Best Tank Poll & Opinions

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!!

[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

[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.

[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.