Big tank small tank.

[Monster mani]

So the little ones tore the Bradleys apart. But on the wiki. It is stated that there where a large amount of M1 tanks stationed there. Would these of been to tough for the little ones and turned the fate of the battle at Ft Irwin? Hence they where left out.

[LiamKerrington]

Mh. Good question.
Er, I am not so certain. But I have no recollection of the M1s being deploid in the battle against the Little Ones. I could also imagine that, because M1 have turbine-engines afaik, they were not used at all because the special fuel would be saved for the helicopters. But I may be wrong about the last point, because I am not so well informed about tanks ...

Best wishes!
Liam

[Monster mani]

Theres no mention of any being deployed but they are stationed there. Cheers for your feedback.

[Duffusmonkey]

The rear door of that Bradley is only 3" to 5" thick, nothing that sharpened fingernails and a few extra arteries can't take out

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/M2_loading.jpg/680px-M2_loading.jpg

[Cabbage Patch]

There are hundreds of M-1 tanks based at Fort Irwin. M-1s can run off a variety of fuel types. The preferred fuel is JP-8, which is a jet fuel, but it runs just fine on diesel. But the M-1 burns fuel at a prodigious rate, about a gallon of fuel per mile.

It's hard to fault a decision to use Bradleys to anchor the defenses at Fort Irwin. They have decent firepower and protection; not up to tank standards, but who knew Little Ones could tear through armor (yet oddly not school doors, go figure).

What is hard to figure out why the defense didn't include anything other than Bradleys. Some barriers and obstacles, and in-direct fires could have made all the difference.

[Malador]

They didn't have an abundance of time to set up their defenses, I think that's one reason they were lacking.

[Monster mani]

Cheers for the pic. Being a brit I've not seen many US tanks. Still they had enough time to form Bradleys up. But to leave a bunch of kick ass m1s at home seems abit odd. I think Kc left them because they would of been to strong.

[Witch_Doctor]

but who knew Little Ones could tear through armor (yet oddly not school doors, go figure).


There could be a learning curve, Puck says that they figured out a way to tear into the Bradleys. Roman punched the school door until it punctured. He was probably just and idiot or something.

[LiamKerrington]

There could be a learning curve, Puck says that they figured out a way to tear into the Bradleys. Roman punched the school door until it punctured. He was probably just and idiot or something.

And also: The Little One at the school was not fully developed. Do you remember what Glen said? It was Roman, and after the night it looked different from what it looked when they hid in the elementary. Therefore the process of turning has not made him as powerful as a fully mutated Little One could be ...

[scbubba]

My understanding (that means take this with a big hunk of salt) is that tanks are not great for engaging "infantry". They are typically slower and less agile, the main gun (even with HE or some sort of anti-personnel round) isn't as effective on enemy infantry as a couple of Ma Deuce and can't be used in close or in support of "little friendlies", and the fuel consumption is high.

Tanks are mainly meant to engage enemy armor or fortified positions. They can be vulnerable to enemy infantry if the friendly infantry can't keep them clear.

So, I'm thinking it might actually have made sense not to put the M-1s on the line if you are used to conventional battlefield scenarios. Also, aren't tank driver and tank gunner skilled positions? So there may not have been many (any?) available to field the M-1s anyway.

Like I said, huge grain of salt - I've never served in the military nor used/driven a tank. I'm going off second and third hand sources for info. You have been warned.... :)

[Monster mani]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UKpZxM-c9w&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Take this. Just not so German

[Cabbage Patch]

...Tanks are mainly meant to engage enemy armor or fortified positions. They can be vulnerable to enemy infantry if the friendly infantry can't keep them clear...

Tanks are actually extremely effective at killing infantry, especially when they attack in mass. An M-1 has a 120 mm main gun. The anti-tank rounds aren't that effective against anything but other tanks, but the HE rounds should be quite effective. And the M-1 has an anti-personnel round that is basically a five-inch wide shotgun shell firing razor-sharp flachettes capable of shredding ranks of human bodies.

The M-1 has three machineguns. There is a 50 caliber on the turret with a 100 round belt that can be operated by the commander from inside the tank. There is a 7.62 mm machinegun on the turret that has a 200 round belt, but (on older models) can only be fired while exposed. Then there's a 7.62 mm machinegun mounted alongside the canon. This one is the real killer. It is linked to the tank's fire control computer, and can accurately hit "point targets" (read individual people) at about a mile range, which makes it almost as effective as a sniper. And that gun is fed by a bin containing 14,000 rounds, and there are another 10,000 or so rounds stored inside the turret so it can be reloaded during a battle.

There have been some gnarly battles that pitted tanks against massed infantry. The best example is probably the Battle of Kapyong during the Korean War, which pitted American tanks with Australian and Canadian infantry against a large scale Chinese infantry attack. The terrain and obstacles slowed the Chinese advance, giving the tanks, infantry, artillery and air support the maximum time to fire on them. Chinese troops still broke through the line, and swarmed some of the tanks trying to open hatches and throw in grenades, only to be swept off by machinegun fire from other tanks. In the end the Chinese withdrew, leaving behind 1,000 dead and many more wounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong

If Colonel Kimmet had learned the lessons from this battle Fort Irwin might not have fallen.

