Top 10 Tanks That Changed Armored Warfare

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (591 votes, average: 4.53 out of 5)

Source: We Are The Mighty

The tank was introduced in World War I when Britain unveiled the then-secret weapon against German forces and were able to run these rolling fortresses right German barbed wire and trenches, firing cannons and machine guns into enemy fortifications.

Now, armored columns are a commander’s fist, punching holes in enemy lines and then rushing through them to annihilate opposing formations.

Here are 10 tanks that shaped armored warfare, either by completely destroying their enemies or by introducing new design features that gave them the edge in combat.

All licensed through Jingle Punks


  1. The VO is incorrect. The British used the Centurion very successfully in Korea; it was easily the best tank of the war. Also later in Suez.

  2. The problem of commander-gunner is greatly reduced once autocannons became a thing.

  3. Challenger deserves a place for holding longest range tank on tank kill

  4. The Centurion was used in combat by the Brits, both in Egypt and in Korea, some definite high points of the Cold War !

  5. What about the T-14 Armada?

  6. That’s a bullshit list

  7. The word Sabot is pronouced “Say Bow” the T is silent.

  8. Britannic hayyomatt

    The British and its empire used the Centurion in Korea and the Suez and was used by the Australians in the Vietnam War.

    Panzer II wasn’t a stop gap. The Panzer III was a stop gap.

    Panzer IV was a great tank, it was the most used by the Germans. But what did it change?

    CharB is the same story, it was a decent tank but it didn’t change anything. It also sucked when in combat.

    As for the Tiger. They were too rare and weren’t made very well. They came into existence because many of the French tanks, the British Matilda tank and the Soviet T34 were completely immune to German AT guns. Surely the Somaua or Matilda deserve the Tiger’s place? They made the Tiger happen and they made Germany waste materials on it.

    Shermans were rarely used against other tanks. No tank was really used against other tanks if they could help it. If you saw enemy tanks, you’d sent up your engineers not a tank platoon.

    Again, the M1Abrams is a good tank… But what has it changed? And how is it any different to something like a Leopard? We don’t have a lot of knowledge about it anyway. 20 Abrams have been recorded to be disabled beyond use in combat, but the British Challengers have suffered no losses at all and have the longest tank kill. What has the Abrams done? The Abrams is just generic.

    Tanks that changed armored warfare:
    -Mk IV tank, the first effective tank in history.
    -Vickers 6 ton, copied by the Soviets, Germans, Japanese, Chinese and many others.
    -Panzer IV, most produced German tank and was mistaken for Tigers countless times. Most stories and accounts of fighting Tigers were actually Panzer IVs.
    -T34, most produced tank of the war and was effective even afterwards.
    -M4 Sherman, a very basic tank which was easily modified, it also carried HE rounds and could defeat any German tank.
    -Centurion, the very first MBT. MBTs are important because of how much they cost, MBTs were quality over quantity. They rarely broke down and they could kill just about anything, they could also take hits. Much like the Vickers, everybody copied this concept of a single universal tank.
    -Renault FT, overrated when it comes to things like this but they were the first with a full 360 degree turret.
    -Whippet, this gave way to an entire new infantry unit, mechanised infantry.
    -SOMUA S35, T34 and Matilda. These were completely immune to German guns frontally. The Germans had to use AA guns to kill these at first.
    -Tiger I. Although with hindsight we can say the Tiger was a bad tank but during WW2, every Soviet and Allied tank driver was shitting themselves thinking they would get attacked by a Tiger. We thought they had thousands of Tigers. This changed tank warfare because tanks changed to anti-infantry roles, e.g the M4 Sherman.

