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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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?

: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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.;)

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

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

Chuck

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!!!

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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/articl...NGS6HID5A1.DTL

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

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.

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

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.

I think the Merkava is really the best
 

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.

Umm, no. It wasn't.

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.

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.

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!

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

Pic of LZ from Hell
 

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.