2617261826192620

[Malador]

I think we also have to consider the fact that Colonel Kimmet was no grand military strategist on his best day, and when the zombies first engaged the Bradleys they were doing well enough, and by the time they started tearing into them he had began to slip mentally.

[Witch_Doctor]

Tanks are actually extremely effective at killing infantry, especially when they attack in mass. An M-1 has a 120 mm main gun. The anti-tank rounds aren't that effective against anything but other tanks, but the HE rounds should be quite effective. And the M-1 has an anti-personnel round that is basically a five-inch wide shotgun shell firing razor-sharp flachettes capable of shredding ranks of human bodies.

The M-1 has three machineguns. There is a 50 caliber on the turret with a 100 round belt that can be operated by the commander from inside the tank. There is a 7.62 mm machinegun on the turret that has a 200 round belt, but (on older models) can only be fired while exposed. Then there's a 7.62 mm machinegun mounted alongside the canon. This one is the real killer. It is linked to the tank's fire control computer, and can accurately hit "point targets" (read individual people) at about a mile range, which makes it almost as effective as a sniper. And that gun is fed by a bin containing 14,000 rounds, and there are another 10,000 or so rounds stored inside the turret so it can be reloaded during a battle.

There have been some gnarly battles that pitted tanks against massed infantry. The best example is probably the Battle of Kapyong during the Korean War, which pitted American tanks with Australian and Canadian infantry against a large scale Chinese infantry attack. The terrain and obstacles slowed the Chinese advance, giving the tanks, infantry, artillery and air support the maximum time to fire on them. Chinese troops still broke through the line, and swarmed some of the tanks trying to open hatches and throw in grenades, only to be swept off by machinegun fire from other tanks. In the end the Chinese withdrew, leaving behind 1,000 dead and many more wounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong

If Colonel Kimmet had learned the lessons from this battle Fort Irwin might not have fallen.


So you're saying that I probably shouldn't poke one with a stick?

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,


Tanks are actually extremely effective at killing infantry, especially when they attack in mass.
...
If Colonel Kimmet had learned the lessons from this battle Fort Irwin might not have fallen.

ok, I never would have imagined that relation between M1 vs "soft targets". The sniping-ability blew my mind.
And now, thinking about it: All this perfectly makes sense.

Yes - maybe, if not probably, the M1s might have made the difference ...

Thank you, Cabbage_Patch, for giving us insight.

Best wishes!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Hm,

@Cabbage Patch and all the others: what do think of this tank: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg/800px-Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg

As far as I know, the Leo 2 is in service in a lot of countries. However, its current version does only have two machine guns as secondary weaponry.

[Cabbage Patch]

Hm,

@Cabbage Patch and all the others: what do think of this tank...the Leo 2 is in service in a lot of countries. However, its current version does only have two machine guns as secondary weaponry.

The Leopard 2 is an outstanding tank, every bit as good as the late model M-1 Abrams. Both tanks use the same main gun (120 mm Rheinmetal, German designed, very powerful). Design philosophy and capabilities are very similar. The major differences I'm aware of are that the Germans haven't embraced depleted uranium armor, which the American tanks have. Also the Leopard 2 uses a very advanced diesel engine instead of the gas turbine used in the M-1. Both produce the same level of gross power, but I think the M-1 is faster and more agile while the Leopard gets better fuel economy.

The Leopard 2 is only marginally less effectiveness because it only has 2 machineguns, versus 3 on the M-1. The 50 Caliber is a powerful anti-material weapon, but that's less valuable when fighting zombies. The other 7.62 mm machineguns on both tanks perform almost identically.

The French LeClerc and the Israeli Merkava IV tanks are newer designs that are generally comparable to the M-1 and Leopard 2. Each has a unique design feature that offer potential advantages, the LeClerc has armor that can be upgraded, while the Merkava has a compartment in the hull where it can carry troops, evacuate casualties or haul additional supplies.

[Monster mani]

Fantastic report

[Monster mani]

Though I must add british challenger tank to the list.

[Kc]

In the battle there were other fighting vehicles deployed, like the m1.

At the end of the battle, I imagined there being some of the m1's still left fighting even after they ran out of ammo and support, just driving over what would attack them. Would they eventually learn how to open the hatch on the m1? The hatches are much smaller, so, less leverage available or something to grab onto. Bradleys', larger doors, more space to grab on, more points of failure.

As for the Bradleys' doors getting torn off, imagine five to ten "little ones 2nd gens" in a frenzy pulling with enough force in the right spots. And to be honest, they wouldn't have tried to punch a hole in three to five inch thick metal doors. They are well designed to withstand blasts, direct force pulling along the hinges, not so much.

It took them a little while to figure out how to get in, and there was no ground support around the fighting vehicles.
I don't think the bradley's would have been able to shoot something so close, aside from trying to run them over...

Unless I was able to run a pressure gauge for the force needed, the science will be a little fuzzy... and the military was hesitant about me breaking one of their toys.

[Osiris]

In the end . . . it's fiction, right? Allowances can be made for fuzzy science.

[Witch_Doctor]

In the end . . . it's fiction, right? Allowances can be made for fuzzy science.


I dunno. Once you start adding fuzzy science then this story about the zombie apocalypse just becomes unrealistic.

[Osiris]

Well, I mean . . . we kind of threw realism out the window when we bought into Kalani running up and down stairs, so . . .

[LiamKerrington]

Is this about fuzziness of science, or is this about insight and understanding of the writer's,i.e. Kc's choice how to consider different military verhicles? After all it is fiction; and since this is a zombie-story after all, fuzzy science is nearly mandatory, isn't it ... :p

Best wishes!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

The thing which really bugs me is why Datu simply did not modify a Bradley so that it would have been able to accelarate up to 88 mph, equipped which and additional flux compensator device in order to travel back in time. That is how z-day could be prevented by a maintenance guy from the future.

[LiamKerrington]

The thing which really bugs me is why Datu simply did not modify a Bradley so that it would have been able to accelarate up to 88 mph, equipped which and additional flux compensator device in order to travel back in time. That is how z-day could be prevented by a maintenance guy from the future.

Because ...
... he was in Boulder when excrements started hitting the fan.

In Boulder I assume he was considered a civilian, so no access to military vehicles and thus no opportunity to make autobots out of military verhicles.
And when Irwin got x-rayed Datu was not in the position (or situation) to modify "tanks and shit".

Best wishes!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I was not referring to a certain time period. Hit me, wall of reason.

[LiamKerrington]

I was not referring to a certain time period. Hit me, wall of reason.

Well, I just tried to provide an answer to your question as to why Datu did not modify things. :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_71H_XMmZnJ0/SworJIg6lpI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/DvjBkqobG7M/s320/Brick%2Bwalls%2Bare%2Bthere%2Bfor%2Ba%2Breason.jpg

And I agree with you: If Datu the resourceful had the opportunity to create the total Anti-Zombie-Bradley-of-Awesomeness-And-Badassitude, this deed would have canceled the zombocalypse. But this would have put an end to the "Story of Survival" as well. So after all all of us are lucky that this did not happen ... :p

Best wishes!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

+1, Liam. :-)

[scbubba]

Thanks for the update on the tanks, Cabbage Patch. Forgot about the capabilities of the co-ax MG on the M-1. Was just thinking of the other ones.

Wasn't trying to undersell the M-1s at all. Just thinking about a couple of things in the scenario: Kimmet not the best tactician, limited supply of tank drivers/gunners on base, perhaps limited supply of anti-infantry ordinance for the tanks, and the possibility of tens of thousand fast, agile, individuals that can survive heavy punishment.

All that makes for an equation where adding some M-1s to the game wouldn't change the tide, IMO.

As for the Little Ones and the Bradleys - I assumed they were pulling the doors open instead of making holes in the metal. Sounds like that is the case.

Good discussion about the battle of Fort Irwin. Thanks for wading into it KC to give us some more insight/info!

[Monster mani]

Damn. Why didn't Irwin have Optimus Prime. So many lives would of been saved. DAMN YOU ALL! YOU BLEW IT UP!!!

[Monster mani]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKCBWRU59zk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[LiamKerrington]

http://youtu.be/bBcTfpBe6ss

Same applies for Optimus Prime ...

... and Datu for being too late ...

[Devilish Pizza]

In the battle there were other fighting vehicles deployed, like the m1.

At the end of the battle, I imagined there being some of the m1's still left fighting even after they ran out of ammo and support, just driving over what would attack them. Would they eventually learn how to open the hatch on the m1? The hatches are much smaller, so, less leverage available or something to grab onto. Bradleys', larger doors, more space to grab on, more points of failure.

As for the Bradleys' doors getting torn off, imagine five to ten "little ones 2nd gens" in a frenzy pulling with enough force in the right spots. And to be honest, they wouldn't have tried to punch a hole in three to five inch thick metal doors. They are well designed to withstand blasts, direct force pulling along the hinges, not so much.

It took them a little while to figure out how to get in, and there was no ground support around the fighting vehicles.
I don't think the bradley's would have been able to shoot something so close, aside from trying to run them over...

Unless I was able to run a pressure gauge for the force needed, the science will be a little fuzzy... and the military was hesitant about me breaking one of their toys.

I just love the idea of KC going to a miltary base and asking
"Hey, would you guys mind if I checked out how much force it takes to tear a doo off a Bradley? It's for an audio show I write, and I want to make sure my super zombies could actually tear its doors off"