    • ok Reddit expert

    • I agree with oyu in many things you wrote but i also disagree in many others.
      So first of all yes the Panzerkampfwagen III was a Stop gap. Tigers were too rare also right. But they werent poorly made. They were over engineered and just needed to much Resources. If you wanna see a “poorly” made tank look at the T34. there you can see the Cuts made by the Acetylen-Oxygen Burners used to cut the Plates into form. But then again the T34 was designed to get out qickly. Overrun the enemy Tanks with mass was the Plan.
      the Panzer IV was superior to the T34. Why? Better Range, Radio in every Tank (bette rcoordination), Better Trained Crew, and till 44 the “bigger” gun. In 44 the Production of the T34/85 started.
      If you look at Kursk the Russians won because they jsut overwhelmed the Germans with Mass. Yes its fine if your Panzer IV can take out 4 T-34´s but if there are 20 then youre still fucked.
      So next one, the antitank Guns of the German couldnt penetrate the Soviet Tanks and therefore the Tiger production started? You know that the 8,8 Flak gun was i nthere? the one the Germans used for antitank purpose since the start of the War? Or otherwise said they put theyre biggest AT gun in there. I would therefore assume that this one could penetrate the Armor of the Allied Tanks.

      The Abrams tank yes what has it changed? Good Question i couldnt answer. And how it differs from the Leopard 2? Its still using the L/$$ gun from the 80´s (yes the Americans call it a different name because its a licensed production from Rheinmetall, so they can name it different, stil lthe same gun). While the Lepard was upgraded in 98 with the L55 and then with the ridicoulous long name of the new Main Gun Rheinmetall produces. I think its something LLR L/47. Not sure of the “Name” there.

      M4 Sherman could defeat any Gemran Tank. Yes but the Distance. On mid range Distance its shots bounced off of the Tiger and Panther. And saying it like that any Tank can defeat any other Tank if its up close and hitting the right spot. So …… Yeah?
      The Sherman was so effective because it was designed to work everywhere. It was designed to be low Maintenance and it was designed to be spit out of the Factorys in Masses. BEcause British, americans, Free France and even Soviets used it. So alot to supply with that one.

  9. I’d give the British challenger tank a honourable mention as it’s been in almost if not every major conflict the Abrams has and has never lost a tank ever. It also has the the record for the the longest range tank on tank kill in history

  10. The M4 Sherman wasn’t a death trap at all it was the farthest thing from it its Armour was purposely thin so that rounds would over penetrate and not kill the crew with the spalling damage, most Sherman’s of every variant when knocked out had a crew survivability of 80-100 percent. In most cases the only time a crew would take casualties from being knocked out is if the person was hit directly or an HE shell didn’t over pen and detonated inside the tank.

    • Marcus Trant The sides of a Sherman would be too thick for an HE shell to make a successful detonation, though a standard AP shell would have enough penetration to do enough damage.
      Just Incase you want to know what tank is penetrating the Sherman, I’m talking about a Tiger tank.

    • +Dragon_GamingYT I’m confused could you clarify for me what kind of point you were making in your reply. I’m not being fecitious I genuinely don’t understand.

    • Marcus Trant what you’re saying is that the Sherman was purposely made thin so rounds could over penetrate, but this is highly false, because a standard AP round can pierce the armour easily, and detonate inside. HE rounds are meant to detonate as soon as it makes contact with anything.

    • +Dragon_GamingYT it’s not false though it’s real fact look up a video about the Sherman Im drawing a blank on the name of it but it’s on YouTube in the video they talk about the false myths of the Sherman being a death trap and how the tank was designed compared to its compatriots it describes what I’m talking about in there if you give me some time to dig around I’ll find it and post the link here.

    • Marcus Trant Please do. And please tell me why the M4 Sherman was purposely made thin

  11. Great list! The only thing I would change is removing the Panzer IV and adding the Panther. After tank producing countries stopped designated tank designs as light, medium and heavy. Tanks became designated as main battle tanks. Those designs would have the 3 best attributes of the light, medium and heavy tanks. Mobility, Firepower and Armor. The Panther is considered by many as the first true main battle tank.

