Best Tank Poll & Opinions

[Targan]

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.

[Turboswede]

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.

[O'Borg]

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

[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

[copeab]

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. "

[copeab]

I don't understand all the love for the Challenger. It's logistics support requirement isn't much better than the Abrams.

[Legbreaker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[kato13]

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.

[Targan]

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.