Best Tank Poll & Opinions

[Turboswede]

Hey, this is something I have been thinking about lately, what is the best tank in the T2K world. I remember being a kid and lusting after an M1A1 (or M1E1 per V1.0). My team played a whole series of adventures based off tracking down and then recovering an M1 and after 3 months we found one, killed the former owners, and had ourselves an honest M1A1 with composite armor and that 120mm gun.

We ended up using it for 2 adventures and then trading the damn thing. We didn't realize it at the time (ah youth) but an M1 is one thirsty bi**h and we found ourselves chained to a supply train where ever we went. To support that one tank we needed 4 HEMETTs to carry that 35 ton large still and then every 2 periods of travel we ended up needing to deforest a substantial portion of southern Poland. Of course that took manpower and we had to draft about 40 locals to run the trucks, set up and run the still and forage food for all of us.

It always reminded me of Kelly's Heroes where Oddball convinces Kelly that 3 Sherman tanks would be a valuable addition to the team. Unfortunately all the bridges are blown so now (because of the tanks) Oddball invites a team of bridging engineers along for the caper. Of course the pontoon bridge needs manpower to assemble so the bridging engineers bring along the army band and grave diggers company.

Next thing you know oddball is coming down the road and meets up with Kelly with the band piping away and a mile long column of troops, trucks, etc. When Kelly tells him "how the hell can we sneak into town with all that!" Oddball replies "Sneak?...we can fight, we got an Army!"

Anyway, as that scenario seemed to unfold we called it quits and traded the thing to the Warclow militia for a bunch of food and UAZ's.

So, in reality, is any tank worth the trouble in T2K and if so, what would you want?

[kato13]

Real world I went with M1. You just can't beat it.

Game wise I suppose a T-34 would be the best anywhere outside the Middle East. I almost picked the T-34 for real world as it probably had the greatest impact and was revolutionary in many ways.

Edit going to see if I can change the poll result in the DB (I voted M1 before reading that it was game wise).
Edit 2 Neat I can change votes. (not that I would ever use this power for evil)

[Benjamin]

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

[Cdnwolf]

Merkava Mk.4 - The Israel's best tank.

[O'Borg]

Tough call. The Cheiftain has a multi-fuel engine designed to run on petrol, diesel or anything inbetween*, which could be handy, but in T2K you're likely to be brewing your own fuel anyway so that advantage is somewhat nullified.
However the Chieftain was also somewhat unreliable by all accounts, so I'm going to go for the Challenger 2 on the basis that its as well if not better protected than the Abrams, isn't as fuel hungry, and holds the record for the longest range tank to tank main gun kill at 5+km.


* I've heard about an enthusiast who runs an old Abbot SPG - also fitted with a multifuel engine - for practically zero fuel cost. When people accidentaly put petrol in their diesel car the tank and fuel system has to be drained. He's got an arrangement with the local garages to take this 'useless' fuel off their hands for free.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I selected the T-34 for it's lower maintenance costs, lower weight and smaller profile although for real world choice I'd be stuck between the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2.
Sadly, the Merkava Mk4 was not part of the poll so it can't be selected
Most tanks designed from the 1970s on have multi-fuel engines
The T-34 was not designed by Walter Christie, it originated in a Christie design but was an improvement of the BT-5 light tank that was an improvement of earlier versions of BT to the BT-2. BT-1 was a slightly modified Christie design. Yes he designed the parent tank but he didnt design the T-34

[Adm.Lee]

For reliability, I would have gone with the good ol' Sherman, but I bet those parts are even harder to find.

So I said Challenger. It's all about the gun.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I went Chieftain for game purposes simply because its one of my favourite military vehicles of all time, and if its game terms I'll have what I like The real cold war vibe is what its all about for me!

That said, the only tank my PC's have ever had control of was a T34, so it would have got my second vote.

[Ramjam]

Centurion for me.

In rl is served for nearly 50 years and saw a shed load of combat.

In the game one of my grps found 1 in a museum armed with a 105mm gun. They really enjoyed using it until they got careless and it went bang.

[Grimace]

I was torn...between the Leopard II, LeClerc and Challenger. What it all boiled down to, in my mind, was the gun and general "warm fuzzy feeling". The Challenger fits the bill, in my mind.

[Targan]

I voted Challenger as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Challenger for me as well...

[Raellus]

The T-34 is cool and all but that 85mm gun is not going to be able to decisively defeat the armor on most tanks you'd be running across in central Europe.

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with a nice, souped-up version of the T-72. This assumes I'm in Poland or thereabouts. Here's why: spare parts and ammo shouldn't be too hard to scrounge. For a tank, it's supposedly pretty low maintainance. The Poles and Soviets (duh) use it so you might be able to sneak around a bit in it, or play Trojan Horse.

The T-80, IIRC, is basically a T-72 with a gas-turbine engine- the Soviet's effort to mimic the Abrams without starting from scratch. I didn't pick the T-80 since it, like the Abrams, is a gas guzzler.

If spares, and ammo weren't an issue, I would go with the Challenger II or Leopard II. If fuel wasn't an issue either, I would go with the M1A1, hands down.

[Matt Wiser]

M-1A1: if it's not made at the General Dynamics' Land Systems Plant in Lima, OH,....we did have a captured T-72 in our group, and did play Trojan Horse a couple of times. Actually, two T-72s at different times. The first one ran over an anti-tank mine....

