RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:12 PM
natehale1971's Avatar
natehale1971 natehale1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monroe, NC, USA
Posts: 1,199
Send a message via AIM to natehale1971 Send a message via MSN to natehale1971 Send a message via Yahoo to natehale1971
Default

I can't rember where i saw this... so if someone can confirm it, i'd appracate it.

During the recent war with Iraq, US M2 Bradleys had engaged Soviet built tanks and had destroyed them... is this true?
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:14 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Don't know if it's true, but as they're armed with TOW missiles, it's most certianly possible.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-03-2009, 02:45 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

From what I recall, Bradleys were given TOWs specifically so they could defend themselves from enemy tanks. a big fear was that some commmanders might then think of them as tank destroyers and get them wasted trying to kill tanks. But overall, yes they certainly could kill Iraqi tanks if needed
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-03-2009, 10:45 AM
cavtroop cavtroop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central, GA
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by natehale1971 View Post
I can't rember where i saw this... so if someone can confirm it, i'd appracate it.

During the recent war with Iraq, US M2 Bradleys had engaged Soviet built tanks and had destroyed them... is this true?
I was a Bradley gunner back in the early 90's - didn't go to the first war though. I heard lots of talk when I was in about the Bushmaster 25mm penetrating the front of T-72's from short range, but I'm skeptical. I haven't seen any evidence of this to date.

On the Bradley Wikipedia page, they do state: "The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks (at close range).", but there is no citation. A T-55, I'd have a better time believing.

It also used to say that the Bradley was responsible for more armor kills than any other weapons system. Assuming they mean everything from armored truck to tanks, I might believe that one.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-03-2009, 12:40 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavtroop View Post
I was a Bradley gunner back in the early 90's - didn't go to the first war though. I heard lots of talk when I was in about the Bushmaster 25mm penetrating the front of T-72's from short range, but I'm skeptical. I haven't seen any evidence of this to date.

On the Bradley Wikipedia page, they do state: "The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks (at close range).", but there is no citation. A T-55, I'd have a better time believing.

It also used to say that the Bradley was responsible for more armor kills than any other weapons system. Assuming they mean everything from armored truck to tanks, I might believe that one.
You can nail most Russian-built tanks from T-72 and below with newer generations of the TOW missile -- and definitely all of them from the side. But I've read in many sources that experiments with up-gunning the Bradley were put on indefinite hold after the invasion of Iraq since the 25mm M-242 autocannon proved to be much more effective than they thought it would be against vehicles and bunkers, and with HE rounds it was effective as an antipersonnel weapon as well.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Ed the Coastie's Avatar
Ed the Coastie Ed the Coastie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Newport, Oregon
Posts: 36
Send a message via MSN to Ed the Coastie
Default

I voted for the M-60 primarily because that was the MBT we used in the National Guard battalion to which I was assigned.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-04-2009, 07:04 AM
cavtroop cavtroop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central, GA
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
You can nail most Russian-built tanks from T-72 and below with newer generations of the TOW missile -- and definitely all of them from the side. But I've read in many sources that experiments with up-gunning the Bradley were put on indefinite hold after the invasion of Iraq since the 25mm M-242 autocannon proved to be much more effective than they thought it would be against vehicles and bunkers, and with HE rounds it was effective as an antipersonnel weapon as well.
The TOW-IIB is a flyover weapon, and attacks the top armor of the tank - I would doubt if there is a tank out there than can stand up to that (short of ARENA type defenses). Maybe something with reactive armor on top.

I've heard the same about the 25mm Bushmaster - that it works very well. I still can't believe it'll penetrate the front armor of a T-72, even at short range, though. T-55 I might believe though, but I want to see that referenced somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-20-2009, 01:17 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavtroop View Post
The TOW-IIB is a flyover weapon, and attacks the top armor of the tank - I would doubt if there is a tank out there than can stand up to that (short of ARENA type defenses). Maybe something with reactive armor on top.

I've heard the same about the 25mm Bushmaster - that it works very well. I still can't believe it'll penetrate the front armor of a T-72, even at short range, though. T-55 I might believe though, but I want to see that referenced somewhere.
from what I know it was a flank shot on a T-72.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-09-2009, 07:16 AM
cavtroop cavtroop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central, GA
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
from what I know it was a flank shot on a T-72.
I've heard everything from front glacis at 200m, to flank shot, to rear shot, etc. I still don't believe any of them OK, the rear shot, maybe, but I'm still skeptical. I'd love to see a pic of this - you have to believe they'd have taken them had this really happened.

Now the TOW will do it at any range
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-09-2009, 07:30 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,346
Default

Yeah, but can it be fired from orbit? I'll have to look it up, but for a time the US was knocking around the idea of essentially dropping a guided tungsten rod from orbit to knock out deep bunkers and other high-value targets. (A tank would actually NOT be considered a high-value target in this scenario.)

Here's a link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGS6HID5A1.DTL

Here's the Google Search I used:
http://www.google.com/search?q=rods+...utf-8&aq=t&rls

They're called Rods from God.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 09-09-2009 at 07:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-09-2009, 07:43 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
They're called Rods from God.
AKA Ortillery. During the terrifying final day of an excellent Gunmaster:2020 campaign that I ran the PCs were the targets of an ortillery strike. Scared the crap out of them but they survived. Well, survived that event anyway.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:55 PM
TiggerCCW UK's Avatar
TiggerCCW UK TiggerCCW UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post

They're called Rods from God.
I seem to remember the aliens using them to take out a US armoured formation in Footfall by Niven and Pournelle.
__________________
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,249
Default

Has anyone checked out the relatively new "Duel" series by Osprey Publishing? They've got an edition devoted to the M1A1 vs. the T-72 c.'91 and another on the way about the Centurion vs. the T-55 c.'73. Both would help make a more informed decision regarding the original poll question.

I haven't seen either one yet but I do have Panther vs. T-34 c. '43and Panther vs. Sherman c. 44 and they're both good.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-13-2009, 03:01 PM
SSGMike SSGMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 6
Default I think the Merkava is really the best

I voted M1, though I really think that the Merkava MK3 or 4 are the better tanks from a T2K point of view. The Merk's are very versatile, durable, and have some very usefully features for game play (internal capacity for 8 Infantry soldiers or extra ammo, 60mm mortar, etc.)

As for the M1 and T2K it would be quite possible in my mind as a GM to allow players to remove the turbine engine and replace it with a heavy duty diesel engine. A whole game could be created with finding the parts and tools necessary to complete the conversion. Though some may scoff at this idea, you only have to look back to WWII and all the field modifications that were made by Allied and Axis soldiers to improve their equipment or just keep it functional with what was available at the time. Maintenance wise, any MTB class tank requires 6-10 hours of maintenance for every hour of running time. Of course regular routine maintenance can hold this off, but eventually something major will break or wear out.

Finally in regards to the Bradley knocking out a T-72, I would definitely consider it possible for a few reasons. First, the T-72 was developed from the start as an export market tank only. The Soviets 's point of view was always that the tanks they sold to other countries would be inferior to what they maintained in their armies, so that if military action was ever required in those countries they should have the upper hand. The T-72's that Sadam bought were definitely not the latest versions, nor did the Iraqi Army do much, if anything, to upgrade them. Secondly, if the Bradley was engaging the the T-72 with DU rounds, as I would assume, there is additional pyrophoric reaction that occurs as the DU penetrator pierces the steel armor. Essentially the DU and steel armor begin to react and 'burn', melting the armor. This additional effect increases penetration on small caliber munitions, and creates significant secondary damage upon penetration. Even still, I would guess that the shots were flank or turret shots unless the Bradley was firing down on the T-72 there by reducing the effects of the slope of the frontal armor.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-23-2009, 02:59 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-23-2009, 03:04 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 762
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-17-2010, 08:11 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

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...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-17-2010, 08:57 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
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.
Wow, 320 metres. I was an infantryman and know bugger all about fighting in a tank but that seems pretty close! I bet your heart was pumping when you took that shot!
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-17-2010, 09:04 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

I still shudder at the phrase "tank danger close left!" till this day.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-19-2010, 06:16 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default Pic of LZ from Hell

Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 12-19-2010, 06:55 PM
cavtroop cavtroop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central, GA
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.
wow, that is an amazing photo!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-20-2010, 05:36 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.


Having said that, I had a flashback to a couple of Redcatcher warrent officers that would have tried to take the tank on with their M9s (still can't decide if it was due to an over dose of John Wayne movies; anybody crazy enough to fly in a helicopter really is crazy enough to try this; or if having to wear warrant insignia causes insanity)!

