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
  #31  
Old 06-17-2009, 02:34 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-17-2009, 09:00 AM
Turboswede Turboswede is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-17-2009, 02:15 PM
O'Borg's Avatar
O'Borg O'Borg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-17-2009, 02:20 PM
O'Borg's Avatar
O'Borg O'Borg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-17-2009, 04:49 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
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. "
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-17-2009, 04:52 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 679
Default

I don't understand all the love for the Challenger. It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-17-2009, 06:15 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
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!
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 06-17-2009, 06:52 PM
Turboswede Turboswede is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-17-2009, 11:13 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-18-2009, 12:10 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan
It is natural for Americans to like their own tanks.
....no matter how useless they really are....

__________________
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
  #41  
Old 06-18-2009, 12:42 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,623
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

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:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-18-2009, 01:10 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-18-2009, 01:26 AM
TiggerCCW UK's Avatar
TiggerCCW UK TiggerCCW UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 663
Default

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?
__________________
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-18-2009, 01:32 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,623
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-18-2009, 02:01 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-18-2009, 03:31 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,610
Default

Quote:
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?
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-18-2009, 03:59 AM
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 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?
__________________
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-18-2009, 06:04 AM
Cdnwolf's Avatar
Cdnwolf Cdnwolf is offline
The end is nigh!!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
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!!
__________________
*************************************
Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge??
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-18-2009, 06:46 AM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
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 ...
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-18-2009, 07:13 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-18-2009, 08:40 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-18-2009, 01:29 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 679
Default

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
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-18-2009, 11:01 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-19-2009, 05:25 PM
O'Borg's Avatar
O'Borg O'Borg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-19-2009, 07:24 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-29-2009, 11:51 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-30-2009, 02:51 AM
O'Borg's Avatar
O'Borg O'Borg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-30-2009, 06:46 PM
Nowhere Man 1966's Avatar
Nowhere Man 1966 Nowhere Man 1966 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tiltonsville, OH
Posts: 325
Send a message via ICQ to Nowhere Man 1966 Send a message via AIM to Nowhere Man 1966 Send a message via MSN to Nowhere Man 1966 Send a message via Yahoo to Nowhere Man 1966
Default

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

Chuck
__________________
Slave to 1 cat.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:05 PM
mikeo80 mikeo80 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 962
Default

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!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ground vehicles, polls, vehicles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.