Best Tank Poll & Opinions

[Turboswede]

Hey, this is something I have been thinking about lately, what is the best tank in the T2K world. I remember being a kid and lusting after an M1A1 (or M1E1 per V1.0). My team played a whole series of adventures based off tracking down and then recovering an M1 and after 3 months we found one, killed the former owners, and had ourselves an honest M1A1 with composite armor and that 120mm gun.

We ended up using it for 2 adventures and then trading the damn thing. We didn't realize it at the time (ah youth) but an M1 is one thirsty bi**h and we found ourselves chained to a supply train where ever we went. To support that one tank we needed 4 HEMETTs to carry that 35 ton large still and then every 2 periods of travel we ended up needing to deforest a substantial portion of southern Poland. Of course that took manpower and we had to draft about 40 locals to run the trucks, set up and run the still and forage food for all of us.

It always reminded me of Kelly's Heroes where Oddball convinces Kelly that 3 Sherman tanks would be a valuable addition to the team. Unfortunately all the bridges are blown so now (because of the tanks) Oddball invites a team of bridging engineers along for the caper. Of course the pontoon bridge needs manpower to assemble so the bridging engineers bring along the army band and grave diggers company.

Next thing you know oddball is coming down the road and meets up with Kelly with the band piping away and a mile long column of troops, trucks, etc. When Kelly tells him "how the hell can we sneak into town with all that!" Oddball replies "Sneak?...we can fight, we got an Army!"

Anyway, as that scenario seemed to unfold we called it quits and traded the thing to the Warclow militia for a bunch of food and UAZ's.

So, in reality, is any tank worth the trouble in T2K and if so, what would you want?

[kato13]

Real world I went with M1. You just can't beat it.

Game wise I suppose a T-34 would be the best anywhere outside the Middle East. I almost picked the T-34 for real world as it probably had the greatest impact and was revolutionary in many ways.

Edit going to see if I can change the poll result in the DB (I voted M1 before reading that it was game wise).
Edit 2 Neat I can change votes. (not that I would ever use this power for evil)

[Benjamin]

I went with the T-34 because its fairly easy to maintain and it's a decent all around combat vehicle. Besides it was designed by an American, Walter Christie!

Benjamin

[Cdnwolf]

Merkava Mk.4 - The Israel's best tank.

[O'Borg]

Tough call. The Cheiftain has a multi-fuel engine designed to run on petrol, diesel or anything inbetween*, which could be handy, but in T2K you're likely to be brewing your own fuel anyway so that advantage is somewhat nullified.
However the Chieftain was also somewhat unreliable by all accounts, so I'm going to go for the Challenger 2 on the basis that its as well if not better protected than the Abrams, isn't as fuel hungry, and holds the record for the longest range tank to tank main gun kill at 5+km.


* I've heard about an enthusiast who runs an old Abbot SPG - also fitted with a multifuel engine - for practically zero fuel cost. When people accidentaly put petrol in their diesel car the tank and fuel system has to be drained. He's got an arrangement with the local garages to take this 'useless' fuel off their hands for free.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I selected the T-34 for it's lower maintenance costs, lower weight and smaller profile although for real world choice I'd be stuck between the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2.
Sadly, the Merkava Mk4 was not part of the poll so it can't be selected
Most tanks designed from the 1970s on have multi-fuel engines
The T-34 was not designed by Walter Christie, it originated in a Christie design but was an improvement of the BT-5 light tank that was an improvement of earlier versions of BT to the BT-2. BT-1 was a slightly modified Christie design. Yes he designed the parent tank but he didnt design the T-34

[Adm.Lee]

For reliability, I would have gone with the good ol' Sherman, but I bet those parts are even harder to find.

So I said Challenger. It's all about the gun. :D

[TiggerCCW UK]

I went Chieftain for game purposes simply because its one of my favourite military vehicles of all time, and if its game terms I'll have what I like :) The real cold war vibe is what its all about for me!

That said, the only tank my PC's have ever had control of was a T34, so it would have got my second vote.

[Ramjam]

Centurion for me.

In rl is served for nearly 50 years and saw a shed load of combat.

In the game one of my grps found 1 in a museum armed with a 105mm gun. They really enjoyed using it until they got careless and it went bang.:p

[Grimace]

I was torn...between the Leopard II, LeClerc and Challenger. What it all boiled down to, in my mind, was the gun and general "warm fuzzy feeling". The Challenger fits the bill, in my mind.

[Targan]

I voted Challenger as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Challenger for me as well...

[Raellus]

The T-34 is cool and all but that 85mm gun is not going to be able to decisively defeat the armor on most tanks you'd be running across in central Europe.

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with a nice, souped-up version of the T-72. This assumes I'm in Poland or thereabouts. Here's why: spare parts and ammo shouldn't be too hard to scrounge. For a tank, it's supposedly pretty low maintainance. The Poles and Soviets (duh) use it so you might be able to sneak around a bit in it, or play Trojan Horse.

