NATO Tanks

Airborneguy
Sergeant Major
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun 19 Feb 2012 14:54
Contact:

NATO Tanks

Postby Airborneguy » Mon 5 Mar 2012 05:20

What seems to be the best tank for the buck for NATO? I think it is between the chieftan and the patton tanks. AMX sucks unless you get the expenxive one. Leopards get pwnd, Abrams are really expensive. What do you guys think? The Russian tanks have more AP but they are a little more expensive than the NATO tanks. Just trying to play NATO again but cant figure out the best combo to go with .

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby ikalugin » Mon 5 Mar 2012 05:22

airborneguy wrote:What seems to be the best tank for the buck for NATO? I think it is between the chieftan and the patton tanks. AMX sucks unless you get the expenxive one. Leopards get pwnd, Abrams are really expensive. What do you guys think? The Russian tanks have more AP but they are a little more expensive than the NATO tanks. Just trying to play NATO again but cant figure out the best combo to go with .

What do you want your tank for? Leo1 can be good (in A4 and A5 variants) when used properly.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

Dkong08
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 05:21
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Dkong08 » Mon 5 Mar 2012 05:37

I find that the most cost effective tank is the t3 variant Abram. They can tank most opposing Pact tanks, while having the striking power to destroy them as well, if they are in range.

Furthermore as the auxiliary armor, I usually have supporting long-range AA (for air support) and t3 Bradley tanks (filled with dragon II for a long-range mechanized tank hunters combo) behind it as well as some t2 Challengers (which are oddly good mid-priced tanks) to support the Abrams and counter Pact armor spams, if the Abrams should falter in holding the line.

Also, I use Paladins to counter inf because they are often entrenched and turtling off in the woods somewhere.

I haven't had the luxury of using Leopards, but I think they are too expensive. Getting t3 Abrams look to be the most cost effective main battle tank.

Dobb
Master Sergeant
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2012 09:46
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Dobb » Mon 5 Mar 2012 05:56

Leopard 1s can be good defensively, same as Sheridan's line of tanks.

I had a hard time using NATO tanks as a sort of armour spearhead. Pattons are good but can be more pricier.

Dkong08
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 05:21
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Dkong08 » Mon 5 Mar 2012 06:22

I don't think that Nato is really a Spearhead type of army. Many of their units are expensive, but powerful, so I believe Nato should be more passive aggressive, exploiting weaknesses, picking off units with efficiency, and asserting their strengths conservatively. Caution and precision should be esteemed, while greed and bluntness should be defamed.

Blunt aggression is more of a Pact thing IMO.

Airborneguy
Sergeant Major
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun 19 Feb 2012 14:54
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Airborneguy » Mon 5 Mar 2012 06:35

Abrams and challengers are very expensive tanks to have on the field. Pattons are cheap and they can hold their own against a rush. if your spending your money on Abrams and Challengers then you wont have much left over at all for support I would say

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby ikalugin » Mon 5 Mar 2012 06:38

Dkong08 wrote:I don't think that Nato is really a Spearhead type of army. Many of their units are expensive, but powerful, so I believe Nato should be more passive aggressive, exploiting weaknesses, picking off units with efficiency, and asserting their strengths conservatively. Caution and precision should be esteemed, while greed and bluntness should be defamed.

Blunt aggression is more of a Pact thing IMO.

We all know how this worked in 1940.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
Ellestar
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 23:15
Location: Russian Federation, Moscow
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Ellestar » Mon 5 Mar 2012 07:03

Dkong08 wrote:I don't think that Nato is really a Spearhead type of army. Many of their units are expensive, but powerful, so I believe Nato should be more passive aggressive, exploiting weaknesses, picking off units with efficiency, and asserting their strengths conservatively. Caution and precision should be esteemed, while greed and bluntness should be defamed.

Blunt aggression is more of a Pact thing IMO.

Why not? PACT tanks are better for defence because you can't use PTURs on the move. NATO tanks have better guns and better stabilizers so they're better for offence compared to PACT tanks.
Knowlege is Power!
Image

Dkong08
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 05:21
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Dkong08 » Mon 5 Mar 2012 07:06

Ya, the Germans raped the Russians by massacring them while taking less losses. Isn't that the point of this game? Especially, when both sides have finite supplies?

User avatar
Ellestar
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 23:15
Location: Russian Federation, Moscow
Contact:

Re: NATO Tanks

Postby Ellestar » Mon 5 Mar 2012 07:13

Dkong08 wrote:Ya, the Germans raped the Russians by massacring them while taking less losses. Isn't that the point of this game? Especially, when both sides have finite supplies?

You mean, Germans raped whole Europe, and only Russians were able to stop them?
Knowlege is Power!
Image

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests