[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20998676]
[editline]02:32PM[/editline]
Besides, tanks can easily be raped.
[IMG_thumb]http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/boeingmi/AH-64DV.JPG[/IMG_thumb]
:smug:[/QUOTE]
Tanks, hell anything can be easily raped if you don't employ combined arms tactics. No one sends battalions of tanks across the ground without full ground and air support in the form of mechanized infantry, artillery, helicopters, jets and what-not a modern military has these days.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20999772]I like it but I like the BTR and BMP better and the LAV.[/QUOTE]
And all four vehicles (that includes the LVTP-7) provide very shit protection without addon armor upgrades.
[editline]05:01PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20998676]Also, no way in hell will an Abrams be able to engage at 12 km. The maximum range of most tank shells, at the very most would be 5-6 km. After that, the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to engage anything. Besides, the highest number that the FCS will conventionally take for range would be 4 kilometers.[/QUOTE]
There are specialist rounds like STAFF and Mid-Range Munition that can certainly reach out to 12km. AFAIK STAFF got cancelled due to post-Cold War budget cuts and the MRM is still in development.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20999832][img]http://www.fototime.com/C904F7CAF6A39BF/orig.jpg[/img]
Canadian Coyote FTW ![/QUOTE]
Funny thing is that the Coyote was produced by General Dynamics in Canada for the USA then we turned around and sold it to the Canadians (When it's produced in Canada) and they re-designated it the Coyote.
Course it's all a derivative of a Swiss vehicle so I dunno who got all the money in the end. lol
[QUOTE=Ninja_Duck;21000286][IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/pictured/tsar.jpg[/IMG]
You can even see the wheel of a Tsar on the left.[/QUOTE]
What a nightmare to see those actually working well on the battlefield. :gonk:
[QUOTE]Funny thing is that the Coyote was produced by General Dynamics in Canada for the USA then we turned around and sold it to the Canadians (When it's produced in Canada) and they re-designated it the Coyote.
Course it's all a derivative of a Swiss vehicle so I dunno who got all the money in the end. lol [/QUOTE]
We use it too.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Irish_Army_Mowag_Piranha.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Howlthrug;21002185]What a nightmare to see those actually working well on the battlefield. :gonk:[/QUOTE]
People probably said the same about tanks.
But now we're used to them.
[QUOTE=Zackin5;21002400]People probably said the same about tanks.
But now we're used to them.[/QUOTE]
I'd be kind of worried seeing a tank driving around in Missouri. I never seen an actual working tank in real life.
[QUOTE=Linelor;20999829]The Abrams engages out that far by the use of barrel-launched AT missiles. Something that rifled guns cannot do.[/QUOTE]
We don't have an actual barrel launched AT missile for the Abrams as standard issue, so who cares.
[editline]06:15PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21001827]There are specialist rounds like STAFF and Mid-Range Munition that can certainly reach out to 12km. AFAIK STAFF got cancelled due to post-Cold War budget cuts and the MRM is still in development.[/QUOTE]
They aren't in service though.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;21004614]
They aren't in service though.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you [i]read[/i] my post? That's exactly what I said.
There's a good chance they would quickly be put into service in a conventional war. If we were engaging T-90s, C2s, Leopards, or something like that we would probably employ them.
This thread is quality reading. Awesome.
[QUOTE=Nat562;20997300]Yes, just that some M1A2 tank crews are no longer living for some strange reason.... where as British tank crews have experience and a superior tank.
[/QUOTE]
Then again USA has been in 2 wars within the past decade or 2. While the British haven't. They may have had people in Iraq or whatever but they aren't in a complete war that they are dedicated to like the Americans are.
So, basically, if USA sent 100 Abrams and Britain sent 10 Challengers(because they aren't really at war just sending some tanks since they are allied with the US.) and lets say US lost 20 Abrams and Britain lost 2 Challengers you can't really compare those.
[QUOTE=Soldier32;21007118]Then again USA has been in 2 wars within the past decade or 2. While the British haven't. They may have had people in Iraq or whatever but they aren't in a complete war that they are dedicated to like the Americans are.
So, basically, if USA sent 100 Abrams and Britain sent 10 Challengers(because they aren't really at war just sending some tanks since they are allied with the US.) and lets say US lost 20 Abrams and Britain lost 2 Challengers you can't really compare those.[/QUOTE]
What about the falklands? Also wars against third world countries aren't really proving grounds for the capability of tankers..
[QUOTE=Conscript;21007780]What about the falklands? Also wars against third world countries aren't really proving grounds for the capability of tankers..[/QUOTE]
The only British tank used was the little Scorpion, which is more of a reconnaissance and a light infantry support vehicle than a main battle tank.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21007842]The only British tank used was the little Scorpion, which is more of a reconnaissance and a light infantry support vehicle than a main battle tank.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/NZ17.jpg[/img]
Yeah, definitely not spearheading a tank assault with one of these puny things.
the damn thing must be armored with Tin Foil.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21007780]What about the falklands? Also wars against third world countries aren't really proving grounds for the capability of tankers..[/QUOTE]
It's something atleast, and I think that some combat experience is better than no combat experience at all.