The T-80, IIRC, is basically a T-72 with a gas-turbine engine- the Soviet's effort to mimic the Abrams without starting from scratch. I didn't pick the T-80 since it, like the Abrams, is a gas guzzler.

If spares, and ammo weren't an issue, I would go with the Challenger II or Leopard II. If fuel wasn't an issue either, I would go with the M1A1, hands down.

[Matt Wiser]

M-1A1: if it's not made at the General Dynamics' Land Systems Plant in Lima, OH,....we did have a captured T-72 in our group, and did play Trojan Horse a couple of times. Actually, two T-72s at different times. The first one ran over an anti-tank mine....

[headquarters]

The T-34 is cool and all but that 85mm gun is not going to be able to decisively defeat the armor on most tanks you'd be running across in central Europe.

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with a nice, souped-up version of the T-72. This assumes I'm in Poland or thereabouts. Here's why: spare parts and ammo shouldn't be too hard to scrounge. For a tank, it's supposedly pretty low maintainance. The Poles and Soviets (duh) use it so you might be able to sneak around a bit in it, or play Trojan Horse.

The T-80, IIRC, is basically a T-72 with a gas-turbine engine- the Soviet's effort to mimic the Abrams without starting from scratch. I didn't pick the T-80 since it, like the Abrams, is a gas guzzler.

If spares, and ammo weren't an issue, I would go with the Challenger II or Leopard II. If fuel wasn't an issue either, I would go with the M1A1, hands down.

T-72 :

Although not a match for a fully operational M1A1 , or probably any of the "tanks of the line " from the west ,its economical ,hard wearing and prolific -it looks kinda cool too.

If I had a seperate subdivision of Brown&Root to supply me -the M1A1 is the reigning champion in this weight class.(Many contenders havent tried for the golden belt yet though...LEOPARD II,LeClerc etc )

[copeab]

I took the T-34 primarily because it gets considerably better mileage than just about every other choice (I think the Sherman is the only one close).

If I could take a tank not on the list, I'd go with the THS-301,

[Turboswede]

Part of the reason for this post is my intense dislike for the Abrams due to the logistic support it requires. If you think about it a platoon of 4 Abrams uses 550 liters of fuel (say JP4) every 4 hours, given 12 hours of operation per day that’s (3 x 4 x 550) 6600 liters of fuel per day. So, to stay active each platoon basically needs 1 Tanker truck of fuel per day.

No matter how thick the Abrams armor or how powerful the gun, if the tanks can’t move then they are useless as tanks. Seems like the Abrams is darn near indestructible, but any one of those 7 fuel trucks per week could be taken out fairly easily. Given a logistic support base like we have had in the middle east the Abrams is just about perfect. But in central Europe with Russian FA all over its supply lines the Abrams would be a sitting duck.

I Love the Centurion, but for a T2K campaign I would think the T34 or T-55 would be Ideal. First off , neither one would be as conspicuous as an M-1 so the Russians (or poles or whatever) would actually need to identify who is in that tank before opening fire. Second is the fuel thing, a T-55 will operate on ½ the Fuel as an M-1 and will operate for a longer period if its external tanks are used. The T-34 is even more of a gas miser. As for the armor and gun combo, both the T-55 and the T-34 will withstand small arms and auto cannon fire rather well and would be effective against an M-1’s side or rear armor. Given that the M-1 will probably be out of gas, it shouldn’t be that hard to out maneuver.

If you take an example from history, the Panthers and Tigers of WW2 were clearly superior to allied tanks of the time. Problem was that they required a lot of regular maintenance, were thirsty and were out produced 10:1; coincidently that’s about the ratio of T-55s to M1s in the early 90’s.

[Targan]

Turboswede = Word.

I agree with his last post in its entirety. Except I love the Challenger more than the Centurion.

[copeab]

Only problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

[headquarters]

On;y problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

as a former crewman I dont really see this as a problem - more of a possibility ...

I think the need to drink something posionous like that would be greater in a Moslem country than in the T2K Poland . I would think alcohol would be a common trade good -as it was in the centuries before petroleum products took over that role .

[Turboswede]

Only problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

I don't get it, do Russians like the taste of DOT3?:confused:

[copeab]

I don't get it, do Russians like the taste of DOT3?:confused:

Alcohol based fluid. First I ever heard of it was in the movie _The Beast_, but Dunnigan/Nofi mentioned it in their book _Dirty Little Secrets_.

[Turboswede]

Alcohol based fluid. First I ever heard of it was in the movie _The Beast_, but Dunnigan/Nofi mentioned it in their book _Dirty Little Secrets_.

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

[copeab]

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

Well, it's *called* a T-62, but yes.

[Raellus]

As for the armor and gun combo, both the T-55 and the T-34 will withstand small arms and auto cannon fire rather well and would be effective against an M-1’s side or rear armor. Given that the M-1 will probably be out of gas, it shouldn’t be that hard to out maneuver.

