T2K Tank forces

[The Dark]

The American 3/73rd would probably have still been equipped with the M551 Sheridan at the start of the Twilight War, since they kept them until 1997 in our timeline. They should have been able to replace losses from the Sheridan VISMOD that were used to simulate Soviet tanks in training. I think James had them deployed to Kenya in his article on the M8.

Originally Posted by cawest

also do you have a line to the page you reference. i'm new here. thanks

Paul's website has all sorts of equipment.

[Olefin]

I had the 2nd Battalion, 73rd Armored Regiment deployed with Sheridans (one company air dropped in the initial deployment) with the rest of their Sheridans lost in the convoy that was bringing them. They got both M8's and M48's as replacements due to the fact that there were shipments going to China and the Turks that were grabbed for the unit to replace the Sheridans.

i.e. "Twenty four M8 Buford light tanks, originally bound for China, and ten M48A5 tanks being sent to Turkey as replacements were reassigned to the battalion and arrived on the second convoy in May of 1998. "

[ArmySGT.]

The differences is in the Fire Control Systems (FCS) even among Warsaw Pact (WP) members. The Yugo M80-M84 has a wind speed indicator on the roof the helps the FCS compensate for crosswinds. The Kuwaitis had bought Yugo M84s.

Night vision driving gear, viewing equipment, laser rangefinders, and commanders sights all differentiate even among WP forces.

[Raellus]

RN7, have you seen Chico's Notes on Soviet Armor [in T2K]? It's quite good.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1i...5BWWlrN2M/view

Also, Austria used the SK-105 light tank/"tank hunter" (mounting a 105mm main gun) during the Cold War. AFAIK, it wasn't replaced until the Bundesheer adopted the Leopard II in the early 2000s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-105_K%C3%BCrassier

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

RN7, have you seen Chico's Notes on Soviet Armor [in T2K]? It's quite good.

Of course I have seen Chico's articles Raellus, but I have based my figures on data declared to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty which has been compiled in IISS Military Balance. I don't know were Chico gets his figures from but some don't match mine. For example Chico states that the Soviets built 6,000 T-90's by 1996, but in reality Russia has built 3,200 since 1993. Chico of course could be referring to projective production figures of a Soviet Union that never collapses which is churning out tanks due to a new arms race with the west, and we might see this number of T-90's been built. But I just based my figures on statistics on what was available in 1991.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, Austria used the SK-105 light tank/"tank hunter" (mounting a 105mm main gun) during the Cold War. AFAIK, it wasn't replaced until the Bundesheer adopted the Leopard II in the early 2000s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-105_K%C3%BCrassier

I deliberately excluded light tanks such as the SK-105. They are not MBT's and if you include them you might as well include tank destroyers, armoured cavalry and reconnaissance vehicles with large calibre guns and cannons and ATGM's. Some IFV's could even be included. Way to hard and unrealistic to compile under tanks.

[Raellus]

Just askin', man.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Just askin', man.

Raellus you should know by now that I like to cover all the angles!!

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by RN7

I deliberately excluded light tanks such as the SK-105. They are not MBT's and if you include them you might as well include tank destroyers, armoured cavalry and reconnaissance vehicles with large calibre guns and cannons and ATGM's. Some IFV's could even be included. Way to hard and unrealistic to compile under tanks.

Valid.

<tangent>

Having said that... for T2k player purposes, I like light tanks/recon vehicles/assault guns better than MBTs. Lower fuel requirements, armor sufficient to deal with small arms threats, and more plausibly within the capabilities of a PC team to maintain. An MBT crew really needs the backing of a larger formation or community that can help with maintenance and brewing fuel... otherwise they just own a really nice pillbox.

Yeah, land piracy will satisfy fuel requirements for a while, but sooner or later that's going to get the attention of one of those aforementioned large formations or communities and they'll deploy a hunter team to either seize or destroy the MBT. Better to stay below the radar as long as possible. If I were playing in a campaign centered on PC ownership of something more potent than a busted-ass truck, I'd take an SK-105 or AMX-10-RC or Scimitar/Scorpion or M8/LAV-75 (or Stryker MGS, for later eras) over an MBT.

Just my two kilos of reloadable brass...

</tangent>

- C.

[ArmySGT.]

Why was the thread edited to remove replies? Certainly isn't a flame war going on in here?

My two replies with links to ongoing funding of M1s the U.S. Army doesn't want in 2014 and more funding in 2016, with replies by OP.