why its fear factor is low. ANY 2 tanks can go up against one. That would make the fear factor for every tank on Earth high.
DeltaPhi79 2 years ago
@DeltaPhi79
Any two tanks can go against one. That doesn't guarantee victory tho.
Would you like to see two M4 Sherman Vs. one Challenger 2?
vodkasvictim 2 years ago 4
@vodkasvictim this is just what I thought when I took a look at the list....especially after I discovered the leopard wasn't on the top 10....
Lightblinder 1 year ago
@Lightblinder the leopards never enter a war.
duyptnk 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim because the opposition was syrian noobs, if it was facing 160 russians controlling those tanks instead of syrians we would have zerged rushed those 2 tanks :)
Communist2012 1 year ago
@Communist2012 Thank god I'm not the only one thinking that. Us(if you are Russian) are kinda crazy. T-34 charged Tigers, Russian's use tanks like no one else, hence why no other countries can use them well
Potts132 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim It said 60 out of 160.The rest was most likely killed by other tech. I personally think Leopard 2 is one of the best tanks, but I argue myself with the Ukrainian T-84 and it's HUGE hp/t. ratio, which makes it great at outflanking anything, if main gun doesn't work (but I doubt, there's something what 125mm gun could not beat, or severely damage).On the other hand latest Leopard 2 with it's L55 120mm is at higher velocity, but I don't like that Germans deny .50 cal (or more) HMGs.
Egodraco 1 year ago
@Egodraco In WWII Cromwell was the fastest medium tank but It it didnt do well in D-Day or Market-Garden. For every PzIV lost 4 T-34 was destroyed.
A tank is a breakthru weapon that needs to withstand heavy fire fight back. Thats why I belive that Challenger II is the best tank today. If you want flank attacks just use Bradley APCs with AT rockets...
Paciat 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim well it did say its a good tank and there was 1 innovation that placed it on the list if it didn't have that 1 innovation then maybe it would have been lower on the list don't get me wrong i don't like the abram tank either eats too much gas when that the thing the U.S wants
Acekiller89 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim I agree - the goddamn fear factor isn't explained or explainable at all. Typical yank show horseshit.
Slugbunny 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim 60 not 160.
rsgalhero 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim You was thinking exactly the same thing even before reading your comment, about the Abrams that is, not the pointy head necessarily.
0Jebus0 1 year ago
@vodkasvictim He says they only destroyed 60..
Redwolven 11 months ago
@vodkasvictim t 34 top dog though.
starknight97 11 months ago
It was retired at the end of the 60's with the arrival of the Chieftain in British army.
Many countries buy this tank design in 1943 to resist against german's 88:
South Africa (Olifant); Australia; Canada; Egypte, Israel; Switzerland; Sueden, NZ; Nederland.
Metalgildas74 2 years ago
the centurion had a 75mm gun not 105mm
modernwarfare9009 2 years ago
Centurion Mk1 has a 17pdr Gun (76mm)
Centurion Mk3 has a 20 pdr Gun (83mm)
Centurion Mk5 has a 105mmL7 Gun
This tank was the answer of the british against German's Panther or Tiger...but WW2 finish before the Centurion could fight against its opponent. The first war this tank saw was the Corea's war in 1950.
Metalgildas74 2 years ago
man, if the centurion would have fought in world war two...
1993heavenshallburn 2 years ago
sooo better then the t-55
jeepdogpet 2 years ago
a very good tank, very underrated sadly also. this tank's performance was excellent in the korean war
steelpanther88 2 years ago 2
Centurion, finally the Brits get it right, after all the tank doctrine errors (instead of a medium tank they had infantry tanks and cruisers).
PanterausfG 2 years ago
Only,i don't understand why the Brits not used a dieselengine in the Centurion.
Keysmusic 1 year ago
@Keysmusic
because when it first came out petrol engines were the norm but after 1950(?) they were all euqipped with diesels, and many customers made their own upgrades like different engines or better firecontrol
Sevoverkill 1 year ago
You will think they learn a lesson with the Sherman Tommycooker. Petrol in a tank is very dangerous. Diesel less.The Russians used diesels in the T34.
Keysmusic 1 year ago
You'd think people would do some proper reading and understand petrol was not what caused tanks to burn, in reality the main cause of fires in WWII tanks was ammunition fires. This is why the Wet Storage on the later M4 Shermans meant they burned only 10-15% of the time unlike regular non-wet storage Shermans which had a fire rate of 60-80%.
Similarly all WWII tanks burned more often, the Sherman was not particularly worse than any other tank. The Panther had a nasty reputation for burning.
Mcplkelly 1 year ago 2
@Keysmusic What like the Tiger & Panther ? (both petrol engined) most WWII era tanks used what were basically aeroplane engines it was not till later sufficiently powerful Diesels and Multi fuel engines were available in the west
chitlika 11 months ago
@chitlika
Just an observation. I think you will find that the T-34 was diesel powered. British thinking was, (a) gasoline was easier to come by than diesel fuel,(I never did understand that logic!) (b) for the Horse Power required, it was easier to use awhat was on hand, ie. gasoline engines. The Cent tank and some other vehicles were fitted with "power-packs". Guaranteed for a set number of hours /mileage, then power-pack out, new unit in. It's all documented somewhere.
arriviste2020 11 months ago
@arriviste2020 Yes thats why I said Diesels unavailable in the west. I do wonder if the marine diesels fitted to E boats could have been adapted to tanks as they made the E boats by far the fastest surface vessels of the war But they may have been just too big and heavy
chitlika 11 months ago
@chitlika
The RR Meteor tank engine was a RR Merlin Spitfire engine detuned. The Meteor was the best allied tank engine of WW2. It was made until 1964. Diesel engines were later fitted. many countries re-powered the Centurion with US engines.
The Meteor was dropped because the newer Chieftain tank had new opposed piston engines than used any fuel.
NearAbbeyRoad 6 months ago
@chitlika
The Sherman was fitted with a diesel in WW2. Diesels were not liked as two types of fuel had to be transported.
NearAbbeyRoad 6 months ago
They were enormous gas guzzlers. I was driver on a 1954 Centurion MK 5 with a petrolengine. 10 miles per gallon.Offroad 4 miles per gallon.
Keysmusic 1 year ago
us Brits sure do like our armour lol
NottinghamForest22 2 years ago
Australia took this baby to Vietnam
ARNAZ86 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
um i dont think australia was in vietnam......vietnam was an american war
SeeMeNoMore111 2 years ago
Australia was in Vietnam many Aussie Vietnam vets including my uncle would disagree with you on that one.
Australia was the second largest contributor with troops after the United states.
Check out AATTV they were in vietnam when the war was only between North and South before complete western intervention they were advisors the U.S did the same thing too also check out the battle of Long Tan.
Canada vetoed on sending troops or involvement they did help shelter draft dodgers
ARNAZ86 2 years ago 2
The Vietnam war was not an American war, it was a Civil war. And the American's weren't the only foreign nations to be apart of it.
malkrow21 2 years ago 4
oh god...what have they been putting on your history books?
aussieblackhawk123 2 years ago
And the Vietcong send them back.
Keysmusic 1 year ago
We often highly rate the superb fire power & armour of the Centurion, but the exterior Christie Suspension System was as obsolete as its underpowered engine! In the modern tank warfare, good movebily prevent the tank from being discovered & aimed rate better than strength to overcome being hit. this tank is like the Elephant, slower than the Tiger! The side -exhaust pipe & the suspension system are easier get damaged / jammed than common torsion bar type by fragments or small arms.
9394JP731 2 years ago