I'm not sure about that. During both U.S. wars against Iraq, there were plenty of Bradley 25mm chaingun kills against T-55/62s. A BMP-2's 30mm autocannon could probably kill them as well.

And you'd better hope that M1 has lost its turret traverse as well.

[O'Borg]

I'm not sure about that. During both U.S. wars against Iraq, there were plenty of Bradley 25mm chaingun kills against T-55/62s. A BMP-2's 30mm autocannon could probably kill them as well.

And you'd better hope that M1 has lost its turret traverse as well.
I may be talking out of my hat, but IIRC on the early M1s didn't the engine have to be running to power the turret traverse? Then later marks (M1A2?) added a diesel generator to power the turret and other systems without the main engine being run.

I've always been curious, how would the gun of a modern light tank, say the 76mm of a Scorpion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) fare against the armour of WW2 era tanks like the T34 or Tiger?

[Turboswede]

I'm not sure about that. During both U.S. wars against Iraq, there were plenty of Bradley 25mm chaingun kills against T-55/62s. A BMP-2's 30mm autocannon could probably kill them as well.

And you'd better hope that M1 has lost its turret traverse as well.

No power to traverse the turret, unless there is a manual traverse for emergencies?

Chaingun kills without DU munitions against frontal armor on T-55/62? If thats the case then why do we need 120mm guns at all?

[Turboswede]

I've always been curious, how would the gun of a modern light tank, say the 76mm of a Scorpion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) fare against the armour of WW2 era tanks like the T34 or Tiger?

I can check that out when I get home looking at my set of Combined Arms Rules (By GDW no less). In general WW2 armor would be devistated because of the invention of the HEAT and HESH rounds.

[Legbreaker]

The Beast - awesome movie but certainly not a blockbuster.
Shame it was destroyed.

The 76mm should do rather well against almost all WWII era vehicles up to and probably including the Tiger and Panther.
The thing to remember is that even on D-day, most of the allied tanks were still armed with low velocity short barrelled 75mm guns. The 76mm wasn't very widespread and the 90mm didn't see action until the very last days of the war I believe.

With the advances in ammo and gun technology in the past 60+ years, one would think the 76mm, a good, servicable weapon in it's earliest days, would be absolutely devastating against WWII armour.

However, anything much past Korea would probably be a crap shoot at best.

[headquarters]

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

great movie

[Targan]

I agree, The Beast was a good film. I mentioned it on the old forum a few times. Lots of great Soviet-made gear provided for the film by Israel which had captured it during its various wars with its neighbours IIRC.

[Turboswede]

I've always been curious, how would the gun of a modern light tank, say the 76mm of a Scorpion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) fare against the armour of WW2 era tanks like the T34 or Tiger?

I pulled out my rule sets for Command Decision and Combined Arms last night and looked up the WWII and modern vehicle stats. According to the omniscient staff of GDW a Mk VI Tiger has a Frontal Armor Rating of 10 while the HESH round from the 76mm gun on a Scorpion will penetrate an armor rating of up to 30 at a range of 1,500m. That means (using the GDW rule set) a 76mm Gun would have over a 50% (more like 80%) chance of destroying a Tiger at 1,500m.

Of course, if you make that a BMP-1 with an AT-3, the Missile can penetrate an armor value of up to 40 at a range of 3,000 meters, long before the Tiger would be able to get a hit on the BMP with its 88.

[O'Borg]

I pulled out my rule sets for Command Decision and Combined Arms last night and looked up the WWII and modern vehicle stats. According to the omniscient staff of GDW a Mk VI Tiger has a Frontal Armor Rating of 10 while the HESH round from the 76mm gun on a Scorpion will penetrate an armor rating of up to 30 at a range of 1,500m. That means (using the GDW rule set) a 76mm Gun would have over a 50% (more like 80%) chance of destroying a Tiger at 1,500m.
Thanks!

For some odd reason, the notion of killing the fearsome 60-ton Tiger with an 8-ton light tank appeals to me greatly :D

[O'Borg]

Btw - all British made tanks and AFVs from the Centurion onwards have had onboard BVs - that's boiling vessel or big kettle. The Army runs on tea :D

[copeab]

Btw - all British made tanks and AFVs from the Centurion onwards have had onboard BVs - that's boiling vessel or big kettle. The Army runs on tea :D

From a write-up I did on the Medium Tank Mark II:

"Also, many crews took advantage of the engine exhaust pipe laying along the top of the left rear fender by fixing a frame over it to hold a cooking pot that rested atop the (hot) exhaust pipe. The pot was normally used to boil a gallon or so of water, but could be used for other culinary purposes. "

[copeab]

I don't understand all the love for the Challenger. It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.

[Legbreaker]

It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.
But it IS better.

And the tank looks sooooo much cooler too! :D

[Turboswede]

But it IS better.