[QUOTE=Norfair12;20997558]What, no love for the M-10 "Wolverine" Tank Destroyer?
[img]http://www.battletanks.com/images/M10-1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I like the way it looks, but too bad it had paper armor.
[QUOTE=Orkel;21011744]I like the way it looks, but too bad it had paper armor.[/QUOTE]
Still better than the M18 Hellcat, albeit giving up any type of effective armor for insane speed.
[img]http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/M18_Hellcat_Tank_Destroyer.jpg[/img]
Alright who wants to make a simillar thread but then with helicopters? I think i lack the knowledge about the helicopters to be the OP
Not sure what this is called, but it's a WWI tank.
[IMG]http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/fra-charseam.jpg[/IMG]
And some chinese rocket battery tank.
[IMG]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/T89-122sp-2.jpg[/IMG]
Hull of that top tank, kinda looks like the hull from the Canadian Ram tank. Which is a 2WW design, unusual variant though.
[QUOTE=goon165;21008304][img]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/NZ17.jpg[/img]
Yeah, definitely not spearheading a tank assault with one of these puny things.
the damn thing must be armored with Tin Foil.[/QUOTE]
Ha, that's like the US Sheridan.
[img]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.jpg[/img]
[editline]11:05AM[/editline]
I think the deal with both of these tanks was they're light enough to be parachuted out of aircrafts.
M50 Ontos. A tiny tank with massive firepower.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmcpwkU1_8Y[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrg00gRRLog[/media]
[IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/2usbiqa.jpg[/IMG]
Used in vietnam and shit.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21007842]The only British tank used was the little Scorpion, which is more of a reconnaissance and a light infantry support vehicle than a main battle tank.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of irrelevant - the point he was making is that we have actually fought a war. Besides, as far as I am aware the Challenger 2 has been used in just as many conflicts as the Abrams.
[QUOTE=goon165;21008304][img]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/NZ17.jpg[/img]
Yeah, definitely not spearheading a tank assault with one of these puny things.
the damn thing must be armored with Tin Foil.[/QUOTE]
Don't knock them, they have their uses. In the Falklands War they were very useful because:
a. They were easy to transport.
b. They were much better suited to the terrain of the Falkland Islands than that of an MBT.
They aren't designed for tank combat - not at all. Instead they carry out the role of recon, infantry support and fast attack. Currently we are using this in Afghanistan: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_tank[/url]
CVR(T)'s such as the Scimitar, Spartan, etc are the real back bone of the British Army. Hopefully the modified ASCOD proves to be an adequate replacement
Britain has quite the variety of Tanks they use in modern conflicts.
Also interesting read going through this.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country[/url]
[QUOTE=Soldier32;21007118]Then again USA has been in 2 wars within the past decade or 2. While the British haven't. They may have had people in Iraq or whatever but they aren't in a complete war that they are dedicated to like the Americans are.
So, basically, if USA sent 100 Abrams and Britain sent 10 Challengers(because they aren't really at war just sending some tanks since they are allied with the US.) and lets say US lost 20 Abrams and Britain lost 2 Challengers you can't really compare those.[/QUOTE]
Are you being serious!? Not dedicated to it? We were there for 6 bloody years. We lost 179 men and women. With hundreds/thousands more injured. I'd say our forces were pretty fucking dedicated to it.
[QUOTE=David29;21017016]That's kind of irrelevant - the point he was making is that we have actually fought a war. Besides, as far as I am aware the Challenger 2 has been used in just as many conflicts as the Abrams.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. While the MoD was already planning on replacing the Challenger 1 due to its poor fire control (wasn't it just lifted directly from the older Chieftain?) as early as the mid 1980s, it missed Desert Storm if you don't count its early cousin as a Challenger 2.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;21015652]I think the deal with both of these tanks was they're light enough to be parachuted out of aircrafts.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and in fact certain US Army units like the 82nd have been seriously lacking in light armor support ever since the retirement of the M551. Its successor the M8 AGS was canceled due to peace dividend budget cuts, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Soldier32;21007118]Then again USA has been in 2 wars within the past decade or 2. While the British haven't. They may have had people in Iraq or whatever but they aren't in a complete war that they are dedicated to like the Americans are.
So, basically, if USA sent 100 Abrams and Britain sent 10 Challengers(because they aren't really at war just sending some tanks since they are allied with the US.) and lets say US lost 20 Abrams and Britain lost 2 Challengers you can't really compare those.[/QUOTE]
Wait what.
You think the brits aren't dedicated to the war in the middle east?
Then're wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
