[QUOTE=MadMaxJ;21038220][img]http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg[/img]
The Leopard 2, one of worlds finest Tanks ever build.
Made in Germany.[/QUOTE]
The sloped armor on the turret seems like a bad idea...
Does Ripsaw count as an AFV?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_iup2jXQqI[/media]
Shot trapping was a problem on the 2A5, when they first sloped the armour. It provides better penetration, yet can deflect the armour into weak spots. However, on the 2A6 I think they fitted something called an Upper Glacis Plate? or something. Which is like a little line or ring on top of the hull around the turret which prevents shot trapping. It was common on German 2WW tanks.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;21038558]The sloped armor on the turret seems like a bad idea...[/QUOTE]
Actually it's not. This spaced wedge armor provides additional capability against shaped charges and penetrators, and it doesn't form shot traps because the design of the wedge doesn't deflect SABOT rounds to hit the hull or turret ring.
Seems like a nice way to park a tank.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti7z807Dmk&feature=related[/media]
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;21039337]Seems like a nice way to park a tank.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti7z807Dmk&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE]
that was pretty awesome.
is that a bradley or what
[QUOTE=Nikita;21038687]Does Ripsaw count as an AFV?
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=p_iup2jXQqI[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
I couldn't say it does, it doesn't have any sort of armour nor is it made for fighting of any sorts.
[QUOTE=mfb412;21042717]that was pretty awesome.
is that a bradley or what[/QUOTE]
That's an M2A2. You can tell by the lack of a commander's viewer on the right side of the turret.
[QUOTE=Nikita;21038687]Does Ripsaw count as an AFV?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_iup2jXQqI[/media][/QUOTE]
AFV stands for Armored Fighting Vehicle.
It has to be all of those things to be an AFV.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21044064]That's an M2A2. You can tell by the lack of a commander's viewer on the right side of the turret.[/QUOTE]
I wish I was that smart.
I love this thread so much.
Here's the Bundeswehr Leopard 2A4 fitted with a huge 140mm smoothbore gun I was talking about the other day. It was one of the many canceled Cold War projects developed in the 1980s that included vehicles like the F-14 replacement and the Marder 2 IFV. Faced with the reality of the Soviets fielding a new tank that would be immune to modern kinetic penetrators and anti-tank missiles like the Hellfire, a 140mm gun would offer double the muzzle velocity and penetration of that of the standard Rheinmetall L44 gun. Even now the 120mm L55 is a stopgap solution as European tank designers develop a next-generation gun.
[img]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7190/leopard2a4140mmgun.jpg[/img]
As the Cold War ended this never got into production. I guess that all of the Leopard 2s would be reequipped with this new gun along with an autoloader. By that time the Leopard 3 would have arrived to complement them in panzer divisions. What a beast that was. Looks like an extra-large Challenger 2 looking at it today. (The model was made back in 1989 or somewhere around that)
[img]http://www.nast-sonderfahrzeuge.de/images/militaer/leopard3/leo3_02.jpg[/img]
You have travelled into the future and got information about the Leopard 3?
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;21015652]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.[/QUOTE]
But atleast the Sheridan looked good and actually had a decent gun.
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;21053187]But atleast the Sheridan looked good and actually had a decent gun.[/QUOTE]
CVR(T) series is a lot more versatile than the Sheridan. There have been so many different versions. The Scorpion, Sabre, Striker, Scimitar, Samson, Sultan, Samaritan and Spartan... and on top of them there is the heavier version of the CVR(T) which is used as the Stormer and Shielder.
The CVR(T) is a prime example of an Armoured Fighting Vehicle. It's been adapted for everything, from being a light tank, a recon tank, an AT tank and an AA tank to being an APC, medivac and command and control tank, and even a minelayer or armoured recovery vehicle.
An awesome vehicle for an awesome army.
[img]http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/scimitar1.jpg[/img]
(Was going in img tag this, but it was ridiculously HUGE on FP.)
[url]http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/ops/qdg_scimitar_hr.jpg[/url]
Like I said, the CVR(T)'s are the backbone of the British Army, I just hope ASCOD and Piranha V prove to me worthwhile replacements.
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;21053187]But atleast the Sheridan looked good and actually had a decent gun.[/QUOTE]
From what I've read it's biggest selling point was also a very large downside, was it's weight.
With that cannon it had when it fired it practically rocked the tank back and forwards. Gunners had to wear helmets to avoid bashing their heads around when the thing fired.
Plus the recoil of the cannon damaged sensitive equipment on Anti-Tank missiles that were fitted on said tank.
Cons aside it seems like a very ideal Zombie Apocalypse tank.:v:
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;21053187]But atleast the Sheridan looked good and actually had a decent gun.[/QUOTE]
Looks mean shit in armored fighting vehicles. If you want good looks in a vehicle never, never come into the world of armor again.
The M551's 152mm was actually a very mediore weapon. While great with its canister rounds against close range soft targets like in Vietnam, its low velocity meant that it had to either use superelevation to ensure a higher chance of a hit against enemy armor, or it had to use the overly complex Shillelagh ATGM at longer ranges.
Another US MBT, the M60A2 had this same armament configuration and it proved to be one of the most abysmal American tanks in the history of US armor. Needless to say, the Americans tried to copy the Soviet gun/missile system and failed.
Besides, having TOW boxes instead works far far better.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;21055016][img]http://www.sitbetter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/tank_chair.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Cloaking device
watch out
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;21068055]Besides, having TOW boxes instead works far far better.[/QUOTE]
For an MBT? No. If you want to have a large bore main gun and a missile system then why mount an additional anti-tank weapon system if your primary armament should be able to engage and destroy most armored threats it will face?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21069904]For an MBT? No. If you want to have a large bore main gun and a missile system then why mount an additional anti-tank weapon system if your primary armament should be able to engage and destroy most armored threats it will face?[/QUOTE]
I was thinking about AFVs that don't carry the hugeass cannon that is the L/55 120mm.
I just can't get over how huge the turret is on this assault gun.
[IMG]http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/kv2lp_1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.robertlbyrd.com/rob/projects/baneblade/complete/baneblade_008.jpg[/IMG]
I wish :allears:
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;21086310]I was thinking about AFVs that don't carry the hugeass cannon that is the L/55 120mm.[/QUOTE]
Here it depends on your role. An APC designed for Soviet motor-rifle operations may not need an onboard anti-armor capability since the AT platoon of a motor rifle company already possesses it. ATGMs can be also impractical for light armor like the Scorpion and Sheridan, which their roles of light cavalry/armored reconnaissance and light infantry support typically do not involve them trying to engage heavy armor.
[QUOTE=Joxalot;21123005][IMG]http://www.robertlbyrd.com/rob/projects/baneblade/complete/baneblade_008.jpg[/IMG]
I wish :allears:[/QUOTE]
You can take them out easy.
Just as easly as this thing can mutilate every other tank in any possible way.
Big thread holy dick.
But all you guys saying "oh the abrams is invincible, oh the challenger is invincible, etc" because there hasn't been a lose in combat yet that is because there is no real war. If it was two countries going at it throwing their tanks at each other tanks would explode. Currently they are running over arabs who make bombs in their basements. If they got destroyed by them it would just show how bad the tank is.
Frankly, I don't think it matters too much who has the "better" tank. Just who fires first.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
