Best Main Battle Tank in The World

[Uxi]

Oh, yeah, human loader > autoloader. Any slower than 4 seconds (from ammo door open to "up" the safe/arm level will get a Marine loader a kick in the ass. Human loader can also be used to take the M16 and go take a look over that berm instead of skylining the whole tank/platoon/Co/Bn/RCT. And someone's gotta help the driver with the track work.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Uxi

[Smiley424]

I voted for the good ol M1. Pretty much right now, I think all the contemporary tanks are similar in performance and armament and it comes down to whose crew is better trained. First one to get a shot off is the victor.

[sketchley]

They already are there now with the Canadian Lord Strathcona's Horse regiment, and the apparently the Dutch army. ...

Glad to see Canada well represented in this thread. It looks like you hit the main points (and I'll repost them to clarify mostly for myself):

- cost

- immediate to really fast delivery of a large quantity

- upgradeable

- mission suited

- politically acceptable supplier

- source country willing and ready to sell all aspects of the military technology, and not withholding any of it

(the list isn't in any particular order.)

That pretty much sums it up. Sure, as a Canadian, I envy some of the strengths and capabilities of the other MBT out there, but when the reality check came, the best tank got itself purchased.

[reddsun1]

I know pretty much diddly about modern tanks; but isn't the M1A2's Achilles' Heel its excessive thirst for fuel? If an enemy commander were worth his salt and were to focus on somehow attacking the tank column's resupply/logistical chain, then he could greatly compromise their effectiveness?

I've always thought of the MAC II as basically being like a battery of battleship guns, with legs.

[F-ZeroOne]

Challenger 2s: Well 'ard.

"In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident."

[Warmaker]

The "Big 3" of MBTs, M1's, Chally 2's, and Leo 2's are all pretty tough tanks. The M1 has showcased how it can take some punishment ever since Desert Shield / Storm. It doesn't surprise me the Chally 2 has shown resilience considering it's newer gen Chobham Armor.

We'll see how the Leo 2 will take it with service in Afghanistan (but those crewmen won't like the "real world test"... nobody does).

[Mislovrit]

I know pretty much diddly about modern tanks; but isn't the M1A2's Achilles' Heel its excessive thirst for fuel?

That have been relieve somewhat with better engines and an APU unit with when the tank is idle.

If an enemy commander were worth his salt and were to focus on somehow attacking the tank column's resupply/logistical chain, then he could greatly compromise their effectiveness?

And any commander were worth his salt knows the enemy will attempt to repeatedly attack his resupply/logistical chain, and plan accordingly to protect.

I've always thought of the MAC II as basically being like a battery of battleship guns, with legs.

MAC II is a self-propel artillery unit not a tank though it have been use as an assault gun in the series.

[Mr March]

We'll see how the Leo 2 will take it with service in Afghanistan (but those crewmen won't like the "real world test"... nobody does).

I'm really hoping it works well for our service men and women. I think it will, especially the 2A6M which sounds like it's been modified specifically to deal with the theatre in Afghanistan.

I really like the look of the Leopard 2A6. It almost looks like it incoporates a stealth structure the way the turret is designed (but obviously it doesn't). It looks really cool and futuristic.

[Warmaker]

Really, should it surprise anyone that knows at least a tiny bit about tanks that Germans know how to build good, nice looking panzers? Between the "Big 3," I'll admit that the Leopard 2A6 looks really nice. The 2A5 brought in that "wedge" look to the turret and the longer 120mm gun is imposing.

As for info on tanks, Missing-lynx was a pretty good overall primer on tanks. I can't access it from where I'm at, but google it and you'll see the link. Good general info, even on some WWII era stuff.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Warmaker

[Mr March]

Indeed the Germans do make quality machines, no surprise there. Personally, I love The Armor Site. It's been my go-to website for anything tank related for years. Lots of information and tons of pictures.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Mr March

[kalvasflam]

Ah, WWII, the great tank battles in Kursk, Kharkov, and so forth. Imagine if we had a bird's eye view of those, and imagine, Leos and T-90s replacing the Panthers and T-34 of those days.

But I just can't imagine that happening today though. With air support and modern artillery, these battles would not really be tank battles but more of a combined arms fight.