  12. M1, while being a great tank, did not changed armored warfare at all. it uses the good oldfashioned everything. T14 Armata, with the crewless turret is the real game changer…..

    • How is that game changing? It will still have the piece of crap Russian autoloader

    • +Chad Justice crewless turret alows for great crew protection without big total weight of the tank, because the turret does not have to be that much armored. So that also means better mobility for the tank. Crap autoloader? Compared to what? US manual loader and gun without the ability to fire ATGM? Get some knowledge and come back later kid

    • +Ivan Mico Who cares about atgm. If you have a good doctrine it doesn’t matter. Yes crap autoloader. Take human loader who is faster thus raises rate of fire. Now the biggest point. The t14 has not fought anything and it will never be built in numbers that matter kid. Keep stroking that Russian propaganda dick and get back to me when the thing gets through a parade route with no issues

    • +Chad Justice manual loader is obsolete. Puts more men at risk and more logistics issues on army. Atgm gives a tank greater range and gives russian tanks the ability to shot at us tanks outside of their range. Btw when are americans going to invent active protection system for their tanks? Russians have it for decades now. ..

    • Ivan Mico And he never replied… xd

  13. this old info has been done to death. all the video is from other youtubers.

  14. I would replaced the char b1 with the FT-17

    • Char b1 wasnt even that good to begin with. Nicholas moran aka the cheiftain had high expectations of it but when he got around it he was not impressed

  15. Also the Sherman had one of the best crew survivability

  16. 5:41 you mean michael wittmann?

  17. SAY-BO, NOT SABBAT, NOT SAYBOW! I thought you guys would at least get this one right.

  18. When your in a Sherman and you see a tiger you will bail out before the battle even started

  19. This is a bad list, there is no reason why the Char B1 should be on the list, possibly the panzer IV also.

    Also, Missed:
    – No mention of the Panzer 3, the first tank with a full radio system
    – The T64, the first composite armor tank
    – The FT17, whose basic design is used on all modern tanks
    – There isn’t a mention on the development of APFSDS & Smoothbore guns

  20. Why does this sound like an ASMR video?

  21. The Centurion only at number 10 ?….and no chieftain with its semi reclined driver position ?…

  22. a usual with a item made by americans the american tank is the best. morons (the brits had virtually no losses in irak, so that one is better

  23. I realize that most of you are civilians and don’t know anything about warfare, much less tanks and military technology. This list is about tanks that had an huge impact on future tanks with their designs and technology. The reason why the Abrams is on this list at number 1 is not only because it is still one of the very best MBTs in the world and that isn’t even debatable, but because of the design and technologies it has. The Abrams lead to the British Challenger, German Leopard 2 and several other tanks. It also was the first to have a lot of the technologies that most modern tanks are just now using. Anyone that thinks the Abrams is outdated or isn’t very good, I would REALLY love to have a debate with you, but I can’t promise that I won’t make you look like a complete idiot.

    • MississippiRebel Also, the Abrams never made any high advances. Sure, it was a powerful MBT, but in 2018, the best MBT would be the Leopard 2a7, with decent speed, composite armour, and a fast turret speed. And ERA was first made in Russia, and was only introduced to the Abrams near the early 2000s. If there’s anyone who is plain ignorant, it’s you.

    • Denying the truth, are we?

    • Very arrogant attitude, but the FT-17 was far, far more influential than the Abrams was. Abrams should not be number one.

    • Dragon_GamingYT – Seriously??? Are you sure know anything about tanks because you are starting to sound really ignorant when it comes to tanks. As far as ERA, it’s been around for a while, but yes Russia was the first to use it, but that doesn’t mean anything. The reason why Russia uses it is because of their weak armor. Maybe you should come back when you actually know something because I can’t stop laughing what what you said about the Abrams never made any high advances. You should really do some homework.

