On 6/16/2015 1:18 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>> >Another example is the Argentine Medium Tank (Tanque Argentino Mediano or TAM) The TAM was designed to mount what was then the  standard tank gun for the NATO alliance, and every effort was made to reduce the overall mass of the vehicle to allow it to use the existing civil transportation infrastructure.  While the TAM would have been effective against any possible South American opponent it was also helpless against any contemporary NATO standard tank such as the M60A1, Leopard I, and the Chieftain.

Not entirely accurate.  The TAM mounted the same 105mm gun that was
pretty much the NATO standard at the time, and as such, could kill the
three tanks you mentioned as well as any Soviet tank of the era.  What
the TAM lacked was armor, but even that *at that time* may have been a
wash; the guns MBTs carried could kill each other, and the ATGMs that
were fielded would do the same, so the lack of armor would only really
expand what could hurt it, not really hinder it against its contemporaries.

Losing the armor gained it mobility and the ability to use roads and
bridges that other heavier assets couldn't, or that would fail if too
many used them.  For the Argies, it was the right tool at the right time.

Today, going up against various marks of the M1A1, Challenger II,
Leopard 2Ax, and others, yeah, the TAM would be a severely disadvantaged
because unless the crew was lucky and got a side or rear shot, the armor
would probably absorb the hit.

--
Kurt Feltenberger
xxxxxx@thepaw.org/xxxxxx@yahoo.com
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not
living enough." - Me