I like the M1 myself, but only because it has seen more combat over the last decade than the other tanks here. But these others could work just as well or even better.

[mechaninac]

Ah, WWII, the great tank battles in Kursk, Kharkov, and so forth. Imagine if we had a bird's eye view of those, and imagine, Leos and T-90s replacing the Panthers and T-34 of those days.

But I just can't imagine that happening today though. With air support and modern artillery, these battles would not really be tank battles but more of a combined arms fight.

I like the M1 myself, but only because it has seen more combat over the last decade than the other tanks here. But these others could work just as well or even better.

For some pretty cool imagery on modern MBTs vs. WWII vintage tanks and the role doctrine plays on battle outcomes between woefully mismatched adversaries I suggest giving Harry Turtledove's Worldwar tetralogy a try. The books are incredibly entertaining reads.

[Noyhauser]

Tanks can and are being rebuilt to like new condition. Keeping them maintained at depot level is where lurch is.

Like new is not new. Refurbishing equipment might extend the lifetime of a piece of equipment, but it comes at the cost of increased maintanence costs and increased equipment failure. Moreover because of combat operations in Iraq, many pieces of equipment have already used up their entire service life in the space of a couple of years. "Refurbishment" isn't like getting new equipment, not even close. All this further erodes the capital available for R&D or upgrades. Right now, and probably until 2013 (considering that no major drawdown in Iraq occurs until 2009) approximately 80% of the DoD's capital budget will be taken up by repair or replacement of worn out equipment. Moreover that means that very little funding is going to near term R&D. The services are attempting to maintain their long term programs (the DDX, F-35, FCS) but little is going into short term stuff, like upgrading the M-1. What money is going into that is being prioritized for equipment that is viewed as essential to counter insurgency warfare.

So when you talk about a tank like the M-1, the upgrades on it aren't happening. all the money is being spent on keeping it just running, or paying for successor programs like the FCS.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Briareos9]

With the given question at this point and time, Abrams.

While the Leopard is a good tank it's a medium tank, not a MBT. The Russian tanks are also and designed around a doctrine that emphasizes heavy artillery killing things.

[Noriko Takaya]

I joined the Army back in the '80s to drive tanks and kill commies. I wound up a schmuck in a truck with a map and a hat.

Having seen a lot of the Abrams tank inside and out, in action and at base I love those big guys. I also saw a lot of T-72ish junk piles in my time in the Army and they really made me appreciate the design of the M1 so much more. Albeit I never crewed one they were around me a lot so I have a soft spot. I'm sure there are "better" tanks out there in the stables of the other big budget first world armies... but the Abrams holds a place in my heart, kind of like a kid's first car.

The actual vehicle I crewed (Humvee) on the other hand...

And I was a grunt who wanted to re-enlist to get into tanks, because I was tired of humping everywhere. I even took the required courses provided by the Marine Corps Institute to learn how to become part of a tank crew. Mind you, the tank the Corps still used at the time was the M60A1, with its piddly little 105mm main gun. The one good thing about the classes I took were the hands on stuff. Part of the requirements for passing were learning to drive the thing and understanding the operations of the weapons systems. My platoon commander was pissed I missed field training because I had to go to Las Pulgas to do these things. However, when I decided not to re-enlist because of a shortage of grunts, I got out.

[Uxi]

So when you talk about a tank like the M-1, the upgrades on it aren't happening. all the money is being spent on keeping it just running, or paying for successor programs like the FCS.

That's not true at all. The Abrams has been continous evolving and rebuilds are beyond the maintenance chain. Most of the tank inventory in the US Marine Corps, for example, have hulls built in the mid 1980s. The newest tank I was ever on had it's hull built in 1987, though my favorite was built in '85 IIRC. Most were much older. Many had turrets just as old, though I often saw newer turrets with older hulls (newest I can recall was a 1996 turret)... many were former M1's from the US Army that were bought from the USMC after being upgraded to M1A1. Many of these were also M1 converts, and there's been a mix of new builds but there are so many older hulls that the most common thing is new(er) turrets. 2nd and 3rd echelon maintenance goes a long way, but the rebuild systems are just as new as the stuff we got off of MPS from Diego Garcia. The Engines also significant engine change which replaced really tedious maintenance and the newer engines had a self cleaning filter system instead of requiring the manual blowing that the earlier ones did.

Upgrades of "black box" tech was frequent, particularly in the fire control system but also in the engine. Right before I got up, the next big thing coming was the "Delta mod," which brings the M1A1 electronics up to M1A2 SEP standards for the comm gear, etc but also included other assorted upgrades. Note that 2/3 of the US Army Battalions have no intention to ever upgrade beyond M1A1D... I saw at least two significant fire control upgrades, the complete replacement of the drivers thermal viewer with an entirely new tech, and we also saw the MCD (Missile Countermeasure Device) and new stoage plan. While the US Army was going to teh UAAPU (under armor aux power unit), the USMC had long used an external aux power unit (EAPU) which took up rear bustle space (which caused them to finally add an extention to replace that lost stowage). There were also relatively minor rearrangements of the way the 120mm ammo was stowed in the ready and semi-ready racks.

Continued deployments in Iraq aren't really an issue, at least for the USMC, who doesn't keep a super significant armor force. Where it sucks to be in Iraq now as a Marine tanker is crew fatigue since everyone wants the armor support but there are only so many to go around.

[Uxi]

And I was a grunt who wanted to re-enlist to get into tanks, because I was tired of humping everywhere. I even took the required courses provided by the Marine Corps Institute to learn how to become part of a tank crew. Mind you, the tank the Corps still used at the time was the M60A1, with its piddly little 105mm main gun. The one good thing about the classes I took were the hands on stuff. Part of the requirements for passing were learning to drive the thing and understanding the operations of the weapons systems. My platoon commander was pissed I missed field training because I had to go to Las Pulgas to do these things. However, when I decided not to re-enlist because of a shortage of grunts, I got out.

Heh, Las Pulgas is mostly used by the reservists now, though 1st Tanks (moved to 29 Stumps after 3rd tanks was disbanded) uses it sometimes for amphibious ops.

I was planning on doing an admin extension to my contract, but the admin pogues messed up the paperwork. No way was I going to reup, though.

[Warmaker]

Thanks for a tanker's insight, Uxi.

[Noyhauser]

That's not true at all. The Abrams has been continous evolving and rebuilds are beyond the maintenance chain. Most of the tank inventory in the US Marine Corps, for example, have hulls built in the mid 1980s. The newest tank I was ever on had it's hull built in 1987, though my favorite was built in '85 IIRC. Most were much older. Many had turrets just as old, though I often saw newer turrets with older hulls (newest I can recall was a 1996 turret)... many were former M1's from the US Army that were bought from the USMC after being upgraded to M1A1. Many of these were also M1 converts, and there's been a mix of new builds but there are so many older hulls that the most common thing is new(er) turrets. 2nd and 3rd echelon maintenance goes a long way, but the rebuild systems are just as new as the stuff we got off of MPS from Diego Garcia. The Engines also significant engine change which replaced really tedious maintenance and the newer engines had a self cleaning filter system instead of requiring the manual blowing that the earlier ones did.

Upgrades of "black box" tech was frequent, particularly in the fire control system but also in the engine. Right before I got up, the next big thing coming was the "Delta mod," which brings the M1A1 electronics up to M1A2 SEP standards for the comm gear, etc but also included other assorted upgrades. Note that 2/3 of the US Army Battalions have no intention to ever upgrade beyond M1A1D... I saw at least two significant fire control upgrades, the complete replacement of the drivers thermal viewer with an entirely new tech, and we also saw the MCD (Missile Countermeasure Device) and new stoage plan. While the US Army was going to teh UAAPU (under armor aux power unit), the USMC had long used an external aux power unit (EAPU) which took up rear bustle space (which caused them to finally add an extention to replace that lost stowage). There were also relatively minor rearrangements of the way the 120mm ammo was stowed in the ready and semi-ready racks.

Continued deployments in Iraq aren't really an issue, at least for the USMC, who doesn't keep a super significant armor force. Where it sucks to be in Iraq now as a Marine tanker is crew fatigue since everyone wants the armor support but there are only so many to go around.

Hmm, I've overstated myself, you're right. On the small scale stuff, I guess there is movement, and I was too brazen to suggest that "no progress." Its not surprising that that the black box stuff has seen upgrades, but then again the Europeans have been working in these areas as well. I'm curious though, how long will this continue as the belt tightening continues, and Rumsfeld's influence wanes (he was a huge proponent of the revolution in miltiary affairs and increasing IT's integration into vehicles.)

What I don't see however are the major upgrades to the M-1 that are similar to the the Germans and the Leo-2 line, which I was what I was referring to. Upgrading your electronic architecture is one thing, something expected as a result of RMA, but the underlying hardware is another, usually far more expensive than replacing a computer. Are their any major examples of this that you can think of? Your engine and Thermal Imagers examples seem like this is somewhat on the right track, though but even these don't seem to be major upgrades.

[Mislovrit]

While the Leopard is a good tank it's a medium tank, not a MBT.

The Leo 2 is a MBT not a medium like the Leo 1.

News from a few weeks ago

Copied from first post of this thread Army Considering "M1A3"?, Army looks to update Abrams line

By Kris Osborn

The Army is reversing earlier plans to retire M1A2 Abrams tanks and now plans to upgrade the 70-ton battlefield behemoths, making them more lethal, better protected, more networked — and able to serve through 2050.

In 1998, the Army had all but written off the tank, which cannot go over most bridges and is too heavy to deploy quickly and expediently by air.

“We were going to stop producing Abrams in 2005. The line was supposed to go cold,” an official with the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command said.

But the Abrams’ thick skin proved valuable during the Iraq insurgency, fending off enemy rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs that crippled lighter vehicles. To prepare the tank for its next decades, the Army is planning improvements.

“If you are going to keep it, the status quo won’t do,” said Rickey Smith, who directs the Capabilities Integration Center Forward at TraDoc.

Early versions of an “M1A3” capabilities development document have traveled from the Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., to TraDoc at Fort Monroe, Va., and will soon go to the Pentagon. At this point, the ideas in the document are considered preliminary and not yet official.

The Army intends its 60-tank Heavy Brigade Combat Teams to work with the Future Brigade Combat Teams that will come on line in 2015, as Future Combat Systems vehicles arrive.

“We will have to be compatible with FCS. When FCS comes in, we are going to have a fleet of Abrams, Bradleys and FCS armored vehicles. The critical thing is to get a communications package so they can talk to each other,” said Pete McVey, vice president of Abrams and derivative programs, General Dynamics Land Systems.

Preliminary work is underway on a more-networked Abrams.

“We are working on an integrated computer system. Whatever you do, there is a requirement for integrated engineering,” the effort to build digitized and networked vehicles, Smith said.

Workers in Warren, Mich., are equipping several tanks for tests, giving them B-kits containing FCS-compatible software, computers and communications gear.

The capabilities description document calls for:

• Lower logistical costs.

• Potentially replacing the M256 smoothbore cannon with the lightweight 120mm cannon being tested for FCS. This could allow an autoloader to lift the burden of the tank’s four-man crew.

• Improved propulsion system, road wheels and suspension.

• A track that can go 5,000 miles between replacements. FCS officials are testing new track ideas at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., including band tracks composed entirely or partly of rubbery material.

• Lighter armor and other components to reduce the tank’s weight, making it more mobile with an improved suspension.

For example, a look at the cabling in the tank shows that if fiber-optic cable was used, 1 1/2 tons can be taken off the weight, McVey said.

• Precision munitions that can hit targets 12 kilometers away. Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which aims to field its Mid-Range-Munition precision round by 2012, is testing two candidates: ATK’s millimeter-wave, kinetic energy round and Raytheon’s round with an infrared camera and laser detector.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Mislovrit

[Mislovrit]

But I just can't imagine that happening today though. With air support and modern artillery, these battles would not really be tank battles but more of a combined arms fight.

Kursk was a combined arms fight, most people completely forgot everything else in the battle except the tanks.

[Warmaker]

Yeah, Kursk was a melee with land and air arms of both Germany and the Soviets, but the tanks get the most mention. The air war in the battle was secured first by the Luftwaffe but the Soviets, given time, were gnawing away at it. Just as nasty in the skies as it was on the ground, and woe be the aircrew that bailed out / crash landed in the mess down below.