And the tank looks sooooo much cooler too! :D

I agree, for a big, thirsty tank, the Challenger is just the best looking.

[Targan]

I don't understand all the love for the Challenger. It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.
Its probably in part a cultural thing. It is natural for Americans to like their own tanks.

[Legbreaker]

It is natural for Americans to like their own tanks.
....no matter how useless they really are....

;)

[kato13]

I'm about as big of a fan of the M1 as you will find, but even I was a little perplexed by Australia's decision to buy M1s. Unless they always plan to use them while attaching themselves to the US's logistical tail.

Though the following story from Clancy's "Armored Cavalry Regiment" might have impressed the people making the purchasing decision.


Another more amazing M1 story happened during General Barry McCaffrey's 24TH Mechanized Infantry Division's run to the Euphrates River.It was raining heavily, and one m1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted.With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull it out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud bogged tank.One T72 fired HE antitank round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage.At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck , fired a 120mm armor piercing round at the attacking tank.The round penetrated the T72's turret, blowing it off into the air.By this time, the second T72 also fired a HE round at the M1.That alsohit the front of the turret,and did no damage.The M1immediately dispatched this T72 with another 120mm round.After that,the third and now last T72 fired a 125mm amor piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters.This only grooved the front armor plate.Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T72 decided to run for cover.Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there.Back in the M1 , the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm.Aiming carefully through the TIS,the M1's crew fired a third 120 mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."


The story continues with the Americans deciding to destroy the immobile tank but finding that even their own 120mm rounds could only ignite the stored ammo. After it was extracted (by 3 M-88s) and following a replacement of the ammunition storage and a reboot of the firing computer, it was back in action.

[Targan]

I'm about as big of a fan of the M1 as you will find, but even I was a little perplexed by Australia's decision to buy M1s. Unless they always plan to use them while attaching themselves to the US's logistical tail.
My main concern is the fuel consumption of the M1. Australia is really big, I mean vast, you'd think we'd go for something a little more fuel efficient. At least we'll be running them on diesel instead of JP4.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Won't that affect performance a bit? I'm not au fait with tank engines, but surely they'll need even more fuel using diesel then JP4? Or have I completely misunderstood relative fuel performances?

[kato13]

My main concern is the fuel consumption of the M1. Australia is really big, I mean vast, you'd think we'd go for something a little more fuel efficient. At least we'll be running them on diesel instead of JP4.

I would hope that any tank traveling more than 500km would do so on rail or a transport truck. Otherwise you would just be wearing out much more valuable equipment.

[Targan]

Won't that affect performance a bit? I'm not au fait with tank engines, but surely they'll need even more fuel using diesel then JP4? Or have I completely misunderstood relative fuel performances?
I was more thinking about cost and the fact that most of Australia's other ground military vehicles run on diesel. And call me old fashioned if you want but running tanks on jet fuel just seems really wasteful and strange to me.

[Rainbow Six]

The story continues with the Americans deciding to destroy the immobile tank but finding that even their own 120mm rounds could only ignite the stored ammo. After it was extracted (by 3 M-88s) and following a replacement of the ammunition storage and a reboot of the firing computer, it was back in action.

I don't get this...the tank was operational (obviously, as it managed to knock out several Iraqi Tanks) but stuck in the mud, so rather than try and tow it out, the US Army decided to destroy it?

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good (and expensive) tank to me, especially as they eventually managed to recover it and get it operational again. Is this a normal practice?

[TiggerCCW UK]

I was more thinking about cost and the fact that most of Australia's other ground military vehicles run on diesel. And call me old fashioned if you want but running tanks on jet fuel just seems really wasteful and strange to me.

I agree with the fuel commonality (is that a word?) being useful, and I know that diesel is a lot cheaper and more prevalent than JP4 - I just wondered would it come at a loss in performance/increase in consumption?

[Cdnwolf]

I don't get this...the tank was operational (obviously, as it managed to knock out several Iraqi Tanks) but stuck in the mud, so rather than try and tow it out, the US Army decided to destroy it?

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good (and expensive) tank to me, especially as they eventually managed to recover it and get it operational again. Is this a normal practice?


:D Ummm the Yanks DO sometimes ummm stretch out things a bit just to make them look less foolish... take the story with a grain of salt.

Umm Major sir... I ... umm got this million dollar tank stuck in mud ... so do you think it will affect my chances of promotion?

Oh did I mention I got attacked by a regiment of T-72's and a battalion of infantry?

Kewl... I get my promotion AND a medal now!! :rolleyes:

[copeab]

Its probably in part a cultural thing. It is natural for Americans to like their own tanks.

Except I didn't pick the Abrams ...

[Targan]

Except I didn't pick the Abrams ...
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.I did see your post saying that you chose the T-34. I think it is likely that many of those who chose the Challenger were probably from the UK and Commonwealth countries.

