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?