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.

wow, that is an amazing photo!

:eek::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!!!!

Panther,

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

Tony

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Is it a Tank?
 

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?

-

Sweden's S-tank
 

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?