[Abbott Shaull]

I would hope that any tank traveling more than 500km would do so on rail or a transport truck. Otherwise you would just be wearing out much more valuable equipment.
I agree if you heading directly into battle and have to travel vast distances, I would hope they would be loaded on transports or rail flat cars to move the majority of the movement.

Otherwise the maintenance cost would be too much. Even for short distance marches a Company could see 4 to 8 of their tanks fall out from a March for repairs which can minor and performed by the M88(maintenance crew that following the company). Or they may need major repairs requiring Maintenance Platoon from the Battalion to fix.

[Abbott Shaull]

I don't get this...the tank was operational (obviously, as it managed to knock out several Iraqi Tanks) but stuck in the mud, so rather than try and tow it out, the US Army decided to destroy it?

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good (and expensive) tank to me, especially as they eventually managed to recover it and get it operational again. Is this a normal practice?
I think the main reason, was due to the speed of the US advance and the large number of Iraqi military personnel who were by-passed. It was probably Brigade Commander or higher call to destroy in place, rather than commit the resource to recover the stuck Tank.

It is a tank built to good for it the over all good of the force. Even M1s that have been disabled, you still have to commit resource to to remove the usable gadgets and parts off it, so they could used to repair other tanks. Then commit resource to remove the hulk and send back Lima for repairs or send to dispose of.

[copeab]

Somewhat off-topic, but I pulled out my copy of The Beast yesterday and started rewatching it. Then my 14yo nephew came and I restarted it so he could see it. He liked it ;)

[Targan]

Somewhat off-topic, but I pulled out my copy of The Beast yesterday and started rewatching it. Then my 14yo nephew came and I restarted it so he could see it. He liked it ;)
Very cool. Good uncle.

[O'Borg]

I think the main reason, was due to the speed of the US advance and the large number of Iraqi military personnel who were by-passed. It was probably Brigade Commander or higher call to destroy in place, rather than commit the resource to recover the stuck Tank.

It is a tank built to good for it the over all good of the force. Even M1s that have been disabled, you still have to commit resource to to remove the usable gadgets and parts off it, so they could used to repair other tanks. Then commit resource to remove the hulk and send back Lima for repairs or send to dispose of.
There was a similar incident at Tallil airfield. One M1 was disabled by enemy fire and two more got bogged, so the US destroyed the three tanks themselves.
Honestly, I'd have told their crews to wait there for recovery, left a squad or two of infantrymen to stand watch and set some demo charges just in case. What with allied total air supremacy calling for an evac if the Iraqis mounted a sudden counter attack would hardly have been out of the question.

[Abbott Shaull]

The next thing is the entire supply was very expose. Leaving security force, was the logical option. With the man power and conserve the combat effectiveness. One has to remember the Land force was being stretch the entire march to Baghdad.

[Mohoender]

I went for the centurion (if possible an israeli upgrade) as I love that thing. Otherwise, I would chose the Leclerc above the M1 (being nationalistic on that one) but, as a result, you'll need to supply trains (1 is not enough). For the AMX-30 there is a reason: it had a great engine but you only needed a can opener to stop it.:rolleyes:

M1 can't be beaten???? Ok if you are on openfield but I think I saw somewhere that they were brought back from Iraq to US for refit as they proved too vulnerable to a single man in urban setting. That's fairly true for any tank but I love it anyway:

You send 20 tanks against a single M1 and you end up with nothing.:D
You send a dedicated trooper (crazy or with steel nerve) with a high power charge and they end up with 4 sitting ducks in a very expensive wreck.;)

[O'Borg]

I went for the centurion (if possible an israeli upgrade) as I love that thing. Otherwise, I would chose the Leclerc above the M1 (being nationalistic on that one) but, as a result, you'll need to supply trains (1 is not enough). For the AMX-30 there is a reason: it had a great engine but you only needed a can opener to stop it.:rolleyes:

So it wasn't you who registered nine dummy accounts to vote for the Leopard II then? :D

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I voted for the old M60/M48, I kind of like those tanks and wanted to give them a helping hand.

Chuck

[mikeo80]

I know that this forum is dedicated to tanks and the best therof...And I will probably be hounded for heresy for what I write next.....

I wish to propose a vehicle that is ofter overlooked and under appreciated..

I refer to the M35 2 1/2 ton truck. Both times I played T2K, I was involved with 2 1/2's. The one scenario I particularly remember, I was a member of the 30th Heavy Brigade, NC National Guard, sent to reinforce 7th Corps.

Well, my job was in supply. Me and my gaming mates had to get the beans, bullets and bandages to the front line...wherever the heck THAT was...

Our 2 1/2's were un-armored, and with the exception of one truck, un-armed.

That fact helped keep us alive when the s*** hit the fan. We had one...count them..one M60 LMG...and our M16's and other assorted small arms when we were cut off from OUR unit on the way to the front.