[Ratchet]

[Ratchet]

Tank Crews Want Better Streetfighting Gear

by James Dunnigan

March 24, 2005

Strategy Page

American tank crews have now had two years of using their M-1 tanks in urban areas. They now know that tanks are very useful for streetfighting. While the M-1 has done quite well, the tankers have developed a wish list of upgrades they would like to see. First priority goes to protection. While the M-1 has generally been invulnerable to RPG rockets, there are three parts of the M-1 that were vulnerable. First, there is the rear of the tank, where the gas-turbine engine spews out hot exhaust. Put an RPG round in there and you can shut down the engine. Tank crews have noted the success of the slat armor used by the Stryker. Some of this would work to protect the rear of the M-1.

The other vulnerability is the running gear (the wheels and tracks. These items were never meant to be resistant to RPGs, but a lucky shot here can slow down or stop an M-1. The solution here would be side skirts covered with reactive armor (that explodes when hit by an RPG, or anything else, and destroys the ability of the RPG to penetrate armor.) Neither of these additions would cost much, weigh much or otherwise lower the performance of the vehicle.

The third vulnerability is the turret machine-guns. The tank commander has a .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun in a powered turret, and the loader has a 7.62mm machine-gun. In city fighting, these two machine-guns are often more useful than the tanks 120mm gun. There is also another 7.62mm machine-gun, mounted next to the 120mm gun, and operated from inside the tank by the gunner. But it’s the first two machine-guns, out in the open, that need some protection. The tank commander and loader have to leave themselves vulnerable to enemy fire while they are operating their machine-guns.

One suggestion is to add some armor shields to these two machine-guns. Some tank crews do that, using material scrounged locally. This approach was followed as far back as World War II. Another suggestion is to install a RWS (Remote Weapons Station) for the commanders .50 caliber gun (like the RWS used with great success by the Stryker), so the commander can operate the weapon from inside the tank. The .50 caliber is a very useful weapon in city fighting, but the RWS adds another bit of complex gear to the tank, and is only really useful in urban warfare, where the tank is likely to be taking a lot of small arms fire. When that happens, the most important weapon tends to be the coaxial 7.62mm machine-gun.

Another requested addition is a thermal sight for the loaders 7.62mm machine-gun. At night, or bad weather, the thermal sight is a key item in spotting enemy troops trying to sneak up on you. The gunner has one, as does the commander. The more the better.

Another problem is communications. Troops outside the tank have a hard time talking to the crew when there’s a lot of enemy fire, and the crew is “buttoned up” inside the tank. The infantry platoon commander can talk to the tank crew via his radio, but that still makes it difficult for infantry squad and team leaders working close to the tank to exchange important information with the tank (like where enemy fire is coming from.) In World War II, it was common to have a telephone mounted to the back of the tank, allowing an infantryman to pick it up and talk to the tank crew.

That won’t work too well with the M-1, which uses a gas turbine engine that puts hot air (over 1,000 degrees hot) exhaust out the back of the tank. One improvisation is cheap walkie talkies. The tank crew has one rigged to run off an external antenna, and gives the other one (or two) to the infantry outside. Some sort of wireless phone seems to be the solution here, and maybe a bunch of these walkie talkie units may be the solution. The tank crews also want all those new Internet commo goodies. They also want to be able to see the live vid feed from the UAV overhead. As the infantry get their personal radios, the tank crews want to be able to talk to individual grunts, and get more closely involved in the street fighting situation.

Account is offline Reply With Quote

[Lynx7725]

The third vulnerability is the turret machine-guns. The tank commander has a .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun in a powered turret, and the loader has a 7.62mm machine-gun. In city fighting, these two machine-guns are often more useful than the tanks 120mm gun. There is also another 7.62mm machine-gun, mounted next to the 120mm gun, and operated from inside the tank by the gunner. But it’s the first two machine-guns, out in the open, that need some protection. The tank commander and loader have to leave themselves vulnerable to enemy fire while they are operating their machine-guns.

Hmm, I wonder how much an effort it would be to develop and mount a multiple-MG turret in place of the current 120mm turret? Probably too much to seriously consider, but that's really something that will be more useful than a 120mm gun that isn't really utilized.