Great Pic Panther!!!!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-20-2010, 04:30 PM
helbent4's Avatar
helbent4 helbent4 is offline
Volunteer Timeline Errata Coord.
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
Mentioned a bit back that I had a pic I would post showing why you must always secure your LZ as soon as my computer was working, well it is and so here it is.
Panther,

What are we seeing again? Not what are the physical objects, but the context. Thanks!

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-20-2010, 05:57 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

In a earlier post there was talk about bradly's engaging T72's and if they could successfully. The one time I personally saw the results (Not the action) was when a medevac bird was landing out a LZ that wasn"t properly secured: The dead Blackhawk and the dead T72 are right where they was both killed. (Though I don't know if the Brad is what killed the 72 as it ran or not, I do know the blackhawk was klled when a Brad panicked and drove through it trying to aviod the T72 that everyone was certian was already dead.

It was a common spot to set up TCP's, and they had checked it out previously, since then owever they got it back up and running and was laying in wait for a good time to get themselves some yankees.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-23-2010, 03:35 PM
Stich2.0 Stich2.0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: 1st Marine Division
Posts: 13
Default

Personally. I'd pick the tank in the movie "THE BEAST". It could fit like 7 guys inside, had a flamethrower, could run on helicopter fuel and get a days worth of cross country movement on 20 liters, and couldn't be stopped by RPGs (only big rocks).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
I do know the blackhawk was klled when a Brad panicked and drove through it trying to aviod the T72 that everyone was certian was already dead.
Yeah, more like they just upped their T.K. ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-21-2013, 01:59 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab View Post
I took the T-34 primarily because it gets considerably better mileage than just about every other choice (I think the Sherman is the only one close).

If I could take a tank not on the list, I'd go with the THS-301,
I did a quick look and found fuel carried and range for the following tanks, then I did the math for gal/per mile.
Challenger II 421 gal - 160 mile 2.63GPM (Worst)
Chieftain 195 gal - 310 mile 0.62GPM (Best)
M1 420 gal - 265 mile 1.58GPM
M60 320 gal - 300 mile 1.07GPM
M48 200 gal - 287 mile 0.69GPM
Sherman 175 gal - 120 mile 1.45GPM (use gas)
Leopard II 420 gal - 340 mile 0.93GPM
LeClearc 449 gal - 340 mile 1.32GPM
T-80 240 gal - 208 mile 1.15GPM
T-72 320 gal - 290 mile 1.10GPM
T-62 360 gal - 200 mile 1.80GPM

I can not say that the numbers are correct as I know the M1's are not, but that was what I found with a quick seach. When I was on the M1's our tanks held 504.4 gal and could go all day on that and part way through the next before we had to fuel up, did not keep track of miles.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:01 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.
There is a weakness in the soviet design, besides there auto loader trying to load the gunners arm every now and then, the armor around the base of the turret is thiner, a 25mm AP can (did lots) penetrate just enough to set off the ammo that is stored there.

PS, all Nato tanks that I know of have a manual turret traverse, or at least all post Desert Storm.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:14 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 401
Default

As the JP-4, JP-8 and all that the M1 can run on any liquid that will burn, it runs best on diesel fuel, but most of the time we use JP-4/8 as it is what is on hand and works for everything.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-16-2024, 02:08 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,249
Default Is it a Tank?

In light of 4e making Sweden a campaign setting, is the Stridsvagn 103C (aka "S-Tank") an MBT?

It's almost always located in the MBT section of any book on AFVs. However, without a turret, its offensive capabilities are limited compared to conventional, turreted tanks. As MBTs were conceived and designed for offensive operations, does the S-Tank qualify as a true MBT? I see it as more of a tank-destroyer, suited almost exclusively to defense. With HE or HESH ammo, it could also work as an assault gun, a-la WW2's Sturmgeschutz 3. But MBT? I don't know...

What do you think?

-
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-17-2024, 03:54 PM
ToughOmbres ToughOmbres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: Central AR
Posts: 121
Default Sweden's S-tank

It does resemble a Jadgpanther with limited traverse and elevation but it was meant to take on other MBT's. Why not give the S-tank a pass and consider it an honorary MBT? As a referee you could wave it into a Swedish centered campaign as an MBT.

Did I remember correctly that the S-tank could carry mine dispensers at the rear hull for defense (ala' the Tiger) or am I confusing it with another system?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ground vehicles, polls, vehicles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.