That lack of firepower kept itchy trigger fingers QUIET when we saw (or at least we THINK we saw :p) some Soviet armor in the neighborhood.

IMHO...and the Sgt in charge of our little band agreed...DO NOT shoot at something BIGGER than you are...he might decide that you are small enough to KILL....NOW!!!

[natehale1971]

I can't rember where i saw this... so if someone can confirm it, i'd appracate it.

During the recent war with Iraq, US M2 Bradleys had engaged Soviet built tanks and had destroyed them... is this true?

[Legbreaker]

Don't know if it's true, but as they're armed with TOW missiles, it's most certianly possible.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

From what I recall, Bradleys were given TOWs specifically so they could defend themselves from enemy tanks. a big fear was that some commmanders might then think of them as tank destroyers and get them wasted trying to kill tanks. But overall, yes they certainly could kill Iraqi tanks if needed

[cavtroop]

I can't rember where i saw this... so if someone can confirm it, i'd appracate it.

During the recent war with Iraq, US M2 Bradleys had engaged Soviet built tanks and had destroyed them... is this true?

I was a Bradley gunner back in the early 90's - didn't go to the first war though. I heard lots of talk when I was in about the Bushmaster 25mm penetrating the front of T-72's from short range, but I'm skeptical. I haven't seen any evidence of this to date.

On the Bradley Wikipedia page, they do state: "The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks (at close range).", but there is no citation. A T-55, I'd have a better time believing.

It also used to say that the Bradley was responsible for more armor kills than any other weapons system. Assuming they mean everything from armored truck to tanks, I might believe that one.

[pmulcahy11b]

I was a Bradley gunner back in the early 90's - didn't go to the first war though. I heard lots of talk when I was in about the Bushmaster 25mm penetrating the front of T-72's from short range, but I'm skeptical. I haven't seen any evidence of this to date.

On the Bradley Wikipedia page, they do state: "The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks (at close range).", but there is no citation. A T-55, I'd have a better time believing.

It also used to say that the Bradley was responsible for more armor kills than any other weapons system. Assuming they mean everything from armored truck to tanks, I might believe that one.

You can nail most Russian-built tanks from T-72 and below with newer generations of the TOW missile -- and definitely all of them from the side. But I've read in many sources that experiments with up-gunning the Bradley were put on indefinite hold after the invasion of Iraq since the 25mm M-242 autocannon proved to be much more effective than they thought it would be against vehicles and bunkers, and with HE rounds it was effective as an antipersonnel weapon as well.

[Ed the Coastie]

I voted for the M-60 primarily because that was the MBT we used in the National Guard battalion to which I was assigned.

[cavtroop]

You can nail most Russian-built tanks from T-72 and below with newer generations of the TOW missile -- and definitely all of them from the side. But I've read in many sources that experiments with up-gunning the Bradley were put on indefinite hold after the invasion of Iraq since the 25mm M-242 autocannon proved to be much more effective than they thought it would be against vehicles and bunkers, and with HE rounds it was effective as an antipersonnel weapon as well.

The TOW-IIB is a flyover weapon, and attacks the top armor of the tank - I would doubt if there is a tank out there than can stand up to that (short of ARENA type defenses). Maybe something with reactive armor on top.

I've heard the same about the 25mm Bushmaster - that it works very well. I still can't believe it'll penetrate the front armor of a T-72, even at short range, though. T-55 I might believe though, but I want to see that referenced somewhere.

[Dog 6]

The TOW-IIB is a flyover weapon, and attacks the top armor of the tank - I would doubt if there is a tank out there than can stand up to that (short of ARENA type defenses). Maybe something with reactive armor on top.

I've heard the same about the 25mm Bushmaster - that it works very well. I still can't believe it'll penetrate the front armor of a T-72, even at short range, though. T-55 I might believe though, but I want to see that referenced somewhere.

from what I know it was a flank shot on a T-72.

[cavtroop]

from what I know it was a flank shot on a T-72.

I've heard everything from front glacis at 200m, to flank shot, to rear shot, etc. I still don't believe any of them :) OK, the rear shot, maybe, but I'm still skeptical. I'd love to see a pic of this - you have to believe they'd have taken them had this really happened.

Now the TOW will do it at any range :)

[pmulcahy11b]

Yeah, but can it be fired from orbit? I'll have to look it up, but for a time the US was knocking around the idea of essentially dropping a guided tungsten rod from orbit to knock out deep bunkers and other high-value targets. (A tank would actually NOT be considered a high-value target in this scenario.)

Here's a link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/INGS6HID5A1.DTL

Here's the Google Search I used:
http://www.google.com/search?q=rods+from+god&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls

They're called Rods from God.

[Targan]

They're called Rods from God.

AKA Ortillery. During the terrifying final day of an excellent Gunmaster:2020 campaign that I ran the PCs were the targets of an ortillery strike. Scared the crap out of them but they survived. Well, survived that event anyway.