[MilSpex]

Hmm, I wonder how much an effort it would be to develop and mount a multiple-MG turret in place of the current 120mm turret? Probably too much to seriously consider, but that's really something that will be more useful than a 120mm gun that isn't really utilized.

Replace the main gun with MGs??

Nuh uh.. I`m sure a 120mm comes in plenty handy to take out buildings and bunkers being used as fighting positions.

[areaseven]

Well, since this is the resident tank thread, I thought I'd throw in a couple of tank videos from Top Gear:

Range Rover Sport vs. Challenger II

The Battlefield 2 Parody (Based on the video above)

Chieftain Crushes Yugo

[Mislovrit]

Replace the main gun with MGs??

No point to doing that when 1 or 2 plus ammo can easily be mounted on top of the gun mantle ala like what the Israelis do with their Merkeva tanks. Trying to add more MG to inside the turret while removing the 120mm would almost require a completely new turret design to accommodate the change.

Nuh uh.. I`m sure a 120mm comes in plenty handy to take out buildings and bunkers being used as fighting positions.

Moreso with HE rounds if the Pentagon would ever bother to buy some as well as more canister rounds

[Uxi]

It's only the M1A2 and later where the Commander can't control his .50 cal buttoned up. M1 and M1A1 always had that ability but the A2 changes took out that mechanism. The loaders machine gun (M240) was originally supposed to be air defense and is just pintel mounted on a skate ring. The TUSK already adds both of these features, and the ballistic shields.

The 120mm is definitely useful in taking out bunkers and fortified positions with an MPAT or HEAT round. I fired off more than a couple to that effect at Al-Kut in 2003. Replacing the main gun would be the wrong thing to do. That's what IFV's (not that I'm fond of the concept) and more precisely grunts are for. The armor is there to reinforce and provide heavy support.

[Uxi]

One thing that would be useful is to bring back the beehive round. That and flame tanks, maybe... but neither are considered very humane these days. Which makes me all the more for them.

[Mislovrit]

One thing that would be useful is to bring back the beehive round. That and flame tanks, maybe... but neither are considered very humane these days. Which makes me all the more for them.

The Abrams already got the canister rounds through the Pentagon and/or Congress have been screwing with the procurement of it and the most of the ones that do bought tend to get stolen by the REMFs once in theater.

Flamethrowers are still technically legal, but they're discontinue were they're genuinely unhealthy for the users.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Mislovrit

[Warmaker]

One thing that would be useful is to bring back the beehive round. That and flame tanks, maybe... but neither are considered very humane these days. Which makes me all the more for them.

An M1 Flamethrower tank variant?

Heck, there's still tons of M60A3's laying about. Maybe those could be converted?

But yeah, the US used to be a firm believer in fire.

Fire tends to change the minds of the most fanatic.

[Mislovrit]

An M1 Flamethrower tank variant?

No point as thermobaric weapons made them redundant.

Heck, there's still tons of M60A3's laying about.

At the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Maybe those could be converted?

Got to find some first and even when you do nobody in the U.S. Armed Forces wants them other than range targets. More prudent to use a Brad chassis instead.

But yeah, the US used to be a firm believer in fire.

Not so much after the M202A1 FLASH debacle.

[Warmaker]

I didn't know what the M202A1 FLASH was, but after searching around I recognized the launcher. I think Schwarzenneger used it for Commando. So what happened? Procurement fell through? I didn't see anything stating why it didn't go in service, just specs and capability of the weapon system.

Edit to add: Okay, while on the subject of the M202A1 I finally did some reading for the weapons type you mentioned, Thermobaric weapons. Really nasty stuff and the Russians didn't kid around with it either.

XM1060 40mm Thermobaric Grenade (just for kicks)

Edited October 12, 2007 by Warmaker

[Uxi]

We need an M1 based recovery vehicle far more than a flame tank (I was actually envisioning using M60 or tuna boat chassis myself. Application in Iraq would be limited but we could make many a jihadi-roasted-marshmellow in Afghanistan...

The flechette-filled beehive round would be second to none for massed concentrations of troops, though. Git'r Done!