Best Tank Poll & Opinions

[Targan]

I agree, The Beast was a good film. I mentioned it on the old forum a few times. Lots of great Soviet-made gear provided for the film by Israel which had captured it during its various wars with its neighbours IIRC.

[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.

[TiggerCCW UK]

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?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

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 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.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by kato13

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.

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?

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by Targan

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 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?

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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?

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!!

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Targan

Its probably in part a cultural thing. It is natural for Americans to like their own tanks.

Except I didn't pick the Abrams ...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by kato13

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 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.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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 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.

[copeab]

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.

[O'Borg]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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.

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Mohoender]

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.

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.
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.

[O'Borg]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

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

[Nowhere Man 1966]

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

Chuck

[mikeo80]

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 ) 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!!!