[TiggerCCW UK]

They're called Rods from God.

I seem to remember the aliens using them to take out a US armoured formation in Footfall by Niven and Pournelle.

[Raellus]

Has anyone checked out the relatively new "Duel" series by Osprey Publishing? They've got an edition devoted to the M1A1 vs. the T-72 c.'91 and another on the way about the Centurion vs. the T-55 c.'73. Both would help make a more informed decision regarding the original poll question.

I haven't seen either one yet but I do have Panther vs. T-34 c. '43and Panther vs. Sherman c. 44 and they're both good.

[SSGMike]

I voted M1, though I really think that the Merkava MK3 or 4 are the better tanks from a T2K point of view. The Merk's are very versatile, durable, and have some very usefully features for game play (internal capacity for 8 Infantry soldiers or extra ammo, 60mm mortar, etc.)

As for the M1 and T2K it would be quite possible in my mind as a GM to allow players to remove the turbine engine and replace it with a heavy duty diesel engine. A whole game could be created with finding the parts and tools necessary to complete the conversion. Though some may scoff at this idea, you only have to look back to WWII and all the field modifications that were made by Allied and Axis soldiers to improve their equipment or just keep it functional with what was available at the time. Maintenance wise, any MTB class tank requires 6-10 hours of maintenance for every hour of running time. Of course regular routine maintenance can hold this off, but eventually something major will break or wear out.

Finally in regards to the Bradley knocking out a T-72, I would definitely consider it possible for a few reasons. First, the T-72 was developed from the start as an export market tank only. The Soviets 's point of view was always that the tanks they sold to other countries would be inferior to what they maintained in their armies, so that if military action was ever required in those countries they should have the upper hand. The T-72's that Sadam bought were definitely not the latest versions, nor did the Iraqi Army do much, if anything, to upgrade them. Secondly, if the Bradley was engaging the the T-72 with DU rounds, as I would assume, there is additional pyrophoric reaction that occurs as the DU penetrator pierces the steel armor. Essentially the DU and steel armor begin to react and 'burn', melting the armor. This additional effect increases penetration on small caliber munitions, and creates significant secondary damage upon penetration. Even still, I would guess that the shots were flank or turret shots unless the Bradley was firing down on the T-72 there by reducing the effects of the slope of the frontal armor.

[ChalkLine]

I went with the T-34 because its fairly easy to maintain and it's a decent all around combat vehicle. Besides it was designed by an American, Walter Christie!

Benjamin

Umm, no. It wasn't.

[ChalkLine]

Damn, no M551!

Okay, from a T2K point of view I have to consider a few things;

- Fuel use
- Ammunition requirements
- Mobility
- Spares

I'd go, tentatively, the Leopard II.
- It's the most economical and versatile in a fuel sense of the late generation NATO MBTs
- NATO hardly uses the L7 series guns any more, so 105mm ammunition would be hard to get. However, the Rh 120mm is commonly used, so I'd have a chance of rearming.
- It's very heavy, but still capable of getting over a lot of bridges.
- They made them over the border, so there'd be a few spares about.

[Panther Al]

A little more thread necromancy, but what the heck...

As I read this I just had to add my two cents. Game wise I would have voted on the Leo 1, realworld, and speaking as a former tanker with a ring around my barrel (T62@320metres) I wouldn't vote for the M1A2 surprisingly, I would say a Merk4. Its actually a good bit faster than a M1 on anything rougher than a playing field due to it much better suspension.

Reason I went with the Leo1 is in my mind ammo is easier to find as the 120 would be in much higher demand, armour is adequate for most combat, decent range, light enough I don't have to worry about that bridge, and let's face it: its a really nothing more than a well armed panther. Yes, Panther. Reason I say that is that I once found (in jane's I believe) the specs on armour slope and thickness on all sides of the hull and turret. Identical to the Panther AufG.

About fuel: the abrams runs on JP8, which also fills the tanks of everything from hunnvee's, bradly's, apache's, and what I have been told hery birds. Not to mention its actually pretty good engine coolant.

About the bushmaster and the T72, when we getting ready to head home some of our brad guys decided to find out if the du would do a T72. Since there was a number out in the desert near Al-Asad, they did some testing. From the front the answer is not no, its hell no. Opposite this from the rear (big surprise there I'm sure). From the side, well that depends. Under a hundred metres no problem, past that depends where on the side. The turret no, the hull yes, at least at 500m, they didn't try from further out.

If I ever get my compter working I have a interesting pic: its from a sister troop that learned the hard way that you must always, always, always secure a med-evac LZ, for the pilots didn't like being close enough to engage that T72 with their M9's before they was ran over by a brad running for cover as it was lighting up said T72, though it never punched it, the crew bailed and well... You can see what's left of the blackhawk with tank in the background close enough to almost read its markings.