    • MississippiRebel You should really learn some knowledge on tanks from other countries. The T-54/55s and higher had great sloped armour, and if it wasn’t for the MBT-70, the Abrams would’ve never been built

  24. Ww1 mk4
    French ft17
    Panzer 3
    Leopard 1

  25. Abrams is not an influencial tank by any means lol. The world powers already had mbt designes on the abrams level at the time. If you want to add salt on the wounds the early abrams used british armor, british gun (licensed 105 l7) and a german 120mm m256….

    • Are you a civilian or military because they abrams had an us designed armor and gun

    • +King Darkstalker being in the military doesnt mean a person cannot know about military tech. I said early abrams. I get abrams these days has local built armor and gun but the gun still is of german origin

    • Oh yeah, and the MBT-70, both West German and US design were the predecessors of the Abrams.

  26. Where’s my bob semple tank

  27. Mark 1 should be one, it started it all.

  28. When you have no idea about tanks but still make a video about tanks

  29. But the abrams is worse than a leopard 2 in every possible way

  30. Just saying the centurion wasn’t originally built with a 105 L7 gun as it first had a 17pdr then upgraded to a 20pdr gun

  31. Centurion was used in western Europe 1945 and Korea November 1950 by the UK.
    And WOW an American channel says the M1 is a tank that changed the way Amoured warfare was fought

    • The abrams is the only tank today that can use a smooth bore gun and still hit its target dead on with killing accuracy unlike other tanks

    • Really
      Not the Leopard 2A5/6 which the M1 gets its gun, the Leclerc, theType 90, the K-2 Black Panther, the type 10, the Altay, Merkava and the C1 Ariete which all use the same version of the Rh-120 Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun of 1974? Not the British Challenger 2 120mm rifled bore gun?

    • Oh and the M1A2 uses a German gun and British armour. The M1 used the M68A1 gun a licensed built copy of the Royal Ordnance L7 gun from the Centurion.

  32. You said sabot round wrong


  34. T-34? That was a kv-1…

  35. The tiger would usually run out of ammo before the allies could run out of tanks.

  36. Where’s the maus?

    • How did the Maus Change Armored Warfare? the one that was Build was still in the Factory when it was Captured and the second one was still in its Parts.
      And seeing how the Elephant already had Problems with too much weight (cant even climb a small hill without bursting into Flames) the Maus would have been as equally ineffective i would assume.

    • CIA Central Intelligence Agency it didn’t see combat, so it wouldn’t exactly have made the list.

  37. Bad list. Not gonna lie. Where is my boi Leopard? The king Tiger?

  38. The British used the Centurion in battle in Korea, and where was the Renault FT and the rotating turret

  39. Hey mighty… Just an FYI the first 2 clips or so in the T-34 explanation were actually of the KV-1 Russian Heavy. If you know… carry on… if not just so you know. Still +1 from me tho and shared!

  40. The Panzer IV didn’t have thicker Armour than the Sherman or T-34 due to its boxy shape while the Sherman and T-34 were sloped. As well it wasn’t as fast as the Sherman, and it’s reliability issues further make it an inferior tank to both the M4 and T34

  41. The M4 Sherman could definitely take on Tigers. What people don’t understand about tank warfare is that it doesn’t happen on a big open field. There are hills and defilades everywhere. the Sherman could reliably penetrate the tigers side Armour and was faster than the tiger. That gave it the ability to outflank and kill Tigers with a skilled crew

  42. I think the challenger 1 should have been instead of the Abrams. Mainly due to the fact that the British made the challenger some years before the Abrams and they sold the design to the US who used the choberham to make their tank (with a smaller gun than the challenger)

  43. T-54/55 where?

  44. So much wrong information here

  45. yeah…sure….m1 abrams takes the first place, as soon as i saw that, stopped watching

  46. Yes the British Mark 1 was the first ever, but it was only useful for it’s shock value. The original wasn’t good enough to actually break the stalemate.

  47. There was one tiger tank gunner who destroyed over 140 soviet tanks

  48. The french are just cheese eating surrender monkey

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.