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The T-34 is cool and all but that 85mm gun is not going to be able to decisively defeat the armor on most tanks you'd be running across in central Europe.

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with a nice, souped-up version of the T-72. This assumes I'm in Poland or thereabouts. Here's why: spare parts and ammo shouldn't be too hard to scrounge. For a tank, it's supposedly pretty low maintainance. The Poles and Soviets (duh) use it so you might be able to sneak around a bit in it, or play Trojan Horse.

The T-80, IIRC, is basically a T-72 with a gas-turbine engine- the Soviet's effort to mimic the Abrams without starting from scratch. I didn't pick the T-80 since it, like the Abrams, is a gas guzzler.

If spares, and ammo weren't an issue, I would go with the Challenger II or Leopard II. If fuel wasn't an issue either, I would go with the M1A1, hands down.

T-72 :

Although not a match for a fully operational M1A1 , or probably any of the "tanks of the line " from the west ,its economical ,hard wearing and prolific -it looks kinda cool too.

If I had a seperate subdivision of Brown&Root to supply me -the M1A1 is the reigning champion in this weight class.(Many contenders havent tried for the golden belt yet though...LEOPARD II,LeClerc etc )

[copeab]

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,

[Turboswede]

Part of the reason for this post is my intense dislike for the Abrams due to the logistic support it requires. If you think about it a platoon of 4 Abrams uses 550 liters of fuel (say JP4) every 4 hours, given 12 hours of operation per day that’s (3 x 4 x 550) 6600 liters of fuel per day. So, to stay active each platoon basically needs 1 Tanker truck of fuel per day.

No matter how thick the Abrams armor or how powerful the gun, if the tanks can’t move then they are useless as tanks. Seems like the Abrams is darn near indestructible, but any one of those 7 fuel trucks per week could be taken out fairly easily. Given a logistic support base like we have had in the middle east the Abrams is just about perfect. But in central Europe with Russian FA all over its supply lines the Abrams would be a sitting duck.

I Love the Centurion, but for a T2K campaign I would think the T34 or T-55 would be Ideal. First off , neither one would be as conspicuous as an M-1 so the Russians (or poles or whatever) would actually need to identify who is in that tank before opening fire. Second is the fuel thing, a T-55 will operate on ½ the Fuel as an M-1 and will operate for a longer period if its external tanks are used. The T-34 is even more of a gas miser. As for the armor and gun combo, both the T-55 and the T-34 will withstand small arms and auto cannon fire rather well and would be effective against an M-1’s side or rear armor. Given that the M-1 will probably be out of gas, it shouldn’t be that hard to out maneuver.

If you take an example from history, the Panthers and Tigers of WW2 were clearly superior to allied tanks of the time. Problem was that they required a lot of regular maintenance, were thirsty and were out produced 10:1; coincidently that’s about the ratio of T-55s to M1s in the early 90’s.

[Targan]

Turboswede = Word.

I agree with his last post in its entirety. Except I love the Challenger more than the Centurion.

[copeab]

Only problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by copeab

On;y problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

as a former crewman I dont really see this as a problem - more of a possibility ...

I think the need to drink something posionous like that would be greater in a Moslem country than in the T2K Poland . I would think alcohol would be a common trade good -as it was in the centuries before petroleum products took over that role .

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by copeab

Only problem with the Russian tanks is you have to make sure the crew doesn't drink your brake fluid ...

I don't get it, do Russians like the taste of DOT3?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Turboswede

I don't get it, do Russians like the taste of DOT3?

Alcohol based fluid. First I ever heard of it was in the movie _The Beast_, but Dunnigan/Nofi mentioned it in their book _Dirty Little Secrets_.

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by copeab

Alcohol based fluid. First I ever heard of it was in the movie _The Beast_, but Dunnigan/Nofi mentioned it in their book _Dirty Little Secrets_.

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Turboswede

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

Well, it's *called* a T-62, but yes.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Turboswede

As for the armor and gun combo, both the T-55 and the T-34 will withstand small arms and auto cannon fire rather well and would be effective against an M-1’s side or rear armor. Given that the M-1 will probably be out of gas, it shouldn’t be that hard to out maneuver.

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.

[O'Borg]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

I may be talking out of my hat, but IIRC on the early M1s didn't the engine have to be running to power the turret traverse? Then later marks (M1A2?) added a diesel generator to power the turret and other systems without the main engine being run.

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?

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

No power to traverse the turret, unless there is a manual traverse for emergencies?

Chaingun kills without DU munitions against frontal armor on T-55/62? If thats the case then why do we need 120mm guns at all?

[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 can check that out when I get home looking at my set of Combined Arms Rules (By GDW no less). In general WW2 armor would be devistated because of the invention of the HEAT and HESH rounds.

[Legbreaker]

The Beast - awesome movie but certainly not a blockbuster.
Shame it was destroyed.

The 76mm should do rather well against almost all WWII era vehicles up to and probably including the Tiger and Panther.
The thing to remember is that even on D-day, most of the allied tanks were still armed with low velocity short barrelled 75mm guns. The 76mm wasn't very widespread and the 90mm didn't see action until the very last days of the war I believe.

With the advances in ammo and gun technology in the past 60+ years, one would think the 76mm, a good, servicable weapon in it's earliest days, would be absolutely devastating against WWII armour.

However, anything much past Korea would probably be a crap shoot at best.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Turboswede

Thats right! I have never seen the Beast but I want to. Thats about the T-55 in Afghanastan, right?

great movie