Big tank small tank.

[Monster mani]

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.

m1a1_abrams-43062.jpgsherman51.jpgm1028_pic1.jpgPicture940.jpg

[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:

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.