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.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[O'Borg]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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 fare against the armour of WW2 era tanks like the T34 or Tiger?

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by O'Borg

I've always been curious, how would the gun of a modern light tank, say the 76mm of a 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.

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by O'Borg

I've always been curious, how would the gun of a modern light tank, say the 76mm of a 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]

Originally Posted by Turboswede

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

[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

[copeab]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by copeab

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

But it IS better.

And the tank looks sooooo much cooler too!

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

But it IS better.

And the tank looks sooooo much cooler too!

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.