![]() |
![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Best all around T2K tank option | |||
Abrams: I don't care about logistics and I have plenty of maintenance guys |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
9 | 16.98% |
Challenger: Big & Bad but not quite as much hassle as an Abrams |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
10 | 18.87% |
Leopard II: Germany always builds the best |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
12 | 22.64% |
T-95 / FST: Yes, it looks stupid but it's the best the Russians have |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 1.89% |
LeClerc: it's nice to be neutral |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
T-80: ERA is cool |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
T-72: the Sherman of T2K, mediocre tank but there sure are a lot of them |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
6 | 11.32% |
M60/M48: My characters are from the National Guard and proud of it |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 7.55% |
Chieftain: "so, how much weight you think that bridge is rated for?" |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 3.77% |
Leopard I: hey'at least the armor is spaced. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Centurion: Love it, absolute favorite post WW2 tank, it should win the poll |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
3 | 5.66% |
T-62: 50's technology with soviet era build quality are any still running? |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
AMX-30: um I can't think of a reason (open to suggestions) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
T-55: Most blown-up tank of the post WW2 period. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 1.89% |
M-4: Sherman: Keeping it old, old, old school |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 1.89% |
T-34: Better than most 21st century AFVs in the same weight class. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 7.55% |
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? Last edited by kato13; 12-17-2010 at 08:31 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Merkava Mk.4 - The Israel's best tank.
__________________
************************************* Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge?? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Umm, no. It wasn't.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series. Last edited by Panther Al; 12-17-2010 at 08:15 PM. Reason: because I can't type to save my life at times... |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. ![]()
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
![]() That said, the only tank my PC's have ever had control of was a T34, so it would have got my second vote.
__________________
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird. Last edited by TiggerCCW UK; 06-14-2009 at 03:26 AM. Reason: Typo because I'm still getting used to the tiny keys on my BlackBerry. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. ![]() |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I voted Challenger as well.
__________________
![]() |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Challenger for me as well...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
For some odd reason, the notion of killing the fearsome 60-ton Tiger with an 8-ton light tank appeals to me greatly ![]() |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
![]() |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"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. " |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't understand all the love for the Challenger. It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And the tank looks sooooo much cooler too! ![]()
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
ground vehicles, polls, vehicles |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Sex in an Abrams Tank (Split from The Longer Version Part 11) | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 26 | 06-16-2009 05:43 AM |
Question: Man vs. older tank | Krejcik | Twilight 2000 Forum | 33 | 02-21-2009 07:40 PM |
OT: WWII Pacific Theater Tank battles? | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 03:04 AM |
Another interesting tank factoid... | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 02:59 AM |
T2013: Thoughts, Opinions, Hopes, & Fears | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 02:46 AM |