Which tank of WW1 was the best overall and why was it the FT-17?

File: 5CC78B15-F1AF-4F78-A4C5-86209E5FDC3E-694-00000084323F11AE_tmp.jpg (53KB, 639x415px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 639x415px

*laughing in Russian*

>>2459611
Because it wasn't overcompensating wannabe land dreadnought

>>2459618
*Gets stuck*

Mk 4 was best.

>>2459682
Lmao
It was such garbage that its design was never tried again
The FT17 is the ancestor of all modern tanks design wise

File: FFBDA107-DE01-48F0-A89D-BE0396AC361F-694-0000008E11C92285_tmp.jpg (8KB, 258x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x194px

>>2459629

File: 1488570924744.jpg (69KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x333px

>>2459682

>>2459611
Fiat 2000
>turret
>engine compartment
>ventilator
It was quite simply the most advanced tank of the war.

File: Fiat_2000_cutaway.jpg (83KB, 666x373px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 666x373px

>>2460486

>>2460486
>Hey Luigi
>Yes Mario?
>What if we put the engine compartment.... under the crew! So that way the tank can be nearly 4 meters tall!
>... Luigi, you is genius!

>>2459731
>It was such garbage that its design was never tried again
Eh, it worked well enough as a design for moving over multiple trenches, but the tank makes trench warfare useless, so that makes the mk4 type tanks useless.

File: British_Gun_Carrier_Mark_I_-_60_pdr[1].jpg (331KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 800x576px

What do you guys think of the Gun Carrier Mark I? It was pretty much a big-ass 60 pounder gun mounted on a Mark I tank chassis. It was the first self-propelled artillery ever developed, but once they made it to the front, they were rarely used for their intended purpose and instead used to transport heavy equipment.