[Targan]

As I read this I just had to add my two cents. Game wise I would have voted on the Leo 1, realworld, and speaking as a former tanker with a ring around my barrel (T62@320metres) I wouldn't vote for the M1A2 surprisingly, I would say a Merk4.

Wow, 320 metres. I was an infantryman and know bugger all about fighting in a tank but that seems pretty close! I bet your heart was pumping when you took that shot!

[Panther Al]

I still shudder at the phrase "tank danger close left!" till this day. :)

[Panther Al]

Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.

[cavtroop]

Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.

wow, that is an amazing photo!

[dragoon500ly]

:eek:Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.

:eek:

Having said that, I had a flashback to a couple of Redcatcher warrent officers that would have tried to take the tank on with their M9s (still can't decide if it was due to an over dose of John Wayne movies; anybody crazy enough to fly in a helicopter really is crazy enough to try this; or if having to wear warrant insignia causes insanity)!

Great Pic Panther!!!!

[helbent4]

Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.

Panther,

What are we seeing again? Not what are the physical objects, but the context. Thanks!

Tony

[Panther Al]

In a earlier post there was talk about bradly's engaging T72's and if they could successfully. The one time I personally saw the results (Not the action) was when a medevac bird was landing out a LZ that wasn"t properly secured: The dead Blackhawk and the dead T72 are right where they was both killed. (Though I don't know if the Brad is what killed the 72 as it ran or not, I do know the blackhawk was klled when a Brad panicked and drove through it trying to aviod the T72 that everyone was certian was already dead.

It was a common spot to set up TCP's, and they had checked it out previously, since then owever they got it back up and running and was laying in wait for a good time to get themselves some yankees.

[Stich2.0]

Personally. I'd pick the tank in the movie "THE BEAST". It could fit like 7 guys inside, had a flamethrower, could run on helicopter fuel and get a days worth of cross country movement on 20 liters, and couldn't be stopped by RPGs (only big rocks).

I do know the blackhawk was klled when a Brad panicked and drove through it trying to aviod the T72 that everyone was certian was already dead.

Yeah, more like they just upped their T.K. ratio.

[CDAT]

I took the T-34 primarily because it gets considerably better mileage than just about every other choice (I think the Sherman is the only one close).

If I could take a tank not on the list, I'd go with the THS-301,

I did a quick look and found fuel carried and range for the following tanks, then I did the math for gal/per mile.
Challenger II 421 gal - 160 mile 2.63GPM (Worst)
Chieftain 195 gal - 310 mile 0.62GPM (Best)
M1 420 gal - 265 mile 1.58GPM
M60 320 gal - 300 mile 1.07GPM
M48 200 gal - 287 mile 0.69GPM
Sherman 175 gal - 120 mile 1.45GPM (use gas)
Leopard II 420 gal - 340 mile 0.93GPM
LeClearc 449 gal - 340 mile 1.32GPM
T-80 240 gal - 208 mile 1.15GPM
T-72 320 gal - 290 mile 1.10GPM
T-62 360 gal - 200 mile 1.80GPM

I can not say that the numbers are correct as I know the M1's are not, but that was what I found with a quick seach. When I was on the M1's our tanks held 504.4 gal and could go all day on that and part way through the next before we had to fuel up, did not keep track of miles.

[CDAT]

I'm not sure about that. During both U.S. wars against Iraq, there were plenty of Bradley 25mm chaingun kills against T-55/62s. A BMP-2's 30mm autocannon could probably kill them as well.

And you'd better hope that M1 has lost its turret traverse as well.

There is a weakness in the soviet design, besides there auto loader trying to load the gunners arm every now and then, the armor around the base of the turret is thiner, a 25mm AP can (did lots) penetrate just enough to set off the ammo that is stored there.

PS, all Nato tanks that I know of have a manual turret traverse, or at least all post Desert Storm.

[CDAT]

As the JP-4, JP-8 and all that the M1 can run on any liquid that will burn, it runs best on diesel fuel, but most of the time we use JP-4/8 as it is what is on hand and works for everything.

[Raellus]

In light of 4e making Sweden a campaign setting, is the Stridsvagn 103C (aka "S-Tank") an MBT?

It's almost always located in the MBT section of any book on AFVs. However, without a turret, its offensive capabilities are limited compared to conventional, turreted tanks. As MBTs were conceived and designed for offensive operations, does the S-Tank qualify as a true MBT? I see it as more of a tank-destroyer, suited almost exclusively to defense. With HE or HESH ammo, it could also work as an assault gun, a-la WW2's Sturmgeschutz 3. But MBT? I don't know...

What do you think?

-

[ToughOmbres]

It does resemble a Jadgpanther with limited traverse and elevation but it was meant to take on other MBT's. Why not give the S-tank a pass and consider it an honorary MBT? As a referee you could wave it into a Swedish centered campaign as an MBT.

Did I remember correctly that the S-tank could carry mine dispensers at the rear hull for defense (ala' the Tiger) or am I confusing it with another system?