- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the greatest military vehicle of all time?
Posted on 6/20/25 at 11:33 am to LSUfanNkaty
Posted on 6/20/25 at 11:33 am to LSUfanNkaty
I see your A10 and raise you a AC130
When every thing on the mountain side needs to die, you call the Ghostrider.
With miniguns, a 30mm and 105mm (basically a howitzer tube) cannon, bombs and hellfire missiles.
When every thing on the mountain side needs to die, you call the Ghostrider.
With miniguns, a 30mm and 105mm (basically a howitzer tube) cannon, bombs and hellfire missiles.
0
Posted on 6/20/25 at 11:39 am to SPAGHETTI PLATE
On the ground: Sherman tank
In the air: P51 Mustang or the British Spitfire
In the air: P51 Mustang or the British Spitfire
Posted on 6/20/25 at 12:08 pm to SPAGHETTI PLATE
The Willy’s or the warthog
Posted on 6/20/25 at 12:47 pm to SPAGHETTI PLATE
quote:
What is the greatest military vehicle of all time?
Propaganda
Posted on 6/20/25 at 1:44 pm to TigerHornII
The T-34 was a dog. Vastly overrated . Steering, optics, crew comfort/ergonomics were crap. Reliability was poop. Combined with an illiterate peasant army with almost no experience with anything more complex than a wheelbarrow, that wasn't good.
It more than made up for it in numbers and the 76mm gun had sufficient pop through '43. While the 85mm on the 34/85s didn't have the range or penetration of the German 88, it still was a significant upgrade.
It more than made up for it in numbers and the 76mm gun had sufficient pop through '43. While the 85mm on the 34/85s didn't have the range or penetration of the German 88, it still was a significant upgrade.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 1:57 pm to SPAGHETTI PLATE
Russian T-34 tank. Cheap to build, reliable and effective.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 3:32 pm to SPAGHETTI PLATE
M4 Sherman vs. Pz IV vs. T-34
M4 had reliability, sized appropriately for trans ocean transport, easier to maintain, could be built in huge numbers. The US was slow to realize the need to up-gun because 1. the 75mm was use on the M3 Lee in North Africa and out performed the Pz III &IV (pre long 75mm) and 2. They prioritized stronger guns for their tank destroyer arm. The 76mm gun later implemented gave it parity with the Pz IV and it's long 75mm.
Pz. IV over designed for sure, but a very capable and adaptable design and the long 75mm made it dangerous for anything but the heaviest Allied tanks. They waited too long to find ways to roll back the over design to produce them faster.
T-34. Changed tank design big time with sloped armor and wide tracks. Its center of gravity was also closer to the center of the vehicle so it wouldn't nose into the ground. Transmission reliablity was an issue for a while and crew egonomics left a lot to be desired. The introduction of the 85mm gun was a game changer. Also could be built in numbers.
I'd take the Sherman out of the three, but, to answer the OP's question, I concur with others who mentioned the 2 1/2 ton trucks GMC CCKW "Jimmy". Logistics simply kick butt in industrial warfare.
M4 had reliability, sized appropriately for trans ocean transport, easier to maintain, could be built in huge numbers. The US was slow to realize the need to up-gun because 1. the 75mm was use on the M3 Lee in North Africa and out performed the Pz III &IV (pre long 75mm) and 2. They prioritized stronger guns for their tank destroyer arm. The 76mm gun later implemented gave it parity with the Pz IV and it's long 75mm.
Pz. IV over designed for sure, but a very capable and adaptable design and the long 75mm made it dangerous for anything but the heaviest Allied tanks. They waited too long to find ways to roll back the over design to produce them faster.
T-34. Changed tank design big time with sloped armor and wide tracks. Its center of gravity was also closer to the center of the vehicle so it wouldn't nose into the ground. Transmission reliablity was an issue for a while and crew egonomics left a lot to be desired. The introduction of the 85mm gun was a game changer. Also could be built in numbers.
I'd take the Sherman out of the three, but, to answer the OP's question, I concur with others who mentioned the 2 1/2 ton trucks GMC CCKW "Jimmy". Logistics simply kick butt in industrial warfare.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 3:40 pm to SpotCheckBilly
quote:
Posted on 6/20/25 at 4:06 pm to 777Tiger
The Eagle is certainly one of the most dominant air superiority fighters of all time. The design is now 50 years old, and is still in combat today with the Izzies.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 4:22 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
The Eagle
love that jet, have a soft spot in my heart for the F-4 too
Posted on 6/20/25 at 4:32 pm to tokenBoiler
Them damn jump boots were the most uncomfortable footwear ever made I wore cruit boots with the zig zag soles my whole time.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:06 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
I loved my Bradley on the range, in combat, hell no!! Abrams is a bad MOFO and should be in the top 3.
9 IED strikes and 1 VBIED strike on my Bradley in 04-05. I’ll take the Bradley any day.
We (my task force) had 3 Abrams that were hit and deemed unserviceable. 2 Bradley’s hit and unserviceable and sent to the scrapyard in Kuwait.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:09 pm to 214
quote:I know people
This post was edited on 6/22/25 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 6/23/25 at 5:58 am to chew4219
quote:
9 IED strikes and 1 VBIED strike on my Bradley in 04-05. I’ll take the Bradley any day. We (my task force) had 3 Abrams that were hit and deemed unserviceable. 2 Bradley’s hit and unserviceable and sent to the scrapyard in Kuwait.
Was there the same time frame. We had some that didn’t hold up…
Not saying they’re the worst but not the best
Posted on 6/23/25 at 5:59 am to SPAGHETTI PLATE
The Mongals had the largest empire the world has ever seen. Horses helped them win the battles, but they also used the for food (meat, milk, booze) and clothing.
The Comanches were a dying tribe. They were loosing multiple wars, and they were losing territory- until they got horses. They then grew into a large and powerful tribe.
That’s not even including horse’s role in knights and cavalry.
The Comanches were a dying tribe. They were loosing multiple wars, and they were losing territory- until they got horses. They then grew into a large and powerful tribe.
That’s not even including horse’s role in knights and cavalry.
Posted on 6/23/25 at 6:56 am to EmperorGout
quote:
T-34
Only because of its massive numbers. Russians actually preferred the Shermans we shipped to them. T-34 often needed complete overhaul after a 100 miles, average lifespan mechanically was 300 miles.
Posted on 6/23/25 at 7:16 am to sumtimeitbeslikedat
quote:Tiny little puffs of spit, papier-mâché and bailing wire.
or the British Spitfire
Effective and heroic.
Posted on 6/23/25 at 7:46 am to SoFla Tideroller
Hueys in Vietnam
This post was edited on 6/23/25 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 6/23/25 at 7:56 am to RollTide1987
quote:didn't have shite on the Tiger 2. It took 4 Abrams tanks to take out one Tiger 2.
T-34
This post was edited on 6/23/25 at 7:58 am
Posted on 6/23/25 at 8:16 am to SPAGHETTI PLATE
WWII Jeep, and nothing else is really close.
My 45 Ford GPW (Ford factory produced Jeep with a Willys motor)
My 45 Ford GPW (Ford factory produced Jeep with a Willys motor)
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News